Thank you. Okay, can we please rise? We'll have our invocation done by my Vice Chair, Commissioner Lopez, and our pledge done by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. For everyone bowed their heads, Heavenly Father, we thank you for the opportunity to gather here today in service of our community. Grant us wisdom, discernment, and a spirit of integrity as we deliberate on the matters before us. Help us to listen with open hearts, speak with respect, and lead with fairness and compassion. Give us the strength to make sound decisions that promote the common good, protect the vulnerable, and build a stronger community for everyone we represent. We ask for your guidance and peace throughout this meeting. We do so in your name. Amen. Thank you. To our attorneys, do we have any changes that we need to go over? Good morning, Madam Chair. There is one change on your official changes memorandum. That is the addition of item 1G1 supplement. Would you like to take the reasonable opportunity to be heard at this time? Yes, that will be fine. So at this time, we will open the reasonable opportunity to be heard. If there's anyone here, we welcome you now to come down and speak on any items on the agenda. I do not have any speaker cards, so this is the opportunity to come down and speak. Good morning. Barbara Galvez with the Clerk of the Clerk and Controllers Office. I'm here supporting item 3C, I'm sorry, 3A, and also recommending, if possible, requesting, actually, if we can have that item go to the November 17 BCC agenda. Okay. Thank you, Barbara. Thank you. I'm also here if you have any questions. Thank you. Do you want to introduce yourself? Barbara Galvez, Clerk of the Clerk and Controllers Office. Thank you. Thank you so much. Anybody else for the reasonable opportunity to be heard? Now's the time. Okay. Seeing none, reasonable opportunity is closed at this time. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, the items for the committee's consideration today are those in the final printed agenda with the addition of 1G1 supplement, as mentioned previously. So, with that, a motion to set the agenda is in order. Okay. Moved. Okay. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Our agenda is set. At this time, I will have any requests for pulls or bifurcations from my colleagues. Madam Chair, 2B and 3B. Anybody else? Good morning, Madam Chair. 3B. Vice Chair? No. Okay. Okay. Okay. With that, do we have a motion on the rest of the agenda? And, Madam Chair, that would be with the exception of 1G1 as well? With the exception of 1G1, the public hearing, yes. With the exception of 1G1, 2B and 3B, do I have a motion on the rest of the agenda? Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. See that approved? Okay. So, we can take up... I know that... All right, we can go ahead and start with 2B, Commissioner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is a great item. I commend you, Madam Chair, for bringing forward... Because I think that it's an important measure to strengthen accountability in the county procurement process. Now, competitive bidding is one of the most effective ways to protect taxpayers and ensure that government receives the best possible value. I particularly appreciate that your resolution recognizes legitimate exceptions while requiring the county to explain them. I think that we're definitely overdue in making sure that these things happen. I would love the opportunity to co-sponsor it. I do have 2 minor recommendations if you would like to consider them. I think that it might be useful if the item identifies the dollar value and the expiration date of each contract and if it identified the potential savings and prioritizes the contracts presenting the greatest opportunities for competition. These are just ideas. And if you'd like to entertainment, I can pose an amendment. Yes, I'm open to that. You go ahead with the amendment. So I'd like to amend if the county attorney's office could pay attention. I'd like to amend that the item identifies the dollar value and expiration date of each contract and identifies potential savings and prioritizes the contracts presenting the greatest opportunities for competition. Thank you, Madam Chair. And if you would accept that amendment. I accept the amendment. Are there any further comments on 2B? Yes. First of all, thank you so much for the amendment. I'd like to second that amendment and also I'd like to sponsor it. I think, as you said, it is so critically important, especially now with Amendment 3 passing that we begin to see whether the taxpayer is getting the best deal for the services that we're going to be providing. So I want to thank the Madam Chair for bringing this forth and I definitely want to co-sponsor. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Did you have anything? Okay, thank you. Yeah, I accept the amendment. I appreciate my colleagues' support and I think this committee has been, you know, at the forefront of really setting the tone when we talk about sole source, right, because it locks us into these contracts forever and ever and the excuse is we can't get out of it because then it's going to cost us more money but we do need a plan. We need a plan now and obviously, you know, this election was a very sobering moment for Miami-Dade County and we need to be serious about future planning and how we decide on our procurement items. So thank you. With that, do I have a motion on 2B? So moved. Second. Motion, second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, show that approved. And let's move on to 3B. Madam Chair, that's 2B as amended. 2B as amended. Thank you. Okay, 3B. It was pulled by Commissioner Gonzalez and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, you know, we discussed this, I believe, in length at the last committee meeting and I want to thank Commissioner Lopez for, I guess, opening a kind of worms here and also Commissioner Cohen-Higgins for her line of questioning at the last hearing. This is what we would call in the Miami-Dade community un arroz con mango because I'm glad that we just talked about the soul sourcing and continuing and kind of being held hostage to being able to continue on or find somebody else. But in this particular case, it just seems like we allowed somebody to continue with a service and then for one reason or another, because it is linked to a grant, those folks can't be paid, but we never told them to stop. That's just the way it came off last time I was, last time we had this conversation. So I do have just some questions just so we can clarify and move over this and maybe learn from it on both sides, right? So if I can get Director Baker to come up. Good morning, Director. So Director, I want to revisit some of the questions raised when this item previously came before us. My office had the opportunity to meet with the representatives from Thriving Minds. We also reviewed some of the correspondence and some of the supporting documents extending back several years, I believe 2022. The record raises a few serious questions about the administration's handling of this project and I'm sure that there's an explanation. So I kind of just want to go through it so we can explain and figure out what really happened here. In December of 2022, this board authorized the administration to accept assignment of the construction contracts so the county could complete the project with Thriving Minds. Why was the assignment never completed? I'm going to need some help with that so give me a moment please. Go ahead, Miriam. Go ahead. Commissioner, we did negotiate with Thriving Mind to execute some assignment agreements but we were unable to come to terms and so we never brought those assignment agreements to the board. In 2022? Or are you referring to 2024? I think that's right. Back to 2022? 