Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners Agenda - Jul 21, 2026

Good, good. Well, this is the presentation portion of the agenda. I am Commissioner Oliver Gilbert. Our chairman, Anthony Rodriguez, is approaching. Our mayor, Daniela Levine-Cava, is on her way down. We have presentations today. Now, what we do in these presentations is we recognize extraordinary people, extraordinary organizations at times who've done things that go above and beyond. Today, we have some presentations. First, I give the microphone to the chairman. You all give him a round of applause. Anthony Rodriguez. Oh, I mean, yeah, thank you, guys. All right. I don't know why you're handing me this. This isn't what I need right now. All right. Madam Mayor. Powerful red. All right. Good morning. Good morning. All right. So we got all the puppies. All right. I love it. I should have brought my daughter to work with me today. I knew that you all were going to bring the dogs. I probably didn't know that. And I still didn't bring her. Hey. All right. We're going to start. We're not going to start with you guys. We're going to wait a second to get a few. We're going to start with some other very important folks that are here today. We have this morning some very distinguished guests and members of the Consulate Court of Canada. Right. We have the Council General of Canada, the Honorable Sylvia Cesarato. Cesarato, more or less. All right. I'll let you correct me in a second. And Ms. Shannon Eisenhut. All right. I think I said that okay. The U.S. State Department Regional Director for the Office of Foreign Missions. So it is my privilege to recognize two outstanding leaders whose dedication to diplomacy and international collaboration has strengthened our global partnerships. And today we are honored to present certificates of appreciation to the Honorable Sylvia Cesarato and the Council General of Canada and Ms. Shannon Eisenhut, the Regional Director of the U.S. Department of State, State's Office of Foreign Missions. And because I keep messing up the name, probably, I am going to let my colleague, Commissioner Oliver Grober, who is the sponsor of this special presentation, continue to mess up the name for me. I'm going to mess up the name. I'm going to mess up the name. And then, of course, I imagine the mayor is going to have some words to say as well. And we'll let Gerard, if he has something to say as well. Commissioner? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. One of the things that's really special about our interaction with the rest of the world is the consular corps here in Miami-Dade County. It's a very large consular corps. And it's kind of symbolic of the idea that we are an international city. We're an international city in every way. 53% of the people who live here are born in a different country. We're international in the sense that we are the gateway to the Americas and to South and Central America and the Caribbean. We're the first people they see when they come to the country. We're the last people they see before they leave if they're in this part of the hemisphere. And so we have great working relationships that actually foster not just cultural connections but business connections. And that happens through our wonderful partners in Canada and also through the State Department, who's doing an excellent job at keeping us connected to other folks. And so it's our honor, our privilege to actually honor you all today and to recognize you and recognize your public service because people will never actually see you all. They'll see, like, the prime minister and the secretary, and they'll see the presidents, and they'll see all these ambassadors. They don't see the people that come every day and sit down with business leaders and show them how to make connections and help people through their immigration problems. They don't see those people. You're the people who do that work. And so on behalf of all those people who you service, all those businesses you enable, I say thank you. Miami-Dade County says thank you. Madam Mayor? Any other commissioners want to speak on? General, you are a friend. Thank you so much for your friendship, for your support. But as Commissioner Gilbert said, we have been working, I personally have been working with the Consul General of Canada, your predecessor, yourself. It is amazing the kind of work that you're doing here, so many Canadians living and working here. So I'm just grateful that I can serve now in this role as a commissioner to help, you know, foster all of the great relationships that you have worked so hard to do so. So thank you. I've got to say ditto. We've known each other, a prior consul and you. I think I was one of the first people that was visited by you, so thank you so much for the great job you've done and continue to do, both of you. And obviously ditto to my colleague to the left side. Well, I must say that for me this is a personal loss, and I have seen too many consular corps members leave us. So we don't only have one of the largest consular corps, we have the best in the country, and we're very proud of that fact, and it speaks to our global ties. I will also say that I lived in Canada. I lived in Vancouver as a child, and so I feel very attached to that nation, and I've vacationed in Canada, in the wilds of Canada. And we will not be charging any tariffs to Canada here in Miami-Dade County, just to make that very clear. Am I right? Oh, a policy decision. Okay. I'm going to say it's a business decision. No tariffs for Miami-Dade County. So we value our friendship. We value your leadership. You've been not just here on behalf of Canada. You've been here really on behalf of the globe and our country. You've stood up on important issues, so many, our environment, immigration issues. You've been at the forefront. So we're very proud and sad to lose you. And to our State Department, you have not just handled all the logistics for people who need help navigating. You facilitated these men and women from our USAR team to go to Venezuela. And I know you're personally very proud of that fact. You joined us there in greeting them. And we're very, very grateful for your incredible dedication and service. The best possible role that State Department could serve is to provide assistance to our neighbors in need. So we're very grateful. And this is well-deserving praise. Thank you. All right, Mayor. Thank you very much. Now Commissioner Bastien. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. I just want to join my voice to those of my colleagues and our mayor to thank you for all your service. Oftentimes, this job is being unrecognized, yet you have such an impact on people's lives. So I want to thank you for that. And thank you also for reaching out to my office and coming to meet with me often to get feedback on the immigrant situation, not only for Haiti but for others. So thank you so much. Appreciate you. All right, Gerard, do you want to say – I mean, Commissioner Stemming just wants to say Ditto. Ditto, exactly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that we're definitely going to miss Consul General Sylvia Cesarato. I think she has done an amazing job, you know, keeping Florida, keeping Miami-Dade County connected to Canada. And to Ms. Eisenhardt, we always call upon her for everything. When we have foreign delegation on everything, you know, she's smiling right now. I can tell you that she knows. So we're going to miss both of them tremendously. But thank you very much. We'd like you to say a few words as well, both of you. So if you want to take the lead. This is unscripted. Firstly, thank you all so very much for the sponsors and all of you for your kind words. It's been a true privilege for me to be in Florida and here in Miami representing Canada these last four years. And firstly, let me thank you for those wearing red. It looks wonderful on you, our Canadian colors. I have had five international postings and so my career is quickly coming to an end, sadly. But I will take away very fond memories of my time here in Miami because everyone has been so gracious in receiving us. And everyone has a good story to tell about their relationship with Canada. Despite what's happening at the federal level and in the media, at the end of the day, we remain neighbors. Canada isn't moving. We're not going anywhere. We're friends and allies and the strongest of friends and allies. We share the biggest trading relationship between any two countries in the world. We share the longest border between any two countries in the world that is jointly managed. We are completely integrated economically. But more than that, we share the same values for peace and prosperity and security. And it's been a real honor. And I have to tell you, everywhere I've been, there isn't an evening or an event where somebody doesn't tell me they've been to Canada or they have Canadian roots or good Canadian friends or even Canadians in their family. And the reverse is true. There are Americans that live in Canada too. So all I can say is thank you for the warm welcome, for the friendship, the partnership. I'm going back home to Ottawa and I hope to be able to see you there one day, Mayor, Congressman potentially. All of you. Vicky, we didn't get you up in your role, but maybe from your new perch. And I also want to just recognize Gérard for all his support and his team. It's been a true honor to work with you. So thank you. Merci beaucoup. Merci. Good morning, everyone. First of all, it's my absolute pleasure to be here as a Florida native and to be assigned here in Miami back home, which is really nice. As Sylvia said, after many, many years, 20 plus just in government, but actually more than 35 years of being international and representing our nation, it's so wonderful to finally be back home and be here for the last four years. And to work with all of our local, state, and federal counterparts has been incredible. What an unprecedented, especially this year, as we know, just concluding the World Cup and working with all of our partners and leading up to the G20, which is going to be just a perfect way to cap off a very, very exciting, crazy year. Also, I wanted to say thank you to all my law enforcement partners. As a diplomatic security special agent, not only did I serve as a U.S. diplomat, but also federal law enforcement overseas in some very, very precarious places. And so I just want to say thank you to all of your service. Really, I know what it means to have that dedication and to get out there and work in some really, really austere environments. So I just want to say thank you. It's been my honor. Not only do I get to meet and work with some incredible people in the consular corps, which is the largest consular corps outside of New York and D.C., my office, we cover West Virginia to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. We have 400 foreign missions. The international community that's based here is incredible, and it's growing. And so I'm glad that I get to be here to support not only all of our partners but the local community. As I say, we need to connect, create, and contribute, and definitely give back to community. So thank you so much. It is my honor. I'm also retiring. I want to stay home in Florida for a little while. So thank you very much. Really a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Yeah, you see, they're excited, too. So now we have a special presentation and certificate to present. Oliver Gilbert, do you want to help me out with one of these? Do you want to hold on and see the other one? All right. So as commissioner and on behalf of the mayor, to my left, and the Board of County Commissioners and the residents of Miami-Dade County, nearly, what, 2.8 million plus or minus? I take great pleasure in presenting this certificate of appreciation to you in recognition of your valuable contributions to our community and wish you the best as you mark the end of your tenure with the Miami-Dade consular corps. Shannon Eisenhut. Congratulations. Do you want to present it to me? This certificate of appreciation is presented to the Honorable Sylvia Cesarato, the General Counsel, the Council General Forum of Canada in Miami. Congratulations, and thank you for your service. Can you all come over to the minute? Six miles on three. One, two. One more for the left. Oh, good. Thank you so much. Oh, my gosh. Did I say how much you talked? I'm too young for Zachary Hotson. That's the favorite school. Yes. Eventually, eventually. Thank you for your words. Thank you. It's been a pleasure knowing you. My office is still there. Thank you. all right let's take the chatter to the side mayor all right guys we have our second presentation of the day i think our last right this is all right we have two today so now for our second presentation we have our i'm going why are you so bossy i was gonna say something mean yeah i was gonna say something mean regarding the dc's this is this is the congress life already like he's already you know this is actually always him all right so today we probably recognize can we quiet down please today we probably recognize the extraordinary courage professionalism selfless service of miami-dade fire rescues urban search and rescue team florida task force one thank you for being here i want to first thank all of my colleagues for being here this morning for this special presentation but specifically those that co-sponsored it with me commissioner bermudez gonzalez lopez and steinberg uh so far i know there's more coming but for joining me as co-sponsors of the special presentation honoring the brave members of florida's task force one following the devastating earthquakes that struck venezuela in june florida task force one answered the call to serve at the request of the u.s department of state the team deployed an 80 member task force there's not 80 here today though but there's a lot um including six canine search teams and specialists in search and rescue medical hazardous materials logistics and structural engineering are these some of did they all go nice all six of them over it was eight days that you guys were there so over eight days they worked alongside rescue teams from across the united states in more than 50 countries conducting life-saving search and rescue operations and bringing hope to communities affected by this tragedy and their dedication and compassion earned international recognition including the heroes de venezuela medal awarded on behalf of the venezuelan people in gratitude for their exemplary service and today we proudly honor chief brandon webb you could you could come on up with us uh and every member of florida task force one for representing miami-dade county with courage excellence and an unwavering commitment to saving lives i want to call you guys all up in a second so don't don't worry webb stand next to me my man at this time i would like to turn our attention to the video being played above me uh for a short clip on this mission and no cute it's always uh i imagine the stories and i hope you share some of that with us when you speak here in just a few minutes uh chief webb but uh i imagine being over there was probably the most emotional portion of this all but that's the last clip kind of getting you guys back home i think to me is is what really gets us so uh glad to have you guys back home i want my colleagues to say a few words and then we'll do the official presentation and have your your colleagues come up as well commissioner lopez you want to lead thank you mr chairman so uh some of you know that i was the budget chair in the florida house when it came time to fund you and it was touch and go till the very last minute and i never gave up because i know the importance of your work and so in the final moments of that budget uh conference we were able to get you 4.8 million dollars to do what you do best and it was the greatest honor and privilege to be able to have my hand and fingerprints on that and so just want to tell you it's for that very reason that we all support you and i i am moved by seeing you in action because oftentimes you know we're funding things we don't know what we're funding or what you do you proved to everyone you're worth every penny and so much more thank you so much for your service oftentimes we don't um think about the value the importance and the sacrifices that you have to make to do this work and then watching the clips and then watching you getting ready to deport and knowing that you are you know fathers mothers you're leaving everything behind to help those in need so we cannot thank you enough because you are our ambassadors when you're out there doing god's work you are our ambassadors so it's just you know enough for us to say thank you thank you for your sacrifices thank you for our services thank you i reiterate what my colleague said thank you so much you and your families uh for the sacrifices and also our friends here thank you very much you're the best representation of miami-dade county miami-dade county has always been there i know many of you have been around the world it's not just venezuela i happen to represent a district that has the most number of venezuelans probably in miami-dade county and we are very thankful and i know a lot of the residents are all very thankful for having miami-dade county present but you are the best ambassadors of us many times the elected officials get the pictures and that but there's many people to make this county what it is you're probably the best representation of what this county is and as my colleague said you are not only ambassadors but you are the representation of the love and the care this county has for the rest of the world whenever there's a crisis and in this case it happened with one of our sister countries in this hemisphere which made it even at a critical time more important than all so and i know it means time away from your families families and that's why we have to thank your families and your loved ones because it's not easy to be away for a period of time and you probably saw a lot of things that many of us will never get to see but i am sure that the people of venezuela and the people of this hemisphere and all around the world because you've been all around the world turkey we can talk all the places you've been have seen the best representation of miami-dade county so thanks again god bless all right um so first and foremost thank you i know not too long ago we were here also honoring you and your courageous acts um helping when the call of duty you run to it um unfortunately we have these horrible disasters i hope not to be recognizing you next year because every time we do we know it's because you put yourselves out there in the most harrowing of circumstances and we thank you so much there's you know not many words that we could say because what you experience is something that some of us you know it's like i said the last time things of nightmares sometimes and so i just want to make sure that if you all ever need anything you let us know as well because we want to be here for you just like you are there for everybody else thank you i'll reiterate what my colleague said listen you all are um you're what american exceptionalism actually looks like when folks really need us when folks really need us you're you're an amber hope a flicker of light to someone who's trapped under something to someone who's just needs something to hang on to someone to pull them out back into a world that might not be perfect but it's a world of the living what you do is exceptional you you leave your homes and your family you put yourselves at risk you go into situations that we could never imagine and you do it in the name of this county all of us great residents but you do it in the name of this country so to those folks that you save and you help your america and you represent us well thank you all very much thank you thank you mr chair for sponsoring this very important presentation there is really no way to thank you all what you do is selfless you deploy every single day to serve our community and as they say when folks are running away from an emergency and from danger you all are running towards it so there is no way to thank you for what you do and to thank your families for the sacrifices that they do every single day to allow you to serve our county and save our residents and keep us safe so thank you for for serving in this way thank you for going over to venezuela during this tragedy and uh thank you for serving our community miami-dade county so i'm repeating thank you so much i want to thank the chair for putting this together guys we're recognizing you today but i know that you don't do it for the recognition because you're built different you represent the best part of humanity after jesus is ascended into heaven the disciples are left here right and then you have peter and john that they're walking towards pentecost and they're walking and they see a disabled beggar and the guy's literally sitting in front of the temple asking for money and then peter looks at him and he says money i don't have to give you but i will give you everything i have in the name of my lord jesus christ and he tells him get up and walk and the guy jumps up and he sprints into the temple and he talks about the great things that peter through jesus did for him why do i bring up a story of peter because you guys give everything you have every single day and it's not even you it's a talent that god gave you it's a vibe it's a heart you're willing to lay it down every single day and it doesn't matter whether it's for folks in venezuela residents in miami-dade county new york chicago you do it for humankind because that's how you're built and that's the example you're always setting and for that we will always thank you and this is one of many awards that you're probably going to get in your careers and in your life but you have to sometimes sit back and accept those accolades because we appreciate you and love you so much thank you mr chair hold it just a second we're going to hear we're going to hear from our mayor then chief chadala chief webb do the presentation and call everybody up as well madam mayor thank you mr chair and thank you so much for making the time for this very important tribute i was eight months into my first term as mayor when i saw you in action at surf site a lesson i will never ever forget that is when i realized this is not a job this is a calling being a firefighter of course a very respected so many want to join the ranks on top of that to be our florida task force one and to stand up and help without cease when disaster strikes that's who you are it's in your bones it's in your blood and as i said then and i saw it in venezuela in the clips we have to tear you off the piles because you're so motivated to do everything in your power to help with the rescue with recovery with providing hope to those who are in a moment of of total despair i know this job was not easy but you wanted it you sought it we worked together with our state department to make sure you could be among the very first to go on behalf of our nation to help our neighbors you do this work not just for those of us here at home but around the world as has been said this tragedy is beyond any imaginable we're up to over 5 000 identified as lost and still so many missing and the what did they say 10 000 surf sites was a quote that i saw so we know that it affects you as well and we are here for you i am proud that you have a great chief who is not a part of you sar he was he is okay but he sorry about that um okay but you know he's not jumping out of the planes anymore but he is leading with that same passion that same integrity that same dedication to never give up while we need to fight the fight and also for those of you who served fighting the fires in everglades which i know was a good number of you that was another disaster that you tackled with the same verve and success so god bless you all thank you thank you on behalf of all of us and we're going to give it to our chief chadala yousar task force one florida uh good morning ladies and gentlemen a great crowd here first and foremost madam mayor mr chairman members of the great commission thank you for the recognition of miami date fire rescues urban search and rescue team and commissioner you said it best what we we don't do this job for the recognition for the accolades but for today the 80 members and i know that it's just a fraction here today but the 80 members of florida task force one and the six canines that uh did respond another round of applause because uh day in day out for 24 hours for eight days they did respond search and rescue operations yes madam i didn't get deployed on this one there was this little thing called fifo going on that i had to stick around to make sure uh yeah just a little thing but uh what i i do want to mention is for 41 years miami date fire rescue has been answering the call for urban search and rescue 41 years that we have been responding to local uh state uh nationally and international disasters man-made and of course uh you know the natural disasters um this one is a special one for us we we requested to go to uh to venezuela because we have so many venezuelan uh members of this community and uh we asked to get deployed uh they gave us the green light and while the members of florida task force one were out there conducting search and rescue operations conducting uh structural engineering of the uh the buildings that had collapsed rendering medical care to those that uh were were injured um here abroad uh while they were abroad here locally we were assisting with the warehouses with the logistics and getting the uh the goods that were necessary to get to venezuela so with that i want to say a job well done keep your heads up high and to the members of our great commission madam mayor thank you for championing you know public safety but specifically miami date fire rescue thank you all right thank you chief for that i'm going to go ahead and present the official proclamation of chief webb on behalf of all of you guys well all of us to you guys uh and then chief we're going to want to hear from you a couple words i know you have a lot to say i'm messing with you uh be it resolved that on behalf of the mayor daniel levin cava myself as chairman of the board anthony rodriguez and the members of the board of county commissioners and on behalf of miami-dade county and its plus or minus 2.8 million residents we do hereby proclaim today tuesday july 21st 2026 as miami-dade fire rescues urban search and rescue team florida task force one day congratulations chief good morning um so humbly uh i would i would describe to you this group um as humble servants and and myself among them i am very humble and very proud to represent all of all of the the folks that are here today and we we recognize that a lot of people would go out and do what we do and many would not right but it is uh it is a matter of pride and privilege that we get to go out and represent all of you and and the citizens of the united states um in trying to alleviate human suffering wherever we can right many times we're asked why do we go to other cities around the us why do we go outside of the country to assist other people when our job is here and the reason for that is that we develop the knowledge skills and abilities and the comfort level at other people's disasters that we bring back to miami-dade county and i would challenge um that if we were to have a disaster here that this group of people have seen and done things outside of the community that we can manage just about anything here comfortably on behalf of the citizens of miami-dade county so with that i want to thank chief jadala chief palmer madam mayor the chair all of the elected officials uh for continuing to allow us to do what we do because we're proud to represent and we're proud to to go out and do it so thank you very much all right let's do yeah we're going to do one photo with the folks up here and then i would like to get i know it's a couple of you but we're going to try to get all of you guys in the photo as well let's do one first with these folks where's uh godfrey all right there you go all right godfrey from now on you're in charge so you let us know where to stand it's perfect thank you big smiles big smiles one two you guys want to come up here i'm sorry you can step back i made a room for you guys we got back we have room in the back all right all right let's go right here let's go right here thank you guys for everything madam mayor airport seaport adrienne all right let's take a seat guys let's get this show on the road all right thank you all if we can please as quietly as possible stand for the invocation given this morning by father manuel ramay of our lady of lebanon maronite catholic church miami at the invitation of commissioner lopez followed by the pledge of allegiance by commissioner lopez mr chairman board of commissioners thank you for the invitation especially your honor commissioner lopez i thought that commissioner gonzalez took my place today but you did good let us pray almighty god source of all wisdom and justice we thank you for the gift of this day and for the opportunity to serve our community we ask you to bless the members of this board with wisdom and their deliberations integrity and their decisions courage to pursue what is right and compassion for every person whose life is affected by their work help us to remember that every person possesses inherent dignity and deserves to be treated with respect and fairness may our differences become opportunities for dialogue our challenges become occasions for cooperation and our shared responsibilities lead to the flourishing of all who call this county home grant peace to our neighbors and our neighborhoods strength to those who serve the public comfort to those who suffer and hope to all who seek a better future we entrust this meeting to your loving care and ask that everything said and done today contribute to the coming good we bless you our lord jesus christ now and forever amen all right you all may be seated all right please uh find a seat if you're in the back there should be no one standing up in the back unless you're media or sergeant at arms or law enforcement all right madam attorney good morning all we have a what appears to be a lengthy meeting today so let's uh let's keep that in mind as we move the meeting forward madam attorney is it in order for me to move into reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at this time good morning yes all right i'm going to go ahead and open up reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard did i do roll call already i did not wow i'm that i'm that fast i'm trying to get this all right let's do roll call good morning to all the clerk's office has been notified that commissioner hardiman will be absent from today's meeting commissioner bastian here commissioner bermudez commissioner cohen higgins good morning present senator garcia commissioner gilbert here commissioner gonzalez here commissioner lopez here commissioner milian orbis commissioner regalado commissioner steinberg vice chairman mcgee chairman rodriguez i'm here we have nine members present we have a quorum all right so now reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard is open i will call your name please state the item you're speaking on your name and address and you will have one minute to speak as we have a fairly long list of speakers and i have all right we are trying to get people if some of us are trying to skip the line of reasonable opportunity we're not going to do that right now so uh first up i have uh commissioner ralph rosado right here i'm going to call a few of you guys and just please line up on each side of uh the center rows and i'll turn uh approach the well i have sergey kelly uh miles davis mary eckins durand peter robino eleanor eleanor quigley john elizabeth aleman laura reynolds fernando cravedo de sa juan f aceituno william rathbun and elio lopez mino commissioner good morning good morning uh mr chairman commissioners and madam mayor my name is ralph rosado and i have the fortune of representing district four at the city of miami which includes close to one mile of ludlum trail i'm here today to uh thank commissioner milian orbis and mayor levine kaba for sponsoring item 14a3 which involves the selection of a design firm to get ludlum built uh this project is something that's been a dream of many people for many years i'm excited to see this moving forward at the city we are doing our part we are approving this thursday on second reading an item that incentivizes developers building within walking distance of ludlum trail and our other trails within the city to contribute dollars for construction and maintenance more importantly today i am personally committing on behalf of the city and the development community within the ludlum trail corridor area that we will match your county state and federal dollars to the project with city and private dollars so we can get ludlum built i urge you to vote on 14a3 let's get it done thank you commissioner and anyone that registered to speak but doesn't necessarily need to anymore feel free to just wave and support or or whatnot and sir yes sergey kelly west palm beach i want to urge you guys today to vote against the kelly tractor development uh in the everglades historical everglades function everglades that would also nullify the urban development boundary something that protects thousands of acres of everglades farmland there's homestead miami rural communities crops all this stuff would be threatened by allowing kelly tractor to be one of the initial ones to build in the everglades it is a huge problem we know we've you guys have gotten money through packs related to kelly tractor we urge you to vote against it there's plenty of land within the urban designation of miami and homestead in this whole area the gators herons manatees the wildlife of the everglades should not be impeded by yet another development that has further stressed the urban development boundary which is something that the voters passed that the people support obviously wild florida supports it as well and it should not be impeded for the sake of one company to begin a tidal wave of development that will be followed by other companies either by a direct lawsuit or your invitation once again please vote against kelly tractors everglades development thank you thank you sir um all right john good morning good morning chairman madam mayor commissioners my name is john allemand with jacobs i'm here on item 14b1 jacobs has had the privilege of serving miami-dade water and sewer department for nearly 50 years and since 2014 we've served as your owners rep and program manager for ocean outfall i'm here today with representatives of the broader engineering construction and small business community that helps deliver was these critical infrastructure program and i ask them to please stand thank you we appreciate that rate decisions are difficult every year this board balances affordability with the responsibility to maintain critical systems that residents businesses visitors and future development all depend on reliable water and wastewater services you know is essential to protect public health protect the bay housing growth and the daily quality of life for every person in miami-dade county miami-dade is advancing one of the largest water and wastewater capital programs in florida while that program does support engineering construction suppliers small businesses and a skilled workforce in south florida more importantly it keeps critical projects moving before they become emergencies thank you john thank you sorry but i think the minute's up all right sir good morning my name is peter rubino and i represent friends of ludlum trail a community group advocating for a rails to trail linear park on the abandoned railway property the property is 100 feet wide by 5.6 miles running from daytran to miami international airport we have the opportunity to turn over 70 acres of fenced off green space into an iconic linear greenway in the heart of miami i ask that you pass the resolution approving the contract for professional services with criminally horn and associates at first i thought the budget was very high for this project but then i read the entire resolution this five-year professional services agreement covers design permitting bidding assistance and construction oversight this is a comprehensive design through construction administration contract and substantial project management duties expectations are high and friends of ludlum trail will keep the vendor accountable this is a huge opportunity for miami to get this right ludlum trail will connect neighborhoods with five schools three parks adjacent to the trail and it terminates in the south where it meets the underline at dadeland north metro rail station and when completed ludlum trail will connect more than 34 000 residents that live on or near the trail it will be a world-class iconic linear park thank you ma'am laura reynolds 6820 southwest 64th court south miami with the hold the line coalition and friends of biscayne bay a lot of items to talk about in just a minute but um we applaud the effort on 11a11 commissioner regalato and anyone who has co-sponsored that item we have to close the text amendment loophole because we can't let developers write their own rules our cdmp is really important and the task force amendments that are coming from the task force will strengthen our cdmp we are still opposed to 7d the kelly tractor project we're talking about the largest proposed wetland destruction in 30 years this can't be taken lightly and frankly that it's gotten this far is concerning we should absolutely be passing uh rules to strengthen our wetlands to study our wetlands just like we did for agriculture to see how many we need to perform those ecosystem services moving forward now the watershed advisory board did look at this they proposed to pass some of those items and i urge you today to not take this wetland destruction lightly vote no on 7d yes on 11a11 and yes on the six percent increase good morning my name is mary akins durand and i'm here today on behalf of equality florida in support of commissioner lopez's motion 6b1 to seek clarification on florida's new anti-diversity and local government law this law hasn't even taken effect yet but it's already changing decisions in city halls and county commissions across our state local governments are questioning long-standing programs partnerships and community investments not because they've been told those things must end but because they are unsure what the law actually requires we've already seen proposed cuts affecting organizations serving black hispanic asian and lgbtq floridians reversed after it became clear that those cuts were not required by law that's why getting answers now matters no community should lose something valuable because the law was left unclear miami-dade has an opportunity to take a responsible step by asking the courts for guidance before decisions are made without a clear understanding of the law this will help local leaders know what is required understand the authority they still have and continue serving their residents effectively miami-dade has always been strengthened by the many communities that call this county home our cultural traditions community partnerships and local organizations help make this one of the most vibrant places in the country before programs partnerships or community traditions are changed residents deserve confidence that those decisions are based in what the law actually says when the consequences are real and important legal questions remain unanswered seeking clarity is responsible leadership miami-dade has the opportunity to lead by asking for that clarity now we respectfully ask you to support commissioner lopez's motion thank you thank you so much sir good morning chair and commissioners i'm here to speak on item 6b1 by commissioner lopez my name is miles davis i serve as director of advocacy and communications at save south florida's leading organization dedicated to protecting lgbtq plus people i want to thank commissioner lopez for bringing this issue forward for discussion senate bill 1134 creates uncertainty about how miami-dade may continue operating programs partnerships contracts advisory boards and public initiatives that serve residents across this county the county should not rush to eliminate lawful work simply because the statute is broad or unclear doing so could disrupt services waste taxpayer investments and weaken long-standing community partnerships we urge the commission to direct the administration and county attorney to conduct a comprehensive review identify what can legally be preserved and communicate clearly what affected residents and organizations may experience before any changes are made the county should also seek judicial clarification so decisions are based on the law's actual requirements and not fear or speculation a careful transparent approach always protects taxpayers and strengthens local control and most importantly will allow miami-dade to continue serving all residents within the law we thank commissioner lopez for bringing this forward and we thank you all for your service to the county thank you sir go ahead good morning juana i'm here in support of item 14b1 holding rates flat today may appear to help residents but the unintended consequence will be far higher costs later shutting down design projects is not free mayor cost escalations regulatory penalties development moratoriums and uncompressed utility services that miami-dade families and businesses depend on every day cancelling projects in construction creates claims shutdown and commissioning costs stranded assets and lost value from works the county has already paid to advance projects in design that are put on hold will cause more in the future not just higher construction costs but added design costs as firms verify and redesign or worse if contracts expire and new designers start from scratch the real threat to long-term affordability is not this modest rate adjustment it is the consequence of underfunding the system today we respectfully urge the commission to approve the rate adjustment and keep this critical capital program moving forward the investment today protects the affordability of water and sewer in the future thank you thank you ma'am good morning chair and commissioners my name is ali quigley to all the commissioners here today and those who have preceded you thank you for the vision and dedication that you made to the underlying making it a reality you created a space that brings people together while providing a safe and healthy way to move through the city thank you for that achievement i hope that the ludlum trail will receive the same commitment and attention for the residents and visitors of miami-dade county the ludlum trail will be an important transportation corridor corridor connecting people to bus routes at the nodes at sunset miller bird coral way eight street flagler northwest seven while providing access to the metro rail at dadeland north station and the underlying it will connect commuters students shoppers workers and visitors to with safer and more convenient transportation options the trail will also serve many important community destinations at every node including dadeland mall dadeland north south miami lutheran preschool south miami elementary k to eight center south miami middle school magnet south miami senior high 80 doug barnes park brothers to the rescue park coral terrace elementary robert king high park and miami airport convention center and merchandise smart thank you so much appreciate it all right um did william rathbun elio lopez mino fernando claveiro the saw and then they're waving okay and then everyone else that i'm going to call is here for the same item for the wasti report 14b1 and it also has four so in favor uh if you want to wave you're welcome to i have nevado soria michael perez michael perez michael perez is that you coming down michael all right uh sebastian alvarez sebastian alvarez all right i got you waving joshua reyes waving uh julian becker my blind julian julian valerie donet valerie donets and neto fernandez all right waving damien de jesus damien de jesus joseph roca joseph roca cardinal alfonso cardinal alfonso juan rojas a lot of people are stuck downstairs that's now they need to have been here earlier laura thank you for that though appreciate the public service announcement juan rojas juan rojas nico lozano nico lozano luis suarez evelyn rodriguez maria molina maria thank you arturo burbano okay and again just to make sure all of all of you guys are waving in support of the report the wasti report that's what i have 14b1 pedro kiddos pedro all right thank you and rick tavares rick thank you all right those are all the public speakers i have for reasonable opportunity registered is there anyone that just walked upstairs from downstairs that signed up to speak i see a couple people walking in is anyone registered to speak in reasonable opportunity i want to make sure i get you before i close out no all right there's a gentleman you could come up come on up uh through the chair madam mayor apparently uh councilman kevin burns is here that was signed up to speak so i just want to make sure you're aware he's here from north but is he signed up to speak on public hearing or a reasonable opportunity which item reasonable opportunity he says okay then you could approach the podium as well approach approach the well you both can there's two wells you both can approach the wells i mean don't all rush at the same time councilman go ahead you're up good morning uh madam mayor and commissioners it's uh great to see a lot of you here today um i don't very often come down here my name is kevin burns councilman with the city of north miami former mayor i'm here today to support the commissioner lopez's recommendation for a declaratory judgment or a judicial review of the diversity bill i'll just say that that item um as somebody who spent four or five weeks in tallahassee going to the hearings both in the house and the senate and listening to the makers of this ordinance and law this law not be able to answer questions of what it actually meant they could not answer what they were trying to accomplish by this law and going from the senate and over to the house back and forth and you know if a bill has 24 cutouts that it's not good you all add amendments to some of your things but you've never done 24 amendments so you know something is wrong i've been in conference calls with city attorneys county attorneys all different organizations that are going to be affected by this nobody can get a clear answer of what you can do and cannot do and i'll tell you right now i don't want to be the getting pig as an elected official to get removed from office because i gave a particular group of proclamation celebrating their heritage so please support her item thank you all right i got uh mr ron mcgill if he's ron mcgill are you on the list let's come up come on up sir i knew you weren't retiring you see it was a it was it was a fake pump it was a false alarm all right ma'am hello my name is carol coombs i'm a resident in miami beach my address is 1754 meridian avenue i also work for miami beach pride as the director of grants so i'm actually here today in support of commissioner vicky lopez um i fall under district 5 and sb 1134 and i'm asking the city attorney to investigate a lot of do not know what's going on with this um sb 1134 does a proclamation count as promoting dei does the rainbow flag going up count as promoting dei or is that first amendment i'm here also because miami beach pride stands to lose 350 000 in grant funding even though its economic impact is more than five million dollars creating hundreds and hundreds of jobs for small businesses in miami beach so my ask is please investigate please support vicky lopez's district 5 um recommendation and i will tell you we are brave and resilient in the lgbtq community the 19th edition of miami beach pride is going to happen the family picnic is on saturday april the third the pride weekend is april the 10th and 11th mark your dates i'll see you in the parade regardless of funding or not thank you so much mr mcgill morning madam mayor commissioners thank you for the opportunity to be here i'm here to speak on behalf of the flamingo as a state bird of florida listen for years they thought the flamingo was not a native bird it wasn't until all the hard work done by conservation biologists at the zoo in audubon florida that fwc finally said yes it's a native bird listen i know i got limited time so here's the deal the american flamingo is more than just a beautiful bird okay it's a symbol of resilience uh after after persecution it's a symbol of hope after disappearance um it represents everything that florida is it's it represents how nature can come back and reclaim itself when given the opportunity i can think of no other bird that better tells florida's story if florida wants to celebrate its great natural heritage i can think of no better ambassador than the greater flamingo okay this bird is amazing uh it's it's the only it's it's species found only in florida as a native species nowhere else in the country it's a bird that uh it represents the resilience of florida it's everything it it it's just an amazing bird that's come back the bottom line is this folks the flamingo has returned home it's time for florida to celebrate and recognize it as one of its own thank you very much thank you ron appreciate the enthusiasm all right ma'am probably not going to be as enthusiastic but yeah you can give it a shot though we'll entertain it you'll take it we'll take it okay good morning the chairman the commissioners the mayor uh my name is valeria donets my address is 4600 southwest 67th avenue and i'm speaking today on behalf of biscayne bay in support of a point of order if we could just have the chambers be quiet while she's speaking i can barely hear her go ahead ma'am thank you so i'm here representing friends of biscayne bay and i'm speaking in support of item 14b1 we recognize that any increase in utility rates affects residents and affordability is an important consideration but this item is ultimately about protecting clean water public health and biscayne bay the county's own report acknowledges the past underinvestment in water and wastewater infrastructure contributed to sanitary sewer overflows environmental harm to biscayne bay violations of the clean water act and ultimately the federal consent degree today the consent degree program is approximately 89 percent there we're almost we're almost there and it's not it's really not the time to slow down delaying these investments does not eliminate costs and increases the likelihood of infrastructure failures emergency repairs sewage spills and even larger costs in the future for the average residential customer the proposed adjustment is approximately 20 cells per day which is a low price to pay for a clean bay that modest investment keeps uh helps protect the infrastructure that keeps sewage out of biscayne bay and supports the completion of critical waste water improvements we respectfully urge you to support for item 14b1 thank you thank you so much all right so um sergeants came was it we're able to get you guys up from downstairs um i know some of you i'm going to obviously encourage you guys to speak but some of you did wave in support of an item so you're kind of bamboozling me here a little bit now i see you're ready to speak but go ahead have at it mr chair madam madam commissioner so as people finish speaking maybe it will be wise for him to leave so they are downstairs oh they are they are they're going to be taken back downstairs after after they speak yes go ahead sir hello i am elio lopez i live in 52 56 northwest 103rd avenue i came here to speak in favor for this this item this water bill 14b and studying these water topics are a correct and responsible use of our tax funds i have seen improvements in my city using tax funds so i have no doubt that we are able to use these these resources to improve our water quality research them make more responsible decisions water quality is a paramount for our health and wellness of our current and coming generation it is a human rights and something so important no corporation or private interest can thrive without prioritizing the genuine needs of our human rights which is clean water which comes first we all know that wetlands provide our freshest water source and natural filtration for our community and you as representatives are representing the people setting the highest moral standards making the correct decisions for our generation so i hope we can make the best decision uh representing the people so thank you thank you so much thank you sir sir uh good morning my name is nivaldo suria i live at 869 southwest 149 court i'm here in support of the 14b1 because i believe studies into our water quality infiltration are a good use of taxpayer dollars water is something essential entirely to life we should be doing everything we can to preserve and multiply it especially in our coming times of ai technology improving and improving on with so much more hunger for our clean drinking water as times move on we lose more and more of not only our drinking water but also our natural occurring methods of water filtration like our wetlands that act as a part of natural water management system they slow and store storm water allow water to integrate with soils vegetation and microorganisms before it moves through surrounding hydraulic systems like the biscayne aquifer also known as southwest florida the primary source of drinking water protecting the natural ability of these lands to store filter and recharge water is especially this important to water quality and quantity i strongly encourage we move with 14b1 good morning commissioners my name is joshua reyes i live in brickle and i'd like to voice that i'm in favor for motion 14b1 stable access to clean water isn't a privilege it's a natural human right people come from all walks of life to have a chance to live here in our great city so the least we can do is make sure that our most vital source for living is available to all free from microplastics and other pollutants research in this topic will help consecrate the importance of our wetlands and will prove that continued building past the urban development boundary would be hazardous for the growing future of miamians thank you and happy parks and recreation month thank you go ahead sir good morning hello commissioners my name is sebastian alvarez uh 237 southwest 13th street and i'm here in support of item 14b1 i believe that studies on our water quality are very important for the well-being of our community and our surrounding wildlife in miami-dade county structures are being built over acres of land occupied in precious wildlife in our everglades and these structures create unnecessary pollutants that not only directly affect the very wildlife but our own health that's why i'm here to ask you for your support on these issues that are incredibly important to me and my colleagues thank you very much for your time thank you sir good morning commissioners and a special good morning to commissioner regalado i'm here to speak of course on 14b as well as all my friends here we've gathered to talk about water water water quality and the importance of it and i'd also like to mention it is a tuesday sorry not tuesday name and address please name is joseph broca and i'm in west kendall uh the reason i bring out it's a day in the week because we need your actual address 16272 southwest 75th street and the reason i bring up it's a day within the week is because it's 9 a.m in the morning and unlike uh many of the people that are here i have a job to attend to and have to for the sake of my family and everybody else here i say that because not everybody who i know who wanted to be here is here so know that we represent a lot more people than just the 15 brave souls or so that you see here and again i'm here to speak on the fact that the water quality as well as our wetlands are incredibly important to the everglades and incredibly important to the people of miami and the young people miami who are a growing population a working population and a smart population that votes and stays active in their community so please keep that in mind thank you thank you sir sir hello commissioners my name is damien i live in 4791 northwest second street hope you are all well me and my friends are gathered here today in support of this item 14b1 water is life therefore we must preserve it many ai dentist centers been developed around florida there's an attack on our resources and the amount of water needed to run these centers is harmful also our wetlands are one of our main sources of water developing on these lands will also affect the water quality so please vote yes on this item and have the same energy for the upcoming ones to help preserve our lands animals and more importantly our water and our health for our florians thank you for your time thank you sir good morning as the media commissioners and people here present today my name is one zero has barriers i live in 11 150 southwest 14th street i came here to comment in favor of the 14b1 i believe this is a greatest of the taxpayer money these studies are able to protect the windlands from underscrupulous companies are willing to sacrifice the water quality of our city just for the sake of some money um and going over important laws that were placed there for a reason such as the clean water act and they put in danger the people by living up to companies imported aquifers such as the biscay bay aquifer which is the primary source of drinking water to five million floridians this doesn't only hurt the people but also means a cost of money to the state because they have to replace that water they are lost thank you very much thank you sir hello commissioners my name is michael perez i live at 15 330 southwest 155 court west kendall and i'm here in support of 11a1 because water is extremely important to all of us young people who showed up here today it's a key part of our politics here in south florida this study is rather important i think it's important that our wastewater gets studied our water quality gets studied you know because it's getting attacked from so many sides across the county there's been so many ai data centers that have been approved in miami-dade county which are not only increasing electricity costs for residents but using our water resources as well what happened to protecting biscayne bay protecting our drinking water halting saltwater intrusion um i have so much more to say and many other items i wanted to speak on today but this is where we're putting our energy today and just think for future generations for future miamians whenever land gets paved lands flood impervious surfaces affect all of us especially those proximal to chrome avenue and um well as seas rise limestone will fill with water so every time we have an impervious surface well it's going to flood a whole lot easier thank you all and have a wonderful day thank you ma'am hello and good morning my name is nicole lozano i'm a florida born resident living on 795 southwest 110th avenue speaking in behalf of 14b1 i'm a 20 year old student at fiu majoring sustainability which is the primary goal of sustaining the earth for future generations which this water study greatly contributes exactly to that our wetlands and the maintenance tracking of their water quality is crucial to our lives the wetlands are a main source of drinking water and without studies such as these we wouldn't be able to keep up with our livelihoods regarding fresh water i nicole lozano and many others are in favor of taxpayer money going towards these water studies for the overall betterment of our beloved everglades thank you very much thank you hello commissioners and chairman my name is sophia maya address 33172 fontan blue boulevard miami florida today i wanted to speak on item 5t on behalf of the importance of affordable housing having for habitat of miami is a non-profit organization that helps the community build affordable housing a big issue in miami is how unaffordable everything is especially housing a decent one bedroom one bathroom apartment monthly is 1800 minimum including including increasing rents after lease agreements many residents face daily struggles of skyrocketing housing prices that our salaries cannot afford there needs to be more affordable options available for families and residents miami should move towards affordability in all aspects of life walkability accessible communities quality of life for our environment south florida's wetlands provide fresh water flood protection biodiversity and balance for all of us developments for housing and business such as kelly tractor deserve their rights to exist but not at the expense and destruction of wildlife and vital habitat we need our environment just as much as we need affordable housing business and quality of life for all residents this isn't meant to be slanders towards anyone present today but it is instead a call for accountability responsibility thank you so much ma'am thank you hello my name is cardinal alfonso i live in 14229 southwest southwest 97 terrace i'm here because i was originally going to talk about the kelly tractor but as expected public comment is closed i'm still here because i care about our waters all of us speaking here are i would like to mention that we we aren't here to waste your time we take time out of our day to be here to tell you how we all feel because we truly care about this i believe funding this study is a great use of our taxpayer money instead of building more ai data centers which takes our water and damages our ecosystems we should be using taxpayer money for something that is actually beneficial to all of us and our nature as you all know our water quality is extremely important not only for us but our future generations funding the study of our water quality will ensure that our water is free of microplastics and other pollutants that are harmful to us all this is truly important and we urge you to support the funding of our water studies thank you thank you thank you sir it's it's your turn oh it's my turn okay good morning my name is jules um i live in 13506 northeast 24th place i'm a north miami resident uh before anything i just want to extend my thanks for all of you guys for showing up today we have a pretty good turnout as i see um yes i want to speak about the water quality situation um as a miami local i've seen firsthand how important it is to protect our environment uh with rising sea levels and temperatures globally i think this is a very important way of contributing to our environment as well as using our resources correctly um i think just it's really important that we take a moment to think about how this will affect our future and how our city's landscape will look 10 20 30 years from now um so many young people care so much about this because it will land on us effectively um so yeah i do hope you take everything that everyone said with sorry ran out of time okay thank you i appreciate it thank you all right we are now officially closed with a reasonable opportunity and madam attorney should we set the agenda at this time yes mr chair i have a number of changes i imagine so let's do it 2b5 commissioner lopez and commissioner cohen higgins add this item to the poll list 2b6 commissioner regalato adds this item to the poll list 2b8 commissioner lopez and commissioner cohen higgins add this item to the poll list 2b10 commissioner regalato pulls the item 2b12 3b2 and 3b5 commissioner lopez adds these three items to the poll list that's 2b12 3b2 and 3b5 mr chair i do have some requests to bifurcate first reading items so i'll i'll run through them now and then i'll tell you again when we're there 4b senator garcia 14a1 14a5 14a6 and 14a7 commissioner regalato and also 14a8 i have requests to bifurcate public hearing items 5a commissioner bastian 5f 5g and 5h commissioner regalato 5l commissioner bermudez and commissioner million orbis 5o commissioner million orbis and senator garcia and 5u senator garcia i also have some requests to bifurcate items for second reading 7b 7 is commissioner lopez and 7d and 7e commissioner regalato 8f1 senator garcia adds this item to the poll list 8f2 commissioner bermudez adding this item to the poll list 8g5 commissioner million orbis adds this item to the poll list 8k1 chairman rodriguez adds this item to the poll list mr chair item 8k2 the sponsors requesting deferral of this item to no date certain so with the setting of the agenda this item will be deferred 8k4 and item 8n7 commissioner gilbert adds these items to the poll list that's 8k4 and 8n7 8n8 senator garcia adds this item to the poll list items 802 803 and 804 are being pulled by commissioner bermudis 9a5 also being pulled by commissioner bermudis mr chair items 10a1 and 10a2 have been listed on the changes sheet with a requested deferral by commissioner bastian she no longer wishes to refer these defer these two items that's items 10a1 and 10a2 so with the setting of the agenda these two items will be approved 11a1 commissioner lopez adds this item to the poll list 11a13 and its supplements senator garcia and commissioners lopez bermudas regalado and cohen higgins are adding this item to the poll list and that was 11a13 and its supplements and it's senator garcia lopez bermudas regalado and cohen higgins are the pulling commissioners 11a14 commissioner steinberg and commissioner regalado pull this item 11a16 commissioner steinberg and cohen higgins are pulling this item 11a17 commissioner steinberg and commissioner regalado are pulling this item 11a20 this item is being pulled by commissioner bermudis commissioner steinberg and commissioner regalado 11a24 commissioner regalado is pulling this item 11a25 chairman rodriguez adds Adds this item to the pull list, 14A2 and 14A3, Commissioner Regalado is pulling this item, or pulling these items. 