Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Cmte - Oct 15, 2026

clerk please call the roll. Good morning, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, Senator Garcia, Commissioner Gonzalez, Vice Chairwoman Million Orbis, Chairwoman Lopez. Four members present, we have a quorum. Thank you. If everyone will silence their devices. Senator Garcia, would you please do the invocation for us this morning? Invocate us, please. And then followed by our vice chair going to lead us in the pledge. Dear Heavenly Father, we come today in your good grace and ask for your guidance as we make decisions for Miami-Dade County and for its people. We look to you to make sure that we do the right work, and we ask all this in your precious Son's name, Jesus Christ. To the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, the God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Good morning, Mr. Attorney. Good morning. At this time, would it be appropriate to extend the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard? Yes. Great. Ladies and gentlemen, if there's anyone who wishes to be heard on any item on the agenda, please approach the well. Seeing none, I am closing the opportunity for the public to be heard. County Attorney, can we proceed with setting the agenda? Yes. Good morning. The items before you are the items on the final official printed agenda with the following additions from the preliminary agenda, and those additions are the addition of 1F1, a discussion item, the addition of 2B, 3C, and 3D. And also, once we get to the items and assuming they're passed, there is a request to advance items 3C and 3D to the next BCC meeting agenda. And with that, a motion to set the agenda is in order. Thank you. Do we have a motion to set the agenda? So moved. So moved by Vice Chair Emilian Orbis, seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Great. So we've now set the agenda. So I'm going to take up... Good morning, Commissioner Gonzalez. Good morning, my friend. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner Regalado. Thank you for joining us. Commissioner Gonzalez, you have a discussion item. Do you want to take that now, take it up now, or would you like to do it at the end? At the end? Perfectly. Okay, so do we have any bifurcation of items? I do, Madam Chair. Yes, Senator Garcia. I would like to pull 2B and also 3D, only because I sit on the Board of Thriving Minds, and I think there may potentially be a conflict, so... Thank you. Anyone else need to bifurcate? Yes, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Good morning, Madam Chair. I'd like to bifurcate 2B, 3C, and 3D. Perfect. Anyone else? Well, Madam Chair, I would also like to bifurcate 2B. Okay. Madam Chair, 2B as well. 2B as well. Okay, great. Do I have a motion to accept the rest of the agenda? So moved by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Vice Chair Emilian Orbis. All in favor? Aye. Say aye. Opposed? Great. So the motion passes. So we'll start taking up the pull list now. Yes, Mr. Attorney. The first item is 2B. Yes. 2B. So we had all four of you pull the item. So, Senator Garcia, if you would like to start. Yes? It's my item. If you want me to explain what it is, I'm happy to do that before you all have questions, and I'm happy to take your questions, whatever you like. Thank you for that. Senator Garcia, you were the first to pull it. Do you want to start? Thank you, Madam Chair. I just do have a question as it relates to we're asking the administration to find the funding for the construction, correct? Should we not already have been able to identify where that money is going to come from? Because I think in previous meetings, we've had issues like this, and the board itself has always said, well, if we're going to be asking the administration for money, us as county commissioners should identify where that money is coming from. Have you been able to identify a pot of money? So, we're bringing this item because we have several pump stations in several municipalities where the municipalities are paying for part of the pump station, and we already have the land acquisition. So, this would be for pump stations where we've already acquired the land. We already have a match from a partner, and we're figuring out the build so that then we can do the basin. So, I'm not asking for a full basin allocation. What we're going to do with the basin is we're going to create a special benefit area, and the taxpayers, the residents, are going to pay for all the infrastructure beyond the building of the pump station. So, this would be taking a, let's say, $650,000 project, right? And changing the dynamic of it. This is not normally how we do septic to sewer. Historically, the county has done septic to sewer by paying the entire bill. Those are choices that people make district by district. This is something completely different where I'm only asking the department to help with the build. This infrastructure will belong to the department and will add new users. I'm happy to provide you with the data of how much income that will provide the department, and the department does understand how this would grow their customer base. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate it, but I still have the $5 million question. Where would the money come from? Have you been able to identify a pot of money where that would actually come from? I know you're telling the administration to look for it, but I think it's incumbent that if we, in these difficult times that we're in right now, we should, and I don't disagree with your project. Okay? I get it. I'm with you on septic to sewer. We've been on these battles together. But right now, that $5 million ask and not knowing where it's coming from, I have a little bit of heartburn. If you can bring up the director, I'm happy. You know, we can talk about it. I don't want to tell them exactly where to get it from. We do have some ideas. But, again, because of the benefit that water and sewer will have once we connect all these users, we wanted to give the department the ability to decide where to get those funds. Before we bring up the director, I want to hear from all the other members because there may be other questions. So, Commissioner Gonzalez. Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. And I would have to concur with my colleague, Commissioner Garcia, just because I'm not opposed to the project in theory. In theory, I think it's a good idea. The only thing that gives me pause is that the item was added last night. And I understand that sometimes items get added at the last minute. I took a look at it last night, but I haven't had a chance to sit down. I do understand that the administration is coming back to us with a report in 180 days. Yeah. And I submitted it on time, by the way. So I'm okay with that. I'm not saying that you didn't. I'm not saying that you did it at all. So I'm okay with the report in 180 days. The issue that I have is very similar to Commissioner Garcia's issue, where the language that I'm seeing regarding the allocation of the $5 million from fiscal year 2627, you know, that's this year's budget. And every subsequent budget directs the administration not only to identify legally available funds, but to go ahead and allocate those funds from this year's budget. So, again, I haven't had the opportunity to really digest this. Why was the $5 million figure chosen? Is it because of the contribution? Right. So we currently have three projects in the work where we've identified the land, purchased it, and found matches. So we would like to move ahead with those. The $5 million, when you look at how many users we're going to be adding, we're going to be adding hundreds of users. So the $5 million is really a very small allocation based on how many people we're going to take off septic tanks that are now going to be paying water and sewer. So water and sewer is going to get that money back. As you know, and we've talked about, the bond limits water and sewer so they cannot use bond money to do this work. So all the work that I've done on this has been outside of bond money, which obviously is a little bit more complex, which is why we want to give the administration and the department the flexibility to find the $5 million. But this would allow us, I would tell you, one of it is in Coconut Grove, which is with the septic tanks that are doing the most damage to the bay. And we're talking about easily 120, 140, you know, septic tanks that would be removed just in that project. And that's been a project that water and sewer has been trying to do for 25 years. So we've been able to secure the location, you know, the land. And now we're working on the build and the match. So I'm happy to take some amendments. I mean, this comes back to us. All these projects come back to us. There's nothing that would be done without the approval of the board. It is a new model. As many of you know, in Mickey Steinberg's district, the administration, you know, recommended and this board approved paying for all of it. You know, in a lot of these projects, the idea is that water and sewer pays for all of it. This would be a very small contribution. The bulk of it would be done by the residents and the special benefit area, which would also come to the board. So, you know, first, I want to commend you on your leadership on this. I do think that this is something that's necessary. I think that it's something that is good. But, again, my pause is specifically on where in our budget, like, what are we going to reduce in our budget to come up with the allocation of the $5 million? So if the administration is prepared to answer that question today on the record, then I am happy to entertain because I do think that it's a good project. But otherwise, respectfully, I don't think I can support it today. But in the future, I can see myself supporting something like this. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to the maker of the item, thank you for being here. And I want to thank you for your leadership on this. I think you're certainly the leader on the board when it comes to water infrastructure and getting, you know, getting things in the right direction. This gives me pause for a number of reasons. This is a dense item. This has a lot. You're creating a policy. We as a board are creating a policy. And, yes, we're directing the administration to come back to us in 180 days. But you have a lot of details already mandated to be included in this policy. And so my question to start is, did you convene a group to do this? Were there developers involved? When we create policies of this depth, typically there is a convening of experts, industry professionals, stakeholders. I'd like to get the breadth of who was involved in the drafting of this item as the first question, please. Sure. So this is number 27 in my septic-to-sewer legislation. And we have been talking to the folks that do the infrastructure work. So there has been industry conversations in terms of them doing it. But as I mentioned, this is a new model. This would allow us to do it differently. I'm not saying that the county can't do it the way they've always been doing it, which is way to get a bunch of money and then do a septic-to-sewer because they don't want residents to pay or residents can't pay. I'm not changing that. That is something that is still completely available to the board. This would be a separate vehicle, right, if a commissioner wants to use it because, I mean, and I've talked about this, you know, at length. I mean, in 1940 is the first time we knew septic tanks were ruining our environment. In 1974, this board said that they weren't going to do it anymore. You know, I've been working on this for six years. And there's certain areas where we just don't have the time to raise the funds. And people want to get rid of their septic tanks because if they don't get rid of these old septic tanks, they have to bring in fiberglass systems. They're expanding their homes. They don't want to bring in fiberglass systems. They would rather connect. But they don't have the ability to do it because currently the county is saying, well, we have to amass all this money in order to move you forward. And, by the way, I'm also doing this with Core Gables. I'm helping Core Gables do this in their water system. And this is something that they recently approved, and I'm working in one of their neighborhoods to help them do this with different financing mechanisms. We already have the financing mechanism of the special benefit area specifically for infrastructure. So this just taps onto that and allows us to say, okay, if we find the land, if we know where to put the pump station, which, by the way, is like 50% of the work. And then we have the buy-in from the area. All we're doing is we're saying that the county is going to pay for the pump station infrastructure that they own. And then the rest of it, which is millions and millions of dollars, you know, depending on how far the basin is, we're going to find a way to finance that separate and apart from water and sewer. So it is different. It is very different. But it is a tool that we do not have. I don't know if other commissioners are going to want to use it. I know that in three areas in my district, I can use it, and that there are municipalities that want to use it. So we have talked to the industry. We've talked to the department. You know, I want to give them flexibility. I don't want to point to a particular thing. And I'm happy to have them provide more. If you guys want information sooner, if you want. Everything is going to come back, you know. So I think it's just a different way of doing it, just because Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You know, there's lots of other septic projects in queue. So we're never going to get to mine unless I change, you know, my options. And I need the board to agree to it in order to be able to take this to my residence and do it this other way. Thank you for answering that. And I appreciate that this is item 27 on your really extraordinary efforts in this area. When I was asking who the stakeholders were, I appreciate you saying that you worked with the administration. To the administration, are you supportive of this new county policy being proposed in the item that's before the body currently? Through the chair, similar to what the commissioner said, we actually think the concept of trying to leverage different resources to get to this end result is phenomenal. We have not identified where $5 million would come from. We're not able to charge the current rate payers or, to the commissioner's point, use particular bond money. So there's no identification. And I'm going to work with them on that. I will say this is modeled after DRIP. DRIP was unanimously approved by this board two years ago. It's the same idea. And when I first proposed DRIP, the administration said the same thing. And if the director wants to speak on how successful DRIP has been, I think that would be useful. Thank you for that, Commissioner. But I don't need to hear about how successful DRIP was, if that's okay. And thank you to the administration for answering that question. The way that I read the item, and I welcome the administration or the maker to correct me if I'm wrong, often when we have CDMP and zoning projects, the commissioner from District 7 frequently says, this project needs a pump station. I want you, developer, to go in and put in a pump station. I could be wrong, but I've seen that happen time and time again. Is this item taking the burden off the developer for putting in that pump station and placing it on us, the county? No. It is not? No. This is for residential areas where there is no development that could provide a developer to do a pump station. Just like DRIP. So the idea is, and the pump station, the pump station works when you have large parcels, and then you can connect the neighbors. This is for an entire basin. So I wouldn't have a development that could cover the entire basin. The idea of this is we would cobble the money for the rest of the infrastructure, including the purchase of the land. Like, I'm not even asking them to buy the land. I'm taking care of that, right? And I'm finding partners to match me on that. In my district, the most expensive part is purchasing the land. It's more expensive than building the pump station. This is actually the least expensive piece of the entire basin connection. Okay. To the administration, is that, just to get clarification, because, again, I could be reading the item incorrectly, what would the $5 million be used for that hasn't yet been identified, assuming that one day it does get identified? What would the $5 million be used for? Through the chair, it's really seed money or startup money, and the commissioner is correct. There's an opportunity to recoup that money or to be reimbursed for those funds. The challenge has been getting the money to kick the project off. The administration is more than willing to work with the commissioner on the item and the policy. You know, it's not insurmountable, but, honestly, we have to be candid. The seed money needs to be identified. But there is recoup opportunities, reimbursement opportunities that would help cover the cost in the long run. But I can't bring the seed money until we agree on the policy. That's kind of where I'm stuck. Yeah, I get that. And so, to the administration, and I appreciate the maker answering the question, to the developers that have already committed to creating pump stations as part of their approval process to build whatever development they're proposing before the board, none of this proposed unidentified $5 million would go towards those already approved projects? That's what I want to get clarification on. Through the chair, the answer to that is correct. It would not go towards that. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. I feel more comfortable with the substantive spirit of the item, but I do think that, particularly from the commissioner of District 7, you wear the hat proudly of being extraordinarily detailed, diving into the budget, and providing solutions. And I applaud you for that. I just don't understand, in this current budget season that we are in, how we apply an additional $5 million of pressure to our bottom line and our budget without an identification of where that money is going to come from. That alone seems and feels very much like we are continuing to exacerbate the problem that we continue to complain about all of the time. So, I think that I support this. I think that this is a creative solution. But if we can't afford it, why are we moving this forward at a time when we cannot afford it? Wouldn't the legally proper procedure be to identify funding and bring an item to the board that says we are robbing Peter to pay Paul and this is exactly where the money is coming from and allow us to advance it at that time? I'm just not sure that we should be in the practice of bringing items for millions of dollars that we simultaneously acknowledge that we cannot afford and that we have not identified funding for. Madam Chair, let me add something. Hold on. And I appreciate that three or four or five years ago we used to bring items like this, find legally available funding, and you would find it. But we're not in that financial climate anymore. So, at what point are we going to stop cutting our nose to spider face? And this has nothing to do with the substance of the item. I'm authentically wondering where we bring the $5 million from. And so, I don't want to be in the practice of directing the administration. I am happy to amend the item so that we have to recoup it. I can recoup it. Okay. Hold on for a second. As a point of order. Chief, I think you wanted to say something. Through the Chair. Thank you very much. I think Senator Garcia said it very well, and you reiterated that, Commissioner, which is this board did make that decision to make sure we had a source of funding. We are not opposed to this policy. We think it is a good policy. It will help benefit the community. If we could have time to work with the Commissioner, maybe on that amendment, we could figure out if we could identify the source of funds or do something. She's proposing that. But we are fully in support of this conceptually. We think it's a path forward. Because Vice Chair Melian Orvis also pulled this. So, before we move forward, I'd like to hear from her as well. Hold on. Yeah. Hold on. Because, honestly, I want to hear from everyone before we start moving into a direction. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is head to the floor. No. No. No. Thank you. I, you know, I am finished. I just want to be very, very clear. I support the Commissioner. I support these efforts. I caution us to do what the item asks us to do that I've already articulated. And so, I would be supportive of the Administration's proposal to work and find the money. I don't know if the sponsoring commissioner is supportive of that. And so, that's where I am currently. I can't support it the way that it is brought before us today, absent some amendment that may be proposed. But in its current form, I cannot support it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Vice Chair. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. You know, septic to sewer, it's an issue in all of our districts. It has presented us all individually as district commissioners with challenges that we've had to take on. I, myself, am working with Coral Gables as well. Well, Shenley Park is undergoing septic to sewer, and I've had to get very creative and figure out how we can make that work. Because it is a burden on the county. It's a burden on our residents. It's a burden to the community, and we need to figure out how to creatively solve that. So, I appreciate the Commissioner bringing this, and I appreciate the sentiment behind it. I thought it could be a good idea. My concern is with committing the $5 million, and not just for this year. It's asking the administration to find it in the budget we already passed, but also committing them subsequently going forward every fiscal year. And that gives me a lot of heartburn. That makes me very uncomfortable. We are also not considering Amendment 3 is coming down the pipeline, and the fact that the sheriff is probably, you know, her budget appeal is going through. So, this just gives me a lot of heartburn. It doesn't make me feel comfortable. I did want to ask the director some questions, if I may. I don't know if you want to recognize this point. Yes, director, you're recognized. Yes. Absolutely. So, director, could you explain how this would work and how it differs from the current policy? Could you walk us through exactly how this program would work from your point of view and what the department would have to do to make this work? Through the chair. My understanding is it is modeled after, even though it's a different financing model, it's similar to what we do with the water side, which is the WASI will build the infrastructure, developers pay and recoup that cost for that infrastructure that's being built. The slight difference here is that water infrastructure probably exists, and where development is needed, that infrastructure is probably old, undersized, and needs to be replaced. So, it's more a replacement. That puts a burden on where the money can come from, because it can't come from out of the ratepayer pocket, if you will, because you're not replacing anything. It's you're expanding the system, which is where the financial challenge comes in. Okay. And is there a way to amend the DRIP program to add the $5 million there or to expand that program to cover this? Would that be a possibility? Again, you're looking at what's allowed or what you can fund under a rate-based versus what needs to be funded under a general tax obligation. Okay. Got it. And what is the source that's been identified for these $5 million? Where would this come from? For the PIPE program? For the Pepsi for the PIPE program? I don't. Those are the details that still have yet to be worked out. We don't have a source. You're being directed to identify the source? Is that? That's my understanding of the resolution. Okay. So, you don't, at this moment, you have no, you don't know where this would come from, the $5 million. Again. We don't have a source identified. I do not have a source identified. It would need to be worked out, which I think is what the administration is looking to do, is to come to terms with where that money might be identified. Okay. And I have one final question. I know that septic conversions, septic to sewer conversions can be very costly. I walked with you through a project, and, you know, we're trying to figure that out ourselves in my district. How far would $5 million go in a septic to sewer conversion? How far would it go in the pump station? Thank you, Chair, Maricela Aranguizcueto, Deputy Director, Commissioner Orvis. The reason why we choose the $5 million, excuse me, is because typically we build three to five pump stations per year. So, each pump station usually costs about 1.1 to 1.5. So, the assumption is that going forward, that will be the same number of pump stations that it will be built. So, it would cover about three to four pump stations. And if I may, we have a lot of developers for affordable housing that come to the department, and because the burden is on them to build the pump station, they're not able to proceed. So, the way that we do it today is that a developer comes in, as Commissioner Cohen-Hagan mentioned, and they're responsible to build the entire pump station, although they may only be using 10 or 20 percent of that capacity. So, then that developer is able to recover costs from other developers that come in, but only until 12 years. So, this policy would make it that the county takes on the construction, but at the end, it will be recovering 100 percent of the costs through all the developers that will connect into that basin. Okay. That's what I've been trying to explain. That explanation. Go ahead. No, no. And the $5 million came from them, by the way. Hold on. I appreciate the explanation. Can you expand on how the $5 million comes from them? So, we have been looking at different type of sources, as our director mentioned. The difference between the pump station pipe item that is with you and the previous drip is that drip will replace current infrastructure. So, we could use water and sewer monies because it is for current customers. When we talk about pump stations, those are areas that are currently not served by the water and sewer department. And that is the reason why we cannot use rate payers' monies. However, we could use GOB, the utility fee, we could use grants, we could use different things that would be simply seed money that then the department will recover fully. And then that money will continue to rotate for new pump stations. Thank you. Thank you. And I think I would... Go ahead. I appreciate the explanation and, you know, the concept of the initiative is good. I think I would feel more comfortable supporting it once we have identified sources and once the administration can explain how we can expect to have this funded in future fiscal years. I think I need that because that is a responsibility that lies with us as we're making this decision. So, that would make me feel more comfortable. And I know that's to you, to the department, and also to the administration. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I have questions. So, I think I heard you say that you gave the example of a pump station. A developer constructs a pump station. They're only using a portion of it. So, then they get reimbursed from the others who are, you know, developing and also using that pump station. Correct? Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. So, why couldn't we say, I mean, that this $5 million will come from the developers? It will. But we need original money to... Understood. Builder first. Yes. Understood that this is seed money that will be reimbursed... Fully. ...exactly as our current pump station system works. Correct? Correct. Okay. So, all we're doing is trying to identify where $5 million seed money will come that will be reimbursed by developers who then develop around that pump station. That is correct. Correct. Okay. What's so hard about telling us where the $5 million will come from? Because I believe, and this is a question to the chief. Chief, you're hearing all of us say, it gives everyone heartburn to say, I will advance an item where you yourself don't know where the money is going to come from. It appears to me that before an item comes to this committee, it would be, as we've heard from the senator and the other commissioners and the vice chair, that you would say, the seed money is coming from this pot of money, and we know it will be reimbursed. So, do you want to say it comes from reserves, because you know it's going to be reimbursed at some period? You have to tell this committee where the seed money is coming from. If not, we're all sitting here, as Commissioner Cohen-Higgins said, this is a new day dawned, where you have to be specific about where money is coming from in a budget we just finished passing. Right? So, can you do that? Chief? So, through the chair, thank you for the question. We got the item last night. We immediately started corralling to figure out what the options were, and so, yes, I absolutely agree we should. But, Chief, you just told the committee that you'd been working with the sponsor. No, the sponsor said she'd been working with the administration. Is it true that she has been – hold on. Is she – hold on. Hold on. I'm questioning here. Right. Is it true what she said, that she's been working with the administration? It sounded like, throughout this process, she's been working with you. You did. You did, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. What is the answer to that? Did you just get this last night? No. Or were you working? We have been working with the – Okay. So, my question is, why would you bring an item to this committee, not knowing where the $5 million will come from in a current budget that we just passed? That's the question. Our understanding of the item is that in 100 days, we will look into specifically where the money – because there are several, to your point. There are several potential funding sources. So, why wouldn't you bring those potential funding sources – no, listen to me. Why wouldn't you bring those potential funding sources to this committee with this item? Madam Chair, because we needed a change in the policy. Like, for example, part of it is a match. They can't even accept the money without the change in the policy. Commissioner, you're out of order. You're not a member of the committee. We have not asked for your input. Please. You're doing this. You're interrupting the committee members. I understand that this is your item. I am asking the administration a question. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't answer for them. I want to hear from them. Again, Chief, the Director, the Deputy Director, why would you bring an item to this committee that does not identify – and now you've said – could be multiple sources of revenue or multiple places in the budget? That's all the question is. So, can we just get an answer to that question? Through the Chair, this is not an administration item. It's a commission sponsor. Okay, but the sponsor has said she's been working with you. Wouldn't it be – isn't it fiscally prudent to say to the sponsor, you're asking for $5 million, and it's going to be money's not just one time. It may be that you have to present this in your future budgets. Wouldn't it be fiscally prudent to say to the sponsor, we have to find the money before we can commit to this project? Yes, ma'am. Yes. That was it. Senator Garcia, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we've had a lot of conversation in this, and I think we're all on the same page. We are. I think it's important to start identifying dollars when we bring legislation before us, before this committee. And I think what happens is that there has been – it's been common practice that we put these legislation forward and then have the administration find the dollars. A lot of us don't like that, but I think that has been the process. And I understand where Commissioner Regalotto may be coming from, but the reality is that when we have these items coming before us, they should have identified the dollars beforehand, because especially with the crisis – I don't want to say we're going to crisis, but the budget constraints that we're under. So with that, Madam Chair, maybe we can defer this item until the next committee meeting, and maybe the commissioner can work with staff at the department to try to identify where some of these dollars can come from, especially the fact that we did – you got out that there could be different buckets, and maybe we can work it that way. Madam Chair, it would be my recommendation that we wait until after the election season, so that would be probably December, because we won't really know the impacts of what will happen if Amendment 3 passes in November. Then they're going to be dealing with that emergency and this – not this. So coming back at the next committee, I don't think would help the cause. This is what – Commissioner Gonzalez, you're recognized. So I have a suggestion, because this is alluding to a report that can come back in 180 days. I think that if we removed all language that stated that the resolution allocates $5 million annually in this budget year and in future budget years, we remove it, but we leave for them to identify within 180 days after the election. I think it's something that I could be more comfortable with. I don't know if that's an amendment that you'd like to – and even if you did accept it, I don't know if my colleagues would entertain it, but it would make me more comfortable if this didn't allocate the $5 million and it didn't instruct the administration to allocate it in the future, but it just – it just asked the administration to find the money, and then it can come back for us to possibly create a policy. Understood. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, I think you also wanted to make – Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know the professional – the woman's name that approached the podium, but I appreciate – The Deputy Director. The Deputy Director. Thank you. And thank you for being here, and thank you for giving the explanation that you did. I thought it was very clear, which I always appreciate. But I asked a question regarding the developers and their relationship to this item because I'm curious, and I asked the question regarding whether or not this $5 million would be reimbursing developers that already had the directive from the board to build the pump station, and the sponsor and the administration said, no, absolutely not. But the question based on the explanation that you gave is now, would we not direct developers to build pump stations in the future because this item passes, because now we're shouldering the financial burden of doing that, whereas in the past we have directed developers to do that? So this $5 million, should this not pass, where does the funding come for future pump stations? Is it the developer that would fund it? I understand the reimbursement. I understand the shared concept. I understand the reimbursement that the money comes back eventually. But is the spirit of this item taking the financial burden off of developers when this commission directs them to do so, and if they so accept, and place that financial burden upon us? Through the Chair? Yes. It actually will provide another avenue to continue to improve areas that are not currently served. In many cases, big developers may choose to take on the project themselves because either they believe they're faster, et cetera. This would basically help small developers that cannot support a $1.2 million investment on a pump station when they're doing an affordable housing project. So it would not take the responsibility of the big developers. The big developers can continue with their own project. The only difference is that instead of that developer recovering the cost, right, let's say that developer uses 50% of the capacity, they recover the other 50 through smaller developers that go into the area. So in this case, we will take on that upfront construction and then recover fully from those big developers that you mentioned that are asked to build their own, and then they will pay prorated to their capacity. And I appreciate the explanation, and then you added the distinction of big developer versus small developer. That is a distinction without difference to me, frankly. If you're building an affordable home project in Miami-Dade County and you're going through application processes and seeking approvals, you tend to be a big developer, okay? And so what I want to be clear, because I believe that I understand your answer, this does remove the burden from them and places it on us. If the developer chooses to use this process, they could continue to build it on their own. But what I'm trying to be clear is that we wouldn't direct developers to build pump stations should that need exist, because this $5 million pot now exists for them. Why would we direct developers to build pump stations? So basically, when that developer would come in to the water and sewer department, we would say, you need to build a new pump station. You can choose it to build on your own, or there is an agreement that they can sign with us in which we will build it if we have the capacity, the money, and then move forward with the project, and they will see how much they need to contribute to that project. And how the previous pump stations that have been built in different areas of the county through different directives from this board, are those developers developing those pump stations? Yes. Currently, developers build the pump stations for the full capacity. Something that I should add is that the way that we do, we currently have 1,050 pump stations. So the idea is that one pump station should serve a quarter of a square mile. So pump stations are not only for that current developer, but for the entire area. So a developer comes in, we say, there's no infrastructure right now, you need to build a pump station. So they built it, and for 12 years, they recover costs from anyone else that connects into that area. Okay, and so I guess my question is, if that's what they're doing now, it has enabled us to build over 1,000 pump stations, what is broken that needs to be fixed? And why are we burdening our strained budget with an additional $5 million if the current process is working? That's what I need to understand, other than maybe there are developers that say, I don't want to spend the money on building a pump station. That argument, I understand. But aside from that glaringly obvious potential protest, why would we change the current situation that we are operating under? Exactly what you said. There are quite a bit of developers that when we provide them the necessary infrastructure that needs to be built, they walk away because they're not able to continue with the project. But I just asked you if it was working. I just asked you if the way that pump stations are currently being built in the county, that's why I asked you, with the situation that we're currently operating under, i.e. the status quo, if it's working, why are we opting to change it? But you're saying it's not working. And I'm not trying to in any way, right, make it feel comfortable or cornered to you. I'm authentically trying to understand. I don't invest the time that the District 7 commission, right? So this is new. It wasn't workshop. There's no committee on this. This is a first impression. It was a late-night add-on. So, you know, I don't want you to take issue with me asking the questions. I'm authentically looking to understand our process as it pertains to building pump stations in Miami-Dade County. I understand your question. It does not work for everyone. I think that will be the correct answer. I understand. It's working for the bigger developers. It's not working for the smaller developers. That is correct. Okay, how many pump station projects have been abandoned because of a lack of ability to fund that expense for small developers? What is the universe of pump stations that have been abandoned? How many pump stations have not been built? I'm not able to provide you with that number right now. I would have to go back and look. But it's the catalyst of the item, right? Right. Because that's what you're saying to us. It's not working. But to give you a precise number, I would have to go back to look into which developers we asked them to build the pump station and the projects we now move forward. I think that would be helpful to provide to the committee as well. Look, I don't – yes, just one question that I didn't ask before. How long do you estimate that it would take the county to recover that seed money, that initial seed money? It depends on the area. But currently, what we – the developer, we give them 12 years. Sometimes they are able to recover it in less than that. But I think a 12-year is a good estimate as of now. So I think my comments were more sort of policy of this committee, right? I so appreciate all of your comments that have been very helpful in helping the committee understand what the item does. I think conceptually everyone agrees. But this is a fiscal committee so that everyone is reminded. And I think, as Senator Garcia said, in the past, items have been brought that don't identify funding. And it makes all of us up here now uncomfortable because we want to be more fiscally conservative and we want to do things from an accurate perspective. So moving forward, certainly any item that comes to this committee, and this is obviously directed to the administration, just ensure that you're able to tell us where the funding will come from because that could impact whether or not we agree conceptually with a project. Because if you tell me that you have to take $5 million from somewhere else, this committee may not agree with that. You can imagine, right? Like, I mean, we've already agreed to a budget. And it's passed and it's in force. Now when we begin to make budget adjustments, we have a right to know before we pass anything where you would like to take that from. You know, and this is just directed to the administration. You just, we want you to understand how this committee wants to work moving forward. So I hope that you realize it's more of a policy for this committee moving forward on any item, not just this item. We want to know. So through the chair. Yes, chief. We agree with you. Thank you. We've heard that loud and clear. Thank you. And that we actually appreciated it when this board agreed that they would ensure there was a source of funding before directing the administration to find it. So we are in complete agreement with being able to identify or at least get time in an item to do the work that's required for you all to make an informed decision. Yes, because I also see the burden on the administration. If we were to move forward and now you're stuck trying to find the money, I think it's just opposite of the way it should work. I think the administration, if you're working with a sponsor and there's a fiscal impact on policy, that you say, wait, let us try to figure this out because you yourselves have, you know, a balanced budget you're working with. So I appreciate the partnership between the administration and this committee. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that my comments apply to any item moving forward that come to this committee because we've heard it from every single member of the committee now that that is how we would like to proceed. And I know that you probably would as well. So we appreciate very much the partnership that we have when we're addressing policy that has fiscal impact. And that is how that should work. So thank you. Thank you, chief. And thank you, director and deputy director. Yes, vice chair. Billion Orbis, you're recognized. Thank you. More questions that came up. If we're to the department or maybe to the administration, if you're saying that small developers are the ones having the issues with doing this, then how can we rely on them to pay the county back at all for fronting the money? Is that something that's being considered in this item? If they can't even afford it up front, how can we assume they're going to pay us back? Because they will be paying for their proportion of the usage of the Palm Station. Okay. Right now they undertake the entire capacity, but if it's only using 5% of the Palm Station, they will have to build it in its entirety. So we believe that they will be able to pay for what's proportional to their use. So the assumption is that they can afford their portion. Correct. Okay, and is there anything, you know, I read the item, but I don't see the answer to this. Is there anything binding them to have to pay us back? Yes, they would have to, when they come into the water and sewer department, there is a water and sewer agreement process in which it will dictate that they, what are the terms, how much do they have to pay, and they will not be able to seal the building until that payment is done. Okay. Okay. So could that, does that mean, how many years would they have then to pay it? So before they do the certificate of occupancy, meaning before they use the facility or the building, house, et cetera, they would have to have made that payment to water and sewer. Okay. Got it. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you. Madam Chair, really quickly, I don't know how we're going to handle the item. I don't know what the will of the body is. I think I had a motion on the floor by Senator Garcia to defer it, and I think that Commissioner or Vice Chair Milian Orbis said she seconded it, but with a caveat that it be after the, that it come back in the December meeting. Whenever the item comes back before the board, I think it's clear that we're looking for where the $5 million would come from. I do request also the universe of developers, right, that this impacts or that this would benefit. That would be helpful. If it's one, that's information for me. If it's 100, that's information for me as well. So if that would be accepted by the administration, it would help me in the future. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have a motion on the floor by Senator Garcia with a caveat made by Vice Chair Milian Orbis. Do you agree to that, Senator Garcia? Okay, so we have a motion on the floor. Yes, yes, you seconded with an amendment that Senator Garcia has accepted. Great. So all in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? So we'll move to item 3C. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you pulled that item. Yeah, no worries. Yeah. Okay, so this is an administrative item, waiving all competitive bids received in response to a solicitation for the West State Government Center. I need some explanation, please. I read the item. I just, to be frank, I'm curious. On a project this size and of this interest, let's say that, how it is that we are proposing and recommending a rejection of all bids to entirely restart this process? I understand it's only interior, floors one through four, but how did we get here, please, to the administration? Chief, you're recognized. Through the Chair, I would like to ask our Director of People and Internal Operations, Director Delgado, to speak to the item and to give you some historical context and address the Commissioner's question. Director, you're recognized. Welcome. Ramundo Delgado, Director of People and Internal Operations. The process itself started back in August as they started the RFP process, focusing only on the permitting center, the renovations of Phase A, which are the offices. During that process, they were moving forward the actual RFP with limited drawings in an effort to speed that process up. Through that process, they had to do multiple addendums. As base building issues came up as part of the renovation, things needed to be brought up to code, fire, so forth. While the drawings were still being done, the RFP process completed without maybe 20% of the drawings. Once we evaluated everything in April or May, once we had 100% drawings, we felt there was a bigger risk, construction risk and also delay risk, by accepting that and having future problems as we start to move forward. Now having, and we had limited bids. We had three only construction bids come in. So our goal was to, now that we have 100% of the drawings, we haven't stopped working. The drawings have been going through the permitting process. We're almost done with that. So we would not even have been able to start construction anytime. But our goal is to, we've already started the bid, have the bid come back out within, if it's approved by the board next Tuesday, out again within 30 days and having the actual award back to the board in the March-April time frame. Thank you for that explanation. And again, I want to be clear that I understand the position of the administration. You put out the RFP without 100% of the plans? Correct. The initial phase A was what was put out, which is just the renovations, the floor plans, partial, not the complete floors. It's just to get the actual personnel that are situated at the permitting center into this location. So it was a part of, first floor, second floor, third floor, and fourth floor, parts of those areas, not the complete floors. And during that process, again, there were additional base building items that were brought forth that needed to be done, the sprinkler systems, the emergency fire. So at that point, they added them, but they did not have drawings for those. They provided a scope, which once we reviewed the complete package, we felt it was a bigger risk to award it in that fashion than to go. So initially, just a renovation, if it would have just been that. We could have moved it because it's more FF&E, carpeting, interior. But with the base building and the other impacts to it, there was a lot of unknowns. We've also taken the opportunity as well to flush out some opportunities with the master service agreement we have with FP&L to offset some of our capital costs, as well as doing some energy service contracts for some of the air conditioning impacts investments that we plan on doing for the facility long term. So I see that this RFP went out on August 7, 2025. When did you realize that you didn't have 100% design? 