2022? That sounds right. I know that I was involved in some of these discussions at the end of 2023. There was an issue we could not get passed and so we did not recommend that assignment. So I reviewed some correspondence from 2022, 23, 24, and 25 documented repeated requests by Thriving Minds and its council to complete the transition. Did the administration receive these requests and what prevented it from acting on them? We did receive correspondence about assuming the construction contracts but whenever we tried to put in writing with the other side what the terms of the assignment would be we could not agree on indemnification and the administration did not want to bring to this board an assignment agreement where we were assuming more liability than we currently had and because of that we never came to terms on those assignment agreements and then they and then it wasn't necessary because they did finally finish the punch list and we didn't need to assume those agreements anymore. Got it. So they eventually finished the work? Correct. Now Thriving Minds maintains that it submitted invoices properly and that none were formally rejected or disputed. Is that accurate? If so why were those invoices not paid? So core central to this item is the idea that the contract with Thriving Minds expired back in June of 2024. Right. Because that contract expired yes Thriving Minds did submit invoices did submit things for payment we have been unable to pay them without an active contract. This item is asking the board to reactivate that contract so that we can pay out everything that has been verified to date and leaving a balance of approximately 222 222,000 over the next 90 days to finish closing out any remaining project management costs or administrative costs and that is all this item is asking for there is no new money being requested this is all money that was part of the original project it is unfortunate that that contract expired in June 2024 and rather inconvenient I would say to have to be up here explaining why that contract expired because there's no really good answer. And I think that's the pushback that kind of triggered all of this from some of my colleagues including Commissioner Lopez and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins right because you know the prudent thing to do here is I guess let me phrase it this way why didn't this come up two years ago in 2024 why wouldn't we have come in front of the commission to get this authority knowing that this was contingent on a grant that needed the authority from the commission why didn't we do that two years ago is there is there a reason for that director there are a couple of things that were happening at that time one was the possibility that thriving minds was considering leaving the project and we were trying to work through as as Brenda mentioned an assignment of the contract to Thornton construction and we weren't able to reach terms on that so there was time lost there there was other administrative and legal zigzags that were being worked through to try to get this back in front of the board correctly and I would also say that during the several months that we were navigating the approval of the mental health operations that the item that was before the board earlier this year I would say that this contract got put in the back of the room so to speak while that was being done so there's not really a good legitimate reason why this shouldn't have been back through the board to be reactivated more timely but it didn't happen and that's why we're in front of you to get this corrected now thank you director so what I'm hearing is the documents that I reviewed appear to establish that thriving minds repeatedly sought to turn over the project and I believe that that was a directive from the commission that some of these tasks be performed by the county by the administration so I've seen some documents where thriving mind is repeatedly I guess saying hey county you need to take care of these projects while the administration did not complete the necessary contractual agreements is it fair to conclude that the responsibility for the prolonged delay rests on the administration or is it fair to say that it's because of thriving minds the prolonged delay of getting them paid of getting them paid and also having them continuing a service when we didn't have a contractual well they didn't have a contractual obligation to continue we sort of don't have a contractual obligation to pay them I mean I guess they could they could assert unjust enrichment because they kept going but if they're continuously telling us hey we're not supposed to be doing this you guys are supposed to be doing this moving forward and then they continue doing it and we don't say anything we're kind of conceding that they continue the job and they're kind of relying that eventually we're going to pay them and now we're here asking to go back so that we can pay them yeah well we're very fortunate they continued to do this and brought the construction project to completion I think initially the idea was that thriving minds would have been the operator of the building at the front end so for them to leave the project would have been inconvenient for us and I think they took on a lot of risk on their own by continuing to do the work while the contract was expired but again fortunately they did and fortunately we now have a completed project I agree with I agree with you I agree with you wholeheartedly I'm glad that they continued to do this because otherwise nobody would have done it right but the issue here is that I believe that there was a directive that they don't do the work anymore and that the administration or the county assume that work this is the way that I see it right and maybe my colleagues can help me but I'm trying to rationalize this because I think that everything in life is an opportunity to learn so that we don't commit mistakes in the future but the way that I see this like for example I tell my daughter she needs to mow the lawn and she tells me you know dad I'll tell you what