14A4, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, 14A1, I'm sorry, Commissioner Regalado is pulling 14A1 as well. 14B1, Chairman Rodriguez and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. 14B2, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is pulling this item. And 15B1, Chairman Rodriguez and Senator Garcia are pulling these items. I have additional requests for co-sponsorship. Item 7E, Commissioner Bastien, 81, Commissioner Steinberg, 11A1, Commissioner Millian Orbis, 11A11, Commissioner Steinberg, 11A21, Commissioner Steinberg, 11A25, Commissioner Millian Orbis. The items to be considered at today's meeting will be those listed in the printed final agenda with the additions, deferrals, withdrawals, and scriveners errors noted in the Chairman's memorandum and the items I just mentioned. Commission will approve all of these items by single vote setting the agenda, except item 2B1, the Mayor's appointment of the Director of the Seaport Department. Item 2B2, the Mayor's appointment of the Director of the Department of Cultural Affairs. Ordinances for first reading, public hearings. Item 6A1, discussion item regarding the status of the county's electric fleet. Item 6B1, discussion item regarding SB 1134, official actions of local governments, DEI. Ordinances set for second reading, items 8A1, 8A2, 8A3, 8A4, 8A5, 8P1, 8P5, and 8P8, which are your commercial service airport contracts which are not on your pull list and have to be voted on separately. And the following pull list items, 2B5, 2B6, 2B8, 2B10, 2B12, 3B2, 3B5, 8F1, 8F2, 8G5, 8K1, 8K4, 8N7, 8N8, 802, 803, 804, 9A5, 11A1, 11A20, 11A24, 11A25, 14A1, that's a first reading item. I'll read it with the balance of the first readings. 14A2, 14A3, 14A4, 14A5, 14A6, 14A7, and 14A8. Those four items are first readings. I'll read those with the first readings. 14B1, 14B2, and 15B1. A motion to set the agendas in order. I have some more pulled. The vice chairman for two. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you please add to that list 11A15, 8P9, and 14B1? I'll be pulling those. Any additional pulled items? Anyone wishes to pull any additional items? I'll entertain a motion to set the agenda. Move it. May, could you please, can he please repeat those? Repeat the three, vice chair. I've got a point of discomfort. It's, I know, but it's kind of loud. I'm very uncomfortable, too, in other ways, but we won't talk about those. Go ahead, vice chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Attorney, the items I referred to were 11A15, 8P9, and 14B1. Those are the items I will be pulling. Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized for a point of discomfort. A point of discomfort. I just, I refuse to believe that we pulled this entire agenda. It's July. This is the July meeting. I just refuse to believe that there are that many controversial things on this agenda. I went through this agenda. There's not, but we're politicians. We like to hear ourselves talk. Oh, my God. It's what it is. Oh, my God. We got nothing else to do. You all pack a lunch. And that's how we got a Naranja meeting tonight. I mean, by the way, I can't make it, but we got a Naranja meeting tonight. So, Mr. Chair, I want to add to Commissioner Gilbert's 8P8. I want to pull 8P8. 8P8. 8P8. 8. 8P8. All right. With that, I'll entertain a motion to set the agenda and all of its pulled items. It's been moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Bastien. All in favor signify by saying aye. And everything that Jerry mentioned happens with the setting of the agenda. Can we quiet down in the back, please? All right, before I get into first readings, I'm going to recognize the mayor for two appointments. We'll start with 2B1, which is the mayoral appointment to the director of the Seaport Department. We have Jonathan Daniels serving as the new executive director. Well, he was serving as the director of Maryland Port Administration, MPA, and the Port of Baltimore, and the 11th busiest tonnage port in the United States. And I know that he's here this morning, welcome, and with his wife, Adrienne. So thank you for being here, Adrienne and Mr. Daniels. All right, Madam Mayor, do you want to do a brief introduction of our new port director? Yes, I would love to, but thank you for leading it off. That was wonderful. Well, we are very, very pleased that we found Mr. Daniels, Jonathan Daniels, please, if you would approach the well here. To be our next director and CEO of the Port Miami, we all know that Port Miami is one of our most important economic engines. It supports more than 340,000 jobs across Florida, $61 billion in economic impact. And so strong leadership is very essential to its continued success. He brings more than three decades of experience, leading some of the nation's most significant seaports. He's managed complex cruise, cargo, and logistics operations. He's overseen multibillion-dollar capital investments. He's built a reputation as a thoughtful, collaborative leader, and he delivers results. And, by the way, he comes from a longshoreman family, father and grandfather part of the longshoreman's union. Most recently, he led the port of Baltimore through one of the most challenging moments in our nation's history in maritime, the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. He helped to restore operations while guiding the port to a record year for container activity. And before that, he led, right here, Port Everglades, and he advanced $3 billion strategy to expand cargo, cruise, and energy operations. So as Port Miami continues to grow, invests in critical infrastructure, strengthens its position as the cruise capital of the world and the cargo gateway of the Americas, I'm confident that Jonathan has the experience, the vision, and the steady leadership to build on that momentum. We're really delighted that he's chosen to join us. Thank you, and welcome to Jonathan. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Yep, yep, yep. A good clap for this one. Anyone that takes this job deserves a round of applause. In a ho. Yeah, yeah. And he brought his wife with him? I mean, that's like a double whammy. All right, go ahead. You got the floor. Madam Mayor, Mr. Chairman, and members of the County Commission, I am humbled and honored to be standing before you this morning. When we talk about the cargo gateway to the Americas, when we talk about the cruise capital of the world, those are statements, they're registered trademarks, but they're more than anything promises. They're promises that we, as a port, as Port Miami, make to the stakeholders who are utilizing our facilities and utilizing Port Miami as their gateway. The 8.5 million passenger moves that we engaged in just last year is a solid number, but we have put ourselves in a position where we've stepped back a little bit. There is another port to the north of us that shall remain nameless right now that has taken over that position. I am absolutely enthusiastic about where we stand right now with the incredible staff that we have. I had the opportunity to meet with the directors yesterday. One of the reasons why this position was so appealing was because I've had the opportunity to work with many of them in the past. And the view and the vision that they have to be able to continue to move the port forward, whether it's cruise or cargo. This is an absolutely incredible team under which I am absolutely proud to be a member of. I sat down with them yesterday for about an hour, hour and a half. After that meeting, all I wanted to do was sit back in the office and get to work. This is a team that is prepared to move forward. Yes, we have challenges ahead of us. Every port in America, every port in the world has challenges. As the mayor had mentioned, I've had the opportunity to work through challenges, whether it's rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina, whether it's taking on the third largest cruise home port in the world during the pandemic, or six weeks after my arrival in Baltimore and getting a call at 1.30 in the morning that the Francis-Scott Key Bridge has gone into the river. All of those issues unexpected, all of those issues allowed us the opportunity to be creative, to utilize the team approach, to utilize a creative approach, and ultimately come out the other side. We have set records after each of those instances, and that is the passion and the draw that I want to be able to bring to this team. Again, I've had the opportunity to work with many of them, work with many of them in leadership, and to stand before you now in consideration of my appointment to this position. Again, I am honored and humbled to be a part of the Miami-Dade family, as many people have pointed out to me, but more importantly to the professional and team that is at Port Miami that leads with professionalism and integrity like no other port, I've had the opportunity to be able to work with and work for. I've had the opportunity to speak to a few of you on the commission thus far, but would be willing to answer any questions that you may have in consideration of the appointment. Thank you, Jonathan. And just through the chair, to clarify, his official first day of work is August 10, so we asked him to come here so that we could have an opportunity for people to meet him. Awesome. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and welcome aboard again. Thank you, sir. Chairwoman Koenigans. Thank you, Madam, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam Mayor, and welcome. Thank you. And congratulations on the appointment. I just want to say a few words regarding your role and the size of it and the magnitude of the work that you're going to do here for us in the community, not only focusing on passenger volume and those numbers, but with a particular emphasis on the amazing community that you are now a key member of and the over 300,000 jobs that rely on Port Miami every day to feed their families. And so I know that you are equipped and experienced. We all certainly look forward to working with you, and I would be remiss if I didn't say rather passionately that you have very big shoes to fill. Our former port director was an extraordinary member of our Miami-Dade County team. We all miss her and, you know, wish her well in her future endeavors. But just wanted to share welcoming remarks, but also remarks saying that the job is huge. We know you're going to do a wonderful job. Miami-Dade is such a unique and extraordinary community, and we look forward to your leadership here at Port Miami. So once again, congratulations and welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. Congratulations, Madam Mayor. Thank you for that appointment. Very good. Congratulations, and we hold you to the fire. Absolutely. I know that Adrian at your side is going to be great. Look forward to it. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado has some remarks. Hold on. Future director, hold on. Don't go so far. Hold on. We got some more. He is the director, I guess, now. Yes. So I would say, I don't know if to say congratulations or condolences, but I hope you stick around for our conversation over the port bond. It'll be interesting. Absolutely. Yes. That was it? Gonzalez, go ahead. So, director, I want to congratulate you on taking this role. I think that it's clear that it's not going to be an easy role, but I have looked into some of the things that you did at Port Everglades, and Port Everglades being one of those ports that is on our heels, it almost feels like the Miami Heat Giannis trade right now. And I'm glad to have you on this team. Thank you. It won't be easy. You're not going to get a lot of sleep, but I'm sure that you will be up to the challenge, and I look forward to working with you. Great. Thank you, director. Congratulations. Madam Mayor, item 2B2. You're good, director. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Item 2B2, you're director of the Department of Cultural Affairs. Madam Mayor, we have Ashley K. Thomas, a Miami native, with deep ties to the local community, a strong understanding of the county's cultural infrastructure, and more than 25 years of experience across the arts, nonprofit leadership, and public administration. Please intro our new director of cultural affairs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again, thank you for being prepped. So Ashley Thomas is a local star, homegrown. She has risen up through the arts world. She started her career in Liberty City, and she trained with Mr. Marshall at the African Cultural Heritage Center, where she learned dance. She went on to be a professional dancer. She went on to write her own productions. She traveled the world, performed in Los Angeles, produced in Australia, and came home to us here in Miami-Dade. So she has advanced through the ranks. She's actually produced productions at our own arts center. So she has a very diverse set of experiences in the arts and culture, and she has received rave reviews from her cultural arts partners. So we did a national search, and it brought us right back home. I have to say that we discovered we have a star in our midst, and we have every confidence that under Ashley's leadership that arts and culture will continue not only to thrive, but actually to even ascend to higher heights. So very, very excited to introduce her to you, if you have not had a chance, just to underscore a couple of the things she's managed in her short tenure as interim director. Guess what? Coconut Grove Playhouse. We will have one. Thank you, Commissioner Regalado. And so she has been instrumental in that. She also has helped us to get through some difficult budget times here in the county with our cultural affairs. So I am very confident that because of her background, her character, her personality, her knowledge, she will be the leader that we all are striving for. And I'm delighted to present to you Ashley Thomas as our new director of cultural affairs. Thank you, Ashley. Congratulations. Welcome aboard. Thank you. And, um, um, all right. Yeah, sure. Well, we allowed it for one while out for the other, right? All right. Actually, you're loved. Uh, you got much less time than the seaport director had. I understand. He certainly went over his time and abused his time, but we're going to give it to him. Go ahead. Thank you so much, uh, chairman Rodriguez. And thank you, Madam Mayor, uh, to the board of county commissioners, deputy mayor, and to the community, uh, for this opportunity. I am local, homegrown, and I'll say that art is essential to the soul. And we continue to, uh, celebrate it and we'll continue to, uh, represent the county, uh, to its full level. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm honored to be here and continue the work. That was brief. I like that. Congratulations. That's two round of applause. You see that? That's two round of applause. Point of order. All right. Put, put, stop. Stop. You're talking about long meetings. I just want to say that that's the difference between, see, she from here. She knew to say something real quick and sit down that she knew exactly what to do. Hey, hey, hey, cut, cut my man, Jonathan, some slack. I was giving him a hard time, because his wife is in the room, so I wanted to. Madam Attorney, let's, can we do the aviation items before we go into first readings? And then I understand we have some releases as well? Yes, Mr. Chair, I have one released. Do you want to- Go ahead, let's do the release. I have 8G5 was pulled, and Commissioner Leon Orbis is releasing her pull. She was the only pulling commissioner. So 8G5, Commissioner Gonzalez moves 8G5. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay, show it passed. And then can you call up the aviation items? Yes, we have seven. The first one is item 8A1. Move it. It's been moved by Commissioner Cohen Higgins, seconded by Gilbert. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show it passed. 8A2, move it. It's been moved by Cohen Higgins, seconded by Gilbert. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. 8A3. Moved by Cohen Higgins, seconded by Gilbert. All in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay, show it passed. 8A4. It's been moved by Cohen Higgins, seconded by Gilbert. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay, show it passed. 8A5. It's been moved by the same, seconded by the same. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All the same, ayes, it passes. 8P1. 8P1, moved by the same, second by the same, all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay, show it passed. 8P5. 8P5 is moved by the same, second by the same, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay, and was that the last one? Yes. All right, we got the aviation items out. Now, Madam Attorney, can you please read the first reading items, including the 14s that are first readings as well? Yes, Mr. Chair. The first one is item 4A, ordinance relating to environmental protection in the incorporated and unincorporated areas. Amending section 24-44 of the code, providing for approval of non-recorded institutional controls for no further action with condition site closures in connection with contaminated site cleanups under certain circumstances. Making technical and clarifying changes, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 4B substitute is an ordinance relating to hospital mandatory payments, amending Article 4 of Chapter 18 of the code. Revising definitions, authorizing electronic signatures, and electronic delivery of documents. Recognizing waivers granted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Expanding the scope of Medicaid supplemental payment programs. Revising petition review and notice procedures. Authorizing payment plans, authorizing suspension or termination of mandatory payments by resolution. Making technical and conforming changes, and providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date, and its supplement. 4C is an ordinance relating to the Rapid Transit System Development Zone, amending Section 33C-2 of the code. Amending the Metro Movers Subzone of the Rapid Transit Zone to add certain private property. Providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 4D's in ordinance changing the boundaries of the city of Florida City, Florida, and amending the city's municipal charter. To provide for the annexation of certain lands pursuant to Section 604B of the Home Rule Charter. And Chapter 20 of the code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Relating to the unincorporated area referred to as area J with approximate outer boundaries on the north. By Southwest 328th Street, Southwest 7th Street on the east by Southwest 192nd Avenue. Providing for reservation to the county of utility tax revenues. Providing for county retention of residential garbage and refuse collection and disposal. Requiring payment of certain outstanding debt service attributable to the annexation area. Providing for county retention of jurisdiction over certain declarations of restrictive covenants in areas and facilities of county-wide significance. Providing for contingent effective date. Providing for interdependency inclusion in the code and an effective date. 4E's in ordinance creating the Miami-Dade County Boater Safety and Bay Education Advisory Board. Creating Article 172 of Chapter 2 of the code. Providing for the composition and duties of the board and other related matters. Providing severability inclusion in the code and an effective date. 4F is in ordinance creating and establishing a special taxing district in the county. Generally bound to the north by Southwest 236th Street on the east by Southwest 134 Avenue. On the south by C102 Canal and on the west by C102 Canal. Known and described as Copart West Street Lighting Special Taxing District. Identifying services to be provided, authorizing and directing the mayor designee. To provide for the installation of street lights, approving a street lighting agreement with Florida Power and Light. And authorizing the mayor designee to execute the agreement. Waving provisions of resolution number R13006 and providing for exclusion from the code and an effective date. 4G's in ordinance creating and establishing a special taxing district in the county. Generally bound down the north by theoretical Southwest 325 Street, on the east by Southwest 184 Avenue, on the south by Southwest 328th Street, Lucy Street. And on the west by Southwest 197 Avenue, Richard Road. Known and described as Harmony Homes, Multipurpose Maintenance and Street Lighting Special Taxing District. Identifying services to be provided, authorizing and directing the mayor designee. To cost to be maintained and operated various public improvements and to provide for the installation of street lights. Approving a street lighting agreement of Florida Power and Light and authorizing the mayor designee to execute the agreement. Waving provisions of resolution number R13006 and providing for exclusion from the code and an effective date. 4H is an ordinance relating to environmental protection. Amending sections 24-5, 24-18, and 24-43 of the code. Revising a definition authorizing administrative approval of emergency generators for healthcare facilities and food stores within a well field protection area subject to certain conditions. Providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. For ayes in ordinance relating to environmental remediation and utility service fee. Amending section 24-34 of the code. Establishing loan program for purposes of environmental remediation that meets existing requirements of section 24-34 without changing set requirements. Creating requirements, parameters, and procedures for said loan program. Providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 14A1 is in ordinance relating to the operation of personal delivery services and mobile carriers in the incorporated and incorporated areas of the county, creating chapter 31, article 8 of the code. Providing regulations for the safe operation of personal delivery devices and mobile carriers. Providing legislative intent, applicability, and definitions. Amending section 8CC10 of the code. Providing for enforcement by civil penalty. Providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 14A5 is in ordinance relating to county procurement. Implementing in whole or in part multiple recommendations from the final report of the special task force. To reduce inefficiencies in procurement relating to bid protest. Amending section 2-8.4 of the code relating to protest procedures. Amending and implementing order 3-21. Directing the mayor designate to create, maintain, and update a centralized, automated online portal for use in the protest process. In coordination with the clerk of the board, requiring a report. Providing severability, inclusion, and an exclusion from the code, and an effective date. 14A6 is in ordinance relating to county procurement. Implementing in whole or in part multiple recommendations. From the final report of the special task force to reduce inefficiencies in procurement. Amending section 2-11.1 of the code relating to the cone of silence to permit closed recorded oral presentations and competitive procurements consistent with an exemption of Florida law. Amending implementing orders 3-34 and 3-39 establishing requirements for competitive selection committee appointments, composition, scoring, training, and conflict checks. Creating large local employer category relating to evaluation scoring and acquisition of professional services agreements. Limiting use of technology at oral presentations and providing severability, inclusion, and an exclusion from the code and an effective date. 14A7 is in ordinance relating to county procurement implementing in whole or in part multiple recommendations. From the final report of the special task force to reduce inefficiencies in procurement relating to small business and local preference requirements. Amending sections 2-10.4.01, 2-8.1.1.1.1.1.1.1, 2-8.1.1.1.2, and 2-8.5 of the code. Relating to small business architecture and engineering program requirements, small business enterprise service program requirements. Small business enterprise goods program requirements, local business preference, locally headquartered business preference. Local preference eligibility and verification, small business remedies, and related procurement policies. Directing and authorizing the mayor to make conforming changes to implementing orders and providing severability, inclusion, and an exclusion from the code and an effective date. And 14A8 is in ordinance relating to county procurement implementing in whole or in part multiple recommendations from the final report of the special task force to reduce inefficiencies in procurement. Ending section 2-11.1 of the code relating to the complex of interest in code of ethics ordinance. Section 2-8.8 of the code relating to fair subcontracting practices. Section 2-8.1.1.1.1.1 of the code relating to the small business enterprise services program. Section 2-8.1.1.1.2 of the code relating to the small business enterprise goods program. Section 2-8.1.1 of the code relating to bids from related parties and bid collusion. And Section 10-3301 of the code relating to bids precluded from related parties. Repealing resolution R6314, requiring certain due diligence, affidavits, and procurement. Providing severability, inclusion, and exclusion from the code, and an effective date, and requiring a report. Those are your first reading items. All right, Madam Attorney, we have some bifurcations, right? We have 4B and 14A5 through 14A8. And 14A1 as well. Okay. Mr. Chair. All right, Commissioner, who's that, who's that, Commissioner Regalado? Yeah, I pulled the procurement ones, I guess 14A5. 14A8. 14A8. 14A8. I'm happy to release those. Okay, so 14A5 through 14A8 released, and you need to pull something? 4E? 4D. All right, so show Commissioner Cohen Higgins pulling 4D. Can I have a motion on the rest of the first reading items? Mr. Chair? Yes. I believe I had Commissioner Regalado noted as also pulling 14A1. It appears she did not. Okay. So you may want to add that. Okay, so 14A1 is part of the motion now. All right, so Commissioner Gonzalez moves the rest of the items. But for 4B and 4D, it's been seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Bastian? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez? Yes. Commissioner Cohen Higgins? Yes. Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gilbert? Commissioner Gonzalez? Four. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis? Yes. Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Commissioner Steinberg? Yes. Vice Chairman McGee? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez? I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. Senator Garcia on 4B. You can't discuss it, so are you just trying to vote no on it? No, Mr. Chairman. I want to try to waive the rules to make sure this is placed on the following agenda on September 22nd. This is the hospital funding bill that we've done previous times because of ACA constraint, time constraint. Yes. I want to make sure it's on the agenda for the next one. That's okay. So what meeting exactly did you want it to go on? The September 2nd meeting. September 2nd? Okay. And if we can do 15B1, which is a public hearing notification, that'll be great. Okay, so you'll move 4B for the September 2nd meeting with all the proper notices. Madam Attorney? Mr. Chair, we can do that motion separate as a procedural motion. 4B needs to be approved first. Okay, so- And then we can do those motions separately. Senator Garcia moves 4B. Second. Seconded by Regalado. Clerk, please call the roll. It's 4B substitute. 4B substitute. Please call the roll. Commissioner Bermudez? Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? 4. Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gilbert? Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez? 4. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis? Yes. Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Commissioner Steinberg? Yes. Commissioner Bastien? Vice Chairman McGee? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez? I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. Senator, I understand our September meeting, the first one is September 1st. So you want to make a motion at this time to waive the rules or what not? So move to the September 1st meeting. All right. It's been moved by Senator Garcia. Jerry, go ahead. Jerry? Can we go ahead and read that motion? Go ahead. Senator Garcia moves to one suspend the rules, the board's rules of procedure and waive committee review as to item 4B substitute. Two, amend item 15B1 to set public hearing and second reading on item 4B substitute at the September 1, 2026 Board County Commissioners meeting. Three, direct the agenda coordinator, set appropriate notices and four, direct the clerk of the board to publish all necessary notices related to this item. All right, we have a motion by Senator Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor of the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Show it passed. Eddie, can you read my motion along the same lines as well? Report 1 isn't up with that. Chairman Regas moves to one suspend the board's rules of procedure and waive committee review as to items 14A5, 14A6, 14A7 and 14A8 to amend item 15B1 to schedule the public hearing and second reading for these items at the September 1st, 2026 Board meeting and three, direct the clerk of the board to publish all necessary notices relating to these items. So it moved by Commissioner Cohen Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Steinberg. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. All right. Commissioner McGee moves for D, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. And I know you bifurcated, but you can't speak on it. So clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Cohen Higgins? No. Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gilbert? I'm sorry. Commissioner Gonzalez? Four. Commissioner Lopez? Commissioner Milian Orbis? Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Commissioner Steinberg? Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez? Vice Chairman McGee? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez? I vote yes. Motion passes 11 to 1. All right. Thank you very much. That concludes our first reading items. Madam Attorney, I will recognize first. I'm going to go ahead and recognize Commissioner Gilbert for a motion. I was going to start somewhere else, but we'll start there. Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized to make a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the attorneys can come forward, I have a motion to reconsider. On the port item that we determined, we decided at our last meeting, there's some technical changes that came to light after we engaged the consultant, the expert, that we need to make. And so I'm going to make the motion to reconsider. I'll give it to the attorneys to read. Commissioner Gilbert moves to reconsider. Legislature number 261076. Second. It's been moved to reconsider, seconded by Commissioner Regalado. Oh, seconded by Commissioner Cohen Higgins. I just heard, I just heard. It's a little congested. They don't sound alike. I thought it was a good day in the county here today. They don't sound alike. No, no. Not today. I mean, not today, Satan. We got a motion. We have a second by Commissioner Cohen Higgins. All in favor of the reconsideration signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Short reconsidered. Thank you. Now that it's before us, I move the item as amended. We have some technical amendments. I think it's been filed with the clerk. The attorneys can read the amendment? Yeah, Mr. Chair, are we going to have it? They're going to read it to us? Mr. Chair, are you going to wait until you recognize Commissioner Regalado? Yeah. I just asked him to read it. I literally said that before you still wanted to hear yourself say it on the microphone. All right, go ahead if you could read the amendment. Commissioner Gilbert moves to amend Legislature number 261076. One, replace exhibits A and B with new exhibits A and B that have been filed with the clerk. Two, make a corresponding amendment to the secondary saddle on page MDC012 to reference the revised exhibits A and B. Three, incorporate the amendments previously approved regarding outside counsel. And four, authorize the mayor and mayor's designee to correct Scrivener's errors in the legal descriptions and sketches provided that no such corrections alter the property interest to be acquired. All right, we have a motion to the amendment. Second. We have a second by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Thank you. Just for the record, I know that last time this item came before us, the reason it was before us is because we were amending the legal description. So now we're amending the legal description again. Is this making it smaller or bigger? Because we have a few easements on here. There's a different description. But does this increase the footprint that we had from the prior item or decrease it? Do the attorneys are recognized to answer the question? It's the same easement. So it's just ownership? No. There's a discrepancy in the easement that should be clarified for our benefit really during the litigation. But the intention is not to change the easement that's been used. So it's the same as what's been used all along. So in terms of the size of the parcel, we're still staying within the existing footprint of what we need for the fuel facility, which was the prior amendment. That is correct. Thank you. All right. With that, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Fill the no. So that item passed with two no votes. All right. Now, I will take up 7D, the Kelly Tractor application. Madam Attorney, let's go ahead and take that item. Yes, Mr. Chair, I need to read this title. One second. Yep. You got your time. 7D is an ordinance relating to Miami-Jay County Comprehensive Development Master Plan providing disposition of application number CDMP 2023-13, located west of Northwest 137 Avenue and SR836 interchange and north side of theoretical Northwest 6th Street filed by Kelly Tractor Company in the May 2023 cycle to amend the county's comprehensive development master plan. Providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. All right, and we have, was that the supplement and second supplement as well? That's with its three supplements. And, all right, so I have the item before us. Public hearing has been had on this item already. I'll move it. Do I have a motion? I have a motion. Commissioner Bermudez moves the item. Seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. Any discussion on it? Yes. Commissioner Regalotti, you're recognized. Thank you. I just want to walk through the changes. I know that we've discussed this item a lot, and I don't want to belabor the point, but I think that the changes that we've made to date have really changed dramatically this item. And I hope that the board will consider these requirements in the future because I think that it's a way for us to change the conversation in terms of preservation. So, first and foremost, obviously, I filed the item to change the tax amendment. I think most of us were concerned that the tax amendment was going to be abused. So, I hope that this is the last one that we see that chooses that vehicle without the parameters. That being said, as part of this application, we've added a lot of those parameters even though the tax amendment did not require them. And I want to thank the applicant for walking through that with us. For those of you who had the opportunity to read the final memo by staff, we do have staff in favor of a lot of the changes that we've made. So, first and foremost, I think one of the lessons learned from this application is that land that is coveted can later, many years later after it is preserved, there could be a request to remove that covenant. And one of the things that this new application is doing is we're asking for ownership by the county, specifically EO for those properties. And I think that that is the best path forward. I think if we truly believe that these lands are important, we're asking a developer to preserve and restore them. We should have ownership and one of the things that this application does is not only grant ownership to the county should the county want it because there could be a world in which the county does not want the preserved land. But it also has a maintenance fee baked into the agreement. So if we could just have a clarification from the applicant as to how that would work, because as many of you know, our EO program is desperately underfunded. This would then go under the EO portfolio. And we want to make sure that EO has the ability to maintain it properly. Sure, Commissioner, through the chair. If I may, so I just wanted to clarify, so we have two options. We can maintain it ourselves to alleviate some of that burden on EO. Otherwise, we would provide some sort of funding mechanism to make sure that it is taken care of perpetually. But the applicant is open to doing that maintenance themselves on that land. I understand, and that's if the county rejects ownership, right? Correct. The application now says that if the county has the ability to reject ownership, if the county decides not to do it, then you have the obligation to preserve it. But I really want the county to own it. I think that that's the best path forward for us. On page 12 of the Declaration of Restrictions. And for those who are watching, I just want to say this information is in the actual covenant. It's on page 13. But on page 12, number 7, for the preservation area. So we're talking about two different parcels, right? We're talking about the existing preservation area. And number 7 says, if the owner wishes to convey the preservation area to the county, the owner shall convey the preservation area at no cost to the county and provide a funding mechanism that fully funds the long-term maintenance of the preservation area. Correct? That's what you have on 12? That is correct. Okay. I would like it to be the inverse, just as it is in the next page. The next page has the owner shall dedicate and convey these additional off-site wetland preservation areas to Miami-Dade County's EO program at no cost to Miami-Dade County and in natural state free of exotic vegetation. So in 7, I would like the same. I don't want the owner to decide if they're going to give the preservation areas to EO. I want EO to have the right of first refusal. I think EO wants them. If EO doesn't want them, then the owner would then maintain them and preserve them. So can we have that same language that we have on page 13 on page 12? Yes, that's fine. Wonderful. Thank you. On page 14, we also added if there is a need for a pump station that is required for water and sewer agreement on the requested property, the owner shall install a public sanitary sewer pump station at the owner's expense to provide service to the proposed development subject to any applicable RER and succession. So we have the pump station should we need it later. The one issue that's on here that's not on here that I think is important. Well, let me get to another easy one. On page 16, 11, Community Education and Training Program. I want to thank you. It's very robust. It reflects a lot of the meetings that we had in terms of how we want to use this site for economic development, specifically for training. But I take issue with one word. In the third sentence we say, the first owner agrees to create and or participate in educational training program available to post-secondary and high school students in Miami-Dade County, which may include but shall not be limited to neurodivergent individuals. Can we make that may a must? Because that's what we talked about. Sure. Okay, thank you. Now, going back to page 15, one of the reasons that this application is so different from everything else that this board has seen is because of Kelly's involvement in our emergency response at all levels. And on page 15, paragraph 10, we speak about the county emergency management. Is it possible to give Miami-Dade County government a priority in terms of access to Kelly equipment should there be an emergency? Because I know you guys get a draw from everyone. Is that something that we can bake in? I know I would say it would be as long as we're not violating existing contracts. That's okay. Okay. And this is important, folks, because whenever we have a hurricane or anything, everyone draws. We know what's happened with the last few storms. We're going to be talking about trash and trash pickup later. But I want our county's response teams to have first priority when it comes to Kelly and access to the infrastructure that is so necessary during emergency response. The wetland mitigation program, I think, is very good. I specifically, I really want to thank you all for spending the time with us to work through how to include the wildlife and a wildlife corridor. I really believe that this is something that others should consider when we look at these types of plans. And then, finally, I know we had some back and forth, and I want to thank staff for also requiring it. We're not double dipping here on mitigation, right? So it's separate and apart. You're going to use other land for your stormwater. To the board, in terms of the preservation area and the mitigation that we're requiring, I want to read a part to you because it was important when we were negotiating it. And I think it's also something that we should consider moving forward when we talk about replicating these requirements in other applications. On page 13, the owner shall dedicate and convey these additional offsite wetlands preservation areas to Miami-Dade County EO program and no cost to Miami-Dade County in the natural state of free and exotic vegetation. We talked about that. But this is the part that I think is important. The owner agrees to provide a funding mechanism. Everybody okay over here? The owner agrees to provide a funding mechanism that fully funds the maintenance of the offsite wetland preservation areas in perpetuity and any other obligation of such offsite wetland preservation area. Should the county in its discretion elect not to accept such dedication, the owner shall record a restrictive covenant. And the other thing that was required here that we talked about, I think it was in the second time this application came to us, is that the mitigation whether provided in land to the county or by mitigation credits will be in Miami-Dade County. This is not mitigation land that's going to occur in Orlando or North Florida. This is the first time that we're keeping everything in Miami-Dade County. So to my colleagues, this is a very different application from what was presented to us. I think that Kelly is unique. I think it's a text amendment. I think we've cleared up the issues of the text amendment. We're not moving the line. Currently, this land, as has been mentioned, what is preserved, we're preserving. But there's an entire area out there that has not been restored, is not being preserved, and will be preserved because of this. This now, when we own it, there's a dramatic change in our ability to actually do BCC-er. So we talk a lot about BCC-er, but we don't do BCC-er, as the owner of these properties now, the county can go to the federal government and ask to start working on this basin. So with that, I would like to move as amended. All right. We have a, well, we had a motion, right, to move it by Bermuda, seconded by Gilbert. Now there's an amendment. They made amendments. So just as long as the motion says as amended. Okay. So the motion is as amended. Commissioner Bermuda, you're good with that? Yep. All right. So go ahead, Abby. Mr. Chair, if I can just confirm the original motion, it would be a motion to adopt per staff recommendation with the various changes that have been outlined in staff's memorandums, with the acceptance of the proffered covenant and with the 10 calendar days, the 10-day condition, to provide an executed, perfectly sufficient covenant opinion of title. Then my understanding is there's, well, I would, there were amendments in addition to that. Okay. All right. So are we good? I'm sorry, Abby. Your lead attorney is whispering in my ear. So did you say something that needed my attention? I apologize. No, Mr. Chair, I was just restating the motion for the record. All right. All right. So that said, I have no further discussion on the item. It is moved as amended with all the different amendments and motions and all the good stuff. All right. We have a second by Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Steinberg, are you wanting to be recognized? Briefly. While I appreciate the amendments, I will remain a no. Thank you. Yeah. All right. So, Clerk, let's call the roll. Hold on. Hold on. So we can have a clarification of the acreage that the county could potentially own just so we have it on the record? There's 20. That's to the applicant. So for the acreage, that's in the paragraph, one second. That's in paragraph five, the offsite wetland preservation area is a total at least 20 acres. And then mitigation, the second? And then mitigation. And mitigation, we don't know. We do not know at this point. Yes. Thank you. All right. So, Madam Attorney, because I'm just doing a quorum count of sorts. I don't think we have the sufficient members in the chamber at this time to take a vote based on requirements. I know that we need nine votes for this in general, and I can see it based on the history of this, and some have already said it. So can I, I don't know if to formally officially say table it, but can I move on to the rest of the agenda and then come back to this at a later time? Yes. Yes. And then my question to you is because we do have a very long agenda, and I know some folks do need to leave. If we don't get to this item today, does it automatically roll over to my next agenda? Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay. And we're going to try to get it to today, but just in case we're out of time. So, all right. That said, I know that we had a lot of good conversation, Commissioner Regalado. Thank you for all of that. The motion still stands and all of that, but we're going to move on to the next, to the rest of our agenda. Just because I don't have enough members, I can see it, so. Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized. I'd just like to commend Commissioner Regalado on the work she put on this. That's, thank you very much. Aw. Thank you. That's so cute. Is that a new congressman type of behavior? Sure is not, Commissioner. No, not at all. No. He knows that if he doesn't thank me, I get upset later, so. Aw, that's so cute. Positive reinforcements. Get upset now or get upset later. I love it. All right, let's move into public hearing, Madam Attorney or Mr. Attorney. If you can read all of the public hearing items. And once you do, I'll go ahead and open up public hearing for the public. Yes, Mr. Chair. 5A is a resolution renaming the Arcola Lakes Branch Library the Doran D Roll Library and its supplement. 5B and C were deferred. 5D is an ordinance relating to operation of micro-mobility devices, electric bicycles, and motorized scooters in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county recreating section 2-98.3 of the code. Providing regulations for operation of micro-mobility devices, electric bicycles, and motorized scooters on rights of way. Providing for legislative intent, applicability, and definitions. Providing mechanism for municipal enforcement of regulations. Providing for enforcement by civil penalty. Providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. And its supplement, 5B is an ordinance authorizing issuance of not to exceed $350 million, Miami-Dade County, Florida transit system sales surtax revenue bonds. Pursuant to section 208, ordinance number 0548 as amended for paying costs of certain transportation and transit projects. Providing that details terms and other matters relating to such bonds, including without limitation, the ability to issue such bonds as drawdown bonds. Under a drawdown bond program be determined in subsequent resolutions. Authorizing undertaking of transit and transportation projects and people's transportation plan. Authorizing and directing county officers and agents to take all actions necessary to effectuate the purposes of this ordinance. And ordinance number 0548 as amended and providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. 5F is an ordinance authorizing the issuance of Miami-Dade County capital asset acquisition special obligation bonds from time to time in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount. Not to exceed $380 million for purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, renovating, and or equipping certain capital assets and our projects providing that details of said bonds be determined in one or more series resolutions providing for severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. 5G is a resolution authorizing issuance of Miami-Dade County, Florida general obligation bonds, building better communities, and one or more series. And principal amount not to exceed $350 million for purpose of paying all or a portion of certain approved capital project costs and paying cost of issuing bonds pursuant to certain terms and conditions, finding necessity for and authorizing negotiated sale such bonds. 5H is a resolution authorizing issuance of not to exceed $275 million of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Seaport revenue and revenue refunding bonds in one or more series on a senior basis to pay cost of certain additional improvements and capital expenditures. And to refund all or a portion of commercial paper notes. 5J is a resolution authorizing issuance of capital asset acquisition, special obligation bond series 2026A. 5J is a resolution authorizing issuance of not to exceed $700 million aggregate principal amount of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Seaport revenue and revenue refunding bonds in one or more series on a senior basis to pay cost of certain additional improvements in capital expenditures and to refund all or a portion of commercial paper notes. 5J is a resolution authorizing issuance of capital asset acquisition, special obligation bond series 2026A. In aggregate principal amount not to exceed $480 million to fund certain capital assets and or projects. Providing that bonds shall be payable solely from legally available non-ed valorem revenues at the county covenants to budget and appropriate annually. 5L is an ordinance approving, adopting, and ratifying non-ed valorem assessment rules, rates, and assessments. For 219 certain street lighting special taxing districts in Miami-Dade County, Florida. For the fiscal year commencing October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2027. And providing severability, exclusion from the code, and effective date. 5M is an ordinance granting petition of DR Horton, Inc. For establishment of a community development district generally bound to the north by Canal 103 South, on the east by Southwest 167 Avenue, Tennessee Road, Southeast 12th Avenue, on the south by Southwest 328 Street, Lucy Street, Southeast 8th Street. And on the west by Southwest 172 Avenue, McMinn Road, Southeast 6th Avenue. Creating and establishing Sandero Landing Community Development District. Providing for name, powers, and duties. Providing description and boundaries. Providing initial members of Board of Supervisors accepting proper declaration of restrictive covenants. Providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date and its supplement. 5N is an ordinance approving, adopting, and ratifying non-ed valorem assessment rolls, rates, and assessments. For the solid waste collection service area of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Commencing October 1, 2026. Providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. 5O is a resolution approving the waiver of plat of 6301 Southwest 27th Street, LLC. 5P is a resolution approving the plat of My Academy. 5Q is a resolution approving the plat of QRT Northwest Residences filed by Miami-Dade County. 5R is a resolution approving the plat of Verdana East. 5S is a resolution approving the waiver of plat of A2Z Construction and Remodel, LLC. 5T is a resolution approving the waiver of plat of Habitat for Humanity of Greater Miami, Inc. 5U is a resolution approving the waiver of plat of 8210 Southwest 63 Place, LLC. 5B is a resolution approving issuance by Arizona Industrial Development Authority of its revenue bonds in one or more series. In an amount not to exceed $40 million for the benefit of True North Classical Academy, Inc. Those are your public hearing items. And at the appropriate time, I do have some requests to bifurcate. Thank you to the attorney. At this time, we're going to open public hearing on all five items on our agenda. Dewey Knight, if you can please approach. Tangler Dorsett, please approach. Carnell White, please approach. Sophia Amaya, please approach. I don't see anyone approaching. Public hearing is now open on our five numbered items on our agenda. To the clerk, we have a quasi-judicial item, 5T. We have a speaker. At the appropriate time, please swear in, Ms. Sophia Amaya. Is Sophia Amaya present? Don't see Sophia Amaya. We'll see if she joins us during the public hearing. To those names that I've called, you can approach the well. You'll have one minute. Please give us your name and your address. Good morning, Commission. My name is Tangela Dorsett, 3249 Northwest 43rd Terrace, Miami 33142. Good morning again. I'm the daughter of Commissioner Doran D. Rowe, the late commissioner. On behalf of the entire Rowe family, my sister is here, Yvette, and my brother Damon. He couldn't make it. We are extremely thankful and honored. My dad enjoyed his tenure of service for the community. He was a servant. He was a leader. And he was passionate about his work. We look forward to the dedication of the ceremony of the library. And in the words of the late commissioner, you're done good. Good. You're done good. My name is Carnell A. White, 4350 Northwest 33rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. And I am so pleased and proud to be able to stand here today and say in front of Lottie, Dottie, and everybody that Commissioner Rowe was my dear friend, my brother, my friend, a colleague. We go back to the first time I saw him in 1966 on Florida NM University's campus. I appreciate you and thank you for doing this, for honoring an honorable man. Commissioner Bastian, my commissioner. How do you know? I'm yours. You are my commissioner, a position that he served in for many years. And I thank you for sponsoring this. I've watched you from afar and sometimes closer than you know. When you were back doing things for the most vulnerable of our citizenry. Thank you so very much. Thank you, Mr. White. Thank you so much. Mr. Dewey Knight, you're recognized. Thank you kindly. Good morning. Dewey Knight, offices at 8250 North Miami Avenue. I am grateful to be here today to celebrate. And we thank Commissioner Bastian and the co-sponsors for honoring Commissioner Doran Rowe. It takes me back to when the GOB bond was passed and he was successful in lobbying the commission to make this a priority. The Arcola Lake Library and the police station because people in that community had a digital divide. They didn't have Wi-Fi, et cetera. Those poor kids were trying to go to school and didn't have access. Commissioner Rowe pushed this library and that police station, which has brought so much safety to that community. And a lot of commissioners were a little mad because he got his done first. And so we are grateful that you would honor him today and remember the good works that he did. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Knight. Last call from Ms. Sophia Amaya. Last call from Ms. Sophia Amaya. Public hearing is now closed to the attorneys. What items are being bifurcated? Yes, we have Commissioner Bastien on 5A. Commissioner Regalado is bifurcating 5F, 5G, and 5H. And I have on 5L, Commissioner Bermudez and Commissioner Million Orbis. 5O, Commissioner Million Orbis and Senator Garcia, and 5U, Senator Garcia. And I also have some requests to co-sponsor 5A from Commissioners Gilbert and Hardiman. I'll entertain a motion on the 5s that were not bifurcated. Excuse me? Yes, Commissioner Seinberg. I'd also like to add 5D for a quick friendly amendment. 5D is also bifurcated, a motion on the items not bifurcated. It's been moved. So moved, second. It's been moved, it's been seconded. Clerk, please call the roll. Senator Garcia? Aye. Commissioner Gilbert? I vote yes. Commissioner Gonzalez? Four. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis? Yes. Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Steinberg? Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez? Commissioner Cohen Higgins? Four. Vice Chairman McGee? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez? I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right, Madam Attorney, on the bifurcated items, is it 5A the first one? Yes. All right, so that's bifurcated by Bermudez. And Commissioner Bastien, I think, was bifurcating 5A? 5A? 5A. Commissioner Bastien, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As most of you know, the late Commissioner DeWenro was a commissioner for District 2 for 12 long years. Like myself, he was a mental health professional and a social worker. So even before he was elected to the Miami-Dade County Commission, he's been providing lifeline, life-saving services to his community through the organizations that provided wraparound services to the residents of District 2. He served for 12 years, as I indicated, and then as a result of his legacy, the new Ocula Lake Branch Library was approved in 2008. So I'm honored to really support this legislation, and I pulled the item for a very brief amendment to add the word branch to the name in order for the item to be consistent with the other libraries in the district. So please read the motion. Commissioner Bastien moves to amend item 5A to insert the word branch in the proposed renaming of the Ocula Lakes Branch Library so that the new library name would be the Doran-D-Rule Branch Library instead of the Doran-D-Rule Library. Thank you, and I'd like to share that the families here, you heard them. Commissioner Wohl was cherished by many members, so I hope that you support this, and thank you for those who co-sponsor. Chair, I'll second it. All right, it's been moved. It's been seconded by Commissioner Bermudez. Vice Chairman, you're recognized. Oh, go ahead, Bermudez. Yeah, I just wanted to briefly say, because the families here from District 12 and the City of Doran to thank, I think this is a great day. Commissioner Wohl was always very respectful to me when I was the founding mayor of Doran. The governor was always very kind to what became the City of Doran, was always very caring and listening to our argument. So I'm very supportive of this item, and it's well deserved. Vice Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too echo the sentiments that I've heard from my colleagues. I also would like to be listed as a co-sponsor. And thirdly, let me just simply say this to the family. Thank you for loaning to this great county the GOV. It means a lot, he stood for great things for many of us, and the idea that we now will have his name on top of the library, right? If everyone can see, it will remind each and every last one of us that knowledge and opportunity are the two tentacles that the GOV actually provided for each and every last one of us who came through this community looking for understanding and appreciation and things of that nature. So, to Commissioner Bastien, hopefully we get that invitation to this ribbon cutting. Definitely want to be there. And just thank you so much for leading the charge on behalf of this great man and this great family. Thank you, Vice Chair. And as I recognize, Commissioner, are you trying to speak? Just keep in mind that you all should learn from Mr. Roll what he used to say. Everybody, talk long, talk wrong. So, Commissioner Gilbert. He also used to say he was going to take a skinny minute. Skinny minute, I say that sometimes. Skinny minute, this is a skinny minute. I just want to thank Commissioner Bastien for actually bringing this item. And thank the family. I knew Commissioner Roll, the Governor, I knew him. He was a good man who worked tireless for the community. He loved this community. He loved this county. I think this completely, this is overdue. This is fitting and it's overdue. Thank you very much for doing this. Commissioner Bastien. Chairman. Senator Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Commissioner Gilbert, for reminding us about the Governor. And he was an amazing, when I was a legislature, I worked a lot with him on a couple of different issues. And there's no doubt that he really did care about his community, loved his people, and fought tirelessly for them every single day. So, whether you agreed with him or not, the one thing that you could be certain of is that he really did love his people. And Commissioner Bastien, thank you so much for bringing this before us. And please list me as a co-sponsor as well. Thank you. All the way around, folks. Yeah. Please add me as well. In this case, we'd get co-sponsored all the way around? All the way around. All the way around. All right. All right. Okay. All right. So, with that, Clerk, please. We have a motion. We have a second. With that, Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Yes. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cornhiggins. Four. Senator Garcia. Vice Chairman McGee. Absolutely. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. On 5F. 5D. What is it? 5D. Oh, 5D. I pulled it. Steinberg pulled that. All right. Bifurcated. Go ahead. Commissioner Steinberg on 5D. In the spirit of the skinny minute. Skinny minute. No. Listen. I support the ordinance. It's a great ordinance and it's broadly written enough, but it really is a narrow ordinance that only really impacts Key Biscayne. Yes. My question and what I would like to proffer is the ability for other municipalities to opt in to this ordinance should they want to via an interlocal. And being that the title is broad enough, I would ask the county attorney to let me know if that would be an opportunity for them. Again, not mandating anything, not doing anything other than if another city wants to opt in, give them the ability to do so because a lot of them are doing their regulations right now. And this is a model for what they could be doing. Commissioner Regalado. Thank you. I appreciate that. But the only thing I would add, and I've been requested this. We took a, this ordinance was a lot of work. And as many of you know, we were waiting for the state to really regulate it. This was done as a placeholder as a state regulated and unfortunately the governor vetoed. We had over a dozen meetings in Key Biscayne to make sure that everybody understood this. And the reason for this ordinance, because many of you know I'm a big supporter of micromobility, but on February 14, 2024, we had Megan Andrews died in Key Biscayne as a result of an accident. She was 66 and she was killed by a 12-year-old on an e-bike. And then on August 15, 2025, we had Fabian Moss. Moss says he was 54, killed by a 14-year-old on an e-bike. So this is a big issue for Key Biscayne and not something that we entered into lightly. I would, I don't want to amend this. I would tell you all to bring your own items referring to it, but to have the public meetings so that you can inform everyone on the breadth of this. We landed on this in collaboration with Key Biscayne, and this is an extension of what's already been existing. So I don't want to just add other cities without them kind of going through the work of it. If I may clarify. You absolutely may, yes. It wouldn't be necessarily amending any of the work on the ordinance. It's just giving the mechanism for another city to enter into a local with the county so that they can also avail themselves of the good work that's been done on this ordinance. This has nothing to do with changing the ordinance or, by the way, cities already, some of them have their own, they've adopted their own regulations to the extent that they can. And instead of bringing one for each city individually, just, you know, maybe the attorney can explain a little further so that it, so it doesn't touch the ordinance and the essence of it. The only thing I would say is this is about the Rickenbacker, which is unique as a street. So the speeds and everything on the Rickenbacker are very, very different from other county-owned streets. So I would say it would be better to do something separately for other county-owned streets because the Rickenbacker is a highway. And this is about the Rickenbacker. And that's why I said it's very particular to what it was created for. So, okay, Commissioner Lopez. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I did pass legislation in the state that allowed for local governments to regulate micromobility devices. And that is in statute now. It was amended into the transportation bill. So any municipality that wishes to do so can. It's specific. So to Commissioner Steinberg's question, any municipality today under state statute can actually pass an ordinance. What Commissioner Regalado was saying is absolutely true. She and I both worked very hard because the village of Key Biscayne has banned micromobility devices on their roads. But the one she's referring to is the Crandon Boulevard. And so this is so specific to Key Biscayne. But Commissioner Steinberg, any of our municipalities, they want more though. And I would say Commissioner Steinberg and I share the city of Miami Beach. And they are looking to expand the state statute in this coming session. So hopefully that will be something that we can work towards. But currently any municipality in the state of Florida can regulate micromobility devices. Yeah, if I. Commissioner Steinberg. Okay, thank you. No, and I appreciate that. This was just the opportunity because it does say county roads, you know. And while it does reference the areas in Key Biscayne, which is why I said it's broad enough in the title, but it's specific to what you were doing. And I know the work it came. I know how contentious these things can be. But now I think in light of what's been happening, the regulatory framework is here. And it's just giving them the option if they want to opt into something like this. It may not be what they want. It may not. Further than what they would want to do. And I would just ask the attorneys, is there a way to do this where it doesn't touch the item or keeps the essence? Because she did bring up a good point about it being so specific to the type of road, the causeway. The only thing I would add, and I'm happy to work with you on an item, I would just say if we are going to bring something like an op-in similar to what I did with the Peacocks, I think you need to establish parameters. And I would say a certain number of public meetings, outreach, a lot of things that are not in here. Because I did all those things before this, you know, this has been working for a long time and this is an extension of an existing. So I'm happy to work on an item that creates a way for them to bring it in and to request that we extend their limitations to county roads. But I think there has to be a very compelling reason. So I would be happy to work with you on a paradigm. Well, in order for a city to opt in, they would have to pass some sort of resolution or formal thing at their body, which would then be a public hearing within of itself at their city. You know, this was just, look, I just thought it was an opportunity so that we don't all have to bring items forward and this would just be more streamlined to allow them the ability. But, you know, it's not the end of the world. One of those really, you know, opportunistic, you know, moments where we're doing this legislation, why not give them the ability to opt in should they want to? A lot of times we preempt cities, which I don't necessarily agree with. So this was just an opportunity to say, listen, we have this framework, you want to opt in. These are the steps in which you would have to do to actually formally opt in. You can't just say, here you go. You need to have a process in the city to do so. But that's fine. All right. So move it. It's been moved. It's been seconded. Commissioner Cohen Higgins for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there a is there a sister or a mirrored ordinance within our code related to micromobility devices that is not specific to Key Biscayne? Or is this the only ordinance in Miami-Dade County that specifically speaks to micromobility devices, electric bicycles and motorized scooters? Yes, Commissioner. This is the only ordinance currently in the code that speaks specifically to micromobility devices. OK, so if another minute, how many municipalities do we have in Miami-Dade County? 32, 34. 34. So if 30, if any of the 32 or 34 municipalities within Miami-Dade County want to avail themselves of this ordinance that we just spoke to, we had deaths, God forbid, any other municipality suffers the way that Key Biscayne has. We are not prepared to create some sort of an agreement to help them opt into this more easily. I'm confused as to the position that's currently being taken by the board. Why wouldn't we allow our municipalities to avail themselves to an ordinance that saves lives that had a ton of work and that we all applaud? I do not understand that. If I could respond to that. What I'm saying is that there was a lot of public meeting and input and work with DDPW to come to this ordinance. It has very Rickenbacker specific penalties and it doesn't speak to all the meetings and everything that came before the ordinance. So what I'm saying is I'm happy to draft an ordinance for cities to opt in, but it needs to have a lot of things that are not in this ordinance because this ordinance came after two years of working with Key Biscayne. So like I said, I'm happy to work with Commissioner Steinberg or whoever wants to do it to amend this ordinance in another item that gives the municipalities the ability to input, speaks to the hearings and everything so that they can opt in. Thank you for that to the attorneys. What would be the difficulty of the ordinance as it's written now allowing our municipalities to avail themselves via an opt in or whatever the proper legal language is the way the commissioner Steinberg just requested. Commissioner, that would require an amendment to section 2A of the ordinance that the applicability section as it is currently written. It is narrow to the Crandon Park Boulevard. That section would need to be amended to expand the applicability. Okay, it would need to be amended to expand the applicability countywide or simply speak to the opportunity for existing municipalities to opt in should they desire to do so. I'm not trying to expand it countywide. That wasn't the question. The question was specific to what Commissioner Steinberg requested multiple times rather clearly. It would be amended to apply countywide with opt in language. So it wouldn't apply countywide unless municipalities elected to enter into some sort of interlocal agreement opting in, correct? I understand that to be the request that this board or Commissioner Steinberg was requesting for an amendment to have it apply countywide, but allow the municipalities to opt in. So it wouldn't apply as a matter of right, right, so as a matter of law. Each municipality would have to take an affirmative step to opt in after, you know, after reviewing the ordinance. Mr. Chairman. Hold on. Do you still have the floor? Are you done? I do still have the floor, but I'm watching Commissioner Steinberg and it doesn't seem as though that that reflects what she was trying to accomplish. I'm just trying to understand if there is a vehicle to accomplish what the commissioner specifically requested. Are you okay? Are you okay? Commissioner Steinberg. Thank you. Well, right. I mean, it wasn't, my intent wasn't necessarily to have this blanket countywide language. It was more of the ability to have municipalities opt in or districts opt in where, you know, now that we're thinking about it with our, you know, maybe the unincorporated areas may want to have some of this regulation as well. But ultimately, it was specific and minor to allow for an opt in option. But if, you know, maybe, maybe I just, at this point, I'm happy and I appreciate the line of questioning, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. I think I'm happy to bring an item for, by the way, does anybody have a hold on this? Like, I want to make sure that if I bring something forward, that I'll be able to actually bring it forward. Because all I want to do is allow cities to opt in to this piece of legislation. That's all I'm asking. So can the attorneys maybe draft something and we pass something today? So to the attorneys, well, go ahead and answer that question. So the same way that you were saying we can amend it to say this applies countywide with an opt in, we can amend it by saying not applying countywide. And we would have, you know, basically in our locals allowing for municipalities to opt in to the attorneys. So my question is specific. I'm asking you whether the inverse of what you proposed is possible. Instead of saying we want this to apply countywide, we want instead to give the municipalities by interlocal or expression of interest. We represent a lot of municipalities, obviously, that may want to opt in. Is that language a possibility? You're recognized to the attorneys. Commissioner, I want to be clear that I understand your question before answering. So could I just kindly ask you to repeat it? Absolutely. You proposed having the ordinance amended to apply countywide with an opt in by the municipalities. The commissioner that made the original request shook her head and said that's not exactly what I was requesting. Instead, what I was requesting was language simply allowing specific municipalities to opt in should they desire to do so. So it's simply taking the proposal that you gave and creating the inverse of that proposal. My question is a simple one. Is that possible? Yes, Commissioner. It is possible. Okay. So then what is the downside then of including that language in this ordinance, considering the lives that it saves, the work that it's done, you know, applauding the work? I mean, it's right. I mean, I represent Palmetto Bay, Cutler Bay. What if they want to be included? I don't understand why we would need to wait months and months and months for a separate item that essentially can be accomplished here via a simple amendment, which is what I wanted to clarify through the attorneys whether or not that amendment was possible. If I could just clarify, Commissioner, this ordinance only applies to county roads. Right. We understand that. We completely understand that. I don't think that anybody is confused. The opt-in for municipalities wouldn't be an ordinance for the entire road network within the municipality, only the county roads. Just wanted to be clear. Thank you. To respond to that question, my concern is notice and litigation. So as we worked through this, we dealt with a lot of individuals that did not agree with this ordinance, but we had a series of public meetings and we worked through it to ensure that the county would not enter into litigation as a result. There is a reason that the governor vetoed it. There is a group of humans who do not want this type of limitation to micromobility. And while this gave some notice to the municipalities, it didn't give them the notice that an item speaking to a county wide would give. Also, if you amend it this way, you're focusing, it's Rickenbacker focused. There's different county roads with different speeds and different modalities. And the ordinance speaks to the Rickenbacker and Crandon, which is a very different road than a lot of county owned roads. And finally, we then have to deal with the issue of what we would do in terms of unincorporated Miami-Dade. So that's a whole other thing, because now if you're going to create an opt-in for cities for this prohibition on county roads, then we need a vehicle for this board in terms of our county roads. Unincorporated is mainly all county roads, so that's why the Rickenbacker is different because of the speeds. It is a highway. So that's what I would caution you that I think, and I'm happy to work on a comprehensive item that really covers this. But you need to cover the speeds, the size, the cost. This is very particular to the Rickenbacker, and you need to have public meetings and bake that into the process. Hold on, Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized. Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Conigens will still have the floor if necessary, but Commissioner Gilbert. At the risk of agreeing with Commissioner Regalado twice, I think she's likely right on this. And I think that it actually came through the Transportation Committee. And so the reason why it passed through the Transportation Committee was because, like it did, was because of its limited nature. Now, this board can broaden it if you like, but let's be clear, we do have a committee process for a reason. This broad of an item would have been treated differently in committee, Commissioner, Chairman. It would have been treated differently. So there are, and listen, I think that the notice requirement is a significant thing. There are people who don't agree with this. While I do, and Commissioner Steinberg and Commissioner Cohen Higgins, there are residents who might have chosen to be heard on this item in committee had it take, it was postured like this. So I would just caution us about changing something so substantially at the board level on an item that's gone through committee, Mr. Chairman. So, okay. Senator Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I agree with everything that's being said, but however, what the request is is an opt-in provision. That's what I was going to say. It's an opt-in provision, opting into the rules that are being established for the municipalities. I get what that is specific to a road. I get that it went through the committee process. But at the end of the day, we are representatives of the people. We speak for the people. You have used that line before, that we are the representatives of the people. I think it's incumbent upon the municipality itself that wants to opt in to do what they need to do for their municipality. But I don't see a problem with having municipalities opt-in. We're not even pushing anything on anyone. We're just getting it. We created this law. We understand there's some limitations to it, but you can use the parameters that are existing in here to apply this to your constituency. I think it doesn't hurt anyone. And I'm perfectly fine with seconding the amendment and trying to get this moving forward. Okay. So we, hold on. We have commissioner, there's an amendment, but it's not, Steinberg hasn't officially. Okay, there's an amendment, there's a second to the amendment, but there's a motion on the actual item itself, right? So, as amended, but hold on. I have commissioner, I have Gonzales on the queue and then I'll go to Lopez and anyone else. Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, you know, I do appreciate Commissioner Regalado's articulate explanation of the complexity of how this was brought forward. I think it's something that is very much needed. However, something that the county attorney's office, well, something that the county attorney said really caught my attention. And that was that this was only applicable to county roads. And so, from what I understand, Commissioner Steinberg was requesting that the amendment apply if, and correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner Steinberg, if it passes through the municipality. And so, I think that if it went through a municipality, logically, and a municipality had noticed hearings and a municipality voted to have municipal roads engage in something similar. However, I think that what you were trying to do is since those municipal roads within the municipality that had those public hearings have adopted it for the municipality, perhaps they can just opt in so that the county roads are applicable as well. I think that that would solve the issue with public notice along with the issues of speed and the discrepancies as to whether the notice had to be heard here. I don't know if you want to continue, but I think I would be supportive of an amendment. Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I just have a quick question. So, in using the, I have been dealing with this as a state rep for Key Biscayne, but I have a question. In the case of Key Biscayne, it banned all micromobility devices on their own streets. The only one that runs through the village is Crandon Boulevard. It is a county road. So, despite whatever a municipality may or may not do with their roads, I believe the question here is about what to do with a county road that runs through a municipality, whether they do anything or they don't, right? I don't know, and this is a question to Commissioner Regalato, if her item, because this is, I know that this item was introduced two years ago. It was sunset. So, the question is, are the regulations or the rules governing the right-of-ways and the speed limits and all that, is that specific to Key Biscayne? Because if it is, then I don't know how you allow another municipality to opt in because these would be, then you would be asking every municipality to comply with what Key Biscayne decided. Is that true? I just need to understand. Yes, it is specific to Key Biscayne as are the penalty amounts and the understanding of the speed based on the roads. That's what I'm saying, if we're going to do something that is broader than this, I'm happy to help draft something. But it would have to have different categories for different types of roads that have different speeds, different sidewalks. And you would have to have different pricing for the violations. This is built specifically for Rickenbacker and Crandon. If I may, I think I have an idea. Yes, but give me one second. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the attorneys and to the sponsor of the item, section five of the item that we're discussing says enforcement by municipalities. A municipality made upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners of an interlocal agreement between the county and such municipality. Enforce the provisions of this section as it relates to roads within the boundaries of said municipality. The agenda item approving such interlocal agreement shall be sponsored by a district commissioner in whose district any portion of such municipality lies. So it's already in the ordinance. In the ordinance. We're talking about this being Rickenbacker and Key Biscayne specific, but there's section five. There's section six enforcement. Talks about municipalities. Section six D. A municipality entering into an interlocal agreement as provided in this section may in the alternative provide for enforcement in accordance with its own procedures. And then section seven entirely speaks to municipal regulations. So I don't know how this is Key Biscayne and Rickenbacker specific, and I don't know how the question that the commissioner originally posed was puzzling to our attorneys. It's completely already baked into the ordinance, which is why many of us found it extremely difficult to understand how this ordinance could not have an opt-in. So much so it's already built into the ordinance. Mr. Chair, if I could respond to that. Hold on, but I want to hear from the attorney. Yes, you will at some point, but to the attorneys, is that accurate? Commissioner, the section 2A identifies the applicability of the code provision itself. It says that this section shall be applicable to Crandon Boulevard between the northern limits of the village of Key Biscayne. To accomplish what Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is suggesting would just require either a deletion or modification of 2A to broaden that definition. So to broaden- Mr. Chair, if I can explain. Commissioner Regano. If I can explain. And we have this issue, several times I've brought items and we've had questions about the language of the ordinance. And that's because, time and time again, our county attorneys tell us that we cannot draft something that is hyper-specific to an area. That it must refer back to the entire code and then get specific in the body. I am not doing anything that everyone doesn't do in every single item. In fact, when we suspended the CRA for Naranja that we're going to visit tonight, it had language that applied to everyone and then specified that this was only for Naranja. Because this is what our county attorneys tell us that we need to do so as not to create anomalies inside the code. I have to bring an item that complies with the entire code of Miami-Dade County. That's why it refers back to those pieces. I cannot create a vehicle for the acceptance of an interlocal that is different from the general rules of how an interlocal is accepted for any other modality or purpose in Miami-Dade County. So no, the item is not in conflict with itself, but it is specific to Key Biscayne as are the penalties that were negotiated with the residents of Key Biscayne and the village. And again, I'm happy to add to this ordinance with a separate item. I would ask that it have meetings and it have discussions. I don't think that we should amend this so that a municipality just passes something and then all of a sudden there's a county road that prohibits this type of modality. Because it is really far-reaching and what it will do is go in the other direction and get us preempted when it comes to these types of regulations. All right, to the attorneys, because now I want clarification, because both are making a good argument. I mean, and it's not even an argument. One's making an argument, the one's reading straight out of the item, which is very clear to me. So which one is it? Can it be done today per the item already, or is it specific only and exclusively to Key Biscayne and the Rickenbacker and all that good stuff, all those roads? Which one is it? The item could be amended today if it's the will of the board. Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. Let me just bring it in because I brought this up. Okay, why would it need to be amended if it's already in the item? I'm sorry, I didn't get that part of the question because the item is written in the applicability section. The applicability section is narrow to Crandon Park Boulevard in Key Biscayne. Okay, perfect. All right, so that clarifies that it is not open to everyone even though it reads that it is, but it's tricky and you guys figure it out. The applicability is what... Commissioner Steinberg, you're recognized. Okay, so I just want to back it up. My intention of this was to honestly piggyback and give the ability, right? It was something to help, and I want to thank my colleagues because honestly the section that you read actually was what prompted the whole initiation of wanting to have other cities opt in because it said it there. I'm not an attorney. It read in a way that made sense. I spoke to the attorney yesterday. He said, yes, we can broaden it. I didn't think it was going to have a bigger impact in that way. I was trying to do something to help municipalities who want to regulate on their county roads. Having said that, being that Commissioner Lopez did bring up the type of speed limit that could potentially be slightly different, but I would ask my colleagues for the support to waive the rules and let me at least have the ability to work on almost an amendment to this item so that we can bring something forward that may also want to help the unincorporated areas. I don't know, but that way I'm not going to be blocked from bringing something forward. Why would we need to waive the rules? Because someone may have a hold on me. In case there's a hold, she's saying, okay, so let's do this. So that works for me too, and that makes everybody happy. So let's take a vote on this item first, and if there's no further discussion on it, and then I'll entertain the motion from Commissioner Steinberg on if it exists. There may not be a hold on it, but if there is, waive the rules. So with that, it's been moved by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by the Vice Chair. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Yes. Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. Commissioner Cohen Higgins. Four. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Yes. Vice Chairman McGee. I thought when McGee said for a skinny minute it was going to be a skinny minute, but the answer is yes. Not in the words of rule. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Now, Commissioner Steinberg moves in the event necessary, but moves to Jerry. Chairman. Point of order. Yeah. If she just brought an item, then if there was a hole, her bringing an item would have eliminated the hold on. Somebody else might have a hold. Yeah. There might be holds on other minutes. So, Jerry, is there? We don't, I mean, we don't know if there's a hole, but I think all she's saying is she would like to work on an item amending this one. And so she wishes to the extent that there is that the board waives the rules to allow her to work on that item. Yes. Second. Second. It's been moved. It's been seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Show that being the case. So, Mr. Chairman, we just placed Steinberg in first place now on the hold list, if there is one. If there is one. Yeah, we did. We did. On that one item. So, congrats to Steinberg. All right. So, Vice Chair, do you want to take a point of personal privilege to recognize some of your interns? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, today we have the Future of America sitting here in this chamber. And I'm going to ask those young ladies and young men who are actually interning in my office to stand up and be recognized. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Future of America, so stand up. These are our interns who are working in the community, ensuring that things move. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor and privilege of actually representing these young individuals, but they represent the community. And there are a total of 21 of them working out of our office. Each year, we have at least 20 interns. And so, each year, we try to show the force of what the future is going to be like by way of these individuals. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair. And thank you all for being here today and being interns for the Vice Chair. All right. Moving on with our list. I've got, is 5F next? Yes. Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion on 5F. We do have, it's obviously bifurcated. It's been moved by the Vice Chair, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, and then Commissioner Regalado. Mr. Chair, just as a point of privilege, I just want to make sure that the attorneys had that vote for also 11A24. The two of them went together. I don't know if when they read it, they said that. The attorneys. The attorneys. That's why we pulled it so that it could go together. We did not. But, I mean, we can do it now. If there's discretion in 11A24. We'll take it in a second because I already have a motion in a second on 5F. And you're recognized, Regalado, on 5F as bifurcating. Okay. We'll go to 5F and we'll come back. We'll go right back to it, but I already have a motion in a second, so. So, on 5F, I just want to mention something to the board just to give you some numbers. We have a lot of bond items that were added to this agenda. And I want to speak a little bit later specifically about the port one. But just to give you an idea on the number. If you combine all these items, you get, in this agenda alone, we're drawing down or authorizing $1.7 billion. We have 5E, that is the transit for $35 million. We have 5F, $38 million for capital that we're discussing now. We have 5G, $35 million for general obligation. We have public facilities in 5H, $275 million. We have 5I, which is the one that I'm most interested in, $700 million. We have 5J, $480 million. And the total is $2.1 billion, but then you back out what we're paying down for debt that we've already issued. And this particular one, it's a little concerning because this is the one that functions a little bit like a credit card. And I just want everyone to understand that, A, we're drawing down at a time where interest rates are very high. B, we could continue doing it the way that we've been doing it with the short-term financing. We don't know what's going to happen with property taxes, and all of this impacts our debt financing. So our debt financing goes up. This is a lot of drawdown. So I just, you know, everyone wants to be a fiscal conservative. I'm not against some of these, but it is a lot of money that we're drawing down. I looked at the programming. Some of it is good. Some of it, when we talk about the port, I disagree with, given everything that's happening there. But I think we should all be very mindful of the impact that this amount of drawdown is going to have on next year's budget, specifically on the debt financing aspect and what we're paying. We're pushing all of this out 30 years, and in many cases we're paying over a 6%. All right. Madam Mayor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that I utilized my prerogative under the charter to put an item on the agenda today, 2B14, that actually addresses this very issue. But because it wasn't pulled by any commissioner, it's not on your discussion agendas. But I would like to take, under my authority, under the charter, just a moment to highlight for you what we've been able to do with our credit rating and our bonds here in the county since I've become mayor. So I'm extremely proud of this fact, and that's why I put together that report for you. And it underscores our strong financial position, the policy effectiveness, and our transparent governance profile. And, in fact, we have saved, as of the last count, $800 million of taxpayer money because we have been able to renegotiate 13 credit rating upgrades, and we have consistently strung across multiple credits from the national rating agencies. So, obviously, when they give us those ratings and we're able to renegotiate our bonds favorably, that's because they look at our policies and they feel confident. So I just wanted to let you know that, yes, of course, we have to be very mindful of how much money we borrow. We also know that if tax reform passes, that will compromise our ability. So that is something to be mindful of looking ahead. But we have one of the strongest ratings anywhere in the country. So I think we should be very proud of that, and because it has not been an official regular report to the board, I commend to you item 2B14. Please look at it. There's details there. And we have our bond leader, Arlissa Wood, with us here. She has won the National Bond, I'm going to call her Council, but Council of the Year Award, and went to New York City to receive that prize last year. So we have very, very strong fiscal management in the county. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Clerk, no, we're just not going to do this, because I knew when the mayor spoke, everyone, they knew when I wanted to respond. We're good. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis? Yes. Commissioner Regalado? No, on this one. Commissioner Steinberg? Yes. Commissioner Bastian? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez? Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Four. Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gilbert? Yes, on this one. Yes. Vice Chairman McGee? Yes, not to this one. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez? I vote yes. Motion passes 10 to 1. All right. All right, 5G and 5H. Commissioner Regalado, you bifurcated both of them. I don't know if you want to speak on them separately or if they can. No. G and 5H. I think it was you. So first, I'll entertain a motion on 5G and 5H. It's been moved by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. I'm fine. I mean, I think the ad valorem is the bigger issue because of the impact that it has on the debt service. I think on these, we're paying down some of it and we're still pulling down a lot. But I looked over the list and it's not egregious, so happy to move it. All right, so it's been moved, it's been seconded. Clerk, please call the roll on 5G and 5H. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis? Yes. Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Commissioner Steinberg? Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez? Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Four. Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gilbert? Commissioner Gonzalez? Four. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Vice Chairman McGee? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez? I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. I'll entertain a motion on 5L. It's been moved by Commissioner Bastien, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. And then I have Commissioner Bermudez and Orbis as bifurcating the item. Just to vote no. Just to vote no. Okay, clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Commissioner Steinberg? Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez? No. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? No. Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gilbert? Commissioner Gonzalez? No. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis? No. Vice Chairman McGee? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez? I vote no. Motion passes seven to five. All right, I'll entertain a motion on five. Five aye. Five aye? You want to bifurcate? I mean, it was... No, five aye was bifurcated. Okay. Five aye? I didn't have it on my list, but five aye? Yes, it was five aye. Okay. Did you bifurcate that one? Yes, I did. We also need to go back and take that other vote, right? All right, so let's take that other vote that goes with... Which is the one... What's the item that... 11A24? 11A24. 11A24. 11A24 is... So it's been moved by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. Is that a roll call? No, right? That's a voice vote. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. All right, was five aye bifurcated? It was not bifurcated? I don't show it as bifurcated, but... It already passed. The board can discuss, I mean, at this point. Well, I mean... I requested it to be bifurcated. I don't know what happened. I'm going to vote no, and I want to discuss it. The thing is, it already passed, so we need to reconsider the whole... It's a motion to reconsider. Well, you could change your vote with... We could discuss it, and I think you could change your vote with the clerk, right? It's... Okay, so it is a public hearing item. If the board wishes to reconsider it, it would have to be re-noticed. We're past the item. However... So it already passed, so we're not doing that. So can the commission... The question is, Jerry. Yes. Can the commissioner change her vote with the clerk? She can change her vote. What I would suggest, though, is because we've moved on, just... We'd have to waive the rules to allow her to change her vote and record it as a no for five aye. Okay, so we could do that. I'm okay with that for purposes of the vote. Right, but I also want to discuss it. So, yeah. I want to discuss it. I pulled it. I don't know what happened. I can show what I pulled. It's on my list. I even mentioned it when the port director was on here that I was going to talk about the item, so I don't know where the disconnect is, but... I'm not doubting it. I just... I'm not reopening public hearing, because some folks may have left already. So, to the attorneys... But we don't have to open public hearing for me. She can still discuss it without me opening a public hearing. Yes, yes. So, a motion. Can you want to do a motion on 5A just so you could record your no vote? Yes. So, a motion by Commissioner Regalado. I'll say. Seconded by Steinberg. All in favor of that signified by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Okay, so that... Okay. That's just a motion waiving the rules, not on the item itself. Yes. Correct. And now do I need the item again? Okay. So, now you can discuss... Thank you. 5A. 5A. All right. So, 5A, I just want to mention a few things on 5A that I find concerning. I understand that we're retiring the outstanding commercial paper. I have no issue with the 200 million for that. This is a common vehicle and the interest rate is fine. My concern with this item, which is 700 in total, is the 380 million for a series of projects. The projects, unlike many of the other items, do not have the amounts. If you go through the item, in Exhibit A in particular, you can figure out what they are. Some of them we've heard about before. For example, the new berths in 10 and terminal G expansion, rail and gate expansion, the gantry cranes, which we've been asking for a very long time. What is the cost of those? There is no enumeration of that. And there's more information on port infrastructure. A lot of these items, when I went and I compared it to the capital plan and to the other port items, there were numbers. And I think the reason why there's no numbers in this item is because this item also includes the fuel facility property. So, in this item, we're drawing down for that purchase. We are currently in litigation for a taking on that. And I don't understand why we're drawing down without specificity because we cannot put a number on that. I think that, given the litigation and everything that's happening at the port, we should continue financing with commercial paper and wait for us to have an actual number before we draw down. Specifically, in terms of the current market conditions, you know, right now munis have flooded. We have 45% above the two decade average. And while I agree with the mayor that we have been able to save by restructuring our debt, as in the case of the transit item, I do not believe that this is the case with this item. This item is being done this way so that the county has access to funding that this board then has to approve. And I think that we should wait for this board to approve that because they're putting the cart in front of the horse. We have a litigation, we haven't decided on a price, and now we're drawing down money just to have it there at a very high cost to the county. And the fact that the port is an enterprise fund doesn't remediate the issue that we're approving a bond that does not have numbers attached to these projects. It is very fungible, and I don't understand why we're doing this at this moment. This can wait. We can continue having commercial paper. The port leadership is currently in transition. Today we hired a new director. So why are we doing this without waiting for that director to determine what exactly needs to be done at the port? I think part of the problem here is that we continue running Port Miami as if there's no problems, even though there's a million problems. The last issue that I want to point out here is included in this laundry list of issues of projects that we're going to fund is the connection to, you know, the connection that we did at the port, the shore power. And I want some information from our attorneys regarding shore power. I don't understand why we're still talking about shore power. Brian Avila passed an item that I think dramatically changes shore power. We now have to look at everything that has to do with green energy. Shore power was way more expensive than what we were originally told. We have not been given all the numbers on shore power. And now we're drawing down money to extend a program that I think we're going to be prohibited from doing at the port because of its high cost. Shore power has ended up being more expensive to the cruise lines than the other alternatives. And I don't think that we should draw down for shore power. We need actual numbers on what shore power has cost, what the extension to shore power was. If this was electric buses, everyone would be hair on fire. Shore power is no different. So, you know, we can't keep making the same mistake. The only thing I ask the administration is to make different mistakes. In this particular one, we know that shore power is problematic, so why is it on here? And if the attorneys could speak a little bit as to shore power and if we've made a determination as to its applicability, given the state law that recently asked us to scrutinize these projects in terms of their return on investment. Thank you. All right, 550? He has to respond. We're waiting for the response over there. Who's responding to what? What was the question? Yeah. County attorney? Is there a response to? On shore power? You could respond and then we'd, yeah. As to the net zero legislation, is that what you're referring to? Yes. The net zero legislation is actions of the county government or state governments are problematic if it's solely in advance of a net zero policy. If there are other reasons or other considerations, even environmental reasons, that does not make the actions or the policies illegal. But what about the requirement for the return on investment in terms of the cost? There needs to be an analysis in terms of the cost. We'll get back to you on that. Thank you. All right. So now 5-0. I'll entertain a motion on 5-0. Is that the next one? All right. It's been moved by Commissioner Cohen Higgins, seconded by Gilbert, and then I have Orbis and Garcia as bifurcating commissioners. Is it? Yes. Yes, it's in my district. Okay, Commissioner. I actually want to state something on the record. Go ahead, Commissioner. So I had deferred this item twice and I understand it's quasi-judicial, but it's because it's done through administrative, it's an administrative item as I understand. And I just wanted to ensure that the residents that live adjacent to this property or this parcel were aware of what was coming to their neighborhood and that they had an opportunity to express any concerns. I understand that administration has reached out and notified them because it's very important for me for the constituents to know when a change like this is coming to their neighborhood. So with that, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no further comments on this. Thank you, Commissioner. And Commissioner Garcia. No? Okay. All right. Clerk, please. Are you supportive, Commissioner Orbis? No, I'm not really, but from what I understand, it's quasi-judicial, so we can't. Yes, Commissioner. I'm okay with it. I'll be a no, that's okay. She's going to be a no. All right. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Steinberg. It's been moved and seconded, yes. That's it. Steinberg's a no. Commissioner Bastien? Commissioner Bermudez? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? No. Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gilbert? Commissioner Gonzalez? No. Commissioner Lopez? No. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis? Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Vice Chairman McGee? He's not here. Chairman Rodriguez? I vote no. Motion fails four to seven. Okay. I have five U. I'll entertain a motion on five U. It's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert, and Senator Garcia. Okay, clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Bastien? Commissioner Bermudez? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? More. Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gilbert? Commissioner Gonzalez? Four. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis? Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Commissioner Steinberg? Vice Chairman McGee? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez? I vote yes. Motion passes 11 to one. All right, Mr. and Madam Attorney, is that it for the public hearing items? Yes. All right, so before we get into second reading items, I'm going to pull some out of order from the pull list. I'm going to pull up, as I understand some folks are here for this and may have to go. I'm going to pull 11A14, 11A15, 11A16, 11A17, and 11A20, which are the charter review ballots. And I have some pooling commissioners, so I'm going to go ahead and take them up, I guess, one by one. Well, let's see how I try this. So, Commissioner from District 4, you're one of the pooling commissioners. As it relates to 11A14, I want it to be a recorded no. Okay, so I'll take a vote on each one. And D7, Commissioner from District 7, you're recognized on 11A14. Regalado? Flipping through, flipping through. Making sure you got me. Flipping through. By the way, I have an airport item. I know that they're waiting here, so I hope we can take it up soon. There's still a pending airport item. We're going to get to all of them. I'm going to even try to get to Kelly Tractor, I promise. So this was 14. Could just do it by the state statute. 11A14. 11A14, yes. It's a charter review of ballot recommendations from the task force. They were added late, so it's not on this one. District resident seats around the county commission. Yes, 11A15. I'll go back to 11A14 in just a second. 11A15, Commissioner, Vice Chairman, you're the one pooling commissioner on 11A15. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just wanted to hear from the administration and or the sponsor of the item. What is it that this item seeks to do? You're recognized. The administration and or the attorneys are recognized to respond on 11A15 what this item seeks to do. Go ahead. Mr. Vice Chair. This was one of the recommendations from the charter review task force. Currently, the charter provides that a district commissioner who wish or an individual who wants to run for a district commission seat has to reside within the district for at least six months prior to the election. This would increase that requirement so that an individual would have to reside within the district for at least a year before being eligible to run for office. Yep. Vice Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the county attorney for that answer. My follow-up question is, is it the same in Broward County and Palm Beach? Do they have six months, or do they have a year, and how are we looking to the south of us in Monroe County? Vice Chair, I do not have the answer to that question. I would have to do some research, and I can do that now while the commission deliberates. My next question is also to, will there be a financial impact to the county as it relates to this particular item? I'll leave it to the administration to answer. Is this the one I'm talking about? It seems like they're nodding their heads. Do you guys want to actually acknowledge and say no? Through the chair. The chair of the Charter Reform Commission is here, Dennis Kerbell, and I know there was substantial discussion about all of this. I don't know if you would like to hear from him about that. Yeah, Mr. Kerbell, come on up. You're up. We always love to have you in our chamber. You're recognized to answer the Vice Chair's question. Shall this, this question specific, shall this Charter Review recommendation have a fiscal impact on the county? In terms of, I'm sorry, this is about the qualifying period? This is a qualifying period. Yes. We did not specifically discuss that at the Charter Review Task Force, but I don't believe it would. There's no additional money that would be required to be spent to determine whether someone made the year or the six months before. You're still an attorney, man. No matter what, you can't take the lawyer out of you. By the way, for the record, Dennis Kerbell here as the Chair of the Charter Review Task Force. And if I could just take a second to thank, of course, the Mayor and all of you for your support throughout the process and to the sponsor, Commissioner Gohan Higgins. Anyway, happy to help. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for the record, we love you, Dennis. Thank you. We will always love you, man. He's one of us. So Dennis, the next question is, do we know what's happening to the north of us, to the south of us, and to the west? Like, are the other counties doing this exact same thing? Are they, is it six months? Is it a year? Where are we? This, during our deliberations on this, I don't think actually we had information specifically looking to other counties to see what they were doing. This was just an item that was brought by one of the task force members, and we briefly discussed the concept of it being good to be in the district for longer. But it was this, there were other items that had comparison where staff had done research this was not one. I'm just asking a question because it's going from six months to a year. Something or somebody had to trigger the thought, right? Like, it's, and I'm just, and I'm sure it's a state law or something there, but I'm just trying to figure out why now. And I understand you want to get it on the ballot in time, but specifically, why this? Like, what happened? Did something trigger this? There wasn't a specific event, as I recall, that triggered the discussion. It was a discussion from one of the members. I believe it was Mayor Lozner. I think that would be recorded in the minutes, but I don't have it memorized. That was just since we were looking at the charter and making changes and looking at qualifying and other municipal election and other electoral issues. That was one of the ideas that was brought up. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Regalato, you're recognized. Yeah. So on 11A14, I know that there were. We're on 11A15, sorry. Oh, 11A15. I have moved on. You're not a, you're not a putting commissioner. Okay. So, all right. With that, I have a motion by Commissioner Cohen Higgins. On 11A15, I have a second by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. No. Show item 11A15 passed with one no vote. All right. Now back on 11A14, Commissioner from District 7, you're recognized. Thank you. And I want to thank everyone who participated in the charter review. They were interesting meetings to watch. And I know that one of the things that was mentioned was either increase the time or the pay. And I wish we would have chosen increase the time. And the reason for that is a NEPA takes 10 years and eight years is really not enough for someone to finalize a large scale project. And what's happening to us time and time again is that whenever you're at the end of something, someone hits the reset button. I think that the salary on the ballot with proposed property tax reform is a bad look. I don't think it helps us. I'm not going to be in support of this. I don't think this is the right time for anyone to raise their salaries, including the Board of County Commissioners. I think we all need to tighten our belts. I think it's going to be poorly received. And we need to do everything that we can to reflect that we are conscious of the tremendous need that there is in our family, in our community. So I'm a no on this. All right. I get it. That's a, that's a, that's a, that's a, that's a, I'm going to not say what I wanted to say. I want to say what I want to say. Yeah. Well, I mean, that's a great talking point, but we get paid $6,000 a year. So like, and like, I'm, I'm happy to like exempt myself from it moving forward. But like what's right is right. And, and this is supposed to be a part time job and it's full time, overtime and all the times. So I don't know. I mean, it's a great for campaign and all that, but the reality is, is, is, you know, it's not realistic. Sorry. We're the largest county in the state of Florida. We have a 16, $17 billion budget. We do. It's not 13 or 14 with 16, $17 billion. We got paid $6,000 a year. Commissioner Cohen, I'm going to recognize you first because you're the sponsoring commissioner from the charter review task force. But we've got a list of folks wanting to speak. So thank you, Mr. Chair. And, and to Mr. Kerbell, the recommendation from the task force regarding the timeframe for commissioners, you all recommended that we bring that when? We recommended that that come in the next election cycle. So 2028. Okay. And that's reflected in the report. That's also on the agenda today, correct? That is correct. Thank you. So that's coming in the future. And, and I want to be clear regarding the salary commission that was recommended by the charter review task force. It's, it's entirely possible that the commission can recommend a lower salary. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Bermudez, you're recognized. First of all, I want to thank the Mr. Kerbell and the charter review commission for taking time because I actually work. I didn't have time to watch your commission meetings, but I thank you very much for taking the time to do public service and come up with this. We are not approving a salary increase here. We are putting it to the voters. The chairman correctly pointed out that most other counties, including the one directly to the north, which has part time commissioners, uses population to pay themselves. And they get a really much. I'm not going to talk about what they get because they get a hell of a lot more like 10 times as much. But anyways, no, not even 10, probably like 20, 20. They're over 100,000, 125,000. But the point is, the fact that this was created when we became a horrible charter county, and it's never changed, it's going to be very difficult to pass. It's a great political talking point. Nobody wants to give politicians salaries because nobody likes lawyers and politicians. And I happen to be both. So, having said that, I've won elections because I've been very straightforward. And I believe that all that's being done is here is to put it to the voters. It's a lot better to give it to a commission to determine whether, as Commissioner Cohen-Higgins said, maybe less, not even more. You never know. Be careful what you wish for. But the one thing that I want to point out is I did not have a chance this year commission, but it's because I actually have to work. And that is one of the things that the public needs to understand. This is a very, as the chairman said, it is a very difficult job, voluminous, besides the constituent services. It takes a lot of time. Later this afternoon, I'm going to be in Naranja with some of my colleagues. Yes, I will be there at 6 o'clock. And I will be there because we will be sitting as the CRA for that community. And a lot of times in this county, it's always what sounds good is a soundbite. Trust me, there was a lot of county commissioners, I don't have to go too far, that I maybe didn't like in the past. But I always felt that they certainly, it wasn't fair. As Commissioner Moss once said, you know, all those years and the amount that he technically got every year was a minimal amount. So I want to thank you guys for the work. I'm going to support it because it's being put in front of the voters. I want to be clear that nobody here is saying, give us a bigger salary, because that's what's going to be placed in the paper. I want to be clear. It's up to the voters to decide. And if the voters decide no, then they'll decide no, as they have in the past, which is the true democracy, which is the way it should be. Okay? And that is fine. And then probably half of the people here have moved to Broward and run over there because of the, no, I'm just kidding. But the bottom line is, it is not, you know, whether it's three terms or two terms, a lot of these things will never get done in our time. One of the reasons we haven't been able to pass some transportation, some of the things on transportation that we need to pass is because, guess what? As I've said ad nauseum in 2003, there was a smart plan. Everybody liked it. We sat here today in 2026, and we're still talking about the same thing. So I don't know if two terms or three terms will make a difference, but I will tell you this. I do think this group of people, and I served on it in 2012, where Senator Garcia was the vice chair and H.T. Smith was the chair. And we proposed many things to the county commission, including many ethical reforms that did not pass. But there are certain things that did pass, including term limits. So one of the things that is important is to allow the voters of Miami-Dade County to decide. The chances of it passing are probably almost as good as Cape Verde actually winning the World Cup. But the fact is, it's up to the voters. And I don't want anybody quoting us as saying that voting for this is an increase in salaries, because it's not. It's a vote to put it in front of the voters. And by the way, most of us, including me, probably won't be around if it does pass to see the benefits of it. So the point is, if there are any, the bottom line is thank you for your service. I served on the Prior Charter Review Committee with then-Senator. Well, I guess I still call it a calm Senator. He doesn't know when I want to call him later, but that's a different thing. The things, I thank you for your time, because I know it takes a lot of time and a lot of effort. And I know you guys were well thought out and went through a very, let's call it difficult process. And it's not easy to submit these things to the county commission. And it's not easy for this August body to take a vote, putting them to the voters. But it's probably our obligation to do it. Yeah. And on that note, before I recognize Commissioner Gilbert, thank you, Dennis, for leading the efforts in this Charter Review Task Force. That is a good point. And the vice chair, I believe the vice chair was Redondo, right? That's correct. My appointment speaker-designate for the Florida House. Both very busy folks, and you all gave your time in addition to all of the other Charter Review Task Force members that participated. So thank you all for your time on this. This is something that we do every several years, and it's very important for our county. So I appreciate that. With that, Commissioner Gilbert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my understanding that this would go on the ballot in 2028? No. The ones we're discussing are now. There was a question about term limits being extended, and that will be on the ballot in 2028. All of these are going to be on the ballot this year. Mr. Chairman, I don't have an objection to letting the voters decide. I don't have an objection to letting the voters decide. What we did in Miami Gardens, my city, is our charter was actually modeled after the county's charter on salaries, and we put salaries in the charter. So, on my way out, I actually sponsored the item so that it would affect them. Not because I needed more money, but I needed to structurally make leadership and public service available to more people. So, we had this conversation because we have it in the context of the people who are here, and we're all elected officials. We're all politicians right now. I think about it, and I was thinking about it when I left Miami Gardens in terms of the people who could serve. So, realistically, could folks who aren't professional and have an independent source of income afford to serve? Could teachers really just really afford to serve on the city council? Could some blue collar workers? Those are things that I ask myself. And so, when we look at the type of public servants that we have, in large part, it's dictated by the framework of public service that we create. And so, I wanted to give the voters of Miami Gardens an opportunity to actually have their say on it, independently have their say. And in the interim, what I did was I went out with a camera and I asked people questions. I said, how much do you think the mayor makes? And we got all of these wonderful answers. It was like $300,000 and $400,000. And you would say, back then, you would say it was $42,000. And they were all completely shocked. And I said, how much do you think a city council person makes? And they would say, $100,000. And then when you told them it was $1,000 a month, they were all shocked. That was the entirety of the campaign. I didn't ask them to vote for anything. I just simply took campaign money and educated them. This is what actually happens. This is what they actually make. I don't know what the voters will do if we put this before them. I do know that somewhere, somehow, we have to make public service more accessible to people who aren't professional or are independently wealthy or entrepreneurs who can take the time off. We have to make this full-time job have a full-time compensation so that the vast majority of the residents of Miami-Dade County, it actually becomes accessible to them. And so, right now, I don't feel like that it is. And, you know, we'll sit here and we talk about a lot of our, we pass union contracts all the time. Ask yourself, could a lot of the members of Unite here actually afford to be a county commissioner with the time that it takes and the money that it pays and their obligations still to their families? Those are the questions I ask myself when I consider these. And so, when I did it in Miami Gardens, I did it on my way out so it wouldn't affect me. This won't affect me either. I'm very comfortable putting this to the voters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner. I got Lopez and then Senator Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Dennis. Dennis, how, what was the genesis of this item in the commission? I'm just curious. So, one of the topics that we had set out at the beginning to discuss was commission salaries for exactly the reasons as Commissioner Gilbert and Commissioner Bermudez have articulated and the chair. Just a concern about making sure that it was possible for people to serve, people from a broad variety. And so then the question just became how to achieve that. We knew that having the number in the charter was a problem, but replacing a number with a number was a problem. We looked at formulas and then Commissioner Moss is actually the one who was the genesis of this idea of let's create a process. And that got the consensus among the task force members that this, if we replace the number with a process, that might be more palatable with the voters, especially given the composition of the salary commission. It's people who don't have an interest in things that this board may do, financially anyway. So it was in keeping with what Commissioner Gilbert said. Yes. That there was concern that not just anyone could serve as a commissioner because of the $6,000 annual salary. Yes. Interesting. Was there consensus on the commission? I believe this one passed unanimously once we coalesced around the idea of the salary commission. Was there public input regarding this particular issue? We had numerous public meetings. I think we have recorded what public comments there were. Every meeting was public and we occasionally had speakers. I don't specifically remember that. Do you recall anyone opposing the idea of a salary commission? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't doubt anything that Commissioner Gilbert said. He said it so eloquently. I think you're absolutely right. If we want to have more people interested in running, I think we need to make sure that they're compensated appropriately. However, when we decided to run, this board decided to run, we knew what the compensation package was. So I think I have no problem for it going to the voters. However, it should be something should not be self-serving. And for me, when would this go into effect? This one as drafted would go into effect immediately upon being adopted. All right. So the only way that I would be able to support something like this is if it does not go into effect until after, the current board is no longer here. Because I just find it a little self-serving for us to vote for something. And it goes to the voters. I get it. I understand Commissioner Bermudez and I understand everyone's debate. But it needs to be something that should not affect me or anyone on this board because we, when we ran for office, we ran with the understanding of what we were being compensated for. So that's the, that's my only objection to the item. And I, and I hate to vote against an item because it does go to the border. And I think we should never take the voters right away. But I also don't think it should be anything that should be self-serving. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Um, commissioner or the vice chair. No. No. Commissioner. Thank you. Um, I have a question, Dennis. You know, you had the, the two issues and the reason that you all suggested that the term limits should go later is so that it wouldn't apply to us. Right. So I'm glad that, um, that was one of the conversations was the applicability. Um, I, I maintain that we should consider putting term limits and then having it apply to the next round of humans. I, I, I think we could still do that. Um, and, and I agree, um, with Senator Garcia that the, it's interesting that the logic that was used on the term limits was the board of county commissioners should not put something on the ballot that would extend their time on the board of county commissioners. But yet when it came to the salary, because you created another entity that would in theory make the decision, then it was perfectly fine for us to put something on the ballot that would adhere to our benefit. I don't think either of them should adhere to our benefit. I think that that really does change the very nature of, um, charter reform. I think that anything that we change should be moving forward. And to, um, the Senator's point, we all ran with a clear understanding of what the benefits and, and the timing was. Um, so in, in terms of the term limits, why did you, why did you all make the recommendation to have that during the presidential? Because the other thing here is what questions are going to go in a gubernatorial and what questions are going to go in a presidential? So, um, we, we weren't thinking of it, at least from the discussion on, on our dais about gubernatorial or presidential. It was more, which one did we think should go first and which one should we think should go second? We were just certain that they shouldn't both be on the same ballot. Okay. Um, and if I could just, um, add a little context on the, uh, the difference of why, um, one wouldn't apply right away and, and this one would. When we first started this discussion before we cohered around the salary commission, uh, the conversation had been, it shouldn't apply to anyone who's currently sitting. Um, we had some discussions, but then when it became a process with independent, um, with independent, uh, board members or commissioners who could also take into account what your current packages are in deciding what the salary should be. Um, we, we didn't think it was as significant, um, knowing that it would ultimately be up to this board about whether you thought it was significant to say it will apply to immediately or should be deferred, um, to a later, um, later effective date. But that would, that was part of the discussion. Thank you. So I, I, I, I want to call vote, but here's, here's the problem to commissioner Bermudez's point about soundbites. And unfortunately, those that report the soundbites often don't do due diligence. They don't put in the work for lack of better terms. They're often lazy. You know, it's, it's easy. Yeah. Yeah. I'm talking about, he's one of the ones I'm talking about. Here's, here's the thing. It's easy to say that, that they shouldn't apply to me. I would support it if, but, but the reality is, is that before my time on the board, I don't know, four years ago or so, there was an item on this board that passed to increase benefits to commissioners. And some that are still sitting on this board voted no on it, but took the benefits. You could, you could opt out of them. So the same thing applies to this very charter. If you don't want it to apply to yourself, opt out, but don't just give a soundbite. Because that's, what's going to be tweeted about or written about, or you can go and say, I didn't support it. No, you did support it because you took the money. You know, some of us may actually not take the money because we have other businesses. We don't need it, but if you took it and there's no difference. So I understand the soundbites from some of my colleagues, but some of them were on this board at that time, four or five years ago, four and a half years ago. It was right before I got on the board and voted no, and then still took it. So I appreciate it, but I'm with Bermudez on this, is let the voters decide, and with the task force and with Gilbert and with a lot of them, let the voters decide what they want to do with our compensation. And then it doesn't even end there. Then it goes to another task force or another committee that has non-interested parties to decide what is the most fair compensation package for the elected officials that represent over 2.8 million residents. The largest county in the state of Florida with the lowest salary that that does a lot of things that we're not talking about on this day is it incentivizes elected officials to have side gigs and incentivizes elected officials to be consultants and it incentivizes a lot of other things that shall they have a reasonable, appropriate salary. They may just stick to what they're doing and focus on that. So I feel passionate about this because I'm with Gilbert. I think we need to open up the pool of candidates to be able to qualify and be able to take on a role of this magnitude to the very same workers and caliber of folks that he just brought up. The blue collar, the teachers, a lot of very well-educated folks that otherwise could not afford to sit on this dais. Not all own businesses like myself, not all have other jobs like others here, and they cannot afford it if it's not for that. So I understand this is not on one particular person or the other, but the reality is, is if you don't agree with it, if you don't agree with the voters, I mean, it's almost hypocritical. Let the voters decide. And you're right, Commissioner Bermudez, it may not pass. It just may not pass because the rhetoric is going to be, here are the commissioners trying to give themselves a raise. But if someone took the time or the effort or the investment to do the campaign that Commissioner Gilbert did in Miami Gardens and folks realize that we don't get paid $1,000 a month, that we get paid $500 a month managing the largest local budget in the entire state of Florida and larger than what, 22 to 24 different states, something like that. So we have a larger budget than 20-some-odd different states in the entire country. I think they would think differently about that rhetoric of the commissioners or the politicians are trying to give themselves a raise. I disagree with those folks that spoke against it because this is leaving it up to the voters to decide. Commissioner Bastien and then Steinberg. So I was listening to you guys and I have news for you. Very few people believe that we only make $6,000 a year. Very few. And I agree with Commissioner Gilbert on this because not only that we need to make sure we open the doors for other folks and then Commissioner Gilbert mentioned teachers, organizers and all, but we forgot the young leaders. Look at these young leaders sitting here. I mean, we would like to create a space where they would decide to become a commissioner. We need young voices. We need to open spaces for young voices. So I'm comfortable with the fact that the voters will decide, but I believe also that there has to be some real education because I'm telling you, I'm serious. When I tell people, oh, Commissioner, you're making all this money. They really believe that we're making a lot of money. Like $100,000 a year. So there has to be some kind of outreach and education and then to make sure that the voters, when they go to vote, they know what they're voting for. Because right now, most of the people I tell about what I make, they don't believe me. They don't believe me. $6,000 a year, that's not true. They don't believe it. So I'm comfortable with the fact that the voters will decide better. They have to be educated. They have to be informed. So outreach will play an important role. Thank you so much. Thank you, Commissioner Steinberg. Yeah, I just wanted clarity just so to put it into posture. This is not about any sort of salary. This is just about taking the ability in the charter today for the people to vote on whatever salary it would be and putting it in an independent, separate commission. Right? None of this other stuff. I just want to make clear. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. I will remain on no. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? Seeing none. Clerk. Actually, all in favor. Signify by saying aye. Aye. All oppose nay. Nay. Show the item pass with a couple nays, but show the item pass. All right. You got them? All right. 11-A-16. I got Commissioner from District 4 and Commissioner from District 8. Commissioner from District 4, you're recognized. Stenovo. I mean, I know you're, I'd like to defer first to the Commissioner who sponsored the item. Fair enough. And then I'll make my remarks. Commissioner from District 8, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Steinberg. I do have a brief amendment to the item that hopefully will address potentially Commissioner Steinberg's concerns or any others. If the attorney can please read the amendment. You can read the amendment. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins moves to amend item 11-A-16 so that if approved by a majority of voters, the proposed changes to Section 6.08 of the Home Rule Charter shown in Attachment A would take effect on June 1, 2027, rather than immediately following the 2026 general election. The county attorney is hereby directed to make any conforming changes to the resolution, ballot language, and Amendment A necessary to legally effectuate this delayed effective date. Thank you, and that amendment came at the request of the League of Cities, indicating that apparently certain dates had already been published for their upcoming municipal elections, and so we wanted to amend it to allow it to have a later start date so they wouldn't have to republish those election dates. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I move 11-A-16. It's been moved. It's been seconded as amended. Okay, I'd like to. Oh, and then Steinberg, you're recognized. Thank you. So we're dealing with, I think, one of the most important questions because this is going to come up more often as we have term limits, and I think this actually is a great item. So I want to commend Dennis and everybody who worked on the board, on the task force for the Charter Review Committee. Our charter is the most important thing that we, and you'll see this is, I pulled a lot of these items because I feel like it does require the time, only because this is the most important document that we have. The charter is very important. The only way to change a charter is by a vote of the people. So we need to make sure that we're really being thoughtful in what we put forward. And in this case, I think this is a really great example of giving the commission flexibility to actually allow for a filling of a vacancy with an election, right? This is a wonderful piece of item to put forward. Having said that, I wanted to get a little clarity because I love the amendment that you made, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, but there are some other cities that get caught in this. And, look, the truth is this is really the spirit of the resign-to-run law from the state, right? It gives us the ability to actually make this determination at the right time so that we can piggyback an existing election, as opposed to having it come up at some other time and then we're left with, you know, less options, right? This gives us flexibility. We can still appoint if we want to, but it does give us the ability to have an election. But because you have municipalities that also have elections in odd years, which really I think this would cover, I was wondering if you all would be amenable to just striking the language of the qualifying period date so that it truly aligns, so that we're not tied into changing 30 other municipal charters who may have their qualifying date changed, so that it still stays with the spirit of the item, but without having any sort of unintended consequence of all the other charters of the municipalities that may not have been thought of. So would you, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, be amenable? It doesn't change any of the item except it strikes out the conforming of the 70 to 80, 40. What is the language, again, if you could please? Sure. Commissioner Steinberg, your proposed amendment would be to amend item 11A16 to eliminate, the minimum municipal qualifying standards and remove the corresponding changes to Section 6.08 of the Home Rule Charter shown in Attachment A. And the reason I say this, right, and the reason I say this is because my only concern is that we're still going to have a situation. I'll use one of the cities I represent. They have their elections in November of 2027. Their qualifying is in September. This would move them to an August qualifying, okay? So what happens if a commissioner wants to, or anybody wants to run, maybe Miami. We had a situation with Miami recently. Theirs weren't aligned with our qualifying from when they submit the note. That would make it so that now their qualifying is going to be in August because if you have a November election, based on our guidelines, we would have to force them to have their qualifying in August, which might work for some, but then we're going to have to have a special meeting in August, which I'm happy to do. I just want everybody to know what the domino effect of that could be. I want to make it easier for us to be able to fill with an election, but I want to make sure that we do it with that in our forefront. All right. So I'm totally confused. I mean, truthfully, this is totally confusing. Listen, if I may, Mr. Chair. Yeah. My question is, because now I'm very confused. Is it our job to make sure that somebody in a municipality wants to run for one of these positions is protected? I don't think so. With all due respect to the League of Cities, Commissioner Gilbert and I have been president of the League of Cities. I don't think it's our job, personally. Number two, I'm going to support the amendment because there seems to be a reason the League has spoken to Commissioner Cohen Higgins. But, I mean, this is basically saying if, and, you know, unfortunately or fortunately, some of you have been here that have been appointed. Some of you have not. Some of us have not. That's the way it goes. But in the long run, this will lead to this body saying, okay, there's going to be an election within a certain time period, as I understand it. How does this bring into, is there somebody in one of these cities that I don't know that wants to run? Are any of you leaving? Can you please let me know before you do so I can leave with you? I mean, really, truthfully, because it's really confusing to me. I don't understand how we got into this municipal aspect of it. No, I think the impetus is that there were many different items that they found over the years that they've been able to fix in terms of filling a vacancy. One thing that was overlooked was filling a vacancy, and I don't want to speak for the sponsor for the board, and maybe, Dennis, you want to kind of give us some of the background. But it's to give us, before, when you submitted your irrevocable letter of resignation, and if you were running for an election that didn't line up with our even-year elections, we weren't able to call a timely election to piggyback on what was happening. Okay? This gives us the flexibility to be able to do that. So this is a good piece of an amendment. This is a good amendment. Having said that, taking a closer look, I thought, well, maybe perhaps we want to take away another impediment of when those qualifying dates for others would be. It's just if we fill a vacancy here, right? It's just to fill the vacancy here. But, you know, it's fine if you want to keep it with the effective date, but maybe, Dennis, you can give us some clarity. Yes, Commissioner. So this slate of amendments was actually occasioned by an occurrence during our deliberations, which was the City of Miami elections and then, you know, the appointment on this side. And there were discussions about how to handle that for the future to make sure that there was time for the county commission, should it want to call an election rather than an appointment, that it would have time to line it up with the election that was already going rather than have to do it at a special date. So this was a reaction to an occurrence. And, by the way, I do credit to Iris Ascara, who was the one who led these amendments, since I've been giving, you know, credit to other task force members. And this was a package. These two work together to make sure that this board has the ability to call an election that is aligned with the already scheduled general election, which was unable to be done with the City of Miami, as happened. And I don't know. I know the Supervisors' Council is here. If you have questions that you want to direct to them, they had some more technical input on it, but that was the genesis of it. So it was very much a package deal. All right. So we got that? All right. Commissioner Bermudez. Yeah, okay. Now I understand. But, you know, again, cities have their own charters. I just want to be clear. And if anybody in a municipality, it is not our responsibility to change their charter. It is the citizens of those cities, as they did in Miami Gardens, as they did in Doral, to change their charter after the fact, if they so choose, through the vote of the voters. And just one last thing, Commissioner Steinberg, the most important part of our charter, I believe, is the Citizens' Bill of Rights. Being one of the few lawyers that successfully sued the county over the Citizens' Bill of Rights, I think that's the most important part of this charter. And it gives citizens ten points that are very clear that they can use the charter when they have a question about the way this body or the mayor operates. To me, that's the most important part of the charter. All right, so we have it moved by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins as amended. We have a second by Commissioner Bermudez. It was amended. You amended it. She amended it to change the effective date. Right. So it was moved by you as amended, seconded by Commissioner Bermudez. Are we good? All in favor signified by saying aye? Aye. Aye. All opposed, nay? Nay. Show that item passed. All right, 11A-17, I have Steinberg, Regalado, and Garcia. Let's start with Steinberg. Okay. And by the way, I will say, they're both important documents. I agree. I said one of, not the. All right. Which one is this one? Annexations. Ah, yes. Okay. So this one I thought was very interesting. I can't support it in its form to be placed on the charter for a few reasons. One is that we have currently a planning zoning board that deals with these issues already. So now we're going to create another board to deal with this. And then it's going to happen every three years. And sometimes I feel like some of these things come up before three-year cycles and that we want to have these discussions. And then there's another issue that I feel that now we're also giving weight to maybe some property owners that, by the way, should have a stake in this, but we're taking away more of the resident voice by putting it in this manner. And so I don't know that I can support something that's going to, in my mind, weaken some of the residential voices on whether or not they want annexations or, you know. And by the way, today we do it by ordinance. This goes into the charter. If we ever want to change this, again, it has to go back out to the people to change it. We don't have that flexibility to see where we want to go in terms of these issues. So for those reasons, I can't support it in its form. Thank you. Commissioner from District 7, you're recognized? I think that, to Mickey's point, the situation with the annexation is already complicated enough. I feel like we're doing, like, another thing. And I've said this before. If we want to do a moratorium, let's do a moratorium. If we want to change the rules, change the rules. But creating yet another thing that's going to further complicate this situation. You know, again, we had this issue before term limits where these things lingered for, like, years and years and years. This just seems to me to be another way to further complicate the situation. So I'm a no on this one. Yeah. Thank you for that. Commissioner from Center. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. For the same reasons, I think that when we look at annexation, I think the process is complicated enough. We have safeguards and hurdles in place. This is just adding even more hurdles, making it more difficult for municipalities to try to annex. So I, too, think that this is an overreach, and putting this in the charter will make it even that much more difficult for municipalities to try to create annexation. So A, too, will be a no on this one. Thank you, Senator. I have Commissioner from District 6. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for Dennis. How are you? What was the rationale from the task force for removing it from the Planning Advisory Board and creating a separate boundary commission? The Planning Advisory Board already has a lot of responsibilities, and so the idea was have one body that is charged with giving a comprehensive review of whatever is pending. And we went through different iterations of how long the cycle should be, but the idea was to have one body that's experienced with the boundary change procedures and the incorporation procedures and issues to look at it countywide to be able to say, okay, maybe it makes sense to move here, maybe not here, once you balance it out. And that that should be done on a three-year cycle so that this board can get a comprehensive report of everything that's pending. Thank you. Thank you. I have Commissioner from District 12, then I'm going to 1, and then the Vice Chair. Mr. Chair, thank you. I was going into this, but Commissioner Steinberg has convinced me to go in the other direction with her points. Let me tell you, and Commissioner Orbis correctly pointed out, you know, why replacing the Planning Advisory Board. When I was Mayor Durant, the Planning Advisory Board voted six to one to let the, to either not incorporate or to move forward and let the two cities duke it out in the county, then give the owners a opportunity to at least weigh in. And I appreciate Commissioner Regalado, who came, actually came up with an ordinance subsequent to that, that at least took a non-binding poll of the business owners, because at that point the city of Sweetwater, which was growing by like more than double its size, took over the largest commercial area that the money went directly to this county. It includes Dele Mundo. So I don't know, and Dennis, you have a great committee. I agreed with probably everything else. But this one, the more I think about it and the more I hear my colleagues, I got to be honest with you. I think that, you know, this, this body, when you were here as an attorney, on many occasions, going back as far as 2002, had looked at full incorporation of the county. But to have municipalities cherry pick the remainder of the parts of the county that provide sources, let's say Blue Lagoon, for example, it's not in my district, but in Commissioner Orbis' district, the largest corporate park that we have. And then what if the city of Miami, which did try at one point to make it part of the city of Miami, I think that PAB can handle it. They're not that busy. They didn't appear to be that busy. Abby remembers, she's back there somewhere, that they weren't that busy to, you know, to make decisions on other things. So I think that, you know, the real frank discussion we should have at some point is, what type of county do we want to be? Is it half unincorporated and half incorporated? And by the way, this whole vote in November may give us, may eliminate cities. We may have to take them over. The reverse may happen. They may actually cease to exist because they cannot function and provide for the security of the people in that area. And you know who's going to be responsible? It's going to be us. So, you know, I'm going to agree with my colleagues, and I'm going to be a no on this one, just because I think if we ever talk about annexations and incorporations and all this wonderful thing, we need to have a real frank discussion. And I want to say what nobody ever wants to say. The biggest city that's not a city is Kendall. And if Kendall ever incorporates, the gig is over. This county is going to have to really deal with just regional-wide issues. That's it. Not going to happen. No, I know. I've heard they're not going to have it. But what I'm trying to say is that that's the reality. And sometimes we sit here because, I mean, really, it brings headaches to all of us to a certain extent. And I agreed with what Commissioner, now Ambassador Cabrera, proposed. Because the business owners don't have a say, and they own properties. The business owners don't have a say. And in some cases, by the way, including in Sweetwater, just want to be clear, the millage rate goes up higher than another municipality. And I represent Sweetwater. And I represent Sweetwater, so I'm happy for them. God bless them. But, okay, when we make these decisions, it impacts people who own businesses and most that live in this county. And just because they're business owners, small, intermediate, and large, does not make it right to disregard their point of view. The last time when the example I gave you happened, it was disregarded. The PAB was disregarded because the chairman, who's not one of my mayors, wanted this in Sweetwater. That's all that happened. There was nothing else. Sorry, Abby. I had to bring back bad memories for you. But the bottom line is, let's be frank with the people when we talk about these things. I'm going to be a no because I think if we want to talk about annexation and corporations, let's sit down and talk about what type of county do we want. Are we going to be like other counties, like Broward, that has full incorporation, practically 99.99%, or are we going to be like we are, which is the exception to the rule, which might have been really hip back in the 1960s, but it isn't now. So the bottom line to me is, and by the way, the rest of the state, and you can correct me, Commissioner Lopez, since you were there, the rest of the state doesn't go through incorporation through its commission. That's not the way it works. We're the only county that ever created mitigation. Yes, I remember. I haven't forgotten, Dennis. Mitigation. I like you, but I haven't forgotten. Mitigation. We've created all these other rules. And I think that, you know, I think it's important to, when we talk about an issue like annexations and incorporation, that there's not a confusion. Because I'm going to tell you what the citizens of some of these cities are going to say. And they're going to use it politically, by the way, some of the mayors of these cities. They're going to say, oh, we want that part. We want, we want, we want that wonderful area that Commissioner Orbis represents that's the largest corporate park that the county still has remaining with offices. And what are you going to say to the citizens of the city of Miami? You're probably going to say, well, Coral Gables. You can't have it. I know, I know, I know you're going to say no, but I'm just saying that you don't need those headaches because it's an unfair, it's an unfair analysis of the issue. Because nobody's asking, what about the survival of the county that provides the service to all of the residents of Miami-Dade County? So I'm going to vote no. Mickey, you convinced me, but the Citizens Bill of Rights is still more important. Mr. Chairman. Yes, so, all right, I have, hold on, I'm going to add you to the list, Commissioner, but I've got District 1, and then I have the Vice Chair, and then Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Mr. Chairman, I'm just doing some rough, first of all, if the people to my left could stop talking. I see airport people over there, your airport items are gone. If you all cannot be quiet in the chambers, leave the chambers. Can we do that? Mr. Chair, a rough count would seem like there are a lot of no's on this item. If we could just let this dead horse die. I'm good with that. Are we good with that? Are we good with that? Vice Chair, everybody, that's pending. All right. So it's been moved by Senator Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, just for a vote purpose. Are you good with that, Vice Chair? I'm good with that. Like, just call it a vote. All in favor signify by saying aye. Thank you. I mean, it's not to kill it, it's a vote. You could kill it, to pass it. Right now, it's to pass it. If you're in favor of approving the item, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Nay. The nays have it. So this Charter Review Task Force item does not exist. Does not move forward. Just as a point of personal privilege on this, I think that we should all consider some of the things that were mentioned here. Because, for example, instead, and we've talked about this before, JC obviously gets very triggered when we talk about this issue. But we've talked about how the applications should speak to the broader issue and not just the area and the fiscal impact. And I can tell you when South Miami came with an application that they wanted to take Dadeland, I said no. So I think we need to take some of these ideas and maybe incorporate them into our process. Yeah, I think that's fair. All right. Thank you, Dennis. Thank you, Dennis, for that. I appreciate it. All right. And then 11A20. I'll entertain a motion on 11A20. It's the Charter Review. Hold on. I have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Oribis. You're recognized, D7. Thank you. I have a friendly amendment that I think might help. So in my prior life as a school board member, I worked on advertising at our schools. And one of the biggest complaints that Miami-Dade County Public Schools receives and that I still receive as a county commissioner are the horrible banners that the school district puts around the schools. Everybody hates them. I was against them. I tried to limit them while I was there, and it is a constant issue. I appreciate that we're going to do some advertising in our parks because we want to increase revenue. But I do not want to have those banners around the parks that we see at our school district. So I don't, it doesn't speak to it. It's very broad. So I wonder if there's something that we can amend to ensure that that doesn't happen. So Commissioner Roguelaro, I agree. I can't stand it. All the fences in my district, I don't know if it's an unincorporated thing or it happens everywhere. Everywhere. It's ridiculous. So that was something that I actually discussed with the attorneys to add in here. Purposely left it out to have it as a matter of policy of this board once it gets, if it gets approved by the voters. So as a matter of policy, this board, you know, this is just to open up so that the advertisement could exist. Really, the intent is digital, is not banners. I don't want full of banners. It irks me. But I want it to be a matter of policy of this board of what's allowed, what's not. Maybe we could limit sizes. We don't want to completely say that you can't put a small little banner somewhere, you know, if it makes sense. I appreciate that. But I think people will vote against this if that is not clarified. Because so many people hate the banners around the schools that I think when they see parks and advertising, that's going to come up. And while I appreciate that we do the policy afterwards, I think it's going to hurt its ability to pass. I mean, look, again, it was part of something I discussed with the attorneys, and then we opted to take it out. I'm not entirely opposed to it. I don't want to limit something that I certainly want to limit a thousand banners on a fence. That I do want to limit. But I don't want to limit the potential of one banner or two banners at a baseball field if they're sponsoring a game or something like that for that. So that, by putting it in the charter, I think it kind of prohibits us from that type of policy. I'm with you on the intent of what you're saying. I just don't know that we want to tie the hands of potential income. My friendly amendment would be just to speak to the fencing and maybe a percentage. I would hear. Do you have something drafted? No, but, I mean, because if there is fencing, you know, it would be like you can't cover more than 25 percent of the fence. And that way you could put a banner, but you can't wrap a park. I'm okay with that. The issue is the wrap a park. I'm fine with that. That will be a friendly amendment. Listen, I don't want banners at all. I mean, I would still like. So I guess here's a question. If we do that, can we still, as a matter of policy of this board, come back later and say we don't want any banners on fences at all? Can we go stricter than the charter amendment? You absolutely can. Okay, perfect. All right. So I'm okay with that language of, you know, no banner advertisement to exceed 25 percent of linear footage? It's the fence. The issue is the fence. So I think you have to specifically speak to the fence because that's what the voter is going to think about. They're going to think of the school district and the fence. Let's put exterior fence even for that. Exterior fence, yes. So no advertisement shall be in the form of fence banners encompassing over 25 percent of exterior fencing. Some version of that. You want to clean that up? Mr. Chair, just would it be possible, since this relates to the ballot question itself and potential changes that have to be made to the charter amendment, if we can move on to another item, we can work on drafting language, present it to you, and then we can come back to this item? Absolutely. Let me just get input. Start doing that. Let me get input from the rest of the commissioners in case they want to add stuff to it, too. I'm open to Commissioner Steinberg. This is my last item that I'm speaking on. Is it, though? It's the last one I pulled. Are we still on that last item, though, Mr. Chair? Well, yeah, we're still on the item. Okay, so when I have a chance, I want to add something. Yep, we'll get there. Okay. So first of all, I want to say that I appreciate the intent of creating new funding opportunities for our parks, so thank you, Chairman. But I do believe we need to proceed with caution and establish clear guardrails before we move forward. So in its form today, I will not be supporting this item because I think that we need the legal framework first before we put it out to the – well, I know you can do it after. I understand that. I think there are too many concerns that I have that maybe others will share because I think we need to think beyond today's intentions and ask, you know, what does policy look like in five years, 10 years, 15 years? I don't want to see any unintended consequences to this. So if advertising is allowed broadly, the communities that bear the visual impact I think should also receive the benefit, which is, I know, something that maybe is not in this. If history is an indication of how the county has negotiated things in the past, I don't really have a lot of real sense of what that's going to look like in the future. So let me just go through my points really quickly because the parks who are going to have advertisement are also – so they're going to shoulder that burden. But then I don't know what kind of commercial activity or visual impact it's going to be. What does that look like? So they should see the direct reinvestment into those parks if they're going to have to shoulder that burden. I also think that we haven't fully explored – all of a sudden I was told by the Parks Department and by the County Attorney's Office that sponsorship opportunities are now no longer running afoul with the charter – with Article 7, such as capital improvement, sponsorships, philanthropic donations, and naming opportunities. Those – we have to explore what does that look like. Like, so I'm concerned about opening up the door because you just talked about banners. I hadn't even thought about banners. I was thinking, are we going to allow digital? Are we going to allow billboards in our parks? Like, what does this look like? I also get concerned, are the beaches going to be excluded? Are parking facilities included? Could this eventually lead to advertising associated with, you know, other things? I have so many questions because, you know, a hall over is a park. It's also a beach. What does that mean? Can we exempt maybe waterfront parks because those have unique issues, and, you know, they're going to bear a lot of this, and what does that look like? So I support – by the way, I'm wearing green. I support – it's Parks Month, everybody, and you can adopt two trees on Saturday at various locations throughout the county. It's very important. We want to support our parks. But as we're pursuing new revenue streams, I don't want to create unintended consequences that permanently change the character of our parks or allow the loudest interest or dictate what belongs in our public spaces, in the people's public spaces. So what I don't want to see is hall over turn into NASCAR venue, right? So, you know, by the way, I've been consistent on advertisement. Like, anybody who knows me, I've always had concerns about advertisement, so I just wanted to put that out there. Again, I appreciate where this is coming from, but that's why I can't support it. And I don't know if there are any ideas to make it so that, you know, we tighten it even further. But those are my thoughts at this time. Thank you so much. Thank you, Commissioner. For the Chair. And I would – I'm going to go – I'm going to get there. So, look, I respect that, Commissioner Steinberg. I understand. Look, this is very simple for me. I'm trying to – I thought of this to come up with revenue sources in a time when, obviously, property taxes are being reformed, and it's a talk of the town. County parks will be probably one of the highest, most impacted departments in our county, and obviously it's so important to our community. And it's funny you said that because – one of the points you said because I actually – the original form, and I amended it in committee, the original form of this item, had so that wherever the advertisement took place, the funds did remain in that park. Working with Parks Department Director, who is at the well now, we actually amended that out so that – because there's a lot of community parks that maybe some folks may not want to advertise in, and we don't want them to be left out. I did, however, place a hold to – shall this pass to come back to the board and maybe create regions. Not necessarily that the money stays in that particular park, but create regions. And the regions aren't going to be districts, commission districts. It could be the south region, the central, and the north region. So it still encompasses most of it, but – and everyone gets their fair share. But, yes, I agree with your mindset of it should stay in the park. I understand parks' concern with it and the administration's concern with it, and it's a real one, by the way. So that's why I was amenable to amending that out, but do have a hold on policy to implement some sort of framework to maintain it. I do hope I could earn your support on it because I think it's just one way to generate revenue for our parks department in a time when we need it. But I understand, of course, and respect your position. Commissioner Lopez, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I don't have any county parks in my district, unfortunately. But I want to caution. I have had a lot of issues in my district with digital signs and the way the residential communities view them. So you may want to consider, you know, after – should this pass, during the implementation of this, to potentially exclude digital signs. A lot of our county parks are in residential areas, and, you know, you just have to see what that looks like at night with the lights. You'll have the same problem I had in my district with just digital signage in the urban area and how it was impacting my residences. So I just put that out there just because I heard Commissioner Steinberg say, you know, what will it look like? Will it be digital, et cetera? And then I realized, wow, I've been struggling with digital signs in my district, and it does impact residential. But I am supportive of this item because I do believe we're going to need to have some revenue stream for parks, especially since they're so important to our county. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. And the intent is actually, in fact, to have digital signs, is the intent. But it's not the issue that you're having. It's not the big billboards at all. It's more like the kiosks that you see in Coral Gables and Brickell, little small kiosks throughout the park that actually serve multipurpose. It's not just an advertisement mechanism. That will be the revenue generator. But it also has access for you to dial 911 or emergency service, shout out your phone or not a battery. You can actually charge your phone in some of them. It kind of tells you, like, you're standing here, and this is what's around the park. These are the restaurants nearby. So it's not billboards. It's more of a kiosk, and it could generate revenue. I haven't forgotten you, Madam Mayor. I'm going to you in a second. But just one second. But, yes, the idea is to have digital signs and not have the banners that do make it, you know, at times ugly throughout the park. But I want to say, once again, a lot of the concerns brought up are something that will be discussed as a matter of policy of this board, shall this pass by the voters. And so we will be having this discussion at some point, shall it pass? Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just as up to Commissioner Lopez's point, the City of Miami opted out of Lady Bird. It's a very different situation. We do not have an opt-out of Lady Bird. So irrespective of this, we cannot do the things that the City of Miami does. When we talk about digital signing, it's a very different conversation to the Chair's point. It's about wayfinding, similar to what we've approved at the underline, that provides people with information and then some advertising. Our rules are a lot different from the City of Miami. So when we say digital signage, it's very, very different from when the City of Miami says digital signage because they opted out of Lady Bird. And that is a federal issue. That has nothing to do with us. We cannot go as far as they have gone without an opt-out, which would be very complex. Madam Mayor, let me finish with the board, if that's okay. Or did you want to, like, input on some of the stuff? Yes, of course. Okay, can I finish with the board, or do you want to? Well, I do think it's important for you to hear from the Parks Department. Absolutely. No, no, we're not stopping this conversation until we do hear from you all. Okay. Let me just finish with the board, and then we'll go. Senator Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do have, and listen, I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I get this. We are in a time where we're having financial constraints, and it becomes more difficult, and we need to try to raise some monies. And I get that. That's admirable. Admirable. But one of the issues that I do have is, look, we still can put up banners and so forth on the sponsorships, but it's just the advertisement. We live in a world right now where it's hyper-advertisement. Everywhere we go, everywhere we look, someone is shooting something at us, trying to sell something at us. I find that our parks should be our sanctuaries. Our parks should be somewhere where we can go and get away from the craziness, the noise that we face every single day. And I look at what happens at Amelia Earhart Park, right? And I think about the walkways that we have. We're creating these trees to make sure that we have a place that people can feel comfortable and walk along these walkways and be one with themselves, their creator, their God. And yet we're going to have a potential where we can have advertisement being thrown their way. I think that this was put in the charter for a reason, and unless we can find a way to modify some of this, I just don't know. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this, but I just don't know if I can support this at this time with this. I think it's just over-cumbersome, and I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I just don't know if I can do this at this time. Thank you. I understand, Senator. And listen, I do understand what you're saying, and I agree with a lot of it. I mean, in fact, some of those concerns is kind of like what Regalado was speaking to, right, of the banners and keeping it as a sanctuary. The difficulty is I don't think it's that per se. I think this is the more regulated thing that this board could govern, so I do hope that I could earn your support on it, but I understand. And I'm not calling out the atomic bomb here, but the reality is some of these parks and or certainly their programs can cease to exist if we don't start to monetize the different options. And that's not me saying babies are going to die. That's just a reality. That's not me scaring fear tactics. That's a reality. Again, I don't know that we're shutting down parks. I can't. That's too early to say, but certainly programs can suffer as a result of funding issues. So, look, I understand it's not ideal, but it's also, you know, the idea is that if you have a nice kiosk that is a wayfinder that allows you to call 911, and then it circulates a couple, you know, nearby restaurants that are across the street from the park, something like that is, I think, is very amenable and doable. But I respect what you're saying. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first of all, let me just publicly say thank you for allowing the modification of the original language. The modification that you made allowed for the funding that's captured now to be used in all parks throughout the county. So I'll take my hat off to you on that. Secondly, I'm not quite sure if we will have the same number of interest in certain districts in this county to advertise at certain parks. Yes, the demographics are different. The impact on revenue would be different. But more than anything, there are a majority, not the majority, but there are quite a few parks in AMSA that are currently not receiving any attention as we speak. The programs, the parks, they're deplorable. And asking us to take the sanctuary and turn it into an advertisement situation where people can actually, you know, promote to certain people certain products and certain items, I do believe certain communities will be left out. And this is not something I'm just saying, just to say it, but if you currently look at areas now where there are a majority of AMSA parks, you will see the huge difference between parks in AMSA and parks in the municipalities. And you will also see where people are willing to spend their monies. I doubt if I get the same advertisers to come to District 9 and advertise in District 9 parks, because District 9 parks currently still have buildings that were built in 1940s and the 50s. And we haven't seen any major updates to actually invite people into that neighborhood to discuss advertising opportunities. Lastly, let me just say this. I am totally in support of finding another way to generate revenue for our parks. But I think the equity argument has to be at the forefront. Currently, it is not at the forefront. And currently, where you find dilapidated parks, you also see a correlation of crime. Not just crime, but higher crime. And not just higher crime, grotesque crimes. And not just those grotesque crimes, but you also find trauma-induced behaviors. Because there aren't places where people who are already struggling to survive and make it in this county that they can just go and just find solitude. It is impossible to do that where you have communities that have been begging for parks to be modified to fit today's environment. And unfortunately, we add on the idea that property taxes, modifying that area of revenue, may have a huge impact on parks. The fact of the matter is, if it has a huge impact on parks and Coral Gables, it's going to destroy those parks that are already in dilapidated communities, where communities have been basically shown no love for their parks. If we're really talking about generating revenue, we need to talk about allowing for there to be a sliding scale. And that sliding scale should begin with, if we make the money in one part of a town that has more opportunities to get greater investors into these advertisement apparatuses, then we should begin with the parks that are actually already struggling to keep its doors open along with its programs. And those monies should go there first. And I do not believe at this particular moment that we have arrived to that position that I've just announced. And for those reasons, I do believe today I will be a no until we actually get a formula in place that would allow for equity to be had across the board, and particularly in those communities where the median income and where the majority of the folk traveling to find a place to have that quiet moment that can't afford to go to places like a sky zone or to a bigger park where they can take the kids on go-karts. Until those things happen, then I have to be a no on this because I just do not believe, and I trust you and I believe you, but I do not believe that the end result will meet the expectations that you are seeking when you're pushing this piece of legislation. Thank you, Vice Chair. Madam Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just briefly want to say, of course, we need to raise revenue where we can, and we appreciate this item. There were some changes made, which we're also appreciative of. Christina White, our parks director, wants to speak briefly to concerns about being too specific at this point and as much as possible, leaving more to an implementing order should it pass public scrutiny, and it could address some of the details about what signage is more aesthetically appropriate, as well as some of the distribution issues that have been raised. We certainly want this to benefit parks throughout the county. So with that, if we could allow her to just say a few words, please. Sure. Christina, and as you do, and feel free to do that, the attorneys have come to tell me they have an amendment prepared based on Regalado's concerns. It's somewhere in the middle of exactly what Regalado said and probably what you're about to say. So I think it may cover what you're about to say, but go ahead and say it anyway. Okay. Then we'll hear the final verdict of the lawyers on what they recommend. All right, well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. Christina White, Pro's Director. I am so appreciative of this conversation because, of course, as Parks Director, I'm the purist. So very thankful to hear that there's some regulation that maybe we're talking about doing and seeing. But we also understand that the economic times are what they are, and all ideas for revenue are certainly welcome. As the mayor said, I just wanted to put my concerns on the record about being too specific in the charter. Because the charter, as everybody knows, is very difficult to change in the future. And we don't know what will happen in 5, 10, 15 years from now. So to be very specific about what we're going to allow could end up locking us in, boxing us into these restrictions in the future. Not just from the revenue perspective, but also practical concerns, such as tournaments that go on right now, soccer, football, baseball tournaments that currently exist. We do allow banners to go up during those. So if we start restricting how much can go up, then we're going to start having problems with what we already allow within our parks. So what I wanted to just suggest, if the board was going to move forward with this item, is to have it be general, however you see fit. And then we do come back, as we've been talking about at committee and otherwise, with follow-up legislation, internal procedures, to put in those additional restrictions that you all see fit. Thank you, Director. And I think that's, so if the attorneys can read up an amendment that they have, that I think will give ease to Commissioner Regalado's concern, and I'm okay with it. Go ahead. Chair moves to amend item 11A20 to add a requirement that all such advertising must be consistent with standards established by ordinance of the board. And that would be added to the charter and to the ballot language. We'd figure out exactly how to put the ballot language in there to include that. But this would essentially not allow the advertising to occur until you've established standards by ordinance. Second. It doesn't say the fence thing on the charter. So it still kind of consists of the same issue of the voters may not be too clear on it. But it clearly states that we can't do anything until this board adopts guidelines. So it's not that it's going to happen automatically. Once it passes, and then if we don't take action, we have to take action and adopt an ordinance surrounding that before they can go out and advertise. I appreciate that. But it's not that my issue is that my residents absolutely hate the ads on the fences. And to Christina's point, I mean, the tournaments, that's not an ad. It's just an event that's happening there. It's not advertisement. So I don't think that that would impact that. But I can't support it with that. And honestly, I don't think it'll pass without speaking to this issue because the advertising on school sites is so hated by so many residents. So I want it to pass, which is why I think we need to deal with this issue because every resident that I've spoken to about advertising in our parks, their first question has been, are you going to do what the school district does? And if so, no. So I think given what the school district has done, this is our biggest hurdle in order to get support. We have so many parks that are directly adjacent to single-family homes. And just like the schools, they hate seeing all those ads. So, again, I'm open to it. I'm open to – but what I'm hearing is it's not – it's too specific. Like, I am okay with what Regalado is saying, but I understand that it's restrictive. And so, listen, if it doesn't pass and the voters don't see the benefit of private revenue to offset a shortfall of taxpayer dollars, we could only take the horse to the lake, right? If they don't want to drink the water, we can't force them to. So I'm comfortable with that amendment. Gilbert, I'd like to call a vote on it. You may. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Just a couple points. First, while I appreciate your voters might not be okay with that, I don't know that I've heard that complaint. We've had advertising around parks and schools in Miami Gardens for a while now also. So we haven't heard that complaint. That's the first thing. The second thing is everything has to be relative to the other thing. So we're going to have no money for parks. Are they okay with higher rental fees? Are they okay with higher participation fees? Like the things that we're actually using the money for. So it's – in an ideal world, we wouldn't do it. But we're not in an ideal world, and we're going to a less ideal world. And so that's the other thing. And then with regard to Commissioner or Vice Chairman's perspective, I agree with him. But I don't think the answer is not putting the item before the voters. I think the answer is when it comes back to this board, making sure that that money is distributed in a way that actually helps everyone. The reason why I think this was changed, and I think we changed it in committee, and you changed it in committee, was because we have invested our general dollars, our general fund dollars in parks. And that's been everybody's money that's been invested in those parks. And so now that we have really nice assets in some places and not as nice assets in others, it wouldn't be fair to actually take the profit and just keep it in that area. We understood that, that's why the item was actually amended. And so I think this item should go forward, and I think that we should be able to advertise to the greatest extent possible that it's not completely offensive. We have to be serious about finding ways to offset the looming budget hold that already exists in parks. And so we have to be serious doing that. I move this item. All right. So we moved. It's been seconded. Commissioner Regalado, you're still a no, right? Okay. So not as amended, no. Remove the amendment. All right. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show the item passed. All right. Back on to second reading items. Madam Attorney or Mr. Attorney. Mr. Chair, if I may, I was advised by the county attorneys that I had to move to reconsider 5-0. Yes, you did. So I'll let Mr. Arbionette clarify that. Show 5-0 reconsidered by Commissioner Orbis, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor of the reconsideration, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show it reconsidered. Madam Attorney. This item will need to be re-advertised, and it will come back on the September 1st agenda to be voted on and to either approve or deny the waiver of Platt. All right. Is there any action that needs to be taken by the Commissioner at this time outside of the reconsideration? No, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you very much. We're on to second reading item. We have an airport item. If we could do it real quick. Move it? Yes. If I could have the attorneys read the airport motion. You can read it. Go ahead. Aviation item. Aviation. Which one? Mine. An item or a motion? A motion. Motion. Sorry. Motion. Oh, one second. We'll get that. Mr. Chairman, before we get there, can I just recognize my interns? Yeah. Yeah. Can we recognize all of them? We have two right here. We have... Are they from your YEP or these are separate? No, because they're leaving. They have to go back to the district and get some work done. But these are separate from youth engagement programs. Yes, sir. Yeah, recognize them. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd like to recognize and thank Allison Reyes and Alain Sanchez for their help and support in our office and our internship program. So these two great kids are right back here. All right. I like it. Thank you so much, guys. That's worth it. So are the youth engagement program students, are they all over? Can you all stand up? All right. All right. This is the... You could stay standing up for a second. So this is the second year that we have the youth engagement program ran by our intergovernmental affairs team, who I see Henry here, I see Sam here, I see a few. I don't know where Alina is. But, you know, it's what, like 25, 26? We couldn't keep up. We got over 50 applications this year. And I told them this when I went to speak to them last week. But you're fortunate and should be honored to know that you were selected among several others. I mean, about double the amount that made the cut. So congratulations. This particular class and last year's class was great and will always be a class that I remember as the inaugural class. But this class is extremely, extremely smart, educated, polished. They asked all the right questions. I was surprised to hear how many questions. I understand that there's one particular YEP student who is leading the way with others, now has encouraged others to start podcasts because has one of her own. And now, like, folks are trying to ask their parents to buy them, like, recording equipment and podcast equipment. So congratulations. But honestly, all of you have led the way. I would have never in a million dreams thought to do what you guys are doing at your age. So congratulations. Thank you for being here today. I actually want to thank you for putting this program together. You had the foresight to do so and help shape the next generation of leaders. I know that last year and this year, both of the appointments that were for District 4 found it so immeasurably, like, they're now interested in everything that we're doing, which before wasn't even on their radar. So I want to thank you for putting this forward. Thank you, Commissioner. I think, Senator, yeah. If I may, congratulations. This is a great deal. And it gets these kids involved in government understanding what they can do if they actually speak up. And I just think you want to have the best one that you have in there from District 13. So District 13 is the best one. So Jose Garcia, you're there. God bless you. So thank you so much. And congratulations. Is it? Take a shout out. Come on, guys. Come on. From every district. They're all wonderful. Look at them cheering on. I question that. It's not District 13 is not the best one. It's not. It's 12. Is it 12? I want to be clear. They're all really so bright. And I mean that. I'm not just being nice. Everybody's the same. They're all the same. It's not true. Oh, they're all good. They're all good. That's not true. Not everyone's the same. That's the nice thing to say. Some parents will tell you that. But no, not everybody's the same. Everyone's loved and cared for, but different. Yeah, I know. I know. Right? So, but no, listen. And you're right. Senator Garcia has experienced in the legislature, such as Lopez and who else is? And McGee, who's stepped out, that, you know, this is something that the state legislature does as the page and messenger program. My, all my kids, all three of my kids have done the program for several years in the state legislature. And the amount of information that they've learned and gathered from it has been very, very helpful. In fact, they've learned things there that they have not learned from their own dad as their dad is in government. So I think you all will take a lot out of this. Make sure you soak it all up. So, again, congratulations, you deserve a round of applause for doing this. Congratulations. All right, Madam Attorney, are we ready with a motion by Commissioner Regalado? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. Commissioner Regalado moves to amend resolution number R1234-25, which approved the purchase of certain real property rights pursuant to propose amended and restated lease agreement between Miami-Dade County as lessor and Arrow Miami LLC as lessee for airport property to authorize the county mayor and mayor's designee to eliminate the provision of the draft amended agreement requiring the lessee to pay additional monthly rental payments of 2% of gross rents received from all subtenants because fair market ground rental will be paid. All right. So it's been moved by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Show that motion passed. Thank you. All right, congratulations. Any other motions? We've got, we already had the reconsideration, we have the motion. So now on to second reading items. Do I have, does the attorney need to read all the items? Yes, yes. Okay, go ahead. I'll read them quickly. 7A, ordinance relating to the rapid transit system development zone, amending sections 33C-2 and 33C-3.3 of the code, expanding the smart corridor subzone of the rapid transit zone to encompass certain private property in the vicinity of southwest. Southwest 27th Avenue and southwest 28 Lane, located within a quarter mile of a public transit station, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 7B is an ordinance relating to the rapid transit system development zone, amending section 33C-2 of the code, amending the metro mover subzone of the rapid transit zone to add certain private property, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 7D, we're going to get back to. And 7E is an ordinance creating section 8-9 of the code, requiring the county mayor or designee to develop and implement a same-day permitting program for certain permit applications for certain residential projects. And to provide reports every six months, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. And I have a request to bifurcate 7B by Commissioner Lopez and 7E and its supplement by Commissioner Regalado. All right, so can I have a motion on the remainder of the items? It's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Orbis, and clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Bermudez? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gilbert? Commissioner Gonzalez? Four. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis? Yes. Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Steinberg? Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Vice Chairman McGee? Chairman Rodriguez? I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right, Commissioner Lopez, you're recognized on D5. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On 7B, I'm sorry, you are D5. So the county attorney has a motion to read into the record. Please read Commissioner Lopez's motion. Commissioner Lopez moves to amend item 7B to one, remove references to the properties located at 25 Southeast 10th Street and 20 Southeast 10th Street from the six whereas clause on page MDC005 and the accompanying exhibit map. And two, to correct the exhibit map's graphical depiction of the property located at 9 Southeast 6th Street to as such property is not within the RTZ but has been erroneously depicted on the map as being within the RTZ. All right, so short move by Commissioner Lopez as amended. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put my comments on the record because of this. So I don't know if everyone has been following, in the urban area we have very little green space. These two parcels that I'm removing from the RTZ Zone is because they are the traditional and Alan Morris Park in Brickell. There was a bone of contention around what would be happening to those two parcels. In particular because they have been used as a park over the years. This will return it back into the, I'm not accepting them into the RTZ, they will go through the City of Miami's permitting process. I think the real issue was the trees, what would happen to all the trees on the property. The City of Miami has a huge issue with tree permits. So we, my residents expressed a lot of concerns about it moving into the RTZ, where there wouldn't be the same protections for the trees. So I've agreed to remove them from the RTC. That is. All right, it's been moved, it's been seconded by Commissioner Cohen Higgins. All in favor of that item as amended, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. We need a roll call. I'm sorry, yeah, I was getting there, sorry. Clerk, please call the roll. Go. Commissioner Cohen Higgins? Yes. Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gilbert? Commissioner Gonzalez? Four. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis? Yes. Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Steinberg? Yes. Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez? Yes. Vice Chairman McGee? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez? Vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right, 7E, I'll entertain a motion on 7E. It's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner from District 7, you're recognized. Thank you. I just had a question for Lourdes on this, because I remember that we did some of this already, and the City of Miami actually is now copying what we did. So I think this is codifying some of the things that already exist. So Lourdes, what's new here? Correct. So we can put it on the record? That's exactly what it is. It's codifying a lot of the things that we do already to make sure it can't be changed. Okay, all right, because I was like, when I read it, I was like, we actually do this already. We do most of it, yeah. We do most of it, okay. We're codifying all of it and maybe adding a couple little things. But yes, they're currently implementing some of it. I don't know that they actually always keep it to the one day. Sometimes it goes two, three, four days. But yes, we're codifying it and making it straight to 24 hours. All right, then that's fine. Well, I'm happy to support it. All right, so we have a motion, we have a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. I'll oppose nay, roll call, I'm going too fast here. Clerk, please call the roll. Senator Garcia, Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Gonzales. Four. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Emilia Norvis, Commissioner Regalado, Commissioner Steinberg, Commissioner Bastien, Commissioner Bermudez, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, Vice Chairman McGee, Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right, Madam Attorney, bypassing for a minute the discussion items. Can we move into the pool list? Then we'll go back to discussion items afterwards. Yes, would you like to go in order? Yes, but is there any releases at all? I have one release, Senator. I have one, there may be others. We've got 3,700 pooled items, so. Yes, Senator Garcia is the only pooling commissioner, I think, for item 8F1. Okay. He's releasing that item, 8F1. 8F1, Lightspeed, and what did I pull? You said, let me see. And also, 8 and 8. Okay, and I'll release 11825. I just wanted to co-prime it. I was going to add some stuff to it, right? Did I have an amendment prepared? No? Yeah, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to, I support it, but really, I just want to co-sponsor your sargassum item. Commissioner Sargassum, so I'll release it with a co-sponsorship, 11825. Then, Senator Garcia is releasing 8F1. And 8N8 as well. 8N8, okay, great. And then, Bermudez? I think it's 982, if we may ask, 985, I'm sorry. 985, you're releasing? Which is, I'll release it if, I'd like to co-sponsor it with Commissioner Koenigin's co-prime it, because that is something that came about with a combination of something in our district and her district. So, if I may, I'll release it, I just wanted to co-prime it. You want to co-prime it, okay. Is that okay for him to co-sponsor? Absolutely not. Okay. All right. So, it's been released and co-primed. All right. Can we entertain a motion on 8F1, 985, 11825? And there was another one, Jerry? 8N8. 8N8. Okay, it's been moved by Lopez, seconded by Gonzalez. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Show the item, show those four passed. All right. 2B5, CBO report card, Commissioner from District 5, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I just wanted to say that I'm grateful for the information that was given to us, but it's not what I was looking for at all. So, here's what I was looking for when it comes to CBO funding. I was looking for the name of the organization, how much money they receive federally, state, and locally, and how many years they've been receiving funding. I mean, I think that this was a good start, but it is missing so much information that I'd like to work with the administration. I think, at least how I read the resolution that was passed that generated this report, there was a lot more that we requested that didn't get sent to us. So, I would, and I looked here. This was a good overall picture of some of the CBOs. I'm just curious when we'll have a much more deeper dive into every single CBO that we fund. So, that's a question for the administration. Through the chair, I'd like to recognize Ray Baker. There's actually two reports, and I think he can help clarify. Director Baker, you're recognized for a response. Hi, good afternoon. Yes, so there's two reports. 2B5 is the annual report card that we're required to submit. And then, 14B2 would be the one that is the response to the resolutions that you're referring to. Does that item show me complete details, the number of years that we've been funding them, where they get their funding? That's what I'm looking for. I don't believe that was called for in the request, but we can certainly provide that to you. So, I guess to help us during the budget, even though I know the mayor has kept the CBOs harmless, I still think that we have to understand what are our priorities as a commission, what do we want to fund. And in order to make those decisions, we need to understand every single CBO that is funded and where they're getting their money. How much do they get from the federal government? How much do they get from the state government? What have we been funding them? How many years have we been funding them? How many people do they serve? I mean, I know this was a big item of discussion in the last budget cycle, but I can't imagine my being able to make any decisions based on CBO funding without all of that information. So, I am hopeful that within the next month, I'll be able to review that because I think certainly the committee that Commissioner Milian Orbis and I chair would be very interested in drilling down to the absolute detail. Because, you know, there are matching funds as well. I'd like to know how much. This is the process at the state level. We ask, how much matching funds do you have from anyone, right? Who is that? Is it a private foundation? Is it a private organization? Is it federal grants? Is it state grants? I mean, we get a lot of requests at the state level to fund projects. We call through them specifically every single request. And we make decisions based on that kind of information and that data. So, I was hoping that we would be able to get that for every single CBO that has been included in the budget this year. Through the chair. Yes, Madam Mayor. Thank you. I want to indicate that in addition to Ray, we have Dan Wall. Dan Wall has been leading on the nonprofits for, I don't know, 30 years, something like that. And I actually had a large role to play in having him hired by a predecessor because we needed to have somebody who could help us maximize federal and state dollars. And Dan was hired for that purpose. So, if he doesn't know the answer, he will get it. So, if you would allow him just to say. No, Madam Commissioner. The information that you referenced and all of the information that was required in the legislation is in that add-on report 14b2. Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. I just remember that when we fund things, like I've had CBOs say to me, if you don't fund me, then I will lose the matching funds from the federal grant that we have. So, those are important decisions to make because, obviously, we're able to maximize funding from other sources to be able to fund. But I still look at a lot of this as what are the priorities that we want to be funding? What areas? Is it vulnerable populations? Within that, is it elderly and young children? And, you know, I mean, for me to make a decision, it is very difficult based on what I have. But I will look at that item. And if I have any further requests, I will make sure to pass those on to you. Thank you so much. And if I could, one last point, Mr. Chair. We are going to meet with all of you shortly and within a few, couple of weeks, three weeks, to go through in more detail all the questions that have been raised at the various committees this past week. And make sure that you have all the information that you need to make informed choices. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Commissioner from District 8 on 2B5. And I'm going to go ahead and take up Item 14B2 as well together. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the commissioners that requested this report. I believe it was Commissioner Orbis and Commissioner Garcia and Commissioner Gonzalez to allow us to see where these legacy CBO dollars are going and how they're being spent. On 2B5 particularly, there are a number of CBOs that are color-coded with both yellow and red, indicating five or more instances of noncompliance and or receiving a suspension that has since been resolved or any number of instances of noncompliance that merit contract or payment suspension that are not resolved. Are those yellow and red, are those yellow and red coded CBOs included in the upcoming proposed budget? You're recognized. Thank you, Dan Wall, Office of Management and Budget. Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner, the yellow coded were, had a number of findings that as per IO 3-15 required a yellow rating. They have subsequently submitted a corrective action plan that have all been cleared. There were three with a red designation. One of them was able to successfully clear their corrective action plan. One, the contract was terminated for lack of performance. And the third one, they declined the funding this year. And the current year monitoring, because this is looking back a year, the current year monitoring is happening right now. And I'm pleased to report, knock on wood, that we have no suspensions to date so far. Thank you, and I'm glad that you're pleased to report that. I, however, am looking at this report carefully for those that are noncompliant in any way, especially when funding is as tight as it is. I find it fascinating that there would be any noncompliance, much less instances higher than five. And so I'll be taking a close look at those as we move into our budget. But thank you for the explanation regarding what we have included in our proposed new annual budget moving forward. Nothing further, Mr. Chair. Okay, Commissioner Orbis, then D7. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to refer to 2B5, the report card. So in the memo, it doesn't specify what constitutes a violation. So what constitutes a violation for these organizations? And why is the threshold five? How is that decided, that they are allowed to do five violations before they get action taken against the corrective action? All right. So to your first question, what constitutes a violation? They're not in compliance with one of the many terms and conditions in the contract. It could be from they lack programmatic records. They lack financial records. Or it could be something small, like they failed to submit their COOP plan, continuity of operations plan on an annual basis. So it is any instance of noncompliance with the contract. And the numbers that were determined by the board are outlined in AO3-15. Okay. And is it per fiscal year? Yes. The violations, could it be five violations in a year? Or is it every time they apply? How do you keep track of that? It's an annual monitoring. Okay. And then they submit a corrective action plan, and they either clear that or not. And then next year, we go out with fresh set of eyes, and we look again. And it could be anywhere from zero to one. And to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' point also, some of these organizations are smaller CBOs that lack capacity. So there is a lot of work that goes on with a separate team working in conjunction with their contracts officer to provide capacity building, technical assistance on an ongoing basis. But what's the corrective action? Is complying with what they were missing? Is it submitting paperwork? What is the corrective action? It could be all of those things. You didn't do this. Explain why. Give us your plan for correction. And by when are you going to do it? Or you failed to provide me this document, provide the document now. It's a combination of those things. Is there a certain point where you say this organization has not complied, we are no longer going to recommend funding for them? Or are they allowed to continue having violations and correcting them over and over and continue receiving funding from the county? The answer to your question, I think the way you asked it was, no, they're not allowed to just continue on, you know. So is it like three strikes you're out? How is it? We submit a monitoring report to them. We give them an opportunity to submit a corrective action plan. We review that. We may negotiate back and forth with them on that. We may say it's not sufficient, need to provide more documentation. But, no, as I indicated previously, one of the three red was not able to submit a corrective action plan, and so we terminated the agreement for lack of performance. And that was based on that one year. Looking back at that agency, they had a track record of difficulty leading up to that, but it was technically within that one year. And another way of doing it is we will not execute a current year contract until they have submitted that corrective action plan for the prior year, and it has been approved by the county. Okay, so that, continuing the example of that organization, I don't know which one it is, but would they be allowed to reapply in the next fiscal year, or are they done receiving? Do they have to start over, or how does it work? If there was a new solicitation, they would be eligible to apply. They would have to speak to their track record in their proposal. But if it's continuation funding, we will not continue. Even if the board has them on the list, because at the time the list is generated, they may be working through a corrective action plan. If they do not successfully clear that corrective action plan with the county, we would not execute the subsequent year agreement. Okay. So I think it would be helpful, as Commissioner Lopez said, and I think Commissioner Cohen-Higgins said, to have some of that information as we go into the budget season, to have that included in the report or in the information that we're considering looking at these CBOs. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Wall. Commissioner from District 7. Thank you. And look, I appreciate what we were provided. I just have two recommendations very similar to what other folks are mentioning. First, I think we should have a distinction for noncompliance. So if it's noncompliance for not providing financials, that's very different from noncompliance for not sending a form or sending a form late. So I would appreciate if we broke the noncompliance into ministerial and actionable, because that would give us a little bit more information. I'm more concerned with a nonprofit that is not providing financial information or programming information or attendance information than someone who sent a document in late. And to your point, some of them, they're new to this. Some have been doing this for a long time. Some have staff. Some don't. So I think we need to break down the noncompliance. I like the yellow and the red. I think that that works. But within the noncompliance, I would like a type A and a type B form of noncompliance. Number two, I think I understand that it's annual, but one of the things we try to get people to understand here is it's okay to make a mistake. Just don't make the same mistake over and over again. So if someone is making the same mistake over and over again, I would like to know. And so while you're providing us with annual information, I think it would be beneficial for the board to see in an exhibit five years back and flag anyone that has committed the same mistake. Again, okay with new mistakes, but it's the same mistake. So if you have not submitted your financials in a timely fashion for two or three years, I think that's important, even if that got you a yellow. Because that shows a much bigger issue that I think the board needs to consider when providing funding. So those would be my two recommendations. Thank you. All right. Vice Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Wall, for everything you've done and continue doing the great work you do. Just a quick question as it relates to the report. What does it mean in terms of the color coding that we're seeing here? Are we saying that many of the legacy CBOs that you engaged with are in compliance, noncompliance, or is there a mixture? It's a mixture. Green would say that they are in good standing. Yellow means that there were a number of findings that, as per AO3-15, required a possible suspension or hold placed on their payments until they resolved their corrective action plan. And red were serious violations where the suspension was never resolved. Although, as I was so, in this report card, you had 117 organizations, of which 114 received, I'm sorry, 104 received a green rating. 104 out of 117. 19 were yellow and three were red. And of the three, since the time this report was issued, one has resolved it and has converted from red to yellow. One has, the contract has been terminated, and one declined the funding. And thank you so much. So, I asked that question because... Can we lower down the screen in the background? Thank you. I asked that question because, in reviewing this memo, it's almost as if this is a vindication for the CBOs who were pretty much tarnished with the perception that CBOs are taking monies and are not being in compliance with the county's requirements. But it's also a great indicator that, not only should we continue the funding and continue watching over the CBOs to ensure that they do the right thing. But it's also the very reason why I stated before, and I'll say it again, that CBOs in Miami-Dade County should have their own trust fund that would allow for them to receive funding. That they don't have to compete with other buckets and pots of money within Miami-Dade County. When this proposal was first made, I sought to get clarification because of the rumor mill that was consuming the air. That CBOs in Miami-Dade County didn't deserve the money, or they should go out and raise their own fund, or they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. But this is this very memo right here, in my humble opinion, is a form of vindication that should say to the CBOs, not only have you been vindicated by the county's research, not only have you been vindicated by the county's in-depth research, but you've been vindicated because you've been doing the right thing. And I am going to continuously push, and I hope that one day this item becomes part of the law in Miami-Dade County, that CBOs should be allowed to have its own trust fund to fund it. And I think this is a great starting point so we can have that discussion. And thirdly, let me just publicly say to the mayor, I've said it before and I'll say it again, she has been one of the greatest advocates for CBOs. And I thank you for hearing us and ensuring that part of the budget, that they are restored. And what you did, and I can tell you about the meetings we've had with the CBOs, they are truly thankful to you and for you for doing this. But at the same time, I also understand that when the CBOs lack a clear line as it relates to receiving funding, it creates havoc with not only their funders, but whether or not they're going to be able to carry forth the programs that they are doing now into the near future. So I say this report did and said exactly what I figured it would say, that these CBOs are doing well, these legacy CBOs. And lastly, I do not believe at this particular point, FarmShare should be included into the legacy CBOs. I think FarmShare should be a separate item that allows for us to fund it like we fund other items separately, where they don't have to compete for funding. I can never understand why is it that we are asking an organization like FarmShare that feeds the majority of the people who are struggling to survive in Miami-Dade County. We're actually pitting them up against other CBOs for funding. If we're going to fund and take care of the people who are least lost and sometimes left out because of policy, not because of their own volition, but because of policy, we should at least identify the fact that FarmShare should not be competing for funding. FarmShare should have a source of income that will always be there each and every year so they know exactly how many more people they would need to feed in order to make those people whole again as relates to their ability to provide a quality of life for themselves. So publicly, Mr. Wall, I want to publicly say again, thank you. You've always been there. Every time I've called, your work is impeccable, and I just hope this becomes the foundational point when discussions are going to be had that really goes to the quality of life question for people in our community. That's it. All right. So we've got Commissioner Bermudez. I'm just going to, I would like to make sure that I agree with Commissioner Lopez a thousand percent, and I believe that we need those numbers. So I hope that whatever you give her and give Commissioner Orbitz or the committee that you also provided, because I don't have a problem with CBOs. I do think that we have a whole department dedicated to them, which is amazing to me, but the bottom line is you do have to monitor them, make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to do. And I do believe that they should have, as Commissioner Lopez said, we've got to see if they're getting federal, state grants, where's their money coming from. And I think there are good CBOs, there are bad CBOs, like there's good people and bad people and everything. And I think we have an obligation to look at that annually, actually. And I would just like to, whatever numbers you provide to Commissioner Lopez, if you could, and to Commissioner Orbitz, please provide it to the rest of us. Through the chair, the report that we're referencing is agenda item number 14B2. And so, again, we did provide that information. It's about 60 pages. So we're happy to supplement and augment. We're taking copious notes of all the recommendations and suggestions. Thank you. All right, so I'm entertaining a motion now on 2B5 and 14B2. It's been moved by the vice chair, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. On favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show 2B5 and 14B2 passed. All right, I'm going to take up item 8K1. I'm the pooling commissioner for a floor amendment. If the county attorneys can read it, that's 8K1. Chairman Rodriguez moves to amend item 8K1. On page MDC031 in Exhibit C, reduced from $373,430 to $300,000, the recommended amount of recaptured community development block grant commission district funds from District 10. From Miami-Dade County Housing and Community Development for economic development activities. On page MDC031 in Exhibit D, reduced from $373,430 to $300,000, the recommended amount of reallocated community development block grant commission district funds from District 10. From Miami-Dade County Community Services Department for the District 10 Housing Beautification and Rehabilitation Program. On page MDC031 in Exhibit A, remove the recommendation to award $126,570 of community development block grant commission district funds from District 10 to Miami-Dade County Community Services Department for Housing Beautification and Rehabilitation Services in District 10. On page MDC031 in Exhibit A, increase from $408,000 to $508,000, the funding recommendation for Miami-Dade County Housing and Community Development Public Service. On page MDC018 in Exhibit A, increase from $171,990 to $198,501, the funding recommendation for Miami-Dade County Housing and Community Development, Economic Development, Housing Public Facilities and Capital Improvements. And make conforming changes to the resolution and title. All right. I'll entertain a motion on that on my behalf. The Vice Chair moves it. Seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. On favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. All right. Next up, I got an eating commissioner, so I'm going to skip one. I'm going to skip, let's go to 2B8. 2B8, Commissioner from District 5, are you here? Okay. All right. No, Commissioner from District 8 is not here. Okay. So. I can take mine. Which one you have? You want to take? Okay. Let's take up 2B6. I'm here, Commissioner. 2B6, it's really quick. We talked about this at Transit Committee, so I just wanted to mention it again. I appreciate the report on the electric buses, but I really think that we need an update of what's happening with the litigation and the bankruptcy and all of that. We have a discussion item on it, too, so we can. Yeah. Yeah. So, happy to move it. Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner Regalado. Seconded by the Vice Chair. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Show it passed. 2B10, Commissioner from District 7. 2B10. I appreciate the report. The only thing that I think we should consider when we do this report is also evaluating our lobbyists. You know, we changed the way that we hired our lobbyists this last time around, and there were a lot of expectations, and I know that it was a difficult session, but we've had two difficult sessions. So, I think moving forward, we should have like a post-mortem and really look at, you know, how people did so that we can use that to inform our decisions when we choose our lobbying team for the next year. Happy to move it. All right. It's been moved. 2B10 has been moved by Commissioner Regalado. Seconded by the Vice Chair. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Show it passed. 2B8, Commissioner from District 5. You're recognized, followed by Commissioner from District 8. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. So I had a quick question. I noted that we have 525 million in outstanding county debt as of last year. So my question is a couple things, and if you don't have it, you can certainly get it to me. But how long has this debt been outstanding? It's almost a half a billion dollars. Through the Chair, our Director of Internal Compliance. Thank you, Director. Hi, Ophelia Tamayo, Director of Internal Compliance. The credit and collection division falls under me. Actually, the county with the credit and collection team, we collect accounts that are older than four years old usually, and up to probably 30 years old. So it's a very long outstanding debt that we collect on behalf of not just county departments, but also Jackson Health System. Okay, so as a follow up question. So I know that Commissioner Cohen Higgins, we passed a resolution to see if a third party could do better than we're doing. And I noted that you said that only 8% you thought were eligible for sale to third party collection agencies. And then you went on to say that this was based on legal risks, data validation challenges, and impacts to constituent services. And I don't understand that only because there's lots of doctor's offices that have lots of confidential information that always send their receivables out to a third party. So can you expand as to why only 8% could be sent to a third party for collection? Great question. So this report, the way it was directed to the administration was to not include Jackson Health. So this report, this balance, does not include the physicians or the hospital bills. This balance is for county departments. And so with the county departments, there is compliance. It's not just a collection that we do. We work closely with the county departments that have to effectuate compliance along with this outstanding amount. So wait, so the 525 million includes Jackson or does not include Jackson? Does not. Do you have what Jackson's debt is? What is that? About 2 billion. 2 billion? Mm-hm. Okay. So you can imagine why I'm somewhat stunned by these numbers, especially when we are struggling to find revenue streams. So what is Jackson doing to collect its 2 billion? Do you have any idea? If not. So we are in close contact with Jackson and we're actually their tertiary collector. So they have an in house collector. They also have another set of outside collectors along with us as a tertiary collectors for them. So they do have some efforts to collect their own debt. So at what point do we write off bad debt? I mean, you're telling me that four to 30 years. I mean, at some juncture, from an accounting standpoint, and I'm an accountant by training and by trade. I don't understand any of this. So we're actually in conversation with them because there is a statute that has been passed which may limit us collecting up to three years. So we are working with them on that to understand that better. So they may have, they do recall back accounts very often from us when they're not deemed collectible. So we work closely with them. Can you provide me with the amounts that are four years, five years, I mean an aging of these- We can, we can provide that to you separately. Yes, and separate them out between Jackson and Woods County Department. Definitely, we can do that. I would urge my colleagues to recognize- One moment, Commissioner. Yes. Please, can we just have silence while the Commissioner is speaking? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry about that, Commissioner. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just, I think these are very large numbers. Clearly, two billion from Jackson, half a billion for the county departments. At some juncture, we either have to collect this, or we have to write it off. But we can't continue to carry this kind of huge, bad, I mean, collectibles. They're either receivables or they're not receivables. At which point, I don't even know anymore, but I will once I get the aging. So thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner. Are there any, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Lopez, for your line of questioning. When these numbers were first brought to my attention when I asked for this report some time ago, I don't remember the date that the report passed, but it was quite some time ago. I, too, was stunned by your numbers, and I want to be clear, Madam Director, Jackson was excluded because you all advised me that Jackson essentially needed to be excluded, that you all were the absolute final stop for Jackson, and that for whatever the reason, selling Jackson's debt was not something that was feasible at all for you all to do. So to be clear, it's not that I directed you all to exclude Jackson's debt. You all told me that Jackson had to be excluded. And so just to clarify regarding the line of questioning with Commissioner Lopez, and so let's remove the $2 billion, not saying that we should, but assuming that the guidance that I was given is accurate and there's tons of supporting information as to why we would need to exclude the $2 billion. We still have $500 million that is owed to Miami-Dade County, and this report says, as you already articulated, Commissioner Lopez, that only a fractional percentage is somehow valid or viable to be sold to a third party. Now, I know it's been a long time since we have engaged with or solicited or entertained the idea of utilizing a third party service, but it's also been a long time since we've been in the financial position that we are in here in Miami-Dade County, and if you represent in this report that $40 million is viable or legit to potentially be sold on the third market, I'll take it. Like, let's start there. If we can sell $40 million of old age debt for $10 or $20 million, I'll take it, right? Like, I will take it. And so I would like, and to the attorneys, and assuming, obviously, I want to hear from my colleagues and hear if they're supportive of this, this is simply a report. You all do not take the next step to actually go out and find a third party to try and sell that very tiny fractional percentage that you all represent is only the debt that we can sell. But I want you to take it a step further. We need the money. And so what do I need to do, assuming the support of my colleagues, to actually trigger you all going out and making the effort to sell that debt? And again, we're just talking about a universe of $40 million. So just some clarification, while there was $41 million in the market, our understanding is that the return is a penny to five cents on that dollar. So the return in the market could be around $410,000 to $2 million for that $41 million. The county with our collectors that we have in house, I'll give you an example. To date, we've collected about $21 million gross. And that represents the referred amount to us from the departments. And I just want to clarify, those are not our receivables. It is the departments, right? It started at the departments. We don't carry receivables for my department, so it's on behalf of someone else. So I'll just give you an example. So to date, we've collected $21 million of gross. We distribute 70% of that money directly back to departments in Jackson. The original amount was about $42 million. So that represents that we're collecting about 51% of this money that's been outstanding. So that is why we caution, instead of selling it to a third party, we believe that our department could do much better. We can also provide the direct service to our constituents instead of a third party going and trying to collect this money from the residents. The other factor for the departments in the county is that it is not just collecting money. It is also making sure that they are in compliance with whatever it is that initiated a fee or a code compliance that was issued to the resident or the business. So thank you for that explanation, but I am perplexed. You're representing that your department has a 50% collection rate of all debts that you all collect for? So the departments in Jackson, as a collective, as an amount, and I'm just referring to this fiscal year, what we've done to date. Sure, but you're collecting $20 million, not on $40 million of debt. You're collecting $20 million on what aggregate number? That represents about $41 million. So as the accounts come in, they get referred to our collectors, and our collectors handle them just like files on a desk. That is what we do internally. So then what is the number of the $2 billion and the $500 million? What is it that you're collecting on the $2 billion and the $500 million? That is all collected, right? All those files are brought into our system that we manage in-house, and then we allocate these collectible amounts to our collectors, and that's what they do on a daily basis. They reach out. We also send letters. No, yeah. So this is not particularly complex at all. And so you've represented that your collection rate is at 50% and that you've collected $21 million to date. What's being eliminated is the other very important number. I'm just trying to get what that number is. You've represented that there's $2 billion in outstanding debt service for Jackson alone and $500 million countywide. I don't understand how you represent that $21 million is a 50% collection rate. That's what I'm just trying to understand. The math is not mathing. Okay. Please, let me try to explain it a different way. So we are, let's say we get referred on a daily basis 1,000 accounts, right? So on a daily basis, we get 1,000 accounts with an amount attached to it. So those accounts come into our system that we hold in-house, and then we allocate it to our collectors as files, right? These are what you have to collect. So they go through their files, right, on their system. They could have, I don't know, 5,000 files at a time. And then they act on those collections. But our inventory, right, our inventory is that big balance that you see. And so we're actively trying to collect on that inventory that is sitting in our system. So it's in the aggregate. This is, so here's the thing. I'm going to yield the floor to my colleagues. I know that the vice chairman has the gavel. I'm going to yield the floor to my colleagues because I see a lot of, you know, and so I'm going to yield the floor. But I'm not entirely sure that the question that I asked has been answered. And, again, I think my goal has been crystal clear on this for the six and a half, seven, eight, nine months that we've been working on this. And I hope my colleague's sentiment is similar. If we, as an entity, we say all the time the mayor is the CEO of a $17 billion corporation. We use that analogy frequently. If we have this much debt on our books and the director of the department charged with collecting that debt is making a public representation on the record that your collection rate is 50% and that that's $21 million annually, two things cannot be true at the exact same time. That means that the aggregate outstanding debt is $40 million, not $2.5 billion. And I'm not math inclined. I'm a lawyer. Numbers don't necessarily make the most amount of sense for me. But this, at the most basic level, does. And so I've asked you a number of different times essentially the same thing to what I believe is a very simple question. And I'm not sure why I'm not getting a response to what I think is a very simple question. To me, it yields what I think is an even greater need to consider using third parties to collect our debt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. Through the Chair. Madam Chair. Madam Mayor. Just. Madam Mayor. We understand there's been some confusing information here. We're just trying to make it clearer because obviously by mentioning a half a million dollars, she's confusing what the total amount of payments versus what is not collected. So we just need to clarify that. If Namada Apal could just take a second to try to clarify. Namada, go ahead and clarify that. And then Commissioner Gilbert is going to come in on that one after that. Thank you, Commissioner. I think Director Tamayo is saying that of the $42 million that they were collecting, they were able to collect $21 million. Yeah, but why did she mention a half? Hold on. One second. Yeah, let me. Listen, everyone. We're going to do this in order. No, this is an exciting topic. But Namada, please come back really quickly, clear up the air, and then we'll give the mic over to Commissioner Gilbert. So the total outstanding debt for the county is over $500 million, $400 million. Of the $41 million that the staff was collecting, was responsible or making the calls, issuing the letters, they were able to collect $21 million. So that's why she's saying the 50%- This point of order, just stop, please. Hold on, hold on, hold on. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, listen, listen, guys, listen, listen. We're going to do this in order. I get it. We're going to get there. Namada, Namada, come back to the podium, please. Namada, all right, I apologize, but you're going to be fine. Trust me on this one. So, if you can repeat what you stated, and then, again, I'm going to refer to Commissioner Gilbert for questioning, and then we'll go down the line for other questioning. But I want to give you that respect, so let's try that again. Repeat the numbers, and then if someone has questions, we'll get those questions answered. Okay. Of the 42 million, staff was able to get 21 million, so approximately 50%. That's what the director was saying. Excuse me, I do have clarification. Okay. Madam Mayor, give me one second. Let me just go around the board. I'm so sorry. Because it's getting away from us. I just have one number to give you. She's only talking about the parts that are in active collection. The rest of the money, yes, of course, we're still billing. But the active collection part, she's saying, when they assign a case for active collection, they're receiving 50% back. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Commissioner Gilbert. So I'm going to say this like not an accountant, all right? This $500 million that's owed us. But of that $500 million, they're only working on around this year, they're working on $42 million of it. Because they don't have enough people to work on all $500 million at the same time. So what they're working on is what they've assigned is $42 of the $500. Of the $42 that they have assigned, they have collected $21. Thus, they're 50% of collections recovery of what they're actually working on. And when they finish and they clear a new file, then they add another file to it because they're working within the confines of their personnel. And so they don't have 1,000 people to collect the debts. They have a very specific number. That's how you're getting to the 50%. That's how you get there without sounding like that. Thank you, thank you Commissioner, give me one second, District 5, Gonzalez, you're next. So it sounds like if they're going at this rate, they're going to hit $250 million in collections. Which is a great number, 50%. But Commissioner Vicky Lopez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would argue that if you have $525 million, that is outstanding, and you only have so much personnel to do, you know, $41 million right now. Here's the question. Is the receivable amount actually real? Because if it's 30 years old, I'm going to argue, you're probably not going to get it. Which is why I have asked for the aging. Because as an accountant, that's what we do. We look at receivables, and we look at aging, and we say, that's probably now going to be a bad debt. And you write it off as uncollectible. So I don't know that $525 million is actually receivables. I get what Commissioner Gilbert said. It's a great clarification of what they're doing. But until I get an aging, I, as an accountant, can't make sense of this number. And that's all I've asked for. Because now I recognize that we haven't even touched Jackson. And I don't know why we haven't touched Jackson, but, you know, that's yet another story, I guess, to be discovered further on down the line. But currently, I want to know the aging of the 525 million and how it came to be that only 48% were decided that those were the ones. Hopefully, they're the ones that are current, that you think you might get it. Because obviously, with a 50% percentage of success, maybe so. But I'm still not convinced it's 525 million. Thank you, Commissioner. And to the administration, why haven't she received the aging request that she made? I guess that's a simple question. Through this, Vice Chair, thank you. My understanding, that request was just made. Yes, it was. But if you look at the table that's in the memo, we actually do list the average age with the active balances. And then we give a percentage or proportion of what is actually collectible based on the benchmarks in the industry. And so our team is actually exceeding benchmarks for collections of their age. I do agree, and I think Commissioner Gilbert said it very well and eloquently, we're working at capacity. Greater capacity gives you greater opportunity. However, there's a variable in there, which is the age and the likelihood of collecting. So just adding people does not necessarily result in the quality of that product being delivered. And so we have maximized our potential. We are exceeding benchmarks in the area of collections. But naturally, if there were more resources available at an earlier point in time, then some of these things may not get to age. To the point of Jackson, Jackson actually comes to us as their last resort. So they try to do everything they can to collect the debt. And then as opposed to just saying, never mind, it's bad debt, they say, can your team take one last try? As of to date, I believe we've collected about $2 million for Jackson. And so that's bad debt, Commissioner Lopez, that they probably would not have gotten because they'd exhausted their other resources and have seen the capacity of our team to collect with compassion within our values and to help families who might be out of compliance or in a bad spot find resources. That's the difference between us and a collection agency. Thank you so much. Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the Chief for that explanation. I think that her, I think we should probably put forward a motion to deem her and Commissioner Gilbert our official accounting translators. Because that was fantastic. However, to Commissioner Lopez and Commissioner Cohen Higgins's point, I think it would be a good idea. And I think that this is what we're trying to get to. To the Chief's point, there is some debt that perhaps can be deemed uncollectible. And the director made a good analysis because I've seen that collection in the past through the legal field. Sometimes you can only sell it on pennies to the dollar. But perhaps an analysis can be made to that debt that we deem uncollectible. We don't have to expend resources on people that could be collecting collectible debt. And rather, we might be able, to Commissioner Cohen Higgins's point, to sell that uncollectible debt, even if it is on pennies on the dollar, because we're going to get something. Now, the new debt that's coming in, if we're getting a 50% turnaround on that, then we need to expand all resources on that new debt. Analyze the uncollectible debt, and perhaps sell that. I don't want to speak for Commissioner Lopez, but I think that that is where we're trying to go with this. And it would be a great idea to at least get something. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Commissioner Gilbert for clarification. Yeah, my original point that I was going to make on this debt was just a couple of things to the folks who are, we can do whatever the will of this body is, of course, while we vote, we do it. But remember that some of this debt is attached to stuff that people actually need. And so when they use the words like humane collection, what we're saying is some of our debts like people whose water gets turned off for lack of payment. So people need water to live. Sometimes people don't have money to pay for water. And so I think that let's just be mindful when we go forward assigning these things to collection agencies that we're collecting. Some of these collections are against our residents for stuff that they actually need and that they might not be able to pay for by no fault of their own. And I just want us to be mindful of that. And then also, if we go down the road of, you know, bringing in someone to collect on debt, I would prefer them not collect or us not assign debts to them where we have a lever to push. Like, and water is a good example. So we get to turn back on water when you pay. So we know that ultimately, if you're still living in a place that we can actually, we have something we can do to you to actually compel you to pay. That debt is a lot more recoverable. So let's not sell that or sign that out to a debt collection agency. But I just want us to be careful because we do need money. But remember, these debts, a lot of them could be against a group of people who we all acknowledge don't have a lot of money to give. That's it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Commissioner Regulato. Thank you. And I was going to say almost exactly that, Commissioner. The only thing I was going to add is that unlike debt collectors in some of these debts, we have the opportunity to collect more, even though it's over a long period of time, when the individual comes back to open an account, to get a permit, to have service at Jackson. So that's a different situation from if we sell it and we get pennies on the dollar. It does not harm us to hold that debt for a long period of time if what we're going to receive is so much larger than the sale minus the profit that a company is going to make. So I understand how on paper it may look very attractive, but you should consider that as a county, we actually win in some cases by holding it longer because when they come in, they have to pay all of it in order to continue that process with us. And so I think some of that has been lost in the translation here. And to Commissioner Gilbert's point, these are human beings and a lot of these services are necessary services. That being said, I think the administration has clearly heard what the majority of the board believes. And what I would recommend is an exercise for the establishment of what is uncollectible debt. I think that's really what we're talking about, separate and apart from the sale and what you may or may not think is the value of the debt. Should we have a vehicle where at some point we determine it uncollectible and then it could go somewhere, as opposed to us making that determination without the data? So I would recommend that the administration go back and kind of bring us some, you know, parameters for a determination of uncollectible. I think that would make everyone feel a lot better and address some of the concerns. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Bermudez. I'll be brief. I agree with Commissioner Lopez that this huge debt is obviously something that, and I agree with Commissioner Gilbert, that, you know, the administration statement of collecting with compassion is fair. But, you know, there's nothing wrong with combining two things, the work that we have from the department to maybe some collection, that getting something back is, you know, 10% of something is better than 0% of a lot more. And I don't think that every collection agency, and I don't have one and I'm not involved in one, necessarily is, you know, not compassionate. I just think we, there's nothing wrong. I just want the administration to know that I don't, there's nothing wrong with a mix between one and the other. That's all. And I think that's what some of my colleagues were saying. I mean, let's look at what we can get back, even if we don't have to add additional staff, which then there will be a cost, an additional cost. So that's it. That's all I got to say. I hope that we can, and that does not mean that we still cannot be compassionate, even if it's outsourced to somebody else. Thank you, Commissioner. Last, Commissioner Lopez, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So thank you, Chief, for pointing out the chart. I'll give you a perfect example. There are 10 accounts under Public Works that total $64 million that have been 30 years. Now, it's 10 accounts. I'm pretty sure that we could probably say, and I'm sure the administration could tell us, the number of hours they've spent trying to collect them over the 30 years. Right? This is a perfect example of the kind of thing that you would send to a third party, because either they get pennies to the dollar, and we get something, because so far, 10 accounts have been outstanding to the tune of $64 million for 30 years. That's the only point I was trying to make as an accountant, that you have to make a decision whether or not, after all of your efforts for 30 years, you have not been able to collect it, maybe somebody can get us pennies on the dollar. That's what you do. That doesn't mean that you're not being compassionate. That means that for 30 years, 10 accounts have decided not to pay us. And if you take it to a third party, and they can't collect any of it, it's written off as a bad debt. Although I would tell you that no accountant would allow you to carry this receivable on their books for 30 years. There's not an accountant worth their weight in salt that would have allowed that. So I'm just, and I'm looking at the next level, 60 accounts in RER, totaling $15 million, has been outstanding for 21 days. 21 years, again, if you've tried to collect it, and you've done all you could for 21 years, there are 60 accounts that maybe someone can get us pennies to the dollar. That's the only point I was trying to make, because the aging tells the story, and that alone should tell us something. Thank you, Commissioner. Do we have a motion to move this report? One moment. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleagues on the conversation. What is it that we are doing? Are we just going to pass a report? Accepting a report. Are we going to get another report? Just to be clear to the administration, are we going to get a subsequent report? Yes. We will provide the aging report as requested, and I think we'll also clarify some of this discussion, because clearly when it was presented, it wasn't clear, as it could have been. So we want to make sure you have that correct information. But we will give you the aging information. And we will also make a recommendation as to how long we should carry bad debt versus selling it for pennies on the dollar. Absolutely. I appreciate the conversation and all of the comments that have been made. And, you know, these are the conversations we have to make, because as we enter budget season, you know, a number of us have already communicated our intention to take deep dives and these things. But we can't keep saying that we need to make tough decisions while simultaneously saying that we are not willing to collect on $2.5 billion worth of debt. Like, something has to give at some point. So I believe that there is a universe where we can use an agency that engages with the compassion that we require, that we can collect as much of this money in addition to what the department is doing and is doing a great job doing. I'm looking to compliment, not to replace. I want to make that very, very clear. But if your capacity is only giving you the ability to work on $40 million at a time, when we have $2.5 billion, clearly help is necessary. And help is necessary in that department and help is necessary with our budget issues as well. So I look forward to the subsequent report that will be forthcoming, and hopefully we can get some greater percentages of those dollars collected. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you. Commissioner Orbis, please, and followed by Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to add on to what everybody has said, I know you're going to include the aging in the memo in the report that's coming back. Can we also get the categories of the type of debt and the likelihood of collection? I know that that's in your recommendation, but historically, right, what have you seen that you've been able to collect? And over the last 20 or 30 years, if we have that data, if we could also get the type of debt, that would be great. Yes. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez. Yeah, so I'd like to piggyback off what Commissioner Miliana Orbis and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins said. I do appreciate the mayor's comments that they're diligently taking notes on this conversation, but perhaps it would be good for the county attorney's office to give us a more of a narrow instruction so that there's no confusion. And by the time the administration comes back with a report, they're not left with coming up short. So I love the fact that you said we should have categories. Definitely think we should have categories. I want to hear from Commissioner Lopez and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins if they'd like to chime in, but we definitely want categories. We want to identify how long the debt is being or has been uncollected. Perhaps it would be a good idea to include how many attempts have been made so that we can then decide, hey, we're spending X amount of money, and this is where we should stop, and I would like to get the administration's recommendation on debt that they deem, hey, this is uncollectable. This is not something that we're probably ever going to collect. So if anything, this is debt that you should probably consider selling. So those are my two cents. I don't know if my colleagues want to add anything else, but that way we can narrow the scope of what's going to come back to us, and we can all be happy with the results. Thank you, Commissioner. Seeing the item has been moved by Commissioner Lopez and seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, all in favor of moving the report. Can we get the clarification before we vote, though? Give me one second. To the administration, Commissioner Gonzalez made some points and asked for clarification. Were they taken down, or are you? Yes, through the vice chair. Thank you, thank you, thank you. We have summarized that information in the report that you have, but we will also provide you detail, and we are absolutely in agreement that we should look at the debt that is actually marketable, getting it into the market. We also, though, believe that the debt that is not marketable, we should continue what we're doing, which is being the last mile and trying to collect it. We are exceptionally good at collecting the last mile debt that no one else wants, but we absolutely agree with the sponsoring commissioner of the item and yourself, that that debt that we could have somebody do a better job than us, we should explore that. We're working on that last mile. Thank you. And Chief, I would just like to add, because I've seen debt collection through the legal field in the past, there are some third-party companies that would probably purchase unmarketable debt just to be able to say that they're collecting debt from Miami-Dade County. I'm just going to throw that out there. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, did that satisfy your request? Thank you. Thank you. All right, all in favor of the item? All against? Item passes. All right, next up, 2B12, Commissioner Lopez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this has been an item that I have been following since I was in the House. And as you all know, we appropriate funds to begin in the fiscal year, beginning July 1st. And I'm always in awe over the fact that we don't sign contracts for six months with the recipient of funds. So now I'm finding this item that we still have outstanding items from 2024's legislative session. As well as 2025. And I guess I would like to know, I want to be helpful in making sure that monies that are appropriated to the county actually come to the county so that we can do the work that we have requested the legislature to fund. And I'm beginning to wonder how much of this is our fault, because when I talk to state agencies, they'll say, oh, but they didn't provide the right information. And then other times, it's because the state agency hasn't done its job in getting the contracts to the recipient in time. And so I just want to make sure that we don't wait to bring these things to the commission. If there's an item, for instance, there have been appropriations done in the 2026 session. We are now in July, so all of those appropriations took effect on July 1st. I would like to get a report, because I'm already seeing this report, which brings me great discomfort. Because we're expecting to get those funds, and somehow either the state agency isn't doing its job or we're not doing our job. I don't want to look back, although I am going to take this to the appropriations staff in the house and tell them exactly. So I'd like lots of detail here so that I can tell the appropriations staff, this has not yet been, it was appropriated. It has not yet been contractual with the county, so sometimes they can help move the agency along if it's the agency's problem. In the future, I would like very much to know, of all of our appropriations currently, because it took place on July 1st, how long it's taking. And let's not wait until the end of the year to tell me that. Tell me now, as we move along, how many contracts are coming along from the agencies and how many are not, so that I will make the calls. Because I think it's outrageous that we make a request, the legislature appropriates it, and then the executive agency doesn't enter into the contract with us as the recipient of those funds. That was my only point. I'll move the item. Thank you. Sandy, item being moved. Do we have a second? Second by Commissioner Bermudez, all in favor? I did. I just had a brief comment, Mr. Vice Chair. I just wanted to thank Commissioner, because I have been involved in some of those negotiations, which have been extremely difficult with executive agencies. And sometimes there is blame on our side, but there is also a lot of challenge. And I would very much welcome the opportunity to work with you early. Thank you. Thank you. All against? Item passes. Next, we have 3B2. It looks like you again, Commissioner Lopez. So I just had a quick question on 3B2. So I noticed that we entered into a contract with Microsoft licensing, the non-profit licensing, because there was an emergency situation. I'm just curious why we would enter into one for three years, as opposed to a shorter period of time to address the emergency. That's the only question I had of the administration. Through the Vice Chair. Yes. We wanted to make sure we locked in pricing, and that was where we landed with Microsoft to ensure that we didn't have some massive escalation of pricing as we continue to explore different options. Thank you. I'll move the item. Any item being moved, do we have a second? Second by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor? Hold on. Discussion? Actually, I just have a quick question on 3B2. I know that we have had many issues with Microsoft having to work with us on the issues that are specific to what we need for the libraries. What's the plan moving forward though? Because right now this is an emergency contract. And if they're not willing to adhere to the conditions that, by the way, are not just us, it's state law. What then happens? You're recognized. Through the Vice Chair. That's an excellent question. And one, your colleague, Commissioner Gilbert, has asked this many times. The staff has been directed to start looking for Plan B. And so we have found that Microsoft has been difficult at best, particularly around this issue. It was not unique to Miami-Dade County. This was a policy they put in place nationally that changed the definition of a nonprofit that impacted our libraries. And so staff has been directed to look at what we would do in the future. The three years gives us time because, as you all know, we have been using Microsoft for a very, very long time. That will not be a smooth or easy transition if we're unable to negotiate with them and have to find a different resource. Okay. Who was last? Okay. So it's been moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. All right. I'm on 3B5. We're going to move this along. We still have a very, very long pull list. Very quickly. Unless you all want to come into our backup meeting, which is in August, I suggest we start kind of getting through this. I'm good for it, by the way, for the August meeting. 3B5, Commissioner from District 5, you're recognized on the Miami Foundation grant. Thank you. I just wanted a question to the administration with regards to getting grant funding from the Miami Foundation or any other organization to fund the operations and activities of the Department of Defense. The Department of Cultural Affairs. Is this something that has happened before? Is this like a pattern where we get grant money to pay for operations? Through the chair. Recognized. Last year, when we were looking at ways that we could come in with a balanced budget, we looked at how we could reduce possibly through some general fund reduction in arts and culture. At that time, the arts community, arts donors, stepped forward and said they wanted to be helpful. And from that comes this grant. Thank you. I'll move the item. All right. It's been moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Orbis. All in favor signified by saying aye. All opposed nay. Commissioner Bermudez, I'm going to recognize you to retake up 7-D, Kelly Tractor. Okay. Yeah, 7-D, I had made a motion. However, since Commissioner Hardiman is not here and I'd like the full body, and now we, you know, the full body to make a decision on this. And I do not believe, as the attorneys have clarified, because it impacts the CDMP, we have an ability to defer it until the full body is here, to move it along for another deferral until the full body is here. September 1st? September 1st. All right. So show it deferred to September 1st, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor of the deferral signified by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Show 7-D deferred to September 1st. 8-F2, Commissioner from District 12, you're recognized to, on 8-F2. Super Sisters? Yeah, I think this one is the one that I have an amendment for on the, I don't know, the attorneys want to read it or. If the attorneys could please read Commissioner Bermudez's amendment. Commissioner Bermudez moves to amend Agenda Item 8-F2 to substitute the landlord's name in the Mayor's Memorandum, the title, and Section 1 of the resolution, to reflect the current property owner as 4106, Pareto LLC, in place of 3 Super Sisters Corporation, and to substitute the lease agreement attached to the item with a substantially similar lease executed by 4106, Pareto LLC, thereby reflecting the new landlord's name. It's basically a technicality, Mr. Chair, as much as I love the 3 Super Sisters since I have 3 daughters, the reality is that the property that we're actually leasing, the owner's change, it's now 4106, Pareto LLC, so it's just to correct the technicality in between the time period that I guess it started, this would happen. The show Bermudez moving it as amended, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. Seeing no further discussion, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show that item passed as amended. 8K4 and 8N7, Commissioner from District 1, two very separate items, but you're the pulling Commissioner on both. Yeah, 8K4, I think my question was why the PA needs folks' Social Security numbers. I know why we need it and we're sharing information. I don't know why they need it. So I didn't really, I wasn't vibing that portion of it. The attorneys, is there a reason? I believe the property appraiser is here. They're supposed to be here to answer that question. Is somebody from the property appraiser's office in the chamber? Is it here? He's in the building. If you give him a few minutes. Okay, we can come back to it if necessary. Cool. 8N7. By the way, I think it has to do with determining homestead. Okay, let's not. I'll text him. 8N7, Commissioner from District 1. We'll come back to that one. 8N7, Commissioner from District 1, the underline. Oh, yeah. Well, we all know. Like, we don't have to guess about this. Now, I just want to say, I'm going to pull like, I don't know which of you always say give me credit, but give me credit for, like, putting this on the agenda of transportation and getting it out of committee. And to Stacy Miller, our very apt and able director, and Roy, who, you know, they both did their tedious early morning calls lobbying for this item. So, it's before the board, so you all can pass it. I'm going to vote no on this. I understand why it needs to pass, but fundamentally, understand what we are doing. We're giving money to complete an asset that we're going to build that's going to be managed by someone else who's going to use those resources that when they took public money to build it up for people in this specific place. That's what's going to happen. That is what happens in the underline. It is substantially different from the Lutnam. It's substantially different in how it operates. And so, I just want to put that out there because sometimes we wonder why we have areas, haves and have-nots. The haves and have-nots happen in votes just like this when we allocate no extra money. The money is within the contingency of this contract, but I had a problem with the original contract. So, I obviously have a problem now with exercising contingency. You're a no vote. Got it. Thank you. That's going to be my no vote. Move it. Move it. I'm seconded by Commissioner Bastien. Sure. All right. You're recognized, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To, is this, what department does this money come out of? I see the amazing Stacey. Yes, through the Chair, Director of Department of Transportation and Public Works. This comes out of the Department of Transportation and Public Works? Through the Chair. You're recognized. Stacey Miller, Director and CEO of Department of Transportation and Public Works. Yes. Okay. And the total contract value that you are extending this to is $8.2 million? For the CEI, Construction, Engineering, and Inspection Services. Of, I guess, a newer section of the underline? It is an active section of the underline that is currently under construction. I see. And so, this is to complete the construction that's already underway? Correct. Okay. And how much is in your budget, aside from this item, to complete the underline, whether it's under construction or not? This is $8 million to complete that section that's already under construction. How much is in your budget to complete the underline, whether under construction or not? We have an available budget of $2.7 million. $2.7 million, that's all that's left in order to allocate to the underline to finish the construction? We have already come to you with our last extension for construction, and this is our last extension request for the CEI, which is in concert with the approved construction extension. We anticipate no further requests. Okay. Beyond this one and the $2 million that you just discussed? Yes, ma'am. Okay. That's all I needed to know. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. We need a second, but Cien has withdrawn her. So, we need a second by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. So, the item passed, reflecting two no's. All right. Commissioner from District 12, I'm going to call up three WASDE items together. You're the pulling commissioner on all three, all the different items. You may speak on them all together, 802, 803, and 804. I'm going to support them all. I just want to make a comment about the change orders. I do it all the time. I don't know. It's a bad policy, and sometimes it's warranted, but, you know, this always costs us more money. If it's us that make the mistake, then we should know. I think one of these things has, like, 112 trees or something. But we really need to evaluate these contracts, and, you know, I'm going to vote for them, all three. Mr. Chairman, that's it. I just got a comment on all three. Thank you. But it's just bad policy to have change orders constantly. All right. We've got a motion by. I have a quick question. Well, I need a motion on. I'll move it. Moved by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Bastien. You're recognized for a question. I just have a quick question on 804, because the work was completed in 2025, but the payment wasn't issued. We're seeing the change order dated March 2026. Was there a reason why we have over a year from when the work was completed and when WASDE signed the change order? Through the Chair, Jay Fink, WASDE Director. Sure. Typically, when the work gets complete, they're still on a closeout, so there's an awful lot of negotiation that goes back and forth, closing that out. And then once it does get finalized, then it does take a matter of months to actually get it on this agenda through a committee to hear for the vote. I don't have a specific answer as to the exact timeline or what the delay was, but I know that it does take a time. I appreciate that, but I think a year and three months is a little bit more than what we usually see here in terms of closeout. But, yes, I'm happy to support it. But I think we should be mindful of the timing. I know it takes a while to get on the agenda, but I think a year and a few months is a bit much to wait for payment. Thank you. All right. So I have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show 802, 803, 804 passed by this vote. Commissioner from District 12, you're recognized on K-Terminal AP-8. Yeah, okay. I'm going to support it again, but I want to make some comments. This reminds me of the other concession agreement. The airport people are here. I still don't have the answers from the first concession agreement. And, again, let me go through Mr. Redd and Mr. Goldfarb. I'm sure you're watching. And the lobbyists, which I'm sure are watching. One of them was here. I think it's bad policy for this better be a clear, transparent process to award these contracts at the airport. Because it wasn't last time, and I got a problem with it. And I'm going to be watching like a hawk, like white on rice. I'm going to be on you guys because I want to know that the process is fair to the businesses in Miami-Dade County and across the country, if, in fact, it's a national vendor. And it's not particularly for anybody in particular. So that's my comment. I'm going to support it because the sponsor laid it out well. But I do want to make sure that this gets done the right way with clear transparency for all of us, with no surprises. All right. So moved by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Lopez and all that. You're looking to be recognized? What? Another skinny minute? All right. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Bermudez, for the concerns that you expressed. I share those concerns, and I wanted to illuminate the fact that this award, and the airport can correct me if I'm wrong, is an entirely new company that has never been in our airport before, right? So talk about, right, like allowing new opportunity, not having the same cabal, continue to come back to us to occupy spaces. That was, right? So, like, I am with you, and this is the first time that we have offered concessionaire opportunities in a very long time in this county to an entirely new company. So I echo your sentiments, and I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been moved by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Lopez. All in favor, signify by say an aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show that item passing. Vice Chair, on 8P9, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my poll. All right. Would you move it? Sure. Vice Chair moves the item, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. All in favor, signify by say an aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show it passing. I've got 9A5 was released, or no? 9A5 was released, and we passed that already? Okay. I have 11A1, Commissioner from District 5, you're recognized, on the AMI reassessment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to congratulate Commissioner Bastian. She is the Chair of the Housing Committee, and has done an amazing job drilling down on area median income. I'm really grateful to see this item come before us. And I will say that even within my commission district, and I think it's important that we know that the report calls for them to do AMI by commission district. I would almost say you've got to drill down even further. So, Brickell and Little Havana are contiguous communities, and the AMI in Brickell is not the same as the AMI in Little Havana. And as you move around my district, and I'm sure the same goes to your districts, my district is incredibly diverse, and the AMI within my district is really something that I've been struggling with. And so, hopefully, as we drill down for this item by commission district, that maybe we will get maybe census tracts or zip codes, because, honestly, it has been incredibly hard to say that in District 5, the AMI is the same. It is not. So, I look forward to working with Commissioner Bastian as she continues her work leading the discussion on AMI. Thank you, Commissioner Bastian. I move the item. May I be added as a sponsor, please? Yes. Thank you. Well, I mean, I'm no one to say yes, but yes. Sherrod as a sponsor. Thank you. All right. So, we have a motion. We have a second. A motion by Commissioner Lopez. Second by Gilbert. Second. All in favor signify by say an aye. All opposed nay. Sherrod passed. There's someone here from the PA's office. Okay. Thank you for that. May the person from the PA's office approach on 8K4. May the representative from the PA's office approach. Yeah, that would be you. Please say your name and title. Hi. And we have a question for you on 8K4. Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized for Q&A. Yeah, I'm just, I'm trying to figure out over here. No, to your right. To your right. Right here. Oh, okay. Sorry. Oh, this is going to be interesting. My glasses. Okay. You all are, we're going to be sharing, I guess, Social Security numbers with you. Correct. And I'm told that you need that to do what? Okay, so let me start off by saying that, first of all, good afternoon and thanks for waiting for us. It was, you know, we're on our way down. But typically, we do have Social Security numbers. The reason why we're requesting this is because we need to match what we have in existence in our records with what the PHCD can give us and basically determine whether they are in compliance or, you know, not in compliance. So this already, we had in the past this agreement with PHCD since, if I recall correctly, 2013. But since our office became constitutional, so now we need an MOU or a memorandum of agreement. And basically, that's why we're here. It was already approved. And the resolution is there, but we're basically expanding a little bit more to include a couple of extra items. I'm not sure that actually answered the question why you need Social Security numbers. Well, basically. You simply said it's because you always had them. No, no. We have on our records the Social Security number of every individual requesting and receiving exemption benefits. So the Section A provides the voucher, the program, and all of that, and provides landlords and tenants. Excuse me. Give me one second. One second. Guys, can we lower the chatter in the back from staff? We can't. Even us up here on the day, we can't hear the gentleman answer. Continue, please. I'm sorry. So, and then we get this information from PACD, and we can verify the landlords are claiming improperly, homestead exemption, pretending that they're using their properties as homestead properties, when, in fact, they're renting it out through the program. So the only way to identify these individuals and situations is through the Social Security number, because we already have the Social Security number, and besides, it's required by law, by statute. So, it's not the only way. I could think of one way almost immediately. If someone lists a homestead with an address, and that address is also listed on a voucher, you know that there's an inconsistency, and you can do it without a Social Security number. You don't need a Social Security number to do that. That's why I'm asking what you need it for. Right. By law, we have to collect the Social Security number. It's in the statute, 196-011. The Department of Revenue implemented this in 2001. So, we collect the Social Security numbers. It is one of the ways, exactly as you're saying. However, we could risk finding someone improperly because there's mistakes, the names. Sometimes, you know, it could be a mistake with the names or something like that. And the homestead is individual. You know, not necessarily. In a property, it could be like multiple individuals, and the homestead exemption could belong to one of them, not to the whole household. And, therefore, we need to know who's the one, you know, violating, if that's the case, the law. And the best identifier is the Social Security number, which, by the way, as I mentioned before, we already had this with PACD. And the only reason why we're here is because we became constitutional. So, listen, I appreciate your constitutional office now. I appreciate that you've always gotten this. And now it's before us, and I'm reviewing it. And I'm saying I don't know that you actually need it to do what you're saying that you need to do. So, if you're giving them them and it's associated with people who are having vouchers or housing and you want to check it versus someone who's claiming homestead, almost direct line from point A to point B is the actual address. And so, I get what you're saying. Are you telling us the statute requires us to give you the Social Security number? No, the statute requires us to collect the Social Security number. It requires it or it allows it? No, it requires it. So, if it requires it, then that's the only answer. It requires it. But if it doesn't require that, and I'm going to look at the attorneys, and they're going to tell me whether it requires us to give you the Social Security number. No, that's not right. If the statute requires us to give you the Social Security number, you ought to collect it. What I said is that the statute requires that us, the Property Appraisers Office, collect the Social Security numbers before giving an exemption to anybody else. So, what I'm saying is that that's the best identifier for us to determine who's in violation. Because a property by the address could be in violation, but out of many household members, we don't know who's the Social Security number associated with that exemption. I would love to defer this to actually look at this further. It's been moved to defer, seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. All in favor of the deferral, signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show the item 8K4. Refer to the next BCC meeting. All right. I've got 11, 813, and a supplement. I'm going to start with Senator Garcia as not just a pooling commissioner, but the sponsor of the item. Senator Garcia. Mr. Chairman, I think we've seen this item before. The supplement that you have before you was to address some of the concerns that were brought up at the last county commission. This has to do with the truck parking. I know Commissioner Bermudez has serious reservations for it because it's in his district where we're making the amendments to ensure that we don't violate the law, but give flexibility to the administration to ensure that we use the connection of different parcels to meet the letter of the law as it relates to the 10 acres. And when we look back in history, we look at the study that was conducted some years ago where they said, where the administration said that really the only number of acreage that needed to satisfy parking would have been two acres. And obviously we went up to 10 acres for minimum parking. And the reality is, members, that we've had a back and forth. I see this really as a battle between David and Goliath. And this is the issue that we have before you. This is why you see the substitute amendment that is before you to vote it up or down. And I'm sure Commissioner Bermudez is going to have some words to this. Okay. Go ahead. I got a lot to say, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. I have a lot to say. Let's begin by this. Just be cordial. Just be cordial. I'm being cordial. Let's begin by this. These are the records from the court cases that this county has had reference to the particular group that has led to this item. So the narrative that you may have heard is that this is about helping small truck parking operations come into compliance as they are operating illegally because they do not meet the 10-acre requirement. By the way, I want to stress that I was not here when the 10-acre requirement was voted upon. But anyways, this one, and I know that we want to paint it as David versus Goliath, small acreage operators versus large, you know, acreage operators. If this was the only issue, I would not be so vehemently opposed, respectfully. But it goes far beyond that. First, this is an issue that primarily impacts my district. As the item clearly states that it seeks to allow commercial vehicle storage west of the Turnpike and north of Okeechobee Road by aggregating parcels that are at least four acres in size. Second, we would be directing staff to file a CDMP application on behalf of a group of private individuals who are engaging not only in illegal truck parking operations, but who also have numerous egregious environmental violations spanning decades, some as early as 2007. Where are you, Laura Reynolds? Now, the majority of these operations are under multiple consent decrees for environmental issues such as unpermitted underground bay for performing mechanical work on commercial trucks, numerous unpermitted structures that have electrical service, improper disposal of hazardous materials and liquid waste such as motor oil, antifreeze, and holding tanks filled with unidentified liquid attached to mobile homes, paving without permits. Oh, and best of all, this has been done in truly environmentally sensitive wetland areas, not unlike some other areas where we've approved truck parking right by applicants that have appeared in front of us. So why is there no outrage? In essence, we are directing staff to file a CDMP application that will be a text amendment outside the UDB legalizing these illegal operators who have been blatantly engaged in violating our land use, zoning, and environmental regulations. So this is not about equity. If it was about fairness, I'd be in favor of this, but it's not. It's not about fairness or equity. It not only enables bad actors, it legitimizes them. We're sending a clear message to them. Keep doing what you're doing. We don't care. We changed the rules for you. That appears to be what their attorney said before I get into what the judge said. Do you think this is going to encourage somebody who hasn't taken care of these issues since the year 2019 at a minimum to do anything? No. So we're going to instruct staff to pause enforcement, even the legal proceedings, which I'm going to get to in a second. So we're telling the people of this county, those that don't follow our rules, hey, don't follow the rules. And those that invest and follow the rules, hey, it doesn't pay to follow the rules. After all, all you've got to do is go to the Board of County Commissioners, and we'll figure out a way to satisfy it. I would expect the mayor to veto this, but I want to touch upon something that's really, really important, because I've given you a copy of the Honorable Judge Jason Demetrius' most recent hearing. I'm going to start by the fact on his ruling. Instead, she's interested in seeking political favors or changes in the law to allow her to continue destroying the environment and violating clear requirements. Okay? And we had our attorneys there at the hearing. So because her attorney and his or her utmost knowledge said, well, you know, the Board of County Commissioners, they're going to take care of it. And this is a quote from the Honorable Judge Jason Demetrius. From 2019, by the way. Which is the time that 2019, 2021, when things were agreed to, entered into agreements with him, still didn't comply. Again, quoting the judge. The defendant cannot take money for an illegal activity and then simply continue collecting that money while continuing violations and claim that the defendant is in a difficult situation to come under compliance. I'm not going to get into the numbers that were found because there was no difficult situation for payment. Except to say that she seeks to continue collecting money from them so she has no interest in abiding by her own agreements and the county's rules. What a message we're sending. Quite offensively, she denied the county inspector's access in August of 2025 requiring that they take pictures through a fence. This is after numerous violations. That does not suggest someone who is attempting to come under compliance. That suggests somebody who is doing their part to avoid compliance. She failed to send a check for $5,000 to Durham by June 2025. She failed to send a check for $1,000 to Durham by June of 2025. She failed to send a $10,000 check to RER. She allowed asphalt to be used as unclean fill against wetland requirements, Commissioner Regulato, wetland requirements. All of these violations in totality are clearly, all of these violations in totality are clearly and obviously made willfully. She has the money. She has the resources. She has shown no effort. She has shown her interest in obstructing the county's, that's us, ability to investigate and proceed. She has done everything that she can do to delay these proceedings as long as possible. Of course, the court assumes that was to get this to the county commission meeting where she can make an attempt to do a runaround, and that has now failed. So this is not about David v. Goliath, with all due respect to my colleague, Senator Garcia. This is about people who have violated for over seven years, over seven years, insensitive. I wish Laura Reynolds was here because apparently she never talks to me about this. She only comes to talk about other projects. In sensitive areas, and has basically laughed at us and said, no, I'm not going to do what you say. I'm not even going to let your inspectors in. We've spent hours and hours. Our attorneys have had to go to try to make them comply. But this is about, no, I'm sorry. This is about changing the rules. This is not about equity. It's not about justice. If it was, then it'd be a different story. And the quality of life of the people in this county was one of the, I wasn't here again when some of these changes were made. I believe it was 10 acres. And the bottom line is, whether it was 10 acres or four or 15, whatever number it is, there is no way in this world that some of you would stay silent and say, okay, this is a great runaround on our rules and our laws. Because this is what it is. This is what it is. So everybody's going to line up. They're going to come around and say, you know, at this point, if we are going to amend this, I'm not even going to get into the fact, I reiterate, that it is in my district. Because I'm the one impact. The easiest thing for me would be, oh, you know, go along to get along. But like I said the other day, when Commissioner Gilbert, we were saying the early goodbye to him when we honored him the other day, I don't go along to get along. Portraits. No, I know the portrait. But I don't go along to get along. Because this is not about fairness and justice. And think of the message that you guys will be sending. Think of the message. No, he looked good. He had hair on that. Three portraits, but we got it right. Okay, but he looks good on that one. But the bottom line is. If you want to see the first two rounds, they're up on MiamiHero.com. Okay. Well, listen, we're going to end up on whatever that is. Because I'm going to tell you right now, if we do this, we are sending the wrong message to the people of this county. Break the rules. Break the laws. And you can get away with it. So, again, I hope, and I guess they're all gone because, after all, the, you know, I guess they're all gone because wetlands is apparently, I don't know, maybe I'll have to find out what the Everglades Foundation defines as wetlands. But you've got somebody violating our wetlands beyond the urban development boundary. Not only that, but violating our rules, taking our attorney's times, denying our code compliance, our officers from even going in and taking the pictures. And we are going to say, okay, yes. I find that, you know, there was a movie, maybe before some of your time, but it's a great movie about Vietnam called Apocalypse Now. And in one of the scenes, the guy says, oh, the horror. When I saw this, I said, oh, the horror. In my district, with all due respect, somebody comes in and says, well, this is going to be, you know, it's about equity. It's about David versus Goliath. No, it's not. It's not about David versus Goliath. It's about the right thing and the wrong thing. And what's right is right. And what's wrong is wrong. Period. Now, if you guys want to change it, that's fine. But I'm voting no, no, and double no. And you will forever, forever, forever make sure that the attorneys that represent us will never be able to enforce some of these things because the excuse is always going to be the same. I'm just going to figure out a way around it through changes at the county commission. And that, to me, is not the reason I was elected. Again, if it was fairness and equity, I'd be more than happy to say yes. But it's not. And, you know, I'm sorry. It just doesn't make any sense. And on this one, I'm very effusive about it. And up until that triple no, Commissioner Steinberg had concerns whether you were a yes or a no on this. But for the triple no, Commissioner Steinberg wasn't aware. What did you say? Just ditto it. Whatever I say. You always ditto, so I just ditto. Hey, it's getting late. It's going to be, what, 4 o'clock? Look, I understand. I'm going to recognize my colleagues to speak, of course. But I'm sure Senator Garcia may want to kind of speak at the end after listening to everybody again. You know, first of all, I understand what you're saying, Commissioner Bermudez, and I agree with a lot of it. And I think, and I'm not here to defend Senator Garcia. I think we're all big boys, and we could, you know, kind of speak for ourselves. No, no, I know. I'm just, I think the idea of, you know, folks circumventing certain processes and coming to, I mean, that's, we're never going to stop that, right? They hire lobbyists. They come to us. I mean, that's what this body's here for is to kind of legislate on that. You know, the district thing, I can see that. I can also see the argument of this is like a countywide issue, not just, but I understand that at least some sort of co-sponsorship or dialogue should have taken place. I get it. I get it. But I know that, like you pointed out, Commissioner Regalado is anxious to talk about wetlands and all that good stuff. So let's go to Commissioner Regalado. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to echo some of my colleagues' points. I will say this. Well, I appreciate persistence, and you've brought this item many, many times. Last time it came before us, we brought up the point that this particular, that this was being moved by a particular actor, and that this actor had a series of violations. Since then, we have a lot more information, and this is a particularly egregious case. The county commission spent a lot of time with staff establishing a rule. That rule establishes a particular acreage, and also other rules that have to be followed. People have paid a lot of money and gone through a very complex process in order to have truck parking. And now we have this one particular bad actor. And my favorite quote from the judge is that in this case, the defendant is attempting to change the law instead of her conduct. And I really think that that's what this is about. This is a bad actor who has time and time and time again violated our wetland rules. And when we talk about wetlands, I'll just say this. It's important because it impacts the October water line. It's important because this type of complete and total blatant disregard for what should be happening in that area, it hurts our water. So, you know, I understand that they may not agree with the decision that was made, but a lot of people are complying. And why can't this person comply? And what we're doing here is not only giving a bad actor a windfall, we're changing this for no reason. Because we have yet to determine, other than this particular person is short an acre, what the reason is for changing the rules. In fact, the rules were established because of the turning radius and the importance of having a particular size in order for those trucks to be able to get in and out. Now, it wasn't an arbitrary decision. It was a decision that was thought out and made with the industry. And, of course, when that decision was made, there were people left out. And that always happens. So while I understand the chair's point that people are always coming to change the rules, there's always going to be someone that is left out of a regulation. And in this case, it's not just that someone was left out of a regulation and they want us to artificially enhance their property value. This is a bad actor. And just on that point, I hope that this is the last time we get this item, because it's absurd. There's other people that are doing a better job. Durham works very hard and so does RER. And I think the fact that we keep bringing this up and trying to allow this person to monetize their abuse of the system, it's always going to be a no for me on this one. All right, Senator Garcia. If I may. You may. And I appreciate the comments and concerns, and Commissioner Bermudez, you're not that far off, because you know what? In your district, absolutely, there is a lot of illegal parking, and there is a lot of egregious, let me say egregious, you have ace trucking that's out there, you have parking that's out there, you have the rock miners that are out there. So when we talk about wetlands, you can't talk about picking shoes where wetlands are good and wetlands are not. But this parcel is between two properties, two properties that are designated the same, but they have not been able to meet the 10-acreage lot. The whole thing, the whole genesis of this is not just about one individual. I like how we try to turn this about one individual, you know, because they are out there. They're the ones that brought this to me, absolutely. But it's not just because of their failure to comply. The reality is that we have a report before us that says that we need more truck parking. We brought a resolution. I brought an item before us, and we bifurcated, and Commissioner Rodriguez, we made a motion to separate both items because we do need more truck parking. And then now what I've been able to do, based on the suggestions that we, yes, sir, I'm sorry, Chairman Rodriguez, I apologize for that, Mr. Chairman. And Senator, by the way, I'm kidding, I'm kidding, it's not Senator, it has been, it is what it is. And now it's good, we're good, we're good, you win, you win, you win, you win. But the reality is that we need more truck parking in this community. We do need it. And the truck parking that we're trying to go after is to make sure that we help the people that live in my district, the people that live in your district, the people that live in our district to make sure that they can afford a truck parking. We have truck parkings out there that are huge. They are going to cost more money to truck, to park their trucks. Why now? And I do agree with you, Commissioner Bermudez, that they should have come into compliance. This is why I did look into it, and they have removed the asphalt, they have removed the trucks, they are doing the water retention. That's just one parcel. But the reality is that we need more. And when we look at the study, when we look at some of the comments that were made, we don't need them anymore. You know why we don't need any more truck parking? Because it's the big guys that are out there. All these big facilities that are investing all this money in that they don't want to do it over here. What? All of us have been lobbied. Every single one of us has been lobbied. I'm sure every one of us has been lobbied by one side because they have the money. They have the lobbyists. That's who they have. But the reality is, if we look at a study, when we look at the, and by the way, the people that are lobbying you are my friends too. But it's trying to figure out, how do we make this happen? How do we make it work? And the reality is, this study right here, it says the results in truck parking facilities can accommodate a minimum of 20 trailers, two acres per site. Although there has been no, let me see where it is here, all you need with a minimum acreage is the two acres. So it can facilitate it, folks. I get it. I get the arguments that you're making. But the reality is that this is a David against Goliath. It really is. Because when we look at the arguments that have been made, oh, we don't need to do this. Oh, this is, we're giving someone a special protection. We do it all the time when we bring a variance to the board. Every time we bring a variance to the board, we're giving someone a favor, doing a favor for someone. That's exactly what it is. So, look, I know we have been lobbied on this. I get it. I get the issue. But it really is a conscious decision that we have to make on this. And it's whether or not do we go ahead and try to help with someone. Bermudges is absolutely right. But they have met, they have gone back, and they have brought compliance to their property. And just remember, the people that we have out there, we have one to the left, we have a truck parking to the left, and I think maybe we have rock miners to the right. It's simple as that. So, to use the environmental issues where we see all these things that are happening out there, I think it's a red herring. But, Mr. Chairman, I do ask for your consideration on this, and I do appreciate your indulgence on bringing this item forward before this board. And at the end of the day, we do need, I just want to reiterate the part about the truck parking. Folks, we need it more. We need more truck parking. Simple as that. And if we can help this group come into compliance, and we can help it with this legislation, that would increase, and it's not changing the law about the 10 acres. All we're doing is asking, because we're bringing this one person into it, but the reality is that what we're doing with this is saying, all right, so it's 10 acres. Let's give the administration some flexibility as how we meet those 10 acres. And at least one parcel has to be at least four acres. That's what it is. So, Mr. Chairman, I call the question and ask for the vote. Is this, I guess, yeah, you could call the question, sure. I had a question, but it's fine. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. No. No. Can I get a roll call vote? Yep. Call the, you have, I had a question too, and I refrained from asking. Do you really want to ask? Because then I want to ask. All right, roll call, please. I'm sorry? Can you just do the roll call? Commissioner Gilbert. I vote no. Commissioner Gonzalez. No. Commissioner Lopez. No. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. No. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Bermudez. No. Commissioner Cohen Higgins. No. Senator Garcia. No, I'm going to make a motion to reconsider. No, okay. I could do that. No, no, I'll second that one. I'll second it. You should do it. He was drunk. He was drunk. No. No. No. Give me a second to reconsider. No, there you go. That's what you should do. Yes. No, I'm going to vote yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, yeah, I don't want him to be alone. I could change my vote to yes if you don't want to be alone. You just seem so lonely over there. I'm going to support him just to not leave him alone. Yeah. I'm going to support him. Yeah. And don't give me the mean mug face, Commissioner Bermudez. All right. But I'm going to support my colleague, Senator Garcia, so he won't be the only yes. Okay. Good. Vice Chairman McGee. Guys, listen, you know how I feel about this. Either you vote, you're conscious, vote yes or no. I don't take it personal. I think it's just a shame that what's happening here, but it is what it is. Commissioner Gilbert, do I record you as a yes or a no? You can record me as a yes, and I'm going to tell you why. I don't necessarily agree with you, but, Renee, your argument that a variance is basically doing a favor for someone that deviates from the rule, I never thought about it like that. But that's just true, y'all. Now, every time we grant a variance, we're allowing somebody an exception to the rule, a rule that we've established as the best policy for the county. And so I don't necessarily agree with this project being there. I really don't agree with you doing it in his district. I don't agree with that. So, but I think that that was probably the best argument you've ever made in support of something. I just wonder. That was amazing. I just, I know. It was amazing. Like, it was amazing, Senator. It was amazing. It was really good. And it was profound, and it was true. So, we're going to see some votes? So, no, I was like, when I was going to ask a question, I was actually going to talk about the comments that you were making. They can't go through a variance, because in a variance, you're actually following the law. And you're asking us, after you follow the law, and you pay, and you come to a hearing, that's what you do. All right, yes. That's why. Sometimes we do after-the-fact permitting. Yeah, we do after-the-fact permitting, too. We do after-the-fact permitting. And so, like, my point is, my point is that it's not something, I, first of all, I think this is a bad actor. And so, we shouldn't reward this level of bad acting. There's a precedential effect of that that's horrible. But this isn't something that's beyond the scope of something that we've done previously on this board. So, I don't want it to seem like, oh, we've never done anything like this before. Oh, yes, we have. Yeah, we have. So, I just, but I'm comfortable with the, yeah, I'm comfortable with the results. So, very good argument, though. Can you hit me with a yes, you have again? Yes, we have. Hold on. Oh, we've never done anything like this before. Oh, yes, we have. Yes, we have. We have. I mean, so, we, we, we. I'm going to look that up, because I think we have to go back to 2019 to see how many people have broken the rule and still not, whatever. All right, clerk, please continue with the roll call. And, yes, please record Oliver Gilbert as a yes. Motion fails, 4 to 8. Wait, never called my name, but. Yeah, well, you mentioned that you were a yes. Oh, you got it. You're on it. You're on it, clerk. The office is on it. I'm going to call Fernandez Barquino and let him know his office is on it. All right. So, motion fails, but you got, you got more yays than you bargained for. You got more yays than we thought. All right. Congratulations or not. I mean, whatever. It fails. All righty. Commissioner from District 8. Commissioner from District 8 on 14A4. Infill housing. Oh, I, what is this one? This is. Housing. Oh, I think this is an extension, no? Yes. So, to the attorneys, I'm just, didn't we just pass an item on limiting? The extensions? Or was that not? This just seems to be in direct contradiction to the ordinance that we just passed regarding extensions on our infill housing program. So. And I believe that the original allocation on this was in 2019 or 20. It's been six years. I could be wrong. That's why I'm asking the attorneys. So, while she looks it up, I'll just say, Commissioner, yes, I believe it is, as pertains to the ordinance that we passed. This was already in process, submitted through the system. You know, there's like a whole system that we use. This was, I know, in the process. So, that's why I even put it on the agenda. But go ahead and ask, you could answer. Yes, Commissioner. This was originally submitted for March Committee. The ordinance that passed allows two extensions, one year each. This particular item would be the second extension, but the first extension was for two years, and this extension is for two years. And when was the first extension awarded on this particular, or this particular group of parcels? The first extension for this parcel was June 21st, 23, and it expired in March 27th of this year, and they submitted the request prior to that, the termination of that extension. Okay, they submitted the request for the second extension prior to that, yes. Prior to that, yes. Of the first extension. Yes, they submitted that request, it wasn't due to expire until March of 2026, and they've submitted the request in October of 2025. Okay, thank you, nothing further, Mr. Chair. All right, I have a motion by Commissioner, the Vice Chair, second by Commissioner Bastien. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show the item passed. Commissioner from District 7, I have you on 14A2, and then a separate item. I'll call up the next one as you as well, but 14A2, bridge grant application. All right, so would you move it at this time then? Yeah, I didn't pull that. I'm happy to move it. All right, show it moved by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Orbis. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show it passed. Are you a pulling commissioner on Ludlam Trail 14A3? Yeah, I just wanted to say something. I want to thank the commissioner for bringing the item. I know the Friends of the Ludlam have been working very hard on this, and I'm glad to see that there's a path forward. The only thing that I would say is that the Ludlam is also in my district, so I appreciate that we're moving it forward. I hope that we can figure out a way to do it together. I am a little concerned about parks doing it and the timing, but hopefully this will get her done. We've been waiting for the Ludlam for a long time. One of the things that I've mentioned to the groups that I met with is the underlying team is going to be done in October, and it would make a lot of sense to take that team to help with the Ludlam, given their expertise. But if we decide to keep it in parks, so be it. But there is a group of people that have been dealing with a lot of these issues inside public works, and I hope that we take some of the lessons learned from FDOT and the underlying so that we can expedite the Ludlam. Commissioner Gilbert? When you say take the underlying team, you mean take the team or take the concept of the concept? Because if, what do you mean? I'm talking about Irene and the folks that have been working on the underlying. The underlying is done in October, so they have a particular expertise that would be helpful to the Ludlam or any trail. Well, no, I think their general expertise is telling us one thing and charging us a lot more and getting another. I don't want them to do that again, but thank you. All right, so we have a motion by Commissioner Orbis, second by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show 1483 passed. All right, I got 14B1, the WASDE report. Madam Mayor, you'd like to be recognized. Mr. Chair, sorry, I just, on the Ludlam item, I just wanted to thank everybody who came here today to speak on it. I really appreciate all the community members that came out and everybody who's been working on Ludlam for many, many years. I know some of them had to leave already, but I appreciate the great showing that we had from our constituents and our community. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for that comment. Yes, thank you, everyone that came out and supported it. Madam Mayor, on your WASDE report, 14B1 is the item number. Thank you so much. I'm going to defer to the water guy here. Water guy. Deputy Mayor. Is that our Deputy Mayor? Roy Coley. Mr. Chairman, in respect to the hour, I'll try to summarize the report. Roy, I got a question for you. Yes, sir. So, like, Chief Coley rolled off the tongue. Chief Coley. But how do I, Deputy Mayor Coley? Like, it's just... Roy, it just works better. It's a little longer. It's too much. DM. DM Coley. Yeah, directly. DMC. Run DMC. Whatever you say will be the rule. You know, you always got such a light spirit, man. I really like you. I got your back. Thank you. I don't care what they say about you. I know it's a lot. It don't matter what the mayor says. I'm always going to have your back. She clearly loves you. All right. I got my coffee. I got some extra whipped cream on the side. You know, so for the sugar. It's got some mocha. So we're good. You got the floor. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In summary of this item, the bottom line is, about 30 years ago, the Board of County Commission was sued by the federal government and the state government for violation of the Clean Water Act. As a result of that suit, the Board entered into a consent decree with the federal government and the state government committing to a list of projects. However, they didn't fund those projects, and the plan was to fund them yearly as the projects were being executed. We're about two years away from finishing the entire consent order if we're able to continue on our path. We're under federal oversight today. That costs us money every single year that we would like to see ended. And then in addition to the consent order, in 2007, the state passed legislation they called the Ocean Outfall Legislation, requiring us to reduce the use of ocean outfalls for effluent of our wastewater plants. Same thing there. The Board was required by the state to submit a plan to DEP, which they did, committing to compliance, again, without committing the money, saying we'll raise it each year as we need it. So the rate increase that has been proposed in the mayor's budget and has been explained in this report is the amount required to go to the bond market to raise the money for this year's bills. It's a 6% rate increase that will ultimately parlay into a bond yield of $435 million. That's 100% for capital improvements only, no operations money. The department has done an amazing job through cutting positions. Can we quiet down so we can listen to the deputy mayor? Can we quiet down in the back? Staff? Staff, can we quiet down? Because I can't even hear it myself. Thank you. Continue. Thank you, sir. The Water and Sewer Department has done an excellent job cutting costs, eliminating positions, to where they're asking for no increase for operational costs this year. This money will solely be used for raising capital. In the event the board chooses not to approve the mayor's recommendation, we have provided in that report the list of projects that cannot go forward. There's a list of ocean outfall projects, consent order projects, and other capital improvement needs that just simply will have to be delayed or canceled. So we put that in the report. We also have a letter that was distributed to you earlier today from our bond engineer who has reported that this is the minimum amount of increase to support the capital improvement needs. Our bond engineering consultant is also here today if anyone wants to question them about how they helped us to determine that information. We did this in a report. We're happy to return at a later date with a resolution for you to consider voting on it, or we're happy to deal with it during the budget. We will take your direction on that and happy to answer any questions. Thank you for that, Deputy Mayor. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins on a point of order. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Point of order. What is before us is a report. So I'm just trying to understand procedurally what is before us. It's a report asking, making a recommendation for a 6% increase in fees. Is that accurate? It's a report. It's a report explaining the necessity of 6% in fees. It is not an official vote request today. That's why we would be more than happy to return either with a rezo or in the budget process. I see. So right now we're just having a discussion. We're not taking a vote on this. Is that correct? Are you having someone move? If we move the report as listed, it's not an adoption of the recommendation. I want to make sure procedurally that that's accurate. This is for discussion purposes. This is a report only today. We would happily take the direction to come back in a rezo form or just to vote on it during the budget process, whatever the board directs. Thank you for that clarification. All right. Commissioner Bermudis. Deputy Mayor Coley. My question is, we talked about how that consent agreement impacted small businesses, in particular small restaurants, through the fog aspect of it. When we, months ago, we asked to get a report and we talked about getting it done in 90 days, if we could go back. And at that point you indicated that if we needed to get the support, obviously, of the state and the federal government, who I think would be supportive, in particular the small businesses, because our restaurants are having very, very difficult times to open, when are we going to get that report? The fog report, you've been provided a report on fog. Now, there's not been a report on when the feds would consider changing the regulations. Quite frankly, as behind as the federal government is on these applications, we may could finish the consent order and have the whole consent order retired quicker than we can get the answers. But we have people in Atlanta with EPA that have told us they would consider and they would respond to any fog requests that we have. They show what's going to continue to happen in this county that somebody that does Jamba Juice shakes is going to have to pay probably $100,000 to be able to comply with what they have to comply with. So we're basically just going to have to go to Broward County, I suppose. Is that what you're telling us? No, that's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is EPA has indicated that they have an open ear and will consider our asks about changing the fog ordinances, the fog portion of the consent order. What I'm saying to you is we make those asks and we don't get those answers very quickly. It will take time for them to respond as to what exactly we're asking for. I'm suggesting the most important thing we can do is finish the consent order projects and get the whole order lifted because what you're mentioning is just one impact of the consent order that has everyone's hands tied. Correct, but it's impacting a good number of the small businesses in our community. So my follow-up question would be the following. Which one are our vast and sundry consultants can we actually talk to to see if anything can happen with EPA? It's great that you think it's going to be two years. That's fantastic, but that doesn't solve the problem now for a restaurant that's trying to open up in Miami Gardens, for example, that may have to come up with an incredible amount of money and is not going to be able to – and sometimes, as it's been happening, you saw we had a hearing here where even a gentleman from North Carolina who was trying to open a restaurant said, hey, this is practically impossible. I'd rather go to another county in Florida. So I'm all for complying, but that's – we have to anyways. But I think, you know, I think at least – I think we have a fighting chance with the present EPA, number one. And number two, nothing precludes us from making – because you can't amend an agreement as long as the parties agree to do so and still continue with the rest of the consent decree until a couple years down the road when we can hopefully be lifted from this 30-year situation. So I'm not going to belabor the point, but I think I'm going to talk to you personally because I think there's ways we can get this done. And it's really killing the smaller businesses right now, and it's just not a good thing. We agree with you, Commissioner Bermudez, and our Assistant Director of Durham, Rashid, has been leading an effort, cross-department effort, of looking for ways to reduce the cost of compliance as the law is written today and also with seeking relief from EPA. And so I can commit to you that that's active and it's going on now. We can meet and give you separate reports on all the things that he's doing in that space. But it is a good point to highlight that that problem isn't going to go away with EPA as long as we're under consent orders. Through the Chair, I just want to add a point here. So I'm checking whether our federal lobbyists are working on this case. Obviously, we support it, but we don't want to compromise our ability to get out from under this consent decree. But as far as being more active and promoting that change, we certainly will look into that, and I'd like to do that. All right. Any further discussion on the report? So I'll move the report. Okay. And I guess we'll have this back in September. Is that correct? As you may direct, Commissioner, it could either be in September as a rezo or in the budget, however you direct. But to clarify, we would need action on the part of the board to increase the fee. And we also want to note that solid waste, did you mention this, is today the deadline if we were to increase solid waste. I just put it out there. It's not the top. Can it just be like the Deputy Mayor said in the budget instead of like a... Apparently solid waste, we've learned last night from our county attorney, we could only decrease. We couldn't increase it if we held it flat, which is what the current status is, and maybe we could ask them to clarify. So if there were any inclination to address some of the concerns that have been raised about having to cut illegal dumping enforcement and other items, this would be the day to do it, sir. Okay, so... Can we first deal with the water? Let's deal with the water first. I think the water is something that could come in the budget, right? Yes, sir. It could come in the budget or by separate rezo, however you direct. Is it okay for you to move the item just to adopt in the report and then whatever recommendation comes in the budget? Is that fair? I'm looking to the administration. Yeah, I'm looking to them, too. To make sure that we're not jeopardizing our consent decree or what our mission is. If that's the way you recommend, then that's fine. That's how I'll... We had spoke early on with the chair about dealing with a lot of these rate increases without bogging down the budget. That's why we brought these early to you. We're happy to stay on that path and bring it at the next meeting in the form of a rezo, or we can change if you'd rather not have a separate item and go with the budget. We were just trying to keep it from being such a time consumption at budget day. One question. So in order to not tie your hands in either direction today, we've got a little bit of time, is if we just adopt the report and don't direct you to bring it in the form of a rezo or in the budget, is it at your discretion how you'd like to bring it? However you want us to, we will. Okay. So let's discuss it in the best format for this body to discuss when it comes before us next. It is actually reflected in our proposed budget. Okay, perfect. So with that, there's a motion by Commissioner Steinberg to adopt the report, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert, and he has a question. I'm really just confident, Mr. Chairman. Just be mindful that if you include this in the proposed budget, if you decide to adopt something that's not in the proposed budget, something that's not a part of the proposed budget, we're going to be forced with changing it on the fly during our discussion of the proposed budget. That's why the resolution is probably the preferred amount, so that the resolution then allows them to work in what we've said into the budget, a balanced budget. So I'm not telling you all how to do administration. Mr. Chairman, I'm not telling you how to direct them. But if we get into a situation where they put it in the proposed budget at 6% and we decide to do 2% or 3% or 1% or nothing, then you're going to force a recalculation of that budget on the spot. And so I think that, you know, that's probably not in best keeping with us being efficient and, you know, doing stuff expeditiously in budget time. So I think we better, I would encourage us to do the resolution at some point. You're right, but for every year, that happens, though, on different things. I think they're going to be prepared either way to make adjustments that day. But I hear you. Again, by not doing anything, they still can bring a resolution. It's not preventing you from bringing me a resolution and me placing it on the agenda. We'll bring a resolution for your consideration. Awesome. Sounds good. All right, so we have a motion by Steinberg, a second by Commissioner Gilbert, on favor of adopting the report. Signify by saying aye. All oppose nay. Show the report adopted. The report. So he doesn't want to adopt the report. That's his prerogative. All right. So I've got, that's it for the pull list, right? Did you want to speak on the solid waste item or no? We can't, do you want to, yeah, do you want us to? Well, we had an item today. I'm ready. You know what the answer is? No. No, no, no, go ahead. Go ahead. No, I think that what probably we weren't able to clarify before now is that because the solid waste fee is on the trim notice, if we choose to increase the solid waste fee, it can't be passed a day and be on the trim notice. We can go lower or we can stay the same. But since it was determined by this board that we weren't going to raise the solid waste fee, there have been a number of people voiced concerns about what cuts are coming in solid waste. So just in full transparency, we're happy to go forward at your direction, raising it or not. All right. So I'll entertain a conversation of it. Commissioner, go ahead. Just let's. Yeah. Thank you. I know everyone's getting tired. On the solid waste, we really haven't had an opportunity to work on the budget. But the reason that I brought the item as a flat item is because I think that there's certain changes to our solid waste department that we can bring in order to keep it flat. I've been working with my district about making some changes. And I think throughout the budget process, we can show how we can do both things. But we would have to change some of the things that we do in solid waste, but it would not impact our ability to pick up solid waste. So that's the reason why I brought the item for flat. Last year, you know, it was all very polemic. We spent a lot of time on the solid waste fee. It's something that people feel very strongly about. And this year, it'll be the same, but I'm happy to work on it like we did in August. And what I don't recommend is for us to agree on raising it and then to lower it because the trim is what people see. So we had this issue last year, which is why this year I brought it flat. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, procedurally, the item passed flat, correct? We're discussing it because today essentially is the deadline. And you're basically saying you're sending us caution, right? Like today is the deadline should there be a discussion about entertaining a potential increase in the solid waste fees, which is what you all have recommended, correct? That's correct. Okay. So in that spirit, and you all are doing things differently now. I've noticed it. You're doing it on the water and sewer. You did it on solid waste. You did it on waste to energy. You're issuing these memos saying this is what's going to be cut should you not adopt our recommendation, right? And so I would like for you to go over what it is that you all are representing will be cut from solid waste as a result of you all not getting the recommended rate increase that you all are requesting. Because I think we need to understand and digest what it is that you are saying we will or what you all are proposing will be lost as a result of your recommendation not being adopted by this board. And on that note, while you pull that up, Deputy Mayor, I think the same, and I don't want to go back to we passed that already, but the same could be said for the water and sewer memo. Well, that's my point. And I'm going to get to that because the water and sewer memo is extraordinarily detailed. And, you know, again, these are consent decree projects, so, you know, we don't, yeah, we're not confused about the necessity of these projects. But you all are messaging differently. I hear you. I understand. But if you're asking us to essentially reconsider what has already been passed, i.e. a flat rate, speak to us specifically about what will be affected should the rate stay flat. Commissioner, we issued a memo identifying about $4.6 million in cost reductions that we would have to achieve. $1.5 million of that was for illegal dumping and homeless encampment program, $1 million in code enforcement, $700,000 in litter pickup, $900,000 in training and accounting, and $500,000 in capital projects is what we would not do this year at a flat rate. And that is as a result of you all still having funds in your carryover accounts that can't cover those costs? I want to be clear. I'm not sure of the question. Carryover accounts, I mean, we have reserves, but our reserves are woefully low. There is still money in reserves, but we believe our reserves need to be added to considering the situation with EPA now and with FEMA over any hurricanes. We're expected to have a lot higher portion of that cost, and so we think we need to be adding more to the reserves. We did not consider taking money from reserves to pay operating costs. Okay. And what was the percent increase that passed last year for solid waste? I think it was about one. I don't remember the exact number. It was .7, .7%. It was .7. And this year you all are recommending what percent increase? Well, we brought an item to you for 2% because the board had previously directed us to bring an item to you for CPI. So we brought you an item for 2%, even though our actual cost of operation exceeded 2%, we found cost savings and cuts to get it down to the 2% CPI that the board directed us to bring. So we can meet all of our obligations at 2%, anything less, there has to be something cut. Okay, and the 2% represents the $4.6 million that you just ran off the list of items that would be cut? Yes, ma'am. But service, i.e. trash collection and pickup, would not be affected? It would not be impacted. We will continue to pick up trash as we're obligated to do. It's the ancillary services and enforcement that will suffer greatly. And the list that you just enumerated is in consideration of what we've talked about on previous budget conversations, i.e. salaries staying flat going into the next fiscal year? That's correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've accounted for zero increases in salaries in our budgets. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We struggle with this every year, and I understand why we struggle with it every year. But it's not necessarily that complicated, especially when we're bringing back recommendations, when the administration is bringing back recommendations that align with the CPI. If the gas goes up, if the gas goes up that operates the trucks, it costs more to operate the trucks. It costs more to pick up the garbage. We've got to fix that with energy fuel. I mean, if our labor costs go up for the people who operate the trucks that the gas went up in, then the cost to pick up the trash goes up. It is a fee-driven system. I do not want to pay more. But what this board did that addressed years of imbalance was bring the rate back in alignment. I think we did that two years ago. I just caution you all that it might seem like a little bit now, because it is. They're recommending 2%, you want to keep it flat, it's no big deal, it's just 4.6 million. It doesn't seem like that, but it probably didn't seem like that to prior commissions when they did it also. And then the aggregate effect of years of not doing that placed our system in arrears. And then a future commission, it was us this time, it'll be someone else the next time, had to make a really big increase. And so let me just suggest that we're not being, when we do that, we're not being fair to the future rate payers, because they're going to have to absorb the cost at some point for the increase that we did in the increase in gas and labor this year. We're going to have to make up the money at some point. We will trim some down, and then we won't be able to trim anymore. And then we won't want to cut service, because people are used to two pickups a week. And people still want illegal dumping picked up. And people still want code enforcement to go out. And people still want these things. And so at some point, you will have to reduce a service, or you will have to make an adjustment to align a service with a fee. And so I just, we can do whatever the board's pleasure is. I am always intrigued by Commissioner Regalado's proposition of, I can find ways to reduce. And it's always interesting how her and the administration get together. And it always comes back somewhere, like, in between what they said and what she said. But if you set the rate today and you can't go any higher, then whether the CPI ends up being, we know the CPI is something, no matter what the cut is. The CPI is going to be something. So even if they reduce in some areas, they say they've already reduced. And that's fine. Okay. So right now they're asking for 2%, even though it would be technically more than 2%. Let's say she's a brilliant, like, cutter and slasher and making things efficient, and she cuts that in half. It's still 1%, and you've left the system in imbalance. And so I just want us to appreciate the fact that sometimes being fiscally conservative means you actually figure out what the actual cost is and charge it. Because there's a component of being fiscally conservative that means you're being fiscally responsible. So if we really want to be responsible, then we'll say to them, no, we're not going to raise the fee, cut the service, and we'll just take that L with the service recipients, the residents. If we really want to do that, if we really want to say, okay, this is all we're willing for this fee to be, what can you do with this? They reduce the services, and we go from there. The problem with that is every year they will have to reduce the services more. And that's going to be the challenge. So I just, this is more a philosophical conversation that we probably should, and we did address when we told them to bring us back, bring us back the recommendation at CPI. We had, we, I was going to say we should have this philosophical conversation, but we did have this philosophical conversation. And so if, and so now they're bringing us back what we told them to bring us back after they cut, and we're saying we still won't do it. And so that's a challenge that puts the administration in a very intendable situation, and it puts us in a position of having the exact same conversation every year, which I guess might not be insanity, even though they say it is. So, Commissioner, so here's, let's move on. Here's what we can do. We can either move on, or we can reconsider 5N, which is the, what we approved earlier on the flat rate, and have it re-noticed and just re-discuss it on September 1st. They can advertise it and re-discuss it on September 1st, or we can move on with what we just approved today, which is 5N. And I'll recognize you for some final comments, but let's, after that, I'm going to encourage that we just make a decision what direction we want to go in. I get it. And look, and I appreciate that, Commissioner Gilbert, we always have this ideological conversation. I think last year we got the department to make some cuts. I think this year we have to get the department to change the way it does certain things, and it just hasn't done that. I've brought a lot of items asking this department to make more revenue, and it's going to take something like this to have to push them into that uncomfortable space. And the reality is that while we talk about all the things that are going to be cut, look, I was upset when I found out that we ended up paying for the city of Miami's FIFA trash. We were not obligated to do that, you know? It was over $300,000 that we're paying, and I think we should get that back from the city of Miami. And that's one of the things that we need to discuss because, you know, we approved this budget, and then we're given this draconian list of things. There's other things. There's other revenues that we've talked about. There's mini dumps. There's changing the way that we do things, and there is this constant pushback on changing the way that we do solid waste. And I think this year we hold them flat. We make those changes. 4.6 is not that big of a deal, but we're actually going to get some traction on changing how we do this. And I think if we change some of the ways that we do this, we're going to naturally curtail some of that illegal dumping and some of the things that we're spending money on. So I would tell you to hold it. You know, this is very different from water and sewer. This is not a federal issue. This is not a consent issue. This is choices that we're making in solid ways to do things a certain way, and there are other options, and we could do better. We're just not being pushed to do better. All right. So that said, yes, Commissioner Steinberg. Thank you. So I think there are benefits in having this conversation. I think it's important for us to look at all sides of this. Now, I guess this is a question either for the administration or the attorneys. You know, if we were to reconsider the item, and that way in September, I think September 1st, which still gives us time because the trim notice is September 15th, is the deadline, correct? No? It's not the trim, Commissioner. The statute that we travel under to put it on the tax bill is 197-3632. Correct. And that requires the board to adopt it at a public hearing on or before September 15th of the year. Thank you. That's what I mean. It's been a long day, and I didn't get whipped cream and whatever he got. So, yeah. But could we, if we were to reconsider this item, to have the discussion in full in September, could we earmark to Commissioner Regalado's point about changing some of what we see and how we do things and looking at it through a different lens for the future? You know, you mentioned something that is important to me, which is the reserves, right? We don't have any reserves right now. And so we could even, we could go to that CPI and put a portion of that into the reserves that they can't touch until we also figure out a better policy moving forward. And that's something that we can have a real discussion about. So that's my, my, my thought about maybe we stay flat. You know, we're not committing to anything, but I think that's one reason that we could look at as to the reconsideration. All right. So, if I may. Governor Garcia. I guess as a question, because I, we're all on the same page here. We understand everything costs more money, and we have to pay for them. And it's really a little disheartening when we hear that everything keeps on going up, but we keep everything flat and still a cost to, to the residents here of, it's, it's a cost to us that we have to bear. But I agree with you, Commissioner Regalado. There is times that we need to see changes, and we need to ensure that they come back with these changes. And I think that I agree with you that we've asked in previous times to come up with certain changes to the way that we try to monetize and collect trash. And we haven't seen a lot of traction on that. However, there has to be somewhere where we can land this plane on, because we do have to be honest with our, our voters. Maybe if we can get this administration to come back with a different plan from here to September, they can try to monetize that. I'm with you, Commissioner Steinberg. Maybe that's the, that's the path that we go and compressing the time. And by September, they should come up with some plan for us. And that gives us a flexibility to see whether or not, because I've always said, I'm okay with going back to my, I can go back to my taxpayers and to our, and to our voters and ask for an increase when there's changes on our end. I would hate to go back to the voters of Hialeah and District 13 and ask for an increase anywhere where we haven't done any changes. We haven't made any, any movement forward to make sure that we are better stewards of the monies that we collect. So to your point, Commissioner Steinberg, I think there might be a happy medium here. And maybe if you guys can help me articulate that, we can try to do that. So, okay. All right. So are we really doing this? All right. Just a quick comment on Mr. Chairman. Go ahead, Commissioner. So I know that our committee, the one that Commissioner Milian Orbis and I chair, has decided to take a deep dive into all of the departments, including solid waste. Because despite the fact that it is like an enterprise fund, we said, that's the one that gives us the most heartburn. And so we're committed, Mr. Chairman, to doing that in August. Remember, we said we wouldn't take a recess because we really wanted to look at all of the county departments that touch general revenue, but also this one in particular. So we're excited to do that work, and I'm sure that we're going to find ways in which things can change because, you know, we agree things have to be done differently. And unless we explore that, we're not being faithful to our fiduciary duty. Yes. So just wanted to point that out that that's what we'll be doing in August. Okay, so let's – here's what I don't want to do, and it doesn't bind us, but I also don't want to spend another two hours on September 1st unnecessarily. But this is important enough to do it. So what I would suggest is let's take a straw vote. If there's an appetite to change the – and I don't do straw votes often on the dais, but let's take a straw vote to see – reconsidering is one thing. I think we got the votes today to reconsider. Consider, is there – I'd like to struggle to see, is there an appetite to actually increase anything other than a flat rate on solid waste? So by – and we could even do it by raise of hands. Like, who's even got an appetite to even discuss the possibility? You're not even saying that you're going to increase it, but even discuss the possibility of increasing anything over a flat rate for solid waste. By a show of hands, is there anyone that would like to have the conversation? Well, we don't have a report, but if there's no one that's even inclined to hear one out, why discuss it for two hours if at the end it's not going to happen? Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. And I said it clearly on the record that I'm willing to entertain it as long as there's changes from the administration that come to the board. That's the only way. No, no, I understand, and that's why I'm saying, like, you said it right. But there's some that even with the right recommendations are not going to entertain a rate increase. You know, I'm sure that Gilbert might entertain it because he said something, he alluded to it. Renee, you know, Senator Garcia, you've alluded to it. Steinberg, so that's three. I see Regalado shaking her head no. So, you know, by a straw vote, I don't know that, so then I just, I don't see it. It's not that I don't want it, I don't see it. So let's avoid a two-hour conversation on this on September 1st and move on with our life. All right, that said, I have some motions pending, and then we have discussion items. Let's do the discussion items. Let's do discussion items. We'll do motions after. I got motions, too. You got motions. But let's do discussion items. Everybody got motions, but we're going to do discussion items. So 681 is an item I put on the agenda to discuss the EV fleet. And I know we supported an item today, well, we voted on an item earlier today, and Regalado barely spoke but spoke on it for a second. I told her we had a discussion item, and if you wanted to jump in. But, look, I put this on just because I think most of my colleagues who share the same sentiment that it's just, and probably the mayor shares it, too, but that's just frustrating to have the experience of having gone through what we're going through with all of these vehicles that are just parked in a lot. What is it, like 69, right? And maybe, you know, last time I checked, only like three to five of them were operational out of the 69. So, Deputy Mayor and or the mayor, if you can, you know, give us a brief, but give us kind of a summary as to where we are. I may have some questions of the attorneys thereafter, but if you can give us an update as to where we are. And ultimately, the underlying sentiment on my end, anyway, is just, it just hurts to have all of this money parked in a parking lot. I know I'm not alone in my sentiment, so, you know, what are our options? What can we do? Can we sell this for parts? Are we in litigation? Like, give us a lay of the land of where we are today. Some articles have come out, and there really hasn't been a lot of discussion publicly other than, you know, the report or a memo. Can you just kind of bring us up to speed? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Let me provide a few historical facts that are important for the conversation. In 2018, the Board of County Commissioner directed the then mayor to increase its electric bus fleet with a directive to get 50% electric buses. The following year, in 2019, the then mayor recommended to the commission that approved purchasing these Proterra buses. Now, the bottom line is the Proterra buses, the company went bankrupt. They were failed technology. I would go so far to say this is an excellent example of how we need to be more careful buying unproven technologies. Clearly, the commission and the mayor at the time wanted cutting-edge technology, and this turned out to be bleeding-edge. The company went bankrupt. The buses don't run. We have a few still running. Subsequent to that, the county did buy 100 electric buses from another manufacturer, and they're performing outstandingly. They're doing a fine job. So, it's not the fact that they're electric that's the problem. The problem is, is we bought buses from an unproven company, and they failed miserably. Now, where we stand today, more to your question, a lot of these buses were purchased with federal dollars, and the department has requested permission from the federal government to dispose of these in some way to give us some benefits, and we're waiting on their answer. In the meantime, we have a handful of buses running, and we're using the majority of them to scavenge parts off of to keep running. So, yeah, the departments also, the county attorneys, have filed suit on our behalf, and so we're chasing lawsuits to try to recover money. Knowing it's a bankrupt company, I don't know how much we're actually going to recover, but we are chasing that, and we're looking for the feds to let us to dispose of the buses in some advantageous way. And, Deputy Mayor, you said something that's important. So, a vast majority, and I don't know what the percentage is, but was purchased with federal dollars. Needless to say, those federal dollars could have been implemented elsewhere, but at a minimum, we're not responsible for repaying those federal dollars, right? Not that I'm aware of. So, yes, it's still wasted money. We could have invested elsewhere, and a lot of it. We don't have to repay it, right? To be clear, Mr. Chair, we've made the application, and we've had some positive responses, but it has not been formally concluded. Bruce, do you want to add to that? Mr. Chairman, typically, when you get an FTA grant to buy buses, you agree to utilize those buses for the useful life, and that's depending upon the type of bus. It could be 10 years, 12 years, et cetera. We are in the process, and we have applied for FTA to allow us to retire these buses that are not operating prior to what would have normally been the useful life without any penalty or without having to reimburse FTA. We've not received an official response or approval yet. This is a national problem to the commission? Correct. We're not the only city that experienced this, and we have been attempting to repurpose parts, and we could get more detail about that from our director. But obviously, we want to do everything in our power. We also sued the company, as you know. One company went bankrupt. There was a successor company. We were working with them. They did, I think, manage to provide some spare parts and some repairs but not adequate, and eventually we filed a lawsuit. So, and to the attorney, when was that requested of the federal government to forgive that timeline and allow us to dispose of them? I would rely on DTPW to know the exact date of the application. I know I attended a meeting a few weeks ago, but I don't know when it actually was submitted. It could be months. It's been several months that we've been working through the request to relinquish the federal interest on the buses that were funded through the Federal Transit Administration. We've had successful meetings, but we are still waiting for their final response. But it's been several months where we've been interacting with FTA for them to release their financial interest. Can we, and I don't know if my colleagues have any questions on this discussion, but can we, up until some resolution is given, can we receive to the administration, can we receive, I don't know, maybe quarterly reports on it? Is that fair? Quarterly, not monthly maybe, but quarterly reports on a status update. And then I think, and I know that this gets a little trickier, but if we can also receive some sort of safeguard, you know, guardrails for future purchases of this kind so that we don't repeat history. And of course, that's a policy decision. We can direct the administration to go and purchase. I get that. But if, you know, again, in the spirit of, Cohen Higgins pointed out all these memos, can we have, like, maybe a memo establishing recommended guardrails to when we make these policy decisions and these directives up here? I don't want to, I know where Oliver Gilbert is thinking. I know I'm seeing, he's like, don't tell us how to govern. But I think we need some, you know, some measures, right, as to not allow history to be repeated as we move forward with even things outside of transportation and outside of buses and things of that nature. But we are coming up, not coming up, we're here today in a world where, you know, AI is ever-changing, technology, and we're going to be making these decisions of investing in a lot of new technology. We're doing it already, we're going to continue doing it, but we have to do it smartly and with the right consultants and the right expertise. So if we can have some sort of guardrails, I know it's tricky because everything is changing so often, but if that's feasible, Madam Mayor? Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So obviously, as you say, there's a lot of new things always in the marketplace. We're constantly being invited to purchase things, for example, in the solid waste space. Many, many vendors who have new ideas, and as was mentioned by Deputy Mayor, we want to make sure there's a track record. We don't want to be the guinea pigs. In this particular case, going backwards in time, I was a commissioner at the time, the company was a leader in batteries but not in buses. So the company that actually did the buses was rejected, and the company that focused on batteries was accepted. So under our procurement, we would always have experience, track record, performance data, that sort of thing, but I think for sure we can look at those criteria and see how we can beef them up to make sure we don't make mistakes of this sort. Fair enough. Commissioner from District 1, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the spirit of guard wells, I think probably an appropriate standard would be making sure something's agnostic enough that it doesn't, it's not singularly usable by the vendor that we get it from. And so I think that's probably how we need to look at it because I appreciate the mayor's position, but we won't always be in a position where we have to wait for everyone else to test something from around, that's not realistic. It's cool to say, but from our perspective, we will have to be at some point, make some decisions where, hey, we don't know, there isn't 45 counties in the state using something. But if you use a technology that's agnostic in a way or such that if that company goes out of business, you can still actually work with other folks. And so I think about it in terms of like transit, rapid mass transit. We don't know, we changed the LPA for the North Corridor to be elevated fixed guideway, and we've changed it because we wanted it to be open to different technologies, not just elevated heavy rail, because heavy rail is too expensive for us. We changed the fixed guideway, but all the fixed guideway, a lot of the fixed guideway technologies are new technologies. The question then becomes, how could we use them? We use them by building a fixed guideway that allows for other modes. So if that one doesn't work, we can still replace it. And I think that that's how we need to probably approach our procurements when we're looking at that and when we're evaluating that. Not just what it could be used for, but what it's being proposed for, but what it could be used for. And I think that's an appropriate guard rail to look at. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you. I got the vice chair and then the vice chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And look, I think I'm going to borrow a quote from my colleague. I'm not going to tell you I told you so, but I told you so. Years ago when I was in Tallahassee, I organized all the South Dade leaders to push against forcing a mode of transportation, particularly the BRT, against the wishes of the people. I stood there at that podium and we had all the research we needed to convince the commission then that going opposite of what the people wanted was truly going to be a disaster. We stood at that podium. We gave every reason why rail should have been the preferred choice for the folk down South. And also we told them that they should have used that opportunity to connect the North and the South by rail. We thought that we thought that the opportunity that was presenting itself, that at that particular moment, it was ripe. But we were told that we were wrong, that deals had already been made, conversations had already been had, and that the issue was pretty much over and done with. Subsequently, I came back and I said, hey, I think we have more problems with these companies, particularly with their financial stability. And we were told, no, that is just me overlooking some particular documents that I should simply just, you know, mind my own business in so many words. So the coalition in South Dade fought for rail for both North and the South, but we ended up, as we see, we got the BRT and we were told that these electric buses, these buses that have been sitting in this graveyard, that's what we should call it. It's a bus graveyard, were going to be the answer to save the South Dade people from misery. I then took a trip over to the Department of Transportation and had an opportunity to see those buses in its grave state. And again, they were dead then, as they are dead now. So now the question really become, what do we go back and we tell the great people of the South Dade community and the people in the North Dade community about whether or not their choices were overlooked due to other reasons that they had no privy to? Now, why do I bring all of that up? It's because I am sure that there were deals that were never made available to the people, deals that I believe they had information about, they would have rallied against all of this. They would have called for resignations. They would have called for investigations. But we're here now, and I have full faith in my mayor, I have full faith in this commission, that we're going to do the right thing. Because at the end of the day, let's be absolutely clear, we still need the rail down South. I'm telling you, I said BRT was the wrong choice then, and I'm telling you it is still the wrong choice. And I'm telling you simply by looking at what's going on today by these reports, it echoes exactly what I've been saying, that it was an inside job, and it was an inside hit on the great people of South Dade, which also affect the great people of North Dade. And that at some point, we got to come to realize that when we were calling for the rail to the South Dade community, it was less than $1 billion. When we called for it at grade, it was less than $600 million. Now, we're stuck with a possibility of looking at a rail to the South, whether it's at grade or not, somewhere way beyond $3 billion. And now we're dealing with this bus fiasco, buses that are found at a graveyard, that's taking up space, that we can't even get our money back. Information that we readily had available at the time we made the decision to make this purchase. But again, I have full faith in this, my mayor, I have full faith in our commission, that we're going to do the right thing and not allow this debacle to be the face of our transportation system. And I do have a lot of faith in our director who's going to get us through it, because she's always been on the front line doing the right things. And I just wanted to put that on the record. Again, I'm not going to say I told you so, but I told you so. All right. Commissioner Bermuda, is he recognized? I have a question, because I'm a little bit for the attorneys. Do we have to reimburse the federal government on these grants or not? Currently, no. Currently? Yes. Let's eliminate the word currently. The DTPW would have two. Timing the scenarios, yes or no? No, if you either keep the buses for the useful life or get the consent from FTA to retire them early. DTPW has not retired them, but is asking FTA concurrence to allow us to retire them early. If we get that concurrence, we can retire them, remove them, use it for scrap metal. If we don't, either we reimburse the federal government, a prorata portion, or they would either go into service or sit there. So as it stands now, because keeping it for the full life, whatever years you said, 10, 15, whatever, they're not working, but we can keep them. They could be sitting where they're sitting right now, and everybody can take pictures and say, look what a fiasco. So the, but the, if we, if we do get, if we do have that agreement, then we would be able to do whatever we want with it. We can sell it scrap metal. We could sell it to the city of Miami. No, just kidding. One of those, we could do whatever we want with it. Correct? Yes, depending upon the explicit terms of the FTA would give, but in general, if they allowed us to retire or dispose of them, we could do it as we pleased, yes. They would be relinquishing their federal interest, and so then we would be able to do with those buses or parts as we please. Okay, and as far as whatever we do with the litigation or not, and I don't want to impact the litigation, so I preface my comments with that. It's our feeling, our understanding, that the entity is no longer viable. They've declared bankruptcy. Is that correct? The original manufacturer who delivered the buses filed bankruptcy. A subsequent company, Phoenix Motor Transportation, Inc., filed, assumed the contract. Our position is they did not comply with the provisions of the contract, and so we have terminated and filed suit with them. In that contract between the original entity and or the one, if there was an amendment or not, to the contract with Phoenix, was there any clause for liquidated damages if, in fact, they were not able to provide the service that one supposes they would be able to provide? I'd have to look into it, but if, I don't want to give an answer without having the contract in front of me. The issue is not the delivery of the buses. The issue would have been honoring the warranty. The buses were delivered, so I'd need to look and see if there was a specific liquidated damage provision as it pertains to the warranty. And the final question. And parts that also were not provided. The final question would be, do you have a timeline when you would expect the federal government to respond by? I would defer to the director on that issue. We had hoped they would already have responded. They have come back to us with a few more questions that we are answering, so we're anticipating within the next, hopefully, month or two, we get resolution with FTA regarding their financial interest. When did they come back with those questions? I'm sorry? When did they come back with questions? I believe they came back to questions last week, or it was the week before last. But it was within the last two weeks that they requested additional information, and we've been corresponding with them. Fair enough. So, essentially, we were just hoping that after we answer their questions, we will get a final response. But there's always the possibility they might ask more questions, correct? Correct. There is. We had a very productive meeting with them a few weeks ago, and we thought we had answered all of their questions, and we're just waiting for their final response when they did come back to us with additional questions. So, yes, is it possible that they come back to us with additional questions? It's at their prerogative. I mean, the only thing I would say, I don't remember, I think it might have been the chair that said it. I just, we need to be updated, certainly periodically on this. Probably a shorter time period than a longer one, you know, because it's been going on for a while. We're happy to do that. I would amend my request of quarterly and or as new information becomes available, whichever one is the soonest. I have Commissioner Regalado, Gonzalez, and Cohen-Higgins. Thank you. And to follow up with what Commissioner Rubinas was saying, Mr. Chair, I think that we should make a motion to provide air support to the department by tasking our federal lobbyists to make this their number one priority. I think that's what we need to do because, God bless them, they're calling and they're doing their thing, but we have a federal lobbying team and they could help. So, I think every day that we lose on this, we lose an opportunity to do something with these buses. So, I think that we should make this a priority for our federal lobbying team. Absolutely. And I don't think we need a motion for that. I think Jess can just direct our federal lobby team to engage with transportation and do that. So, Jess, please, that definitely should be done, for sure, in collaboration with our director. In terms of the lawsuit, I just have some questions for our attorneys. And, look, I think the disposition from the FTA is important because then we can have the secondary conversation as to what we do with those buses. Right now, without a determination from the FTA, they're just sitting there. And every day they're sitting there, we lose the opportunity to monetize them in terms of selling them for parts or scrap or whatever or fixing them. But in terms of the lawsuit, is there – obviously, a lot of people are involved. We talked about that it's a national issue. But have we looked at how doing anything with these buses could impact that lawsuit? So, my understanding is that that's not the case. These are two very separate things. One thing is the buses and what the FTA allows us to do. And the other thing is proceeding with the lawsuit, correct? Correct. I don't think that whatever actions we're taking vis-à-vis the FTA impacts the lawsuit, either way. Okay. And in terms of the lawsuit, what are your timing predictions for that? How long is – there's a lot of people involved. That's always complicated. But – Litigation was only initiated recently. And I believe their response is due in the next two to three weeks. We just got service. So, we're at the front end of the litigation. So, I couldn't even give you a timetable because there would be a scheduling order issued by the court. And so, I couldn't – I realistically couldn't give you a timetable at this time as to when the matter would be resolved. Okay. All right. And then, I agree that we should take some sort of policy decision. Again, make different mistakes. And while I understand what Commissioner Gilbert is saying as – in terms of swapping out parts, I think there's two separate things going on. Number one is how long has the technology been out there? And it has – was it demonstrated somewhere? And then two, does it – is the technology one where we could swap out parts? Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm listening diligently to all of my colleagues. I think it's important that, you know, in acknowledging this report, there's two things that are happening here, right? And so, the first one is past mistakes. And I think it's important to put on the record that the Proterra issue is an issue that affected the entire United States. The attorneys are not saying this. I am saying this. And it's almost a defraudment that happened upon not only Miami-Dade County, but Broward County, many counties all throughout Florida, Texas, Washington, North Carolina, Michigan, Wyoming. And so, I like the course of action that we've taken with the lawsuit and also with consulting with the federal government to make sure that, one, we're able to recoup some of these funds and able to move forward doing something that works. But, two, that we don't make this mistake again and that we go after this company and all of these bad actors with the furthest extent of the law and all options available. From what I understand, the administration is already in that course, and I do appreciate that. But, now, the second thing that we do have to contemplate is what are we going to do in the future? And I think the chairman was already alluding to that. We do need guardrails. I'm currently working on legislation that I'm putting together to try to put some of these guardrails in place so that in the future, we don't purchase any of these technologies without understanding what the return on investment is. One thing that I did take from the report is that even now, so the parterra issue is totally different. The flyer fleet issue is something else, right? These are buses that are actually working. And so, these buses, I did see that the report said that it's too early to determine the new flyer fleet's overall return on investment. And I think that before we continue to go down this route, I'm not saying that this is not going to work, but we do need to understand what that return on investment is before we purchase more of these electric buses. So, that's my two cents. I am working on legislation to put a pause on this so that we can understand that it does, in fact, produce a return on investment before we move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleagues, and thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez, for working on legislation regarding these guardrails that clearly we need. But this was voted in October of 2019, if I'm not mistaken, and now we're in 2026. To the attorneys or to the administration, has there been any policy implemented by this board since finding out that this Proterra catastrophe took place? Like, has there been any policy speaking to this issue regarding new technologies? It's not a trick question. I'm authentically – to my memory, I have not seen any legislation. Do you all know of any legislation that we have advanced to? Commissioner, I'm not aware of any legislation the board's advanced. What I can tell you is the administration has this issue front of mind, and every time a new technology comes to our SPD, and whether NAMIDA's evaluating it or any of our department directors, we all say, this isn't another Proterra, is it? And if it's not proven, we're not interested. And we take the beating from the lobbyists who call and say, I swear it'll work. We promise there's a way this'll work. If you can't show us where it works somewhere else, we're not interested. But I'm happy to hear that because, as our mayor said, I've said many times before, it's, you know, we get lobbied, obviously, frequently as well. We are too big of a county to be a guinea pig for any company. Yes, we want to implement new technologies, but we can only afford to implement proven technologies. And so I know that there are red flag policies in place that Commissioner Sosa had brought previously. I'm just wondering to Commissioner Gonzalez, if you're working on the legislation, whether red flag type of warnings in procurement would be appropriate here, where there is some sort of a disconnect between what the company is proposing and their actual track record, and more importantly, with the actual spend that's being proposed here. So something to consider because I think a red flag during the procurement process would have been helpful. And then speaking to the procurement process back in 2019, this was competitively procured, right? Presumably there were other companies that bid on this, and somehow this company advanced to the top, received a recommendation from the administration, and passed at the BCC. So my question is, have we since finding out about this done an internal look at either the selection committee, our internal procurement department? I am perplexed as to how a spend as high as $70 million went through a full procurement, and we have not looked at ourselves to say, what have we done here to allow this much money? How did we get defrauded, right? If it happened in other parts of the country, how did a county as large as we are allow for a defrauding to take place to the tune of $70 million? And if the question is, we have not looked at ourselves internally, my ask is a simple one. Please do so. Who were those selection committee members? What was presented to that selection committee? How is it that something like this advanced at that time? And what's even more concerning is that since 2019, there is no policy in place currently to prevent it from happening again. So what is our strategic procurement department doing right now? Not just talking points on a microphone or in news interviews and different articles, but what are we doing right now to make sure that this doesn't happen again internally? So I know that's big, and it was a lot, but simple question. Have we looked at ourselves and our internal procurement department, those selection committee members, and what they did to award this contract then? Because somebody made a ton of money off of this. I'm not suggesting us, but there were lobbyists involved. Somebody made a bag of money, and we are left holding the bag. Have we done an internal investigation of ourselves? Commissioner, through the chair, I think I was the only person on the dais who was here at the time. I do remember very well how heavily this was lobbied. I do remember difficulties in making a decision. And I think it's very fair to say we should look back at the tapes and the records to just see exactly what happened. But let's be clear, we have a very active lobby corps. Obviously, they represent clients, and they come to us with choices. And I take great pride, I have to tell you, in our strategic procurement director, who I appointed. I see other companies. I also separated the procurement department. It used to be part of ISD. I wanted those decisions to go more directly to my office. I did not, because there were decisions that were made that were buried inside internal services. I wanted them to be more directly reporting to the mayor. I think you see the work of Namada Apal and her team. They are very thorough. Changes have been made. The chairman has just put forward first reading items that come out of the strip. We spent, our team spent a lot of time with that body, provided a lot of recommendations. Many of the things that were adopted by that group were things that were already changes that had been made by our procurement department. Our procurement department has won national awards. I don't just mean NACO. I mean national awards. So I think we're really progressing well, and through the work of STRIP, some of the bureaucratic delays and things like that have been addressed, as well as selection committee issues. So more to be discussed, but I do think it would be worthwhile to go back and look at that particular procurement and see exactly how we went down that path. Yeah, thank you for saying that, and I know that improvements have been made since, and I look forward to the STRIP committee items as they move through the legislative process. I will do that. I will look into that also, because I just can't understand how something this large got as far as it did, leaving us in this position. And so I look forward to working with you on that, Madam Mayor. Thank you for answering my questions. All right. Commissioner Orbus, you recognize. I have just a quick question. I know that, so when a car breaks down, we have a mechanic, right? So when these buses break down, do we have a technician that works on them, or do we just report them broken, and we have to wait for someone to come in, like a specialist, to come and maintain them? Commissioner, the challenge with the buses that have rendered them inoperable is they have software issues. That's a specialized proprietary software that no one has access to, and we don't have it, and there's no one to provide that to us, which renders them inoperable. We have lots of software issues, and even the buses that we have, all of the buses aren't the exact same. And there's actually at least two different types of programming at them, so one bus can break in, and parts aren't even interchangeable in that same group of buses. So it's just a complete terrible situation that we don't have the service available. We don't have the software and the technicians, and it's not offered by anybody. Okay. So bus breaks down, it just gets hauled and stored away, and it's... Well, in general, of course, we have a maintenance department. The new flyer buses are being repaired as needed by our mechanics. These particular buses were being repaired initially, but as across the country these buses were failing, it overwhelmed the company. Namada is reminding me that their CEO passed away suddenly in 2021 and was just 44, so obviously the company had a major challenge from that, and there was a lot of customization of the buses. They were over there, they were beyond their capabilities, basically. So we did get repair during the time that they were still in business. When there was a successor company, we did get some help with the repairs, but eventually they were not able to perform, and that is why we filed the lawsuit. So do we have someone in-house that can repair these currently? These particular... Or the old buses and the new ones, or do we need to, every time it breaks down, do we need to bring in someone from their company to repair it? So through the chair. The Proterra buses, and I only really want to speak to them. Obviously, all of our other buses, we have maintenance staff who are well prepared to deal with our other parts of our fleet, and our new flyer fleet, which are under warranty, are being serviced as needed. So in the instance of our Proterra fleet, there were certain components that started breaking down that were under warranty. Parts of those were not things we could readily repair. The batteries were not things that we had the opportunity to repair, and there were gears that needed to be replaced and remanufactured. Those aren't things that we could repair. So with the part of the fleet that is still functioning, we are actually ourselves repairing the buses and making sure that the small number that do function, that we keep them in use. We are pulling other items from other buses that aren't functioning to make sure that we keep a few buses running. But the main components of the buses that were failing were not things we could repair. They had to physically be replaced. Got it. And do we have the expertise to do those repairs, the ones that we are doing? We are repairing them ourselves. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Stacy. All right. So that's that. We're going to get the reports either quarterly or more often as soon as it becomes available. And we're going to establish some parameters and guardrails to protect this from reoccurring. All right. With that, our next discussion item is 6B1. Commissioner Lopez, you are the prime sponsor of this item. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for placing this discussion item on the agenda. A number of advocacy groups have asked me about the implications of Senate Bill 1134, which is affectionately known as the DEI bill, on the impacts on the county. It doesn't take it into effect until January 1st of 2027, but that falls within the fiscal year of our 2026-27 budget that we're currently reviewing and will take up in September during the first and second budget hearings. Those same advocacy groups have expressed concerns about the impacts and have expressed a desire for the county to challenge or to seek further clarification of Senate Bill 1134. I can tell you that it's incredibly vague, and the consequences of being accused of being either misfeasance or malfeasance in removal of office or being sued by any resident of Miami-Dade County causes me lots of concern, especially if you think we might overcorrect or undercorrect, given the vagueness of the bill. I know our county attorney's office has spent a considerable amount of time on this issue. And because of the nature of the bill and the possibility of legal action, it's best that we all limit our discussions regarding Senate Bill 1134, those discussions in public for that reason. If you have any questions, such as I've been working with the county attorney's office for months now since the bill was signed by the governor. I recommend all of you to follow up with the county attorney, but I would ask that you all consider a motion to direct the county attorney to research the county's ability. If you all could quiet down in the back, please. Go ahead, Commissioner. Thank you. Thank you. I would just move to direct the county attorney's office to research the county's ability to challenge the validity of Senate Bill 1134, or alternatively ask a court to clarify how it applies to the county and then brief each commissioner individually regarding the results of their research. I continue to feel very uncomfortable about the law. I've read it so many times, as has the county attorney's office, and it continues to give me lots of reasons to be concerned, especially since the law is specific on promoting it directly or indirectly any activity or program that may fall within this law. And that goes for not only us, but our staff. So I think it's important that we get some clarification, and oftentimes the only way to do so is to go to the courts. Commissioner Gilbert, you recognize? I agree that we need to find a way to challenge it. I just, I'm trying to figure out the best way, so I guess I have some conversations with you. We need to have some questions about what we do here. Are we asking for a declaratory, I mean, what are you, are you asking us to seek a declaratory? To have the county attorneys explore the options of declaratory judgment or a challenge of sorts. Through the chair to the attorney, is that a viable path here? I mean, I have some ways that I think we might want to look at this, but. Commissioner, we have been reviewing this for quite some time, and we do think that there may be some challenges with that approach. We will continue to look at it, if that's the directive of this board, and see what options are available. Our, you know, preference would be to do that and to brief each of you individually so you can understand the issues, not just of any potential challenges to the validity or even seeking clarification, but also we'd like to brief you just on the impact of this legislation on the county's operations on a day-to-day matter. It's our intention to try to reach out and do that with each of you individually in August before the budget hearings, if possible. So, okay. Chairman, may I continue? So, how this works with regards to community groups is that we won't be able to fund some people because of what their name is or what they do, the population they serve. That group will then be adversely affected. The reason why we won't be able to do that is because of the state law. They should sue us. Mr. Chair. I think that that's probably, and we. That's for the state. No, no, I'm saying that the group should sue us. The state would then have to intervene to defend their statute. If they didn't intervene to defend their statute, then we just settle. But let's not say on the record that we want anybody to sue us. Let's walk this back just a minute because this is not our doing here. So, I got you, Mr. Chairman, in a second. So, obviously, there's a discussion item that was requested by Commissioner Lopez. She said her piece. Just be mindful that this may go into litigation at some point. So, be mindful of that. I think it's important for you all to listen to what Jerry just very delicately and eloquently said, which is it is her intent to meet with each and every one of us prior to the budget hearing or whatnot and over the next month and brief us individually as to what recourses we have because I think you're right. I think for us to do some sort of essentially lawsuit to the state of any capacity is not risky but challenging for sure. Mr. Chairman, in what I was going on with, I don't know that we have standing. So, that's the challenge. I don't think we have standing. So, how we get before court is somebody challenging us. Yeah, somebody challenging us. I think that's how we get before the court. All right, Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think it was Dr. King who said that an unjust law is no law at all. And this is one of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation that could have easily passed the legislature. I think there should be a lawsuit against Miami-Dade County. I think every group out there that's going to be impacted should actually come together, hire themselves one of the greatest attorneys here in Miami-Dade County to represent them or find themselves a great firm and sue the county and force the state to intervene similar to what Commissioner Gilbert stated. But I also understand that doing so is going to cause some unease, and I'm prepared for it. The fact of the matter is there are going to be so many organizations out there who we are responsible in part for ensuring that they have a voice in this community. That once this law takes effect and we violate, there's possibilities that some of us can be removed from office because of the teeth that this piece of legislation has. So I simply say to the voters out there, if you're listening, if you feel like you're going to be impacted, if you feel like you need some assistance, I think you should find yourself an attorney. Make sure that you're prepared to go to Long Hall and sue the county and force the state to intervene. All right, so I might end up cutting this short. I think it is entirely negligent for any of us up here to encourage a lawsuit against myself because I am a taxpayer of this county, and that'll be me paying for that lawsuit and anyone else that's a property owner paying property taxes. So Commissioner Gilbert, respectfully, and Vice Chair, respectfully, I think it is entirely negligent to encourage anyone to sue this county, whether it is a philosophical, ideological, personal, or not. Whatever it is, you just, I think it's completely, Senator Garcia, you're not one to correct. I mean, you are not one to correct. I mean, out of everyone up here, that was, that was, that was, I'm not going to say what the word is, but I just, look, I think as I continue recognizing the rest of you, be mindful that we are not encouraging anyone to sue themselves if they're property owners because this is, I mean, it's just completely negligent to say that. I understand the sentiment behind it, I understand that that might be a recourse for us to then turn around and get the state to intervene, but we are not encouraging that to be the case at all. That is not a policy of this board, that is not where we are going with this, but Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Thank you. Commissioner Lopez, I appreciate that there's a lot of organizations that want a declaratory judgment. We would not have standing or an injury. We just wouldn't, because there's a million reasons why we would not put someone in a budget. How would you prove that it is because of this? So it's a very complex thing to throw us in the mix. I think organizations that receive government funding should challenge this law and request a declaratory judgment or our clarification. I think that is the most viable path forward to use us as a way to not pay an attorney by using our attorneys as a whole other different thing. But we would be kicked out because of standing and because of an injury. Now, if we were to fund and then we were removed, that would be a different conversation, right? But to date, we have not even established how we are going to interpret this statute. So I agree with you. We've all read it, and we have a million questions. It was poorly drafted. Respectfully, for those of you who were part of the legislature, one of the many poorly drafted items that comes from Tallahassee. Poor drafting, it seems to be the norm. So not the exception. But that being said, it needs to bear itself out. And there are a lot of impacted organizations that should ask for clarification. We are not the best suited to do that. Presently, we have to evaluate it, take a position based on our risk, and move forward on our budget. But even then, it's going to be very difficult to prove causation. And our injury and our standing are very different from their injury and their standing. So I appreciate that we want to help. But for us, it's a very, very different situation than for those that are impacted. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To kind of echo the concerns, please, please don't sue us. I don't know if you saw our county attorney's face when that messaging was being advanced, right? Like, please, please, to be clear, don't sue us. But I think the message is one that we need to seriously consider. We are the largest county in Miami, in the state of Florida. We are a donor county. And more importantly, we are a majority-minority county. And so it is right for our residents to look to us for leadership on this issue. And they're saying, help us, because this is going to affect us come January. And so I look forward to the conversations that we're going to have. Jerry, I am wondering, because it is a discussion item, I'm not so much interested in speaking of the litigation, because I want to quell and reduce it, not increase it. I don't think that's the path forward for a number of reasons. But why can't we, as a board, through either our Home Rule Charter powers or our own policy-making decisions as a body, create something that allows us to maneuver around this the way that we have in so many other areas? So they passed a poorly worded statute that we can craft our own ways around, potentially. Or can we add something to our Home Rule Charter that speaks to this? I believe today is the deadline to get it on the ballot come November. Is there something that we can write into our Home Rule Charter that speaks to this issue? And if the answer is no, I accept that as well. But I think that when the state passes a law that we are forced to comply with, that we don't agree with, that has consequences in it as great as being removed from office, that we need to get very creative as the largest, most powerful, most diverse county in Miami-Dade, in the state, excuse me, I keep saying Miami-Dade, in this state, to put our heads together to see how we essentially can't protect our community, because that's essentially what our community is asking us to do here, because there are so many that rely on those dollars. So that's a question to the attorneys. I don't know that you have those answers crafted for us as we sit here today, but I have to believe that there is something that we can use via the power of our pen to craft something to help serve our majority, minority, massive county of Miami-Dade. And if you answer and say, actually, the answer is no, then I'll accept that as well and go back to the drawing board. But I want to be clear that I don't support encouraging anybody, community groups, individuals to sue us on this. Our resources are already extremely thin in our litigation and our county attorney's office. We do not want you to sue us. But equally, we are looking at this. We are trying to figure this out. We are trying to advocate and represent our very diverse community. We haven't figured out a path forward yet, but I believe that we're going to be working with you all very closely to achieve that. So is there an opportunity at all, and you may say yes generally or you may say no, to either pen something that in any way allows us to circumvent this. If the answer is no, preemption is preemption. Is there anything we can put into our charter potentially, anything outside of litigation that you all have considered that you might be able to advise us, even if it's generally, and we'll have specific conversations come September or August? Commissioner, we do not believe that the charter is a vehicle for amending or preempting state law at this point in time. However, we do understand the impact that this will have on the county's operations going forward, both from the promotion standpoint as well as the funding standpoint and on the community. And we have been meeting, I would say, at least three times weekly, some days three times daily, because the breadth of this statute is expansive. And it will touch many areas of this county and the way we operate in ways that people maybe have not even considered as of yet. And I just want to pledge to you that we've taken it seriously and we understand what this means to the community. And we will stand ready to speak with each of you about any options that you will have going forward, hopefully before the budget hearing in September. And final question, and you mentioned the budget hearing come September, because what we adopt in September, I understand that this law does not take effect until January 1st, but we're going to pass a budget in September that may or may not include dollars that may be ineligible come January, potentially. So anyway, a lot of questions. I look forward to working with you. But I just wanted to make clear that I share the sentiment that I feel like we have a moral and potentially a legal obligation to stand up as a county on this issue and make our voices as heard as possible in our lack of support. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. And I will say that you actually hit the nail on the head on a point there, which is, and I was waiting to let everyone speak, but I'll say it because it was a good segue. So in addition, of course, to the countless conversations with the county attorney's office on this topic that my office and myself has had, the mayor and myself has had several conversations. We've actually rolled up our sleeves. And I think this is a good moment to allow and to say to the community that we are not just taking what the state passed and the governor signed and blindly implementing it. We are rolling up our sleeves and we are seeing we're digging deeper and seeing what other services these organizations offer, who they help in our community, what larger groups that are not just one minority group. We're not trying to circumvent the law. We're not trying to find a loophole, but we are trying to dig deeper and see what broader service do these organizations help fund and support in the entire community, not just in a minority portion of it, in order to make sure that we can maintain some of these services. The mayor has been an advocate of that since this was even a discussion prior to it being signed by the governor. And again, we've had several conversations where we've actually discussed this. So again, it is not something that we're just blindly implementing something that the state passed. We are exploring all options, obviously jointly with the county attorney's office. We want to make sure that we run no fouls here, and we are in this particular case, and some may disagree with this one word, but we need to be conservative because they are personal repercussions that the state can take on this body, including, I believe, removal is one of them, right? So we're making sure we run no fouls, but that we definitely diligently explore all options on this. Guys, I've got you all written down. We're not changing subjects until you all go, you know, it's like we're not in kindergarten. I got you all. But if, Mayor, if you want to kind of address that because it was a segue to what we've been working on. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and I completely agree with how you've characterized it. And we've been looking out at other counties, other cities, other commissions, other organizations, and what actions they're taking. A lot of people obviously trying to figure out how to proceed. I will, during our budget briefings, share some ideas that I have, not only for nonprofits, but for our own internal operations, ways that we can ensure that community voices can still be heard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. So I've got Commissioner from District 4. Commissioner. When I, okay, this is like a recurring issue. I know, but you don't look to another commissioner. You're not, like, it's either you or you lose your slot. All right. So. All right. I want us to just take a moment. If you look around the room, look around this dais. This bill affects every, in some form, in some capacity, affects every one of us. Okay? So this is such an expansive bill. So you may think, oh, it's some, you know, bill that won't affect me. But it does. But it does. But it does. Because it affects every one of us up here to some degree. That's how broadly this bill is written. And so to that, I want to, first of all, thank you, Commissioner Lopez, for bringing this forward. I think it's important that we have this conversation. And, of course, mindful of the conversation, because we do have our attorneys over there. And we do want to make sure that we put ourselves in the best posture possible. So I just want clarity in exactly what you'd like us to try to resolve today or give direction with. But I will say this. We do need to be careful. I mean, we could look at this through many different lenses. And I, for one, obviously, because there's so much ambiguity, I would take advantage of that ambiguity personally, as they look at me. But I do think that, you know, to have the attorneys explore and come back to us individually, I think, is the smart first step. That way we get as much clarity and we can have these conversations, because if we do end up in any sort of situation in the future, I want to make sure that we, again, put ourselves in the best posture forward. So, Chairman, I do think, you know, if that was a motion, I'll just rephrase it. I'm happy to second that motion. Okay. So is that the motion? It was. It was. Just, I will rephrase it, to direct the county attorney to research the county's ability to challenge the validity of Senate Bill 1134 or, alternatively, ask a court to clarify how it applies to the county and then brief each commissioner individually regarding the results of their research. So, I just, I have an amendment. It's or. May I? It's or, though. It doesn't mean it's not directing them to do it. It's either or. I just want them to research it and then get back to us individually to let us know what our options are. Yeah, because let me tell you my one concern about going with the route of just going straight to the courts is that, well, I don't know, you know, legally what we can and can't do in terms of standing, but that's for them to figure out. But, you know, I don't want to have them determined for us. Like, I'd rather us create our positions. What if there are, like, they're looking at other municipalities and other counties that are also being affected of this up and down the coast, right, of this wonderful state. So, what's going to happen is some may have a more liberal interpretation, and I don't want to then hurt those municipalities or counties because now we're seeking some sort of rendering from a court that may look at it through a more, as the term was used, conservative lens. And we may now hurt maybe some other municipality in the state. So, I don't know. So, I like the idea of supporting the direction to explore. I need to know more about it before. So, maybe you can restate that to say. Okay, then I'll restate it to explore the options available to us of the impacts of Senate Bill 1134 and get back to us individually. Yes. With options including. All options. All options. All options. I would say all options. I think all options should be on the table. All right. We got a motion. We got a second by Commissioner Steinberg. And Commissioner Gilbert, you're still recognized. I stripped you from the recognition because you were talking about lawsuits and stuff. Just get back on it. It was a comma, and you assumed it was a period, and then it was, like, went on, and it was a thing. Okay. So, no, I don't want people to come after us for money, but if we create an application process for, I don't know, our community-based organization funds, money that we give out. And, for instance, some of the groups that are affected, they apply, but we don't accept their application because we can't under the new law. Then they get to seek declaratory judgment against us. That's how you get to court faster. That's just how you get to court faster. We, I appreciate the suing. We can't, like, it's going to be hard for us to sue you all. So, if you want to get to court before January, I think that's, and we need somebody to tell us how to interpret this because, to your credit, Mr. Chairman, there's peril here for elected officials and for public officials who actually go against this statute. So, it's dangerous. I think we create a process because they won't be able to receive funds under that process because of the statute. They look at it, and, I mean, that's, if, now, the other route, I don't know if this is possible. We could also just give all of our money for these type of events to the Miami Foundation and let them administer it. Well, I think it goes further than just CBOs, though. I think it's departments. It's a lot more than just. Well, it's everything, but we could start by doing something like that and see if it's legal. You never know. I mean, we could try doing something like that. Commissioner. I think, but those are options, but I'm not advocating that they sue us for money. I'm advocating that we need to actually get in front of a judge, and that's probably the quickest way for a judge to tell us whether this law is binding or not. I get that. Commissioner from District 12. I'll be brief. I think we have to wait for the attorneys. I'm fine with the motion because we need to get their opinion, but I just want to remind this August body that during the double taxation, triple taxation days of mitigation, and some of you were here, King George, you know who he was, and the commission. There was a bill passed in Tallahassee, bipartisan, signed by Governor Charlie Crist, eliminating mitigation, not making it a one-county issue because that was an issue we had to get around, and the county sued. The county sued over that state law. Eventually, we reached an agreement, King George and I, and mitigation was given up by the county because legally this was state law, but the county went into the courts, first lost at the beginning because it was in Tallahassee, and then brought it down to a local judge here in Miami-Dade County who had once been a county attorney. So while I'm telling you, because I agree with our chairman that these are different times, it's a different world, and I do think that we have to be very smart in the way we deal with the reality of what's happening from Tallahassee, but the fact that if the county has an opinion on a certain law that may impact the county, the excuse that that's not one, it may not be the best option, it may not be the one we want to take, it may not be the one you guys recommend, but in the past, you did sue over a state law that was passed that supported municipalities because I was the one that had to defend the other side and fight you. So I can tell you that's not impossible. Now, whether that will place you in the same position as an organization that maybe is impacted directly, that we can debate. But when you look at these cases, I'm going to ask you, then why the hell did you sue me back in 2006? Because truthfully, that was a state law that was passed, bipartisan, signed by the governor. One last. All right. Vice Chairman, I'm about to call. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, and what I'm about to say is probably not going to be popular, and I don't expect to be the popular kid on the dais. But I am putting the county attorney's office on notice. I'm also putting the state on notice. Hell, I'm putting everybody on notice. As a personal person, not as a commissioner. Correct. Of this body. Correct. If removal is what it's going to take to stop me from urging the folk of Miami-Dade County, especially those in my district, who are going to be affected. If removal is the option of the state, of the governor, then removal is going to have to be. I intend to encourage my residents and those who I support to break this law. Well, I intend, come on, please, please. I intend, if possible, to fund organizations that support uplifting this community. And if that is making some people uncomfortable, well, I believe those in Tallahassee should have thought it through, because now they're making us feel uncomfortable. And I am not going back to my district, facing the people who put me in office, to represent their voice and their position, and tell them that their representative chose to hold on to a seat, as opposed to fighting for their position. So I'm just putting everyone on notice. I intend to encourage a different result from many up here, but I'm not going to back down on this one. This is the one where we put the flag into the ground. All right. We got a motion. We got a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All right. All opposed, nay. Show it passed. Madam Attorney, or Mr. Attorney, there's a motion that I have, and then we're going to go around the room for motions. But can you start with mine, please? I have two or three. What do I have? Are you going to make it to Naranja? What's the plan? Commissioner Rodriguez, Chairman Rodriguez moves to appoint Commissioner Vicky Lopez to the Miami River Commission. All right. Commissioner Gonzalez moves that item for me, seconded by Commissioner Regalado. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Show it passed. Next one. Chairman Rodriguez moves to amend the 2026 calendar of the Board of County Commissioners to cancel the board's July 23rd, 2026 CDMP and zoning meeting. This is this Thursday's meeting. We've got only about like three items. We'll be just sending it to the very next zoning CDMP meeting. It's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by the Vice Chair. Yes. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Show that meeting canceled and the motion passed. Commissioner Bermudez, is that all for me? That's all I have for you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Bermudez, you recognize for motion? Motions or appointments? Yeah, I have three motions. Are you guys going to read one of them? I have two for you, Commissioner Bermudez. Then I'll add the third one. Go ahead. Would you like me to go ahead and read the motion? Yeah, read it. Okay. Commissioner Bermudez moves to direct the county mayor's designee to include the County Commissioner District 12 of the membership of the new airport policy and institutional advisory committee referenced in the mayor's June 30th, 2026 memorandum regarding the feasibility of creating a new airport capable of accommodating cargo, commercial passengers, and general aviation activities. My logic for this is that 90% of the county's commercial and 100% of its other activities, but 90% of the commercial probably is coming out of the airport to not have District 12 on there when all the businesses are in the area are directly impacted by the airport. Obviously, I think District 12 should be included because there's a lot of business in District 12. A good number of them are connected to the airport. So you got the motion? You moved? Yeah, it's my motion. It's just to be included in that, what's it called again? Membership of the new airport policy and institutional advisory committee. All right. So wait, I missed it because I was being spoken to. So what is it that you want to do? I'm sorry? The airport, new airport policy and institutional advisory committee, which is referenced in the mayor's June 30th, 2026 memorandum, which regards the feasibility of creating a new airport capable of accommodating cargo, commercial passengers, and general aviation activities. The district that is most impacted by the airport, with all due respect to District 6, which is also impacted, is District 12. And I think that we should have a position on that board or whatever it is. This is which board? Is this the one I created, the CARES Act, or is this the other one? No. The new airport policy and institutional advisory committee. Yeah, the mayor's. That one no longer exists. That one she dismantled. Nope. Not disbanded. Oh, got it. Okay. All right. That's fine. Yes. That's okay. So it's been moved. It's been seconded by the vice chair. I'd like to piggyback on that and get an appointment as well. Okay. I think that you are. I think you are on it. Okay. Is this too? Wait. Is this? Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Because I was being asked about Naranja meetings and stuff in the back end. All right. Hold on. This is my item, right? No multitasking after 5 p.m. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is where the motions get interesting. No, it was in the committee that. So this is my directive to create. Wait, was this my thing to create? Yeah, there was a mayor's, but it was based on my directive to explore different airport matters, right? Okay, yes. All right. So and then right now the way it stands, the way that we did this is that each member that has an airport has a seat on it. Is that how it, what's the current structure today versus what Bermuda's is trying to add to it? It adds, I believe it does have Tamayami, if I'm correct. It did not have 12. I don't know if 6 was on there. The 6 may be on there. But the businesses in District 12 are deeply impacted by this. Okay, let's. Nothing is being done this very second. Can we table that motion until it comes up, like the next meeting or something? Let me, because I think we still need to discuss with the mayor some details on it. But let's just, it doesn't matter. Everyone can have an input. It's not that. I don't want to happen what Gonzalez just did, which he's already on it. He didn't even know, but he's already on it. But I don't want just, oh, I want it. I want it. Like, it can't become like the Wild, Wild West here. So let's. I'm going to make it easy for you. And that's fine. I'm willing to wait because out of respect to you. But right now, Commission District 7, 8, 9, and 11 are on there. Yes. My argument would be that 6 and 12 should be on there because that big airport, Miami International Airport, impacts these two committees, commissions. I agree that 6 and 12 should be on there. That's the only thing. Through the chair. I just need. Yes, Madam Mayor. I'm very happy to accommodate representation from District 12. Yeah. And 6 at that point. And 6. And 6. Because 6 is the. Yes, sure. 6 and 12. The airport's in District 6. Yeah, 6 and 12. Indeed. So. Sorry, I didn't hear that. Okay. So I'm good with that, too. Let's bring it back. Let's just do it so that we can kind of see what the right structure is. But yes, it's not a big deal. It should be fine. All right, you have more, though. All right, what's the next one? You want to read the other one? Commissioner Bermuda's moves to authorize and direct the county mayor or county mayor's designee to enter into a grant agreement with NBCUniversal or its subsidiary or affiliate. To provide a grant of $1,020,000 in legally available general funds originally allocated for film incentives for the production of Miami Vice 85. Provided the production complies with the terms of the grant agreement. And further moves to authorize the county mayor or designee to execute the grant agreement and exercise the provisions therein following approval by the county attorney's office for form and legal sufficiency. This is a Miami Vice movie. Okay. Don't everybody get excited. And Telemundo, NBC, obviously, would bring production. I think it's 37 days, hundreds of thousands of dollars. The impact would be over $35 million of stuff to Miami-Dade County work. I'll second that. Mr. Chairman. It's been moved by Commissioner Bermuda. Second. Wait, wait, wait. If I may. Clarification. Commission. Okay. So it's been moved. It's been seconded. Senator Garcia. If you're asking to have a part in the movie, we're going to have to discuss that, Senator. There may be a part in a movie where I kill someone after this. I'm going to kill you this, Mr. Chairman. You are the filmmaker, though. You are the film guy. And this is what happens when people don't have lunch. I'm starving. I'm starving here. I'm starving here. I'm starving here. Mr. Chairman, this is part of the film incentive program that we've been working, that we've worked on. Unfortunately, last year, we voted to scale back the incentives. And right now, I think we are, I have been having conversations with these individuals, Paramount, but I don't think this is an appropriate time to move forward with this until we clarify exactly how this incentive is going to work. So I'm going to go ahead and ask Commissioner Bermuda, if you can please withdraw it. I'll withdraw it under the understanding that I've already spoken to him, and I think maybe we can sunshine it together. You can get the part in the movie, because obviously your movie star looks could get you a little bit further. But the reality is that we need to do it quickly, because I don't want to miss the opportunity to bring this much work to Miami-Dade County. We won't miss the opportunity. We've been having some conversations, and I'll make sure we'll get this right back on track. I'm fine. I'm fine doing it with you and getting it together. Appreciate it. Okay, I will say this, though. To me, my go-to guy for film is Senator Garcia, right? As far as he has made himself the film king and actually advocated to even move this under office of the chair. It was moved over without proper funding. But it's here, and now we're dealing with it. But I would, and I see that, because they've reached out to me as well. I'm sure they've reached out to both of you. That's why you're making the motion. That's why you're saying you're having communication. If someone wants to approach the well, if there's anyone here that's requesting this funding. I don't think they're here today. They're not here? Okay. Mr. Chair, just to be clear, I'm just saying they probably came to me not because I have the movie star looks of Senator Rene Garcia. Clearly, clearly. Because District 12 is where Telemundo NBC is at, and that's probably one of the reasons. If they're not here, they're not here. It doesn't matter who it comes to. I just appreciate it. It doesn't matter. I don't partake in that. It's one Miami-Dade County, since we've been trying to work through some issues on this, and I just would appreciate if we can keep this until the next time. I'm fine with that. My only question, and if you're both agreeing to that, I imagine you all know something I don't know, is it's not like a time frame issue, right? Like, there's no, like, timeline that they're going to, like, go somewhere else or anything like that? Mr. Chairman, when you talk about the high incentive film, they always have to film first, and then they get the minus. Okay. All right. I didn't know that. That's why you're my film guy. The only reason I brought him out, Mr. Chair, is because they're, but if, you know, I think they, we could talk to them. As I would tell them, they gave the impression, hey, the quicker, the better, because, you know, how it is with the film. I love when you guys work together. That's fine. We'll work together. All right. Do you have one more motion? I have one more. To the next meeting, are we deferring it? Next meeting? Well, it's a motion, so it's not necessarily the next meeting. You guys could make the motion any time. Yeah, we'll bring it back for the next meeting. We'll talk before. Mr. Chair. Have a little sunshine about it. We can sunshine it. We can sunshine it. We need a little sunshine in our lives. The next one I'll read. I would move that this board, this is an urging, I would move that the board urge the United States Congress and President Donald J. Trump to reinstate temporary protected status or TPS for nationals of Venezuela, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and any other Caribbean or Latin American country for which TPS status was recently revoked. And direct the clerk of the board to transmit a certified copy of the resolution, memorializing this motion to the United States President, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the President Pro Temp of the U.S. Senate and members of the Florida Congressional Delegation, and direct the county's federal lobbyists to abdicate for the foregoing, and direct the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to amend the 2026 federal legislative package to include this item. Now, it's just an urging, but listen, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins said correctly, we are a minority-majority county. Right now, the Venezuelan community and the Haitian community is probably going through the most difficult, difficult situation when it comes to being able to work here. I know the mayor and Commissioner Bastien will be having a press conference tomorrow precisely because so many people are employed here. So, while it's just an urging, I think it behooves this commission to speak out and at least say it's important to us. Okay. All right. So, there's a motion. There's a second by Commissioner Gilbert. Listed as a co-sponsor. Add me on to that co-sponsorship as well. And Lopez as well, Orbis as well, TPS, Vice Chair, yeah, the deus. Let's wrap it up, guys. The whole, what is it? Give me a good mod. I don't want to mess up a word again, Senator. Give me a, the whole, that's what I was looking for. You see? Thank you, Orbis. Thank you, thank you. Someone had lunch around here. Someone had. He packed your lunch, people. Yeah, you packed your lunch. All right. So, there's a motion, there's a second by Gilbert. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All right. You got one. Bermudez, you got one. You're not batting very well, but you got one. I'm very honored to have a sunshine with Senator Garcia. In the sunshine. Because it's going to be wonderful. District 12 and 13 working together. All right. Mr. Chair. Do you have any motions or appointments? I have a motion. All right. You want to read your motion? Yes. I will have the county attorneys, actually. County attorneys. Monica. Commissioner Milian Orbis moves to amend resolution R-1236-25 relating to the amendment to the easement agreement between Miami-Dade County and the Lyon-Miami Terrace LLC for a portion of Ludlum Trail adjacent to Southwood 8th Street, the easement agreement. To further authorize the county mayor or mayor's designee to, in coordination with the county attorney's office, revise the easement agreement regarding the county's defaults and rights to self-cure, provided that the revisions do not result in any additional obligations to the county. I like that. Moved by Commissioner Orbis. Seconded by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. All opposed nay. So the motion carries. Commissioner Regalado, do you have any motions or appointments? Just for the sunshine meeting, Grand Theft Auto is now going to be, the next one's going to be in Miami, so just throw that on your list of things to discuss. It's a real-life movie we see here every day here in Dade County. No, but really, the next Grand Theft Auto, they're picking, like, sites in Miami-Dade County. So, Rene, Grand Theft Auto, pay attention. Hey, what's this whole thing that people are doing, like, Netflix documentaries? What's this whole movement? That's so cute. Was yours about, like, what was the whole yard signs? It's like when you were all, we're issuing the little babies. We're just waiting to see my documentary when they're stealing my signs. So, yeah. All right. Commissioner Gonzalez, any motions or appointments? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Steinberg? No, I will say, though, Commissioner Bermudez, I know that one year ago tomorrow. So we're so happy you're with us, and we do like you, believe it or not. What's the one-year anniversary tomorrow? It was one year ago tomorrow that he had his health issue. You know what? It's funny you bring that up, and we're all blessed that you're here with us, of course. But, you know, you really came back a change, man, and I love it. I love it. You are the funniest member of this dais, and I mean that. I mean, you just give zero cares. You give zero cares, and you just say what's on your mind, and I love it. I couldn't eat it up more. I'm digging it. Commissioner Gilbert, motions or appointments? I have a motion and an appointment. They can go ahead and read them for me. Let's do it. With respect to the following developers that have been conveyed certain properties through the Miami-Dade County Infill Housing Initiative Program, Commissioner Gilbert moves consistent with Ordinance 21-80 to increase the maximum sales price from the $205,000 to the current maximum sales price authorized pursuant to Ordinance 21-80 for homes that are constructed and sold to qualified households. Through and in accordance with the infill housing program for the lots listed in the motion that was distributed by the clerk and is on file, and reflects the four folios for 34 Ways Foundation and 11 folios for Palmetto Homes. Commissioner Gilbert moves to one, authorize the chairperson or vice chairperson of this board pursuant to section 125.411 Florida statutes to execute amended and restated deeds, amended deeds, to the developers identified herein for the properties identified herein, following approval by the county attorney's office in order to effectuate the sales price increase. Two, authorize the county mayor or county mayors designate to take all actions necessary to exercise any and all rights set forth in the amended deeds, including but not limited to exercising the county's option to enforce its reversionary interest after conducting all due diligence, title searches, and environmental issues. And three, direct the county mayor or county mayors designate to provide copies of the recorded and amended deeds to the property appraiser, record and amended deeds in the public records, and provide copies of the amended deeds to the clerk of the board. All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Gilbert, a second by Commissioner Bermudez. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay, we got an appointment. Yes, I'd like to appoint John Williams to the commission on disability issues. All right, we got a motion by Commissioner Gilbert for an appointment. Mr. Williams to the disability commission, seconded by Senator Garcia. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. And any motion? Senator, hold on, just one statement. And I'm kind of like butting my not business into something that's not my business, but sort of our business. We have an Aranja Lake CRA meeting that starts in five minutes. None of us are going to make it in five minutes. I think it's unfair to have residents waiting over 40 minutes, 50 minutes for us to get down south. If the two co-chairs, or it's more, it's probably close to an hour. I don't know if that meeting can be canceled by this body. It's a whole different body that scheduled that meeting. It's not us, and that was made clear in the last meeting, to the attorneys and, of course, the co-chairs, Vice Chair McGee and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Is that something that we can cancel from this dais or reschedule? Reschedule. I'm using the wrong. I'm surprised Senator Garcia didn't correct my terminology. It was just one. Rescheduling. I'm logical. But I don't think we can do it as this body, but the co-chairs are present. I don't know. And by the way, I'm butting into something that's not my, but we're just not going to make it in the, you know, yeah, we're not going to start a meeting at 7, 7, 30 p.m. If we don't have quorum, we don't have quorum. So, to the attorneys, do you want to respond at least to my concerns? Mr. Chair, if you know you won't have a quorum at the meeting, and the quorum requirement for that, I believe, is five members, then the meeting can be canceled. Okay. All right. Well, again, I don't think anybody's going to make it, but it's an hour and a half. You just check MapQuest or whatever the new map system is these days. It's called Google. You should have lunch. Google, yeah. It's Waze. Vice Chair, do you want to opine since it's your meeting? Look, I don't want to inconvenience anyone here, but at the same time, I do know there are individuals from the community that are there. I guess my question is to the county attorney, to the administration. Do we have to suspend this meeting and then bring forth the CRA meeting right now in order to reschedule? All right. When is the next CRA meeting scheduled for? Yeah, it's up to the co-chairs of the CRA to reschedule the meeting. But when is the next scheduled meeting? We're not aware of that because the attorney's down in Naranjo. So they'll figure it out. Naranjo. All right, so show us the, I mean, we're not, okay. Sounds good. With that, Commissioner Lopez, any motions or appointments? Senator Garcia, you're recognized. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple appointments and one motion. to Monocules Chantel Brown for the Black Affairs Advisory Board, Alfredo Arcera to the International Trade Consortium Board, Bruce Oroz to the Film and Entertainment Board, Christine LaMere to the Building Better Community Citizens Advisory Board. And I do have a motion that I would like to read for the Children's Trust, please. Senator Garcia moves to authorize the county mayor or county mayor's designee to negotiate and execute an interlocal agreement with the Children's Trust. The Trust, following approval by the county attorney's office for legal sufficiency to provide real estate services to the Trust in connection with the Trust's potential acquisition of real property and furtherance of its mission. Such services shall include, but not be limited to, performing all services necessary to evaluate the property, obtaining appraisals and disclosures, and negotiating a purchase agreement, and shall be provided at the same or similarly negotiated rate or fee scheduled charge to county administrative departments and or the Public Health Trust. All right, it's been moved. It's been seconded by Commissioner Regalado. Sure. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Show it passed. Appointment next, is it, was that everything? That was it. All right. Do we agree on rescheduling of the CRA? They're going to, yes, they're going to figure it out. They're going to reschedule. Okay. All right. I'm ready to go, but that's all. You ready to go? Hold on, hold on. Show us adjourned. Show us adjourned. Show us adjourned, guys.