Okay, we are going to begin our Infrastructure, Innovation, and Technology Committee. We're going to start with a moment of silence and reflection, followed by the pledge led by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Please face the flag. Pledge allegiance. Okay. Good afternoon. I want to thank everybody for joining us today. We have a very light agenda. Yeah, light. Very light. It's going to be quick. Okay. So, starting with the, before we, I guess, do you want to mention anything before I open it up to reasonable opportunity to be heard? Madam Chair, now would be the time for that on all non-public hearing items. Yes. I have some speaker cards. If I call your name, please come up. This is only for items that are not advertised as public hearing items. We have Peter Iglesias. Please come up. Oh, wait. No. I apologize. Non-public hearing items. I apologize. It gave me the wrong set. Non-public hearing items. Oh, Peter Iglesias, you're up again. Date the item and your address. Peter Iglesias, City Manager, City of Coral Gables. What item are we on? Are we on 3A or IGC? This would be the non-public hearing item. You get two minutes. It's item 3A that you wrote. 3A. Thank you. 3A is something that I have been working with Director Gascon on. It has to do with testing through the product approval process. And it's replacing that 10-year requirement for items that have not been changed or items that – or any protocols, any testing protocols that have not changed. So basically, if your testing requirements have not changed and your product has not changed, then you really don't need testing again until it happens. And I think what that can do is it can keep products in Dade County. I think Dade County is the gold standard as far as the product approvals. It's almost UL-based, like Underwriters Laboratory, where you actually have a testing, have a review of the actual process, review of the actual calculations. The state does not do that. But I think this requirement will keep products within Dade County, and I think it's good for the residents. And I strongly believe that the Dade County protocols are the most – not only most stringent, but most reasonable from a structural engineering perspective. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker, Nick Garzilli. And then the speaker after that will be – well, I don't have a name here. I have construction something. Seems CERN's construction. So just if you – when I call your name and then the next one get in the queue. Thank you. Hello. Nick Garzilli, founder and CEO of Chariot Living. We are bringing Woosh Transport to Miami-Dade. For those of you who don't know what Woosh is, it was developed – We need your address and what item you're speaking of. 224 23rd Street, Miami Beach, apartment 515. And which item? It's 3M and 7. So 3M is in regards to – well, looking at sole source contracts. That's something that really our firm is – there's no one else that is capable of studying this transport than our group. So – and then when it comes to the unsolicited proposals, that is the plan, and that is the route that we are – we are forming a consortium. I just came out of a meeting this morning with Christopher Hodgkins from – fame from the Miami Tunnel, and he's agreed to form – to join the board of our consortium. He sees the value in it. I'm meeting with FDOT. I've met with some of the leaders in the offices of the commissioners, and I look forward – I will be reaching out next week to everyone – to all the offices here at the committee. Basically, for those of you who don't know – I'm speaking to the general public now. There is breakthrough transport technology that can solve our traffic woes, really giving you a lifestyle above the traffic. These are lightweight, car-sized vehicles that operate grade-separated on rails and cables, developed out of Google. Project Swift just won an award in Riyadh for the most innovative transport technology there. Pilot projects in motion, a proof of – a full-scale proof of concept is opening up in Christchurch, New Zealand, at their airport there. We've done contracts with Anaheim, Irvine. Really breakthrough. So I'm just letting the commissioners know that I will be reaching out and looking to set up meetings with staff and bring much-needed mobility to Miami-Dade. There is hope. Hope – Chariot Living is my company, and I encourage everyone to reach out to me if they want to get involved. Thank you. Our next speaker is John Cerns, and then following John Cerns – if I said that incorrectly, I apologize – Richard Miller. Please get ready. You're up after. Good morning. Afternoon. Good afternoon. State your name and address, please. My name is John Kearns in support of 3R. Oh, Kearns. Okay. Kearns. K-E-A-R-N-S. Kearns. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners, Deputy Coley. My name is John Kearns of 2550 South Bay Shore Drive, Miami. I'm the CFO of Kearns Construction, and we are proud to be recommended for this most important contract. Kearns Construction is a family-owned marine contractor headquartered in Coconut Grove. We are recognized as the premier marine contractor in South Florida. For the past 25 years, we've earned this reputation because of our quality work, seawalls, docks, pile driving, and other works above and below the water. On the Miami River alone, we've completed nine prior seawall projects. Currently, we're replacing the seawalls at Jose Marti Park. A quick other examples of our work is at the Port of Miami Tunnel. Kearns Construction was responsible for the marine excavation and the underwater concrete placement for the Port of Miami Tunnel, which is the largest underwater concrete slabs placed in North America. Second, the Narki Marina behind City Hall, which was nearly destroyed in 2017 by Hurricane Irma. It is the largest marina on the eastern seaboard and the Gulf. Kearns Construction completed that project on time and on budget. You might ask yourself, why were there no other marine contractors that bid this job? Because this is uniquely challenging and complex and involves a high degree of risk. For example, there's three primary sewer pipes that intersect the Miami River. We are tasked with the responsibility to find these pipes buried 15 feet underneath the mud before we construct the seawall. All right. Thank you so much. Two minutes are up, so I appreciate if you have any additional comments, feel free to send it to us. No one protested the word of recommendation. We're capable of performing the highest standards, and thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Our next speaker, Richard Miller. And then our final speaker after Richard Miller, Mr. Peter, I think, England. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and Commissioners. I'm Rick Miller, Executive Director of the South Florida Defense Alliance at 1 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Miami. I'm here to speak in strongly urge support for Item 2 Delta, Commissioner McGee's resolution to advance development of the county's designated spaceport territory adjacent to Homestead Air Reserve Base. This is much more than a real estate development initiative. This is a strategic opportunity to establish Miami-Dade as a nationally significant aerospace, defense, and advanced manufacturing hub. Three points deserve particular attention. First, the national security and military compatibility for Homestead Air Reserve Base, which is a critical national defense asset, needs to be preserved. Development must protect and complement its present and future missions, preserve operational flexibility, and prevent incompatible encroachment. Properly planned, the surrounding aerospace and defense industrial ecosystem can strengthen that long-term strategic value. Second, the economic opportunity and industrial readiness. The 2024 Spaceport Territory designation established the foundation. The recent ULI assessment, FIU's competitive analysis, and resolutions from all five municipalities in South Dade demonstrate a growing regional alignment. We are also seeing tangible industry interest. But companies require certainty regarding the infrastructure and development timelines. This resolution begins converting that opportunity into an actionable development plan. Third, there's significant workforce in public-private investment. The magnet school recently approved by the school board, Miami-Dade College, FIU, Space Florida, and others are all going to be able to minimize the county's exposure. In addition to a letter of support coming from the Defense Alliance, I know letters are also coming from the Beacon Council, South Dade EDC, Greater Miami Chamber, South Dade Chamber, Chamber South, Congressman Jimenez, FIU, Miami-Dade College, and possibly more. This opportunity is real, and I encourage now is the time to move from planning to execution. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Peter. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners. I'm Peter England. I'm the Chief Strategy Officer with the Economic Development Council of South Miami-Dade, and I reside at 7620 Southwest 171st Street in Palmetto Bay. I'm speaking on behalf of Item 2D. We are very much in support of this resolution. The EDC has been working for actually over five years now in trying to develop this spaceport territory, and we've partnered along the way with the South Florida Defense Alliance, with FIU, Space Florida. We got a designation from the Florida legislature in 2024 designating this property as spaceport territory. This resolution before you is the first official recognition on the part of this commission about the fact that this spaceport territory exists and is a unique asset to Miami-Dade County. This is in keeping, I think, with the original intent of the Air Force when they deeded this property to the county back in 2004 for the purposes of economic development, which was followed up, by the way, by the action of Commissioner Moss, who established the HARB Trust Fund, again, for the purposes of economic development on this site. Both the ULI study and the strategic plan, which was executed for us by FIU, was attached to your package. All of them are pointing in the direction of aerospace as a unique opportunity for Miami-Dade County. We're poised and ready to work with you and all of our other partners in making this a reality. Thank you again for your time and for your attention. Thank you. Seeing no other speaker cards, is there anybody else that wishes to speak on any item that is not advertised as a public hearing item at this time? Thank you. And then fill out a card, and then, yeah. Good morning, Commissioners. Alex Uribe with Office at 2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard. I'm here representing the property owners for item 3P, which is a road closure that is closing two 50-foot long stubs, one 10-foot alley, one right-of-way boat. Neither of these have ever been paved. Neither of these have been used. They have been, for the last decade and a half, part of athletic fields belonging to the Miami Community Charter School. Miami Community Charter School is trying to clean up, trying to do a replat, and this closure is necessary. And I would just ask, aside from support, that you please move this to the November 17th BCC meeting. Commissioner McGee is aware of this. He has no objections. He has provided confirmation to me in writing, and I forward that to your office, Chair. And if you could do that, I would very much appreciate it on behalf of the Miami Community Charter School. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Reasonable opportunity to be heard is now closed. For the attorneys. Madam Chair, the matters before you are those on the official agenda, which includes the additions, deferrals, and withdrawals listed in the changes memo. A motion to set the agenda is now in order. Moved. Seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor? Show that done. My acclamation. Okay. Does anybody have any items that they wish to pull from the agenda at this time? Yes, please. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Items 3D and 3U. Okay. Anything else? Any other items, Commissioners? No? Okay. Seeing no other items, do I have a motion to pass the balance of the agenda excluding the public hearing items? Okay. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Show that done. With the exception of items 3D and 3U. So now what we're going to do is go into the public hearing items. What I will do is I will open up. We have three of them, I believe. I will open up the public hearing portion. These are for items 1G1, 1G2, 1G3. And Peter Iglesias, you get to start us off again. Madam Chair, would you like me to read the titles first or after? You know, read the titles. That would be great. Thank you. Okay. 1G1, ordinance relating to zoning, creating Section 33107.1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, providing for variance of county spacing and height requirements for Class C signs under certain circumstances relating to municipal annexation and incorporation applications, approving the form of application, providing for contingent effective date, providing severability, inclusion, and exclusion from the Code and an effective date. 1G2, ordinance relating to zoning and right-of-way plan in the unincorporated area, amending Section 33133 of the Code, providing for reduced minimum street width requirements in the right-of-way plan for the portion of Southwest 47th Avenue from Southwest 72nd Street to Southwest 82nd Street, providing severability, inclusion in the Code and an effective date. 1G3, ordinance relating to the Florida Building Code, amending Section 821.1 and deleting in their entirety and replacing Sections 821.2 through 821.4 of the Code, revising. Qualifications for building officials for building officials and for building electrical, plumbing, mechanical and structuralIn-specific buildings, and 21.4 of the code, revising qualifications for building officials and for building electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and structural inspectors and plans examiners, making technical and clarifying changes, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 1G4, resolution approving after public hearings, a campus development agreement between Florida International University Board of Trustees and Miami-Dade County, authorizing the county mayor or county mayor's designee to execute same and to execute amendments for extensions of time. Those are the public hearing items. Thank you so much. All right, so now we'll open up the public hearing, and I'll call you in order of the speaker cards. So, Peter Iglesias, you are kicking us off, followed by Laura Reynolds. All right, well, Laura, I guess you're up. Two minutes. Thank you, Commissioners. Laura Reynolds, representing Friends of Biscayne Bay. And I'm here on, I think it's 1G2, the Sequarium Rickenbacker right-of-way issue. And I have asked at every meeting I can to defer until information can come to light. You know, here we're giving public right-of-way to a private developer before there's a final lease agreement, before there's a CDMP package, before there's a zoning package. I have no idea why we need to give away the public right-of-way. What's being developed on this particular piece of land? I don't have those answers, and I know that the public can't keep up if I can't. So, we're asking that you defer this item in the mayor's memo. Actually, it says it's dated January 20th, 2027, but I think we should change that to 26 in your package, because January 27 hasn't happened yet. Anyway, the mayor asked to grant this petition to vacate the subject's portion of the right-of-way, and it does talk about having this fly with the lease, having it move with the lease agreement. And so, it seems to me that it should be part of the other decisions, not separate and apart from that. So, I ask you today to slow this process down. Let's get it right. I think that the Sequarium property does need to be updated, and I'm excited to be part of that. But I know that there's still unresolved issues with all portions of this. So, we ask you to pump the brakes, to get it right, to make sure all the different environmental aspects are in compliance, with it being the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, with the Manatee Protection Plan, with the number of wet slips. All of these things have to be resolved. And I, for one, would like to know what we're building on the right-of-way. So, we ask you to defer this item and put it all together with everything else. Thank you. Our next speaker, Manuel Salazar. All right, our next speaker, Linda Blanco. Good afternoon. My name is Linda Blanco. My address is 8401 Northwest 53rd Terrace. I'm here in support of Item 1G3. As you all may know, in the construction world, our workforce is aging out. We are having difficulties recruiting personnel. Miami-Dade County has been certifying code officials for as long as I can remember. And this is a much-needed change for building departments to be able to recruit staff to support enforcement of the Florida Building Code. I ask you all to accept this as written, and is it perfect? No. But it is much better than the current Chapter 8 provisions for certifying by the Board of Rules and Appeals our code enforcement personnel for building inspections, plan examiners, and building officials. Thank you so much. Our next speaker will be Vince Sejas. Good afternoon, Honorable Commission. My name is Vince Sejas of 14395 Southwest 139 Court. I would like to address the item before you. As my colleague, that's also a building official, has expressed, this deals with the certification of your plans examiners, your field inspectors, and the building category, and the building official. It's a critical job that Chapter 8 of the Code of Miami-Dade County has upheld the highest possible standard. We want to preserve some of that legacy, and we greatly appreciate the changes coming in through the structural modifications that were mandated through a grand jury report dating back to 1989, as well as the residential to help promote and bring new blood into the industry. However, we would like to see the five-year requirement for the chief, the 10-year requirement for the building official to remain. Heaven forbid, Tallahassee decides to preempt or change something again, we still have our local higher standard. We are a community of higher standards. I, myself, am a U.S. Marine. I chose the Marine Corps because it is the toughest. Let's not water that part or throw that out. And respectfully, the ask here, or at least from the South Florida Building Officials Association, is to preserve those provisions, as well as opening the building official up for other contractors, not just general contractors, to be able to hold that seat. A certified electrical contractor, plumbing contractor, or mechanical contractor, with the experience in the field for 10 years, is more than adequate to be able to run a building department. Five years for the chief, and again, building inspector for general use, should hold some kind of contractor's license in that respective discipline, and the residential, make that, preserve that, that's being presented today. That is valuable to help reload and help recruit. