Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners - Regular - Jun 16, 2026

Clerk, please call the roll. Good morning to all. The clerk's office has received memorandum that Senator Garcia will be absent from today's meeting. Commissioner Bastien. Here. Commissioner Bermudez. Here. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Gonzales, Commissioner Hardiman, Commissioner Lopez, Commissioner Emiliano Orbis, Commissioner Regalado, present. Commissioner Steinberg, Vice Chairman McGee, Chairman Rodriguez. I'm present. We have nine members present, we have a quorum. All right, so Commissioner Gilbert present as well. All right, all, if you can please quietly stand for the invocation given this morning by Rebbetson Shani Lipsker of the Shoal of Ball Harbor at the invitation of Commissioner Steinberg, and he is accompanied this morning by Bell Harbor Mayor Salver and Bay Harbor Island Mayor Salver. So thank you all for being here this morning, and please bow your heads for an invocation. Members of Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners, and good morning to this very August assemblage. By divine providence, our gathering today coincides with the first day of the Hebrew month of Tammuz, known as Rosh Chodesh Tammuz. In Jewish tradition, every month carries its own unique message and opportunity. Tammuz arrives with the warmth and intensity of summer. The days grow longer, the sun shines brighter, and the heart becomes more powerful. While we often think of warmth as a source of comfort, it also serves as a profound teacher. Cold causes things to become rigid. Warmth softens them. Heat allows materials to be shaped, molded, and transformed, and the same is true of people and communities. In times of tension, uncertainty, and disagreement, it is easy for hearts to become hardened and positions to become entrenched, yet genuine progress rarely emerges from rigidity. It is born from the warmth of understanding, the willingness to listen, and the ability to recognize the dignity and humanity of those whose perspectives may differ from our own. The sages teach that the summer sun possesses a dual power. It can scorch, but it can also ripen. The very same heat that can dry the earth can also produce growth, sweetness, and abundance. The difference lies in how that energy is directed. So, too, the passion, conviction, and determination that drive public service can become sources of division, or they can become forces that unite people around a common purpose. The responsibility belongs to each of us. This lesson can especially be meaningful for those entrusted with leadership. The strength of a community is not measured by the absence of difference. It is measured by the ability to transform those differences into cooperation, challenges into opportunities, and diverse voices into a shared commitment to the common good. As this new month begins, may we be blessed with the wisdom to lead, the humility to learn, and the courage to serve. May Miami-Dade County be blessed with safety and security, prosperity and opportunity, health and healing. And may our law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency personnel, members of our armed forces, and all public servants be protected in their sacred work and return safely home to their beloved ones. And may this new month bring blessing to Miami-Dade County, to our nation, and to all humanity. And may we each do our part to transform the warmth of this season into acts of kindness, understanding, and service to others. And let us all say amen. Thank you so much for those heartfelt words. And thank you again, Commissioner Steinberg, for having them out this morning. If you can all join me for the pledge. You may be seated. We have a very long agenda this morning, guys. So we're going to get right into it. Thank you all. We have a packed house. So thank you all for being here. Madam Attorney, good morning. Good morning. Is it appropriate for us to move into reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at this time? Yes. All right. So reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard is now open. I will call your name, seeing that I have several registered to speak. You will have one minute to speak. I state the item on which you're speaking on, your name and address. And please be respectful of other people's time. I will start with, I'd also like to welcome some elected officials that I know we have in the chamber today. I don't know if everyone's here, but I know some city of Miami elected officials are here. I see Gabela, I see Pardo, and I see Rosado. Thank you guys for being here. And with that, actually, if you all can approach the well, you're on my list to speak. So please approach the well. Unfortunately, you won't have any preference today in this chamber. So you'll have a minute to speak. I need to speak. So please be respectful of other people's time. Please introduce yourself. For those