I can hire somebody to mow the lawn right if you give me $20 and then my daughter goes and she finds somebody that will mow the lawn for $20 and I tell her well we can try this for a year but no more than a year so she hires this person and has a contract with this person to mow the lawn for a year six months down the line I tell my daughter you know what I don't think this is working out I think you should be mowing the lawn you know because you said you had to do a lot of stuff for school and that's why I give you the $20 a month but at the end have to keep going for six months fair enough six months continue three months down the line the person who's mowing the lawn tells my daughter hey remember that in three months I'm not supposed to keep mowing your lawn yours are the one who's supposed to be doing this four months hey don't forget two months from now you gotta mow the lawn not me anymore because our contract is over we get to the six month break crickets now we go over the contract hey I'm still mowing your lawn you're gonna have to pay me at the end of the month three months down the line hey man I've been mowing your lawn for three months you have to pay me well the problem is my daughter's not getting the $20 a month from me so now she's gotta come back and say dad you remember you told me that I was supposed to mow the lawn even though the person who was mowing the lawn was supposed to stop they continued mowing the lawn and I kind of didn't tell them anything and so we need to go back now and extend the contract for another three months so I can pay them the last three months of them mowing the lawn even though you told me I had to do it that's what I feel is happening in this contract which by all purposes right thriving minds needs to get paid for mowing the lawn they have to right unjust enrichment they have to but I don't want to accuse anybody of anything but the way that I'm trying to frame it and maybe I'm wrong maybe you can correct me it just seems very irresponsible that we would not take on mowing the lawn and or go back and say hey we need more time before the contract expired because this is basically a Hail Mary to try to pay these people for work that they probably shouldn't well that they for sure shouldn't have been doing and that we are not contract contractually obligated to pay them for I would say we are morally obligated to pay them for work I would be far more concerned if they were doing work that was not part of the scope or activities that were approved as part of the original contract I agree with you director and look you weren't here when this happened right and I think that it's very not only formidable but it's very admirable that you're standing up there kind of falling on the sword for something that you didn't do but that's what a leader does so I respect that sir I respect that tremendously it is not my intention to you know try to embarrass you up here sir you did not make this decision the reason I'm going through this line of questioning and trying to get to the bottom of what happened is because being the major metropolitan area that we are being the leading county in the state and possibly in the country scenarios like this should not be happening in Miami Dade County and they certainly wouldn't be happening in the private sector and I think that's the pushback that this very simple resolution is getting because you're right morally we should pay for it legally there's an argument for unjust enrichment to be made because they did do the work and they should receive it but from a managerial standpoint from a professional standpoint this is a little bit silly and I know that under your leadership things like this are not going to happen anymore but we certainly need to take these things seriously and I think that ever since this board has been put together with the leadership of our chairwoman and with the leadership of Commissioner Cohen Higgins and Commissioner Lopez I think that less and less things are going to get swept under the rug and I just feel like every department should not only pay attention but take it upon themselves to say hey I am part of one of the greatest conglomerates that gives services to some of the greatest people in America and I'm going to make it my duty to operate at the highest possible caliber in everything I do and that includes not doing silly things like this when we can avoid them thank you director no further questions thank you commissioner commissioner you had also pulled the item thank you madam chair and thank you commissioner gonzalez for your line of questioning to the director I remember this item from our last committee hearing and we deferred it for a number of reasons we deferred it because it arrived on the agenda at a very late hour that didn't allow the other entity involved to be present to answer any of our questions and in fairness to them how can we expect them to be here when it hits the agenda in such short notice but it's my understanding that they're here today and so I would like thriving minds to approach and the other reason we deferred the item was because we were not comfortable with this idea that there is still reconciliations taking place years after a project has been completed and that just didn't make a lot of sense to us in addition to the topics that Commissioner Gonzales just mentioned like why the contract expired in 2024 and we're just receiving the item at the end of 2026 and so all of that moves and travels together what is I'd like for the director to speak to is we made a motion and it was I think legally received as a request for information which is why it's my understanding that the item didn't come back in an amended form but can you speak to the reconciliations that have taken place since our last hearing until today because I felt very strongly like we need to stop this and we need to put an end to this on every level and I requested and I believe my colleagues agreed that whatever was outstanding in the area of reconciliation needed to be complete by this hearing that we are at today yes ma'am so the item as a whole represents 1.62 million of the outstanding payments that were to be paid from June 2024 through now of that amount 883 thousand at that time had remained unreconciled and unverified since our last meeting we have further verified approximately 600 and sorry 630 roughly with approximately 220 thousand that is still pending and what the item asked for is for reopening the contract for an additional 90 days to complete that close out for an up to amount of 292 thousand of which since time has passed there is approximately 220 thousand in project close out costs remaining to be verified we do have the information to be able to complete that close out and once this contract is reopened that would allow us to legally pay out those funds and finish any remaining verification so are those numbers different than the numbers that are original to the item