Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners - Feb 18, 2026

Quiet in the chamber so we can start our meeting. And clerk, please go ahead and call roll. Good morning to all. Commissioner Bastien, Commissioner Bermudez, Commissioner Cohen Higgins, Senator Garcia, Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Hardiman, Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner Emiliano Orbis, Commissioner Regalado, Commissioner Steinberg, Vice Chairman McGee, Chairman Rodriguez. Present. We have 12 members present, we have a quorum. All right. Everyone, please stand for the invocation today given by Pastor Rich Romero of the Generation Church at the invitation of Commissioner Roberto Gonzalez, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by our Vice Chairman. Well, good morning, everybody. We are honored to be in this chamber, in this room. Together, I want to honor Commissioner Gonzalez for the opportunity. And I'm just going to go ahead and lead us in prayer. I wanted to declare this verse as we pray, which is Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8. It says, O people, the Lord has told you to do what is good, to require you to do justice, what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. And that's what we're believing for this morning. So would you bow your heads with me? Heavenly Father, we just thank you, Jesus, for this day. You've given us a new day, Lord, to put our hands on the plow on that which you've called us, Lord, to. And I just thank you, God, for every commissioner, every city official, Lord, for the opportunity to serve. And I thank you for the districts that we represent, the counties that we represent, God. Would you grant favor this morning over that project, over all of the things that we're leading, the initiatives, God, that we are stewarding. I thank you for every family represented. And, Father, just for the city of Miami, we pray that it looks like heaven. So, Father, would you lead us? Would you grant a strategy and supernatural favor to do that everything you've called us to do? Lord, may we learn to walk humbly before you. In the mighty name of Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. Thank you. All right. You may be seated. We understand. We understand. It's the intent. All right. Mr. Chairman. All right. No, stop, stop, stop. Can I just give a point of information? It's the first day of Lent. Let's, let's. So. Go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner. Well, it's the first day of Lent, Mr. Chairman. And I know God doesn't want me to be lukewarm, so I have to be consistent. I'd just like to make a motion to amend the prayer to have all of Miami-Dade County look like heaven. And not just the city of Miami. Yeah. God bless the city of Miami and no place else. Exactly. Yeah. So we understand what the pastor meant. All the entire county. Thank you, Pastor, if you're still in the chamber, for your prayer. Commissioner Cornhiggins, would you like to be recognized for a moment of silence, Commissioner, at this time or later time? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you recognizing me to give a moment of silence for a community leader who we lost very recently in Ms. Thelma Gibson. Many of us knew her and knew her very well. And she did incredible things for our community for many, many years. And so I just wanted to honor her and recognize her service to our community. If you will all please join me in a moment of silence in honor and recognition of our late Thelma Gibson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, please join Commissioner Cohen-Higgins in a moment of silence and recognition of the passing of Thelma Gibson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized for another moment of silence, perhaps? Yes, just to say something. I mean, obviously, we can all talk about Thelma, but Thelma was a City of Miami commissioner. She was actually appointed during a vacancy. She was the first woman to serve on the City of Miami commission. So God bless the City of Miami and Thelma Gibson. Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. Commissioner Bastian. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to thank every commissioner colleague who called me while I was under the weather. Thank you. And I also would like to say a few words about Thelma Gibson. This is someone whom I've had a long years, many years of collaboration when I worked at Jackson for 13 years and when I was a board member of the Health Foundation of South Florida. So may she rest in peace and power. And Mr. Chair, I'd like to have a point of privilege to welcome City Councilwoman Maria St. Mervin, who is visiting us today. I'd like her to stand up and be recognized. Thank you. Vice Chairman, you're recognized for a moment of silence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, we also lost another great leader, a national leader, Jesse Jackson, who passed away. And at this moment, we would like to take a moment of silence to recognize him for all the work he's done and along the prayer for his family. Please stand again and join our Vice Chairman in a moment of silence for Jesse Jackson. All right. Commissioner Steinberg and then Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Steinberg, you're recognized. Just wanted to make a quick announcement that this morning, downstairs, our Miami-Dade Fire Rescue is down there for heart awareness and wellness checks. For the month of February, we really want to make sure that people are paying attention to heart health. They're going to be performing oxygen saturation, pulse checks, blood pressure, glucose checks, any sort of medication, medication mitigation, general wellness, referral services, and help information booth downstairs. So, I know we have a full house today, so take advantage. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, colleagues. I'd just like to offer just a few words about both Jesse Jackson and Thelma Gibson. Because in so many ways, we lost people who were giants in their own right. Jesse Jackson, of course, nationally and globally, always offering a word that would actually bring us together and not break us apart. And Thelma Gibson is one of the true pioneers of leadership here in South Florida. I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with Mrs. Gibson, and I went to law school with her grandson. And I know that Commissioner Cohen Higgins was honored at the Thelma Gibson Award, I think, this past year. That honor came, and the reason why the award is named after her is because of the extraordinary pioneer she was. The vision she had, the strength that she showed, who she was as a person, speaks so much about the greatness of who we are as Miami-Dade County. And so, a lot of folks won't necessarily know her name. I believe that she's in the Women's Hall of Fame here. I think, yeah, I think she's in the Women's Hall of Fame here. You won't necessarily know her name, but when you think about people who were at the bedrock, the foundation of what Miami-Dade County could and would become, she's definitely one of them. And her family is definitely in my prayers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Gilbert. With that, Madam Attorney, can we go straight into item 2A1, the Mayor's veto? Yes, item 2A1 is the Mayor's veto and veto message, and that's properly before the board. Mr. Chair? Yes. I have a motion that impacts this item, if I may, at the present time. So, yes, I'm happy to recognize you first. I do, I think the Mayor had requested to speak on it, and I'm happy to grant that. And then I'll go ahead and recognize you, Commissioner. Madam Mayor, you're recognized for a brief comment on your veto. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the Commissioners. Today, we're deciding not just on one application. We're actually deciding on something that's much bigger than that. We're talking about the future of our county and longstanding policies that we have developed here that protect our water, our neighborhoods, and our future. And that is why I'm calling upon all of you to sustain my veto and stand with the community in protecting Miami-Dade's wetlands. The urban development boundary exists for a reason, and it has served us very well. We have the most recovered economy. We've been aggressively addressing our housing needs. We have been really concerned about following the guidance from the Community Development Master Plan and the Urban Development Boundary Line in order to not unfairly burden our taxpayers with infrastructure for building outside of the protected area, in sensitive areas. It also protects us from sprawl, it reduces sprawl, and it supports smarter, more resilient development. It doesn't stop development, it just provides guidance on what sort of development is necessary and important for our county. It protects our agricultural economy, still number two in our county. And it protects the wetlands that safeguards our drinking water because our water flows directly from the aquifer exactly in these areas. And it also reduces flooding in our community and protects our bay. So right now we're under a water shortage warning, I hope you all know, and that alone should give us pause. The Biscayne Aquifer is the source of our drinking water, and the wetlands are not obstacles to development. They are infrastructure. They're natural infrastructure that protects us. They filter our water. They recharge the aquifer. They help protect us during heavy rains and storms. So this veto was not issued lightly. I think you all know I have provided very few vetoes during my term as mayor. And I understand the importance of economic growth. And we have been growing successfully with our economy. We are, in fact, the place that everybody wants to be for their companies and to live. So I understand the need for housing and jobs. And we, again, have been responsibly dealing with those issues and have been very successful. But growth must be responsible. It cannot be unbridled. And so over the last two weeks, we have seen a clear and growing momentum for sustaining this veto across the county. Three cities have already passed formal resolutions supporting the veto, and two more have resolutions tonight. Several editorials have urged sustaining the veto. And a number of respected environmental organizations, including several who are with us here today, have joined us, along with business leaders. And so I'm asking you to listen to the people that you represent. Read the editorials. Consider the resolutions that were passed by cities and are being considered. Hear the environmental experts. And take note of the voices across the business community. Once our wetlands are filled, they are gone. This is an opportunity to further protect our environment, to safeguard our taxpayer dollars, and to plan responsibly for the future. We have the UDB for a reason. I remain ready to work with this board and our community to ensure that we can continue to grow responsibly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Mayor. With that, as I stated, I'll recognize Commissioner Bermudez. I promise to behave because it's the beginning of Lent, and I'm going to Mass at 5, even though I've seen a couple of you have gone. So I can't make that commitment to my staff because they want me to give up certain things. But I do have a motion. And the motion... You're not giving up on the motion. No, I'm not giving up on the motion. I move to reconsider Ordinance 26-4, the Kelly Tractor CDMP application that was heard at the January 22, 2026 CDMP meeting. I make this motion because the applicant wants to comply with the points the mayor brought up in her veto message, which she reiterated. The applicant will be proffering additional on-site wetlands preservation as well as additional wetlands preservation within the North Trail Basin. That can only be done at the meeting with the CDMP application will be heard again, hopefully, and then come before us. So I think there's some people here from the Kelly Tractor team. I don't know if you want to hear from them, but I think that's a solution that allows the applicant, and you can see the number of people that are employed by Kelly Tractor, and the many more there would be. And I think this is a Solomonic solution to allow the staff and the administration, and particularly the staff, to deal with some of the issues that some of my colleagues brought up so eloquently, including Commissioner Regalado about the wetlands mitigation. So that's my motion, and I know that they're here if you want to ask questions of them, and if not, ask questions of me. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. So we have a motion. We have a second by the vice chair. Commissioner, any discussion on the, and just, I'm sure you want to discuss, but, so I was wondering who the, all the people were, mostly in the blue shirts. But, so, by raise of hand, who's here on this item, on Kelly Tractor, I suppose? Got it. Okay. I was unsure if it was on, on what it was, but I saw you guys walking through my window, like, I was like, what is going on? But, all right, thank you for, for joining us today. With that, Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Commissioner Bermudez, I'll, I'll second, I second the motion, but all of a sudden, if this is what you want to do, I'll support it. I, I do have some hesitance, and, and let me just preface this by saying, I understand it's Ash Wednesday. You all should understand I'm not Catholic. I do. Yeah, I didn't, I didn't give up anything, like, so, I gave up nothing today. So, I need everybody to be clear about that. Um, sounds like he's choosing violence. I, oh, my Lord, I wasn't going to, but sometimes the thing's better left unsaid, because I really didn't plan on actually speaking on this item, but, but I would have overridden this veto, and I just need to say that. And the reason why is because this is the same administration that proposed a waste-to-energy facility outside the UDB, and they proposed it when I asked, based on the principle that they could do it because it was a government facility. So, and I can appreciate that. That's what the law allows. The law allows that, and it also allows a text amendment. But if you're, if you're concerned, it's the actual environment. The fact that you can do something does not matter. It's whether you should do something. So, this is the administration that recommended we build a waste-to-energy facility outside the UDB, and I didn't get any emails from environmental groups saying, oh, it's bad for the environment, because the government was doing it. And so, now that somebody's talking about putting something that's less intrusive and less burdensome on the environment outside the UDB, now this is, there's this consternation. Fundamentally, I think that we owe it to people to be consistent. So, actually measure the effect, see if we can mitigate it, and move past it. So, to the extent that this motion to reconsider allows us to mitigate any harm to the environment, I'm supportive of it. But I would have been supportive of that, and I would have done that in the zoning item anyway when they had to come back before us. I would have done that then. So, I think that we have this way sometimes of when people are really watching and there's a really big issue that we get real convenient. Like, this is real convenient. And I appreciate that we're the most recovered economy since COVID. It's not because of the UDB. I appreciate that we have a UDB. To my understanding, Broward and Palm Beach don't. Okay, cool. But the UDB wasn't put in place to actually protect the environment. It was put in place to be a confinement because we didn't have the ability to stretch our resources and infrastructure out that far. We've made it something it isn't. And I can be comfortable with that also. But I need us to be more consistent. So, if we're going to say that this is the rule, that we're not going to allow things like text amendments because this text amendment would allow us to, in function, expand the UDB without actually having a UDB fight, then I think the administration should bind themselves by that same principle and not recommend things outside the UDB just because they can. Because just because they could, Kelly Tractor could. And we had the capacity to. When I think about overriding vetoes, the fundamental question I ask myself is, what's the information that I am being presented that I did not have prior to my vote? And so, there are folks on here who didn't support this application. I respect that. They didn't support the application based on the information that they had. Based on the information I had previously, when this has been before us a bunch of times, before we sent it to Tallahassee, I didn't hear any of these concerns from the administration. This is not the first time this has been before us. And so, because now the cameras are rolling and the hair will ride it and you can get people to comment on social media posts and send emails, now it's supposed to change fundamentally how I deliberate. And I'm okay if as a body or even as administration, sometimes we do things that's inconsistent. I can't be inconsistent in that way. I have a deliberative process and I'm not hearing anything. I yield to my colleague. Listen, I, ditto, I feel, far be it for me as the guy who always says what he thinks. And I agree with you. There have been other applications near this property that were text amendments and nothing popped up. I've already said my say on this application. I'm supportive of it. I would have certainly, I respect the mayor's position, but I would vote like you would vote on this situation. We have all sorts of facilities outside the UDB, which from cemeteries to jails, et cetera. So that's a debate for another day. There is no UDB in Broward or Palm Beach. A lot of the people that spoke on this item last time don't even live in Miami-Dade County, much less District 12. However, and I understand Commissioner Gilbert's point of view and actually share a lot of his opinions, despite the fact that we may be different religions. But having said that, the important thing is this gives an opportunity for the applicant, Kelly Tractor, to work with staff to correct some of the concerns some of our colleagues had. And that's the only reason why I'm doing it. But I share your opinion that, you know, it's okay. We've, you know, nobody probably has spoken as clearly on some of these things as I have. But I think that, and I do think our economy is better for many different reasons, certainly not the urban development boundary. That has nothing to do with improving our economy. So, and while I'm about protecting the environment, I'm also about jobs. So I share your sentiments on that also. So this motion is being done to give the applicant and staff an opportunity to take care of some of our colleagues' concerns. That's the only reason I'm doing this, and I think it's important. And, you know, Kelly Tractor is here in case you want to ask them any questions. Obviously, it's up to you, Mr. Chair. But it's as simple as that. And I think some of, you know, I will point out that some of our colleagues may have some concerns, and I want to make sure that at least they're looked into. All right. I'll just finish with this, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, Commissioner Gerber, I just wanted to state, I'm feeling extra graceful today, but I don't think you actually can yield to another commissioner. You just started talking. I didn't want to be rude. All right. Fair enough. I'm okay with it today. I'm okay with it. I just wanted to make it clear that you don't actually yield to other commissions. It's Ash Wednesday. Cut me a break. I am. I did. Did I stop it? I did not interrupt it. You're not Catholic. Now you're Catholic. Now you're Catholic. Now he wants to be Catholic. That means yesterday was Fat Tuesday, so you all ate and drank a lot. Okay. So I just end with this, you know, we're going to, if we reconsider this, the motion is successful, we'll reconsider it, they'll work with staff. I have, I'm not like Nostradamus or anything, but I have a prediction. They're going to work with staff, and they're going to capitulate and concede to a bunch of points, all our remediation stuff, and we're going to be back here because staff is not going to support this item when it comes back. And one of the issues that I often have is when we negotiate stuff with folks, whether it's each other or the administration, if we negotiate something, that means we're negotiating for us to come into accord. I don't think there's going to be an accord. So we'll be back on this vote in a month. And I don't think that substantively the administration's position is going to change because if they're saying it's outside of the UDB as the primary reason, it's not going to be inside the UDB in a month. It's not going to be inside the UDB in a month. So they're going to concede some stuff, and they're going to say it's better, but then they're going to say, but it's still outside the UDB, and we're going to take this vote in a month. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Any for Commissioner Lopez, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I guess I have a question for the administration. So as I read the veto letter, there are two issues that I see that were of consequence to the veto. One, of course, is the mitigation of the wetlands, and honestly, I think that could probably be resolved. What I'm trying to understand is the issue with text amendment versus a UDB application. So maybe, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the mayor to explain, because when we say that we would reconsider, that leads me to believe that the mayor could reconsider the text amendment and the wetlands mitigation. And I want to be clear about what the issue was with the text amendment versus the UDB application. Madam Mayor, you're recognized for a response. Thank you, through the chair and Commissioner Lopez. Exactly. Wetlands, obviously, there were concessions made. This board did that at the last hearing. More concessions could be made. That would be preferable. At the end of the day, and to Commissioner Gilbert's point, to Commissioner Gilbert's point, it isn't only that this is outside the UDB. Obviously, there are other things that get developed outside the UDB. It's that it didn't follow the proper process to allow us to do the full evaluation because of the text amendment. And text amendments have historically been brought forward to refine our CDMP policies. When you have a full application, you have a joint zoning application. You can see exactly what's going to happen, and then you can discuss those exact impacts. You also establish need, which there wasn't a cause to establish need. This is a great company. Nothing that I have said or would ever say is against the company itself, which is doing well, and that's good for all of us. It's a great company. But they have not, because they used the text amendment process, they've not been able to establish why it was necessary for them to go outside the UDB to build this. And that is really the problem of the process. And I know it would be better, and I hope this commission will, look to further refine what is appropriate through a text amendment. But I can assure you that it was never intended to facilitate site-specific urban development outside the UDB. And so we are not able to evaluate fully the proposal in its current form. So I have a follow-up, Mr. Chair. So, Madam Mayor, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, given that, I'm trying to figure out why, and maybe there's confusion as to how you can use a text amendment. It sounds like it's clear that you use a UDB application process when it's site-specific. But when you're trying to generally speaking, and I just want to make sure I understand what you were saying, when you're generally speaking about refining the CDMP process or what we have in code, that that's when you use a text amendment. So is that correct? So through the Chair, Commissioner, that's the way it has been used, but it isn't clearly defined. And so it's a, what do I want to say, it opens the Pandora's box, because basically it allows other proposals to come through that are not properly vetted by using this text amendment process. And that is why it was not recommended and we do not support. Will we consider what might be offered? Of course, we will consider it. It's not dead on arrival. I don't want to say that. But it does raise grave concerns to approach a project of this magnitude through text amendment, rather than a full UDB application for the reasons that I said. Thank you. And Commissioner Gilbert, do you reckon? Yeah, I think I have a follow-up question for the Mayor. And I just want to point out that you said you consider what's coming, and then you said but. And just as a function of grammar, but invalidates everything in the preceding clause. I just want to, it's a subtle thing that happens in language, but it works most times. And so I just need to know, is there an actual world that this comes via a text amendment, that the administration would support it as a text amendment? Because if it's not, then let's let them start the process all over, and let's kill it today. Kill it today, if it's not. But time has value also, right? Time has value. So if this administration is not going to support these types of applications, being text amendment, as a text amendment, tell the board now. Tell them now, so that we can all vote our conscience and our intellect now, and one way just move forward. But I don't want, in a month, for us to come back and say, yep, they did a lot of good stuff, but it's still a text amendment. And I don't want to set the precedent, because what I'm hearing you say is, and it's a valid point. I don't discount your point. Maybe we should change the process. Change the process then. But your point, fundamentally, is that you don't want the functional expansion of a UDB based on very specific parcels via the text amendment process. That is the basic point you're making. That point cannot be remedied with their negotiations. Through the chair. You're recognized, Madam Mayor. I appreciate that additional concessions are being offered. I have not been presented with those. Nobody has approached me to say, this is what we're offering in consideration of the points that you've raised. I, just like you, need time to consider what is being proffered. We're talking a month. If this is a project that would be over a decade, this is not a short-term project. I think it's appropriate and valid to allow me and the community and concerned citizens and business people and everybody to have a chance to see what is being proffered. That to be said, yes, text amendment isn't the proper vehicle. Does that mean that I would never support it? It doesn't necessarily mean that, as long as we understand that we do need to remedy this process. Right. Chairman, yes, well, hold on a second. Are you, are you? Yeah, I would just, yeah, I would just stand by, I think the mayor has taken a principal stand, which I don't even disagree with necessarily. But I don't think that this is going to remedy it. I think that Raquel, Commissioner Regalado has some great ideas, but none of those ideas transform this text amendment into a UDV application. And so I think we'll be back here. So we don't even have to spend a lot of time on it. I don't say anything else about this. Let's do whatever you all want. Let's just do it quickly so we can go home. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Thank you. I think that there's a series of complexities. I agree with the mayor regarding the text amendment. It is a new vehicle. We've only used the text amendment once in the last few years. And I think we do need to consider what are the limitations of the text amendment. So I think that is something that we need to grapple with, separate and apart from this application. That being said, as I pointed out when this application came before us, one of the issues is that the wetlands that are being impacted in this text amendment were part of a covenant of a prior UDV application. So there were wetlands that were proffered, mitigated, restored, and protected from another application. That is different than other things that have come before us. There will be a wetland mitigation because of what is being proposed. That is a separate conversation. So there's two different things happening. And I think that there is confusion as to that. And there is a prioritization based on the quality and placement of those wetlands, which is what I tried to convey when this was before us. I think staff, I disagree with Commissioner Gilbert, I think staff was making some reasonable requests regarding the prior mitigation. And their request was simple. A covenant was made because that covenant can be broken. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Right. So just because that covenant can be broken doesn't mean we should break that covenant, especially since those wetlands have been restored and protected. All that being said, I will say, I don't think a month is enough time. If that's the will of the board, then staff will work with that. But I don't think that that gives us enough time to consider some of the factors. To the mayor's point, there is a series of steps that were not done because this was a text amendment and not a full application. And I think that the board would feel more comfortable with plans that were more like a UDB application than a text amendment. And that is possible. Again, we have not really defined what a text amendment is. We just use it for truck parking in this similar area. It is for us to now determine what that process is for the text amendment. So we could input some of these things into the text amendment process. So I don't think you necessarily throw everything out. But I don't think that a month will be enough time for staff to be able to analyze all the issues that have been brought up specifically regarding the wetlands and providing solutions for the current wetlands that are protected and then the potential mitigation. So I just, on that comment, and I'll recognize you, Commissioner Ramirez, in a second. But, and I don't need specifics, but I want to make sure that I'm never lied to, right? And I don't think I am. But based on something you just said, Commissioner Regalado, is I understand that the reason that this applicant brought this application in this fashion was because they were told to at the direction of the administration. And I'm seeing the nodding of the lawyers, the applicants, and Chris Kelly himself. I don't, it is wild to me that this is what they heard from the administration. I don't need to know the specifics of who. Maybe it wasn't you, Madam Mayor, of course. But I can't imagine that they're all nodding their heads and they're all just, you know, lying in a public setting. I can't imagine that to be the case. So I don't disagree with what you're saying. I don't think they disagreed with what you were saying. But they were guided and spent countless dollars on proffering it in this fashion per the direction that they received speaking with the administration. So, but again, we're reconsidering this. We can, they can correct it and come back and hopefully improve it. It's just, it is overall, you know, a little bit of a waste of our time. But if it's in the spirit of doing the right thing and bettering it, I understand. Commissioner Bermudez and then Commissioner Bermudez. Mr. Chair, thank you. And you brought up a very, very important point. You are correct. This was transmitted to the state. Nobody said anything about it at that time. And I guess if we were going to talk about text amendments, et cetera, at the time, then we really should have talked about it back then. And so all I'm trying to do is to give the mayor and the administration an opportunity. And I don't think it should be more than a month because everybody knows what I think about the urban development boundary. And now I'm going to double down on it because it's used by, it's used whenever it's, it's, it's, it's, I won't even say appropriate. It's used, and I agree with Commissioner Gilbert. It's used very loosely, which is why we've got to revisit it. And I've, I've said it over and over to the administration. I've said it to the environmentalists who are here, who get, by the way, get paid to do this. And I've said it to the developers. Everybody should sit in the room and look at why we haven't moved this line in over 50 years. Because when it was created, the people that were, some that were sitting here had a lot of land out west. Okay. And now we're not going to touch something that should be revisited. That when it was created, it was created to be revisited. And instead we're going to do it application by application. So that's my, my, my two cents there. But the reason why this motion for reconsideration is proffered, because I believe there might be an opportunity for the administration to work with this particular applicant. And you were, and the applicant is fine with it. And you are 100% correct. You're 100% correct. This was sent to Tallahassee. Money was spent. Came back to us. To the state. And by the way, you know, I'm not going to talk about, because I already said my say, the Kisuke supporters, South Florida Water Management, et cetera. That's not even the issue. Because if we want to have that fight, then I'll amend my motion and change it to something else. But at this point, and I am very cognizant that Commissioner Gilbert has touched on a lot of points that we agree with, you know. And, but, but, one month to give the administration an opportunity to sit down and speak to the applicant and see if some of these concerns can be resolved. I don't want it to be deferred forever so we can talk about wetlands ad nauseum. We're talking about this particular veto and this particular application. So, you know, my motion is to have that. It's going to be back in front of us? Yes, probably it will be. And at that point, we're going to have to make a decision. And you know what? The mayor may take the same position. And if the mayor does take the same position, then I think we all know what we have to do. At least I know what I'm going to do. I think I know what I would do today and I know what I would do a week, a month from now. Now, and what that would trigger for me, it would trigger something that I've been asking for for a very, very, very long time, which is let's look at things that we should have looked at, that prior commissions should have looked at over the last 50 years. Because it was never meant to be a permanent line. Never, ever, ever. That's why Broward doesn't have one. That's why Palm Beach doesn't have one. So I will still, there was a second. I'm going to stick to my motion as it exists. But obviously, I'd like to hear from my colleagues. Sure. So a few things. I have a cue, and I'm going to recognize you in a second, Mayor. I want to go to my colleagues first, because I feel that they're going to have some questions, so that way you just address us all at once. To the attorneys, really quickly, as one of my colleagues says. I'm with Commissioner Bermudez on bringing this back sooner rather than later, within a month. But what are our time frames as far as, I understand that there's timelines that we have to adhere to, or else what happens with the application? What happens? And what time frames do we have? There are a number of time frames. Our recommendation would be perhaps to, there are some extensions that would need to be agreed to for purposes of state statute. But if this item is ultimately reconsidered, it would have to be re-noticed and re-advertised, and we would need at least 10 days' notice. So, you know, we need some cushion for purposes of advertisement, but 10 days is the requisite notice. Okay, but can we see this back here in a month, or? Yes. I think that's definitely doable, if that's the board's desire. Your next CD&P meeting, I believe, if that's the desired date, is March 19th. All right. Commissioner Bastien, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been listening to all of you with attention. And, Madam Mayor, I did read your memo, and I understand most of your concerns. My question to you is your position regarding the motion on the floor. How do you, how do you, would that give you an opportunity to discuss and find a middle ground for some of your concerns? Madam Mayor, you could take this opportunity to address, I know you wanted, you were raising your hand, so. Thank you, through the chair. Thank you, Commissioner Bastien, for the question. First, I want to be very clear. It was not recommended that the applicant use a text amendment. That was laid out in the transmittal memo to Tallahassee. In fact, it was recommended denial and that there was a problem with it coming as a text amendment. So that was signaled to this board and to the state. And we have sought to discover who might have possibly indicated that. We are not able to discover anyone who specifically recommended this process. So I just want to be very clear. Our staff are very collaborative. They're very cooperative. They talk with applicants. They talk about possibilities. They talk about different approaches. But as far as we can discover, nobody recommended it. And in fact, officially, in the record, we opposed it as a text amendment. Secondly, I want to say the urban development boundary is not forever. It's a line that can be moved. That's why we're going through right now the EIR process. We're looking. We already have urban expansion areas identified for when there is a demonstrated need for growth, not just conveniently. There has to be an established need for growth. That's why we have those designated areas from the last cycle that was seven years ago. We're in a new cycle, and all of these issues are to be considered. Housing needs. Transportation needs. And as Commissioner Gilbert said, a big reason for the urban development boundary was to protect the taxpayers from having to pay for infrastructure outside of a core urban area, which has served us very well. It only increases sprawl. As to the specifics of whether I would be supportive of the motion for reconsideration, I, of course, prefer that you would sustain my veto. That is exactly why I vetoed, so that you could take into consideration all of these concerns and look at it not specific to only one application, but the overall precedent that is being set by the approach to wetlands, the approach to the use of the text amendment. It's necessary that we be clearer in the future about the appropriateness of a text amendment, but as Commissioner Regalado said, this is not the usual process. This is way outside the ordinary, so please consider to sustain my veto. If, instead, the board chooses to go forward with reconsideration, of course, the staff will meet with the applicant. The applicant could not only bring forward additional mitigation about wetlands. The applicant could bring forward a site plan, and the staff could actually look at it in terms of establishment of whether there is a need. So, you know, there's a new cycle that comes along later for a full UDB application, but nothing would preclude the applicant from bringing forward everything that would make this application worthy of approval by the administration. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Is that, all right, so I have Commissioner Lopez, I know, but Commissioner Lopez had a quick question. I did. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I guess the question I have is, as we talk about the UDB application process, we've said it will take a long time. Is there any expedited review under a UDB application, given all that we know about this particular project? So, in other words, could they go through a UDB process quickly that would allow the administration to do exactly what the veto letter asked it would have done, which is a site plan and analysis? I don't know the answer to that, and that might be an accounting attorney's question. But if I could answer through the Chair, as I said, nothing prevents this applicant from coming forward with much more information that would be inclusive of a UDB full application. How quickly they could do that, I don't know. Now, that would obviously require some real thought and study by our staff, but I want to say this. I don't stand on the form. I am here for the good of our community. The UDB is a protective vehicle, but if we can resolve these issues, we will resolve them. Commissioner, I've got Commissioner Conegans unspoken. Commissioner Conegans, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to everyone in the audience who came down and drove and parked and walked upstairs and made it here this morning for this hearing. As I'm listening very closely to the conversation, something is standing out to me, because what we can see because we're in chamber, those who are watching online cannot see. And when the discussion that was raised by our Chairman regarding whether or not the applicant was instructed to do this via a text amendment, the applicants that are sitting in the audience are nodding their head rather clearly to us as board members that that is, in fact, what they were told. And so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear from the applicant directly because that is instructive to me. Similarly to when this application came before us, I had concern regarding precedent because I wanted – there was some distinction between whether you needed seven votes or whether you needed nine votes, and that was very important to me because I'm always concerned about the message that we're sending to not only our business community but to everybody that is coming before this board. There needs to be some level of predictability based on the decisions that we make as a body on how you all decide to move forward. There are dollars attached to this. There are jobs attached to this. There are people's ability to feed their families attached to this. So, for me, it is extremely of great import for me to know from your perspective whether you were instructed to bring this application in the form that it was brought, i.e., the text amendment. Alessandra, you're recognized to respond and introduce yourself for the record. Good morning, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners. Alessandra, San Armand, what law office is located at 701 Burkle Avenue? Yes, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. We've been instructed since we filed this application in May of 2023 to proceed with a text amendment. At no point were we advised to change the application to a UDB expansion application. We looked at it, but it was never advised to proceed with it. Thus, we kept it as a text amendment. We worked with staff in good faith. If the direction was to go with a UDB expansion, we would have happily done so. Okay, and so to the administration, this is a huge disconnect for me because this application was submitted three years ago. And I know how these applications work because I've sat here for almost six years and you certainly know how these applications work. And the attorney that just did before us articulated what is my understanding of how these applications move through the process, i.e., they work with the administration, they receive guidance, there's feedback, there's lots of information being shared back and forth. They take that information and they adjust accordingly. So help me square what was just articulated on the microphone with what was previously represented on the microphone, i.e., we never instructed them to travel under this lane, i.e., the text amendment. How is the text amendment now a huge problem when they were instructed in 2023 to bring this application via text amendment? I need to understand that in the most clear and concise terms. Chief or Mayor, you recognize for response. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, staff that we are able to identify has never told anyone they should do this through a text amendment. I personally was at a meeting at Kelly Tractor about a year ago reviewing this project and that discussion didn't happen. We never discussed whether it would be a text amendment or not. The first time the item was transmitted, the mayor's letter both addressing to this commission and to the state that she did not recommend it because of that. We recently heard what you're hearing today that that's what staff said. I went on my own quest through staff, through department directors, assistant directors, through all the people, said, did anyone say this? And I'm unable to find a soul that says they said it. Mr. Chair? I may have an answer for that. Commissioner Bermudez? Yeah, just with all due respect to Mr. Coley, and the urban expansion area, number one, includes this is within that area. We had another text amendment in that area. So I'm not saying that he hasn't been able to find somebody. Not at all. It's possible that he's right. Maybe the person's not there anymore. I don't know. But the mayor mentioned we've been looking at the urban expansion areas. There was another application right by this one in this urban expansion area. It's in the urban expansion area. And I'm going to add something else. At one point, we were even considering building water and sewer facility in this exact parcel. In other words, we were going to try to either, I don't want to use the eminent domain word, but eminent domain word, and or buy it. So I just want to be, let's be intellectually honest, okay? Nobody spends this much money unless somebody tells them, hey, somebody else did it. You're in the urban expansion area, which the mayor admits already. She said it just a couple minutes ago. We're looking at moving the line in the urban expansion area. Well, it's about time we do it because it appears that any time there's an election or any time there's some noise or any time I get all these emails from people in Broward and other places that don't have urban expansion areas, everybody all of a sudden, you know, whips out the UDB. Well, this parcel is in the urban expansion area. The only reason I'm bringing that up is because I think, I think, I could be wrong. This is only a supposition and a hypothesis. If it's in the urban expansion area, I could see staff saying, hey, it's happened before. You're in the UEA. We'll take a look. You know, it's not impossible. You know, so I don't know if the person is there. I'm not questioning Mr. Coley. I think, despite that he's an Alabama fan, I believe he always says, he tries to say the truth most of the time. So, and maybe he just didn't find the person, you know, and that's all that happened. Maybe he looked and maybe that person is no longer working in the department. So, I just want to be clear to my colleagues, it's in the urban expansion area, okay? If not, I doubt the applicant would have brought this application. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Bermudez. And I would concur and double down that I know Chief Coley to be honest and truthful all of the time to the best that I know. So, thank you for that, Chief Coley. But perhaps, you know, it might even be somebody that the mayor doesn't know or you didn't speak to, right? I meant football, Mr. Chair. That's just what I'm saying. Oh, honest on the football side. His football love for Alabama. Got it, got it. All right. Commissioner Gilbert, you've been patiently waiting. Yeah, no, Mr. Chairman, I do know Chief Coley, to be honest, and I agree. The fact that he's an Alabama fan just confuses me. It really does because he actually thinks Nick Saban is the greatest coach ever, which clearly everyone here knows that it's not. He wasn't, but it's fine. Mr. Mayor, I think that Commissioner Bermudez's supposition is probably in line with what actually happened. And let me just suggest something, that a UDB application is much broader than a text amendment. And so, if I were sitting in the administration's position and I did not want rampant development in the UDB, I would say, hey, this is in the urban expansion area, and we've done a text amendment over here before. We think this is a good project, so we can't really tell you anything, but maybe a text amendment is better. I think that's probably how the conversation went with the person that they can't find. I think that's probably how the conversation went. Just a couple of things. I know that we've heard from the administration that the UDB is not forever, and I didn't know that because I thought the mantra was that we hold the line, which does seem to, in fact, be forever. So, all I just need to know is there's going to be an honest deliberation because the mayor has asked us to sustain her veto. That's what she wants us to do, and I'm comfortable with reconsidering this. But if the mayor insists on a veto vote, I'm okay with giving her her veto vote, but I will not vote to sustain a veto based on this logic because I think that, again, consistency matters. This is the same administration that was going to build a waste-to-energy campus outside the UDB. That was their suggestion, not ours. We're the people who took it off the table. So, when you talk about folks who've actually protected the UDB, that would have been the largest expansion of the UDB contemplated for a while. We took that off the table. And so, I get that everyone will say, oh, he hates the environment. No, that's not it at all. But I think if there's a way that we can protect the environment and create jobs and help our economy, why wouldn't we do that? And so, I think that balance has to be made. I'm comfortable with moving forward with however you all want to move forward, but we need to be consistent. And, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, I think you are correct. Either someone is, if they're not lying, because I would often offer that Chief Coley offered a qualified statement. He said he couldn't find the person who said it. That doesn't mean the person doesn't exist. That just means he couldn't find the person who said it. They could still be here and just not admitting to it, because if I were someone who was working in a cubicle right now, and I admitted that I told them to do this tax amendment, there's certainty that your job – they would be like, oh, man. No one's going to admit to this now, because we're talking about it at county commission meeting. No one's going to admit to telling them to file a tax amendment. Like, how are you going to get them to admit to that? So, of course, they're not going to admit to that. It's pretty clear, though, that they didn't go down this road, I'm just going to spend these hundreds of thousands of dollars just because. That didn't happen, Mr. Chairman. All right. I have a response from the mayor and Commissioner Regalado to follow. Through the chair, I'm going to ask Chief Coley to read you from the transmittal language, which referenced the concerns about the tax amendment. And it was transmitted, but with this concern, just to correct the record. What's important, sir, is it was originally transmitted without recommendation, and it might have been stated that it was transmitted originally with denial. It was without recommendation, but did identify the tax amendment as a problem. Then the second time it came to you all, we recommended denial based on it. So you first had a no recommendation, then a denial, but both times is identified the tax amendment. Well, and to just add to the point, there is a difference between private enterprise and compelling public purpose. So to the point that is being made about Airport West, which, after all, was an airport, right? It was not pristine wetlands. It was an airport, and it also would be subject to environmental reviews. So, you know, all of any development is subject to environmental review. So just to make that point very clear. Hold on. Chief, do you want to read that into the record or no? You've got a paragraph. It's .5 in your item. If you want to see the entire context, if you don't want me to, Labore's reading, but it's clear. Read the relevant portion or points. So I guess you're correcting the record from the mayor's prior statement saying that it was transmitted with denial to transmitted neutrally or? Originally, it was just transmitted without a recommendation. So zero, just transmitted. Just transmitted. But with the language that? So it was not recommended for denial. Okay. All right. Commissioner Gilbert, you're right. But with the language that you've asked to be read into the record. Is he going to read it? It says, specifically, applications proposed and expansion of the UDB must demonstrate that a need exists for additional urban areas in accordance with CDE and policy. Proposed introduction in the urban type land use and open category. The application would allow for such outside without adherence to those policies. Please. Okay. That's not. I'm not sure. I'm good, but you're right. Mr. Chairman, just a point. Sometimes you let people speak long enough to actually prove your point. So there is, Madam Mayor, respectfully, when you said there's a difference between a compelling governmental use and private industry, there is. But not to drinking water, not to invasive species, not to all the issues that you list as environmental concerns. The environment doesn't say, oh, it's Kelly Tractor or Dade County poisoning the water if it's going to poison the water. The environment is not judging who's doing it. The environment is reacting to the fact that it is being done. And so my point initially was, for the purposes of consistency, I find it problematic that as a county we would endorse building a waste of energy facility outside the UDB, but then say this was a problem. I understand fundamentally the difference between how we act. We act for the betterment of the 3 million people and the hundreds of thousands of businesses in the economy that powers Florida. We act on their behalf. Kelly Tractor acts on his, if his family owned, his family's half, his shareholder's own. I understand the difference in who benefits, but that doesn't change the hurt to the environment. And the argument you made was not who benefits. The argument you made was based on hurting the environment. And so if you're hurting the environment, whether it's us doing it or them doing it, it's still being done. So when this comes back, if it's going to come back to us, if they can mitigate hurting the environment, it should be the issue, not who's actually doing it. Because I would note again that the only reason we could have built a waste of energy facility outside the UDB is because we exempted ourselves. We exempted ourselves from the policy. So we know it's not, we know, in fact, that it's not an environmental policy because we exempted ourselves. If it were really an environmental policy and we couldn't do anything out there, we wouldn't have exempted ourselves. We exempted ourselves, and then we took advantage of that exemption and proposed a facility outside the boundary, which I'm fine with. I just want us to be consistent. That's all. Commissioner Regalado, and then I'll go to you, Madam Mayor. That's fine. Thank you. Just, we're mixing a lot of things here, but for the record, I just think it's important. Just because the administration recommended Opelaka West, I was against it. I was one of the first people that said, we're not, Mickey Seinberg was against it. We were the first to raise our hands and say, we're not building an incinerator in the Everglades. That's like a hard no for me. So, I think when we have this conversation, I understand where you're going, but that still doesn't resolve some of the issues that have been raised. First, I don't think that as a board, we should enter into a staff witch hunt, number one. I would like clarity from the attorneys and Roy as to what exactly was said in those two documents. Because one thing is us, and for those of us who are attorneys, one thing, it's us talking about who said what. You know, he said, she said. And it's another thing, what was in the documents that was provided to this board, which were provided to the attorneys, which were part of the record, which were publicly noticed. So, can we go back to that and make this point as to what exactly was said about the process? Because if we are going to focus on the process, everyone understands that Florida, you have a duty to read. If it's in there, it's in there. Whether it was read or not, it's in there. So, I just want more clarity as to, and I understand the first was without a recommendation and then with a denial, what is the language that we're saying should have triggered them to know that a text amendment. I understand what Roy read, which is a UDB application has need. Obviously, that would, well, a text amendment does not have a determination of need. So, that would lead you to a UDB application. So, Roy, if you could clarify that and what exactly the documents that were presented to this board said. Chief, you're recognized. Yes, Commissioner. In a CDMP application, a demonstration of need is required. And that has to be found as a need to go forward. In the text amendment, that wasn't even considered. They weren't even required to demonstrate a need. And that makes what's the text amendment so much easier. For the record, this has been transmitted as a denial. It was recommended now. And only after that did someone start saying that the county told them to do that. Well, you know, I don't know how we can be held to a standard of something that they don't have an email. Nobody has a record of saying that we said to do it. But because somebody thinks we said it, we're supposed to live by it. I don't really know how to do that. I mean, if there's an email, I'm happy to stand corrected. If there's a record, I mean, how do we get to this point and not know? I can't speak to that. So, Roy, and I see Lourdes is there too. In your negotiations, at what point was there a discussion about, was there a discussion about the use of the text amendment, about an application? Did this come up? Is that what they're alluding to? Commissioner, quite frankly, when I had these discussions, not with Mr. Kelly, but with his representatives, we were clearly told what the administration said didn't matter. They had the votes. Lourdes? Commissioner, I was not personally in the meeting, in the questioning when this issue came up. My understanding is that the applicants did have a discussion with our staff as to the different approaches that could be taken. As has been acknowledged, the text amendment is not prohibited explicitly in our rules. So, I don't think that any staff would have taken the tact to tell someone, you cannot do this. But certainly, it was pointed out, and the statement read by the chief from the initial recommendation indicates that this is not the conventional way to communicate this type of use request. So, Lourdes, we use the text amendment for the truck parking that's in this area. What other time have we used this vehicle? Because I think part of the issue is the confusion with the use of this vehicle, and I understand the novelty and the geographic similarities. Let's say there's a geographic similarity, but beyond that, has it been used before? So, text amendments tend to be used for broader changes of policy to support needs. As, for example, the mayor mentioned, we're going through the evaluation and appraisal report process right now, which is an intentional look both by staff and the task force that has been put together and input from members of the public to make changes to the policies. So, ultimately, that effort will result in text amendments to the broader policies behind the comprehensive plan that may or may not suggest specific changes that will impact specific applications. I'm going to make it easier. When has a text amendment been used by a private party and not the county? Outside of the... Because I think this is the confusion. So, a text amendment outside the UDB by a private party. How many times has that happened? I think the answer is also once. And I think that would explain a lot of the confusion. Mr. Chair, may I ask a point of order question, piggybacking on Commissioner Regalado's question of Lourdes? Can we let them answer it? Lourdes? Yes. Lourdes, you're recognized to respond. And is it on the same question as the... Yeah, my only question is Commissioner Regalado's pointing out that it happened once in the urban, right near this. My question is, who recommended it at the time? I believe it was staff, but I'd like to know. Yeah, if the question is about the Tara application, that one, because of the nature of the request, they were specifically fulfilling the need for the long-haul trucking facility, which was part of an analysis that has existed for many years from the state regarding truck needs in our community. We had the precedent already of having established two truck parking areas through text amendments in open land number one and down south by the turnpike. So in that case, the text amendment vehicle to accommodate this truck facility type of utilization was recommended. And in fact, we put as part of that analysis, which was critically important in that decision of ours to make that recommendation, the land value that was associated with a full-blown industrial move, a moved UDB inside the UDB comparison of that land value versus the land value in the truck parking, the existing truck parking locations. And that was significant because what we have seen inside the UDB is that industrial land, if it's zoned industrial, which truck parking is allowed in any industrial parcel inside the UDB, it tends to go to higher and best use. It doesn't just stay as an industrial facility. It tends to evolve into a logistics use. So that was the rationale for making the recommendation on the Terra truck parking. We wanted it to stay for truck parking. So the answer is staff recommended the Terra application. Yeah, directly. We did, yes. We recommended it. That's why I went. I'd love the diatribe, but that had nothing to do with the other. All right, Commissioner. So, and you can finish. I'm just, you still have the floor. Just give me a second. My thing is, to Commissioner Gilbert's point, whether this county found the need for truck parking or not at the time, like, our clean drinking water does not discriminate. It is the same across the board. So we have to send the same message. You know, you still have the floor, Commissioner Regalado, and you're welcome to finish, of course. But we're going in circles, and at the end, I think we all need to vote our conscience or what favors us politically on this board, right? But let's take a vote because we're just going in circles and we're not getting anywhere. Well, I think, respectfully, Mr. Chair, there are certain accusations were made, and I'm just trying to untangle that. Because what Lourdes just mentioned is three truck parking situations. So, Lourdes, were the other two also text amendments? The designation of truck parking was done through a text amendment, yes. Okay, was it a private party? No, the county. So, well, actually, the original one many, many years ago was a private application, and then the county ended up expanding the truck parking area to the totality of open land sub area one and designating the area down south. Okay, and if memory serves me, we're talking about, like, ten years. So we're talking about ten years. The first one was about, like, ten years ago, right? If I remember correctly. I think it was 2009 that that violation occurred. Yeah, it was 2009. Okay, so a little bit less. So 2009. So from 2009 to date, we're talking about three text amendment changes. One was done by a private party, one was expanded by the county, and one was done by a private party. So that's what we're saying, and it was truck parking. Garrett is remembering another one that was an industrial parcel along the UDB, that it was industrially zoned, that was split by the UDB where a text was initiated by a private applicant, and that was about eight years ago. Okay, all right. So my point in clarifying the history of it is that it is not a vehicle that is often used by this board. We have had many, many, many applications. The utilization of this vehicle has been very particular to a particular need. So if, to Lourdes' point, staff can't tell them not to use it, but if you look at the history of how it has been used, you either decide it's similar to what you're doing or it's different to what you're doing. And that seems like a judgment call. So I just think, again, that we need to clarify the text amendment. That's something that we need to take up, but clearly how it has been used and the possibility of now it being used in lieu of a UDB application is what is concerning. And I don't think that that is in conflict with our policy. So I appreciate the distinction, right, and they told us to do X, Y, and Z, but we get back to, in this case, this isn't truck parking. This isn't truck parking. There hasn't been an establishment of a need, and there was a prior UDB application that has protected wetlands. So I think that this is a unique application that requires some thoughtfulness in trying to untangle exactly what is the best path forward. All right. Can we, Commissioner Lopez, and then Senator Garcia, and maybe we can just call a vote on this? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I just want to say that I met with staff earlier before this all started about process. And I just want to put on the record that there were many concerns. When it came before us at the zoning and CDMP meeting, staff presented us with a two-page list of all the concerns. And all I want to say is those concerns should have been brought to this board in July when you first saw this application. I think it's a matter of process. The staff told me that it's just the way things are done. You transmit, it comes back, and then they tell you whether they approve or deny. I would just caution this board that moving forward when things of this magnitude have these types of concerns, this application should never have been transmitted with adoption because it sends a message. It sends the message that if the state doesn't have a problem with it, it's good to go. But in fact, it was never good to go from the get-go. And as evidenced by the fact that after I met with Lourdes and Eric and Cedric, I learned that there was a host of them that they then handed out to us five minutes before we had to vote on this zoning and CDMP application. So to me, it's always about process. So I would encourage us to insist that we don't do it the way it's always been done, that you just nilly-willy transmit to the state. Because let me tell you something. There's a bill, unfortunately, moving through the process in Tallahassee that says that we will not be able to do anything that is more strict than what the state says. So in this case, if that passes, in this case, if the state had returned to that application with no comment, none of this would be relevant. And I think it's because we get ourselves into these fixes ourselves, right? You have to let this board know every single concern you have. Because at that time, we could have said, no, it shouldn't be a text amendment. It should be a UDB application. So from a perspective of process, we have to get better at this. Because we're sending mixed messages. The state certainly is looking at us like, I don't know how you have all these problems now after you transmitted it to us without even a recommendation. But you knew, you definitely knew from the beginning that all of this was not done properly. And I don't know about who told who. And I agree. He said, she said, we're never going to get to that. And I agree. No one's ever going to admit to it. But again, it was a judgment call, as Commissioner Regalado said. Probably not a good one, given the fact it only had been used once. And we definitely have to clarify that moving forward. But I'm telling you that from the process perspective, we have to let the administration know that no zoning application or no CDMP can come to us that isn't fully vetted. You don't vet it after you transmit it to the state. You vet it before you bring it here. And then we can make a decision, should we or should we not even transmit an application? So I wanted to put that on the record, because I'm a process-oriented person, and I thought the process was completely flawed. Agree. Commissioner Steinberg. Yeah. No, actually, I hear what you're saying. Actually, I did vote no in July, because there were some concerns that I had. And so I've been consistent on this. And what I don't want to see us do is an exercise in futility, right? I don't want us to have this process go forward. They try to meet. I think the mayor has said she is requesting things that only a UDB application would require, not necessarily. Hopefully, they're hoping that it's volunteered. So I just wanted to say that in this moment, I think, obviously, I'm just going to stay consistent. But I do think that this process brought up more questions and answers in a lot of ways. And I think we do need to address them moving forward. Thank you. Senator Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I agree, I concur with that we do have to come up with a solution for the UDB and what's the purpose of it and how we come up with a standardized measure. But anyway, that's a conversation for another day. I think I agree with you, Commissioner Bermudez. However, look, I did look at this, and I did have some conversations. And we do have to be intellectually honest with the voters and the residents of Miami-Dade County. To the north of this property, you have rock mining. Rock mining has been going on for many, many years. To the south of it, you have some preservation. You have some eel lands and so forth. And where I find it hard to fathom is that there was a vote that was taken to add a water treatment plant to this area. So if it's important to protect these pristine wetlands for one group, then why is it important to protect it for another group? I get that. It's politics. It is what it is. So as we move forward with this, I think in the mayor's veto message, there was an issue about the 63 acres. And there's also issues about contiguous lands and so forth. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question before I can proffer my vote just to make sure that we do, that there will be some concessions that were met. Let me do this. Let me not ask a question. I'll say this. I'm okay with voting to override the mayor's veto as long as we do get concessions. As long as we do meet with some of the mayor's veto message, make sure that we add more protective land and make sure that we have more contiguous properties as it relates to these wetlands. If I can get a verbal yes from you right now and work with, if it's okay, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chairman, oops. Me. Be careful what you say. Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Is the herald in the audience or no? Okay. It's okay. This is, I will vote to override the veto right now if I can get a commitment that you will work with this administration to ensure that some of the issues that were addressed in the veto message will be addressed. Senator Garcia, Alessandra, Senator Monaghan, for the record, yes, we will. Okay. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I feel comfortable with proceeding to override the mayor's veto. But for the record, there's a motion on the floor right now to reconsider the item. To reconsider the vote. All right. That being said, I understand this is a voice vote, Madam Mayor. I mean, Madam Attorney. All right. I'm going to call the vote. I think we've gone in circles enough about this. And if there's a need for a roll call, I will. But so all in favor of reconsidering the item, signify by saying aye. All oppose, nay. Nay. Nay. Clerk, please call a roll on it. There's three else. There's three. There's three. Then the item passes. So the yeas have it. Shall the item reconsidered coming back in a month or whatnot, what you said, Madam Mayor, earlier? What is it? March? Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. Commissioner Bermudez. Yes, this was the motion. I just wanted to, because it'll come back in March, but the county attorney made reference to something that was very important, just in case, even though it doesn't keep us from hearing this again, I move, and I have a motion that I don't know if she wants to read it, which is that obviously because of timing, for it to come back to us and being super clean, they just need to send a letter to the staff. She just had to send a letter to the state requesting a 180-day extension so we can hear it, just in case, even though we're not at the 180 days. And knowing the way things work, just in case, I would move that this board direct the mayor or mayor's designee to provide a copy to this board on or before Friday, February 20th, of the notice sent to the state related to Kelly Tractor's request for an extension of certain statutory time frames. I'm sure that's acceptable and amenable. Is there a second on the motion? Well, I mean, one of the no's said the yeas had it, so it's four and the rest yeas, so we had it. No, we're not doing the recon anymore. It was a recon because it sounded close for a second, but clerk, are you unclear? The second was by the vice chair. Okay. She was just unclear on the second. No, but it was, I know you wanted to second it, but now you're seconding this one? All right, so it's been moved. This new motion has been moved by Commissioner Bermuda, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert, on favor, just dates, deadlines. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show the date and deadlines passed. All right, Madam Attorney, is it in order for us to move into reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at this time? Yes. All right, reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard is now open. When I call your name, please state the item that you're speaking on, your name and address, and you will have one minute to speak. Please be, please stay within your time frame and be respectful of other speakers. Kenneth Brown, please line up and approach the wells, as I call your name. Kenneth Brown, Isel Rodriguez, Noel Cleland, Marcelo Valladares, Maria Claudia, Schubert Fonts, Mirle Miranda, Gina Romero, Rachel Prestipino, Bernice Llanes, Dina Escarment, Theophilus Williams, and Stephen Lidner. Oh, and I have a second page, Victoria Mendez and Chairman Beaudry. Before you get started, as Kelly Tractor and its many, many staffers exit, please, please do it quietly so that we can continue with the meeting. Thank you, guys. All right, sir, go ahead. Good evening, everyone. Good evening, everyone. This name is Kenneth Brown, 12300 Northwest 17th Avenue. I was just, the only thing I was speaking about, the CBOs that the commission is bringing in the community, as long as the funds is actually, I'm going to go to some of the peoples in the community, I have no problem with that. I agree with them 100%. The only other thing that I wanted to mention was that if we continue to let people and things come into our backyard, our whole yard would collapse. If we continue to go out and destroy our wetlands, pretty soon the whole land would be destroyed. One thing that I know and one thing that I remember from years ago, wetland was there put on purpose. So we continue to let people go into that wetland and do anything, you might as well just say goodbye to Miami-Dade County. Thank you, sir. Next, Isel Rodriguez. Yeah, I don't want the phone here. Thank you. Isel Rodriguez, 9880 North Kendall Drive. Today I come to show that the county problem is not just one project, it's the county's culture, to approve first and review later. Se permiten excepciones, cambios y arreglos en el camino, mientras el ciudadano se entera tarde y sin tiempo real para responder. Exceptions, changes, and fixes are allowed along the way, while the citizen finds out late and without enough time to respond. Y lo digo desde mi realidad. Tengo un caso en corte pendiente para mayo por cuestionar asuntos de interés público. Esto no es difamación, son hechos y preocupaciones legítimas. I say it from my own reality, I have a court case pending for May for questioning matters of public interest. This is not defamation, these are facts and legitimate concerns. Pero el efecto es claro, cuando un residente viene a preguntar, puede terminar en corte. Mucha gente se calla y eso mata la participación ciudadana y deja el terreno horrible para la cultura de aprobación. But the effect is clear, when a residente sees that asking questions can end them up in court, many people stay silent. That kills citizen participation and leaves the field open for this approval culture. Ahora hechos del récord público. Uno, aquí se ha permitido que esta compañía que demanda sin historial claro de construcción vecindario completo, escalen a proyectos masivos. Now, facts from the public record. Here it has been allowed for this company that sues without a clear history of building complete neighborhoods to scale up to massive projects. Eso no es planificación responsable. Eso es apostar con infraestructura, tráfico, agua y servicios. Thank you very much. Thank you. Gracias. All right. Noel Cleland. I have Noel Cleland, Marcelo Valladares, Maria Claudia Schuber-Fontz. Go ahead, sir. My name is Noel Cleland, 5990 Southwest 50th Street, Miami. I'd just like to say, wow. This has been quite a conversation about the UDB, something that apparently people feel that environmentalists are paid to be here. I'm not being paid to be here. And I've always been opposed to any changes we're making to the UBD, which is a boundary. It's not a suggestion. It's a boundary. And the fact that we're spending so much time about this, I'm here to explain the incinerator has always been a bad idea outside of the urban development boundary. And it still is. And so don't try to change the past history by explaining what the urban development boundary is for. It's to be protected. It's supposed to have wetlands. It's supposed to be as close as we can keep development away from it, which is why it's a boundary. I keep using that word. I'm not using any buts in my sentences. It's a boundary. And I think we need to be able to be recognizing that this is a bad idea. I enjoyed the conversation you had last month about the efforts of where to place this. No decision was made. And I think we still need to talk about it. Thank you, Mr. Cleveland. Sir. Hi. I'm Marcelo Bayardars, 16171 Southwest 73rd Street. I am here as the Everglades organizer with Sierra Club Florida. And I just want to say, I was here last week as well during that workshop. I think we all saw what a bad deal an incinerator would be for not just the residents of the county, but the environment that we reside in, our water quality, and how important it is that we protect that. Especially as we see ourselves in a water shortage and the importance behind protecting not just our environment, but the UDB, and I'd also like to say that we have been against the incinerator regardless of where it was. Even when it was at the Airport West location and that we have emails and letters that we sent to all members of the commissioners during that time from multiple organizations that all signed on and spoke out against this. And we hope that the commission chooses to do what is best for the county and for the environment and for our economy. No incinerator, thank you. Thank you so much. Hello, good morning. My name's Maria Claudia and I reside at 10063 Costa del Sol Boulevard. I'm here today to continue asking that the county not build a new trash burning incinerator that will increase trash collection fees for residents and expose our county to toxic byproducts. Particulate matter, lead, mercury, PFAS, and dioxins, all cause lung, heart, and neurological diseases. These threats exist within and outside of the UDB. All of our bills have been increasing. It's no secret that there's an affordability crisis and our FPL bills just increased this past month. I'm asking for you to work with families and not increase our trash collection fees by up to $1,000 a year. I'll also close with a reminder that the Everglades wetlands provide one in three Floridians with their drinking water. Siting a new incinerator or threatening the urban development line will have a devastating effect on the future of our water, and we're currently in a water shortage, so this is the time for us to really think about our resources and the way that we're using them. Thank you. Thank you so much, ma'am. My name is Brittany Ciannis, I live at 500 Northeast 29th Street, and I'm here speaking on 6A1, the proposal to build an incinerator. I was here last week when FCCFPL gave their joint proposal, which honestly is such a bad deal, right? I think originally this was going to be $2 billion for the county, they said what, $2.3, $2.4, raising the rates for the residents. They don't even know where they're going to build it, how they're going to build it, right? It's like there's a lot of back and forth. It's kind of like too late to be at this point in the process, and I know that we also have the Zero Waste Master Plan coming out, which I think is going to show that there's not really a need for an incinerator when you're doing all these other things. Just on the incinerator, not being fiscally responsible, these projects never take the amount of time. It's not, oh, in 2034 it's going to be up and operational. We all know that's not true. Even with their contingencies on time and budget, we are here, unpaid, I'm unpaid, some people here are unpaid, I'm not, okay? We're going to keep showing up, and we keep talking to you guys, and you don't seem to give a damn. Like, what's the Kelly Tractor thing that just happened? Unfortunate. It's not about the UDB, about where, it's about don't build it at all. Thank you. Stephen Leitner, 1130 102nd Street, afternoon commissioners and Madam Mayor. What I'd like to say is, about a year ago, the incinerator cost was pegged at $1.9 billion. FCC, FPL recently pegged the capital cost at $2.3 billion. Rate payers are going to bear the expense of a new incinerator. Your Zero Waste Master Plan is due to be published, to be heard in April. I would advise that, and included in that plan will be the cost involved of implementing a Zero Waste Master Plan. And you will find it will be substantially less than a new incinerator. Please consider the burden to our rate payers. Thank you. Sir. Deophilus Williams, 1391, August 95th Street. It's time to close the chapel on this, because every time we hear during a budget meeting, we're paying the price, garbage tax, when it going to stop, from $45 million to $62 million hauling trash, as is this day. I guess we still, as taxpayers, pay more to haul trash. But people leaving houses and losing houses because of the property tax. Boulder Commissioner, it's time to do the right thing. Stop taxing us and find the land. If you can give land to build houses free, then let's find the land to build an accelerator. Every day of development, building a house, but they're not paying for the land. I guess they're not, but we're paying the tax. Thank you, sir. Hi, good morning. My name is Gina Romero, Miami-Dade organization of Florida Rising. We're here because Miami-Dade continues, the ITC is A1. And also, I'd like to say that Miami-Dade continues spending millions of incinerators while cutting climate funding. We demand they stop funding pollution and invest in clean air solutions like a zero-waste plan. Communities like a working family, a Miami Garden, a Paloca, other that are targeting municipalities via boarding of pollution. Zero-waste plan must be prioritized to front-line and community first. Thank you. Thank you. Ma'am. Hi, I'm Rachel Prestopino, 1865 79th Street Causeway. As a resident, I was pretty shocked recently when I saw, first on Instagram, as so many of us see these things nowadays, the water shortage advisory. You know, I thought, I don't live in California. I live in Miami. This isn't a problem that we have here. And I think it's easy for so many of us to kind of take our natural resources for granted. You know, I've had the opportunity to tour our water treatment facility and see just how incredible their work is, but also what we have naturally. You know, our aquifer also has a natural filtration. The way our water comes through the river of grass, the Everglades. It's beautiful, and we rely on it, and I think we're taking it for granted every time we consider building outside of the UDB, every time we consider building an incinerator, a beast that will need to be fed with our taxpayer dollars and with the trash that we're going to be incentivized to create more of instead of less of. And so I'm just asking all of you who are here for a really relatively short period of time to just think about the future. Thank you. Thank you. Ma'am. Hello. Good morning, commissioners and mayor. My name is Diana Scarman, former chairwoman of Florida Rising, who I'm representing here today and your future state representative for District 108. I'm here to talk about Agenda Item 6A in regards to the incinerator that is being built. These incinerators are being built in marginalized communities. I know you guys spoke about your vetoing and opposing the bill to build it in the Everglades, but each and every one of you, I'm sure you do not want this built in your district. And for the community here, if you guys do not know, right now passing through Tallahassee, we have Senate Bill 1628, which is the House Companion Bill, which is going to limit and restrict local governments from making decisions in regards to clean air. So I urge you guys to make a decision. I've been coming to these committees and these hearings for over a year now, and a decision still has not yet been made in regards to building these incinerators. The wealthies, they get to have the resources made available to them, but these marginalized communities, these are the ones where you are placing these incinerators at, and it is not fair. I wouldn't want it to be built in my district, and I do not think that you would want it to be built in your district as well. Thank you so much, and have a great day. Thank you. Sir? Hello, Commissioner Board. My name is Carlo Ricordi. I live at 3049 Orange Street. I'm coming to you from the perspective of an organic reputation management professional. So what I do is I help businesses, companies, individuals improve their online reputation. Can you give me your address? 3049 Orange Street. And so because of this, I have access to a few intelligence tools that will give us some insight into public sentiment on this. So I wanted to let you know that searches for Miami incinerator have increased by 70% in the last three months, and that 82% of discussion around this topic has been considered negative sentiment. So I want you to consider the public's opinion on this particular matter. I personally have never been in this building, have never been in a commissioner meeting before, but I felt compelled to speak because I, like so many other individuals in my generation, felt that we cannot stay silent on these matters anymore, and this is a motivating voter issue that will be a determining factor for me. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here and making it your first time. All right, I have Mirla Miranda now, I have Victoria Mendes, and Chairman Beaudry. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners, Madam Mayor. My name is Victoria Mendes with offices at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. I'm here on item 8A1. It's a contract for the aviation bridge repairs, and if you have any questions, my clients are here to answer anything. Thank you so much. All righty. Sir. Greetings to the Board of County Commissioners, to the Chair, to the Mayor. I am Elijah Woodray, the Executive Director for, can you hear me? Yes. So my, I'm speaking is into regards to the item BP12600262 regarding the exercise in the one-year option. And your addresses? Can you hear me? Your address? One-seven-five-zero, Biscayne. And your name's Chairman? Baudry. Chairman Baudry. Yes. I like that. Thank you. No, so I was just coming up here to speak for the technology community. We have a robust community here in Miami-Dade County of startups, people who have been in it a number of years, in AI, in quantum computing, in cryptocurrency, in blockchain, but also in cybernetics. And they, you know, they love Miami, and they love the industry as well, and standing on the front lines of this burgeoning technology that's rapidly advancing, that we need to keep our eyes on, all right, because there are going to be some big reverberations coming soon with the rise of AI agents. They need to be registered as well. But the technology community is here, and thank you, guys. Thank you. All right. Anyone else that I missed? I feel like Mille Miranda never came up. Did Mille Miranda come up? All right. And Rachel Prestipino came up? Yes? All right, Rachel, thank you for that. I missed you on my cross-out list. All right. We got everybody, then. With that, reasonable opportunity is now closed. Madam Attorney, can we set the agenda at this time? Yes, Mr. Chair. We do have some additional requests. Item 8H2, Senator Garcia adds this item to the pull list. 801, Senator Garcia adds this item to the pull list. 8P5, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins adds this item to the pull list. On 11A12, Chairman Rodriguez and Commissioner Regalado add the item to the pull list. And 11A15, Senator Garcia is adding this item to the pull list. I also have additional requests for co-sponsorship. 4D, Commissioner Regalado co-sponsor. 804, Commissioner Regalado assumes sponsorship of this item. 805, Commissioner Regalado co-sponsor. Items 11A1, 11A2, 11A4, 11A5 and its supplement. 11A6 and its supplement. 11A7 and its supplement. 11A8 and its supplement. 11A9 and its supplement. 11A10 and its supplement are all co-sponsored by Senator Garcia. On 11A12, Senator Garcia and Commissioners Gonzalez and Milian Orbis wish to co-sponsor. 11A13, Senator Garcia co-sponsor. 11A14, Commissioner Gonzalez. And 11A15 and 11A16, Senator Garcia co-sponsor. 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. The commission will approve all items, all of these items by a single vote, setting the agenda except item 2B1, the mayor's appointment of the director of the Department of Environmental Resources Management. Ordinances for first reading, public hearings. Item 6A1, discussion item regarding waste to energy facility. Item 6B1, discussion item regarding 2026 state legislative session. Item 8A1, a commercial service airport contract, which has to be voted on separately and has not been pulled. Item 14B1 is a ballot, which should have been distributed for appointments to the planning advisory board. And item 15G1, which is an announcement by the clerk regarding the Veloma Awards, as well as the following pull list items. Item 8H2, 801, 8P5, 11A12, 11A15, 14B1, and its supplement. A motion to set the agendas in order. Oh, and one, I apologize, one more. 11A1, Commissioner Steinberg wishes to co-sponsor. So I have a motion by Commissioner Steinberg to approve the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. All right. Show the agenda here by set. Mr. Chair, I'm happy to move the airport item 8A1. It wasn't pulled and it needs to be moved separately. Item 8A1. Second. Show it moved by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Leon Orbis. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Show that airport item passed. Is that the only one we have today? All right. So, Vice Chairman, is there an readiness on something? Yeah, no, no. I just wanted to make sure I'm shown as a co-sponsor on 11A12. That was just, Mr. Chairman. Okay. So on 11A12, it's gotten so much traction. It's Commissioner Bermuda's item. It's pulled by, I think, Commissioner Regalado and myself. I'll take that up really, maybe, hopefully really quickly, although I feel that Commissioner Regalado may have a lot to say on it. But I may want to ask Commissioner Bermuda's if he'll take me as an actual co-prime on it. But before that, Commissioner Bermuda's, my thing on it, and what I was going to say is why, clearly everybody loves this, and kudos to you for bringing this request of this report, but I would ask you to consider amending it to not do a report and just direct the administration to come back already with, because we already know what statute is, right? We know that. We don't need to wait another 30 or 60 days for a report. It could be a report, but come back already with an item of what we can implement to better this. I don't have an objection to that, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity, and I don't have an objection to it. I think so all of us can understand how important this is, and we saw it the other day at the committee, and I was not part of the committee. I just happened to be there. I would even say yes, I'm fine with that as an amendment, but I think it's important that we do a workshop because you've got to hear the stories of some of these people, and it's really impacting businesses in Miami-Dade County seriously. So I have no objection to that, and I would just request that we can do a workshop so they can come and tell us real, real, real stories. We heard some, I think, in Commissioner Regalado's district, some in Commissioner Steinberg's district, where there was not even a need for this, and people were spending $100,000, and we were driving them out of business, sadly. So I'm all with it. I'm fine if that's a friendly amendment. All right. So since you accept that, are you okay with me co-priming it with you? Oh, yes, yes, absolutely. Commissioner, hold on. I see your hand. You want to ask or address something, Madam Mayor? Yes, please. Through the Chair. So I'm going to ask Roy Coley to address exactly what the process would be. We're in support of the item. I do want to mention something I learned yesterday, which is at the airport. There's different approaches, and we're going to explore whether we can adopt that more broadly. So certainly recognize the challenge and the barriers that are posed. But as to the exact process with this item, if we could allow you. Mr. Chairman, the policy we have on fat oil and grease is a product of our consent order. And it is my understanding if we want to amend that policy, of course, we can make that request. But what we would have to do before implementation of such is we would have to write the policy the way we would want it and submit it to the EPA and the State Department of Environmental Protection for approval. And we're happy to do that. I think that's, I mean, for the stuff that requires that, there may be things we can do that don't require that approval. But the things that require that, we can decide that when you bring it back. But I'd like it to be already something that's moving in action rather than just a report. Commissioner Regalado. Thank you. And I actually had the opportunity to talk to some of the business owners after the committee. And as I brought up and we discussed Commissioner Bermudez, some of the issues that they have are because they have septic tanks. So I think it gets confused with the fog issue. Fog is an issue, and that is related to the consent decree. And I think that, as I mentioned in committee, we should consider a small pilot program. As the mayor said, some of that is happening in the airport, specifically for businesses that do not use oil. So let's say that one of the businesses that came up was in a Kai bowl, right, a yogurt shop. They're not frying anything. They're not using oil. So could we carve out an exception that provides them with an easier compliance based on their limited use, as opposed to lumping everyone together, assuming that if you're selling food, you're using oil. Now, as I mentioned at committee, we could do that. As Roy mentioned, we would have to get approval for that. But we also have to set up a mechanism for inspecting that because what we don't want is what got us into this problem. So once upon a time, we did have very lax rules about it. And someone said, I'm opening an ice cream shop. And then they were making pan combite, right? And then you get into these problems. So I think we need to be very careful. We don't want to put in jeopardy our consent decree or how far we've come. If an item is going to come back with more than just recommendations, my friendly amendment would be looking at a special benefit district for those commercial areas that are on septic. And I've explained this before. I think the last time we talked about it, we were talking about Commissioner Bastien's district. And I know that this applies in the Westchester area. I've talked to several folks about it. There is no funding for us to do septic to sewer in commercial areas. But if we look at the basin and we do a benefit district, we can push that out for 50, 60 years. It does increase property values and it eliminates 80% of the problems that they have. It might change the tenancy, right? Because now you can have a hair salon there. Now you can have a nail parter. Now there's all these different uses that you can have in this area that you cannot have currently because of the derm restrictions. So you could fix a car now, which right now you can't because of the septic tank. So I would tell you that a lot of the issues that we heard were more septic tank issues. I think the smaller vendors that were not using oil, I think we need to have a pilot for them based on what we're doing at the airport. My understanding is that at the airport there are certain kiosks that have a different situation. We're not – kiosks at the airport do not have a grease trap, right? So we are doing some of this work, but we just have to figure out on the RER side who does the inspection, how do we pay for that inspection, and how do we keep folks honest as to their limitation of scope? All right. Commissioner Bermuda. Mr. Chair, I just want to say I don't disagree. Let's begin by that with Commissioner Regalado on some of these other issues, but we're talking apples and oranges. We have no problem all across the county looking into – because that is not in one district or another. And I don't have a problem with trying to help on some of the issues that are septic, but I think we're talking about creating special taxing districts, et cetera, which is different than what we're trying to do here. But what we want to do here is bring immediate relief to businesses who – some who do no cooking, and they were here. Many of them were here. They do no cooking. And as far as the inspections, I trust Mr. Coley, now that we established that he's a truthful Alabama fan, to give us great, great proposals that will – and I don't think the administration, if I understand the mayor and she can speak for herself, but I think that we're all on the same page on this. We know it's an issue. We need to streamline it. We know we've got to talk to the state and the feds, and all – I think that's why your amendment, I'm fine with it, because then we have a document, we can proffer it, and then we move a little bit faster. On Commissioner Regalado's proposal, which I have no objection to, I just think it has to be a separate item because they're two different things. And one has to be – and by the way, I support her. If she ever brings that item, she knows I will support her on it. But I don't want to mix apples and oranges because there is so many – and yes, some of them did not have – were confusing the issues, but a lot of them were not. As a matter of fact, Dave Arbetters was here, and now that Commissioner Regalado is in the Arbetters Hall of Fame, along with some other people, she can attest to the fact that it was, you know, some business – He's on septic. Well, it's okay, but, you know, he's – it's a perfect example. And there was a gentleman that was here from – I don't think it was Commissioner Regalado's district. I think it was Commissioner Steinberg's district, which a lot of these smaller – there was one from Commissioner – Senator Garcia's district that actually had to spend $100,000 for a – and it wasn't an acai bowl, a caiba, whatever, but it was one of the – they do the shakes, so to speak. They use no oil – smoothies, smoothies, that's it, smoothies. You can see I should eat more smoothies, right? But anyways, the bottom line is I'd like to keep it that way, so I applaud you for trying to move this quicker because it is such a big issue. All right, and just to clarify on that note, Commissioner Bermudez, and I appreciate you agreeing to me being a co-prime on it, but just to clarify, I want to be a co-prime on the item that comes back as well, not just on this – the one we're voting on today, but when you all bring back an item that I assume Bermudez will be the sponsor of it, I'd like to be a co-prime on that item as well. So Commissioner Regalato. Yeah, just to respond to that, and I appreciate your comments, Commissioner. I don't – what I'm proposing is not in conflict or different from. So the pilot program that I am proposing is looking at what we would be doing at the airport and doing something similar for those smaller vendors. So the smoothies, the yogurts, the acai bowls, all those things, they don't fry things. So since they don't fry things, they could have an above-ground retainment, some sort of retainment that is different from what is required for the consent decree. But we would have to pilot that somehow and figure out the inspection of it so that we can ensure that there's no damage. It is very difficult to separate the septic issue from the fog issue because if you have a septic tank, as it is true for our bitters and best corn dog in Miami, Dade County, and Frankie's Pizza, for example, they use oils, but they have a septic tank. And their fog issue is complicated by their septic tank. So I just – my point is when the recommendation – They can bring that back. Right. When the recommendation comes back to also include some of the septic to sewer stuff because it's going to solve a lot of those issues. All right. With that, show it amended and show all the co-sponsors and me as a co-prime. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. All right. Show that item. And we were the only pulling commissioners, right? Yeah. All right. So show that item disposed of already as well. All right. Madam Mayor, you have a – Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Just to clarify, that amendment was your amendment. The original amendment that was accepted. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Mayor, do you have an appointment? I do. I do. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very, very delighted to present to you our director of the new department, Durham. And Lauren Parra is now our director, and here she is, with us, along with her husband and baby in the back. So they all came in support. They can wave in support. We reorganized Durham as a standalone department because we wanted to preserve our paradise. And we wanted to make sure that we had what we needed to assure the essential of our quality of life and our future through our environmental oversight. So Lauren was our chief resilience officer, and she was previously our chief bay and water resources officer. And she has spearheaded critical projects and policy for the restoration of our bay and worked with several of you already. She has an extensive background in public policy, advocacy, and government affairs, a strong focus on environmental resilience and community development. Through her leadership, the county has increased state and federal participation in our efforts to accelerate solutions to protect the bay, including $5 million from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to restart the Biscayne-based Southern Everglades Ecosystem Restoration, or BBCER, project. She's helped to integrate the county's siloed work around flood reduction and improved water quality. She has championed more efficient investments that protect our neighborhoods and public dollars. She's not only an environmental champion, a proven leader, and a passionate advocate, and by the way, a great communicator, but she is a pleasure to work with. I know she'll lead Durham with the same responsible and caring stewardship that she's shown throughout her career and throughout this county. So it is my great honor and pleasure to introduce to you formally our director of Durham, Lauren Parra. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And Lauren, I'll give you a few minutes to introduce yourself if you wish. I want to say I thank your husband and your beautiful baby for being present. That means a lot. Thankfully, at his age, he doesn't understand that Durham is probably the most frowned upon department in this county, and you've accepted this, apparently, since you're standing up there. I don't know why you did it. You must have a lot of passion for it, but with that, I'll give you a couple minutes. Thank you, Chair. I just did want to take a few minutes to thank a few people. I certainly wanted to start with thanking both the mayor and Chief Rick Coley, not only for offering me this opportunity, but actually for not thinking twice about doing it when I was literally nine months pregnant. I want to thank our deputy director at Durham, Rashida Stambouli, and the entire Durham leadership team for allowing me to be a mom for a few months before coming to be their director. So thank you to the team who's here. And I really want to thank my husband, who's here. As you all know, public service is a family affair. He didn't choose this life, but here he is, and I could not be standing here without him. So thank you, Michael. Since joining the Durham team, I have seen some pretty remarkable work already from the scientists, the engineers, the planners in the department. Work like meaningful air quality that helps residents who are asthmatic know when it's safe to go outside. Bay education and voter safety that allows families to feel safe and recreate on our bay without fear. But while I have spent my career working on policy that advances the region's environmental goals, quite literally from the Everglades to Biscayne Bay, as part of our mayor's vision, this department will be focused on execution. We will be focused on putting the policies of this county into effect and making sure that we are turning that data into action that improves the lives of residents across our county. For the health and safety of our residents, we must prioritize environmental health. And it is my commitment to you all that Durham will be well equipped to lead on that front. We can't wait to get to work. We want to plant more trees. Thank you all so much. And maintain the existing ones. Yes. You got it, Mr. Chair. All right, Lauren, you have a tough task ahead of you, but I'm sure that you're capable and willing to do it, so I appreciate you. Congratulations. Commissioner Gilbert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was sitting here, I was going to ask you a question. My chief of staff just told me that your husband's a really good guy. And so I don't know whether I can ask the question anymore now. But, yeah, so hubby, hi. Yeah, they holding up the baby, too. All right, cute kid. So, Lauren, I appreciate you. Congratulations on the appointment. I have no issues here. I just want us to – we get a fair amount of concerns and complaints and really yelled at about Durham, if we're being honest. I think that you all have an important job. You are to safeguard the environment. I just don't think that those things is – it has to be inconsistent with growth in business. And I just want – I want decisions and determinations be based on actual information and not opinion. And so I appreciate it. I think that you'll do that. Congratulations. And congratulations on being a mom. Thank you. That's very eloquently stated. Yes. Nicer than I would have probably stated it. But Senator Garcia. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The one number one complaint that we get is issues with Durham and WASTE. That's across the board, at least in my office. When we ask – listen, we understand, and it's something that I've always campaigned on and talked about with my constituents. We have to have economic growth, and you have to balance that with protecting the environment. It can't be one or the other. It has to be – you have to look at things. And we're in the business – we should be in the business of helping and facilitating our small businesses, not putting a stop to everything. So I hope that you heard what I'm saying, and I think everyone else echoes the same sentiment that both of us and the chairman. Please make sure that you take a well-rounded approach when you look at these issues and make sure that we're there to help our small businesses and not to hinder their growth while we protect the environment as well. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And again, congratulations, Lauren. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Thank you for that, Madam Mayor. Clerk, would you now recognize and announce the Veloma recipient? The Veloma Award honors parents who, inspired by the memory of a lost child, have taken meaningful action to positively impact the community. In accordance with award procedures for the first nomination period of 2026, Commissioner Gonzalez has nominated Cesar and Sandra Echavarri for this recognition. The presentation of this Veloma Award will take place during the commission meeting on Tuesday, March 17th. Second. Second. All right. All right. I don't think we need a motion or anything, right? Do we? No, right? You're just putting it onto the record. And then Commissioner Gonzalez will present the Veloma Award alongside his colleagues at said meeting that you just stated. All right. Thank you for that, and thank you for that nomination, Commissioner Gonzalez. With that, Madam Attorney, can we move into first reading items? Yes. For A as an ordinance relating to the rules of procedure of the Board of County Commissioners, amending section 2-1 of the code, requiring public meetings for housing projects, including but not limited to the development or redevelopment of public housing and other affordable housing, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. For B as an ordinance creating the Miami-Dade County Solid Waste Advisory Board, creating Article 172 of Chapter 2 of the code, providing purpose, composition, and duties of the advisory board and other related matters, and providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 4C substitute is an ordinance relating to noise regulation, amending section 21-28 of the code, modifying the circumstances that establish a prima facie violation of the noise regulations, governing radios, televisions, and similar devices, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 4D is an ordinance relating to environmental protection, creating Section 24-48.27 of the code, providing guidelines for the protection of sea turtle nesting, providing severability, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 4E is an ordinance creating and establishing a special taxing district in the county, generally bounded on the north by southwest 284th Street, on the east by southwest 173 Avenue, on the south by southwest 286th Street, and on the west by southwest 177th Avenue, SR997, Chrome Avenue, known and described as ABUS, multi-purpose maintenance and street lighting, special taxing district, identifying services to be provided, authorizing and directing the mayor, or designee to cause to be maintained and operated various public improvements, and to provide for the installation of street lights, approving a street lighting agreement with Homestead Energy Services, and authorizing the mayor or mayor's designee to execute the agreement, waiving provisions of resolution number R-1306, and providing for exclusion from the code, and an effective date. 4F is an ordinance creating and transferring a special taxing district in the county within the boundaries of the city of Homestead, generally bounded on the north by southwest 328th Street, north canal drive, southeast 8th Street, on the east by theoretical southwest 152 Avenue, theoretical southeast 27th Drive, on the south by south canal drive, and on the west by theoretical southwest 154 Avenue, theoretical southeast 26th Avenue. Known and described as Keysgate, North Subdivision, multi-purpose maintenance, special taxing district, identifying services to be provided, authorizing and directing the mayor, designee to cause to be maintained and operated, various public improvements, and providing for exclusion from the code, and an effective date. Those are your first reading items. I do have a request to bifurcate item 4B from Commissioner Bermudez and Commissioner Regalado. That's 4B? Yes. All right. Do I have a motion on the remaining items? Moved by the vice chair. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Bermudez. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Emilia Norvis. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes 12 to 1. Senator Garcia moves 4B. Seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. For now. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Si para now. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Four. Commissioner Emilia Norvis. Commissioner Regalado. No. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Yes. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. Yes. Motion passes 12 to 1. All right. Madam Attorney, can we move into public hearing items at this time? Yes. 5A is a resolution approving the naming of a portion of the underlying as Chewy Bark Park for a period of three years through and including January 31st, 2029, and its supplement. 5B is a resolution approving the plot of Feldman Storch and Resi. 5C is a resolution approving the plot of San Diego Villas. 5G is a resolution approving the plot of Wow Center. 5B is a resolution co-designating that portion of Northwest 60th Street from Northwest 22nd Avenue to the western boundary of the City of Miami as Frederick Morley Way and its supplement. those are your public hearing items you read them already oh that was fast all right any bifurcate I have no public speakers registered to speak on any of the items so public hearing is open it's closed any bifurcations Gilbert on 5a any other bifurcations seeing none Commissioner Gonzales moves the rest of the items seconded by Commissioner Cohen Higgins all those in favor signify by say and I all opposed nay show the remainder of the public hearing items passed Commissioner Gilbert recognized on 5a thank you mr. chairman Commissioner Regalado this is this is a reoccurring issue for me and we can we can do this but we I'm gonna have to do this out loud every time we do this because because it occurs to me that how we maintain a community where some communities and some neighborhoods have and some never get are these little things just like this now just to recap the voters of Miami-Dade County paid for the metro rail but only in certain areas some folks bought a great idea to have an underlying which is basically a linear park underneath the retro retro rail and they said that we wouldn't have to really pay a lot of money we end up paying a god-awful lot of money we still pay them every year we managed to try to cap it but not this year it's for future years and now they're selling the naming rights for the things that we paid for and built and the money is only staying there and so this idea that they can take out of the general pot but when they make money it goes back into a pot that's just for them it's challenging and and I know Commissioner Regalado this is part of a larger you know process and scheme you have to get them off of off of our I understand that but but let's be clear Commissioner Senator Garcia your residence my residence Gonzales your residence McGee your residence all of our residents paid paid to build the metro rail and and the underline and they are selling the naming rights and keeping the money just for them and and I don't have a problem with them having nice things but why they only once get to have nice things and so I I just fundamentally and I know that we have um because of a motion I made we any money that they bring in it goes against our general contribution but not for this year so this five hundred thousand dollars doesn't subtract the money from the money that we said that we were going to give them this year in this budget it doesn't do that and and so I I have fundamentally a problem with that because when they chose to build the underline and I said it before and I'm gonna say it again Metro Rail doesn't just exist in Coral Gables in the city of Miami in South Miami they could have built it in Liberty City they could have built it in Alapata that's not what they chose they chose affluent communities that have stuff that's what they chose and so those choices I think matter and I don't have anything against that but now we're still paying to make their stuff nicer when the other communities ain't got nothing and I just that is what I have something to read with if we're gonna and that's not to mention that this is basically a park under a linear park underneath the Metro Rail and we just went through an exercise where we cut our parks budgets we cut our budgets for all of our residents we're gonna just give this money to them again but that's it for now Mr. Chairman All right so Commissioner Regalado your choice I can recognize you now but Hardeman wants to be recognized too we're gonna try to do this in one round you're gonna want to speak after Hardeman again or I probably won't need to speak after Keon but I'll just make a point just to clarify some of the things that my colleagues said first if we go back to the 80s when they decided where to build the Metro Rail one of the things that drove that choice was density and for those of us who grew up in that area Shenandoah Little Havana was not an affluent area it was actually overrun by then Marielitos and a very dangerous area when that was decided similar to Vizcaya Vizcaya was a semi-abandoned place and it was not necessarily a nice place to live as someone who lives in that area I pay a TID there was a TID placed over the Metro Rail and we contribute to that TID as property owners and that has been going back to the half penny for 30 something years since it was built that being said I have gone out of my way to fix the Metro Rail stations at no cost to the to the half penny to have it done by development I worked with you on the RTZ the RTZ has come mainly to my district Keon's district and now Commissioner Lopez's district so in terms of where the development has gone and where the density has come it has come to this area in large part because of the Metro Rail and that money goes into the general fund when you look at the property values that are paid in those three districts and if you include Commissioner Steinberg they're very very different from what is paid in other districts there are residents in my district that pay over a hundred thousand dollars a year to the county for taxes while in other districts people pay two thousand so there there is a differential that being said when we talk about the underlying I have spent the last few years creating tools for them to be self-sufficient so I want to thank you for acknowledging that and this is one of them and the plan that we agreed to was to give them that ability to start up they went we didn't get this sponsorship for them they they got this sponsorship they leveraged it based on their goodwill their work their social media the work that they're doing and we we are here as their partners in the same way by the way that we work on sponsorships for Metro Zoo and whatever sponsorships Metro Zoo gets that helps us to alleviate our responsibility to Metro Zoo I'm currently working on a sponsorship inside one of our libraries the first we've ever done inside one of our libraries I was talking to our staff in Tallahassee when we were all there last month and I think that before the state takes away our ability to name the airport we should come we should consider sponsorship you know if if if if someone's going to take away our right to name something we might as well um use that to the benefit of our taxpayers so I I appreciate your your concern and your continued criticism of the underlying uh it's consistent there's comforting consistency um but I we really are trying to give them tools to be self-sufficient and this is one of those tools that was very hard fought by them um I even had a sunshine meeting uh with um Commissioner McGee to talk about making it easier for the zoo and even for our parks to do some of this work so um I I don't just do this for the underlying one of the early items that I brought was for our trails so that we could have sponsorship for our trails um and we haven't moved forward with that but I have been creating these vehicles to do this work they're just doing it faster than other entities that have access to the same tools so I hope to have your support on this um I think that the success of the underlying is for every resident of Miami-Dade County and we're happy to show you the the zip codes as to who goes there because they come from all over Miami-Dade County it is a county-wide asset and we have discussed expanding it throughout the entire metro rail um if people have an interest in that from helping you know from offering to help Hialeah to to the north um and obviously there's the underdeck and there's other things but it is it is not lost on us that the underlying is a model that I think could be replicated successfully in other parts of the county but they need to get on their feet and this is one of the items that will help them do that thank you thank you for recognizing me mr. chairman um I think I think that our dear commission is correct that many of us use the underlying who are not necessarily residents of the underlying um in fact my wife was exercising at the underlying this morning and called me to tell me how pleased she was with the space for those of you who don't know that I'm a liberty city resident so we don't have the benefit of having the underlying in our neighborhood but it goes to show you that people do travel from one space to another to enjoy nice things and I think that what you know commissioner gilbert expresses is that we all like nice things and so people many times will travel far in order to have that experience and those experiences should be afforded in all of our neighborhoods and so you know if if we forget the fact that the metro rail was not built the way that our dear neighbors to the north or even even further south would have liked and we just talk about the fact that even though it was built the places that it was built and then we have this project the special project called the underlying that was developed you know I'm not upset with those who took advantage of their circumstances to make things better I'm more upset with those who had the infrastructure and did not expand it into those areas that matter to them or should have mattered and so those areas would include places like allapata it would include I mean overtown is literally right there and it has part of a mover or rail and if you've been under it you you know exactly what you're dealing with there and so you know it's troubling when you have the same circumstances which is the development of the actual structure but they don't have the investment made when people are making the investment in it and so you know in my problem solving mind I start to think well how do you do that how do you say that this commissioner can can further invest in what she has but then also maybe let's start to invest in the spaces that would like it right how do you do it I don't I'm not here to hijack your item I mean possibly you do it by saying you know part of the funds that go there should go in places where it's desired but it does not have it yet right so if you raise a million dollars 50 percent goes to the area that would like to see this sort of development that at least they can get it some planting and some lighting and some cleanliness and maybe a place to sit or somewhere where you can actually walk like a hard skate that is beautiful you know the things that we see as we're driving along us one passing through your beautiful district I think that those things will go a long way the the so I can understand and it is incredibly frustrating to to have that thought and have to continue to express that thought as if it is something that is is said in passing you know what commissioner gibber describes is not said in jest we understand that it takes a tremendous amount of resource to get this done and we also understand that you know largely it was the it was it was an organization outside of this body that really pushed for this sort of thing but it certainly is our responsibility to think beyond what people present us to try to find a way to to ensure that the rest of our neighborhoods look a certain sort of way even when you drive through I mean the health district is a large metro rail passageway there um it's much to be desired it's much and that's an area where people walk and they frequent and things of that nature even something as little as and I've described this before but even something as little as providing lighting underneath the thing like in Shanghai they have these Shanghai blue lights underneath the expressway it is the most beautiful thing ever at nighttime it just glows and it just gives another element to a space that otherwise people wouldn't look at so you know I would I would rather that the people who are closest to me stay closer to me meaning they have an opportunity to do all the things that you would do in a coral gables or a pine crest and things like that in these other areas right and that's part of what my drive is to do every single day and I appreciate the vast majority of you because you give me the opportunity to do that because that's exactly what we're trying to do and so you know it's one of those things that you know I just believe that all of us have a mission on this board and you have these special circumstances that you have many times to achieve that mission and some of us have major stumbling blocks and they look in ways that many of you would never want in your district and so you know if you see a stumbling block in those districts where we're facing tremendous challenge understand that we need you to go beyond what you would normally do in order to help us get where we want to be and so I think that if we collectively did that then you probably wouldn't have the pushback on the things that you want to get done in your areas and you know I think that the desire to help people move in the positive direction to help these districts that are suffering to do better without sort of interference that is based on just theory and in ways I think will add to the camaraderie and to what we're able to accomplish on this dais and so you know the districts you know the problems if not for districts people probably would never claim to even solve any of these problems but because we have the district set up it is incumbent upon us who have these problems to solve it and so you know as just a general plea not to amend your item today is that I think that we should really think through that how is it that we can start to do these things and I'll tell you that the more that we're able to add things to people's districts especially distinct districts that are far apart from each other the more we solve some of these problems like traffic and cost of living and you know the frustration that people have with crying just a number of different things because we are lifting all the boats that exist in Miami-Dade County and so you know I hope that we continue to look forward to do that because I think that's what we need in order to move things forward and I think this is just one of those things that every time you see it it's just a constant reminder of the haves and the have-nots and the tough part about it is that when Commissioner Gilbert makes this argument he doesn't just leave it to where it's his district that does not have the rail he reminds us that this rail exists in these other districts and we didn't make it pretty or useful like we have done it on Brickell and so therein lies the frustration and so I think we just have a lot more to accomplish in that and we can do it like yeah seriously we can do it and so let's just have the appetite for it thank you Commissioner Gilbert thank you Commissioner Martin thank you Mr. Chairman I actually think that we can do it and part of the challenge Commissioner Regalado is this is that the underlying can't be a model it's going to be a one trick pony I feel because you're not going to get the well-connected people who come before a board and tell them they only have to do 800,000 and then they end up doing whatever it is 60 million or whatever it is it's not going to be a model because we can't go for that again so because I know it's not going to be a model because I know this board is not going to do that because I know that that money would have to be found and those partnerships would have to be created in a different way I know this is never going to happen in those other areas in that way not like the underlying did so I would love for the underlying to be a model in what they're doing I actually have a deep admiration for their programming and what they're doing but how we funded and how we created it and how we maintained it and funded highlights the disparities in this county that will continue to grow they will absolutely continue to grow I can appreciate those areas you mentioned weren't always affluent areas but when they started the underlying they were doing fine the underlying made a business choice they decided which areas would affect their lives better and would be easier to sell they made a business choice and I'm not mad at them about that but our job is to somehow normalize that and spread those opportunities out because I've gone to events at the underlying I'm okay with that we have to drive to get there they have to walk there's a difference that type of accessibility is a difference I think Commissioner Hardiman's point if there was some mechanism as they generate listen, if they're generating money and some goes back to the county that's fine that'd be great if they're generating money and like right now this money is subtracted from the money that we have to give them because we continue to pay for the underlying it is not something that's happening in the past it is something that is happening right now in this budget in the next budget and in the budget after that we have already programmed the money to give to them we have an agreement so we are doing that right now in real time we're exacerbating the disparity and so sometimes we do these things and I have great admiration for a lot of the people who served before us I didn't agree with all of them but I have admiration for them because I understand now how hard the job is right but one of the things that I'm critical of is sometimes no one articulated what they were doing in real time to actually perpetuate situations situations that they all agreed should be remedied this is one of those things as a board we know we're not going to raise taxes to do this we know that as a board we know that whatever we model to fix it address the disparities in the other area it's going to be out of this level of revenue we have coming in we know that right now and knowing that we're going to vote to let them sell the naming rights and I agree with Commissioner Regalato they created the value if you find the value in the social media and the advertising and the promoting but if you find the value in actually building it then Miami-Dade County and the state of Florida created the value the taxpayers of Dade County and Florida created value I think maybe some of the American the U.S. taxpayers created the value through grants they didn't actually create the thing they just advertised the thing that we paid for we paid for it they sold it and now they're selling it again that is what's happening in real time and again I'm not even sure I'm going to vote against your item but I can't let us do this quietly not even once because we have to remember there are communities like I want the Metro Rail all throughout this county I think rapid mass transit is what we need but I definitely want the underline under the parts that have the Metro Rail right now because I drive by those homeless people I realize that if we build and activate those spaces it transforms the community and we do nothing thank you Mr. Chair and thank you to Commissioner Gilbert and Commissioner Regalato and Commissioner Hardiman for the comments I am interested however Commissioner Gilbert on whether or not you have a motion because your points are extremely well taken by me and it wasn't that long ago that we had a discussion at budget about the underline and there were representations made and agreements reached which I respect and I don't think anybody's interested in disrupting it and frankly congratulations to the underline for securing this sponsorship I'm excited about the Chewy Bark Park I look forward to visiting it I think it's going to be a lovely park naming what is the value of it what is the dollar amount that they are receiving as a result of the naming right that's being sold to the administration Mr. Chair as a point of order can we have Uless come up the county did not build the dog park so if he could just come up and explain what the county built and what the but not right now when I recognize you you could call him up and he could be ready Uless nice to see you my friend does somebody know the amount or maybe Uless wants to answer that $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 every year over the three years that's my point $500,000 is not a small amount of money and so again congratulations to the underline for securing that sponsorship we as a body should be asking ourselves the questions that Commissioner Hardiman and Commissioner Gilbert asked we've built it with our tax dollars and there were some representations at the commencement of the underline that I understand switched over time and nobody is quarreling with that but now that they are receiving sponsorship dollars at this level we should be having a conversation about whether or not they should be able to just spend that money as they decide as friends of the underline that body that board or whether we the body that allowed them in conjunction with a number of partnerships whether that money should be spent as decided by us here at the board and so I think and again Commissioner Gilbert you could be you could say that's not what I'm saying at all that's completely off but the way that I hear it I'm hearing it as why are we releasing $500,000 to them when they were at the podium three months ago saying how desperately they needed money from us congratulations on the sponsorship amazing go get a ton more and help us close the gap that we have been filling for you for years and have promised to continue filling for you for years to come to me there's a disconnect here right it's like if I give you money and you're you're telling me you're strapped or you're hardship and you need my money I'm going to give you the money but if I find out that you're getting flushed with cash on an opposite end I'm going to come knocking and say hey you know where's my money and that may not be the perfect analogy but I think that Commissioner Gilbert's point is well taken we as a body can decide whether that $500,000 should be distributed in different parts of our community should be invested in other areas as opposed to handing it off to the friends of the underlying to make those decisions thank you Mr. Chair and so if you have a motion Commissioner Gilbert I'm not sure that I heard one if you have a motion I certainly will be happy to second it thank you Mr. Chair there's no motion right oh there can be okay can we clarify some points yeah of course I look I agree with I agree with both of you on that I think what I would add just before I know that Commissioner Regalado will further clarify but is I think there's still in your example Commissioner Conagans I just think that we still need to what's their incentive to even go get sponsorships at that point so I agree with what you're saying but then they'll just be decentivized to not go out there and get sponsorships I mean Ulysses is a great guy or whatnot but he's just not going to do it and I mean sure you're not going to do it you know you're going to stand up there and say of course you will but you're just not going to do it you got other things to do and to go raise money for us right but I like it but we got to find some incentive for our ambassadors our partners to go out and do this but Commissioner Regalado thank you thank you Mr. Chair I just wanted to clarify a few points first to respond to Commissioner Hardiman's points the underline is more than willing to lead a vision plan for the entire county we've actually offered that to several commissioners four years ago I brought a trail map where I showed every single commissioner all the different trails that were owned by the parks department that were not funded I brought an item so that park impact fees could be used to activate those trails light those trails put gravel on those trails and I brought a second item to bake that into the comp plan and then Senator Garcia voted against it and Nardi stood up there and said that it would be bad for parks and the item was tabled and I was not allowed to bring it back so at that point the underline started reaching out we met with people in Hialeah we've met you know we've met with different cities that want to do this work whether they have an underline or not and we've talked about it since I couldn't get the comp plan item every single time that I have sat up here during a zoning meeting I have allocated impact fees around this area to the underline because I couldn't do it automatically the projects that I have brought to this board the underline has been the community benefit in fact when there was an item and Commissioner Joe Martinez was here I allocated money from that item to trails in now Commissioner Gonzalez's district because back then there was a desire by those neighbors to activate those trails and Commissioner Martinez at the time didn't want me to allocate my impact fee money from my project to his trails because his trails were the closest to my project so you know I'm more than happy to have a sunshine meeting to have the underlying lead the vision plan there is actually some organizations that are working on a comprehensive trail map because I have brought it up to other people as a way of sharing what we're doing at the underlying all over Miami-Dade County each and every single one of you has some of you have two to three trails that are owned by the county that are not that are not have no capital investment has been made that are not used that are just dirt easements that could easily be turned into a connective map for all of Miami-Dade County and I have talked about that increasingly so that that's number one number two I do want to have ULIS come up and explain specifically how this sponsorship works and the other thing I want to mention is every single item that I have worked on from advertising that took me two and a half years to the other tools that I have brought for the underlying every single time I have ensured that it could be used county wide by every single district I have not created anything exclusively for the underlying and in the case of advertising that actually cost me an extra year of work with our county attorneys and they told me listen if you just do it in your district you can get this item done and I said no I want to create county wide tools because to Commissioner Hardiman's point I believe that this can be done in other places and why do the work twice three times four times when you could do it once and everyone can just grab hold of that work and emulate it in other places so I disagree in terms of the modeling I think that a lot of things that we have learned on the underline can be done in other places and I want Ulysses to come up and explain exactly how the dog park works come on up Ulysses and how this money is being used because the reason that we cut the deal that we did Commissioner Gilbert is because we are currently standing up the underline so to date it has been a capital project we are now standing it up we're going to be providing maintenance and security and programming through 10 miles which is not a small feat which is why I asked for this year as the year to stand up the underline so that we could do our part and we have actively been working for sponsorships this is not the first sponsorship that comes before you this is the second sponsorship that comes before you and Ulysses can speak to it and explain kind of how the dog park came apart Ulysses Ulysses go ahead man I have some questions of myself for you some of it is how you get your tape line so perfect that tape line is pretty on point every time I see you but explain this because then I want to make sure like how are we maintaining there's still areas and I've had communication with your team and yourself in the past but when I drive by there like especially that US 1 corridor right off getting off the highway when we're leaving downtown actually just the maintenance is not being kept up so I'm intrigued to see how you secured this and how this is going to be spent because rather than investing this $500,000 I don't know what it's going to be spent on but let's say you're going to build a dog park with it or something like that is it to maintain it I mean what because there's areas of the underline there and it's not I think it's in your district that are less than crappy I called it was landscaping team went out there they did a little bit of cleanup but it wasn't it still looks pretty poor so like I don't know if we're still building like what's going on because it's not being maintained it's like being like maintained only in the areas that you all want to maintain not the entire stretch so you'll the underline so just to clarify with respect to the item the item is pursuant to naming rights for the dog park that was built by the city of Coral Gables and that will be operated and maintained by the city of Coral Gables there was interest from a national brand where we were able to effectuate an agreement which is $500,000 over the next three years part of that agreement will actually go to the capability for us to assist with the city of Coral Gables for maintenance of the dog park as well as for helping to offset some of the overall operations and maintenance this is also pursuant to the existing management agreement that we have that allows us to go and sell naming rights for assets along the underlying for the sole purpose of offsetting any extraordinary contribution from the general fund that has to be part of the funding mix long-term to talk about how we're moving forward over the next year to be self-sufficient we are working through a process now to evaluate options where we can have a funding source where we do not have to come back even after the agreed upon next couple fiscal years for O&M for the county for us to be able to be fully sustainable and up on our own so it's going to be a funding mix that we're going to have to have in order for us to be in existence and continue with providing the operations and maintenance for the corridor as well as future programming with respect to the maintenance we were halfway done with all 10 miles so we're about five miles for phase two when there issues that have come up the planting or issues that we need to replace those plants that have been installed we continue to go back and work within the warranty period within the contractor and replace those plants if there are specific areas that need additional maintenance let us know we have a team that's out there every single day to address them in the most appropriate manner and then the balance of the five miles are still up under construction now where the contractor is also responsible for installation and maintenance as well as maintaining the existing infrastructure that you see here today so we're on track with completing all 10 miles by the end of the year where everything will be turned over to us where we need to be in a position to be able to maintain and operate it moving forward and I will add that I am working on an item that brings the other vehicle for the underline to the agreement that I made with Commissioner Gilbert about making it self-sufficient the other thing that I would like to mention is the underline was tasked with going to Tallahassee and being able to access bed tax so the underline is not being paid out of the general fund so that's another thing when we talk about the funding that we currently have it's not being taken from the parks department or for the general fund and that is something that they were tasked with by this board which they accomplished in Tallahassee and that's one of the many tools that they've actively worked on in order to create a more dynamic funding stream so again I said that we would be more than Ulyss if you could talk to that because you and I have spoken about it and I know there's other people talking about it too and I presented you with that map a long time ago no Ulyss we're not going to talk about that right now hold on so here's what happens when you call Ulyss up so now you've said things that I know Commissioner Gilbert is going to go on but I'm going