that don't know you, even though everyone probably knows you more than they know us. But go ahead. Thank you, Chair. My name is Damian Pardo, and I'm the District 2 Commissioner for City of Miami. Thank you as well, Mayor, and all the commissioners. I'm here in support of the Mental Health Center. I would like to see that pass. In our district and in the City of Miami, this is an enormous problem. Recently, we had a victim, a resident, Caitlin Desden, that was badly beaten in front of the Kaseya Center. I'm sure many of you are familiar with that. But mental health is on our streets every day, and it is an enormous issue for law enforcement, for electeds, and for our city. So I would ask you to support this item and have a different option for people that suffer from mental health and can actually get treatment. Thank you very much. Have a great day. Wow, that was great. Thank you, Commissioner. Good morning, Madam Mayor, Chairman Rodriguez, and all of the commissioners. I am Miguel Angel Gabela, representing District 1, City of Miami, Commissioner. And I'm here very much in support of the Lippman Center, the mental health facility. I took a tour about a year ago, a year and a half ago, and it impressed me how they had to transform the building to get ready for this. In my area, the Seventh Avenue corridor, which I represent, is very badly needed. And something like this is going to be very helpful to alleviate the homeless situation that we have going on on the Seventh Avenue corridor and in my district and other districts in the city. So I am very much in support of this, and thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. Good morning, Chairman and Honorable Commissioners. Ralph Rosado, I am the Miami City Commissioner for District 4. I'm also the chair of the Miami Downtown Development Authority. We know that homelessness is an issue that exists in every corner of not only of our city of Miami, but our beloved Miami-Dade County as well. It's particularly concentrated in downtown Miami, which is the face of Miami-Dade to the entire world. We see it right now with FanFest and so many activities that take place. It is what the world sees. But more importantly, there are a number of souls that because the current system lets them down, we are stuck in a vicious cycle that goes from mental illness resulting in homelessness, homelessness resulting in jail time, jail time resulting in release, release resulting in relapse, and relapse ultimately, in many cases, resulting in violence or worse. As Commissioner Pardo said, we had a recent brutal attack. The kind of person that did the attack is somebody who had been in and out of our jail system for many years, had done this previously. The kind of person that where the Leifman Center opened, this probably wouldn't have taken place. And so I want to thank the chairman for putting in safeguards into this legislation. And I strongly, strongly, strongly support on both behalf of the DDA and the Miami City Commission, which has unanimously supported this measure. We really hope that you move forward and get the center open. Thank you, Commissioner. Good morning, Chairman and Honorable Commissioners. My name is Jose Sanchez-Gronier. I'm legal counsel for the Office of Commissioner Miguel Angel Gabela in District 1. I have been in the criminal justice system for 41 years, first as a deputy clerk, then as an attorney. The need for this center for mental health has been going on unaddressed for all this time. Judge Leifman has been working on this project since 2000, and we need this hospital. The jails are not the solution to the mental health crisis. They don't have the resources or the ability to long-term treat the mental patients and the root causes of their illnesses. So I urge you to approve this resolution and fund the mental health project. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. I'm going to call several of you. Just please line up on each side of the center aisles and approach the well, and please do the same. You have a minute, name and address. Gerard Vanden Heuvel, Jason Liberty, President and CEO of Royal. Phil Err, Joe Capel, John Armbrust, George Rovirosa, Salomon Senord, Salomon Senord, Duce Martinez, Noel Cleland, and Theophilus Williams. All right. Wow. You all speaking together? We're one, yes. All right. So who, is it most that I just called right now? I don't think you called them, but they're- Okay. All right. Go ahead, Jason. Well, Chair, great to see you. Commissioners, great to see you as well, and thank you, Madam Mayor. For those that don't know me, though I think most of you do, Jason Liberty. I'm the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Royal Caribbean Group. I'm here on behalf of the Florida Caribbean Cruise Association and all of our member lines. And thank everybody for the opportunity for hearing us today. Just so you know who's joining me here today, we have representation from all