100% design did not complete until April of 2026. Okay, why did you put out the bid in August of 2025 when you didn't realize until April of 2026 that you didn't have 100% design, but moreover, that you decided that 100% design was necessary in order to receive bids? When the bid was put out in August, some of the drawings that they did have was just for phase A of the renovation. Again, cubicles, FF&E, lighter. During that process is where the base building items, the heavier, the more complicated items, and the items that are triggered now, bringing things up to code, was where they did not have those drawings. They were still in process. So they were hoping that design would catch up. It's not going to happen. So in January, when they awarded the bid, they went through the process. They had made recommendations. In April, the drawings were done, and at that point, we felt it was safer, less risk for us to go out, have a better competition, because now they have a much clearer picture. It's a better bid on it because you have all the data, and to go back out. Yeah, this is curious to me, because we do procurements all the time with moving parts, right? Things are never entirely and 100% fixed at the time that we send out an RFP. And you also made the comment that we only receive three bids. There are RFPs that we only receive one bid, right? I don't know any of these bidders, but this is kind of patently unfair to them. I mean, wouldn't you say? It would have been unfair to them as well because they didn't have the full scope, the full picture of everything. We believe that once they would have received all the drawings, it would have given them a different scope than what they actually bid. So they may have been tied to that bid. Then at that point, we start to have discussions and back and forth on changes. We wanted to be transparent and come back out with a complete set of drawings, offer that out to the market again, and make sure we can get the best picture. Yes, so the three bidders that submitted proposals for this, once they received the 100% drawings, you all decided that their price was either too high or that they were incapable of doing the work or that you just didn't like what you saw from any of the three proposers? The 100% drawings were not ready until April timeline. This bid was closed out in the December-January time period. No, I understand. So they've never seen the 100% drawings. Since the bid was closed and the selection was made based off of the scope, what was provided, at that point, that bid was – we could not go back and give them the full drawings. We didn't feel that that would have been correct. Okay. So when the bid closed in December, you have three proposers. Didn't you go – what happened after that? At that point, the staff went ahead and they made a selection. They made a recommendation and went to the mayor, and at that point, a recommendation was made. It did not proceed from that point on. That was right about at the April timeframe. I arrived in May, started reviewing everything, and my recommendation was to pull it back and redo it based off of the 100% drawings to be completely transparent and clear. Through the chair. I think it may be helpful. Yeah. Well, hold on. I'd like to – Senator Garcia just wants to make a quick point here. It's a quick point, and I'm with you 100%. Yeah. But as it relates to him, he just said it right now. I've been waiting for you to say that from the beginning. You got here in May, and you reviewed all this, so I think it says a lot about your leadership and finding out, because I have the same question about why did we do this. So he's trying to figure out and correct some of the errors of the past, I believe, but that's – Madam Chair, I just wanted to let everyone know that he was here since May. So thank you. Thank you for that good point. Chief, you wanted to address Commissioner Cohen-Higgins's. Senator Garcia took the words out of my mouth. So, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, I really appreciate your questions, because they're very, very important questions, and trying to put this timeline together is a little bit difficult. At the time that the project kicked off, there was a sense of urgency to get things done, and the initial recommendation was to do it in phases. And so we decided to go off with the design phase so that we could move RER from point A to point B as soon as possible. So we were doing two parallel tracks, one, moving the project forward so there could be occupancy sooner rather than later. And while those folks were in the building, we were going to continue to do the other work that needed to be done. So we were going down parallel paths. At the point where the recommendation came to the mayor to get moved forward, we realized that we had gotten more information than we had previously. That information was really important. And it would not have been fair to those bidders for them not to have that information so they could adjust accordingly. One of the things that I've learned in my short tenure here is that we hesitate to stop, we hesitate to pause, and then we'll come back to the board and ask for a change order, or we'll ask for something. Bidders will not have enough money to finish a project. And so we decided that was probably not in the community's better interest, and so we decided to put a pause. And that pause was not to go out with the bidders who had, at the time, minimal information, which they could have executed on, but instead, to reject all of those, we go with the new information that we have that will enable them to bid and complete the work with more accuracy and a lower cost to the county. Under Delgado's leadership, the director's leadership, we've been able to find some partnerships, some business relationships, and some credits that will help benefit the county in reducing some of those costs. We'd like the vendors that ultimately come to the table to have the benefit of all that knowledge and the extra work that's been done in the year. And so, in all fairness to the director, he's doing a fantastic job of picking up the pieces and running with the ball. But we did make a decision to pause because we got more information that we thought was prudent and would be important for those bidders so that they're not stuck having bid on something and not knowing the full scope of the work that needs to be done. Thank you for that explanation. Do you know how much it costs for a construction company put together a $62 million bid in Miami-Dade County? Through the chair. I do not know exactly how much that costs. I have a vague idea of the percentage. Yeah. And so, you know, and again, I appreciate the explanation. What I'm hearing is, and I appreciate the clarification that you came in May. I don't think that that was something that I originally realized when you were answering my questions at the podium. And I understand the direction that you want to move forward in. I just think that it's patently unfair to the three companies that spent the time and the money and the resources to submit bids under one fact pattern, have the rug pulled out from underneath them. Apparently, you're all having conversations with others that may be able to offer some sort of, you know, price efficiencies, which we welcome. But I do honestly, I'm concerned about our business community when they're trying to do business with Miami-Dade County. I'll support the item. But I do think that we should enter into a rejection of all bids sparingly, simply in recognition of the time, cost, and expense that these small businesses experience in trying to work with Miami-Dade County. Thank you, Madam Chair. Full-heartedly agree, Commissioner. And we also respect the time and the money and the effort. And we are doing everything we can to protect their interest and continue working with these bidders. Thank you, Chief. Commissioner Gonzalez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank Commissioner Cohen-Higgins for going through that line of questioning. I also like the clarification, as Commissioner Garcia pointed out, that, you know, you're new to this position. And so I think it was the prudent and responsible thing to perhaps clarify what the contract and what the job scope was going to be. Because the last thing we want is for somebody to come back and give us change orders because they didn't understand the scope. However, I want to commend you on your leadership in making that recommendation. But that still does not excuse the fact that this was done in a way that on the surface blatantly just looks irresponsible. I know that's not on you because you weren't part of the administration, but certainly there has to be somebody in your team that can explain what happened here. Because how do we put something like this forward and what measures are we taking so that, one, this doesn't happen again, right? But then also, I'd like to understand what's the anticipated impact of the rebidding process. What does that mean for the procurement? What does that mean for the county? What's the impact of having to rebid this the right way and not doing it the right way in the first place? Through the Chair, we're looking at time. A lot of the information we've already put together, it's roughly about a six-month time period that we're adding on to the schedule. We're trying to shave that as much as we can. Even if this would have been awarded the way it is, they would not even have been able to start construction yet. We're right now, we've already put all the drawings through permitting, and we're almost done with permitting. They would have needed that to be done even before they started. And we have been doing different items at the location. So that's the impact on that. The original strategy that was implemented originally was not a bad strategy. They were focused on just one piece of the puzzle, trying to move it through, and additional pieces came out that actually created the situation. And at that point is where we had to have stopped. But then why put it forward in the first place if it's half-baked, for lack of a better word? Not all the information may have been available at the time. I can't answer you. I wasn't here. But based off of the information I've seen, the focus was very narrow to the renovation piece of getting the pick, getting that permitting center out of where it is to this location. That was the driving force. But with that, there were other items that came to the surface during this process. I understand. Again, I want to reiterate that I appreciate your leadership on this because I think that seriousness starts at the top. And I think that the fact that this had to come forward and the fact that your recommendation was taken and that we're here today, I think shows not only this department but other departments that things need to be done seriously the first time. However, I don't think that it's excusable. Again, the fact that you're here, hopefully this doesn't happen again. But there has to be folks on your team that approved the item as it was in the first place. That causes me to have great pause with every item that comes before us because I understand that perhaps you folks get a lot of pressure from folks in the administration and folks on this board. As you should, you know, being a director or working for Miami-Dade County means that you are the best of the best and you have to operate at the highest possible level at all times. Welcome to the NBA. Okay, just because there's pressure to move fast doesn't excuse that we, for lack of a better word, half-ass things. Let's not do that anymore, right? Again, I want to commend you on your leadership because I think it takes leadership to say, hey, this wasn't done correctly. We need to do it correctly. So let's bring it all back, even if it means we have to start from the beginning. I appreciate the fact that you're doing that. I appreciate the fact that this is before us. I appreciate that we're fixing the issue. But let's just make sure that we fix this issue moving forward, not only in this department, but in every department, in all procurements that move out, regardless of what pressure we have, to make sure that things move forward quickly. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez, for those very good points. And again, Chief, I think this is just guidance for moving forward. I think you're getting a feel for what the committee needs and wants when it is trying to contemplate any of these items that come before us. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very quickly, I just want to – I'm not trying to change a policy or necessarily set a precedent here. But in this fact pattern, when this does go back out to bid, and I believe it's going to go out to bid on an expedited basis should that be the position of the board, I want to publicly say to those three companies, whoever you are that bid on this, please bid on it again. I'm going to be looking for you the second go around. I know that you all have had conversations with others, and there's some incentives apparently being offered to you. But I'm going to be looking for these three companies, and hopefully they will compete the second time around. And irrespective of whatever the selection committee brings before us, I'm going to take a deep dive when this comes back to us, and I want to invite those three companies to bid the second time around. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Yes. So if there's no further questions, do I have a motion to move the item? Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins to move it, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. So that is moved. And then our last item was pulled by Senator Garcia because he may have a conflict since he serves on the Thriving Mine Board. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the administration, what prompted the filing of this item after so long? I understand that reconciliations were taking place, but they terminated for convenience with Miami-Dade County long, long ago, and substantial completion was done on this building in 2024. So why are we just now receiving closing invoice request to pay for $1.6 million? Recognized. Hi, Ray. Thank you. Ray Baker, Director, Office of Management and Budget. In June of 2024, the agreement between Thriving Mines and the county for our GOB agreement expired. At some point in time, there was discussions about Thriving Mines stepping away from the project and turning it back over to the county. And as part of that, we were also looking to assume the construction agreement with Thornton. A lot of time went by. This should have made its way back to the board in the interim. But thankfully, Thriving Mines decided to stay on board. But because the contract was expired, we were unable to pay many of the invoices for work that had already been completed. So this item is all existing funds for the project. There's funds that have already been documented that the retroactive approval of this agreement would allow us to pay. And then there would be a balance of funds that we would then have to continue to review, just as we would for any construction contract that's submitting a pay application to us for review and verification of their expenses. And I appreciate that explanation. And frankly, I knew all of that, but it doesn't necessarily answer my question. When did Thriving Mines terminate for convenience with the county and hand the project back over to the county? When did they terminate with Miami-Dade County for convenience? Good morning, Commissioner. There's a long, complicated story with the project. I'm very familiar. I promise you I know the answer to the question. And I'm not looking for a lengthy, and I'm not trying to be in any way back and forth. I know the history very well. I just want to know when Thriving Mines terminated with Miami-Dade County for convenience. There was a moment when Thriving Mines said they wanted to terminate convenience. We had a talk with them, and they agreed to stay on to the point of substantial completion. So in January of 2024 is when they issued a notice of substantial completion. Okay, so they terminated for convenience, decided to stay on through substantial completion. Substantial completion was in January of 2024. It's now October of 2026. So my question remains, from January to 2024, when substantial completion was determined till October of 2026, what happened during that time