Excellent. All right, we're going to begin our meeting of the Infrastructure, Innovation, and Technology Committee. Today is the 15th, and I welcome all of you here today. We're going to start with a quick moment of silence, a moment of reflection, followed by the pledge led by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you so much. Today we have one of our young students who are part of the youth engagement program up here with us, and so we welcome Allegra. All right, with that, do we have any additions, any changes before we set the agenda? Yes, Madam Chair. The agenda before you is the official agenda, which includes the changes in the changes memo. Also, item 3D was added to the agenda. I'll read the title for the record. Resolution authorizing the county mayor or designee to execute supplemental agreement number one between BCC Engineering LLC and Miami-Dade County for professional services agreement for construction, engineering, and inspection services. ISD project number E20-DTPW-04, contract number CIP-207-DTPW-20CEI, bringing the total contract amount to $5,467,817.92 to support the Dadeland South Intermodal Station project, authorizing the county mayor or designee to execute the same and to exercise the provisions contained therein, authorizing the use of people's transportation plan bond program funds for this project, which was added to the five-year implementation plan in February 20th. That's 3D. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go into reasonable opportunity to be heard. Is there anybody here from the public who wishes to speak on any item? I do not have any cards, but this is the opportunity. Seeing none, reasonable opportunity is now closed. And do I have a motion to set the agenda? So moved. Second. All right. Show that done by acclamation. And now we have a few items on this agenda before we get to the discussion presentations. Does anybody have any questions, would like to bifurcate any items, or ask any questions? No? Same. Yes, please, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. And the item that was just added to our agenda, 3D, I'm looking at it for the first time. And so I have a few questions. It's asking for an increase in the professional services agreement by almost $2 million for a total contract aggregate of 5.4. Can you just speak to what this contract is for? I know it's for engineering, construction, and inspection services. Is this particular professional service provider getting $5.4 million for their professional services? Or is the $5.4 million inclusive of the actual construction costs of this project? Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Jose Alfred Diaz, Deputy Director of DTPW. This is, as you correctly mentioned, for construction, engineering, and inspection services tied to the Dayland South Intermodal. The actual design build project received some supplemental services earlier this year. This is to match that. This is for additional scope that was added to that project consisting of charging infrastructure, modifications to the BRT area, and general modifications around the scope of the area. Specific to your question, this is not tied to the construction. This is specific to the construction, engineering, and inspection. This is basically our inspector in the area, the ones that review all the construction specs. Make sure that the contractor stays on schedule and on budget. And in addition to that, making sure that they review all the paperwork that comes in through the project. The total allocation, this is for an additional allocation. But the total allocation with this supplemental for this project, I'm sorry, I think this is not working well. It's $5.4 million in total for this vendor. Okay, and that's what I thought you were going to say. And so, I know we do these PSAs a lot. We have a lot of professional services agreement, and we've had the conversation on this dais a number of times when we had former Commissioner Higgins, who is professionally by trade and engineer. She said, you know, we really need to keep all of these contracted outside expert engineers on these contracts to make sure that, obviously, these projects are built in compliance with our laws and under the highest level of safety. But when I see a professional services agreement for one project nearing $6 million with an additional ask of $2 million, what is it that they are doing? And why do they need an additional $2 million from the original allocation of $3.5 million? Before you answer that as far as what it is that they're doing, what is the term of this PSA? How long are they getting paid? Over what duration of time are they getting paid $5.5 million? This is over the duration of the contract. This contract was for a finite amount, I believe close to 300 days. Because of additional scope added to the project, there are 264 days added to the overall construction contract. This typically matches the construction contract because they are the construction engineering and inspection team. So they review all the material testing, all the specifications, make sure the job is done in accordance to the latest standards of safety, and in addition to that, they review all the paperwork related to. They do the first pass related to invoicing, reimbursement requests, those types of management work that they do for us. This is work that we don't do in house, construction engineering and inspection for projects of this magnitude is we typically contract out. Sure, and so the term of this contract with this PSA is what, two years? You said 300 and something days, and then there was an additional scope of 280 something days. So roughly two years of work? So the total is close to two years of work, yes. Okay, so this one professional service provider, engineering, consulting, compliance, is getting paid $5.5 million by Miami County over a two-year period on one contract. What does that work out to monthly? Do the simple math on that. $5.5 million over 24 months. What's the math? I don't know. I'm going to actually put it into my calculator. About $200,000 and change. Okay, so we're paying one professional service provider $200,000 a month on one project. What's the aggregate value of this one project? The difference to establish there is that typically these services, when they're tied to a particular construction project, they fall within a range of percent of the entire project cost. That's what I thought you were going to say, and so that's exactly kind of my point. It has been the practice of Miami-Dade County to accept these professional service agreements based on that general formula. Like, if you have a $100 million project, the PSA percentage that they're going to charge us is, what's the standard percent? What's the average percent? Depending on the type of project and the magnitude of the project, for smaller projects, the percent is typically higher. For larger projects, it's smaller. In