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Manuel Salazar. Good morning. Manuel Salazar. I'm the Vice President of the South Florida Chapter of the Building Official Association. I'm also the building official for the town of Surfside. This change, I agree with what was said here previously, this change has been sorely needed for a long time. I've kind of been the face of that change because I've been the one advocating it for a while. I think from the point of view from our organization and our members, which are over 200 members locally, which are all plans examiners and inspectors locally, wanted to have the change. As Vince has eloquently said, I think we need to keep some of the legacy here for us. It's important for BSEGs. It's important for our certifications or our building departments. And thank you very much for listening. Thank you. And I guess Peter Iglesias. Oh, you're back. You are a final card. Excuse me, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. Peter Iglesias, City Manager for City of Coral Gables. I would just like to add that I'm a structural engineer, building official, and general contractor. I think that I support IG3. I think the industry is having a tough time getting people in the construction field. And I think that it provides a tiered system that should work out well for the building departments who are really having a tough time hiring people. As far as the structural is concerned, which is, I think, one of the best things that we did after Andrew, if the structure doesn't work, the building doesn't work. I think that tiered system, by having a civil structural review up to threshold buildings and then having a peer review process that takes care of your tall buildings, should work out very, very well. Well, we did that in the City of Miami when I was Senior Director and Building Official there over 10 years ago. We've built, I don't know how many buildings, I've lost track, 40-plus buildings, and it's worked out very well. So I support item G3. Thank you very much. Thank you. Public hearing is about to be closed. Anybody else wish to speak on one of the public hearing items? Come up. Fill out a card after. State your name. I know, it's very disappointing to see me guys getting up. Graham Penn, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. I just want to speak very briefly in support of 1G2, which involves Southwest 47th Avenue. I was concerned when I heard about this aquarium because this item has nothing to do with this aquarium. Instead, it resolves an issue that has bedeviled the owners of these estate single-family lots on this small stretch of road adjacent to Coral Gables for half a century. So we would urge you to support 1G2 and 1G2 Substitute as related to Southwest 47th Avenue. And of course, we're here if you have questions. Thank you. Seeing no other people approach, public hearing portion of this committee is now closed. And with that, we'll bring it up here. Actually, Commissioner Lopez, you know you can join us. Come closer. Come closer. So far away. All right. Commissioner Regalado, thank you for joining us today. You have all of them. Sponsoring all of them. Been working on these for some time. So why don't we start in order, 1G1. First of all, before I let you introduce, do any of my colleagues want to bifurcate either 1G1, 1G2, or 1G3 to have a conversation? Madam Chair, I don't know that I'd like to bifurcate. I certainly have questions on each. On each. Perfect. So we're going to go ahead and have you introduce 1G1. Sure. So we've been working on 1G1 for some time. What occurred that brought us to work with the administration on this item is that there was a permit and then there was an annexation after the fact and there was some confusion and litigation. So this allows us to clear that up so that it doesn't happen in the future because there is a disconnect between the permitting side and the actions that this board takes on annexation. So this just allows us to clear it up so that if someone has a permit, as long as they stay within the same district, we don't have to spend several years with a lawsuit. Happy to take any questions on 1G1. It's pretty clear cut. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Hi. Thank you for that explanation. I'm not understanding and I apologize for not getting there yet, but why do we need to change the spacing requirements on these signs because of a lawsuit? Well, what brought us to consider this was that there is a lawsuit and there were permits that were issued for these signs and then those areas were annexed. So then the county had given someone the right to do something, but we couldn't do it. So what this allows you to do is now to then, if that happened to you, port that and then in the future to prevent it from happening. So, and the spacing, we're just mirroring what we've done in the other one. So there is nothing new here. This is like the third one where we've tried to clean up the billboards. So this is just kind of aligning everything. Thank you for that. To the administration, is there anything that you'd like to add by way of an explanation on 1G1? No, ma'am. Okay. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Anybody else have any questions? I do have one question, though. This would allow them to have a variance to come in front of us, or what's that process? Because I don't want to just blanket give an approval for additional billboard advertisements. So I want to know what protections we have. So this would have to come back. Yes. Yes, and the other thing we talked about is that it would stay in the district, because that's the other issue, right? You don't want something to happen in terms of an annexation in one district, and then it falls in the other district, right? And then it does have some clauses for redistricting also. So we kind of covered that gap, too. Thank you. I'll move the item. Do I have a second? Call the roll. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Four. Commissioner Gonzalez? Four. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Chairwoman Steinberg? Motion passes unanimously. All right. 1G2. Commissioner Regalado? Yeah. 1G2, as was mentioned, is actually just a right-of-way for a portion of Southwest 47th Avenue and Southwest 72nd Street and 82nd. It's pretty self-explanatory. The attorneys are here if you want to talk about it. We've been working on it for some time with Corey Gables. Okay. I'll bring it up here. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Thank you. Just really quickly. I agree that in spirit, it's a rather straight forward right-of-way, but why is there a substitute and a substitute supplement? Help me understand why there's so many layers to what is normally a very straightforward public hearing item. I'm just trying to understand procedurally how we got 1G1, 1G... Because we had neighbors that wanted to be added in. So once we were doing it, there was adjacent property owners that wanted to be added in. So that's why it kind of grew. It started with one request and kind of grew. Okay. To the administration, is that accurate? That it's... The only reason we're dealing with the item, a substitute, and a substitute supplement is because there were different streets or folios added and included in the right-of-way item? Yes, ma'am. That's accurate. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or concerns? All right. Do I have a motion? All right. It's been moved and seconded. Can you call the roll, please? Commissioner Gonzalez? Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Chairwoman Steinberg? Motion passes unanimously. Madam Chairwoman, and this is for 1G2 substitute, correct? That is correct. Thank you. Substitute supplement, right? Substitute with the supplement, yes. Yeah. All right. 1G3. Hold on, hold on. Raquel. 1G3. So I want to thank everybody that came out to speak for 1G3. We've been working with Lourdes and her team and the administration on this for a very long time. We actually started talking about this during Surfside, for those of you who were here, when we worked with that issue, and for Commissioner Lopez, who was at the state level dealing with that, we have a big issue with our engineers, right? We just don't have the capacity that we wish we had. So we've worked with the industry. I'm happy to keep working with the industry. I will tell you, though, every time we make a change to this, there's like two, four, three against, two, four, three against. So while I appreciate everyone coming and offering more changes, we have been trying to pass this for a very long time. But we keep getting different ideas. One of the things that we tried to do was, A, to align it with the city of Miami. Thank you, Pete, for being here. You know, a lot of it is based on best practices and then also to align it with what's happened at the state level. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with some of the things that folks said. I mean, I do think that general contractor and an electrical contractor are two different things, right? So I think there's a reason why we always said general contractor. Nothing against someone that has another discipline and their ability to work within that discipline. But they're not a general contractor. So I'm going to push back a little bit on that one. I think that's a very different thing. But I think we can – I'm happy to meet with more people. I know Lourdes is happy to meet with them from now to when it comes to the BCC. But I don't want to make any changes to this item here just because we've been working on this for such a long time. And like I said, just because one person is here, there will be like 20 people that are then against that particular change. So I would rather kind of convene everyone that's been working on this again and consider amendments. And if necessary, make those amendments at the BCC. Okay, because I do have a question on this one. So the one thing that did stick out was the conversation about the five-year chief and the 10-year. Can – maybe, Lourdes, can you shed some light on that nuance of what's being changed? And did you get a lot of pushback? Because if that's – because we can – because I haven't heard anything. So I would love to see that added back into the ordinance. So I'd like to understand the rationale of what – why that was removed. Yeah, I'm going to allow Jamie to explain the details. But I did want to raise the point that was raised in our agenda item, which is that we do compete for staff, all of the building jurisdictions, which is – this ordinance is servicing the municipal building jurisdictions and ourselves. It lays the foundation for qualifications of the staff we're able to hire. And we do compete with the private sector and, more importantly, with the private providers that have been authorized at the state level, whose credentials are completely different from the ones that we have in place in Miami-Dade. So this was vetted very carefully with the building jurisdictions. So, you know, certainly we're happy to consider any additional changes that would support them. But these – I want you to know that these changes were thoughtfully considered, and they're beneficial to all of us to have more flexibility in terms of staff that we hire. Okay. Yes, please. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just real quick, the things that were considered for these changes are the fact that the requirement to hold a state license, as a building official or as a plans examiner or inspector, have prerequisite at the state in order to sit for those exams. For the BU, the most important one that's going to oversee the operations at each of these jurisdictions, it's a 10-year requirement. I know that there's issues that have been expressed here requiring – or subject to the changes that the state makes. Well, if the state makes those changes, we can then adjust accordingly and maintain these levels at the 10-year prerequisite. That seems to be the biggest discussion item that came before us today. That was my follow-up. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Yes, Commissioner Lopez. Thank you, Madam Chair. So just to add a little color to this, I actually oversaw the committee, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. There has been so much discussion at the state level. At one point, we were going to deregulate all of the professions. That was a wild meeting. So I want to thank the sponsor for her work on this because, honestly, the state is considering a lot of different things. And I know that there's some angst. There's always changes that people want to make. But we can't please everyone. We have to get to the point where the professions – and, honestly, the state continues to allow private providers to do much of this work, which has really kind of been presented this problem to the government officials who are overseeing and regulating and now competing with them. And so in order to make sort of a fair and equal playing field, we have to be able to, you know, respond to that. And I think this is in response to it. And I appreciate that the sponsor is willing to continue to work on it. But I do think that this is a good start because we really do have a situation where, for us, especially in the county, we are unable now to compete with private providers. And so we have to have staff, too. And we have to overcome whatever challenges are created by the private providers, you know, taking our, you know, staff and then us not being able to hire competent people that will fill the positions that we have. So I know that I've talked to Lourdes about it. I feel comfortable with the item. So I'm happy to move it. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Oh, you have a question? Okay. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. So what I'm hearing on this, this is a complete rewrite of this code. It was scratching out the previous building official code and rewriting this entirely. And I am very grateful that Lourdes and her team have worked with the sponsor on this in such level of detail. But when we are removing requirements and making it essentially easier to become a professional and something like building inspections, I'm going to have some questions. So the argument that I'm hearing in support of the need for this is competition, competition amongst other municipalities, competition with the private sector. And so give me some data. How many vacancies do we currently have in Miami-Dade County for building officials? And how many are you unable to fill? Yeah. Let me give you – I don't have the municipal information, but let me answer the question in a different way if you don't mind. The real issue that we're up against is that the state has already made it legal for work to be done all over the state, including within our jurisdiction, at levels of qualifications that are different from the ones that we have today in the code. So the perception that something is being lost in a way is really actually artificial because what's happening is that jobs just occur at the state sanctioned – with the state sanctioned credentialing of private individuals that are engaged in this work. And so really the industry has the ability to just go ahead and go about construction jobs with those laws. And they can completely bypass what we have in the books. So there's this illusion – the illusion that you're losing something, it's been lost. And it was lost years ago in the sense of once there was authorization of this private provider type of scenario with its own parameters, with its own framework, with its own rules that govern it, that kind of – that operates in some ways independent of what we have legislated in the books. So that – I don't know if I'm making – I hope I'm making myself clear. The other thing that is important to point out about our code is that it predates the statewide code. And so we did really need modernization, and I don't want you to think in any way that there's a lessening in the sense of what's being put in front of you because I think what has happened over the years is that their alternative credentialing has been created, right? And this board has been, in many government positions, very open to experience and substitutions for traditional qualifications. And I think that's really how we see the change, and I think the majority of the building officials had seen it, you know, in terms of supporting it, that really we are recognizing alternative paths for equally robust credentialing. And that's really what's in front of you. I mean, I think what he addressed was one very specific change, which, again, we're more than happy to continue to look at. But, you know, this is already out there. There are people doing jobs all over town under private provider licenses with less credentials than what we are proposing in this ordinance. I understand that. And when was the state law passed that we are now conforming to at our local level? How long has the state law been in effect that we are now proposing to conform with? I would say that the provisions for or the credentials for the BORA certification, the Board of Rules and Appeals certification, preempted any of those state requirements. It was only after the implementation of the building code in 2002, the Florida Building Code, that these provisions then fell under the DBPR for the board certification through the state. So it was around the time frame of 2002. We did fold that into our Chapter 8 requirements, that not only did you have to have a contractor's license, but you also then had to have this minimum state requirement. So we have this duality of certification for our code officials. What we're saying in this ordinance is this contract license that you are going to have to, in most cases, keep dormant because you can't contract in the jurisdiction that you're working. To have that contractor's license is moot. Go down the code official certification path, which is having all of these years of experience working with a contractor as part of your career and then making this shift over to a code official certification, where you sit down for an exam at the state, have a number of prerequisite years of experience, obtain that certification, and then come to us for a BORA certification. Okay, so the law has been in effect since 2002? At the state. At the state. That's what I'm asking, the law that we are now conforming to. So from 2002 to 2026, what is the impetus, what is the catalyst for the change now? That was my original question. Are you having hiring shortages give me data? What positions are you unable to fill as a result of the, quote, competition with municipalities in the private sector that Director Lourdes Gomez just described on the microphone? What is the actual impetus for the need for this now? The issue, number one, is the competition with private providers, that a lot of developers are opting and going down that path for quicker service, being able to have access to more personnel. The other thing is that the jurisdictions, by having this dual certification requirement, being a contractor and having the state certification, it limits the pool by which building departments can hire. Now, as far as the counts, we have seen that certain individuals that satisfy those credentials are able to obtain jobs in multiple jurisdictions. So they're hired part-time in one or multiples, and they're having to be spread that thin. So if you need a plans review at one jurisdiction, well, I'm sorry, that person won't be here until Thursday next week. And so those people work for Miami-Dade County and simultaneously with and for other jurisdictions? In unincorporated Miami-Dade County, that is not permissible. You either work in unincorporated or not, but in the jurisdictions, they do allow for that part-time sharing of examiners and inspectors. So this is an ordinance to help our municipalities, not necessarily us, because I'm trying to understand the problem that we are facing in Miami-Dade County that is causing the need for this ordinance change 24 years later. So I'm trying to understand, are we losing talent? Are we unable to hire talent? And that's what I'm asking for, just some numbers to give me a clearer picture of what you're facing in the department. Yes, it does address its credentials