has there actually been any reconciliations done from last hearing to today or are you just repeating the numbers that are in the original item no ma'am and the original item we had referenced 883 as pending to be resolved and since that time we have verified the amount that I just mentioned this 630,000 roughly of the 883,000 okay and the 292 is the exact same amount that's at the bottom of page two as anticipated project management and closeouts from May 26 through project closeout up to up to 292,000 which may be far less it may be zero okay so you did reconcile roughly $600,000 between last hearing and today we have verified and reconciled those numbers yes ma'am okay I appreciate you doing that to thriving minds thank you and welcome thank you for being here I want to just be clear that any questions that I ask are simply information gathering and please don't receive it in any other way this item is peculiar to a number of us on the committee for a number of reasons that I think have already been articulated and my goal is just to kind of understand what's going on here and so my colleague Commissioner Gonzalez mentioned that he spoke with you we also had the opportunity to speak with you after the last hearing and thank you for taking the time to meet with us it's important for us to obviously get both sides and be diligent in understanding these issues tell us from your perspective what happened here and why from our perspective at the last hearing it appeared as though you that I had at least from my point of view but after speaking with you after the hearing I got a completely different impression I got the impression that you all had submitted invoices they were submitted timely and so then I said okay well there's a real disconnect happening here and again not to be I don't want to be accusatory or disparaging at all I just want to understand from good afternoon commissioner Daniel Hanlon of Holland and Knight 701 Brickell Avenue on behalf of Thriving Minds and I'm here today with the principal Laura Naredo and I'm going to let her answer a lot of these detailed questions but I think as an overview my partner Miguel DeGrande had submitted correspondence to all of you and also through the county attorney's office and we essentially laid out that at the time that this contract was terminated pursuant to the agreement with the county we then proceeded to submit invoices and ask the county and multiple formal correspondence saying hey when are you all going to take over this contract when are you going to take over this contract we provided all information that would have been necessary in order for the county to take over the contract and I think as the county attorney had said we were responsive any time there were discussions about potential assignment agreement and we continued to follow up on that to commissioner Gonzalez's point about continuing to do the work again the county was not in privity with the prime contractor here it was our client so our client frankly had the legal liability here of just walking off the job to the prime contractor and both for those legal reasons and also as a good corporate citizen that has done work for the county in the past we didn't want to just leave the project and walk away and then deal with the lawsuits that would come with the contractors so we continued to manage the project hoping that the county would listen to us take it over there was never a rejection of them taking it over and we continue to timely send in those invoices we never received any rejection or objection to those invoices and so frankly we've just been in the position of continuing to wait but I'll have Ms. Naredo talk a little bit more good morning thank you for the opportunity I really do appreciate the opportunity to clarify the record Laura Naredo Thriving Mine South Florida President CEO I took over the position in January and being new to the project asking some of these same questions as far as moving this forward and closing out the project excuse me and yes like Daniel mentioned we have been throughout this entire process even when the contract expired continuing to invoice continuing to reconcile with the county continuing to have weekly meetings with them in a collaborative approach to close and bring this to close out so it was somewhat frustrating not being able to be here at the last meeting to be able to clarify the record because to your point commissioner there was certain perceptions of us not necessarily working and doing the work that was needed but we've been doing it all along throughout the project even as the contract expired in good faith as a good corporate citizen we couldn't pull out like Daniel mentioned we had a contract with construction company so it would be irresponsible to do so we appreciate the opportunity of clarifying the record because we have been doing the work and moving forward in a timely manner collaborating with the county thank you for clarifying that I'm looking at the correspondence that you all sent to the county going back to 2025 it says September 19 2025 it's titled formal notice of noncompliance with county resolution our one one two five dash twenty twenty two directing the county to accept assignment of contracts and complete development of the mental health center located at 2200 northwest 7th avenue and failure to pay valid uncontested invoices and then in the letter it goes on to say in all bold you know the county's failure to comply with the board's directive and take over this project and its continuing failure to pay valid invoices none of which have ever been contested by the county also increase the probability that the vendors and contractors owed money for services rendered on this project may soon take legal action because there's no sufficient funds able to pay them so you all were in a tough spot because you have the contract with the builders you're not getting paid by the county and so you can't pay them so that's that's what this letter states anyway as simply stated and in bold this will lead to unnecessary waste of county funds resulting from litigation that could be obviated if the county simply pay the uncontested invoices and take over the remainder of the project that was in 2025 and so to the administration I guess the bottom line question is we were not paying invoices that were being submitted to us apparently on a timely manner and the argument is because the contract expired and it wasn't extended but that simply begs the question again as to why we weren't presented with an opportunity to extend the contract in a timely manner to avoid all of this and so I guess what's the answer to that simple question because I can't imagine as a contractor running a business or thriving minds engaging a contractor running a business that has employees make and beat when money is being held up frankly I don't know how you did it thriving minds and I don't know how the contractor did it because this