frame, and what is prompting you all to bring this before us today? What's prompting us to bring it to you today is because they have completed work during that time period that we need to pay out. Because the GOB agreement expired, we are unable to make those payments. And as a result, we're coming back to the board now to retroactively start to reactivate that contract so we can make these payments as well as the ones that remain. The answer to the question of why did essentially a year and a half, two years go by, I would say the focus turned to getting the project done. Um, the administration, we all should have brought this contract back earlier, even if it wasn't on the day it expired, it should have been way sooner than what it was. Okay. And this 1.6 million is for work done when? The timeframe on that goes, I think there's some from January of 24, and there's still some work that's going to be continuing for the next couple of months if this item is approved to close out the project. By Thriving Minds or by the contractor? It would be by Thriving Minds partially as project manager and Thornton Construction as well, doing some of the construction work and, uh, punch list work. Okay. And, and, and just to be clear, this is the facility that the voters approved at $22.1 million that ended up costing us in excess of $54 million. I just want to be clear on the numbers. I see heads nodding, but is that accurate? That is the number. Yes. $54 million. So we're over $30 million over budget, 20 years late, and now two years after substantial completion are being asked to release another $1.6 million. Is this going to be the last request or two years after this, are we going to be asked to release more money? At what point are we going to close the loop on this? For clarification, ma'am, these are existing project funds that were part of the project budget. We're not asking for additional funds above and beyond that $54.4 million. I recognize that as well. I'm not unclear on that. Um, but again, the question is still the same. At what point are we going to actually close the loop on this? Is there anticipated for future asks for spends on this particular project? Not that I'm aware of at this time. To the administration, is this a true closeout of the development of this facility? Are you anticipating any future financial asks from this board? Commissioner, this is a closeout of the agreement with Thriving Mind. There are portions of the facility that remain unfinished. Right. Like the floor, for example. I forget the eighth floor or something like that. That I fully, but the facility that we're opening, presumably at some point in the near future, as it exists and as it's been discussed, this is the last financial ask for development and construction? Yes. This, the purpose of this item is to close out our agreement with Thriving Mind, make all the final payments, and close out this relationship. And all of the, and I'm assuming the answer to this is yes, but you all have verified everything that they are asking for to justify the $1.6 million in this item. All of the receipts, all of the invoices, all of the construction, even though some of it may have been for work dating back over two years. Right. There's a portion of that funding that is already verified and just waiting to be released. The other part are things that we're still going back and forth on, on verifying invoices, getting answers from the contractor. So that will not be released until it is fully verified by the county. Yeah, that was my understanding. There's like a holdback, I think like $800,000 that you all are holding back pending invoices. Why are we still doing this back and forth? The building is done. It's complete. I don't know any GC or contractor that is casually waiting two years to get paid $1.6 or $800,000. Typically contractors need their money and they need it ASAP, especially when a project is completed and delivered. So that's the part that I don't understand. Of this $1.6,800,000, you all are still figuring out years later. Why is that still happening? I can't fully explain that, but there is usually a lot of back and forth with contractors on pay apps. 90% of a pay app might be fully complete, but there may be 10% of the invoices that are pending. So I just can't fully answer your question, but it's not uncommon for there to be a time period after a construction contract is almost done and into punch list where there's still pending payments to be made. And there's no timeline in our policies on how long you and the administration is spending resources going back and forth with developers on punch list items, i.e. we, it is not uncommon for us to spend two years going back and forth with developers, or is that more uncommon? Let me answer your question a little differently, if I may. Okay, what we're asking for is an additional 90 days to close out everything from the time this retroactivist extension is provided. So I kind of said a hard stop for you on the remainder of the funds in this item. It would be 90 days after approval is what we're shooting for. Okay, and is there a policy within Miami-Dade County that forces you all to stop or forces a contractor to stop either sending invoices anew or going back and forth? I just don't see efficiencies here. I see the exact and direct opposite of efficiencies here. And as a business owner, if an invoice is two years old, it's being written off my books, frankly. And so I'm just trying to understand the practical execution of this because it's not making sense logically. Like it just doesn't make sense how there's still $800,000 on a facility that is as old and as storied as this that we still can't reconcile it. What point do we say, you know, it's time to fish or cut bait? Sorry if you can't provide the invoices at this point, but we're moving on. Is that for us to do? Is that for us to decide? Because I'm certainly happy to make that decision. Why do we allow an indefinite period of time for reconciliation to take place? Well, there is a prompt payment ordinance. So if a contractor submits a pay app and there's pieces of it that are not meeting the county's criteria in terms of not enough verification, not enough information to pay the bill, we are able to then extend the number of days for resubmittal of that pay app to make sure that we get all the information that we need. I don't know the answer to the question of if there is a longer term, you know, hard stop on when we just stop trying to figure it out. Okay. Is it our position that this is compliant with our prompt payment policy? Are we compliant with our prompt payment policy under this? I would have to check on the specific pay apps to see which ones have been extended and how long they've been extended each time that they're submitted. Okay. And to the administration, I see you seeking to answer my questions. I invite you to, if you can. Commissioner, that is one of the purposes of this item is to extend the GOB grant agreement because it did contain a final deadline for reimbursements, which we are passed. And that is why our budget department can't reimburse the funds to Thriving Mind absent this amendment. So we have a long relationship with Thriving Mind. The facility is substantially complete, and they are even funding the new mental health center, a little bit more than $1 million a year. We have a longstanding relationship with them. They're the managing entity for mental health funds in this region. We don't have any reason not to reimburse them for work done, and that's why we've brought the item to you. But to answer directly your question about the deadline, it was in the agreement, and that's why there's an amendment associated with this item. Yeah, I appreciate that, and I want to be clear on the record. I take no issue with Thriving Minds. I appreciate the work that they do. They do great work. But who is culpable for the missed deadline? Where does that culpability lie? I would say it's just because when Thriving Mind left the site, at substantial completion, the contract expired shortly thereafter. And I don't think all of the invoices had been received by the county. And over that period of time, we have been working with them. So we're certainly closer to understanding the universe of payments, and that's what's set forth in the item for you. So I am inclined to approve the amount that you have invoices for but not the amount that you all have not yet figured out because I just – why would we authorize – why would we authorize more? And we're missing our own deadlines and asking for extensions and then bringing the curative item on the missed extension over two years later. I mean, this has a plethora of issues in it for me, and so I cannot support this in its current form without actually diving in to how I feel about this item if I haven't made that clear already. I'm not sure what the heck is going on. Like, I really don't. So I can't support this item as it currently stands. Thank you. So I have a couple of questions. Now, these are going to be accounting questions, and I'm – one, thank you so much for that line of questioning because I myself am confused, right? Substantial completion was in 2024, correct, right? And the vendor was done. The contract ended. This onus, in my opinion, is on the vendor. If you don't submit your invoices within 90 days, 220, let's say, depending on the complexity, you don't get paid. This item leads me to believe that the vendor is to blame for not having submitted on a timely basis their invoices, and then the administration for not having said – because if you tell me I have a prompt pay ordinance – it appears to me that you should have just said to the vendor, we have a deadline here, my friends, and if we don't have all of your invoices and we can't reconcile them within 120 days, you don't get paid. So I believe that there is systemic issues here. One, there's a contractual issue, in my opinion, right? You know, the contract ended. The work was done. You say the work was done, correct? You're happy with the work they did, right? So I don't have any idea – and listen, it gives me even more reason to pause because they are the managing entity, and since I come from the legislature and I know how much money the Department of Children and Families gives each of our managing entities, this is yet another concern I have, that if they couldn't reconcile their own invoices in a proper time period, I hope the legislature is listening because millions of dollars flow through our managing entity. And this is a simple task of submitting invoices on a timely basis, and yet we're here two years later, and you're still trying to reconcile it. And at some point I think the administration should have said, you know what, we're done. We're absolutely done. And I don't know if our contracts need to say that, because I don't know that you can change the game in the middle of it, but maybe you ought to consider contracts that say all invoices must be submitted within a time period if you want them to be paid. Chief, I see you want to respond. Through the chair, the administration should have brought an amendment sooner so that we could ensure that we could pay the vendor for the work that was done. The reason we have this before you is because we want to make sure, which I know you can appreciate from an auditing standpoint, that we have all the appropriate documentation so we can make the appropriate payments to the vendor who in good faith has completed the work. And so it is our desire to pay them. They are our strategic partner, and we would not like them to be penalized for our failure to bring this item to you sooner. Do you believe it's your failure or do you believe it's their failure for not submitting them on a timely basis? I'm going to retract that. I don't actually think it's a failure. I think in business and when you're working on complex projects, there's a lot of back and forth and there are things that happen in the way. It's been six years since COVID, but there was a thing called a pandemic somewhere in the middle of all this. So there's a lot that's happened back and forth. And so I do think we could have done a better job of bringing something to you sooner. I appreciate that you want to take responsibility for not having brought it sooner. I don't think COVID or the pandemic is an excuse for thriving minds not having proper accounting procedures in place that allow them to reconcile their own work that they've done and submit on a timely basis. Is there anyone from Thriving Mind here? Because I would have a whole list of questions for them. They're not here. I don't believe they are here. The item was placed on the agenda very late. I did notify them and they were unable to make it. Okay. Well, that's interesting. If you want to get paid, you can't assume that this committee will not have questions. Because I have a lot of questions as a result of Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' line of questioning. And honestly, I don't understand. I want you to remember, again, I have an understanding of Thriving Mind. Millions of dollars flow through that. And then millions of dollars flow to our community-based behavioral health organizations. They fund with state funds. I pray and hope that this is not how they operate. Although I have some experience that it's not perfect. But this is really imperfect. If they finished the work, there's absolutely no reasons why they wouldn't have submitted these invoices on a timely basis, giving you the time to reconcile and ensure the accuracy of the work that they did. Certainly two years. Listen, I don't know if this sounds crazy to anybody except us. Two years is a long time. Commissioner, I think in good faith they continued to perform work even after their contract was expired. And the reason is that even though their architect deemed them to have met the substantial completion deadline or, you know, time frame, there were punch list items that continued to be quite vexing with delivery deadlines being extended by manufacturers of windows and things like this. For example, some of the windows had manufacturer defects in them that had to be repaired. Thriving mind and good faith continued to communicate with those manufacturers to get the punch list items done even though their grant agreement had expired. But punch lists are part of the responsibility of an agreement. No one believes that someone is done until the punch list has been addressed, right? That's all part of their agreement. I don't take exception and say, oh, they've operated in good faith as if that's an exception to the rule. The rule is you have completed a project and there are always punch lists and everyone knows it, right? So that's not an exception that I should think, oh, they've been so amazing. I agree. That's their job. You're right. That is their job to complete the punch list and their work is not completed until the punch list has been addressed fully and you feel like the work has totally been completed post-punch list. The problem I have with this is they have an accounting department. I am aware. I know this. They should have been keeping all of their records up to the point of substantial completion, which they could have submitted periodically or at that time. That is the way it works. Yes, believe it or not. So they could have submitted all of those, continued to do the work that they're required to do under contract, which is to address the punch list, and then continue to submit those invoices through the punch list period so that by post-punch list everything's been submitted. Yes, and they did. The problem was that the GOB agreement had expired during that time. Yeah, but I don't understand that. I don't care. How about that? I don't care. They want to be paid, so they need to submit invoices on a timely period. You're just complicating this situation. Hate to say it. Any other contractor or developer that comes up here would tell me a different story. They would. So I don't even know what to do with this item because I think the process is flawed. I don't like the fact that they're not here to answer our questions because I have a lot of questions about this. And I appreciate you taking responsibility for not bringing it to us sooner, but I don't know if that's enough, right? Like, I think the message from this board is you have a responsibility throughout a period of time to ensure that this gets done. It sounds like you gave them a lot of leeway. And, honestly, government should be – we are accountable to the taxpayers, and we should run government like businesses run. And, you know, you gave them two-year leeway. And then you're making excuses that they've been such good-faith partners because they were working on a punch list. That sounds even more ridiculous, truly. So I don't know what