for both, UMSA and municipal. What Jamie described was that it's our own outside employment practices that we don't allow our staff to work elsewhere. That's unique to us. I can tell you, I mean, I don't want to give you incorrect information. The last time I looked at, which was probably last month, we had two vacancies in building. We had a roofing vacancy. We need inspectors. We use our inspectors to review plans when they are qualified to do so. So those are the shortages so that we don't fall behind on our plan review. Because we, again, it's partly competing with, it is largely competing with the private sector. They can find work out there being paid as much or more than what they are paid, you know, with us. Sure. And are there vacancies that you're looking to fill as a result of this? Yeah. I mean, when I said two in building, it's two out of six total, you know, reviewers. And then we have our inspector crew. And again, when they're qualified, and we do that in all the trades, when they're qualified and we need the assistance because we're behind on plans, we ask inspectors, you know, to act as plans examiners. We'll provide them with overtime opportunities. That's how we catch up. That's how we stay on track with our plans. I mean, that is it. Okay, and as a result of the passage of this item, would you anticipate a more expeditious review of plans, for example? To the extent that we would hopefully not be short on personnel, right? I mean, yes. Yes, I mean, we're trying to lay the foundation for, you know, hopefully having a bit of a broader pool to draw from. So, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank Commissioner Cohen-Higgins for that line of questioning. And I want to thank the director for certainly making those clarifications because what I'm understanding is the private sector right now has a lower threshold. Sometimes they probably pay more. But we're competing to, I guess, preserve and or hire folks who don't have to meet the requirements in the private sector. Is that correct? Well, I think I – go ahead. Go ahead. That's absolutely correct, Commissioner. And we've had this issue for 24 years, to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' point? I think it's progressed in that, you know, like, for example, our structural team. We've got – we're blessed that we have, I think, eight or nine reviewers in structural. But they've been here for over 20 years. They're going to retire over the next five, six – maybe, you know, with the extension of drop. Who knows, right? But we are going to lose those folks, and we haven't been able to hire really a new structural – I think we hired one in the last – you know. So that's the issue. We have staff. We're blessed in the county. We have staff who's been around for many years, but they're going to age out. And that's what the cities are seeing, staff aging out and not being replaced because you can go elsewhere to work. That makes sense. And so what you're doing is we're trying to figure this out preemptively so that we're not in a bad position in the next couple of years. Is that correct? So ballpark, I know you said two to six in one particular matter. But ballpark, how many inspectors and plans examiner positions are currently vacant? And how much are those vacancies contributing to permitting delays? I mean, it doesn't have to be a specific number, but if you can give me just a ballpark. Yeah, I just tried to text someone to get me that, and they haven't answered. But, I mean, look, I think permitting delays can be caused by many, many things because some days we get – you know, you can get 300 plans in a day, and you're going to be behind no matter what you do, right, because of the intake that you got. But logically, if you have more folks – Yeah, I mean, in theory, we would – if we were fully staffed, we should be able to handle our typical average volume on a daily basis. I mean, I don't want to make you think we're, like, way, way behind and that we're falling behind, but we do – we find ourselves needing to do – for example, if we want to complete inspections. Director, I think you would even agree, no matter how fast we get, faster is always better. Of course, of course. So, but, yeah, I mean, we like to complete our routes. We don't like to keep inspectors hanging. If they requested an inspection for today, we don't want to carry you over for tomorrow. So we will elect to complete the route and pay the overtime because we want to give the service, right, and that's what the fees are for. So we – I guess what I want to say is we make due to make sure that we don't really fall too behind, but we do it at the – you know, the staff works more. They work overtime. The inspectors substitute sometimes for the plans examiners. We're qualified. We'll do Saturdays. You know, we'll give them, you know, a package of work to review on Saturday. So those things do happen routinely. And, you know, I don't know if this question is best suited for you, Director, or for – perhaps for somebody from the union, but how many additional professionals could theoretically become eligible under these changes? Commissioner, that's a difficult one to gauge, being that we have the building recertifications as well, and as you know, a lot of structural engineers are being drawn into that field. However, you know, if the cities and the jurisdictions can make it lucrative to jump from that private sector into the regulatory field, it's definitely a pool that's out there. Do you think it would be – you think it would be significant? I think if it's made attractive enough for that – for that group, it can be. Does the ordinance preserve the BORA certification and our hurricane zone training requirements? Yes. Okay. And can you confirm that the new limited structural classification cannot review threshold buildings? That's correct. No further questions. All right. We do have a motion. I don't know if we have a second. I'll second it. So we have a motion, a second. Commissioner Lopez, I know you wanted a follow-up. You have a follow-up, and I'm going to let you close, Commissioner. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think it's important that we know that in the last four years, the legislature has moved to many more service providers – private providers being able to do lots of different functions of government, which I know government has pushed back on those pieces of legislation. But it has been the intent of the legislature to accelerate permitting times and to allow private providers to do what used to be just government functions. There's also the notion of – remember in my condo legislation, we were specific about structural engineers doing the work. But then we realized we had a shortage of structural engineers. So we amended the statute to include or a team of professionals. So the notion that we have a limited amount of professionals to do these jobs is being addressed at the state level. And so even though you heard the 2002, I wanted to make sure that you knew that in the last probably four to six years, the legislature has really accelerated the notion of who should be doing the work away from government and to private providers. So that's kind of why I think – and I don't know that that would be the explanation, but certainly I have that experience of having been in the legislature when we were passing those bills. And also, when I told you about the deregulation, I don't know that that's going to go away anytime soon. It did not – it passed the House. It did not pass the Senate. But there was even talk about not having licensed professionals take any additional – what we call the CDC. You know, they were like – they don't need to even have training. So they have been moving away from what we then considered to be, you know, very important elements of a licensed professional. So look to see that that may continue – that I guess I would say that legislative intent may very well continue in the years to come because it was very, very attractive to the legislature to make things less cumbersome for professionals to do their work. Okay. Follow-up, Commissioner? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for answering the questions. There's just a group of wonderful people standing, and I'm just wondering, are you standing, waiting, and hoping to be recognized? We're done with the public hearing, but I'm just curious as to why you're standing. I just wanted to add comment to support and also – I'm sorry, if you don't mind. I don't mind recognizing you. I just would like for you to – if that's okay, through our chair. I'm not reopening public comment. It's just odd for me to see a group standing. They seem – I was going to bring that up. Yeah, they seem like they want to share something. Now is your opportunity to share. I'm happy to recognize you to give you the opportunity to do that if our chairwoman allows us to do so. Yeah, I'm not – we're not reopening public hearing. I want to make that super clear. If the three of you have a collective thought that you'd like to share, I'm interested in hearing it. That's my only message, and if you can make it as brief as humanly possible, that would be greatly appreciated as well. Absolutely. I spoke before, again, Vince Sejas, in support of what former representative, current commissioner, Vicky Lopez, is mentioning, and the other building officials here. The legacy that we have of our higher standard is because of fear, and there was no mechanism previously. The state started issuing contractor's licenses in the 70s and later in the 90s after Andrew for inspectors. Miami-Dade County's Board of Rules and Appeals has led the way. We have a higher standard through contracting as verified experience. Like the private providers could just take a test and start inspecting buildings. That's a lower threshold. We should never be as low as that. Never. We still have the contractor