is not two months three months it's two years I don't know how that works so what is the answer to why we didn't extend the contract in 2024 at the time that it expired to allow these funds to be released in a timely manner for people and business people and contractors that were clearly doing the work it's admittedly a messy situation but when we received the letter that you referred to we did consult with the county attorney's office we have been discussing how to resolve this situation it was a little bit complicated what the mechanism would be it was ultimately decided that we would amend the grant agreement at the time the GOB agreement expired we still thought maybe we would assume these construction agreements that negotiation did not pan out and to be quite honest I don't think anyone thought it would take as long as it did to complete the punch list items you know when we talk about a punch list it sounds like very minor and quick fixes and I think everybody thought that would be very quick and it would not take this long and it took a lot longer than we expected but in fairness you don't need to complete the punch list items in order to extend an expired contract to keep money flowing as we sit here today the items are still not complete you're still holding back $292,000 for work that has yet to be completed so that still doesn't explain why we didn't bring I see chief shaking his head no help me please oh that wasn't directed towards me but do you understand what I'm saying the length of time that it takes to complete a punch list has nothing to do with extending an expired contract whether the punch list items are one through two or one through 200 you still know that there's work that needs to be done on this project and people who need to get paid so it doesn't really answer the question of why we didn't extend the contract when it expired in 2024 as opposed to waiting until now and placing what I understand to be good partners in a super difficult situation no ma'am I think that's absolutely correct we should have had this item well before June 2024 ready to be extended or if there were zigzags shortly thereafter once we realized that those other options weren't going to work out so I'm going to close my line of questioning to thriving minds and to the contractors associated with this project I apologize on behalf of Miami-Dade County for placing you in this situation and allowing this much time to go by with non payment I don't know if that company still exists I don't know if they've gone out of business I don't know what happened to their contractors that were looking to get paid I don't know if they have to take out loans in order to make ends meet but we can't continue to operate like this to the director and I think you agree director and hopefully to the attorneys as well if it's a matter of trying to figure out a way to move forward in light of a difficult and sticky situation that's why we have so many brilliant professionals on staff to figure these things out but in a far more efficient manner so thank you madam chair I'll support the item because I understand the facts far more completely now than I did previously and these people desperately need to get their money thank you thank you commissioner I know madam thank you madam chair and thank you to my colleagues for your line of questioning you know I think this speaks to a couple of things right first of all thank you thriving mind for being here I guess you know we've been seeing a lot of the same situation contracts that are expiring or expired with no forethought prior to the expiration right in particular this particular very complex situation which I am incredibly familiar with from my time in the state legislature I want to thank thriving mind for continuing its work without a contract quite frankly I don't know many people who would you're a good actor and I appreciate that very much and in the spirit of what Daniel said you know to be a good citizen you continued there appears to be a problem and I think I may have said this in another committee I'm working on an ordinance that will require the administration to let us know two years in advance of any contract that is going to expire so we know what our options are so we're not up against the wall like we are in this case this one is really egregious because this expired two years ago a contractor is continuing the work and not getting paid right so that's probably the worst case scenario but we also see where they bring contracts to us with two months left on it and tell us that we have to continue with the provider that we have without any options because we're up against the wall so I see that this is sort of a pattern which hopefully we can cure with the legislation that I'm bringing forward having heard it often times in different committees what I what I don't understand which you know and I want to thank the director very much for his briefing on this issue that I had with him this week but it's interesting when we were all questioning this item at our last committee meeting I do not recall being told that the reason we're in this mess now is because we cannot pay a vendor for work they may have already done because the contract is expired which you know I'm not familiar with that because at the state if you had a contract to do work it doesn't matter how long it takes you to provide your invoices we had a contract for the work and the services you provided and therefore they need to be paid in the case of this particular grant or whatever it is you cannot pay someone for work they've done unless you have an active contract I would have appreciated knowing that when we were all questioning this because that would have brought some clarity about why are we even here why is this item being brought forth then further in my briefings I find out that there is this these complex situations we're just hearing about right now right and it appears to have included the administration the county attorneys but in the end while they try to sort all that out a vendor is continuing to do work on our behalf thank goodness is what I would say to that but what if what if thriving mind had said I don't have an active contract I'm going to stop doing the work what would have happened here because I think we need to know what you would have done if they had said in 2024 we have no active contract we're not going to do anything what would have been the situation and I need to hear from both the administration and the county attorneys we would have entered into an emergency contract to complete the punch list and then we would have sought it against thriving mind because that was part of the responsibility for them to deliver a building that was complete to substantial completion so so you would have gone against thriving mind because they didn't finish the punch list although their contract had expired that is the avenue that okay does anyone else think that sounds