the will of the board is, Commissioner Gonzalez. I just – I want to reiterate everything that the chair has said because it goes back to the conversation we were having with the prior director. There just seems to be a lack of seriousness. We are the greatest county in the United States of America. We're bigger than many countries. We have over 3 million residents, and we're out here doing business like it doesn't matter. Like we're just, you know, hanging out with friends and, hey, pay me when you're ready. Send me an invoice when you're ready. Folks, we can't do that. If we are not serious with our partners, regardless of what great relationships we have with our partners, if we are not serious with our partners, then they're not going to act accordingly. And I think that that's the pushback that we're getting from the board. I don't think anybody up here is against making sure that folks get paid for work that they've done, especially if they've performed in an acceptable manner. I don't think anybody up here is against making sure that they get paid. The problem here is that with the line of questioning that just went forward, it just seems like there is a lack of seriousness from the top to the bottom. That's what it seems like. It seems like we're not asking for the invoices to be presented on time because, eh, who cares? It's taxpayer money. We're not requiring those invoices to come in on time, and we're not paying on time because we don't have the invoices, and we'll figure that out next week. And then next week turns into two years. Folks, we can't operate like that. A private entity would never be able to operate like that. We just can't. And Mr. Baker, I know that you just came into this position as well, and certainly I feel like you're doing everything you can to do the best possible job you can, and I appreciate that. But, folks, we can't keep operating like that. I will go with the will of the board, but respectfully, I would move to defer this item so that we can have more clarification and perhaps even have conversations with the entity to figure out and get to the bottom of what really happened here. Is that a motion? Is that a motion? Mr. Gonzales. I would make that motion. Okay. I have a question. I want to second it, but I want to make sure that we're not just deferring it, and it shows up on an agenda in November or December, and then it's the same thing again, right? I want to make sure that with the deferral comes the directive, and we can't give directives from the committee, but the request that we get the answers to all these questions that we have and that I know this came on last night, right? This was added onto the agenda last night. Another question why, but can we let Thrive know that they should be here, encourage them to be here so they can answer the questions? Because this seems like we're going out of our way to screw ourselves, right? Like we're going out of our way to sink ourselves. It's like a moving target. I'm here. Shoot me. I'm here. You know, so I don't think it's appropriate, and they should have been here. You know, they're not even here to defend their payment. You know, I'll take responsibility for that because they, you know, I was unable to inform them until this morning that the item was on the agenda. I think that's part of the problem, that these late-filed, you know, items, and I'm going to just tell you, I don't like them, to be honest with you. This committee is very serious about its role, and we have the fiscal responsibility laying on our shoulders before anything gets to the board. And when you put all of these late items on, just like Commissioner Regalado's item, where you weren't really prepared because, you know, I don't really know what happened there. But the point is, this committee is very detail-oriented, and we take it very seriously that the buck stops right here. And honestly, not to have Thriving Mind here to answer our questions, but a late, all of these late add-ons, I'm going to tell you, they're going to start getting deferred. Because if we don't have time to dig deep into this, then we're not going to pass it. A new day dawned here, I think. You're looking at the Four Horsemen. A new day dawned. And honestly, we're not rubber stamping, and we're not going to ask the hard questions. We want people to understand that this committee's responsibility is to ensure the fiscal responsibility of any item, in particular policy items, that have fiscal impact. That is the commitment we've all made serving on this. And Madam Chair, if I may, along that line, I don't know if the question was asked or answered, or if a reason was given, but why was the item so late? Because when we get items this late, it seems like they're being added at this time, seems like, so that we don't look at it. We don't have time to process, and we have to make an irrational decision on the spot. So do we have a reason why it was added last night? Through the Chair, we're not aware of why either item was added. We were informed at the same time you all were informed. And Thriving Mind didn't know, they had no idea that this item was coming. We did not know until late when we saw that items had been added. And as you know, we monitor as closely as we can so that we could be as prepared as we can. So they were not notified until this morning? Because I think if I was trying to cash in a million-dollar check, I would be here. I'd be anywhere. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. And I do think, and I appreciate, the burden that it places on administration when these items are put late, because then you don't have time. We don't have time to review them, and you don't have time to be prepared to answer. And so I think it's a bad practice. I'm going to just tell you right now. Listen, I come from the Florida House. When the agenda is set, the agenda is set. It gives the public. Let me tell you why that is. It gives the public time to look at things, and then if they need to come and talk to us, they can. But if I get this late at night, I'm sure the public didn't even realize some of these late add-ons were on the agenda. So not only do we not have the ability to do our work, it puts an additional burden on the administration, and the public is left trying to figure out why do they operate that way. So I will tell you that I think, and I don't know how my committee members feel, but I think it's a very bad practice, and it shouldn't be done, at least not at this committee level, because this is the committee that is actually charged with digging deep. And to your credit, Chief, you need time. You need time. The person who's coming before us, Thriving Mind, only learned this morning. But I would have sent someone, if I'm Thriving Mind, I'd have sent anyone, someone from the accounting department, even if it's not the finance director. So I have a motion on the floor to defer the item and a second by Commissioner Gonzalez. Yes, under discussion, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Is that deferral to the next meeting? Well, we have a request, yes, to the next meeting, but the motion includes a request to get all of these questions answered, as well as an invitation to Thriving Mind to be here to answer any questions. So to the next meeting, I'm sorry. Yes, to the next meeting. To the next meeting, as long as the questions are answered. If they're not answered, then let's not bring it. And through the chair, the deferral helps us to have time to brief you all, and so I will make sure we understand all of the questions and do the appropriate briefings so that we can provide that background information that hopefully will help your decision-making. But, Chief, I will say this. I think you all have given us a lot of background today, some that's unacceptable to us. So, I mean, I appreciate the background that I've now heard and my colleagues have heard. We're not comfortable with how the process went, and I think that's what you're hearing from us. We understand they did the work. We understand they need to be, you know, obviously paid for their work. What we don't feel comfortable with is how this all rolled out over the last two years. I think that's it. So we've gotten our briefing, and we're very grateful that you were here to provide the background. We just have a lot of problems with how it worked, and if Thriving Mind were here, then I would be able to dissect where the system failed so that we can ensure that this doesn't happen again with any vendor. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to add to the requests of the committee. You know, originally when I was asking my questions, I said, I have a real issue with the $800,000 that has yet to be verified, right? I feel strongly that should the $883,000 still lack proper documentation, receipts, paperwork, itemization, whatever it is that you all require by our next committee hearing, that that money should be really taken off of the table. Because, yes, I understand there are dollars that were previously allocated, but we also know that this is a project that is already financially strained, and $880,000 can go a long way to helping fund this project, if that's even possible. If you say that's GOB bonds and it can't carry over, my point is there was a deadline previously. You're asking us to extend the deadline. I do think that there should be a deadline on the back and forth that you all are doing with these vendors. And so if the committee agrees with me, I'd like to place a deadline to help you as well, the administration. And, frankly, I want to say thank you. It's a breath of fresh air to take accountability in the way that you have at this committee. I greatly appreciate it. I do because it helps us move forward together. We're all aiming for the same thing here. But if my committee members agree, I would like to put a deadline on the back and forth on the $800,000. If they can't come up with it between now and then, it clearly is not of significant import to them, and that money should be released to other projects and other needs of Miami-Dade County. Richard Gonzalez, do you appreciate that? Do you accept that amendment? Absolutely. Okay. Does that have to be a separate motion through the Chair? I do not know. So I'll ask the county attorney, Mr. Attorney. I understand that to be just another request for information and just to answer questions on that issue. So it's a motion to defer the next meeting, to answer all the questions that this committee has, to be prepared to answer those questions, to request the Thriving Minds be here as well. Then there's a deadline for accepting all the documentation for payment. So what would you like that time frame to be? By the next committee. It all has to be in and reconcilable and done. Yes. They've had two years. For goodness, I'm more worried, to be very honest with you all, and I love the deadline. I'm more worried that they don't have it. Like, that's really disturbing to me. Two years later, they are still running around trying to figure out how to give you the proper documentation for payment. That is scary. And honestly, we ought to take note that maybe in the future, and if the contracts don't have that in place, maybe we should be thinking about placing that in every contract. You only have so much time to turn in your invoices. And so I would also – so let's start with that motion. Commissioner Gonzalez, you're good with all of that that was just read into the record. Absolutely. And Vice Chair Milian Orbis, you're the second. You're okay. All in favor? Aye. No one's opposed. Okay. Yes, Mr. Attorney. Madam Chair, I know we have a discussion item left, but there was also a request from the prime sponsor to move item 2A and advance that – a request to advance that item to the next BCC meeting. Yes. Yes. We'll agree to waive and move it to the next BCC. So we have just one more item on the agenda. It's a discussion item by Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner, discussion item regarding DTPW overtime reduction plan, item 1F1. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I believe the Director of DTPW has a brief presentation. Okay, great. You're welcome. Hi, Director. Hi. Good afternoon. I think it's afternoon. Yes, it is. I am at afternoon. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to brief on DTPW's overtime management and reduction strategy. I would like to cover three things, where we started, where we are right now, and where we're going. While overtime in our department is predominantly driven on the transit side of the house, we do have expenses, overtime expenses, on the public work side as well. From overnight road crews, metro mover upgrades, to cleaning, painting, platform work, many of the services that we provide often have to be provided after hours in order to minimize disruption. Our responsibility is to make sure every overtime hour is necessary, approved, documented, and safe, so that we have a systematic approach on how we do this moving forward. Overtime is not unique to DTPW. Every major transportation and transit system in the country depends on overtime, and it factors it into its budget planning. The main reason overtime is built in is some of the work, as I've mentioned, needs to be done off-peak, such as overnight track and facilities maintenance. Overtime covers absences and vacancies without having to overstaff each shift. Our collective bargaining agreements build overtime into how runs are scheduled. Costs rise each year with cost-of-living adjustments and negotiated raises. We recognized that there were clear opportunities to standardize processes, strengthen our controls, and give managers better access and tools. Previously, the mayor directed DTPW to develop an overtime reduction plan. What you see today is the plan in action. We manage four types of overtime in DTPW. Emergency overtime, obviously that's unplanned, safety-related overtime. We did a lot of that recently in public works. We had a lot of rains. We were sending our teams out at night to handle critical roadway drainage. Unplanned overtime stems from unforeseeable absenteeism due to illnesses or operating conditions where we can't meet our service adjustments and we need to adjust accordingly by adding in additional operators. Discretionary overtime, obviously, is management-approved overtime and then scheduled overtime. And that is overtime that is built in before the day even starts, through run cuts, through picks, through lineups, and contracted work rules. In fiscal year 26, DTPW spent $71 million in overtime. 95% of this overtime is transit-driven. And bus operations is where it is mostly concentrated, accounting for approximately 47% of that overtime. I will note 97% of our overtime costs are related to operational staff in the field, both in the transit side of the house and the public works side of the house. So this is just sort of a trend line of our overtime over the past few years. And what you see here accounts, as I've already noted, is the majority is on the transit side of the house. Overtime spends have largely remained consistent on a year-over-year, which tracks with our cost-of-living increases associated with our labor agreements. Obviously, the fiscal year 27 is our budgeted amount. It's not an actual. And budgeted versus actual for the last two most recent years led to a re-rationalization of fiscal year 27. Basically, we right-sized that number to reflect our actual usage for the past few years. Previously, DTPW did not have a department-wide overtime policy. Today, we are formalizing our system with clear rules, access to information, and clear owners of the process. We broke it down into several different areas. Staffing came first. We needed to make sure that we had continuous open recruitment for critical classifications, such as bus operators, train operators, rail technicians. Our target is to fill and retain critical positions below 5%. We are working to achieve that. We also put a formal policy in place, a transportation administrative policy, which requires written pre-approval for overtime, except in the situations of an emergency. Well, we need you to go out and handle something. We'll deal with that later. But every hour is code, reason-coded, logged, and reviewed. We have set hard safety limits. No more than 16 consecutive hours, 12-hour shifts for rail and bus classifications, and no more than 70 hours in any seven days. Every division will follow a same standard. We have written a standard operating procedure. We have a template. We now have a Power BI dashboard that alerts when employees have reached close to the threshold. So we say we don't want more than 70 hours. When you hit 60, there is an alert that occurs. Managers have now real-time data to manage overtime, and we have built accountability into this process. So one of our biggest levers associated with this is purchasing the hostess scheduling software. As I previously noted, 47% of our overtime is scheduled overtime in transit. That means this new hostess system that we have purchased, which will help us automate crew scheduling and daily dispatch. It will produce better run cuts, rostering, less open work, and will comply with our labor rules associated with our collective bargaining agreements. It will also right-size our board, so we have operators who are on the bubble, who are standby operators, and it will make sure we don't have too many board operators waiting to cover absences or open runs. Full implementation of hostess is targeted for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 27. We will have labor relations reviewed before we launch fully to ensure that we are compliant with our agreements. Our goal for year one is at least a 5% reduction in schedule-driven overtime. So lasting change doesn't just happen through process. It happens with contracts and with workforce. We have contracting strategy in future CBAs and our agreements with our TWU and GSAF partners. We wish to pursue scheduling flexibility and clear overtime equalization language, which will help us normalize some of this overtime. We also have a three-year hiring plan, making sure that we target hiring within 90 days or less and have an 85% retention within 12 months of hiring. 