this case, it's about a 5%, but I want to make a quick distinction. This is a time and materials contract, under which it's not a percent based. We've negotiated the time that they're going to spend, and the materials that they're spending, the hours that they're spending, whatever was set in terms of the hourly rate of the staff that is participating. And that's how the additional cost is developed. Okay, so what is the aggregate cost of this South Dade intramodal project? Since it's not based on a percentage, what is the aggregate value from your capital improvement budget for this one project? So the actual design bill project is about $77 million. And they're getting paid $5.5 million to oversee, consult, and make sure that everything is in compliance. And that's not based on a percentage. That's based on something you all negotiated independently? Yeah, it's time and materials. So basically, based on the schedule, based on the hours that are estimated by the vendor, we negotiate those hours. And what is set already per contract is the hourly rate. So the negotiation between the county and the vendor is basically on the hours that are going to be spent in the management of the project. Okay. And originally, again, they said that they would be paid $3.5 million. And they're asking for now, that's what this item is, because they already got $3.5 million. They're asking us to authorize an additional $2 million in time and materials, which is an hourly calculation that someone came up with that they said, we need another $2 million in order to provide the engineering consultation and services on this contract. What is the justification for the additional 1.9? Where is the... It's an additional 264 days of work that were added to the actual construction project because of additional scope that has been added. That scope consists of several items related to electric charging of the buses, some work in the station itself in the Kiss and Ride area, some work in where the actual bus station itself. So there was some additional scope added to the project. Okay, who added to the scope? The scope has been added from a needs perspective. So it's been added, as we looked at this from an operational perspective with the BRT. I'm sorry for the audio issues. We've added an additional scope based on the design of the project and requests from operations. In addition to that, we've had coordination with the different permitting agencies and there's been new requirements added to the project as well. Okay, so the answer on who added to the scope, I ask, I know it's us, I know it's the county, but was it the board? Did we authorize an additional scope or did the department internally authorize additional scope? The board did authorize the additional scope on a supplemental that was approved on November 2nd, 2025, the additional design scope. Okay, but the cost of the engineering did not accompany that item. It was just an additional scope. The cost of the construction, engineering, and inspection did not accompany that item. This is actually the supplemental that accompanies whatever work was already approved for the contractor. This is our manager on our side. This is what accompanies that additional work that was approved in November. So I appreciate you answering my questions and I appreciate you answering the questions the way that you did and not saying, I don't know the answer, I'll get back to you, right? That's number one. I appreciate you knowing the answers to my question. That is tremendous. That is really, really appreciated because we don't always get that. So thank you for knowing the answer to the questions and being prepared on an item that was just added at the last minute on our agenda. The reason I'm asking the question is because I know we've already heard presentations and we're going to get the budget in an hour and a half regarding the financial situation of our transportation budget, okay? And how we have a situation on our hands that we're going to have to deal with. When I see items like this asking for an additional $2 million, and I understand we need it, we need these engineers, we need these consultants, but it's pursuant to an expansion in a scope of work. We need to, and I'm going to look forward to working with you, and I know you're already doing this, you know, when and why we are expanding the scope of these projects. We constantly get requests for what I like to call Bentley-style added extras, you know, whatever you want to call it. Bentley-style add additions to projects because this interest group or that interest group or this lobbyist, you know, we can't continue expanding the scopes of our projects in Miami-Dade County while the numbers continue to grow. And we're looking at budget, whatever you want to call it, deficits, shortfalls, gaps, that we need to figure out a way to close. And so, you know, if you represent to me that this is absolutely necessary and this professional services contracting company needs this additional $2 million, I'm going to support it because I trust you. And if you say you need it, I'm going to support it. But I will tell you that I plan to take a very deep dive into our transportation budget, which is now at $2 billion, look at these professional service agreements and whether or not the calculation that we have always used, i.e. a percentage of very large numbers or whether time and materials is the calculus that we need to present because we have to cut somewhere or maybe everywhere, including professional service agreements and including expanding the scopes of projects because I'm just not sure that we can continue to afford it anymore. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. And I appreciate you pulling this item because I was also going to pull it to ask a few questions just because of the late nature of the item and we didn't have a chance to fully have a chance to debrief on it. Yes, Commissioner Lopez. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I guess this speaks to, thank you for your line of questioning, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. I think it continues to speak to how we don't know what a project should look like from the get-go. This happens all the time here, I see. You know, you go out for a bid and you say this is the project and then all of a sudden the commission is asked to approve further scopes of services without money, which I find even crazier. So back in November, the commission prior to my joining approved an additional scope of services without knowing what it would cost. I don't know anyone who would do that in their home. I certainly wouldn't increase the cost of a project and say I approve that without knowing what it was going to cost me and whether I could afford it or not. And I just keep seeing a pattern of this and I don't disagree with you, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, that somehow we have to see how often we do this. What is the pattern that seemingly we don't know what the project is? Because I will say this, and of course you're going to hear me say this, in the state if you want to spend any more money, you have to come before the commission. You have to not only tell us why you didn't figure it out prior to it, but you have to tell us, you know, because I don't think it's fair in the competitive bidding process either. Like who wouldn't want to bid on a job that has one scope of services, and once you get it, then you get to keep it, despite the fact that we made a mistake, right? I guess I'm still on my bandwagon from our first committee meeting this morning, where I continue to see money being spent without any kind of consideration for what would be what I consider a good practice business. I mean, no business would run their business like this. They'd be out of business. But apparently we seem to have money to move around, and we make decisions that I don't think aren't very thoughtful, and so I'm just putting that on the record, because as we move into the budget cycle here, you know, I'm going to really start to look at these items and say I am not ready to approve things that we haven't thought through carefully from the very beginning, because I don't think it's a fair process then. I mean, I will bid all day long if I were a vendor and say, look, I'll just bid on this, and then when, and I'm sure the vendor probably knows they're going to need to expand this, because they probably know more than we do. Sure, because they have the experience. So I just wanted to put my comments on the record as we begin this budget process, because this is yet another item that reflects that we're not thoughtful about the fact that we only have one pot of money, and we have to be incredibly careful with how we spend that money. And so, you know, this was, when I saw the item, I just thought, oh, here we go again. Thank you, Commissioner, and I, yes, Commissioner. Thank you, Madam Chair, and so I want to start off on a positive note. As Commissioner Cohen-Higgins said, very impressor. Thank you. Thank you for being serious. Thank you for being prepared. Thank you, Commissioner. He's probably the most prepared I have ever seen any director, right? And I very much appreciate how prepared you are, but now. Okay, that was good. To echo some of the sentiments of my colleagues, I do have to agree that, like, for example, the original bid, the original bid for the scope of work that was originally approved, what was that original bid? And I believe it was, like, at $3 million, but what was the scope of that work, and then this new additional work, when exactly did it come about that the Bentley style was necessary? So let me add a couple points of clarification I think are going to help. So the project was initially done through a planning effort. There was a pre-planning and a scoping completed, and the actual vendor for the, I want to make a distinction between the two contracts. There's a design builder, and then there's this contract that's in front of you today. The design builder bid on a planning effort, and they put forth a cost. The design builder then has to go design, and based on that design, there were certain changes that were, one, proposed and accepted by the agency, by the county. And two, as a result of permitting a new requirements from electric vehicle charging, additional scope items that were added for fire suppression. Those types of items that were added from a permitting perspective, from the permitting agencies, we needed to grow the scope, which was not contemplated in the initial planning that was done for this project several years ago. So I think, I don't want to put words into your mouth, Commissioner Lopez, but I think this is exactly where Commissioner Lopez is going. Because the permitting is put forward by the county. I know they're separate departments. I understand they're separate departments, but it would only be logical that if we're the ones giving the permitting, why didn't we factor this in to the original scope in the first place? I mean, we are the ones that are giving the permitting. And so that leads me to, how did this whole electric vehicle charging station come about? Why exactly didn't we consider that the first time? So the National Fire Protection Agency codes were in the process of being written at that point. So the new standards, when this project was initially bid out, the new standards at the federal level had not been considered. And we're seeing that through several projects, not just this project. The new standards are a little bit more rigorous, and therefore we've had to adjust in several projects. When either electric vehicle charging is included, and the actual fire suppression related to the electric vehicle charging as well. Got it, so those new federal standards are amounting to a $2 million increase? We have other items in this that were tied to the design bill that were also accepted by the agency. We did modifications from a standpoint of how we were aligning the buses for pickup. Initially they were supposed to be parallel, we changed to a seesaw infrastructure there, to a seesaw design. We made some changes in terms of the escalator and elevator. We added some infrastructure as well as a requirement for purposes of evacuation, so we had to modify the design accordingly. Got it, and why weren't those evacuation requirements taken into consideration in the first place? The initial planning report that was done had been reviewed under the, it was several years old. And it had been reviewed under the standards that were available at the time, and had been vetted at that point. When this went actually for bidding, those standards had been slightly modified and we needed to add some scope. Got it. Okay, thank you so much, really appreciate it. Thank you so much, we appreciate the information, and thank you for pulling the item again. I will say just generally speaking, it's not just towards your department. I think generally speaking, when we look at scope and having to do change orders or things of that nature, especially if the scope is changed by us, we kind of have to take a finer look at that. But we do appreciate the information that you provided. So with that, do we have any other items? Thank you. I don't think we have any more, yes. Please, Commissioner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have questions on 3C. It has a similar tone. It's a request for additional allocated funds. Is there anybody here to speak on 3C for the garbage collection and disposal services? Commissioner, you're recognized for an event flowing conversation. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is the requested allocation above and beyond what we've previously authorized simply due to the extension of the term of this pool? Is that the root of the request for the extension? Through the Chair, yes, Commissioner. We are extending the time for the contract to allow solid waste for transition of services in-house. So for that additional time, the vendors have agreed at the same rates that we pay today to extend. Okay. And that's what I gathered. And I understand that both of the vendors are waste management or waste connections and waste management, who does the bulk, if not the entirety of our waste management in Miami-Dade County. But are there no other companies that can offer these services to us? And I understand that you're making this decision to extend existing contract rates, correct, in order to presumably provide some sort of savings. But are there no other companies that can offer these services to us? These two are the largest providers, but for anyone to come in to provide service, they would have to invest a lot of money up front in the trucks. And if you do a short-term contract, people generally don't like to invest in the loaders and the trucks and whatever they need. But sure, I understand that servicing a county this size would require a company that is of substantial size. But the question was, are there no other competitors other than waste management and waste connections? If there are, there are very smaller companies out there, very small. Okay. And when was the last time that we've done any sort of competitive procurement in this sort of waste management space? I have to go back and see what the other, we just did another one for a couple of years back. And these two were the largest one that got awarded, I think, three, four, three years back. I don't remember the exact number, but yeah, we did that, another procurement for services. Okay. I'm going to look more closely at this item because it has a very large dollar amount associated with it, $62 million through 2028. We're currently in 2026. This item is asking for us to extend it through 2031. I guess, like I said previously, to maintain existing rates. What are the rates that we're maintaining? Commissioner, the rates vary by facility, and I have that. For example, if, and the size of the container, so 30 cubic yard capacity container for pickup, let's say one day per week, the price is $2,366. So every facility, every department have stipulated the locations and the container size and the frequency. So the rate varies for that. I have, like, 50, 60 different rates by facility as well as the container size and the location. And where in the item does it state that the current rates are going to be honored through 2031? So I thought we said it somewhere at the existing terms and conditions. To clarify, if I may, keeping it at the same terms and conditions versus keeping it flat, do they have an increase that's built in year after year versus a flat rate of that year? There is a CPI, natural CPI. There's a CPI that's built in the contract, but that CPI is going to be based on the rates that we have. Nobody's going to agree to a five-year contract in today's market without a CPI. I appreciate that, but I also think that a contract of this size, it's currently at $62 million. You're asking for another $20 million. You're talking about $80 million to the same exact people without a competitive procurement process with a representation on the microphone that the rates are going to be the same, but it's not articulated in the item, at least not that I can see. I just – I'm wondering why we're not giving this opportunity to other companies. That's the question. Listen, I've said before many times on this microphone regarding our waste management problems in Miami-Dade County and my extreme concern regarding relying on what amounts to a monopoly by one company for the hauling of waste in Miami-Dade County, which are these two companies, frankly. It concerns me greatly, and that's just – this is just departmental work. This is not the massive amount of trash that they haul out of this county as a result of us no longer having our incinerator. And so my question is, why aren't we trying to diversify who we are using for these essential services, even if it's an amalgamation of smaller companies that may offer us better prices? Because currently, we are completely at the mercy of these two companies for all of our waste management services in Miami-Dade County, and that gives me great discomfort. Is there any kind of a discussion happening within the department about potentially putting this out to bid? It's – the plan is for solid waste to bring the services in-house. So they're working on a plan. They have an equipment testing phase. You want to – Director, you're recognized. Thank you. Through the chair, I can speak to that. So the department actually purchased front-end loaders. Front-end loaders allow us to actually provide a different service. And so we've been doing a pilot for the last six months account by account, so we can do a full assessment to what Namada mentioned. The frequency, the type of container, the type of service that is required by each account varies. And so we have to do a full assessment. When I first got here, we had just received those front-end loaders. In the industry, it takes about a year to a year and a half to get that type of equipment. And so we had just received the equipment, and it was sitting. And so now I put the equipment to use through a pilot. We actually have data so I can actually evaluate the productivity of the data, look at a cost per pickup to determine how we can actually bring those services in-house. But it's going to take time because I have to purchase additional containers, and I have to purchase additional equipment. But I need to do it by retiring some equipment and then purchasing this equipment, not purchasing additional equipment, but retiring one and then purchasing another. So I appreciate that explanation. My concerns remain on this item, though. Whenever I see pools that are asking to be extended years before they even expire without a competitive procurement process with dollar amounts as high as this, it gives me great cause to pause. And this item that we are extending was originally procured in September of 2013. It's what the item says. This contract holder has had this same contract since 2013. I mean, I just, I mean, we have not, like, I don't want to advance this item. I don't want to advance it. You're two years before the expiration of your contract. The dollar amount is astronomical. It's an 11-page item that's asking for $20 million. One department is asking for an additional allocation of $8 million. Another department, HCD, is asking for an additional allocation of $6 million. I don't know why we need to do this right now, and I'm not sure that it's the most financially responsible thing to do to not potentially look at other service providers in this area. If you look and you find that, hey, listen, there's nobody else out there. There's nobody else out there that can provide this service and give us alternate