crazy if in fact their contract expired and you could have come to us with an emergency that's what you should have done in June of 2024 you should have told the board we have an emergency a contract has expired they're not legally obligated to do anything if they don't have a contract because what you've said to me is that in this case without an active contract we can't pay them anyway so and I'm not a lawyer and I don't propose to be one however I'm a common sense person and a business woman so it makes zero sense to me why you didn't come to the board when the contract expired to explain all of this to a board who had the responsibility to determine whether or not it should proceed with an emergency contract so that the work could be completed so if that is correct could you have done that could you have come to us and said we have an emergency director oh either one at the time we didn't need to it sounds like you had to because thriving mind in good faith but you can't you can't operate like that this is a business I can't operate on the good faith of a good actor because I could have had a bad actor to be quite honest with everyone we could have a bad actor here we have to operate under under as Commissioner Gonzales said people have to have faith in the government and how we do business I can't depend on everyone to be as good as thriving mind honestly quite frankly we can't operate like that that doesn't even make any sense to me what makes sense to me is there is no contract it is expired there's work that needs to be concluded you have to bring it before the board now county attorneys what do you think of that we absolutely agree and our advice is always to our clients when the contract is about to expire to bring the contract back to the board in order to get the board permission to extend the contract or to ask the board for the authority to pay whatever outstanding invoices are that's what I think so I'm happy to hear that despite the fact I'm not an attorney the attorneys agree so here we find ourselves I do want to ask thriving mind a question because it appears that everybody always goes back to well thriving mind was going I know a little bit and Laura I know your predecessor well I know the issues at thriving mind unfortunately too well for your understanding because I know you just got here to this position in January but could you tell us why would thriving mind have wanted to depart from the project my understanding was at the time back in 2022 when they were looking at projections for operating the building there was operational dollars to continue on the project that we could pull you know based on that clause so it's my understanding again it was my before I took over the position but without a projected operational you know budget for it that you know our board at the time chose to you know pull out of the project at that time makes sense right if there's no money been allocated to the operations you would not continue director or maybe the chief was the board notified of that in great detail that their contract said that they could remove themselves if there were no funds available for the operations I don't know that that was in the contract oh yeah well hold on let me ask their legal Daniel can you answer that question yes commissioner there was a provision that allowed for a no cause termination essentially a termination for convenience and as Mr. Narello said the basis of doing that termination was a business decision basically that said there's no approved operations budget here so we might be stuck operating this and then searching for funding and so they decided to exercise that clause in their contract to terminate the contract and advise the county you know to ask them to assume sounds very smart but here's the question I have did you tell the administration that at the time when you said we are going to remove ourselves from this project was the explanation given to the administration it was before my time so I can't speak to it but that's my understanding okay so was that communicated to the board the reason why we find ourselves in this mess is because Thriving Mind was going to exit the project because they shared with you all that there were no operating costs allocated to the project and they felt it prudent their board felt it prudent not to proceed commissioner I'm sorry I don't know the answer okay but but you see where we're going with this line of questioning right communication is key I know that commissioner gonzalez always says that communication between the administration and the board is essential it's not a convenience and when this happens and look it happens this is business right we're in the business of conducting the government like a business sometimes because of the clause in the contract their board decided this doesn't sound like a fiscally prudent approach for us to take on the operations of a center without any funding that makes sense to me right good for your board but then if that gets communicated to the administration the very first thing that should happen is the administration comes to the board and says oh boy we have an issue and it's it's an important one we understand that their position but now we're in a pickle did that ever happen I don't know I know there has been legislation over a period of time and I could look back through it but I'm unable at the moment to answer that my line of questioning is solely because I agree with Commissioner Gonzales line of questioning which is always can we learn from this so we don't repeat this because what I don't want people to think that do business with us is that this is the way we do business actually I don't even know how thriving mine continued knowing this that occurred between the administration and the board so in the spirit of Commissioner Gonzales intent which is simply this is not to embarrass anyone we are trying to make sure that we get to why these things happen and then to suggest ways in which we better the process in particular the communication between the administration and the board so I mean I have I agree with commissioner but all the commissioners that have spoken thus far that I can support the item and I certainly want Thriving Mind to be paid for services that they provided to us but it is truly the best learning experience that I can think of now with a contract expired and a good actor wanting to continue to provide services so again kudos to Thriving Mind I have no idea how you paid because I'm aware of your funding sources see that's the problem that I have you are particularly dependent on government because if no one understands what the managing entity is it is a flow through of the funds from the Department of Children and Families of the state that is their responsibility and I don't know if you were using funds from the state thankfully I don't know how you did it but like Commissioner Cohen Higgins said it's a miracle that you continued it and