12 years would be great, but 12 months. We also want to pursue flexible scheduling. That could be part-time scheduling, contracted staffing, et cetera, to cover peak periods so that we don't rely on premium pay or overtime pay. We also are producing more cross-training and career pathing opportunities to make sure that we have a deeper pool of qualified staff. In my time here at DTPW, we have moved from no consistent department-wide overtime management system to a formal policy, a standardized process across all divisions, access to real-time data, and a clear accountability path. The next 12 months will move us closer to tangible progress on overtime management and delivering on our goals, managing overtime in a way that is transparent, data-driven, and efficient. Protecting our service quality and the safety and well-being of our employees is part of this process, while we honor our collective bargaining agreements, while removing overtime that is unnecessary. With that, I wanted to just do a quick overview. We do have plans in place. We have dashboards in place. We have standard operating procedures in place. And I am happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Gonzalez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Director, for that great PowerPoint presentation. I guess my question is, I heard you say that the year one goal is a 5% reduction. I think that's a good goal. Is this a conservative goal? Is this best-case scenario? What is that 5%? It is a conservative goal. So we're aiming 5%, but we're aiming for more. That would be the intention. But, again, it's a brand-new software system. So we want to be sure that we are being mindful of not over-promising and under-committing. That's great. But we can anticipate an educated guess of at least 5%. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So can you quantify what that 5% would be? What does that mean number-wise? So that's in our schedule-driven side of the house. So that area is approximately $35.5 million, so it would be 5% of that $35.5 million. We're thinking around $1.7 million. That all would occur in fiscal year 28 because, as we said, we don't have a full realization of the program until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 27. We have already started to use the program, and we will start to see efficiencies, but it will not be fully realized until the end of fiscal year 27 as we transition from our existing program to our new program. Got it. So $1.7 million as per the fourth quarter? That would be once we've enacted the entire program. So that would be starting in fiscal year 28, not in fiscal year 27. Remember, we have three lineups a year. So our rationalization and all of this usage occurs with those three lineups in the spring, summer, and fall. So we're not saving any money this year? We are not. We don't have any planned savings because, again, we are still learning the new software. But our goal is to reduce discretionary overtime as well as unplanned overtime. But scheduled overtime is more difficult until we've enacted the new program totally. But this year you're aiming to reduce the discretionary? We are aiming to reduce certain commotes. We had four components. The scheduled overtime is the biggest bulk of that, and that will occur with the scheduling software. Again, fourth quarter. The other areas, now, obviously, from an emergency perspective, I can't guarantee what emergencies will occur and won't occur. But on discretionary and unplanned, our goal is to continue to reduce those with our new process in place. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Yeah, that was good. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez, for bringing the item. Contextually, are we here because we directed you to put together an overtime reduction plan? I'm just trying to remember. I can't recall. Was there a directive to whether it was a budget or another committee hearing, or did you all do this on your own? We were asked to present. That's what I thought. We were asked to present. Okay, so absent the request to present, would you all have put together an overtime reduction preparation plan? Was that already in the works? It was already in the works. Okay, and this is the new software that you were just showing us, hiatus or hiatus or whatever the name of it. I'm sorry. Hostess. Hostess. That's the overtime reduction plan? That is a component of the plan. We have a full plan, and we also have a new policy, and we have standard operating procedures that didn't exist in our past. So we've been developing all of that. Hostess is just one component of that plan. How long have you been working on an overtime reduction plan? Not quite a year. So after I joined, we started diving into this. So I would say within the last probably 18 months in earnest, a little more than a year. Okay, so help me then understand, if you've been working on an overtime reduction plan in earnest for give or take 18 months, how our Transportation Department budget went from an overtime actual spend in 23-24 of $67.4 million to the following year, fiscal year 24-25 of $69 million. The next year, $58 million. And this year, our proposed overtime spend, according to the budget that we passed, is $75 million. So where is the outcome of the overtime reduction plan that has been worked on for 18 months, where overtime in our fiscal year 26-27 budget has ballooned to, I don't know what the percent is, of 60, 58 to 75. But it is substantially increased. So the increase from actual year over year is 6%. How so? Show me the 6%. I'm looking directly in the budget book at page 60. Of actual, not of budgeted. As I mentioned, the budget, we, after working with the Department of Management and Budget, we, excuse me, the Office of Management and Budget, the overtime needed to be right-sized to our actuals, given that the majority of it is scheduled overtime. So while the budgeted amount was much lower, our actual expenditures year over year haven't changed that much. And from this year to next year, it's only a 6% increase in overtime between our actual for fiscal year 26 and our planned overtime for fiscal year 27. Okay, so then why is the proposed at $75.3 million in the budget that we just passed? Maybe I don't understand, but that's why I'm asking. So it was 71 for this year, and it's a 6% increase to the proposed budget. No, so in the budget book on page 60, fiscal year 25-26 budget, $58 million. The projection was $61 million. The budget was $58. The projection for that same year 25-26 was $61 million. Proposed for fiscal year 26-27 is $75 million. Right, so we spent $71 million in actual versus looking at the budgeted, and that's both transit and public works. I see. Combine that. So the budgeted $58 million and the projection of $61 million turned into $71 million actual. Correct. So last year we under-budgeted whatever the delta between $71 million and $58 million is, and the delta is $10 million between the projection and the actual. Yes, ma'am. So can we expect that this year? We have a budgeted of $75 million. Are we going to spend another $10 million in actuality? No, ma'am. As I mentioned, after looking at the actuals for the past few years, we right-sized the budgeted amount of overtime for this fiscal year. There is no expectation that we would have a dramatic difference as we have in previous years based on the fact that it has been reallocated and right-sized to our actual needs. Okay. And so when you say a 5% reduction is what you anticipate as a result of the transportation overtime reduction efforts, and when my colleague was asking you what does that actually boil down to from a financial perspective, you said approximately a little over $1 million. To be clear, I understand that it's $1 million of the 40%, which is the scheduled overtime, but in the actual overtime budget for your department, it's actually $1 million out of $71 million, correct? Correct, because that is the scheduled overtime that we are tackling under the hostess program, but we are tackling discretionary and unplanned overtime through other mechanisms. Okay. And what is the anticipated reduction as a result of those efforts? I do not have that percentage with me today. Okay. Is it unreasonable for us to ask for a greater percentage reduction in overtime in the transportation budget? Ask. I mean, I'm not sure how this works, right? I don't know whether we can say do better, and I don't know what the actual implications of do better means. Does that mean – what does that mean? Like if we said – I get that we passed $75 million, right? So you've got room, okay? But it's also a budget that's upside down by quite a bit with, I think, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, $96 million being borrowed from another source because one of our colleagues changed that into a loan program, correct? And, again, correct me if I'm wrong. We're borrowing $96 million to close this transportation budget gap for this fiscal year, and the only projected saving that we are anticipating is $1 million in overtime expense. I'm asking you, can we do better? Again, so I just want to be clear that the TID loan, I believe it was $66 million to the Department of Transportation and Public Works, but I will confirm that for you. Okay. I apologize for not having that number at the top of my head. Again, the hostess program will ultimately get fully enacted for fiscal year 28. That reduction in scheduled overtime won't necessarily occur in fiscal year 27. Sure. I commit to reducing non-scheduled overtime during fiscal year 27, but we don't have a specific reduction percentage available today. Sure. The reason I'm asking the questions in the way that I am is because, frankly, in less than a month or so and then the subsequent year, should tax reform pass, we're all going to be forced to do this anyway, right? I mean, we're all going to be forced to do this anyway. So I'd rather us be prepared. And so I think more aggressive measures need to be implemented immediately so that the transition for our amazing employees is not abrupt and aggressive and really disruptive. And so I understand that this is just a presentation, but I think everybody on this board is very interested in our transportation budget. There's lots of ordinances and resos that have been passed to help you do your work. Um, I would like us to ramp up the efforts to scale back the overtime in a just and a balanced and a measured way that's allowing you to provide the service to our residents, that's allowing our employees to make money. But I just don't know how we sit on a $75 million allocation for overtime during this fiscal year with no communication to us that we can expect any reduction in that spend whatsoever, considering the budget crisis or climate, I'll say, the budget climate that we're in. Like, that's, that's the undertone of my do better, right? And hopefully I've explained that sufficiently. I don't expect that you have any answer for us today. Maybe the expectation would, was that we would be happy with the 5%. Um, I think we need to do more earlier is, is right. And I look forward to working with you towards that end and anything that you need from me to facilitate that I'm happy to do. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Gonzalez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank my colleague for bringing up those points, because this is, this is precisely why I felt like I needed to put this discussion item forward, because unfortunately, sometimes it seems like we put forward plans. I'm not saying that this is what's happening here, but it seems that we put forward plans because it's nice to have a plan and it sounds good. And it sounds like we're doing so much good stuff. And so when I hear DTPW overtime reduction plan, that sounds like we're going to get to a goal. But then today you're telling me that, Hey, yeah, man, we're going to reach 5% sometime in 2028. And there's other things that we're going to do to try to get some reductions now, but I don't know what those numbers are going to be. And I can't tell you exactly what all of the things that we're going to be able to implement are. I understand that, you know, as during the course of business, there are things that are going to be implemented and we're going to be able to get to some sort of reductions. And this is an ongoing battle. But my frustration is that this board has to not only with this department, but with other departments, almost force the conversation to happen so that you folks know that we're paying attention. Because if we're not paying attention, then it just seems like we just pretend that we're going to save money and we pretend that we're going to implement plans. And then nobody ever asked questions. And then all of a sudden, two years passed by and we didn't we didn't save any money. Here's another question. How much did this software system cost? Sure. So because we're saving 1.7 million. Right. How much did the software system cost? So bear with me while I find that document. Document. So the hostess program, the initial five-year term was $4 million. The six-year term is $6.3 million. Excuse me. The 10-year term is $6.3. We would recover the cost of this program in less than four years in addition to all of our other savings associated. And as you know, we bring you three lineups every year. Some are major. Some are minor. There's usually cost savings, not just overtime cost savings, but savings in general with our scheduling modifications. So just in the overtime alone, we would recoup that in less than four years of a potential 10-year commitment of $6.3 million for this program. So we believe there are a lot of benefits. In addition, there are two other programs that were canceled that were part of our prior scheduling software that also recouped monies and reduced DTPW's expenditures when it came to software. So there was a combination. We're not using those softwares anymore? No. How much money are we saving for not using those softwares? Because I guess, I mean, I don't want to berate the point because I'm sure you guys are doing the best you can. But if we're spending $1 million a year on the software, because you're telling me four years, four million? Less than four years to recoup that cost alone just in overtime reduction, not just scheduling modifications. Right, but if we're saving a little over $1 million every year, so the savings is not really $1.7 million because we're spending $1 million for the software just so we can have the $1.7 worth of savings. We're saving about $700,000. We have to have the software regardless. Absolutely. That is the only way we can schedule our runs, schedule the opportunities for our bus routes, et cetera. To answer your other questions, by reducing the two other contracts, we saved an additional $380,000 a year. Okay. By not having those two extra contracts, which were associated with the prior scheduling software. Our prior scheduling software was almost $18 million over a 16-year period. That's expired. We're running under this new one. Again, haven't been using all of the bells and whistles because we're still learning it. So the software that we're using now for scheduling is much less expensive than our prior, and we were able to reduce several other contracts and produce cost savings there as well because this new software is much more robust. That's great because now we're also saving the