requirement. This would eliminate that. What we're asking for is to preserve it in a very minimalistic fashion that will also support municipalities and insurance rates. The building code effectiveness and grading service is one thing we get graded on. Miami-Dade County and Broward are the only two jurisdictions in the high-velocity hurricane zone. Thank you. So that's what we're saying. The residential's good. The structure's good. Just let's work on some of the fine-tuned things for the leadership part. Thank you. And the mentorship. I believe the sponsor did say she's happy to continue the dialogue between now and when it comes in front of us for the commission. So, no, at this point, we're not going to be opening up for a back-and-forth. We have the comments that were made. Commissioner Regalado? Thank you. Because we're about to pass it. Thank you. Like I said, I'm happy to continue talking to them. The only thing I wanted to add, and first I want to thank Commissioner Lopez for clarifying what's been happening at the state in the last few years, but also for some of our municipalities, private providers are taking the place of their building departments. So, understand, that is little to no regulation. So, for some of my cities and some of your cities, they don't have a building department as a result of this because they can't access, because our rules just don't allow them to access. So, for us, because we are Miami-Dade County, and Lourdes does such a great job with her team, you know, we don't have that many vacancies, but for some of these municipalities, they're at zero. And they actually have to contract with us in order to be able to get those humans, and that's why they can't even have conflict rules. They have to take what they can take. So, for our municipalities, this is really important, and without changing this, what we're doing is we're incentivizing the public provider system, which has a threshold that's practically on the floor compared to what we're doing. So, that's the impact that it's having. It doesn't reach us the same way that it reaches our cities, and for some of these smaller cities, it's completely debilitating. Okay. So, thank you for that explanation. I do encourage you to meet with them to see what other tweaks can come up between now and then, and Lourdes, just before it comes to commission, I'd love to have another briefing on this. So, with that, we have a motion by Commissioner Lopez, a seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Please call the roll. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Four. Commissioner Gonzalez? Four. Chairwoman Steinberg? Motion passes unanimously. All right. One G-4. Commissioner Gonzalez, this is your item. Anybody have any questions? Oh, yes, with Chairman Rodriguez. Do we have any questions, bifurcation? I mean, do you want to say anything before we? No, I mean, this item basically approves a campus development agreement between Miami-Dade County and FIU. The agreement covers the Modesta-Madike campus in District 11, and it also includes the Engineering Center. It's been something that I think has been worked on for a long time, and with that, I'll move it. So, all in favor? I'll pass by acclamation. I think there was a statement that needed to be read on the record on this. Who was reading it? Yes, Madam Chair, I think Director Gomez has the statement. Thank you. This is relative to the FIU item. Section 163.3225 of the Florida Statutes requires two public hearings on this item, and that the day, time, and place at which the second public hearing will be held be announced at this first public hearing. As such, it is announced that the second public hearing on this item is planned for the Board's November 17, 2026 meeting, which begins at 9.30 a.m. in these chambers at the Stephen P. Clark Government Center, 111 Northwest First Street. Thanks. Thank you. We're going to have now the pull items. We have two items that were pulled. Item 3D. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. 3D is the oil grit separator item. To the administration, help me understand why this is a non-competitive solicitation. Good afternoon, Commissioner, to the Chair, Namita Opal. Commissioner, this is non-competitive or designated purchase because the basins and the systems that we have are sole source. The vendor that originally installed has proprietary rights to it, and no one else can work on it. So to continue to maintain it, we have no other provider. So I understood that from the item, except I feel like this, not particularly this committee, but committees in general have been sending a message kind of repeatedly, and particularly on non-competitive and sole source agreements at our previous committee, intergovernmental. There was an item sponsored by Chairwoman Orbis that spoke to wanting a report to kind of take a deep dive and look into all of these. This one is of particular interest to me because we have been making this argument, you, your predecessor, whomever was there before that predecessor, since 1996. I find it extremely difficult to believe that we have not even sought competition for catch basin technology or catch basin efficiencies throughout Miami-Dade County since 1996. What a sweet deal this vendor has. I mean, unbelievable, right? And since 1996, a whole host, a whole host of other companies have come online that do exactly this work. So why haven't we looked for efficiencies not unique to this item but consistent with the message that has been sent committee after committee after committee? This seems like a particularly, I don't know, insert adjective situation that highlights the concerns that we have been saying time and time again. So I understand that what they put in in our 294 catch basins is proprietary to Sorbent or Sorbent or whatever the name of the company is, but they are not the exclusive providers of this service. So their contract expires in January of 2027. So we're ahead of that. But why don't we look to create opportunities for others and see if we can't create efficiencies, and maybe there's even technology that could do a better job since 1996? So Commissioner, the staff did look at, or in conjunction with DTPW, of what it's going to cost to replace. I think the estimate was about $4 million. Regarding, and of course, whatever you replace, you have to maintain it. So there will be maintenance costs. I did go back in anticipation of this question about, I think in 2008 or 2009 time frame, staff had did put out the bid at that time to either replace it or to maintain it. And again, the cost differential to replace and versus maintain, at that time also the decision was to keep maintaining it. However, we hear you. We can do more research. I don't know if Director Miller has more to add, but this is something we'll definitely be happy to look at as a part of the report that you had asked to see what other technologies are out there, and is there a way for us to keep addressing these proprietary situations and come back to the board with more competition. Yeah, and again, to add to the conversation, this particular vendor that has been a vendor here since 1996 without competition is under a three-year contract that expires in January of 2027 and is looking instead for a three-year contract for a five-year contract and at a 16% increase, right? So not only are they sitting comfortably with their contract, they're increasing their price on us because they know that they're the only option. And I just take issue with that. These are catch basins. There's 294 of them throughout Miami-Dade County. They're currently charging us $76,000 per month to maintain catch basins. That equates to roughly $260 a month in maintenance for each catch basin. What exactly are they doing every month to maintain these catch basins? I'm not sure the $76,000 number, but I think the way the contract is structured is the unit price. For example, if they have to replace the filter, the filter has a cost of $54, then there's service. So there's time and material for people to go and change it. But it's also based on the unit price. So filter is $54. Aluminum frame, $250. So there's a unit pricing, so we use them as we need them. Not so much that on a monthly basis we're paying them a set amount. Oh, interesting. Okay. My figures are simple math, right? The current contract that they're in is $2.7 million for three years, which basically boils down to $76,000 a month or $916,000 per year. That's their current contract. What they're proposing is a 16% increase on that contract to over $1 million a year or $88,000 or $89,000 per month. I'm just wondering what the actual physical and or cost is to maintain catch basins that justifies a $90,000 per month spent on behalf of our water and sewer department. Like, what are they actually doing? I get that a filter costs $50, but other than replacing a filter on a catch basin, what is justifying a $90,000 per month spent? Stacey Miller, Director and CEO, Department of Transportation and Public Works. I do want to clarify that it is more than just our catch basins. There is actually an additional 1,275 filters that exist at our sites. Because we have our operations centers, they have actually more filters that are at our operations centers than within our catch basins. So it's more significant than that. Obviously, there are a number of materials that drain out of our trains and our mover vehicles and our buses that have to have their filters replaced. So it's a combination of both our drainage system and our operations centers. But it is to make sure that they have staffing available for us for emergency services when there is an additional spill that has to be cleaned up. It is filters. It is replacing the frames as necessary. But it is more than just catch basins. I want to make sure that we understand it's a much more voluminous contract than that. So I appreciate that. I