hopefully you paid the contractor but it is troublesome because I understand your funding obligations from the state and that made it particularly distasteful for me to find ourselves in this situation with what is in de facto a state agency because that's exactly what you are so thank you Madam Chair for giving me the time thank you thank you I don't mean to take more time but I think Commissioner Lopez line of questioning was excellent and it also brings up something that I now need clarification on because I'm under the impression that in December of 2022 and I believe this is what you asked and we were just told that the administration didn't know but I was under the impression that in December of 2022 the board authorized the administration to accept assignment of the construction contracts so that the county could complete the job that you folks were doing so common sense would tell me that if you tell them this clause exists right you guys have to assume this and the commission tells the administration we are allowing you to assume this it would only make sense that you were under the impression that that clause existed that you were under the impression that you were directed to assume but you chose not to assume so can we get clarification on what really happened there because you know if we don't get clarification we can't learn right commissioner i think it's a fair question and i want to make sure the board understands that we do agree that this should have been done better and cleaner and brought to you earlier i'm unable to answer that question i know that at some point thriving mind had expressed an intention to terminate for convenience but then following discussions with it wasn't me i wasn't around at that time but someone in the administration that they had agreed not to terminate for convenience at that time but to stay on i know at some point a resolution did come to the board authorizing assignment agreements but that did not work out for various reasons but exactly the timing i'm unable to answer got it and you know i don't mean to ask you things that you don't know because i understand that you weren't here but we can perhaps come to the educated conclusion that if they express that this clause exists and that they're going to pull out and the administration brings an item and the board says you administration assume responsibility for this to commissioner Lopez's question the correct answer to her question was yes the administration knew yes we were to assume the responsibility but we didn't i'm not saying this is your fault you were obviously not here the director wasn't here as well right but just for purposes of how we're going to move forward as a county and the responsibility that we're going to take and how we're going to be proactive about making sure that these mistakes don't happen we have to clarify when mistakes do happen so we can learn from them no further questions thank you commissioner it's a shame that we're in this position honestly and just one more thing I know that it's totally separate items but reflecting back on the fact that we spent so many months talking about the funding of the mental health center in this board this never came up this never came up this never came up in the timeline of the item this never ever came up the fact that this bomb was going to be dropped on us after the fact after we approved the funding for the mental health is there a reason why this didn't come up during those discussions or didn't travel together I would have preferred to travel together certainly that would have been an opportune time to do it and the board should have been informed much sooner about this being open and there were opportunities to potentially extend the contract they didn't happen and that's core to this item thank you thank you Mr. Baker and I know that you this is before your time so I like like the commissioner said I appreciate you essentially falling on the sword for this it really has nothing to do with you but it's unfortunate that we can't tie things together because the folks that were there most of them are not here to explain and you know no one can really weave it together for us but I appreciate your explanation as much as you can explain it Madam Chair I think that's a fair question who was the director at that time my predecessor his name is David Claudefelter and where is he now he is working in the seaport okay just want to say this first of all I so appreciate and I told you this when we when we briefed so appreciate your honesty taking responsibility you know so often times people want to make excuses or try to try to change the accuracy of the situation I personally am so grateful that you have been so straightforward and taking responsibility for the administration right in other words I don't care that you weren't here or someone else was here Brenda wasn't here it appears no one is here but the administration is here and you doing what I think is the responsible and correct thing as a county employee is just really refreshing director and I want you to know that and I hope that you are modeling the behavior hopefully everyone's watching you I used to say this to the secretary of the department of revenue who also was very much like you in this instance modeling behavior about how we take responsibility when things haven't gone exactly right that's one but two when there is no one who was here I'm famous for timelines they're really important so when an item like this comes up and it has complexities and it has different intersections with different departments or even with a county attorney I would suggest moving forward that the administration provide the board with a timeline because the timeline speaks to the issues right and the facts it doesn't matter who was here because I know you can't answer it and I know Brenda says she can't answer it and I've heard a lot of I don't know the answer to that but if you do your homework before you bring an item you're proactive a timeline allows us to follow the series of events that lead us to where we are today and I put them together I ask everyone to put them together because it's helpful right so you don't have to say well who was here and who wasn't here and I don't know and so that's my suggestion but particularly with complex issues but I didn't want it to go unsaid and I know I speak for all of us on this day is we're very grateful for your integrity and your professionalism dealing with what I know now has been a very complex issue so thank you thank you hearing no further I'll move the item yes as a courtesy to thriving minds we'd like to request that this attempt to be waived on to November 17th oh my gosh okay that's that's fine my colleagues have any issues with that not at all okay we're happy to do that thank you to thriving minds for being here and I have a motion I have second all in favor show it approved and with that we have 1G1 is the last item left to