to tell you what I caught so first you say that City of Coral Gables did this park and they're going to maintain it they built it and they're going to maintain it because we asked him for the contribution no we're not doing that yeah but we're not you're not I don't care who asked for it could have been Jesus Christ who asked for it it and then you say that this sponsorship is going to assist the maintenance for Coral Gables on this dog park you later said that it is also going to go to some general funds stuff but why isn't it going to assist the county in all of the millions of dollars we've put into it so I imagine that Commissioner Gilbert is listening to you and saying the $500,000 is going to assist Coral Gables when they were fully covering the maintenance of so I don't know if you just misspoke if it was just so I don't know if you want to clarify that because you lost me there you lost me in that portion of it is no you just said you said it it wasn't me it wasn't me you said Coral Gables built it and they're so any sponsorship we get why would you go and assist Coral Gables when they're already committed to and I love Coral Gables and I love that they did this and I'm great friends with a lot of the elected officials and the people that live in Coral Gables but why are you assisting with that funds when they're already covering it it's in their budget rather than assisting the other the county which is the one that's put the most money in it so help me understand that so our sponsorships that we collect are again set up to be able to offset anything that moving forward in the future that we will be asking from the county in this specific instance we are negotiating with the city to ensure that we understand how to use the proceeds from the sponsorship those negotiations are not complete as of yet but it's a part of the arrangement for us to move forward with the naming rights for the dog park okay just as as a no no no commissioner gilbert you're recognized and I will probably support any motion that you make at this point okay so the city of corral gables built a dog park on underlying which was our property right so they built something on and they built it and they're going to maintain it this sponsorship is going to go to them it's still our sponsorship but with the underlying it's going to go to the other line but you're going to use it to maintain the thing that they built that they're supposed to maintain the sponsorship is set up again with this brand to be able to provide programming for the community that's primarily what the sponsorship is for there might be items that again for keeping the dock park maintained properly that we still need to discuss with this city of Coral Gables but the primary reason why we have the sponsorship is to provide programming and to help offset the overall operations that we are absorbing as a part of the underlying absorbing for the dog park in general you kind of said the dog park and this is primarily I think I mentioned earlier in the meeting sometimes people talking they probably shouldn't you probably should not have called them up because now I'm a no now I'm a no I'm a no because they built something I let them maintain it they built a dog park for their residents and now they're naming our asset and taking the money that's what you want to do to maintain the dog park for their residents I don't this can't be the model that we're going to use for sponsorships now if you tell me that you're going to subtract that $500,000 off the money we to give you okay then I can say we got that money we can use it in Amelia Earhart he wants something for his district we can use it in Marlins we can do it then but you're telling me that they built something that they're going to sell the name to that belongs to us and if you say that well according to the agreement you all have the right to sell the names I'm going to ask why are you before us then because that was my initial question if you all have the right to do this why are asking if you don't have the right to do it maybe you should ask before you have the agreement because it doesn't appear because you all are before us and I can't believe that Commissioner Regalado would ever really want to come before us on this issue Thank you Mr. Chair and I actually I want to thank Commissioner Gilbert for bringing up this point and I want to echo some of the points that Commissioner Hardiman brought up now the frustration up here is not with the fact that you went out to the private sector because I actually want to commend you and the underline for doing that as a matter of fact this board ever since Commissioner Gilbert's chairmanship and on to Chairman Rodriguez's chairmanship we move at the speed of business we try to incentivize businesses to come into our community as a matter of fact Miami is the new center of the universe we just had over the weekend a major company Palantir saying that they're moving to Miami I just recently read an article that says that there's over 40,000 millionaires and billionaires that live in Miami Dade right now the most amount in any major metropolitan area in the United States the reason I bring that up is because I'm certainly not for taxes I'm not going to sit up here and say tax the rich but what I am going to say is that culture and community impact the vibrancy of a major metropolitan area so on the one hand I want to commend you for going out to the private sector and acquiring a sponsorship the frustration up here and I don't want to speak for my colleagues but I believe the frustration up here is because the sentiment that I'm getting from my colleagues and I'm feeling this a little bit too is that respectfully it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too you want to go out for sponsorships which is awesome every single NGO and CBO out there should be doing exactly what you folks are doing successfully they should be going out to the private sector and they should be asking the private sector for sponsorships so that they can help the community that they live in absolutely but it seems like you're taking that sponsorship and to Commissioner Cohen Higgins point you then want to come back and ask for more taxpayer funds you know I'm going to take this is like a I'm the captain now moment right sir last budget was crazy you ain't seen nothing yet bro this budget is going to be crazy it would behoove all NGOs to start identifying these 40,000 millionaires and billionaires rather than coming back here and asking for taxpayer money because taxpayer money should be used for the essentials of the taxpayers not for extras and that's where I feel like perhaps a lot of the folks up here are a little bit frustrated I certainly don't want to deter you from a sponsorship like this and it seems fitting that with the name the Chewy name it's for a dog park I would assume that the folks at Chewy are considering the sponsorship so that they can market to dog owners it would make sense but at the same time I understand the frustration from my colleagues where it feels like in the last budget you folks came up here and said it would be catastrophic if we're not funded we came out and funded you took the initiative to go out and get private sector money which is great but then you're not being clear about using it to offset taxpayer dollars from the county going to the underline I say all of that to say that as a board and this is to the chair perhaps the chair would like to lead an initiative but you know Jeb Bush set up a council of 100 when he was governor and that council was basically some of the most successful folks in Florida they got together to bring more successful folks I mean right now you have to give accolades to Stephen Ross and Ken Griffin for going out there and trying to bring big companies to Florida bring big companies to Miami but we should also in trying to attract these jobs and attract this economic boom say what made New York New York was that all of these big businesses invested in the culture and invested in the community and the underline along with other folks like the Perez Museum like the Frost Museum they should take the initiative to go to these philanthropists and demand and ask that they contribute to the community that they're moving into the only thing we're saying as a board is don't try to play me because I don't think that this is what you're trying to do but it certainly feels that way a little bit don't try to come here and say hey we've just secured these funds but we're going to use it to something that has nothing to do with the county to offset taxpayer funds from from coral and not offset taxpayer funds from the county again I don't think that that's what you're doing I can see where the folks at Chewy would like to perhaps be a part of the dog park it makes perfect sense as to why they would want to make that sponsorship but it would be in the underlying best interest as you can hear from my colleagues to acquire more funding and to make sure that that funding takes care of your budget because the taxpayers budget is not going to be there this year my friend thank you Mr. Chair thank you Commissioner Commissioner Conaggins and then I'm going to I will go to you yes go ahead go ahead yeah I just want to clarify something the dog park is two thirds core Gables land one third underline and this is similar to what is happening right now in South Miami South Miami just bought a parcel that they're joining to the underline so that's why the city of Cory Gables had to approve this item first and that's why they're part of the sponsorship if if they were not contributing two thirds of the land they would not have been in this conversation there so so when he talks about why they're part of the negotiation it's because the parcel that was at the underline was not big enough to be a dog park it was added to the Cory Gables parcel to create the dog park South Miami is doing the same thing they just purchase a piece of land adjacent to the underline because they want to do a bigger park what I was mentioning is one of the things that this board asked us to do three years ago was to get the municipalities to pay part of the maintenance and the operation of the underline and we went and we did that so that is separate and apart this dog park was not part of that going to put as we manage the park together because as part of the sponsorship Chewy has required a certain number of activities and obviously that has wear and tear on the dog park to Commissioner Gonzalez's point we are actively as the underline always seeking for folks to give us donations and one of the things that I worked on for two and a half years was being able to thank those had to bring an item so that we could put thank you to those sponsors so those have all been learning processes that we have gone through that I have offered to the rest of Miami County and even to different institutions so that the county could also do this so I just think that there's a lot of confusion as to this particular parcel and ULIS did say it and I'll reiterate it the whole reason that we're getting these sponsorships that we're doing these activities that we're working on this is so that the county will not be responsible for the underlying that is what we are actively moving towards so ULIS I don't look I don't know that Commissioner Regalado's explanation changes my thoughts but I will say I think explaining it is important in detail right because I'm sure we were told we're being told in a 15 20 minute conversation here on the dais I'm happy to amend the item if you want I can withdraw it we may get to that but the thing is and I understand it gets complex because I imagine Commissioner Regalado just brings up another point now which is if in the case of Chewy which is a national brand and it's great I did not know that they're requiring additional programming is included in City of Coral Gables original maintenance plan is it not is that why some of the funding has to go to that I don't know that I feel like if City of Coral Gables wanted a dog park in that section of the underline and they have two-thirds of the property or whatever it is and their residents will be using this dog park and any other residents but presumably all the residents most of their residents most people won't be bringing their dogs from Westchester to use that dog park if I had to guess they'll go to tropical park and use the abandoned one that's there that we're trying to find funds to redo but we'll call Chewy and try to get a sponsorship for that soon so has Coral Gables not committed to the full maintenance and programming whatever programming means I don't know you're going to train dogs and have them jump through hoops I don't know what programming means I'm a dog owner I don't go to the dog park but point is did they not commit to a fully funded maintenance plan for that dog park so I believe and again this was a separate agreement if I'm not mistaken between the county and the city of Coral Gables I don't have I can't recall the details of what that agreement is in terms of overall maintenance I'm just articulating to you the fact that the city has built the park to the commission regular point the dividing line in the park is split between the city of Coral Gables and the county and this is why we're before you today we did this item went in front of the city of Coral Gables for approval and we're going through this process here with the county because of the dividing line and boundary for the park so I would have to follow up with you on the specific details and work with the department to provide those details about the maintenance obligation from the city I'm happy to defer it and bring it to the next PCC with all the detail so I'll move to defer hold on Commissioner Cohen Higgins do you still need to speak or no because I have hired him as well or with a deferral we're just good do you all still want to speak even with a deferral just yes no can I just a brief you can if the commission wants to deferral then we defer the only point I was going to make is I think if we're not going to defer we should help her understanding that we've expressed and she's committed to helping us that's what that's like I said I'm happy to work on the vision plan if people want that okay thank you and on the deferral so help me understand the posture of the item because typically when items come before us like this there's some sort of an agreement that is attached i.e. the chewy agreement that is giving you all the $500,000 so and that's not attached to this item and in the item there was no mention of the $500,000 which is why I had to ask and it makes me wonder why is it so scant of those details that would presumably include details like who is legally responsible for maintaining the park which we're unaware of as well and so my question is this have you all already executed the agreement with chewy and have you already received the funds so as with most other previous sponsorships there's an agreement with friends that typically is a part of an item I'm not sure why it wasn't a part of this particular item so we have an agreement and then we go through the actual process for getting the proper approvals for naming rights so we can provide this information as well if it's not currently a part of the item yeah and the reason that I ask is because when you approached the podium because you were asked to approach the podium you started speaking a lot about coral gables and the obligations you have to provide programming and the obligations that coral gables have but none of that is included in the item hence the reason that we are asking so many questions so I think the item simply needs the additional information that this board is seeking and if it is the board to defer it so that we have that information I personally would like to see that agreement with Trui because there have been representations made on the microphone today regarding what it is that you are obligated to do under that agreement and I want to see the agreement so if this item gets deferred and comes back in any kind of an amended form I would appreciate seeing that agreement that you all have already executed with Trui thank you Mr. Chair I feel comfortable based on the comments that were made on the record by Commissioner Regalada to move this forward as long as we get the commitment to make sure that we work on this together so I get where we are you hear the concerns you hear the concerns of us in the north as relates to some of the funding and the mechanism of this so I I do feel comfortable moving this forward Mr. Chairman and look I'll just add what would be and maybe Commissioner Regalado you can speak to this but what would be different next month other than let's say a copy of the agreement with Chewy or whatnot right because I don't want to spend another 40 50 minutes next month if there's no which will be helpful for this board but I'm kind of with Hardiman and Garcia on this is if it's not going to change and it's going to be before us next month are we going to do this again next month like Gilbert are you going to pull this item again next month and I mean just is water wet is water wet it's the sun hot what are you talking about unless something comes back subtantly different I will pull the item unlike when I say we can work on something if we work on it and I agree to it I'll leave the item alone I'm not going to work on something and still vote against the item I don't do that Mr. Chair if I could respond the item does say that there is a $500,000 gift over three periods so the item does have the amounts on page four but we did not enter into detail as to the property so we can add a map we can show you how much of the property is owned by Corra Gables we can add how much Corra Gables spent on building the dog park with us we can add the maintenance numbers that we have that is all information that we have that we did not add on here because we didn't think it was going to be a problem to Commissioner Hardeman's point I'm happy to add whether now or later if we decide that this is enough information that the underline will work on a vision plan for the county I've offered it several times I really have offered it several times and I'm happy to do it and I have tried in many different iterations to work on it and I would love to do that we have voiced that desire many times it's not tied to this Chewy thing but we're happy to do it and I'm happy to amend the item to include that Corey Gables can provide us with more information but again to your point Mr. Chairman I don't know how much of the agreement is I guess I don't know if all of it's going to be able to be disclosed some of it might not be disclosed because we did get into that when this went before the city of Corey Gables we were asked a lot of questions about the agreement we were able to answer some of them but not all of them because Chewy would not allow us to disclose some of the information so that's a whole other issue that so I will try to add as much information as I am allowed to because now I have to go back to Corey Gables to ask them for the information and add it and now also Chewy and what they would provide but all of that being said the vision plan and the helping with the trails and the helping with the connectivity and with helping with the other ones happy to do it happy to have that on the underline and happy to also spend time again talking about how we're using all these different vehicles to offset the county's funding because that was the whole point of this I don't know that given that it doesn't sound like there will be any substantive change to an item next month I would probably not support a deferral I think you have the votes today by the way I'm happy to move it and amend it to include the vision plan and that we're going to be working on that we have always wanted to do it and again the will of the board I think that we understand the concerns and I can tell you that I've been actively working on ensuring that and I'm going to bring another item as to the funding as I promised Commissioner Gilbert at budget I have been working on that and it is geographically specific if you can't bring the item back with the agreement and I don't need a map of it I take your word that it's two piece of this item which I don't understand how Chuy can request that when this is like some quasi judicial type of entity I thought it was all public records and this isn't like a lawsuit where it's in the shade I don't understand but again I don't not a lawyer and I guess Ulus can explain that to me later it doesn't have to be right now but that's another vice chairman thank you mr chairman and commissioner regalado I support the deferral my only request would be is exactly what you just mentioned that's what I was actually waiting to say if we can possibly have a sunshine if not a sunshine have the friends of the underline to come meet with me and give me an update on how what when and why that this thing is what you say it is so I i'm happy to support the deferral at this moment thank you commissioner gilbert commissioner gilbert yeah mr chairman i support deferral let me just say i appreciate i feel like we're about to have a conversation about pronouns right so when commissioner regalado says we but she's speaking for the underline she's speaking as the underline you are county commissioner you we are us they them are them and so i get actually a little wrapped up in what she's saying because her ways are a little mixed up it's the royal it's the royal we have you seen landman yes it's a fire show yes fire show so that's the first challenge um i appreciate the underlying being willing to do the modeling and and advise we we have people who could talk to us about what we do along so your input is but really what i'm looking to do is address the financial situation it's the money and so it is literally the money this is not against the underlying and for this is about the money and the services that i know we have to provide in other parts of the county and we don't have the resource to do it that that that that's that's really what i'm looking at ms chairman and so if this gives us time to actually look at how we actually affect that bottom line westchester needs a piece of it we need it westchester thank you mr. chair i also support the deferral because my district has several areas that borders commissioner hardeman's district and i do have you know a space that could benefit from much resources northwest 79th street and 27th avenue which is a major toll fair in miami did county so i support the deferral if it gives us an opportunity to meet to have a sunshine meeting to discuss how we could spread the wealth to the different districts such as one two and three and more and i appreciate your statement commissioner regalado indicating that you've offered to discuss a vision for miami did county so i'd be interested in a sunshine meeting where we can sit down and see how this vision can become reality because as commissioner orderman clearly stated most of our district would love to have spaces where residents could just go walk and exercise do zumba cha cha cha do folklore boots underground we we would love to have that basketball so yes yes so i support the deferral and to have an opportunity to have a sunshine to see how we can expand these resources for the benefit of other districts in the county because after all we are one miami dade county one mission one mission happy to do a sunshine and happy to defer all right so commissioner regalato moves to defer seconded by commissioner hardiman it's good and all in favor of the deferral signify by saying aye aye all opposed nay show the item deferred to the next BCC meeting and or to the whenever commissioner regalato brings it back it's not ready by next meeting then you can you can change that all right madam attorney I have to check now because sometimes you switch 6A1 which I guess it's my item discussion on the WTE the one that I know some folks here have been waiting for so can we can we get into that now madam attorney now I'm being distracted by our page we have a page can we recognize Mr. Steinberg who is our page on the day is today wave Mr. Steinberg Mr. Steinberg you want to wave young Mr. Steinberg waving as the page for us today so if anybody needs water he's also serving as our legal aid today I mean probably just as good as some of the legal aids that listen he has no school I had to put him to work all right mine had school today well I don't get it all right so guys on waste energy first and foremost thank you to most of my colleagues that attended the workshop I think those that didn't I know watched it so I'm told I think we had a healthy discussion it was about two hours and we learned a lot and from what I understand I am hoping that we can keep this somewhat brief today but from what was discussed at the workshop is today is more more than anything a formality to just give the directive to the administration to engage with this new consortium combined of FPNL and FCC on starting negotiations so that in April based on the timeline that we approved I believe back in October of last year they can come back to us with a well rounded wholesome proposal on what this is going to essentially cost the county so that we can make an educated decision so I like and of course I'll open it up if there is discussion although I know that was the purpose of the workshop but I like the county attorneys to read a motion that I have in that regard I have added a piece of an additional piece to that motion so please pay attention to it and I don't know if the staff disbursed it they should be dispersing it but in the meantime while it gets disbursed if it's not already please read my motion on the record Chairman Rodriguez moves to one direct the county mayor or county mayor's designee to negotiate and finalize an interim agreement with a joint developer consortium comprised of Florida Power and Light Company and FCC Environmental Services LLC the establishes county policy that no event shall the county or the county's taxpayers or ratepayers pay the consortium or any other party or entity any ongoing future or perpetual royalty or tipping fees directly or indirectly for the purchase lease use or acquisition of any interest in privately owned land for the site of a future waste energy facility all right so that's my motion if I can have someone move it for me it's been moved by commissioner bastian seconded commissioner cohen higgins and then commissioner regalato you're recognized on the motion yes has someone like passed it out because I was trying to pay attention but it been passed out haven't seen it haven't seen it so essentially it's what we discussed at the workshop so it's two things it's two fold just it was very self explanatory but policy this board which of course I recognize it could always be undone but making it policy of the board the same way we made policy not to have a certain area or certain sites that we will not be acquiring any property with a royalty in perpetuity agree so I just wanted to mention a few things I think this is a good start but I think we have to clarify some stuff since our workshop I did some research and one of the things that I wanted to bring up to the board was on October 20th 2020 none of us were sitting here at that point the county entered into an interim agreement for what was then the beach corridor trunk line and I want to call your attention to this because this was the last large interim that we did I went through like the last 15 years when have we done this type of work and this was the one that was most similar because different to the ones that have been done recently whether it's airport city or the steel mill those were properties that were owned by the county and you'll remember that there was that back and forth as to the ownership of the intellectual property I want to bring up this contract because I am hesitant to send the administration to enter into an interim without any parameters there are no parameters here the parameters that were established in the interim agreement that was brought to the county in October 20th of 2020 was it was one department it was the Genting property formerly the Miami Herald property and it was the due diligence for that site ended up costing the county around 18 million so the item that was brought said no more not to exceed 14 million over 18 months with the possibility of a six month extension for the engineering and permitting work very similar to the language that we received in the document that the proposers sent us yesterday at four o'clock so when I matched up what we were sent at four o'clock which my question is is this somehow included in your motion is this like a starting point Mr. Chair because at 430 yesterday they did send us a joint proposal for sustainable solid waste campus and in that it says FCC will finance develop own and operate dedicated facilities for processing alternative waste streams with scope and capacity to be determined in collaboration with the county and then it goes on to say something that concerns me but I mention this because Arcadis up to this point has been doing this work for us Arcadis actually already did a preliminary review of the one of the sites that we're considering so if we're still considering these two sites which are not specifically mentioned here but were mentioned in the workshop Arcadis has already done some preliminary work on that site we have an existing agreement with Arcadis Arcadis has been doing all of our solid waste work and when we talk about no cost to the county obviously in the memo that we were presented we're talking about what it says specifically on page one it says that the parties will work collaboratively with county staff and advisors to detailed engineering refine financial terms prepare necessary permitting finalize contracts and ultimately deliver a comprehensive shovel ready agreement for the board's approval so this is very similar to what I found in the beach corridor trunk line in terms of the services that are being delineated and what was actually provided this was 18 million dollars at the end of the day because the county decided not to move forward similar to what is being presented to us now there was no cost to the county if we move forward but the county decided not to move forward so we actually had to pay the 18 million out of our transportation budget so my question is number one is there a cap for this work number two what is the delineation as we send them to negotiate and is this coming out of the solid waste fee because if it is coming out of the solid waste fee then this preliminary work that we're requesting is going to be paid by our rate payers in real time because one of the things we've been talking about is pushing this out right so we're saying we want to enter into this agreement so that we can have a bigger agreement but at the same time if something happens we would be paying for this the other thing that I found very interesting in the agreement that the county entered into in October 20th of 2020 was there was a very broad definition of cost so in that agreement Miami-Dade County transit and public works paid for lobbyists attorneys engineering all the costs all the costs so are we doing that because we already have an existing contract with Arcadius that could do some of this work so are we going to cover all the costs I just think that I and I and I appreciate the motion but I just I want to I don't know what the administration is going to negotiate because we really haven't had a conversation about what terms we feel comfortable with so if they come back with something that is similar to what was presented to this board for the Genting property I think we're all going to balk right and the question is what are the parameters here and we've already done some of this work because we've had Arcadius doing this we've had a series of conversations regarding solid waste and they already have a lot of information so here's what I would say I like to sometimes simplify things a bit well I don't know what's the saying like the enemy of great is good is that the right saying is that the way it goes the enemy of good is great perfection is the enemy of the good there you go thank you madam mayor there's nothing perfect in government well and but within that we're trying to move forward I think there's lots of answers to the points that you brought up some valid which is yes Arcadius is still our consultant right so they're still on board and I think are they going to be included in this absolutely I think they already did the initial framework for it are they part of this process currently they're under contract with us yes okay so they're on an ongoing contract with us so they're yes they are definitely involved with this because they are the so is due diligence on that site so can we include that here chief is there an issue with I don't see why we would not include that there we have multiple consultants from both our bond engineer design engineers financial consulting companies we would have to use them all can we can we to commission regalado's point can I amend my motion to I thought it was a given but she might be right is can I amend my motion to make sure that we provide all the tools at our disposal so that their proposal and the negotiation is as complete and wholesome as possible I don't want to duplicate work that's yeah yes I would just highlight the point that our consultants work on an hourly basis that as needed so if we tell all these consultants to help we're going to get bills for it if that's not what we're saying and my question wasn't about the fees okay so follow me here for a second is if we have work that's done already because at the workshop the consortium has indicated that they will expense it all everything moving forward from today to April is at makes a salary from this county and even him being on the phone there's so I get I run a business or more than one and I understand the cost of doing business but aside from the fees of the consultants what I'm referring to and I think it's what Commissioner Regalado is in part referring to is data that we've already spent money on not necessarily having them do additional work to work with them but the legwork that has been done the due diligence that has been done whether it's on a site or on parameters on what the needs of this county is when it comes to our waste energy facility make sure that that becomes available to and if they have questions sure there may be an hourly rate if Arcadius or any of the other consultants have to respond to those questions but not necessarily having Arcadius go out and do the due diligence because the consortium has indicated on the record last week that they are going to be expensing all of that due diligence moving forward prior to that April meeting so I don't know if it's necessary but to Commissioner Regalardo's point happy to amend my motion to include that but I thought that was a given maybe it's not assuming I don't want to that saying again I just want some clarity right because for example when we worked on the Vic one of the things that we worked on with the Vic when they did their due diligence was we crafted into that agreement an off ramp so they did a lot of due diligence even though it was a county owned property at the airport but when they decided not to move forward we were not responsible for that due diligence because we didn't want to repeat what happened at the Genting site right because 18 million dollars is a lot of money to spend on something that you put on a shelf somewhere so that that's my point these are not properties that we own at least in the case of the airport you can say I can buy that don't want us to have the rate payers pay for that I just want clarity on that and if we can help with whatever work that we've done we can give them that work then fantastic I think Arcadis did work on one of these sites so I think that that is a good start if they want to use that material I just don't want I don't want for something to come back to us that looks like disagreement I think to me I was clear in that based on the workshop I feel comfortable with that we can amend it but I think the concern that may have may have come up at the workshop or at some point I know it crossed my mind is the inverse of that is any new work that they will do that they're going to expense if that is proprietary to them or if we get to keep that so we don't have a hotel