pricing, I will accept that. But the fact that we haven't looked since 2013 is extremely, I don't understand. Commissioner, if we did that three years ago, we did do the analysis of anybody else coming in and switching to the new providers. If you want us to do that analysis again, we'll be happy to do that between now. And if you choose to advance the item in September, board, we'll be happy to bring that, or we can bring back the item in September again. What's the urgency? The contract doesn't expire until 2028. It's 2026. What is the urgency? We were just trying to be proactive. I appreciate that. I always want the proactive step to be taken, but I'm not sure that that's the proposition that supports this item at this time. I just would like to defer because I have a lot of questions. I want to know why each department needs the additional allocation. I want to know what the rates are. You're representing that the rates are going to remain the same. That's not articulated in the item. I think that this needs a lot of review. If it were, you know, a much smaller dollar amount, I would feel more comfortable, but this is a lot of money going to a company that has a monopoly over Miami-Dade County, and I'd like for us to consider other alternatives. If you don't mind, if you said to me, it's an emergency, I need this, my departments will suffer, I will advance it. But if it makes no difference to you, I'd like to defer the item. Commissioner, when we came for extension a few years back, I remember you said that we were not, we didn't give you enough time. We are giving you enough time. If you don't want to advance it, that's fine. Okay, and it's just to work with you to get these numbers and additional facts and details to at least give me greater comfort before spending this kind of money. So I move to defer this item. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. Second. We have a second on that. Yes, Commissioner Gonzalez. Yes, so I do, I agree with the deferral, and if I could get the director to come back up. Yes, sir. Both, please. You're both recognized again. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so, first of all, Namada, I want to thank you for bringing this up early. Because I do appreciate the fact that now, I think this has been very positive, right? Because we're able to see that two years from now, this could possibly be necessary. But the director of Solid Waste did bring up that you folks are trying to bring this in house. And so, I understand what you're saying regarding that although this expires in 28, it's very possible that we may only need two more years in order to bring this in house. But that's also an assumption, because a lot of things can happen from now to then that could stop you from being able to purchase that equipment. Maybe the pilot program doesn't go the way that we want it to go. So, there's a lot of factors that would have to move perfectly in order for that to happen. And so, I agree with the deferral because right now we're looking at a three year extension from the two year because we're looking 2028 to 2031. It's very possible and I know that you said you just did an analysis three years ago. And it's very possible that if we procure this this year, perhaps maybe we can find some cost savings. And maybe we can even buy more time in order to roll out that pilot program properly. So, I do agree with the deferral, but I don't want you to think that you're doing anything that wasn't asked of you. I appreciate the fact that you brought this forward. As a matter of fact, I think that that's exactly why Commissioner Cohen Higgins originally had said, let's get these things up front. Because now, we can properly digest, we have time to go through the thought process, go through the procurement process and see if this is the best course, rather than just guess. But I want to thank both of you for being prepared. Thank you. Yes, agreed. So, I'm assuming we're going to be deferring this to September committee. So, that way, will that give you enough time to run the analysis and make sure that it's back here with enough time so that we can find a path forward? Yes, we can reach out to the companies that we know, additionally, any small providers, and ask them what is it going to take them to provide this service to the county, same scope of work. And we'll have the price comparison ready. And if I may add to that, if you could also give us the analysis and kind of the plan of what you're thinking of going in-house and what that looks like and what a realistic timeline could look like. Because if we have to extend the current contract, if that's what the best path forward looks like at that point, then we also understand the trajectory of what the department's looking to do and try to, yes. I just want to add one more, Commissioner, to your point. All of the contracts have termination provisions. So, let's say Solid Waste is able to do it in six months. We could always give them termination notice and bring it in-house sooner. Termination without cause. Termination without cause, yes. Thank you. So, show that item. Madam Chair, sorry. I had two questions. Sorry. Commissioner. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Director, bringing it in-house, would you be able to identify the savings? In other words, we now currently have an external vendor doing it. Because I'm always looking to see whether we can achieve savings. And sometimes it's the exact opposite, right? We privatize because we think we'll get better costs. But if you feel like it's in the best interest of the county to move it internally, could you identify savings? Thank you for the question through the Chair. I don't have the answer to those questions today, but that's why I was doing a pilot. When I first got here, staff had been evaluating numbers and they had some data, but I actually wanted real data. So, that's why I actually told them to put a pilot in place. It's only been six months, and so now we have at least six months of data with 75 accounts so that I can actually take a look at the productivity. With a rear loader, which is what we normally run, it takes three people. With a front-end loader, it's only one person. So, right there, there's some efficiencies that I can actually say that we can provide. I think that'll be helpful for us when you bring it back. We also made an investment in equipment, I'm assuming, right? So, that would have to be factored in. I mean, we made a capital, we purchased equipment to do the services in-house, and so the 75 accounts that you've been running your pilot on should give us what were those 75 accounts costing us with the vendor that was picking up the garbage and then what you're proposing. That's one. Well, the difference is with the 75 accounts that I'm running, your commercial accounts that we were picking up ourselves, I'm not picking up any of the accounts from the county. Well, those