take up I will open public hearing yes Mr. Attorney May I read the title Madam Chair yes please go ahead amending section 2-1 of the code of Miami-Dade County Florida revising requirements relating to sponsorship of county approvals of state or municipal namings or co-designations of roads facilities or property clarifying background research requirements for county approvals of state or municipal namings or co-designations of roads facilities or property providing severability inclusion in the code and an effective date and this is a public hearing item thank you Mr. Attorney I would also like the record to reflect that Commissioner Garcia is present at the meeting okay I will open public hearing on 1G1 at this time anyone wishing to speak on 1G1 please come forward seeing no one public hearing is closed I will entertain a motion on 1G1 it's been moved and second all in favor aye thank you Madam Chair I'd like to show myself as a co-sponsor please thank you me as we need a roll call on this one correct yes yes we do can we please have a roll call Commissioner Coen Higgins Senator Garcia aye Commissioner Gonzalez Vice Chairwoman Lopez yes Chairwoman Million Obis yes motion passes unanimously thank you yes I'm sorry oh Commissioner yes go ahead thank you Madam Chair I just want to show myself voting yes on the items prior to on the consent items and on the other items we have except for the Thriving Mind item and the reason I wasn't here for Thriving Mind because it's an abundance of caution since I sit on the board I want to make sure that I was not in the chamber so I appreciate that Madam Chair and if I can I point of personal privilege Madam Chair I heard some little bit of debate on some of these contracts coming to us very late and this is the Intergovernmental Committee I want to tell you an experience that I had as Chairman of Parks we had an item that came before our committee with a contract for the sequerium that this board gave authorization on term sheets to negotiate with the sequerium about the terms and conditions on the lease we got that contract to us maybe a day before not even a day a couple of hours eight ten hours before the committee and it's very hard for us to move that out of committee in the abundance of caution and full transparency but again we were stuck with an item that we were our backs are up against the wall the problem that I have with that Madam Chair is that it's a pattern that continues to repeat itself and I know that we all have that issue and that problem and we all fight for it doesn't matter if Republican or Democrat on this board and in this committee we always are fighting for transparency more openness to our government and we need to figure out a way that this stops because right now what's happening with that contract is that we have a local vendor that was awarded the extension of this lease by the bankruptcy courts and now potentially it could go back to the bankruptcy court and some other vendor could potentially get this and it could be out of our hands completely so I think that it warrants a conversation maybe a policy change maybe we could have this conversation on the next full board but this is somewhat embarrassing for the way they were doing running government down here that's all thank you madam chair for your indulgence thank you commissioner for that recap commission or vice chair lopez you had a comment I just want to piggyback on that I watched with great complex there as well and I know that all of us take this very seriously and none of us are going to vote on a 287 page lease that you just received and haven't read and as the chairman of that committee said it was really difficult for him because he was under the confines of a bankruptcy court proceeding and I understand Senator that that lease may have been available even two weeks before complete transparency the public should have the right to review items and to come forth to us and give us their opinion and it is like a pattern and this is why we talked about I know at our last committee we said these add-ons have got to stop too I arrive and I say there's an add-on I have a lot of questions and this committee in particular has proven itself to dig deep into issues as it should be so when I see these add-ons I always say to myself how is it that the state legislature can publish an agenda and have no add-ons and do the work of the state we should be able to do the same unless it's an emergency and so this consistent throw add-ons at the last minute I think is bad government but again we've said it here at this committee now the senator had to unfortunately experience something that put him in a bad spot but it is a pattern and I'm hopeful that as we move forward in the next year of the new committee assignments etc that the new chair will say these add-ons have got to stop because it's bad government for the public and for us thank you thank you seeing no further comments I would just like to take a moment oh to the county attorneys do we have any other business just before we adjourn madam chair in addition to 3b and 3c that have already been noted the administration would also like to request that 3a 3d and 3e be advanced to the November 17th BCC meeting any issues with that no okay we're okay with that commissioner yeah I I don't want to keep continuing to make decisions from emergency to emergency to emergency and I want to commend commissioner Cohen Higgins at the last committee that I sat with her she did not take an item that had just come about because we needed to review it I think that you know everybody should take note that this particular way of doing business cannot continue but on a lighter note I this is our last meeting I believe and I do want to thank Commissioner Milian Orbus and Commissioner Lopez for chairing this committee it's been an honor for me to be part of this committee has dug deep on your note I've served for the commission for many many years I'm not going to say how many because I'll age myself but you know I think we need to just a suggestion going back to the times of commissioner Soto if that tells you how long I've been here review the rules of procedure review the powers of the commission because we don't always have to accept late hours you know we have we have the certain powers that are vested in us as committee chairs so anyway I will leave that there I want to thank all of my fellow colleagues on the intergovernmental and economic impact committee it's been an honor serving with you all we've had very important decisions and very difficult decisions but I appreciate your commitment to this committee and especially during these difficult times so thank you thank you to my vice chair my co-chair commissioner Lopez thank you so much and my fellow colleagues and thank you to chairman Rodriguez for appointing me as co-chair it's been an honor so thank you everybody have a great day seeing no further business we have motion to adjourn