airport hotel situation all over again so that came up in workshop I mentioned it right because the inverse of what you're saying now though the flip of it not the inverse right so there is a world where like let's say that the county the county wants to buy that IP that's a different conversation should the county want to buy that IP I just wanted to make sure that what is IP is very clear because like I said in the past a lot has been considered IP and the county has paid for everything so one thing is this is the engineering work right this is what they're doing I just I want I think that this board did not at the workshop provide a lot of direction as to that I don't think there's such a thing as a free lunch I think it's great that they've offered to pay it but there is a world because I went back every single contract every single time that we've done that the minute the county says we're not moving forward we get hit with a bill so I just want clarity on this one point we can did they state that we will get hit with a bill shall we not move forward with an option that's fine the other point that I wanted to make referring to the memo that was sent to us yesterday afternoon one of the things that the memo says is that these facilities may include material recovery facilities bulk waste processing construction and demolition waste processing composting operations and anaerobic digestion all designed to complement and integrate the county's existing recycling bulk waste and yard waste programs while advancing the county's zero waste objectives now the only thing that I would say to staff and we did talk about this is the original item that was passed specifically said that 45% of the waste must be diverted how we divert that waste is up for consideration the diversion of that waste is not up for consideration so that we're clear because that seems to keep popping up this idea of potentially going back to a world where we burn all of our garbage so I appreciate the may in terms of one of these modalities but the way that it's structured it concerns me because part of this deal is diversion how that diversion happens is what is in flux not that diversion so I just want to again reiterate that because once again we get a document that kind of puts that into question and I find that very concerning giving all the work that we're doing on zero waste and I'll plug the department and say that if you do want to learn more about the county zero waste plan we do have a meeting at core gables today where we're presenting pieces of it to the community so again Mr. I don't as long as I don't see no cost to the county in this item I know that they said it but I would feel more comfortable if that was actually in the item so I'm happy to add that to my motion and I don't know that it's necessary but I'm happy to call them up now in a formal sunshine meeting to have them put it on the record as well but I can add it to my motion if the attorneys want to just draft a simple line saying that the negotiations will incur no cost to the county as far as due diligence goes on behalf of the consortium neither now nor in the event that this county does not move forward with a WTE facility and again by the way I don't want to send the wrong message this board has already voted to move forward in the direction of a WTE but to Commissioner Regalado's point now I want to make sure we're not I understand we're not but I want to clarify it I see heads shaking so you guys are comfortable with it as a general rule if we don't agree to pay we can put it in motion but as a general rule if we're not agreeing to pay they can do what they want to with the due diligence we haven't agreed to assume that cost and so we likely would not be responsible or liable for it anyway from a legal perspective but if we want to just in abundance of caution say hey by the way it's going to be free to us I don't care but the rule of law when parties are doing stuff we didn't yeah what I would add to the county attorneys as they're drafting this sentence and I'm happy to amend this is make it specific to their due diligence right I don't want to tie the hands of the administration during the negotiation process in the event that there is questions asked of Arcadius and they need to bill us per chief's comments earlier we don't want to prolong this at this point we're talking about a multi billion facility that we're going to build here if we need to spend a couple thousand dollars on getting it right I think that's money well well spent I think it's a well investment but yes as far as their due diligence definitely we cannot get hit with a bill so feel free to draft that we're good yeah I think it's a good start I just don't want the administration to waste time I know that Roy wanted to mention something because I had asked him about terms so if you can give him the opportunity I just don't want them to spend from now to April and bring us back something that is in conflict with our understanding in the last two meetings we lifted the cone so that doesn't mean that the administration and staff and us can't communicate with the consortium on what we want I think they have a pretty clear understanding but from my understanding and I feel like some my colleagues may speak on this because it came up in the workshop is I think we almost want to see what we need and then the add-ons a la cart as a menu and this came up at the workshop right so to your point Commissioner yes I think we want all this we need this so we that's how I would come back in April is like this is what it needs to operate the county's solid waste problem x amount of tons this is what this includes and then the a la carte menu for us to select and I know it gets a little more in depth than that but essentially that's what I think we're looking for but that Commissioner Lopez you recognize thank you Mr. Chairman so as a point of clarity just so that I understand what Commissioner Regalado said she is saying that we have encumbered this commission to not only a waste energy facility but to everything else on the menu and I just want to understand that so you're saying that this commission cannot move forward on just a waste to energy facility if it chooses to do so because it's the only thing we can afford I need an answer to that I need an answer from someone who can tell me procedurally just because this commission prior to my arrival voted to do waste to energy and all these other amenities that are part of a solid waste plan that if we don't have the money for all the extras we are not able to just build a waste to energy facility that's what I need a clarification on I'm one of the commissioners that's not a lawyer on can be unadopted and reversed so the answer is yes we can we can cater this to as we please we have adopted policy to move in a certain direction just like part of my motion today is that we do not acquire any land with a royalty in perpetuity but that can be changed by this very body at a subsequent BCC meeting so I don't know if that answers your that if we could not find a piece of property that wouldn't have these the royalty and tipping fees etc that we might go back to maybe a county owned property so I don't see that in your motion you know that if that is not possible then that would be another I don't know that it's required but there's a lot of moving parts here not the least of which is and I know that Commissioner Gilbert was on the record saying the difference between what we need and what we want and then I brought that up in his absence in the workshop and I'm continuously told by Commissioner Regalato that that's not possible and that's why I needed clarification because people are asking me if you don't have the money to do this grand scheme of things what are you going I have asked for it and I think to your point I think it may have been Commissioner Cohen-Higgins at the workshop that brought up re-exploring county-owned property which I'm happy to accept the motion on that to amend my motion but I don't know that it's necessary at this time I think that's something that could be brought forward at later time but it could be amended now or later it doesn't really matter to me but Mr. Chairman it matters to me because I asked during the workshop can the consortium bring back just a waste to energy option and then a waste to energy with all the other amenities and the answer is yes so is that what we're asking them to do yes thank you that is what we're asking them to do commissioner hold on now we so let's start here commissioner gilbert all right so sometimes things seem inconsistent but they aren't necessarily inconsistent as I understand commissioner regalato's perspective she wants to include more things and I I'm of the opinion that I want to see those things but I need to understand what everything costs individually specifically those things are not mutually exclusive so my expectation of the and I think they're probably going to do it like this because they run multi-billion dollar corporations and they know how to do these things they're going to bring back what the waste energy facility cost this is what it cost to do this if you want to have this to process sludge this is the add-on if you want to have this to process the land the mulch stuff whatever you would call it composting you process it that way if you want to do an offset when you collect hydrogen I think that's how it's going to look when we're analyzing when it's presented to us what I want from the administration is this conversation I did not think was going to go this long but when the administration is talking to them about the agreement what I want to know is what the service fee looks like for all of the things that they're presenting so if it's for a land waste energy facility this is how this would look and to Commissioner Regalato's point I think we should factor in the things like transportation and how much it would cost if it's not spread out I think those things I just want to have a realistic understanding about what fee this board is going to ask the residents to pay because I want to I have been here for a couple of years now and every year it comes to set fees in these proprietary funds and just to educate folks who might be listening proprietary fund is a fund that essentially the service the fee is supposed to pay for the service that's what it is every year we have conversations and people don't want to assess or assign the fee for what it takes to actually that fee my concern is we'll decide to build this campus and then I'm around here begging for votes so that we don't have a system that's running in the red because I still remember when I was chair and I had to right size the solid waste fee and we've already started backtracking on that and so that is not fiscal responsibility fiscal responsibilities and intimacies of these conversations before we make a final determination this is what we're willing to pay for so this is what we're going to do we're not going to drive a Bentley if we want to pay for a Corolla no offense to anyone in the audience that has a Corolla we love Corollas here too thank you Mr. Chairman I like Bentleys more though let me let me go to Commissioner Bastian who's been patiently waiting and then I'll go to Regalado thank you Mr. Chair and thank you for your leadership on this issue I was not part of the but I'd like to put something on the record but I realize that with your motion you've already answered a couple of my concerns relating to costs but I still would like to put something on the record so we've been at this course road for a long time as we know and I don't envy FPL and FCC because you really have a major challenge in front of you and I'm grateful that you were able to join forces to build the best solutions and to present us the best solutions possible that we can decide on as a body and for our residents I specifically want to highlight the importance of including the ancillary facilities because without them the proposal would be void of the technology that is needed for innovation that will protect the environment and something that many of us on the dais are concerned about I also appreciate the material recovery facility composting and aerobic digestion and even construction and demolition processing that will create avenues to not just burn but also reuse our waste and protect our environment which I indicated before as you know I sponsored legislation in the past directing the administration to implement waste diversion strategies that encourage recycling and reduce the environmental impact of disposing trash we've been at this crossroad again for a long time as I said but I want to emphasize something you've already mentioned in the motion Mr. Chair and I want to emphasize that because we must do everything to protect our taxpayers our residents are burdened by with rising costs for taxes that they have to pay on their homes grocery every dollar assigned to this contract must be justified every dollar like I said it's a big challenge we cannot support any proposal I know I cannot with hidden fees and no values to the residents and I'm not saying that's what you are planning to do but I wanted to put this in the record and I look forward for a very competitive agreement that delivers comprehensive cost-effective facilities that protect the environment but most importantly protect taxpayers again I'm looking forward to our continuous engagement to that process because we've been at this crossroad before it's been a long long long long road and I hope that this time we'll be able to find or strategically find a progressive way to solve these problems thank you for those comments Commissioner Bastian Commissioner Regalado you wanted to address thank you I want to clarify a few points the reason that waste diversion was part of the original item is because the tonnage determines the size of the incinerator waste diversion does not mean that that diversion is going to cost us more the incinerator that we are asking them to give us the specs on is based on that original item so if you're going to change that then you're changing the tonnage what Miami-Dade County used to do was burn everything for the past five years I've been working on items and listen Commissioner Lopez before you were here this board wanted to eliminate recycling and I worked two years to bring a recycling contract that is best in class and we have it for another 10 years so you know there is a profit sharing associated with diversion and we've discussed that there is a profit sharing that's now going to come from the methane extraction to our existing landfills you know there's different pieces of it and one of the things that we said early on is that we don't want them to build us a Bentley incinerator we do not want an incinerator that burns all of our trash because it would not make financial sense for us and it would not it would not be in line with what we're moving towards so we have been moving towards different modalities there will be and as trash evolves that's going to continue to change right so that's why I've brought up sludge and forever chemicals because those are things that one day may require an incinerator if we are required to eliminate those forever chemicals and that's something that we were talking about you know in the past administration that was going to be a requirement to us which is why we even started talking about the changing dynamic of an incinerator so I don't want there to be this idea that we're just giving this number like randomly it's like a woo-woo number it's not the idea was in 2034 we're setting this goal right and we want to say by this point we want to be diverting this much and burning this much one of the things that I have said over and over again is this contract doesn't necessarily have to bring us the diversion we are doing the diversion we could continue to do the diversion ourselves but then we have to factor that in to the number we are doing the collection to Commissioner Bastien's point she brought an item that's throw as you go one of the things that we're looking at in terms of our zero waste fee is potentially having different zones and collecting in different ways Palm Beach has three bins you know I don't think that every area of Miami-Dade County could do three bins my district probably could in some other areas of the county it might make sense to do one bin where everything is collected and then sorted if we move more towards one bin then a facility where that is sifted is important right so it all depends on the modalities and the cost and for a lot of these we're paying a lot more so for the sludge we're paying a lot more than for the general garbage this doesn't even look at commercial garbage this doesn't look at you know the construction piece right now all the construction debris is being dumped in Oliver Gilbert's district in a landfill and that could be reused and there's a profit share associated with that I say it I'll say that I just don't want this idea that diversion is not going to be better financially for the county because I think construction debris alone the diversion of construction degree will be better for the county because right now we just put it in a landfill and do absolutely nothing with it and we can't even extract methane so I just don't want this to we can always change our minds obviously this board can always go back and change our minds but as we move forward with this consortium I want I want everyone to understand that there are modalities where there is profit share which it could be more profitable than just burning for example burning aluminum doesn't make sense right now it's cheaper to recycle it right I understand I understand and I just I want to make sure and I I care about you dearly Commissioner Lopez you guys can have a sunshine and get the history lesson but I don't I just want to move on I've got Gonzales Bermudas Cohen Higgins Steinberg so Gonzales thank you Mr. Chair and you know first and foremost I want to thank everybody that came out to talk about how they feel about the incinerator and specifically you know talking about a lot of these cost concerns to both the entities I think what you're hearing up here mostly is what we talked about during our last meeting which is and sir I forget your name but you're the one who pointed it out time is of the essence and because time is of the essence I want to thank Commissioner Lopez and the clarification and the chairman and the clarification on those options because I for one want to see every possible option and that's a lot of homework on your part but I think what my colleagues are getting to is if we don't have all the options we can't make the best possible decision so there's some guiding principles that I'd like to place on the record as this process continues you know we talked at the last meeting about keeping everybody up here informed I know that you folks are going to do that let's do that as much as possible I want to see hard numbers I want to see hard numbers and options because that's what's going to dictate what the taxpayers are going to pay now I don't want to see concepts I want to see hard numbers to the best extent possible because those hard numbers are going to transfer again to what the rate payer is going to pay now this means binding capital costs and a full life cycle cost model before this moves forward those are the negotiations and the conversations that we should be having between the administration and the entities because a concept without numbers it means nothing like we can't even debate on the fiscal stewardship there one point I want to make and this is not a knock this a point that I want to make is that private financing still means and correct me if I'm wrong but that still means that the public is going to pay for it taxpayer dollars are going to pay for this private financing doesn't eliminate the cost and this is why I keep alluding to those hard numbers all it does is restructure how the residents are going to repay it so if debt service flows through rates the public is still going to carry that burden so the reason I say this is because I want to see a side by side comparison of the private finance option versus what a traditional public financing would look like again I'm not saying I'm not trying to knock the private financing option I do understand that that may mean more cost savings for the taxpayer but I want to be able to see that and I'm sure my colleagues would like to see that so that we can make the best possible decision up here for the rate payer I also want a transparent chart showing who pays for what at the last meeting we talked a lot about cities so how much is paying how much are cities contributing again not concepts bring me hard numbers this is what they're willing to pay this is how much they're willing to allocate who pays for what that way we can all have the proper conversation with the public and everything can be transparent and then finally I don't want to keep beating a dead horse but as Commissioner Lopez and the Chairman and Commissioner Gilbert and Commissioner Bastian have alluded let's have that big picture Ferrari let's bring that number with what that rate is going to be but then let's also as the chairman pointed out at the last meeting have those a la carte hey this is what each of these pieces is going to cost the rate payer this is what taxpayers are going to have to pay if we add the chrome wheels right I think by doing that and bringing all those numbers in we're going to be in a much better position and we're not going to waste time because I do not want to be in a position where you folks come back and we're talking about hypotheticals because if we're talking about hypotheticals when you guys come back we are more likely than not going to go back to square one and the only ones that And I am positive that my colleagues and I are going to be able to make a fiscally responsible decision for the taxpayer. So that's my two cents Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner, on that. And I share those sentiments. Commissioner Bermude, as you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't want you to get the wrong idea, but I am going to say, I'm just looking for some clarity. But I'm not going to take that long. So, and I'll come back. It's on the motion, actually. Let me just say a couple of things. I agree with many of the things. First of all, let me start by saying, Commissioner Gonzalez is right on point on the information. And I don't know if he's here in the audience today or not, but I've been asking for information from the entity that's going to be building this facility. And supposedly that information has been proffered to staff, but I don't have it yet. I don't think any of us have yet, or maybe some of us do and some of us don't. And that's what we're trying to avoid. Because I think if we're going to make a collective decision, we all have to have the same information. So I hope, whether it's Arcadis, or whether it's MOSTAC, or whether it's the two entities that are going to be spearheading this, I think we need to have all the information appropriately given to all of us at the right time. And Roy, I'm going to be very clear about this. If it's given to your staff, it should be given to us, so we can make a good decision. I also agree with Commissioner Lopez, that's the way I understood it. And it was reiterated that we are going to be given a number of different options, and then we decide. We don't decide today, by the way, we may decide then. And then they're going to decide whichever way they want. But those are the options that, that's the way I understood it. From the workshop and from prior meetings, and I would be surprised if we didn't get that from the two entities that are working hand in hand. Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask you just the language, and maybe this is more of staff, or they can clarify it. I don't think any of us want to pay a perpetual royalty. I thought that was what we all talked about. But, and if there is some private financing for something, they've got to make up some of their money, which is not necessarily a perpetual royalty. By the way, I'm against, against, against perpetual royalty. I'm with you a thousand percent. I just want to make sure that, for example, the language refers to future, perpetual royalty, or tipping fees. That when we look at this, we don't eliminate the ability of doing some financing that will be beneficial for the residents of Miami-Dade County. And specifically, I'm referring more to the tipping fees. Because right now, as it stands in all the landfills that we have, and the ones that we use, including one in my district, there are tipping fees that are paid by the county. So, let's not, you know, I just want to be clear. Your intent, and I think I'm right, but you correct me if I'm wrong, was we don't want perpetual royalty. We don't want something we're paying in perpetuity. You're right. We want to, hey, help us build this. You've got a right to make money, too, because you're helping us out. But it's not going to be forever, correct? That is correct. Okay, and then it goes to the August County attorney that's here that deals with this issue and hears from me periodically, which is I just want to make sure the language is our intent in this motion. I support the motion, but I want to make sure that the language is doesn't limit their ability to come back with financing options that might say, okay, well, you know, we're going to charge X amount for tipping fees, and they get, I don't know, I'm going to make up $30, $10, $10, $10, like it is in other agreements that we have, because there is no free lunch, and nobody's going to go ahead and build it without having some economic benefit to them. So, I just wanted to be clear on that. You've expressed that that's what you meant by no perpetuity, right? And specifically on the land. Okay, on the land, on the land. Okay, perfect. That's what I wanted to hear, because that way you don't want to limit their ability to come back and bring out a financing option that makes it easier for us. Correct. Okay, that's what I wanted to be clear on the motion. I want to make sure that that's what that motion means, okay? That was my question. So, other than that, truthfully, I'm fine with the motion. Other than that, it says, it's going to come back, guys, it's going to come back to us anyways, and we're going to have to make a final decision, period. So, and all, and I understand the chair saying, let's get some clarity so we can come back with some clarity in April, right? Which is what we're trying to do today. Commissioner Steinberg. Thank you. I'll be brief. Obviously, we need to consider the financial implications, and by the way, the environmental implications as well as we move forward. And so, I guess my question is more, I mean, I look at this, and I almost want to bifurcate this motion, because I have questions on the, you know, we're not bound by passing this today. It doesn't bind us to anything, correct? I mean, they have to bring back something, because I'm not sure yet the direction I'd be going in. But the problem is we're asking the mayor's administration to negotiate and finalize something to bring back to us. And that's really well-intentioned, except for I'm very confused if we're going to have multiple contracts that you bring back or one contract that you bring back, because we don't have a site, we don't have a lot. There are a lot of things in the air. So, how do you envision this going? Are we going to have things coming back, like multiple options coming back to us, contracted, negotiated, or are we going to have one contract and the administration says this is what we're going to actually, you know, just some clarity? I think we need clarity. Chief, you can take a stab at it. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I interpret this resolution, as the chair has just put forward, as directing us to go develop an interim agreement proposal to bring back for your approval. I don't think that what we are looking at today includes what we received in the email last night at 430. This doesn't reference it in any way, and nobody's had the opportunity to fully study that. So, I think it's as simple as he's telling us, or this board will be telling us to do this negotiation, and don't pay royalties, to my interpretation, means anything beyond fair market value of the property is what the chairman is saying we're not going to pay, which is what the administration has told every property owner we've met with, is we will pay fair market value but no lifetime royalties. So, we think we're going to come back with an interim agreement. Now, Commissioner Steinberg, 100% agree with you. We think step one is we have to pick one property. I don't think it makes sense to do due diligence on multiple properties, especially when today the properties we are considering both have royalties in them. So, even if the property owners are going to continue to negotiate with us, it's to be determined. So, today commits you to nothing other than tell us to go to work. Chief, did that satisfy you, Commissioner? Commissioner Gilbert. And I'm ready to kind of take it. I'm ready to vote. I agree that I don't want to pay lifetime royalties, and I think that's why we backed away from Lowell Dunn's property at Idle George. It's because of the royalties that he wanted in perpetuity. And so, but I'm just going to point out that his royalties at least, I think, gave half the money for us to fund CBOs. When I was next to a railroad, too. Yeah. So, I mean, I'm just saying, if we get in a position where we have to pay royalties, because I don't know what the market demands. And so, we can say what we're not going to do, but we can't necessarily dictate what the market demands. If we get in a position where we have to do that, we need to make the very best decision. And so, I don't want to pay royalties. I didn't want to pay it to him. I don't want to pay it to either of them in lifetime. But I also know that if everyone throughout the industry is paying royalties and or tipping fees, the market may demand it. And so, if we insist on building a facility, we may be in a position where we have to do it at some point. Yeah, but they're actually not. At the workshop, I know you watched most of it, but you couldn't be here. But they actually spoke to it. The industry experts spoke to it and said, this is a first for them, that this is not a norm in the industry. But I see what you're saying. Point well taken. All right, with that, we have a motion. We have a second. I'm so sorry, Mr. Chair. Could our chief just make one point of clarification? I think it's important, Mr. Chair. All right, just don't trigger a response, chief. Well, okay, but we want to make sure you know what you're voting on. Don't trigger a response. It's our position that the first thing in the negotiation is going to have to be selecting a site before we continue down that path of evaluating multiple locations. So, our position is we pick a site and then we keep moving forward. But until we pick a site, do an engineering and geotech work, we think is a waste. So, you know that's going to trigger a response, right? You know that's going to trigger a response. So, does the consortium want to speak to that because the consortium was very clear at the workshop of our position on the properties and they felt very comfortable, in fact, encouraged that we still move the process forward. And that they can still compile the negotiations with us without selecting a site today because they are agnostic to the site. So, is the first order of business, as the chief believes, and obviously he's speaking on behalf of the mayor, is that we have to select a site? Thank you, Chair. It would be best practice to have some authorization on the sites at which we are going to conduct due diligence on before we start spending that kind of money. Again, I just want to reiterate, we are formalizing a decision here, requesting to formalize a decision here to begin the negotiations on the interim agreement which would cover the array of concerns that were provided by the board. Who will pay for what, under what circumstances, what the final deliverable will be. All of that will be structured in the next two months, into the final interim agreement, and be brought back to this board to approve. But to Commissioner Steinberg's point, there is a need to bifurcate the issues of what will be the authorized sites, site or sites, potentially two sites, to begin these activities on, and then a notice to proceed to move forward. So, Matt, let me ask it maybe in a different way. Can you, do you feel, because if not, then you all kind of, I don't want to say you lied to me, but you certainly pushed me in a direction or lobbied me in a direction that is now different than what I think the public could be interpreting that's watching on TV and online, is can you bring us in April? We're here because you guys said we can work with what you've given us. We can come back in April, and we hear you loud and clear. You're not paying a royalty in perpetuity for any of these properties. We still want to be there next week. We want you to give the directive to the administration so they can engage in an agreement, and we'll be back in April. You all said that, not me. I mean, we said it back in October. That was our timeline. But you all said it last week, and you put it actually in writing. Now you're, I think you're just saying it in a way where it comes off a certain way. I'm going to give you the opportunity to clarify it. Are you in a position, come April, to bring us a comprehensive proposal with numbers and menu items of what this board needs to see to make a decision, despite the fact that we have not selected a site yet? With all due respect, Chair, it wasn't our proposal that by April we would bring you back definitive cost on the system, on waste to energy in the ancillary facilities. Our commitment was to negotiate the interim agreement, which would allow for us to come back at the end of the interim agreement period, which we anticipated was in six to 12-month time frame, with those definitive costs. So I just want to be very clear about that. So let me, you're right, and you're absolutely right. Let me ask it again. In the interim agreement process, which is that April deadline, do you need a site for that? The interim agreement process would begin once we have a fully negotiated interim agreement. So we would seek to negotiate that agreement between February and April. Point of water. In order to. Point of water. Mr. Chairman, point of water. If you could just say yes or no to that question, please. Yes. Okay. Do you need a site for the interim agreement, or do you need a site at the end of the interim agreement? We need a site at the beginning of the interim agreement to start work. Who's asking? To start work. To start the. But that won't be until April that you bring us back an interim agreement. That's correct. Matt. Clear. Clear. Clear. Let's reset here, because I think I get you're in the hot seat right now. Feels hot. Reset. When do you need a land selection by this body? Tell me when. Give me at the time, like give me an actual date. What we heard at the workshop loud and clear was that this board would not accept the land with a royalty. But back up, back up. If you need a call up, if you want to phone a friend and tap somebody in, feel free to do so. When do you need us to give you a site selection? Now, I'm not talking about the royalty. That's not my question. When do you need us to tell you, this is where you're going to start building this. This is where you're going to start doing due diligence. I see the confusion. If you authorize a site as viable, not a selection, but yes, that site meets the financial requirements of what the county will pay. It doesn't include the royalty. We will begin the preliminary due diligence activities at the site. The site due diligence. We will pay for it. Sorry, sorry. Chris, you want to approach and try to answer my question? No, no, because I'm, I know, I know, but it's going to, they're going to get it. Yeah, they will. They will. I mean, they work for a, they work for FP&L. I mean, yes, they're going to get it. All right, Matt, again, forget the royalties, forget the price. Right now, that's our problem. Kind of we're working together on it, but that's our issue at some point. When do you need us to tell you, this is the site that we're going with? April. Perfect. Thank you. So we're good with our motion. All right, that said, all right, do you need to be recognized? All right, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to the gentleman at the podium, I appreciate you providing the clarity that you just did after another gentleman came in and chatted with you, but I got the strong sense that the answer that you gave, first of all, it's not consistent with what you said a few minutes earlier, and so I'm confused. I authentically am. And especially because we're hearing the administration say, it is our position that we need a site in order to negotiate. And then you came and said it's best practices to have a site. I mean, I think everybody understands, and I think everybody knows that we need to select a site. Our question is, moving forward from where you stand today, we do not want to waste time, and we don't want you bumping into each other, right, and going in circles with our administration, like, where do we even begin these negotiations? Because we authentically don't know where to start. Because the two sides that you've chosen, we are eliminating. So you literally have nowhere to even start on your negotiations, if I understand it correctly. Am I correct? I'm just trying to grapple with where we are right now. And I understand that you don't want the whole thing to fall apart, and so you're going to say by April, and that's great, and it's going to allow you to walk out of here, and you guys are still going to sit in the position that you're in. But I'm still not convinced at all that, based on what the administration just represented, and then the dialogue that you just exchanged currently with our chairman, I'm not convinced at all that you all have what you need to engage in meaningful negotiations. And to that point, Commissioner Conagans, before you respond, so two things. Number one, just to clarify, we didn't eliminate the two sides. They're just tasked with going and eliminating the royalty portion of that purchase agreement, the funding model. But yes, I understand if the sellers don't come off of that, yes, it'll potentially be eliminated. Now, Matt, I want to clarify, because as I hear Commissioner Cohen-Higgins speak, I want to make sure that, because we're in the sunshine, and I want to make sure that my line of questioning to you was not to drive you to the answer I wanted to hear. I want to make sure that it is your comfortable answer. I was just continuing to ask it, because it was different than a previous answer, but not because I wanted to drive you to a specific answer that I want to hear. I want to make sure that your answer you're comfortable with, that it is the truth and honest answer to start this interim agreement. That's correct, April. Okay, all right. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you had asked a question as well, right? And if I can respond to the question. So Dan Brazel, CEO of FCC Environmental Services, thank you for the question, Commissioner. The sites have not been eliminated in good faith. We've engaged already in conversations with the landowners in receipt of the feedback we received last week at the workshop. And so conversations are ongoing with the landowners on what we can do from a purchase standpoint and eliminating the said royalty that you all have mentioned and been very clear about to restructure the deal so that it is not inclusive of that. Thank you for clarifying that. I think that's a significant development because I thought at the workshop it was communicated that contracts were executed for those terms. And so if you all are renegotiating with those same two parcels of land, that does make me feel better. But are they negotiating along the lines of we'll just build that royalty fee into an inflated price? Are you all looking at the price as it was originally stated on the record, which was a million per acre? Because at the end of the day, these are business people and they're paying very close attention like they always do to what we say and how we conduct ourselves up here. So I can't imagine them being under contract with FPL under an MOU or an LOI, however you want to term it, saying that these are the terms because that's what was represented at the last hearing that we were under contract. And now as a result of the hearing, they're like, no, no, no, actually, yeah, no, forget it. Royalty fees? Absolutely not. We're just going to give it to you for the million per acre. Is that what you're representing? So I'll go first and I'll let FPL speak to their land. So we obviously have our own land, right? FCC is a different property than what FPL had secured. And so we, as a consortium, have two properties to consider. I can't speak on the landowner's behalf. What we've engaged on though is the expectation that we can renegotiate the terms based on how our interim agreement can go and what the next two months hold, knowing the feedback from the board and the sentiment last week for the landowners to understand to obviously get a deal done. We need to do much better from a proposal perspective. Okay. All right. So I guess we'll see what you all come back with in April. Um, and in the interim to my colleagues and really to the administration, I think, and really particularly to commissioner Lopez's comments that she made, um, regarding the breadth of this project, a lot has evolved over the last three years since our incinerator burned down. Um, and this project and the discussion has, um, evolved with the changes in our world and the changes in our community. And so my question to the administration is initially the concept was build a big campus that had, you know, the ability to bring school children and take field trips and put a water slide on top of it. Like the Bentley of waste to energy campuses. And I don't know that we've moved off of that yet at the hearing or at the workshop, both of them said they need 35 acres. They need 35 acres to build the Corolla that my colleague alluded to. And again, I understand that we want to include different modalities and what have you, but to the, to the administration, have we looked at smaller scale, less expensive options? Have we looked at an incinerator akin to the one that the footprint of that incinerator, mind you, at the workshop, we said it was 60 acres, the footprint of the Doral incinerators, 40 acres, it's 40 acres. If you just go to our property appraiser site, do the math on the square footage, that footprint is 40 acres. So at a time where we are so economically strapped and the environment economically is absolutely going to get worse. And everybody says that the rate payers are our top priority. Why are we looking at 65 and 70 acre parcels that we don't own, that we have to acquire and then pass those onto the rate payers? So I know that's a lot, but, but the question is, have we looked at other parcels within our portfolio that are smaller in scale where we don't have to incur a capital expense of 65, 75 million dollars just to acquire the land? Have we done an analysis of that? And I know you're going to probably allude to the five parcels of land that were originally presented to us, one of which was Opelaka West, which we have excluded and a number of them were outside of the UDP. But all of those sites, if I remember correctly, were huge, 65, 70, 78 acres. What about 35 acres? Have we looked at properties of that size and of that scale? And does that fundamentally change things for FCC and FPL if we were to scale down substantially on what we were to build? Commissioner, to answer that question, what I can tell you is we've met with the representatives of the companies. And what we have said to them is, is we want you to tell us what's most efficient. We don't want you to price something in us, find out later that you could have done it cheaper, but you were doing what we said. So they've accepted that charge. And I anticipate part of the interim agreement being they validate the sizing of everything as far as the size of the plant. And then a menu of options would be in that interim agreement that they would ultimately be pricing for the waste diversion. We will be able to supply them a lot of information in that space going forward. In the next few months, we expect our zero waste master plan to be finalized. That will identify waste diversion and probably tell you whether we should have some of those things or we shouldn't have some of those things. And then we can get them to tell us, does it make sense on sizing of the plant? Remembering that there's 5 million tons of solid waste in Miami-Dade County created every year. And we're only talking about building a plant one to one and a half million tons. So we're obviously, if there is a size that's more efficient, we've asked them to propose it and that'll be part of our interim agreement. And so have you looked at parcels of land that have a smaller footprint? We have not. We have not. There has not been an analysis other than the 60, 70, 75 acre parcels. We've not looked at 30 acre parcels. We have not done that. Is that something that we maybe should do? If we do not want to waste campus, we may can be less than the 60, but you're going to need substantial amounts of land. And we can ask these builders standing here, what's the minimum size land we should be looking at? I'd rather them tell us. We did. They said 35 acres. They said it at the workshop. At one point, if I could interject briefly. So great point and what I would clarify is when we went back to the land owners to discuss negotiating different terms and the feedback from the meeting, the conversation also came up that they'd be willing to move to a smaller parcel of land, not at a different location, but within that same parcel. So to your point, we have a 77 acre parcel is what the land that we found in the jurisdiction that we could have, but we already have engaged the conversation with the owner that there's potential to reduce that size on that parcel rather than the full 77 because we went for that size considering the entire campus proposal, right? If you shrink that down to the 35, this is just waste energy. And without the rest of the campus proposal, that's where we could consider a smaller parcel and those conversations are ongoing with the landowner. Well, and thank you for, thank you for already having those conversations. You're essentially thinking ahead, which I appreciate. And it's not just waste to energy. It's more the bottom line that this board keeps repeating. It's substantially less expensive, right? I mean, just from a pure basic macro math perspective, it would be substantially less expensive. And so to my colleagues, I know that you've been thrown a lot of information today, and I really thank you for your patience, frankly, in watching us navigate this very important decision. But we are hoping that when you come back to us in April, that you all are obviously able to work something out amongst yourselves, but that you're actually giving us a menu or detailed options of different directions that we could go in, including, if it's the will of this board, a potentially smaller footprint that's going to end up being so much more economical for our residents. Those are my two cents. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. All right. We've got, we're going to call a vote because I've got Gilbert wanting to speak. You wanting to speak. This is like the third or fourth or fifth bite at the apple. We all know that you, we know everything that you've done, Commissioner. We know. And we know that you separated it. And so- We said decentralized at the workshop. We said- We have, I know. We have, thank you. We have the motion. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All oppose nay. All right. Show the motion passed. Thank you, board. All right. With that, as amended, of course. Yes, as amended. With that, Commissioner Vicki Lopez, will you, on 6B1, will you kind of give us a, and I'm glad that you brought this and reached out to my office because I recognize we're in the middle of legislative session. And if this waited to committee, which is where it would have normally taken place, it would have put us at the end of- After session. Or after session, really. So, do you want to spend a few minutes, and try to keep it brief, but on kind of giving us an update on the legislative session and what's of concern? Of course, I'm sure most of us are keeping in touch with Jess and our team up there, but can you, I know you've been tracking it closely. Can you give us an update? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Yes, and I'll try to be very brief. So, there are just a couple of items. As you know, the unexpected is becoming the norm in Tallahassee. Um, and I'll just start with the, probably the, the most concerning is the property tax, uh, reform situation. So, there have been three bills that have passed out of committee. One of those bills, uh, which is the 10-year phase out, uh, is going to the floor this week. Um, and there will be some friendly amendments, some unfriendly amendments, but it is going to the floor and then it will be sent to the Senate. What I would tell you about property tax reform is that the governor has advocated for a special session, uh, probably sometime in April on property taxes. And the Senate president has signaled his support for a special session. So, I'm not clear whether or not we will see anything come out of the regular session, but it is clearly something that we have to be thinking about. Because there is no plan, uh, that the governor has provided, uh, and clearly the Senate has not yet released its proposal. So, it, it continues to be what I think probably is the, going to be the largest impact to our, uh, revenue stream. Uh, and it's going to negatively impact, because there will be something. I mean, and I want people to know, it is not if there is a property tax reform, it is will, when, and what it will be. Uh, and that, that I think we just have to closely watch. There's also some state budget fundings, as, as you may have been watching. The, uh, Senate released its, uh, budget after the House released its budget. And there are a couple of things that, uh, really we, we want to keep looking at. One of them is, of course, that the, there is, the House has continued to fund Biscayne Bay at 20 million. The Senate budget doesn't include any money for Biscayne Bay. Um, the House also has, uh, recurring funding for trial rail, but not for New Start's Northeast Corridor. The Senate doesn't include funding for either. So, we're looking at our transit projects and, and our, uh, and our bay, our water projects, completely ignored. Um, and that's something that's going to obviously fall on us. And then, of course, you know, maybe this is an issue in, in other districts, but in my district, in particular, there has been a movement by the Department of Health to, um, change the, um, income level for those that are on the AIDS medication. That keeps people alive that are suffering with, uh, AIDS. And that's going to impact 15,000, uh, Floridians, many of which live in my district. Unfortunately, I'm trying to get a number now, but I see that, uh, I've written some op-ed pieces on it. It's, it's important that we understand. It's like taking the medication, diabetes medication away from someone who is subsidized. Um, but this is, this is really a life or death situation. So, I'm watching it, but I know that a lot of you are watching it as well. Um, on the, on the, on the topic of sovereign immunity, and this is really going to hit us, um, to the tune of, we, we estimate the fiscal impact recurring to be 32 to $37 million to us every single year. So, what is going through the Senate is, and it's gone through its second of third committees, is, um, uh, a sovereign immunity that's going to lift the, the, uh, levels. So, right now, we have a $250,000, um, limit. Um, the House and the Senate have not agreed on exactly what the limit will be, but the House has it going up to a million dollars. Um, the Senate has it as a, a cost of living, uh, adjustment, um, but the House currently has pending, um, uh, above the caps and raises the caps significantly higher than the Senate bill. So, we need to be watching that. And, of course, the local business tax, um, the House Bill 103 actually repeals the local business tax, but preserves, notice this, preserves the funding source for the Beacon Council. So, they would get their money, but we don't get ours, um, and it's scheduled to be heard on the, it was scheduled to be heard on the House floor, um, yesterday. So, and the Senate companion is, is, uh, only got one, uh, committee stop, and so that estimated impact to us is $14 million recurring every year. Um, and there is also, now that we've spoken about the urban development, um, boundary today, you should know that there is a bill in House Bill 399 that actually will, um, um, require a study by OPAGA to study whether or not the UDB line is, uh, something that should be considered and what its purpose is and should it be eliminated, repealed, or, or, uh, somehow, um, moved in some fashion. Um, um, there's also, that bill also includes changing the, um, majority vote to a majority of those present. Um, what I will tell you is I believe the Senate would probably negotiate on the OPAGA study. They might, they might accept that, they won't accept probably the change in the voting requirements. So, look to see that if that bill continues to move, we'll probably have an OPAGA study on the UDB line. Um, and I think, I think one of the really big impacts, um, is there, is Senate Bill 1134, 1134, that, um, will prohibit, uh, any county or municipality to fund or promote any diversity, equity, or inclusion. Um, and that could have broad implications, um, because what it does, and, and I want you to understand how it broadly defines diversity, equity, and inclusion. It would mean anything related to race, color, sex, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation. That would mean things like Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, because it is to do with ethnicity. It would include all of our community, uh, advocacy boards. All of them would have to be eliminated. And what it says is, if we chose to not follow that law, it would provide for any county commissioner, uh, to, uh, that would be acting in their official capacity that violates this, that they would be committing malfeasance, misfeasance, which we could then be removed from office. Uh, further, it would allow for any civil action in circuit court to be brought by a resident who thinks we're violating that. And then we would have to be, um, uh, responsible for any declaratory and injunctive relief, uh, or costs. So that one, uh, it is a, uh, I believe it is moving. We should be watching it because, you know, I like to fund things like a mobile mammogram unit, and that would be considered gender-related, and I might not be able to do that anymore. So, uh, I, I put that out there because sometimes what the legislature may want to accomplish, it has incredibly negative collateral sanctions. Um, and I know that, uh, I've been working very closely with Jess. I know that he's trying to, uh, gather some more information on this one. But this, this really does impact all of our CBO funding. Could, could, in fact, um, many of our, um, CBOs are gender-related, like girls programs, Girl Scouts, people like, it makes sense that, you know, you might have those, but this would encompass all of them because of the broad definition of, um, what is called diversity, equity, and inclusion. Uh, and lastly, um, there is, there is a, you know, we talk about transportation a lot. There is now a bill moving, um, that would require local governments to submit all of their applications for federal funding to FDOT first. So, in other words, as we do our things, you know, we, the county has been known for a lot of transportation grants. It has submitted its grants to the federal government without the need for the state to involve itself in our priorities. This would now create them to have to do that. So, I tell you all of this to just tell you that I hope you're reading just as, uh, I know that I'm calling through them, uh, simply because it feels like just yesterday I was in the legislature, so I have a particular interest in all of this. But I can see where there are many, many issues. And we are now in the middle of the sixth week, and things will begin to fly at warp speed. So, um, I'm grateful for Jess McCarty, who's there every single day following every single thing. I don't know how he does it, um, but he has kept us very well informed. And I'll continue to, uh, keep us informed. But you're right. By the time, um, Commissioner Mian Orbis' committee and I, my committee meets, it'll be too late. Because many of this stuff will have already been sent to the governor. So, that is my report. Uh, no good news. Hate to say it, but no good news. Mr. Chair, I have a question, if I may have. Sure, give me a second. So, first of all, yes, I will recognize anyone that wants to comment or ask her any questions. But, so, firstly, thank you, Commissioner Lopez, for that update. And, and I, and I, I also thank you for doing something that we often don't do on this day. As, or, or actually, as P, as people, we often overlook. And it's, and it's, you know, it's easy for us as humans to always complain. But it's not often that we recognize people's good work. And the truth is, Jess is doing a, and has always done an amazing job, phenomenal job up in Tallahassee. So, Jess, if you're watching, you know, you're probably sitting in committee somewhere opposing some preemption bill, uh, to the county. But if you're watching, thank you for the work you're doing and for keeping us informed. Uh, with that, Commissioner Bermudez. Yeah, first of all, I want to thank Commissioner Lopez for that enlightened, uh, presentation of what's going on. And, and I thank her for being bluntly honest, which is good, since sometimes here we tiptoe around, uh, you know, and rightly so, because, unfortunately, they preempt us and go around. But I wanted to, Mr. Chair, to you and my colleagues, uh, and when, uh, Commissioner Lopez, spoke specifically about transportation. Um, I think it's important that we urge the Florida legislature to fully fund the Florida Job Growth Grant Fund. And I, I know it's funded in one side and not in the other. And I think that's important because when we talked about the, the, the famous roads in my district and in, uh, Senator Garcia's district, uh, there was an interest in, in, in funding that. And no, no development could happen up there, whether it's the infamous or famous mega mall or even the other properties. And I want to point out that the expansion of Northwest 107th Street, Northwest 180th, 97, Northwest 92nd Avenue, and Northwest 102nd Avenue, which are critical, not only to District 12, but to District 13 and to the residents of Hialeah, Miami Lakes, Hialeah Gardens, uh, which is basically a, an $8 million bill. So we're doing our part as a County and, you know, I've been trying to get the state and not only the state legislature, but also FDOT to help expedite and to understand the importance of these roads for Miami-Dade County. Because a lot of times, and I, and I know Commissioner Lopez, I appreciate it because you're on the other side of the County, but I know you're, you've, you've always appreciative of the County as a whole. The situation in my district and District 13, and, and maybe even Mr. Chair and yours and others is, um, is traffic as much as transportation and traffic means some of the monies for those roads. So I just wanted, you know, and I'll, I'll tell Jess, but after that eloquent presentation, Commissioner Lopez, I hope I want to bring the light. The fact that the, uh, there is an option that we can get that Florida job growth grant fund done to try to get some of those roads done, uh, fully funded. I mean, we could, we could, uh, and, and I think that's one where everybody, the governor, the house, the Senate could be on the same page because it's going to help, you know, the, uh, the counties, the state's largest County in a good way, but, uh, thank you for that presentation. And I know you had no good news, but you know, it's better to hear the bad news and fight it than not to hear it. You know, it's kind of like a, well, I'm not going to use a line from a movie because I, it's, it's Ash Wednesday and I want Oliver Gilbert not to get mad at me. So I'm going to behave, but there was a movie that said it's better to have a, you know, okay, we'll leave it at that. Anyways, the bottom line is thank you for the presentation and, uh, and, uh, I'm glad, you know, a lot of times I don't have the time, uh, to, you were there. You, you, you've been in the process when we met, when I was going to see you as a commissioner, even when I went to see you as a mayor, you were always very, very, very open-minded and very fair. And I just hope that some of, uh, your former colleagues will listen to some of your now colleagues and, and look at these things a second time. Uh, because I think Miami-Dade County is still the economic engine for the state of Florida. And I think we need to get, uh, treated with the due respect that that brings to the state of Florida. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Gilbert, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioner Bermudez. I agree with you. I don't think we are the economic engine for the state of Florida. Our airport is the number one economic engine for the state of Florida. And that's just our airport. Um, but it's become increasingly clear at this point that the worst two months of the year for us is when they're in session. And so I'm just going to suggest maybe we, we look at, you know, instead of really asking them for things at this point, if we could just ask them to stop doing things at this point, if they could just stop, just stop. We will continue to send money to Tallahassee, stop. We'll continue to grow the economy if you just leave us alone. But, but we really need to be left alone. I know that, you know, sometimes we don't necessarily connect the dots between the things that happen in the state and the things that happen nationally and our local economy. But one of the things that I noted was that we had slightly fewer, uh, people to fly through MIA this year. And so that, that's an interesting thing is now it's still doing very well, but that's something we want to pay attention to. And I don't think it's completely disconnected from the fact that a lot of our visitors come from Central and South America. And we got this atmosphere, like, we just want to arrest everybody. I think we need to be mindful about what really drives our economy and who we are as Miami-Dade County. And just ask them just to kind of leave us alone. If they leave us alone, we should be fine. But if they don't, what we see is we kind of lose the ability to do more and more every year. And the only problem that that really provides is if other people speak in theory and nationally they speak in theory, in the state they speak in theory, we actually provide services. So when they start to limit our ability to provide those services, our residents, i.e., our neighbors, actually suffer. And that's a dangerous place to be in. Thank you for the report. Commissioner Cohen Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'll be brief. I just wanted to say thank you to Commissioner Lopez for that report and for that summary. Some of them I was very aware of and others I was entirely unaware of. And it, you know, it was just in Tallahassee and I thought, man, I missed an opportunity to advocate on some of the bills that you had just mentioned. But that's on me. I would love, because I thought that that was such an enlightening and the way that you delivered it, I thought, was so informative. I'd love an update, frankly, at the end of the legislative session and, frankly, how our delegation voted on some of those bills that you just specifically mentioned. And I'd like for it to be, I mean, it's your vote. It's your vote. I want to know how they voted. I want to know how our community voted on these bills. And so if you're agreeable to that and our chairman is agreeable to that, I would love that update, because I think our colleagues in Tallahassee are our friends. I think that they consider us to be their partners. And I think that we should all be watching very, very closely and doing the best we can to continue to foster the relationships with our partners, but also, you know, highlight what we need to highlight when necessary. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Bastian. So I, too, Commissioner Lopez, I, too, would like to thank you for a very comprehensive report. My question is, and I understand my colleagues, and I agree with you, it doesn't look good. It's bad. So my question is, what can we do? What can we do? Because you're living in the community where people are scared to death. People are afraid to get out, to take their children to school, to take their children to clinics. You know, what can we do? Or is there room for us to go back? Because when we go to today's day, even though, you know, we have meetings, but it's so busy, I don't think lawmakers really have time to really pay attention. I wonder if it's worth it going back, or what can we do? You're recognized for response, Commissioner Lopez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I think if you've never served in the legislature, you might not recognize the importance of the fact that the vast majority of members of that Florida legislature are not from Miami-Dade County. And if you look at the difference between our community and, say, Holmes County in the panhandle, they're not even the same. And so what ends up happening is that when I was a legislator, I would say, can I carve out Miami-Dade County? And I would try to do so because our needs and our community are so vastly different than most of the communities across the state. And so when these kind of – when the legislation comes up like this, and it's obviously not being run by a member of our delegation, it's hard to go up and say this is harmful to our community because it's not harmful to the rest of the communities that are represented by other members of the legislature. So it makes it more difficult for us. But I do agree with what Commissioner Cohen-Higgins said, which is we are 22 strong – or 21 now, minus myself – 21 strong. The voices should be collective, I think, especially when it comes to things that are so harmful, not only to our bottom line. But I always say you have to look at policy and budget, the things that impact both policy and budget. And in some cases, the policy can be sometimes even more harmful than the budget. But they're both going to be harmful this year in many ways. So, you know, urgings are good, but I don't know just how much they do when you're talking to a bill sponsor who isn't from Miami-Dade and doesn't care about our urgings, to be honest with you. So, yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm aware of the disconnect. I was there at one of the committees where, you know, two legislators were standing there asking, you know, promoting a bill to eliminate remittances, to prevent people from getting driver's licenses, things like that. What they don't understand is that these are decisions that have such a big impact on businesses. Because I'm hearing from employers for the first time, it's unprecedented, the number of employers calling me, you know, telling me what – asking me what they can do. Because they cannot find people to work. This really – this is really having an impact on our bottom line. It is. Yes, it is. So I don't understand it, and I think that maybe I agree with you and Commissioner Higgins. I mean, Quinn Higgins, we do need to amplify our voices because we do send tax dollars there, right, the benefits from our tax dollars. And I think that we have to find a way for them to listen to us, to hear us out, to hear us out. Because now you have restaurants, you have hotels, you have places, they cannot find people to work. And guess what? It's going to get worse before it gets better. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Regalado. Thank you. First, I'd like to echo some of my colleagues' points about Jess. He's amazing. I personally love Jess's e-mails. And I joke that there should be a test on Jess's e-mails. I think we should be tested on them. But one of the things that I think is interesting are the nuances between the bills that are being considered, like the Sovereign Immunity one. What's being considered in the Senate is very different from what is being considered in the House. I will say, regarding SB 1134, a lot of us have been watching it. It is so broad. The city of Miami Beach has just sent the governor, the president of the Senate, and the speaker of the House a letter asking for clarifications. So I look forward to see if they respond to that letter. I think they were very thorough in covering some of the issues that have been brought up throughout the course of this bill, for example, nonprofit chambers, Hispanic chambers. So they actually went through and have a series of questions that I think would be very useful for us to try to gauge exactly what this bill is about. I can tell you, as someone that does disability work, I have no idea how this impacts what we do because it is so broad. And it really, I've watched the committee meetings. Even at the Senate level, there was no detail as to what this is actually about. So I think on that one, we really are going to rely on the governor and the president and the speaker because my understanding is it has flown through almost everything. I think it had like one committee left. It has moved through everything. So that is obviously very concerning. And any bill that has as a remedy removing an elected official, I think, is concerning just by its nature, just by its nature, without getting into the topic, just by its nature, when removal of an elected official is the remedy, I'm concerned. But I do want to say, on the transportation stuff, I have been working on the tri-rail issue. And one of the things that I was doing last week in Tallahassee was talking specifically about that. There's different conversations. But at our tri-rail meeting at the end of this month, we hope to be presenting a lot more on what we've been able to accomplish. On the coastal link, the general response has been fix the tri-rail issue first and then come with the second piece of it. So that is what I heard when I was in Tallahassee. And I think there has been a lot of consistency towards that. And we have really been working hard. I know that there was a last-minute amendment to ensure that the tri-rail funding came out of the doc stamps because it was first in the budget, but there wasn't that clarification. So we have been working through that. And we hope to bring this board an update on that at our March meeting because we should have a much firmer idea of what's happening. And I know that Jimmy and Stacey have been participating in the county conversations about the county contributions, which are also important to FDOT for us to resolve. So I want to thank them because I know it's been a lot of meetings. We've all spent a lot of time on this, trying to figure out the path forward. So thank you for that update. And I think that, to Commissioner Gilbert's point, there was a very famous Floridian that once said that no one is safe while the legislature is in session. So we'll leave it at that. Did we do that? Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Steinberg. Look here. Look here. We've gone through this. Like, you don't – like, where's your son? Because his mom does not learn. His mom does not. He's taking a break. He's taking a break. All right. Thank you for the update. I know we have passed some resolutions on some of the items that you did reference. So I don't know if it behooves us as a – I mean, I know resolutions for urgings or opposing things are what they are. But, you know, we can always do an after-the-fact rezo. Although I will tell you, and I think to the attorney's office, a lot of these things already are guiding principles because they limit our – I guess I would say our home rule ability to do, you know, what we want to do and so forth. So I would imagine, and I would just like to hear it, that we already are actively engaged in opposing some of the bills that could have that negative impact. Yes, that's correct, Commissioner. We are. All right. I think that, you know, it is incumbent upon us also to educate. Sometimes people think that they're doing something that is, you know, maybe a benefit, and they don't understand the unintended consequences of those actions. And so I think it is incumbent upon us, you know, if we have relationships with people in the legislature, as I know Commissioner Lopez does, obviously, to just remind them and educate them of the implications of what it is that they're trying to do. Thank you. Did you want to second – is this your – Well, I was going to do like an after-the-fact resolution urging, opposing, but we don't need it because they just said that we're already opposing. So it was going to be more of a formality for us to make sure – Well, we do it, I think, in our packet. In our packet, our guiding principles actually speak to all of this. Yeah, it does. Commissioner Gilbert, did you want to add to the conversation? Yeah, I want to just say on the items we were talking about with regard to things we're going to do for trial, I'm interested to see that because I understand that the secretary does look favorably on that. I appreciate that. I'm going to need – if we're going to be doing things to get things, I need us to actually hear that from someone who's actually going to give it to us. I don't want to get into the business that we start doing more to support tri-rail, and I'm okay with doing that because we need money for all of these other projects, and then they don't actually give us the money for the other projects. And so I think that that's the challenge I have with that, but I'm supportive of that, Commissioner Regalado, and to the administration. I'm supportive of it, because I support tri-rail, and I support rapid mass transit generally. The other thing I would note is, and this is just something, this is a more philosophical point, Mr. Chairman, but I would offer this. First, I think that people understand what the natural and probable consequences of their actions are. So when you pass laws that make our decision making malfeasance or misfeasance, what you're saying is, if you disagree with me, I will put you out of office. And so these folks who say they love America and the American way and the First Amendment and the democratic process of separation of government, liar. You don't. You absolutely don't. Because what they're doing when they pass laws like that is criminalizing our ability to disagree. They're not just preempting us, they can just preempt us and say we can't do it. They could preempt us and stop us from doing it. They could nullify the law. They're not just doing that. What they're saying is, you can't even disagree with us as a board. That's what they're saying. And that is very, very dangerous. Mr. Chairman, if I might just add a thing there. I think what's happening is that there is a spread. This bill is probably a priority for the governor, the 1134, the diversity, equity, and inclusion, right? This has been an ongoing theme for the governor to, you know, this is something that he probably got legislators to file for him. And it's moving. And it's because this has been his focus. Let's face it. We've seen this in the other sessions, in previous sessions. I think the issue is its broad-reaching implication because of its broad definition. And I think what it really does, and this whole malfeasance and misfeasance, and the fact that a resident could sue us, and then you see the sovereign immunity situation, you know, coupled with it. I mean, it can get dicey. So I think, you know, we have a, I think we have an obligation to say something, though, even though we've already said it. I think we have to say something. And maybe this item, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to talk about this while we're only in week six and not after the session. I think hopefully this will spark some discussion amongst our delegation members that we are concerned, highly concerned, not just concerned, about this bill and other bills. And vis-a-vis transportation, it doesn't matter what we say about trial rail or the Northeast Corridor. If it's not funded in the Senate and only trial rail is funded in the House, that's where you have to see what the priorities of the legislature is. It isn't what we say. Follow the money. It's not funded in the Senate at all. Neither one of our two projects is funded in the Senate, and only one is funded in the House, which means that only trial rail will probably be talked about in conference. So you've got to understand the process in order to understand the nuances of what this report really means. So I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you again, Commissioner Lopez, for that insightful update. And I would say to your point, while the DEI bill and others are priorities of the governor, thankfully, we have seen that this House of Representatives has a voice of their own, led by our local speaker from Miami-Dade County, and is not doing the governor's bidding. Correct. So we hope that they stand strong in the things that matter most to Miami-Dade County and its residents. With that, I know, Madam Mayor, you've been patiently waiting. You recognize. Thank you so much. And I'm very grateful that we're having this conversation. Thank you to our commissioner for bringing it in with all of her insights. Obviously, most of you have had a chance to go to Tallahassee. I've been twice. And every time, and through our advocacy with Jess and our hired lobbyists, we have presented scenarios. What will be the result of losing anywhere between $250 million to $1 billion annually? What will be sacrificed from our general fund? We explain. Some didn't know that we can't take from the airport to pay for parks or transit or animal services. Right? So we had to educate them that, in fact, there will be definite reduced services from any of these bills. Now, is it likely that something will get on the agenda? Well, we'll see. On the voters' agenda, we don't have anything yet out of the Senate. The governor has called for a special session, which, not on this topic, but likely it will go to a special session. So we've also been talking with our cities. And, yes, we know that some of the cities have been more proactive than others. We've been having weekly meetings with our cities to try to get an understanding from them. There was a Miami Herald article that showcased the cities with the largest impact. I spoke this morning to several of the mayors. One mayor said basically a third of all of their budget would be eliminated from some of these proposals, which means that they would have to greatly diminish their public safety and all other services. Another mayor has said that they will have to dissolve the city if these proposals go through. It is highly important that we communicate this in the most drastic terms. It is not too late, and we must do it. And one representative said to us, we should be graphically showing how many libraries will close, how many bus routes will be eliminated, et cetera, and we've endeavored to do that. So I think it's really important for this body to not just rely on our urgings and not to preempt us, but to actually present those scenarios. That is the only thing that we can do is to help them understand that it's not possible to cut drastically local government services and then, as some have said, turn around and increase our millage to make up for the difference. That has actually been stated. Like, don't worry, local government. Just increase your millage because we'll cut the property tax. So, you know, everybody has to take responsibility for this, and I really, really encourage this commission to be extremely vocal and graphic about what the losses will be, potentially, and we have that information to continue to share with you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Mayor. All right. Moving on. I've got a few things. Before I move into the pool list, we do have a pool list, and we're not there yet. Okay, real quick, and I would do this at the end, but during the pool list, I'm going to see if I have to take a call. So, Commissioner, or to all, really, but Commissioner Regalado, as we were all preparing for the holidays this last year, someone that I consider a friend and sworn officer lost his life while on duty, Devin Jaramillo, who I'm sure all of you heard about. And so I was a friend, a friend of his father's. And so it kind of hit a little close to home for me. I immediately, of course, put a hold on a few things, one of them being a street naming. It's in your district, so I'd like to see if you're amenable to co-priming a street naming for him. He did lose his life while on duty doing his job. Yes, and I'm happy to add you on the items that we're working on. We did speak to the family, and one of the things that they requested was the naming of the football field where he played. So my understanding is that we're working on that. Right. So, yeah. So you need to do that. We could do the football field as well. My hold was only on the street naming, but it's in your district. Right, right, right. So our rules say that the commissioner of the district has to bring the item for the street naming. Correct. So can we co-prime the street naming? Happy to have you co-sponsor it. I'll draft it. We're happy to have you. If you co-prime it, then we have to have a bunch of sunshine meetings as we get it through. But happy to have you co-sponsor it as we work through. We can prime it at the end. I'm comfortable. Then I want to slow it down, right? The idea is to get it done. And then, of course, I'd like to get on to the football field as well. Happy to do that. And then when the item comes back, we could get more into detail as to his career. Of course. Of course. All right. Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would also request to be co-sponsored, co-prime on that. And I have a similar issue. I have a similar request in your district, but at the appropriate time, I'll take that up. So co-sponsor, I mean. But like I said, I don't have a problem adding co-prime at the end. It just slows us down through the legislative process. Obviously, they're a family of public servants. You know, the uncle was a police officer. We know them personally. They've lived in the district for a very long time. And they made certain requests. So we just want to get everything done in a timely fashion. Happy to have everyone join us. Really dedicated his life, as has his family, to serving our community. So happy to do that. I just don't want to slow it down, because we were talking with the family about when they want to do these events. So we would have to get it to the board in time so that they can then do those events. Perfect. All right. So show that. Show us co-sponsoring for now. We'll co-prime it at the end. And then what is yours? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I have a similar request. And it's just terrible that there are so many of these. Because I just need to say, it's hard to be a police officer. You're putting your life on the line every single day. To those in the audience and those at home, if you see a police officer on the street today, do me a favor and thank them for their service, because they don't know if they're going to go home today. So do me a favor, thank them for his service, give them a hug, tell them you love them, because they deserve it. And so, Mr. Chair, I've had conversations with the family of Sergeant David Cahuso who also, unfortunately, lost his life on duty. And there is a specific street that they would like that is in your district. I was wondering if you would co-prime that with me. I'm happy to do it. I'm happy to do it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So does that need to be an official motion, Madam Attorney? Like to combine the two motions that are similar in nature? No, you don't need a motion. Just having the conversation and the agreement on the record is sufficient. All right, fair enough. So I think we're okay. All right, sounds good. And then also another, Commissioner Lopez, well, the spotlight was on you before. I am also working on a parking regulation ordinance that I'd like to see if you'd like to join me as a co-prime sponsor on the item. Would love to, thank you so much. All right, thank you, and then we'll have a sunshine or whatever needs to be done so we can work on that. And then another topic, and it could be brief to the administration and or to any other commissioners that abut the new BRT, the US-1 BRT South Corridor. Because I've not received any update on it, but I'm not in that district. But I know that when we rolled that out and I was there for the ribbon cutting or whatnot, if the director wants to approach, she's welcome to, as I ask my question. But I know that there was a lot of issues with the synchronization of the arms and the lighting and the – it wasn't working properly, right? And I know I got calls at my office, even though I'm not the district – one of the district commissioners. I think it encompasses more than one – three districts. Okay, so I think it's the vice chair, Cohen-Higgins, and Regalado. If someone can just give a brief update, has that been corrected? Is it being – like, what's the status on it? And I'm sure that the district commissioners are probably all over it, but as a body, we've not been informed. You don't have to spend a lot of time on it, but where is it? Because we were getting a lot of calls. They've slowed down a bit, but we were getting a lot of calls on this. Thank you, Chairman. We did provide a one-week update and a one-month update. We will provide another update soon. We wanted to get past our initial 90 days. We have been working actively on modifying and optimizing the traffic signalization as well as the gate arms. We have made improvements. Is it where we – is it complete? No. We are still working with our existing contractor who is still active on the site. We're doing what we can while we have the contractor there. As soon as the contractor leaves, we'll be able to make additional improvements, but we are tweaking while the contractor is there. But doing too much will delay the contractor leaving the site and allowing us to take over. So there's a period of time where we're making modifications, but we can't make too many modifications because it impacts their ability to complete the project. If I may, through the Chair. You may. Thank you. I want to add to what our Director has said. Specifically, these contractors have to finish their work and be signed off on by FDOT before we have full access to fix the system. So that's the point that is being made. We are making improvements that we need to make in short order, but we've already – and certain components of the – certain segments have completed the work, and then the Department is able to carry on and do even more because we control aspects that the state contractor does – or that the contractor does not. I know that's a little complicated, but we've had to explain it to the cities along the corridor, and they understand the fact that it is a sensitive system, and we have to do it in stages. I can subscribe to that and understand that. I think – so, firstly, Director, the one-week and the one-month update, who did that go to? Who was that given to? I didn't see that. I didn't get that. It was provided through the Mayor's Office, and I believe it was provided to the Commission, but we can get you another version. It was a report – Was it emailed to us or – I believe it was emailed. It was a report with – I would call it a one-page document. It was two pages. It was a front and back that gave some statistics, excuse me, on our ridership, where we were with signal optimization, et cetera. Do we have a time frame as to when this will be – I guess I'm wondering why we even cut the ribbon. And got this going if it wasn't – did we have to do this in order to see what the faults were? Like, what – I mean, in today's day and age, I think that response is a little bit absurd. I don't think we need to do it in order to see the faults, but is that kind of the mindset? Why did we do the ribbon-cutting if it wasn't ready? Well, it was ready. We did want to start service, but the fact was we were constructing this project during active service. And we knew that after we started the new service, which reduced the number of the five services down to two services, we knew that there would still be additional optimization. Again, we're the first agency in the country to do this type of service with gate arms or with the technology that we chose. So we did need to see how it would work while it was being utilized for the services as opposed to the prior services that were out there. We needed to see how it would work with the new services that we were starting. So it was always intended that we would at least have a 90-day optimization window. It's exceeded 90 days, no? We have exceeded the 90 days. I mean, look, I don't know. I imagine the district commissioners have to be all over it, and I defer to you guys, but especially just given what you said now that we're like a model for the nation, essentially. And as a model, this is how we kind of kick this off. I don't know. That's not much of being a model or setting the example, but I'm sure that the vice chair, Cohen-Higgins, and Regalato are hoping that they're all over it, and you guys are as well. But keep me informed because, again, I'll be honest, right, the calls did slow down at the office, but I'm nowhere near that district, and I would get the calls. And you still got the vice chair saying he's still getting them every day. So, yeah, keep us updated. I mean, one week and one month, we're over 90 days, and we haven't gotten another update. Maybe I missed the e-mails, but I think we should definitely. And overall, I think it goes, Madam Mayor, I think it's probably for more than just this. I definitely need, and Chief Morales knows we had a similar conversation on airport issues. I think I, at least for one, and I don't need to add more to my plate, but I need more consistent updates on things of this nature. If I may, through the chair? Of course, Madam Mayor. Yeah, so there were two reports sent out to the body. One week and the one month. On BRT, on the Metro Express. I can report this, that the number of riders on the express service has doubled since we launched the line, and we have many, many satisfied customers. The trick is the cross traffic, and it is a very complicated system because there's multiple lights. There isn't that much room. And so that is what needs to be worked through. But it is a unique system that we do have the transit way, and it was an opportunity. Obviously, it's not an elevated train, which we all wanted, and that was what was originally in the half penny, which should have been a full penny. If it had been a full penny, we might have been able to build a metro rail line, and, of course, our vice chairman has been a steady advocate for that. That would have had less interference. So this was a very expensive project that did have the federal money, and I think we're regarded as having done very well with it, but it is the nature of the beast. We can continue to give you regular updates, of course, and I know the airport does also, and so we can certainly do at whatever frequency you want. They do the capital updates, but now that you've created a new body, and we also have the short-term one that I created, we're moving forward aggressively with everything we can possibly do at the airport, and there's already progress being made. All right. Fair enough. Commissioner, vice chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I would echo this. There is no one greater to have at the helm of our traffic and transportation than Stacey, so thank you so much. Hands down, you're the greatest. However, my comments are more so to the practical side of what we're seeing and how things are playing out. Recently, there was an accident at 288th and US1 where two tow trucks, I believe, collided and caused the death of one of the drivers. In a sense, 288 has been and will forever be the bloodline, especially east-west, as it relates to getting us to the turnpike and to US1 and over to US1 to Colm Avenue. What we've seen has been one of the most inconvenient results I've ever seen. We've seen traffic back all the way up on 288, all the way to the turnpike. When you go up to 280th Street in the mornings, particularly between the hours of 527 and about 705-ish, the east-west traffic is unbearable. I do know that our homestead mayor has echoed this position also. I do also know that our former Florida city mayor has also gone on the record. But I also know for a fact that the residents in the South Dade area are horrified at the reality of knowing that they're now spending more time in their cars. So we may have more riders on the bus, on the busway. However, those who are in their cars taking their kids to daycare and leaving daycare to get to the turnpike in time to get to downtown, what they're finding is they're finding they're spending double the time in the car because when the actual arms come down, what ends up happening is the arms come down, you'll have to wait at least eight, you know, about eight minutes, depending on where you are on the side of the arm, before you get to the light. And then another 40 seconds will come by. Then the arms will go back down. And so now you have this bottleneck reaction that's creating the problems that the folk in the South Dade community are calling about. I'm getting the calls. I'm getting stopped in the public or the Walmarts. And they're telling us, and by the way, I'm actually living it myself. What used to take me seven minutes to get to the turnpike now is somewhere around 22 minutes, depending on what time of day we're leaving. So I just want to, again, love you. I think you're the greatest. I wouldn't have anyone else at the helm working this out. However, but those are just the practical applications that we've seen due to the faultiness of the synchronization and the arms. Thank you, Vice Chair. All right. With that, we'll move into the pool list, if that's appropriate, Madam Attorney. So I'd like to see if Commissioner Gilbert moves item 8H2, 801, and 11A15, given that they were pulled by Senator Garcia. Second. He's, so it's been moved. Second. It's been seconded by Commissioner Regalado. It was Senator Garcia who pulled those. Okay, the reason why I think he wanted to. He said he dropped them. 11A15. Okay, so then let's move 8H2 and 801. It's been seconded by Commissioner Regalado. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. On 11A15, it was pulled by Senator Garcia, but the Vice Chair has a potential amendment. You're recognized? Yeah. I was going to add farm share because they called. That's, I think, we may have all gotten to call. So, okay, short amended to add farm share in that item. So it's been moved by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Commissioner Regalado. As amended, all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Commissioner from District 8, you pulled item 8P5. You released it? All right, so it's been moved. Second. Did you release it or no? I don't. You're not releasing it? Okay, so you thought you released it? All right. You're recognized on 8P5, traffic control pool. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the administration on 8P5, this came into existence just a couple of years ago at a million dollar delegated authority to the mayor for this pool. And then just a year later, it was in. We can just have some quiet in the chamber when you all are leaving, please. Thank you, Commissioner Gilbert, and thank you, Mr. Chair. So an 8P5, this is a pool for street lighting and traffic control devices in the county, and it started as a million dollar pool and then was increased to a $5 million pool. And now you want it to be a $19 million pool within a very short period of time. So when I see pools created and you all tell us you need a million dollars to start the pool, and we say, okay, great, that's the mayor's delegated authority. And then right on the heels of that, you say, just kidding, we need $5 million. And then very shortly, then you say we need $19 million. It feels like something is not making sense. And the item doesn't specify what exactly it is that you need such an increase to cover. So help me understand what's going on with street lighting here and these traffic devices and why we would be delegating so much more than the original ask that came before us. Through the chair, I will be happy to address. So this pool was started in October of 2024. It was an effort to combine several other contracts that DTPW was using for both traffic control, signage, lighting, et cetera, for materials to be acquired. We were using an FDOT contract and a variety of contracts through the county. The original goal was to create the first pool and understand how much resources were needed on a regular basis. We quickly eclipsed the one and went to five. We have now exceeded that. We spend about $445,000 a month on material for traffic lighting, traffic signalization, signing and marking. The ask now, that additional $19 million, would provide us with the resources necessary for the life of the pool, which is through October of 2028. So it was initially devised to actually determine what our spend rate was. And now we're coming to you with our known spend rate with a contingency knowing that prices will escalate during the life of the pool. We will ask for a new pool before this pool expires. And this is just for materials? Materials. For the replacement of lights throughout the county? So it is for street lighting, for traffic signalization. It is for signing and marking. So all of the sign material that we use to put up stop signs and street signs, et cetera, all the marking, pavement markings that we use, missing light structures, bulbs, et cetera, traffic controller, boxes, all of the equipment inside the controller cabinets. Obviously not the controllers themselves because we're in the process of doing that. But loop detection, et cetera, all of the equipment necessary to maintain all of those features and continue the safety and security of street lighting, signals, signing, and pavement marking. And we don't have contracts with other companies that do that for Miami-Dade County. We, as a department, are out there fixing the lights. We don't have contracts with vendors that do that? We do. We do some of the work ourselves, and we have vendors that do it. Oftentimes the vendors use our equipment. So they come to our stockpile of light fixtures, and they take our light fixtures, and they go and install them. Or they take our bulbs, and they go and install them. So we actually do have to have a warehouse of this equipment. In addition, we provide all of the signing. So internal-inered street signs, regular street signs, stop signs, those are manufactured. We have to buy all of that material ourselves. We have contracts that actually put out pavement markings, but we ourselves put out pavement markings. So it's a combination. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions on this? Sure. Commissioner Gilbert. Stacy, I'm completely cool with that. I just hope that the next time, I don't know that it was explained that way. Like this million was just like a gateway drug. Yeah, it was explored, right, Judge? I don't know that it was explained that way. So it seems like a completely reasonable thing to do. You're assessing, you're experimenting, you're figuring it out. Okay, but the next thing you know, you're in meth. I mean, so yeah, you know, so now we're at the meth point, and we didn't see it coming. So next time, maybe y'all just let us know that's what we're doing. Like, hey, this joint's going to lead to this. Like, yeah. All right. Thank you. Can we get a motion to move the item? Move it. Second. Seeing all in favor? All against? Item passes. All right, Madam Clerk, 14B1, PAB vote. Do you have those numbers tallied, the names? Yes, we do. Can you go ahead and read those names of those who are going to, those who received the votes, please? Sure. Agenda item 14B1 pertains to the selection of at-large members to the Planning Advisory Board. The ballot consists of six candidates from which the board was asked to select up to two nominees. Responses to the ballot were tallied, and the nominees selected are Evo Fernandez, Jr., with a total of eight votes, and Michael C. Gongora, with a total of five votes. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Attorney, do we need a motion to confirm that, or we can just take that as it is, since it's a vote? I think it's a ballot, but if you want to do a motion, I think it's a ballot, and it's done. Commissioner Gibber, you said you forgot to? All right, so we're fine. Thank you. All right, we're going to move to allocations now. Any allocations? Commissioner Gibber, you have a motion? Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chairman. I have a motion that you all can read for me, the attorney can read for me, and then I have a motion that Commissioner, Senator Garcia, asked my office to present, and that can be read also. Thank you. Commissioner Gilbert moves to extend the due diligence period of the amended and restated lease and development agreement between Miami-Dade County and Landmark QOZB Construction, LLC, approved by the board through resolution number R-97424 from February 28, 2026 to March 31, 2026, and directs the county mayor, mayor's designee, to execute any amendments necessary to extend the due diligence period. Subject to review for form and legal sufficiency by the county attorney's office. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. This motion extends the time for us to find an agreement. We actually have a meeting right after this with the proposed developer. We're trying to get there as soon as we can. Thank you. Can we get a second, please? Second. Commissioner Bastian, thank you so much. Senate item second. Do we all in favor? Aye. Against? Motion passes. Second motion? Senator Garcia moves that this board expresses support for the lawsuit titled AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Inc., and Recipient 1 v. Florida Department of Health DOAH case number 26-0529RU, which seeks to declare a certain department policy change as an unpromulgated rule, and directs the county attorney to monitor the litigation and to join or sign on to any amicus briefs that may be filed by other parties as appropriate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand, this amendment involves the county in the lawsuit. We joined a lawsuit that apparently the state changed how they calculate who can get AIDS drugs, and it's having a bad effect on us. So there's some folks who are suing and want to be a part of the lawsuit. I move the item. Second. Senate item moved by Commissioner Gilbert and seconded by Commissioner Vicki Lopez. All in favor? All against? Motion passes. Any other motions? Yes. I have one. Yes. Commissioner Hardeman. Commissioner, I have two motions for you. Should I read them both? Read the shorter one first. Commissioner Hardeman moves to amend resolution number R69424 to further authorize 241 Northwest 70th Street LLC to use allocated funds from the Overtown Trust Fund for the Acquisition, Construction, and Rehabilitation of Properties in the Overtown Area for commercial purposes, and direct and authorize the county mayor. Mayor says the need to amend the grant agreement and execute same for such purpose without board action, subject to review and approval of the county attorney's office. This is an item where we've already granted money. They had it for simply residential. We want to add in commercial purposes as well to preserve the area. That's what it's for. I move it. I move it. Commissioner Hardeman, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. All against? Motion passes. Second motion? Commissioner Hardeman moves this board grant to House Park LLC, a Florida limited liability company, House Park, which has been conveyed to certain properties through Miami-Dade County Infill Housing Initiative Program, a 90-day extension from the date of this motion to obtain a final certificate of occupancy, and complete the sale of the home constructed to an eligible home buyer for the lot-bearing folio number 0131140150610, and located at 1542 Northwest 70th Street, Miami, Florida. Commissioner Hardeman further moves that this board authorize the chairperson or vice chairperson of this board, pursuant to section 125.411 Florida statutes, to execute an amended and restated deed, amended deed, to House Park for the property identified herein, following approval by the county attorney's office for form and legal sufficiency in order to grant the 90-day extension. Authorize the county mayor or mayors-designate to take all actions necessary to exercise any and all rights set forth in the amended deed, including but not limited to exercising the county's option to enforce its reversionary interest after conducting all due diligence, title searches, and environmental review. And direct the county mayor or mayors-designate to record the amended deed in the public records, provide copies of the recorded deed to the property appraiser, and provide a copy of the amended deed to the clerk of the board. Thank you. It's an extension. I'm going to say an item moved by Commissioner Hardeman and seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed? So the item passes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Aye. Yes, thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. The attorneys have a motion regarding our FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Task Force team. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins moves to amend the 2026 federal legislative package to include the following two items. Funding for FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Task Force teams. Support and advocate for federal funding for Florida Task Force 1, the USAR Task Force sponsored by Miami-Dade Fire Rescue. Florida Task Force 1, part of the national USAR response system under DHS FEMA, faces a $4 million annual funding shortfall. This shortfall impacts equipment, maintenance, readiness, training, and all of which are currently funded privately and on a volunteer basis. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue has deployed Florida TF1 to major disasters nationwide, including Hurricanes Katrina, Irma, Maria, Ian, Idalia, Debbie, Helene, Milton, and the Maui Wildfires, showcasing its critical role in national response efforts. And two, to reinstate Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Urban Search and Rescue support and advocate for the reinstatement of Miami-Dade Fire Rescue's Urban Search and Rescue USAR team as an active search and rescue task force within the United States Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, PRM. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue's Urban Search and Rescue Team was designated as Florida Task Force 1 for the PRM, formerly United States Agency for International Development, between 1985 and 2004. During that period of time, the task force responded to more than 40 major incidents around the world. Although a notice of funding opportunity is not currently announced, as soon as it is made available, Miami-Dade Fire Rescue will be applying for reinstatement as an international response search and rescue task force within the U.S. Department of State, PRM. Thank you. I know you moved it. I can second it. Can I co-sponsor? No. Okay. All right. Seeing the item moved and second, do all in favor? All against? So the motion passes. I have. Okay. May I be recognized? Yes. Okay. Appointing the following, Allen T. Brown, Miami-Dade County Commission on Disability Issues, Cynthia Casanova, Miami-Dade County Commission on Human Rights, Scott Galvin, Miami-Dade County Commission on Human Rights, Solomon Junae, Planning Advisory Board. And I want to remind everybody that on Sunday is the annual Lovin' Festival at Reynolds Park. Come by, enjoy. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Lopez. Yes, I have two appointments on behalf of Senator Garcia. He would like to appoint William Perez to the Military Affairs Board and Alejandra Cortina to the Elder Affairs Advisory Board. Thank you. Are there any more allocations or appointments before we adjourn? Commissioner Steinberg moves we adjourn. Thank you.