don't know what the will of this board is. But I think a single sole source contract since 1996 where there are other vendors that provide this service, I don't think that it would be detrimental to us to simply ask others for an interest in doing this work to see if we can create efficiencies. I'm not objecting to extending this contract because it comes up in a month or two. But I do think that we should, at this point, since 1996, throw it out there, lob it out. The technology, the efficiencies, I'm almost positive, had to have been at a place where somebody could offer us a better deal or this vendor could potentially lower his prices. So I would like to amend the item to not give a five-year contract on this. It's just seemingly an opportunity. And if we put it out and we get only more expensive options, at least we know we tried, but I do think it's time in a fact pattern like this that we invite new opportunities for our county to see whether efficiencies can be created. So if you don't object to that, I don't know how much time you would need to put it out to bid. I don't know if my colleagues are in agreement with the idea that I'm posing, but this, to my colleagues, seems to be a prime example of what we're trying to not continue doing, and this seems like an opportunity to effectuate that. So I'm going to recognize Commissioner Lopez, but I will say that I had a lot of questions on this at my briefing. The one thing that DTPW did stress was that, because I asked a lot of the same questions, especially when it comes to our stormwater infrastructure. You know, obviously that's something I care about a lot. And so I wanted to make sure that, is this the best technology? What are we doing? And, you know, they, even though it gave me heartburn, they are convinced that this is the best and lowest that we would get. But I'm going to open it up to Commissioner Lopez, because I actually am open to seeing what else is out there. And if there is a way that maybe we can ask the attorneys where we're not going to necessarily compromise with, like, you know, a bird in the hand, what we have here, but also have the ability to speak with the industry and see what else is out there and what opportunities there are. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I appreciate that staff says that they made this analysis, right? But the buck stops here. And here we are again, I think this is the seventh time I've now heard in the last month of a contract that is expiring in two months, of which we now no longer have the option to explore other possibilities, right? So I always, this gave me heartburn because of the time that this vendor has had this contract, right? So I can assure you that since 1996, there has been incredible advancements. As you said, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you know, technology is changing almost on a daily basis now. To think that, you know, and I think sometimes we need to be smart. I think there's an intrinsic value when they say it will cost $4 million more to change, right? Well, but if you could do an analysis that goes into the future that says, well, how much will this save us in the future if we have the highest technology available to us and the highest services? So I guess this is a question to you, Director. When you analyze these things, and I'm assuming you were involved with NAMIDA on this, or were you not? What was your involvement? My team was, yes. Your team was, right. So when you look at something like this, does it not give you a moment to pause and say, how could we say this is the best deal of a sole source provider that's had this contract since 1996? Given the fact, listen, I can tell you that I've reviewed lots of technology at the state level, right? Where we had to make decisions to scrap something and buy something better and that cost us more money, but that was going to, in the end, be more efficient in its use and its provision of services. So that's my question, because that's the part that gives me so much heartburn, is to think, how much longer would we go on like this? I guess my question. Would I find myself 30 years from now with this same sole source provider, right? I mean, you have to ask yourself that. Thank you for that question. Yes. I believe as part of this item, it does say that before this contract expires, we would go out for a new solicitation and determine a future course of action. Does it need to be in five years? No, it can be sooner than that, and I think that that affords us the opportunity to make sure that we are still meeting our SWPPP and NPDES requirements in the interim. Obviously, we do need to make sure that we are not adding any pollutants into our drainage systems or waterways, but we do have the opportunity to evaluate other options. I will say there are probably other technologies out there that may – we need to look at the return on that particular investment of what the initial capital cost would be and future maintenance of those capital investments. I don't want to speculate as to what that may be, but there is definitely the opportunity for us to go out, do much more analysis, and bring back an opportunity to go out for an RFP. But this is my problem. Why wasn't this done a year ago, right? Like, in other words, if you knew that you could go out and assess, take a look – because to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' point, you know, we're now forced to figure this out at what I call the 11th hour, and I think that that has given me some pause here because the directors just told us that they have an ability to go out and do exactly what Commissioner Cohen-Higgins says, but it's after we do this. And I say, why wasn't this done a year before we knew the contract was going to come up? And I think that that becomes the real issue for me. It's a timing issue because I would appreciate, as a board member, and I know all of you would as well, if we were given the options with plenty of time to determine and assess what we think is best. Because, you know, to a certain degree, I appreciate that the administration decides what they think is best, and then they bring to us their recommendation. But I think I need more than that. I need – here's all of the options. You all decide what you think is best. Because in the end, we have the fiduciary responsibility of the monies that is being spent and contracted for now and in the future. So I guess I would say that I agree with Commissioner Cohen-Higgins that I would not be in favor of the five years. I think immediately we should begin to assess this, and the committee should then be able to be given the options available to us that we would take to the full board. But I get that I always feel like I'm up against the wall because there are environmental issues related to this. And so we can't do now what we would have done a year ago. But we have to stop – we have to somehow mitigate the extension of something for so long. So I would be in agreement with Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Okay, so what I'm going – Madam Chair? Yeah, of course. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, you know, I have to – I mean, I concur with everything that Commissioner Lopez and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is saying. And I think that we've had this conversation many times, as Commissioner Cohen-Higgins has pointed out, in other committees. And that conversation is one of driving innovation. And I want to appreciate Director Uppal, who said earlier, hey, we understand and we hear you. You guys want more innovation. But to Commissioner Lopez's point, it's just frustrating. And I'm not saying that it's you in particular. But it's frustrating when we're hearing that technology exists out there to do things differently and perhaps more efficiently and better. But there are folks who perhaps just want to continue the status quo because it seems easier to just let it ride. That, to me, is just – it's unacceptable. So if I could just get – Director Uppal, is Sorbent the only authorized maintenance provider or the only technically capable provider to provide this very service? So Sorbent is the only authorized company. They are the ones who have the rights to this, and they have not given any rights to any third-party, like, authorized dealers. So they're the only ones. Right. So to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' point, we're kind of handcuffed here, right? It's almost like when you buy a MacBook, you have to use Mac products, or you buy a new iPhone, and now you have to buy the charger, and it has to be the Apple charger because if it's not the Apple charger – That's why I have Android. That's why – see, that's why the chair is ahead of all of us. That's why the chair has – which, by the way, which the chair – your phone is already flipping, right? And Apple just came out with that. Yours has been flipping for, like, a year. And so that leads me to my next question. Has the county compared the long-term costs of maintaining this equipment with replacing it with a system that permits competition? Because to your point, yes, they're the only ones that particularly can service this because of their licensing. But if we were to replace everything, I think you mentioned, like, a $4 million figure. Is that correct? That's the estimate that the staff developed based on the research. And it's not only the equipment itself or the frames and all of that, but also the labor to go and can change it. Replace everything, right? Replace everything. So that's the very, very rough estimate, but – The ballpark. Ballpark, yeah. We're not going to – and we certainly won't hold you to it, Director. But to Director Miller, is the equipment performing satisfactorily? And what would replacement mean for drainage operations as a whole? So the equipment is performing satisfactorily, and a replacement for the system