that are in the contract. Right. But the 75 accounts, we were picking up with a different piece of equipment and different personnel, so I'm going to be able to evaluate if I can pick it up cheaper. Okay, so that's different than this. But I'm going to also do that analysis as well. Okay, because I think we would be very happy to hear that we made progress in saving money by bringing it in-house. Okay, and then the other thing is, I'm unclear, this analysis that we've asked for, do companies normally tell you what they would charge? Is it the same as if we put out an RFP on the street? Would I see the exact same? Because, you know, if you come to me and you tell me, well, what I can do the services for, right? But I don't see the full scope of services, I don't see an RFP. How is it that you're going to tell me that it's cheaper without putting it out to bid? I was, we could do two ways, Commissioner, by sharing the scope of work. Not so much putting it out formally, we could informally ask, or we could, if you want us to put it out formally, we could do both ways. I was going to do more formal in this because the ask here is to, I was going to ask, go out to the bid and market and ask. That was going to be my recommendation. Yeah. I don't trust that someone just tells me this is the price, because it never really is that price. I think a formal RFP is where you really know, one, who's willing to bid on the job. To Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' point, is there anyone else other than these two vendors that are willing to do it? And I have to believe that there may be others that have come into the market in the last three years. Again, we owe it to the taxpayer to do the more fiscally conservative thing, which is to put everything to bid and see what comes back. Because if, in fact, it shows that no one applies or that the services that they're proposing in the bid is higher, then we know the answer. And it's clear cut. It's black and white. I can then defend my decision to move forward. But I can never defend it when I'm just thinking, you know, what I think versus what I know that I have in front of me. We'll get you real numbers. Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. So, item 3C has been deferred to the September committee, right? We're good with that. I'm asking if you need anything else from 3C. There was a, I know there's a motion to second. There's a vote. I don't think there was actually a vote. By acclamation. Okay. And then the rest of the random. Madam Chair, unreasonate. So, I just want to make sure, because I believe that Commissioner Lopez also added that we should procure the item. Okay. So, the only thing I would say on that is I think she said she's going to get us real numbers. And I don't know, Namita, if you want to explain how you're going to get that. I don't know if we're going to go out on the street and do a full procurement. Yeah, I think she said she was going to procure it. I just want to make sure that that's what we're doing, because I think that Commissioner Lopez's line of questioning was on point. If we are bringing it in-house, we want to make sure that we're saving money. And if we're going to get that analysis and we procure it, it's almost the perfect time to do a comparison. And I think this is what you were saying, Commissioner Lopez. It's the perfect time to do the comparison as to whether we should bring it in-house or not, because it's not only the equipment that we've already purchased. Because if I'm not mistaken, the director of Solid Waste also said that there's other equipment that needs to be purchased in order for this to happen. So, it's almost the perfect time, now that we're deferring it, to procure it and make that cost analysis to see which one is the bigger savings. And by the way, it very well may be that this is the best option, but we will be sure. I guess I need clarity from the director and how you were getting the real numbers, because to do a full procurement for however many time that we're going to look to do it could be potentially problematic, because if we are looking at bringing it in-house, then we're going to tell all these people who bid, sorry, we're not going with you. And then, I mean, maybe there's an invitation to negotiate. Maybe there's some other, I don't know, process. How are you going to get her the real numbers by September? So, we do have to put out a formal solicitation, and it's going to be an invitation to bid where they give us their prices, so it's not too onerous that it's an RFP. That's exactly right. That's what I was going at. Yeah. That's fine. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much. Perfect. Great discussion. This is what happens when you come after a budget committee. Yes, apparently I do not. So, through the lens of our infrastructure committee, are there any other items that we need to be looking at? And, by the way, I really appreciate the discussion this morning. What other items, or are we going to pass the balance of the agenda and get to the presentations? Move the balance of the agenda. Okay. Moved by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor? Signifying aye. I'm sure that passed. And now we're going to get to the presentations, except for that, I have a request that I will be making formally to the chair's office for item 3B for the award of the contract due to time stipulations and constraints. I'm going to be requesting to add that to the agenda next week. Yes, Madam Chair, and we'll supply you the memo. Thank you. All right. And with that, we're going to start with our presentations. And I see some of the young people in the audience. I want to thank all of you for being here. They're part of the Young Youth Engagement Program. Sorry. Yep, yep. Okay. So, welcome. All right. So, our first presentation is going to be with the Communications Information Technology Department. Come on up. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is George Olasabal. I am the Director for the Communications Information and Technology Department. Point of order, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, may I be recognized very briefly? I don't mean to interrupt at all, even though I know that's exactly what I'm doing. But we just had a committee hearing where we had a number of presentations that visibly look identical to what you are putting up on our screen right now. And I don't know if you watched the previous committee hearing, but I don't have a copy on my desk of your presentation. And it's always helpful if I have a physical copy. So, if you can distribute that to us, I'd appreciate it. And I am going to assume that your presentation follows the same format that was followed at the last hearing of the other presentations. Does your presentation have any numbers in it? In the presentation, as you see it, it does not, but I'm prepared to discuss any of the numbers. Okay. I would appreciate it. I want you to go through your presentation, but I also want you to tell me what your budget is. It is a budget presentation at the end of the day. So, if you could share your budget and whether or not you have met the administration's charge of not exceeding 3% growth, that would be my question for you and every other director that's presenting this morning or this afternoon. Very good. Thank you. I think we have the – give me one second. You wanted Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, like physical copies? Madam Chair? Of course. And just to piggyback off of what Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is saying, you know, so I'm a litigator by trade. And when you go in front of a judge and you're arguing a motion, you always bring copies of the motion for opposing counsel, and then you also bring a copy of the motion for the judge. So, just for future reference, we're not trying to call you out. It was the same thing with other directors. But for the directors that are going to present after, if you can have those copies given to us before you come up to present, that would be outstanding. Through the Chair, I'm trying to make sure you get one for each that's scheduled during this particular meeting. So, we're passing them around as you speak. Thank you, Chief. All right. You may begin. Yes. Madam Chair, would you mind if I set the expectation for all the presentations so you know what the directors were authorized to do? So, when the budget process started, the mayor told us she would be releasing her budget on the 15th, and she asked each department director to submit their requests to her. After those submissions were made, she sent them back to the departments for revisions because there were more requests and proposals than there were resources. That has gone on multiple times, and so when these items got placed on the agenda to have a budget review, all the department directors were given the same format to follow to describe what their challenges are, what their concerns are, what their budget drivers are, but the exact numbers would be released by the mayor on the afternoon the 15th, which is today. So, some of the numbers you may be looking for will not be in these presentations, and after the mayor releases her budget today, then all of the department directors and the mayor's staff will make theirself available to you to review those exact numbers. Madam Chair, I just have a quick comment to make. So, the three of us that serve on this committee were also on the committee this morning where we had so many questions based on the presentations, which really didn't help us drill down on anything. And so, although I appreciate very much, Deputy Mayor, your explanation, which we were given this morning as well, it's really kind of like a perfunctory exercise we're going through here. You're going to tell us about all of this, which we could read ourselves, but it's not going to help us determine what decisions we need to make or what the plan is. So, I'm not sure how fruitful this will be. Given the discussion we had this morning in the budget committee, which really started to drill down, and it turned out that we spent a good hour asking questions, but we didn't really have anything in our hands that would help us really have what I consider to be a thoughtful discussion. So, we may repeat the same things and the same questions, but we just wanted you to be aware that for us, when it says budget presentation, we understand what you were told to do, and we're grateful you're here, and thank you so much for all of this information, but none of it will assist me in making a decision as to your budget. Because I don't think any of them, and we started out by asking, what's your total budget, which wasn't even on these presentations, you know? And so, everyone scrambled and got us what the total budget was, but we, so that you're ready, we began to drill down as what percentage of your budget is in general fund, how many vacancies did you get rid of? I mean, these were the questions we were posing this morning, and it's somewhat unfair, I think, because you're not really prepared to answer the questions that we have. So, just wanted to put that on the record. Madam Chair, may I respond? Yes. In defense of the directors, some of that information is not available to them because it's the mayor's proposed budget that's going to give those final recommendations, and what information they do have, they're not authorized to repeat until she unveils her budget, in case she decides to change anything from the time these presentations were started until today. So, please understand the directors aren't allowed to provide something they don't have. Yes, we understand that, and thank you. Yes, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair, Deputy Mayor. I think we all understand that clearly, and I think that the chairman of the board was the one that asked all of us to do these budget reviews and these analyses in an effort to work collectively towards the same goal, obviously. And so, I'm not sure that going through these presentations is going to be particularly helpful to us because I'm not sure that it accomplishes what the chairman aimed for us to accomplish. And in the previous hearing, we discussed having a workshop of sorts, right, where after the 230 release of our mayor's budget, we will then have the numbers, we will have a clear picture, and I think having the presentations, frankly, subsequent to that release is probably the most prudent thing to do because everybody's operating with transparency. Right now, you've just represented that the directors essentially don't know what their budgets are until 230 when the mayor releases it, which is fine, but I don't think that that was the understanding of our chairman when he asked for these presentations to be placed on our agendas. And so, in the interest of time, I'm not sure that going through the exercise, I mean, unless my colleagues want to do this, without numbers, and Deputy Mayor, you're kind of digging your heels in saying the numbers are not going to be released until 230, I'm not sure that the interest of our time is best served going through each department's aims, aspirations, and accomplishments as we have budget presentations on our agenda. So, I'm not sure if my colleagues want to waive the presentations, if we want to waive for our workshop that we're planning to have, but I just think that going through these presentations without actual numbers is not the best utilization of our time. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Gonzalez. Yes, so I have to agree, and I do appreciate the Chief's explanation because I do agree with the Deputy Mayor's explanation because I do agree, I mean, it's not fair to you, and I hope that you're not taking this personally. It's not personal to you, but I agree with Commissioner Cohen-Higgins that perhaps going through a presentation talking about how great the technology department is, and I have no doubt that it's great. We've met one-on-one before. We have no doubt that it's great and that you're doing a great job as a director, but for purposes of going through your budget and analyzing what can and should not be cut, that this perhaps is premature. So, I mean, it might be a good idea to waive, or as Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is suggesting, maybe we can defer this until after. So, since I wasn't there earlier today, we are going to be having a workshop? Is that what we're looking to schedule? Our committee decided that we would not recess in August, that as soon as the mayor releases her budget, our committee will take as long as it takes to go through every budget, because what we discovered was that there were no, we did not find during our discussions that anyone was asked to reduce their budget. Actually, the budgets grew. They were just asked to grow their budgets by 3%, and we've said we're pretty sure if we work with the administration, we will find ways in which we can walk away and say we actually saved money. We didn't grow government. So, that was the decision in this morning's budget that we would not recess. We would come back in August and begin to drill down on every department budget. Well, I would like to be a part of that, and so I guess hearing from three of the board members right now, I think it's clear that they want to waive the presentations to an August meeting for, I guess, a more in-depth budget discussion. I know yesterday at our committee we had these great presentations, but they were really an abstract, and so I did say at the end it would have been nice to have some budget numbers with them. So, while I do appreciate everybody's time and effort, I think this committee is now taking the direction that they would like to postpone. Any sort of presentation until after the budget is rolled out so that they can look at it with that lens and make sure that, by the way, we support our departments in their endeavors as well. Yeah, and Madam Chair, if I could just add, and just to piggyback off what both of my colleagues have been saying, for those budget, for those presentations, I don't think any of us are expecting anybody to just read off a screen. For those presentations, previously we had Josiel come up and he was very prepared. I think that that's the level of expectation that I think everybody's going to have, where don't just come up and read, know your numbers because you are a highly capable director, which is the equivalent of a CEO of a multi-million dollar organization. So, when you do come, when you do come, come prepared to know your numbers, know your departments, and know exactly how to defend every penny that you're asking for. Am I correct? Yes, Madam Chair, I also want to remind everyone that I've asked all the department directors, and I'll do it again here. I would like a schedule of your vacancies with the aging reports, and I would further like, what occurred this morning was a discussion around telling me that you got rid of 50 staff members, but in fact, what happened was some left the county, and some, because of their employment rights, were actually transferred into another department. So, that's not a savings. We're going to be really clear about what every step we're taking. We want the public to understand exactly what we're doing. The other thing we also asked is, if you're moving any of your people or services to a constitutional officer, that constitutional officer is going to come back and ask me for that money. That's net zero savings. It's just going from us to them. I want everyone to understand that I expect truth in budgeting, and I've been very clear about that from the very beginning. We have to be able to say what is really going on without sort of skimming over it, because most often I hear the complaints of, they said that they got rid of those jobs, but I know the person's working in another department, in another role in another department. So, we want to be sure that we explain why we've had to move people to another department, because they had employment rights, and what does that mean? Because the general public has no idea what that means. Zero. So, be prepared when you come, and we have your numbers before you during the budget committee's workshops, that we expect to be able to talk about every penny in your budget, and for you to start thinking. If I had to get rid of it, if I didn't grow, if I just stayed, you know, because that's, we do zero-based budgeting in the state. You come, and you don't tell me you're going to grow anything. You're going to start with what you had, and then tell me, be prepared to tell me, if you reduce this, what would happen? Because that's the part nobody talks about either. So, you know, because that's exactly the question I asked 12 secretaries at the state. If I tell you to reduce this line item, what will happen? What services have to go? You know, where can you find savings? And let me tell you something. If you can find a 3% savings in the state that has, you know, 10 times the budget that we have here, I'm pretty sure we can find savings. And we're committed, our budget committee is committed to working with the administration to help do that in partnership, because that's what we think we can both do. So, that's just a word to the wise about what we will be looking at, the kind of discussions we had this morning. All right, thank you. Any other comments or questions from the dais? Yes. No, Madam Chair, really quickly, just to provide clarification, I think it's the intention, I hope it's the intention, I'm sure it's the intention, that these budget hearings that we will have in August is open and welcome to all commissioners, more like a committee of the whole, where we engage in that deep dive that we have been talking about. So, I look forward to all of our colleagues participating in that. And I see our Chairwoman nodding her head. And so, that's the confirmation I was looking for, is that I'll be open to everyone. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Yes, Deputy Mayor, before we... Madam Chairman, we're thankful for the clear direction. Chairman, Commissioner Lopez, I'll warn you in advance, we've been plagiarizing your theme of truth and budgeting. I think I've heard the mayor say it three times yesterday, so I think it stuck. Look, I would like to point out to you that the mayor did put out a memo on solid waste. I think it's exactly like what you want. If we don't do this, what's the consequences? We gave it to you. We did the same thing on water and sewer rates, which we hadn't even addressed yet. But it is our intention to follow your mantra of truth and budgeting. Whatever we do, here's the consequences, pro or con. And on that note, our meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.