money that we were – well, the money that we were using for that software is now being implemented in this software, and that adds to our savings. And so – but it's still not about $1.7 because we have to factor in that differential for the software. Fair. I think that what we can take from this presentation, and I'm happy to hear from the chair as well, but I think what we can take from this presentation is that we're going to be paying attention not only in this department but in every other department. And once we're able to allocate those savings, this board needs to – this board will be diligently looking at what those numbers are so that we can figure out what the best way for those savings to be spent for the benefit of the taxpayers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. So just following up on his comments, thank you, Director, for the explanation of where savings are achieved in different softwares that we're not using. I think that would have been helpful to present in this presentation. I'll tell you why. Because, you know, when you talk about savings, it's never really just one element. It's a lot of things put together. So there are investments that are made, right, like in a new software package, savings in not using other software packages. So you're kind of getting the drift. We don't – you know, and as much as I appreciate Commissioner Gonzalez's questions, I think it makes sense moving forward for you all to remember to think that way, right? So, you know, I remember when we were talking about the savings of vacancies, and it turned out that, well, it's really not so much a total savings because some of our positions were going to constitutional officers and the money was going there. So what I would like for moving forward, Chief, is to see if you all can provide us all of the information, right? Because the director made some very good points, kind of walking us through what we had before, what we don't have now, the savings there, the cost of the new software, when it would be – you know, when would we begin to recoup those savings so you get a better picture that is more comprehensive. And I think your line of questioning, Commissioner Gonzalez, allowed us to see that. But I think it would have been good to have as part of our presentation. That's one. If you can go back to the slide that had the four areas where we have – and I don't have it on my screen, but if we go back to the slide that had the four different types of overtime that we incur, right? Yes. So, yes, that one. So I would love to know of the – and let's look at the prior year, for instance, because I think this is important. It's good to know what they are. I like to know what the number is, right? So from an emergencies perspective, how much overtime did we last year incur for emergencies? And the reason I ask this question is, when you mentioned things like, you know, when it's raining and we need to ensure roadways are clear, et cetera, that speaks to a different type of problem we have, which is the need for infrastructure, right, that works, which is part of this problem. Under emergencies – and, you know, I think about it all the time because in the legislature, when local counties and municipalities would come to us for infrastructure funding, we were very quick to want to help there, not parks and not things like that that we think are part of what local government should be providing. But our joint, I think, partnership between us and the state allows us to say, look, if we've got infrastructure needs, you know, we're kind of band-aiding them with overtime, right? There's some real infrastructure needs that – listen, in my district, all it has to do is rain 15 minutes. And you know my district well, Director, we're underwater, all of us. It's wild how quickly I see the accumulation of water and the roadways are absolute – I myself now have a car problem because I went through at Flagler when it was raining and my car stalled 10 times and I thought I got it home and it would be fine and then it didn't start again, right? That's all part and parcel to what our residents are experiencing, and I just happen to have experienced it personally. So I'm curious if you could tell me how much was spent in each of these categories. I'd be happy to get that to you. That would be great. I don't know if my colleagues are interested, but I think that's where we'll know. Is it really in emergencies? Because then, you know, everything that we learn on the ground should inform policy. And I'm finding that as I look at this, emergency, unplanned, discretionary, and then scheduled. We've talked a lot about the scheduled savings, but I don't know if my big overtime is being spent in emergencies because then that is going to help us speak to, okay, well, then what is that big problem? And if it's unplanned – and in particular, I'd like to know under the unplanned, how much of our overtime was attributed to absences? We can get you that information. Yeah, because that tells me – and listen, I know that our bargaining agreements, you know, are fixed here and people don't show up to work, but I think we have, you know, the right to know that people who don't show up for work, and if it's repeatedly, like if we could learn more – you know, I'm just going to drill down. Is it a particular person, a particular unit, a particular group that doesn't show up to work that requires us to pay overtime to continue to provide the services that we know our constituents, you know, deserve? So I found this slide to be very important because once we get the numbers, we're going to – that's going to help us decide where do we go from here because, honestly, the scheduled, you've already told us how that works, and it sounds like we'll be making some savings there based on what you can and know. But the others appear to be kind of a free-for-all here. Well, they're not a free-for-all. I appreciate that. But we are now going to be coding now that we've put this plan together. So prior years, there wasn't a code for emergencies. It was discretionary over time. So it wasn't coded as an emergency unless it was related to a reimbursable FEMA emergency. Right. So in a lot of instances, they were just discretionary over time. We would send the team out. They will now be coded very differently in the future. We do have the information about unplanned due to vacancies, and we have a very formal process in DTPW as it relates to absenteeism and a disciplinary process when we see excessive absenteeism. We have a very specific, rigid methodology that we go through so that we are ensuring that our staff are not taking advantage by utilizing a great deal of absenteeism. So we already have that in place, and that's been in place for many years. But we're happy to provide you a breakdown. And I understand absenteeism is a normal course of running a business. I'm talking about the part that creates a bigger problem, where you're having to step in and provide overtime to cover what might be a problem. I want to commend you for separating it out. I want to suggest that you go further in detail, right? So maybe have some subcategories. Under unplanned, it would be absences, right? The next one, detours, because you've listed them out. I think we would appreciate knowing where all of this over time, because when I think $75 million, look, I mean, that's almost an outrageous amount to think about, right? But I understand that it's now all based because of this. And I'm really grateful, Commissioner Gonzalez, you brought this discussion item here, because I was unclear where $75 million could ever come from. But we now have at least some idea of what's generating this over time. But I think if you could continue to further, you know, detail it, and then maybe every quarter come back and say, here we are. This is what we are experiencing. So that you all understand it. It will be good for us, because then we'd know, gosh, detours. Who knew? You know, weather, the illnesses, everything else that you've sort of explained it, I'd like to see numbers attached to it. I don't know how my colleagues feel. We'll see how far we can. We'll, again, not something we have for our past. That's not how we managed our overtime. We'll determine what categories we can analyze and reason code so that we can provide you with more feedback. And I think bringing it back on a quarterly basis allows us to see whether we're making any progress or not. Or, worse yet, is if there's some problematic areas that are really driving this. So I appreciate very much your presentation. Again, Commissioner Gonzalez, kudos to you for bringing it. It's just the kind of work we want to do here at this level. So thank you, Director, for this presentation. Yes. No, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Sorry. Really quick, I know we're wrapping up, but I don't want this presentation to be the beginning and the end of the effort, and I know you all are implementing. I do invite you to come back at the January committee to let us know where you are in your efforts in potentially reducing overtime this year. Because, again, when I look at the numbers, your wages for your department, without the fringes, just the salaries, is at $376 million. At least that's what the budget book says, right? And then $75 million is overtime. I know it's at $71 million, but what's budgeted is $75 million. And tell me if the numbers are wrong. That's almost 20%. It's 20% industry standard for overtime on wages. I understand that every transportation department is run. I get that overtime is necessary, but it's not the same as, like, the police department, for example. It's a different – and I'm trying to understand contextually. Is overtime at large transportation systems running in those percentages? I can definitely do some more investigating on that moving forward. I don't have that information with me today. Okay. But we don't look at other departments, and we don't compare what overtime other major transportation authorities or major transportation departments similar to ours. We don't look to others to see whether we're falling within a metric that is considered to be reasonable or even acceptable. I think the issue is that we all have different collective bargaining agreements and different requirements, and it's never an apples-to-apples comparison. So it's difficult to look – to drill into that particular subset without understanding their collective bargaining agreement rules and any differences that may apply to our collective bargaining agreement rules. So it's a much more complex issue than just like-for-like. Sure. I understand that there's not going to be two departments that are precisely and exactly the same, but I have to believe that there are metrics out there that speak to whether Chicago's Transportation Authority or New York's Metro Transportation Authority is paying that sort of percent in overtime. If they're paying 5% in overtime, that would be of interest to me when we're paying 19%, right? And we will definitely look up. And final question, what is the percentage of our overtime that is correlated directly to CBA obligations? So that would be a portion of our scheduled overtime as well as our unplanned overtime as well as some of the discretionary overtime. So it's a percentage in some of those different areas. But we don't quantify how much is directly attributed to that? I would have to do some more investigation to determine whether we can directly apply CBA requirements with overtime hours. But we'll do that further analysis. The reason I ask is because – Through the Chair. I'm sorry. I want to – her answer is spot on, but I really appreciate the line of questioning that you have. We can find benchmarks and, to the extent possible, see where we fall within the benchmarks and then do a regression analysis to see what are the variables that are attributing to our difference from our peers. One of them will be the CBAs. Sure. I may not be able to draw an apples-to-apple on this dollar is a CBA, but I can share with you the cost of our CBAs, what it is costing us to have particular work rules, right, that then entitle employees to particular benefits. Sure. And overtime is not only a benefit, but it actually is a tool. So one of the things we'd like to bring more transparency to, and this is a great start in this presentation, is how we use overtime as a tool. On one of the slides, she did a fantastic job of showing not just the CBAs and the work rules, but the other things that we're doing to try to address this, which is changing the work schedules, doing cross-training, and then hiring and retention, retaining the operators once we have them. Because we spend a lot of money bringing people on, we need to do a good job of retaining them. So I'm open to working with Stacy and making sure that in advance of that January meeting, we get answers to many of these questions, because I think the line of questioning is perfect, and she's spot on. We can't do apples to apples, but we can show you where we are relative to others, and then the variables that are driving the difference. That would be helpful. Thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez, yes, of course. And so that, you know, her line of questioning kind of triggers something in me, where I want to say this as respectfully as possible. The fact that we're not thinking like that is concerning. The fact that we're already not focusing on comparables and trying to figure out how we can do this better by comparing ourselves to other major metropolitan areas is concerning. One thing that I will say is you did make a great point, right? You didn't, you know, you weren't here before, right? So you can't speak to how things were done in the past, but you are responsible for the future. You're the new captain, right? You and every director in Miami-Dade County is literally the CEO of a multimillion-dollar corporation, and you're here because you have the capacity, and you're well-suited for the role. But we need to be proactive about things. It goes back to the conversation that we had earlier about seriousness. We need to be serious. That starts at the top, which means that the buck ends with the director, right? So some of the suggestions that were brought up here were brilliant suggestions by Commissioner Lopez and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. These are suggestions, but we need to be proactive about thinking like this. We need to think like the private sector, not think like, hey, it's not my money anyways, so let's just figure out how it gets done. We can't operate like that. I'm not saying that you're doing that, but sometimes when we're not being proactive about how is Chicago doing it, how is New York doing it, what's our collective bargaining agreements compared to what other sectors are doing, how can we minimize when we're not – If we don't – if we're not proactive about thinking like that, it just seems like we don't care about what we're doing. And I know for a fact, because I've had many conversations with you, that you really care and your heart is in this, okay? So you're responsible for where we go in the future. I love your idea, Chair, of having this quarterly, not only with this department, but I don't know if it's – we don't have to discuss this today, but perhaps in the future, maybe we can require this for every department. And I would just say that thank you for the explanation that clarified that our CBA actually is not just in scheduled. I didn't know that. So it would be helpful when you give me the numbers, how much CBA is in unplanned or discretion, wherever it is, so that we get a really good feel. Because I think to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' point, and to yours, obviously, that we're never going to get apples and apples. But it is important for us to know where the CBA is impacting us and how much. And so, you know, the breaking down into these categories I think will be very important. So is there any other comments? I don't think that we do have any, so I just want to thank – yes, Chief. Through the Chair, we actually – I don't want it to look like Stacey didn't have the information. We have a very large team. She has an incredible army of workers behind her. And so we have access to that information. We have that information. Just don't have it at this moment. So I didn't want it to seem as if we didn't have the information. Oh, no, no. I knew the Director had it. And here's what I would say. In the future, those are important things to also bring in your presentation, right? I mean, the more detail you can give us with dollars, the better we will be able to, you know, kind of move through these presentations. So, again, thank you, Director. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. We stand adjourned.