would be on a ditch-bottom inlet by ditch-bottom inlet basis or operation center by operation center basis. So if you're asking if there's potentially a detrimental impact to NPDES or SWPPP, obviously the construction or reconstruction of our system would take all of that into consideration. So we wouldn't incur environmental issues during the reconstruction of our systems. I think that's what you were referring to. Well, yes and no. Do you feel like there might be a hesitancy by some folks in the department to move forward with some of these changes because it might disturb the status quo? No, I don't believe that is the case. That's good to hear. So if that is the case, I think that Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' proposed amendment to do this perhaps for a year and then come back and try to see if we can figure something different out, I think it would be in order. I don't know what the proper posture would be. I'm sure the chair can direct. But I would certainly be in favor of doing this, as Commissioner Cohen-Higgins said, for about a year and letting the department go out and try to see what other technologies exist to be able to make this perhaps more efficiently and cost-effective in the long run. So I guess I would have to ask the attorneys how we would put this in posture with what's in front of us and how do we build in. And I think Roy wanted to be recognized. Yeah. Director Coley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to point one thing out. If you start today looking for another manufacturer of this stormwater cleaning system and you decide there is a better value out there, then you're going to have to do the construction to replace it. So I don't think you can get the research done and replace it all within a year. I think if you decided that what's there today can be improved on, you're going to have to do construction to remove all these things and put them back. So you're going to need more than a year. And, you know, it's really analogous. And I like the way you compared it to the iPhone, Commissioner Gonzalez, because I've been comparing it to, like, we buy vehicles. We go buy Mack trucks and we buy Chevrolet trucks, and we have to buy the parts from them as long as we want to keep that truck. And so what happened here back in the 90s, somebody bought a stormwater cleaning system. Now, we can replace the system, but if we're going to maintain it, we're going to use the supplies that go with it. And whatever we replace it with, we're going to be in the same boat because everybody sells their system, and it's tested and certified based on their supplies and their service, and we'll be right back in it. Now, maybe there is somebody better, and we should look at it, but we will not ever get out of this trap we're in, no different than we are with our computers and our Microsoft. And we've got Microsoft on everything, and we buy licenses. We just don't go replace it because you think we might can do something cheaper. I mean, we're kind of this, all of our equipment throughout the county has turned into proprietary, and it's not just Miami-Dade County. It's everything's proprietary. We can't buy a license, a vehicle, or a piece of equipment that we don't have to go back and buy parts and support from the same original supplier. Madam Chair, and I think that's a fair point, but I do think that exploring other options could perhaps bring forth a company that may be able to integrate. Like, I think the chair's perspective on the Android is a good one, right? Because Android kind of connects with everything, and I'm an iPhone guy, right? So, you know, it is what it is. And I'm a Mac guy in my office, too. I only have Macs, perhaps because now I'm like a slave to them because I'd have to replace everything. But, I mean, I'm sure that if we went out and looked, we can either find out that there could be some sort of company out there that can integrate with other systems, or perhaps not. And then to your point, we could be, you know, back here in a year and say, hey, you know, the best possible scenario is to continue with this company. So I'm going to put this in posture so we land this. I'm curious as to if one year gives pause because that may be too of an aggressive timeline. What is the recommendation? And Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, what are your thoughts so that we can bring this in for landing? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'm not suggesting procurement and construction in a year. I'm simply suggesting procurement, right, so that we have options. The board is simply looking for options. So I think a year is a good and a sufficient amount of time on this narrow scope for you all to simply bring us options and either reaffirm that these guys are the most efficient and the best option for Miami-Dade County or not. And we can renew the contract. And then we can renew the contract a year from now as a result of that analysis. We would have to direct, so the attorney just came over, we would have to direct the administration to negotiate with the, because they negotiated this five-year deal. So that's already been what they, so we have to direct them to renegotiate. And so, Bruce, do you want to put it in posture? I believe the motion would be to amend the item to direct the administration to renegotiate the contract to a one-year term. Do you want it with option for the remaining four years or just a one-year term? Right. I want to be in a situation where the one-year, but I think, does it come back to us if we want to exercise a right for any renewal? You can. So I would be okay with that, provided it's not an automatic renewal. Correct. Okay. So then it would be approving a one-year term with options for additional four years, but options may only be exercised with the approval of the Board of County Commission. Right. And so I guess how would you then, realistically speaking, gauge the industry to look at these technologies and the cost factors to truly know, in fact? Would you put it out through an ITN? Would it be an RFP? How would you go about something like that? What procurement tool would you use? I think the procurement department has a few tools at its disposal. They can do market research. They can have industry days. They can invite people to give options and pricing. They can start that immediately. So they can start the competitive process or some sort of analysis immediately? Immediately. Yes. All right. So show it as amended. Moved by Commissioner Hohenhagen. Seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Roll call. No, it's not a – no, yeah, it's just by acclimation. Show it passed. All right. We have final item, 3U. Thank you, Madam Chair. May I be recognized? Yes. Thank you. I pulled 3U on this biosolids item because I know it's history well and to our Deputy Mayor. I just wanted to confirm – I'm happy to see that Compost USA is renewing contracts with us. Deputy Mayor, that's great news, correct? Well, it is great news, but the sad part is it's a higher price than we could have got it for. Well, that was my second question, so I'm sad to hear that. It is at the higher price? Yes, it is. But it's still the cheapest price we can get. Okay. It was competitively bid. Yeah, I recognize that. That was my follow-up, is that I'm happy to see that they're doing business with us, and specifically in this really critically important area. My second question was the price, but you've confirmed it is at the higher price, and nobody's disrupting that, correct? Like, we're going to move forward with the way that it is because we're grateful that they're continuing to do work with us? Is that the sentiment? We don't have an option, Commissioner. As you'll recall, when we brought the item before, we tried to get a five-year contract approved by this board. This board rejected it to do one year and put it back out to bid, and we did, and we got a higher price. From Compost USA? Yes, and everybody else was even higher than Compost USA. Interesting. Okay. Thank you. Do I have a motion to move it? Move it. Do I have a second? Seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor? Aye. All right. Show it done. Before we adjourn, I do want to say that we've received the following requests to be, to items to be waived on to the November 17th. I want to remind everybody all these items that we will put through and put the request in needs to have a memo that actually explains why it wants to be added to the November 17th commission meeting per the chair, right? That's the new rule. So the following items are being asked to waive 2D, 3A, 3K, 3M, N, 3N, 3R, 3S, 1G1, 1G3, 1G4, 7A, 2C, 3P, and a partridge in a pear tree. If I can also add 3J. And 3J. Thank you. So I'm going to repeat that, 2D, 3A, 3K, 3M, 3N, 3R, 3S, 1G1, 1G3, 1G4, 7A, 3P, 3J, and 2C. Yes, please. Madam Chair, it's my understanding that item 3P cannot be advanced because there's a two-week, there's a notice requirement that it cannot be met. Wonderful. Scratch 3P. We'll double-check that. Scratch that. No 3P. Yes. We would like to add 3U to that list. Oh, you're killing me. 3U now added. Forget 3P. We've now substituted with 3U. Okay. Any other questions, comments? All right, everybody. Thank you. Yes. Yes, Madam Chair, very quickly. Item 7A, just commenting per guidance from the county attorney's office. It isn't unsolicited, so we will be accepting public comment if it does get added to the 1117 BCC. Yes. Thank you for adding that. Thank you, everybody, for a wonderful year at the Infrastructure Committee. Did you say 3G? No. Is it too late? Yeah. I think the meeting. Oh, sorry. Which item? It is a waiver of right-of-way for Commissioner Bermudis. My understanding is that he was going to have it forwarded on on November 17th. If he gets a memo there. That's fine. If he gets the memo to the chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.