the cruise lines. MSC Cruises, Carnival Corporation, Norwegian Cruise Line, Virgin Cruise Line, and of course, FCCA as well. Just a few words for today. We all know that Port of Miami is the cruise capital of the world. It's among the many accolades that it has as being recognized for, but it's also known as the cargo gateway for the Americas. It's the busiest port in the state of Florida for international cargo. Port of Miami is the state's most important economic driver. One of the state's most, but it will one day be the state's most important economic driver. It generates $61.4 billion in annual economic activity. That's up from $41.4 billion just 10 years ago. It supports 340,000 jobs. It represents nearly 4% of Florida's GDP, and it generates $2.2 billion a year in state and local taxes. Behind those numbers are also real people whose livelihoods depend on a successful daily operation. There are nearly 30,000 direct local jobs. Cruise alone supports 45,000 jobs. Many more are tied to the people and businesses that move guests, goods, supplies, commerce through the community every single day. Also, the Port of Miami moves our economy, resulting in a ripple effect, whether that's in the hotel numbers, booked flights, taxis and rideshares, buses and vans, restaurants being filled, shops, attractions, museums, concert venues, and small businesses that are frequently being visited. Access to fuel is obviously critical for us. The current and future position of our port is precarious. Port of Miami depends on disciplined planning, reliable infrastructure, and the certainty of a port that can operate safely and efficiently every single day. Reliable fuel access is an essential component of that equation. It's not optional. It's fundamental. Maintaining that ability protects the current and future of Miami's economy. Mr. President, just, sorry, I've allowed you the liberty. Yep, like it. I'm almost done. To continue, given that I'm assuming everyone behind you is going to yield, is yielding their time. They're all yielding to me. Okay. Okay. Yes, sorry about that. I'll try to read faster. All right. We need to find a pathway forward that solves safe and secure fuel bunkering for the Port of Miami. No major U.S. home port operates without fuel bunkering. The future of Fisher Island's fuel facility directly impacts Miami-Dade's future economy, from workers to small businesses to local families. We respectfully urge this commission to protect our future, and thank you very much for your time and your leadership. Thank you, Mr. Neal. All right. Thank you. Thank you all. All right. Up next. I think there's more people standing than what I called, but pretty sure. Go ahead. Hello. My name is Phil Ayer. I live at 8962 Southwest 142nd Avenue, number 1219. I happen to be privileged and honored to be one of two congressional candidates in this room, one on the dais and one here at the podium. Congratulations, sir. I'm here to speak on behalf of what was just said about the fuel depot. The fuel depot is critical for our economy and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that derive from a good, solid fuel provision for this big industry that drives so much. The lack of planning over decades has finally come to roost, and I'm not here to cast blame, but I am here to say that because you're in the seat, you are responsible for the here and now. So I would encourage you all to take on your long-term planning responsibility and fix it. I know you're going to fix it. It's just how. And so I wish you all the wisdom in the world to do that. And I'm also here in favor of the mental health facility because here's an opportunity to look for long-term planning for what is needed in our community, and that is people who are in the system already, either pre-arrest or post-arrest, to get the support they need. That is a cost savings and health savings for our community. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Herr. Sir? Good morning, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the County Commission. My name is Jorge Rovirosa. My address is 10405 Southwest 122nd Street, Miami. I am the president of Florida Stevedoring for Rovi Shipping, companies that have been here in existence operating for the last 65 years. We know the Port of Miami probably better than anybody in this room. We helped create this port. And not only echoing Mr. Liberty's statement, the importance of this fuel farm to our cruise industry is insurmountable. I think if they decide to pull all their vessels, that home port in this port of ours, because they can't get fuel, it's going to have a devastating negative effect on the economy. You know what the numbers are. Can you imagine Miami International Airport not having fuel for their jets? It would be devastating. I ask you to do the right thing, support the mayor who has a plan to either purchase or get this land at whatever it takes. And I ask you that on behalf of my company as well as all the stevedoring companies, the longshoremen that derive their income from the activities at the port. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Ma'am. Good morning, my name is Dulce Martinez from Homestead, Florida. I'm a healthcare provider with over 30 years experience. I'm the author of a book called The Benefits of Insanity, which is about how the system fails those with severe mental illness. I'm also the daughter of a woman with schizophrenia. I know the system from every angle. As a child of a mentally ill parent, as an emergency room worker, and as an intern in corrections, I've seen firsthand how the system fails people. People with severe mental illness have a medical condition just like Alzheimer's, just like cerebral palsy. Most are nonviolent and don't belong in jail. They belong in treatment. It costs taxpayers significantly more to incarcerate someone than it does to treat them. They leave sicker than when they went in. That's not just poor policy. Locking up sick people is a disservice to taxpayers, and it's a crime against humanity, one that really needs to end today. Please vote yes on opening the center. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Sir. Good morning. My name is Joe Capoe, and I am here representing the workforce, the ILA, from the Port of Miami. We have some members here from both 1416 and 1922. We represent, obviously, all the work that gets done in the Port of Miami, over 2,500 families. You heard the numbers. You heard what happens if any cruise line leaves. But our concern is the loss of work that translates into hours. Hours turns into medical benefit loss for us and our families. So that is the key for us as the longshoremen and the workforce. The way I see it, it's the fuel farm needs to remain a Fisher Island. It's the only way that we're going to remain having our crews and cargo companies that are with us, that are in partnership with us right now. You know, not only us, but it affects thousands of people around the community. You might have family members that are involved, somehow have a tie with us in the Port of Miami. So one less ship is one too many. It represents millions of dollars, crews and cargo. So having any business leave is not what we want. We want to continue having the work that we have. As a matter of fact, we want to make sure that the Port continues to grow and is stable for the future so we can have more work, not less work. So we trust you. Thank you very much, Chair, Commissioners, and Madam Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gabel. Thank you, guys. Sir? Yeah. Good morning. My name is Solomon Senard. I'm a New Vision Taxi Driver Association. I'm here today to please tell you to vote for IDAM 8GI because it's very, very important for cab drivers. At this moment, we have only Port of Miami and Miami Airport. Just like you know, since Uber came, it destroyed my taxi industry, but that's the only place we have to make some living for our family and the drivers. Please vote yes for this item. Thank you very much. May God bless you. Thank you, Mr. Senard. Sir? Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is John Armbrust. I am the owner and president of Armbrust Fuel Link. With our partner, Florida East Coast Railroad, we have a plan to build a storage facility at the Port of Miami that will hold 350,000 barrels of marine diesel with dedicated pipelines to vessel berths. This will allow a throughput of approximately 4 million gallons of marine diesel a week. That meets 16 million gallons a month, which is far more than the average monthly consumption at the Port of 14 million gallons. We are prepared to do this, and we can start tomorrow with our partner, Florida East Coast Railroad. So we will bring marine diesel to the port within possibly a year. So this discussion about 10 years to correct the problem, quite frankly, isn't factual. The other thing I would like to mention in terms of imminent domain of the Transmontane facility, it's an environmental hazard. Thank you, sir. The facility is 79 years old. Thank you. Our will be state-of-the-art brand new. Thank you, sir. Sir? Good morning. I'm Noel Cleland. My address is 5990 Southwest 50th Street, and I'm here as a volunteer with People Acting for Community Together in support of 14A1. And as I was going through the agenda this morning, I realized that we have a $380 million budget item for renovation of certain capital assets, $13 million for Miami Gardens redevelopment area, purchase of the Fisher Island fuel facility, $6 million for ACADES for water and sewer services, $15 million for Microsoft services, $36 million for tires and related services, $2.8 million for anti-gun violence, $19 million for Jackson employee testing, and we get to the mental health facility. So that gets me nervous. So in all the things that are on there, they're all important, I'm sure. But I hope and pray that you have the wisdom and the vision to approve this resolution so that we can offer hope to those members of our society that need our help. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Go ahead. Good morning. My name is Alexander Ringlip, Madam Mayor, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I live at 3432 Southwest 2nd Street. I'm a resident and small business owner here in Miami, and hundreds of residents wrote me in asking you one thing, to open the health facility. On the corner of my business, a mentally ill woman gets beaten and beaten again by another mentally ill homeless individual. Weeks ago, on Biscayne Boulevard, a woman walking her dog was stabbed and left partially blind by a violent, mentally ill homeless man. We have nowhere to send them but to jail. Instead, our jails become now the largest psychiatric facility in Florida, the most expensive failure possible. The fix is already built. Voters already proved it. The Center of Mental Health and Recovery is finished and certified. And it's empty since 2023. Oversight is the reason to run it well, not to keep it from being locked. Vote yes for that today. The community is strongly engaging you to do so. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you, sir. All right. I have Gerard Vanden Heuval, Theophilus Williams, Geneva Claus, Jeff Agron, Steve Lifeman, Sharon Frazier, Marty V. Betancourt, Stanley Young, and Rabbi Jessica Jacobs. Good morning. Theophilus Williams, 1391, North West 95th Street. For 23 years, this mental health been closed with no bodies in it. We're spending $5 million a year maintaining this building. That's $115 million. Should have been going toward that. And whoever maintains it, you need to pull it. Because I see one security guard out there. You got county employees from corrections committee monitoring that building. And whoever's cleaning it, you got county people on staff. That money should be there. And not only that, if we're giving away land, we should have been selling the land for millions of dollars to help that mental health. That's the problem. Get with the developments. Don't raise our tax. Get with the developments in different cities to help y'all get this started. It can open in 30 days if you get with each agency in this county to make that a budget. Thank you, sir. Good morning. My name is Steve Lifeman, 2900 Northeast 7th Avenue. I just want to thank all of you very much, and I wave in support. Oh, wow. All right. Good morning, Honorable Chairman, Honorable Commissioners. Jeffrey Agron, 6545 Southwest 133rd Drive, Pinecrest. And I'm here with PACT, and I am speaking on behalf of Resolution 14A1 and Substitute Bill. This is something that affects our entire community and me personally. I have been treated for mental health issues. I've had family members who have dealt with mental health issues and addiction issues, and this is something that's sorely needed and needs to be opened immediately. Thank you for your time. Sir. Good morning, Chairman. My name is Gerard Vanden Heuvel. My address is 635 Australia Way, which is also the address of POMTOK, which stands for Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, which represents most of the workers that Joe was here with the ILA, as well as several of the shipping lines on the cargo side. And we are here in support of the mayor's efforts for the mayor's efforts for the eminent domain and to right-size the partial size that's there. I'd like to emphasize that, as Joe mentioned also, one vessel missed is millions of dollars. And a proper fuel supply is not only for the passenger vessels. At times, the cargo vessels take bunkers as well here in Miami, which most of them call the home port of South America, which by removing the fuel or making it difficult to get via, for example, the railroad or any other way that is easily received via bunkers, bunker barges. And I'd like to, yeah, again, support the mayor in our efforts in putting this resolution through. Thank you. Yes, sir. Ma'am. Good morning. Thank you so much for hearing from us today. I'm Rabbi Jessica Jacobs from Temple Beshalom in Miami Beach. And I want to, once again, share my support and my community's support for the opening of the Center for Mental Health and Recovery. The Talmud, our rabbinic text, teaches us that a prisoner cannot free themselves from prison. And it talks about this within the context of someone who's suffering from mental illness. Someone cannot treat themselves. It is our job to treat the most vulnerable in our communities. So I want to thank you all for being in support of the opening of the Center for Mental Health and Recovery. This is something that our community so desperately needs. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman, Mayor, Commissioners, staff, all those who showed up today to discuss this old message about this mental health facility. Name and address. Name and address. Chaplain Stanley Young, Freedom Prison and Jail Ministry, 500 Northwest 2nd Avenue. We need this facility open. We need it open now. We don't need to delay not one more minute of talking about this facility that needs to be open. I speak to mental health patients all week, and I have no place to send them to get the help that they need. We need this facility to be open now. We don't need no more delay. We don't need no more whatever that's slowing down the process of getting this facility open. Open this facility now. Thank you. God bless. Thank you, sir. Ma'am. Hello. My name is Marivy Betancourt. I'm a sexual assault nurse, taxpaying citizen, and someone that's actually dealt with mental health issues. As an ER nurse, I know very, very well what mental health looks like. This building, while it may be nice as a jail diversion, calling it mental health, it is not. All health is important. Mental, maternal, children, all of it was important. Okay. As I went through, which I looked at, and I saw what exactly was it that we voted for in 2002, we voted for fixing our fire stations, fixing our police stations. Okay. And I did not see anything about this mental health building. I would like to thank the commissioners that have taken the time and also have had the thought process to say, how are we going to fund this? What exactly are we funding? And what is our action plan? Okay. As a nurse, I understand how health care works. Okay. I noticed that a lot of people came up and spoke about the young lady that was attacked. Here I have the record of the person that is accused. Okay. They circled through the criminal mental health system. The criminal mental health system didn't work for him, and it didn't work for, you know, our victims. So when we're thinking about something, let's make sure that we're also thinking about public safety. Okay. Public safety. So thank you. We need that data. I very much appreciate that we came back and said, let's get the data. Let's see how we're going to fund this, and let's see what we're funding as an operational plan. Thank you. Okay? Thank you so much. Thank you. Ma'am. Good morning, chairman, commissioners, mayor. My name is Sharon Frazier-Steven. I live at 636516 Northwest 12th Avenue. I live by the historical wall, Liberty City, Liberty Square, housing community. This mental health facility, as I was a little girl, bagging groceries on 7th Avenue at the Winn-Dixie. Y'all know how many of y'all here know about the Winn-Dixie? That's how we went, and me and my brothers went and made a little money to help our mom pay for our school clothes and stuff. But walking by that facility, it was a great feeling knowing that it was some service being provided in that facility. Number two, I'm also here in support of the port, of those gas containers in the port. Royal Caribbean has always been my cruise line that I take, when I want to take a break from this, all of this chaos out here. Royal Caribbean, I choose. I like to see the long-shermans out there working, because I have family members work for ILA. They're on that union. I used to work in the restaurant downstairs. So please, Madam Mayor, thank you for your resolution, and also support the mental health facility, because we are tired. There's too many people out here in front of this Steven P. I never seen this when I came here in Miami in 1963. It is just getting worse and worse, and these people need some help. Homelessness is a mental health issue, because I help feed some of them. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I have Geneva Claus and Mr. Ron Book. Geneva Claus and Ron Book, you could come up. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Ron Book, 4000 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 677 South, Hollywood, Florida. I'm here on behalf of the Homeless Trust today to simply say the following. Number one, we support the item. Number two, we came to the table and were asked to put some skin in the game. And the agenda item contains a $1.1 million commitment, which in large part is not only for services, but part of the overhead. We spoke to the Chairman yesterday briefly about an issue that we had offered to put additional money on the table. We offered to put $1.3 million on the table in exchange for taking the sixth floor and operating the sixth floor as transitional housing. We still remain committed to that. The Chairman's substitute, I believe, that he put out late last night, adds that as an option if we can reach an agreement. What the Chair specifically asked was he wanted to be sure that the agreement we had negotiated with WestCare contained not just use of what we're taking in the building, but contributed something to the overhead of the building as well. I told him we were prepared to have a discussion about it, but felt that the $1.3 million on top of the $1.1 million was, in part, if you will, money towards the building itself. So in total, we are still prepared to commit not only the 1.1 in the item, but the 1.3 in addition for the sixth floor utilization. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and we're here to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Book. Appreciate it, and thank you for that as well. All right. That is all the speakers I have registered to speak under reasonable opportunity. So therefore, reasonable opportunity is now closed. Madam Attorney, is it in order to set the agenda at this time? Yes, Mr. Chair, we do have some changes. Item 7A, commissioners Bermudez and Bastien would like to discuss this item when this is called. 8J1, Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins add this item to the pull list. 8L1, this item is added to your agenda. It should have been distributed to each of the commissioners with a copy left at the dais. And Chairman Rodriguez is adding 8L1 to the pull list. 802, Commissioner Bermudez adds this item to the pull list. 8P1, Chairman Rodriguez adds this item to the pull list. 8P3, Commissioner Melian Orbis adds this item to the pull list. 8P4, Commissioner Lopez and Commissioner Regalado add this item to the pull list. 11A4, Commissioners Bermudez and Bastien are adding this item to the pull list. Items 11A9 and 11A12, Commissioner Bermudez adding these items to the pull list. 14A1, 14A1 substitute and its supplement, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is pulling this item. 14A2, this is an ordinance for first reading. I'll read this with the other first readings, but Commissioner Melian Orbis wishes to bifurcate the item when the item is called. 14A5, Chairman Rodriguez is pulling this item. 14B2, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins pulls this item. And 15B1, Commissioner Regalado is adding this item to the pull list. I also have some additional requests for co-sponsorship, 3A1, Commissioner Bermudez, 11A2, Commissioner Bermudez, 11A9, Commissioner Regalado, and 14A1 substitute, Commissioners Lopez, Bermudez, and Gilbert. All of those are co-sponsorship requests. Is there anything else? She releases it before. And Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is also pulling item 8P4. We have some additional, I read the co-sponsorships. 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 of these items by a single vote setting the agenda except ordinances for first reading. Public hearings, ordinances set for second reading, and the following pull list items. 8J1, 8L1, 802, 8P1, 8P3, 8P4, 11A4, 11A9, 11A12, 14A1, and its substitute and its supplement. 14A2 and 14A3 are both first reading items. I'll read those with the other first readings, 14A4, 14A5, 14B1, 14B2, and 15B1. A motion to set the agendas in order. All right, it's been moved by Vice Chair, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor of setting the agenda with all of those changes. Wait, one, just, I'm sorry Mr. Chair. Commissioner Hardiman on the agenda? It's on the agenda, yes. I just want to be clear, 3A1 is indefinitely deferred, is that correct? With the setting of the agenda, that'll be deferred to no discern. And then you also have withdrawn for 5B, correct? Correct. Thank you. All right, Vice Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just wanted to make sure I'm listed as a co-sponsor for 14A1. We will do that, and I've also received word Commissioner Steinberg would also like to co-sponsor 14A1 in its substitute. All right, so with that, all in favor. Yes, Mr. Chair, I also requested co-sponsorship of 14A1. All right, anyone else? All right, with that, all in favor of setting the agenda, signify by saying aye. All oppose, nay. Show the item, the agenda here set. All right, so we have a time certain, as most of you probably noticed, on two items, on 8J1 and 14A1. I'm going to first take up 8J1, which is our fuel farm item, but before we begin on it, I'd like to make a statement to lay out some groundwork for today's discussion. There are a number of issues that require us to limit what is said publicly today. As we all know, we are making a decision today about entering into an eminent domain litigation. We have already been sued by the Fisher Island Condo Association and the Fisher Island Club, so we are already in litigation about the acquisition and condemnation of the Fisher Island fuel farm property. The things that are said today could be detrimental to the county's interest in either piece of litigation, and I am going to cut off any discussion that could be harmful to the county's interest in any litigation. In addition, it is my understanding that there may be land use applications related to this property that this board may be called upon to decide in the future. In order to preserve the integrity of any decisions that this board may be required to make in the future, we will not be discussing the merits of or predictions regarding zoning decisions or zoning applications related to this property. There are confidentiality provisions and public records exemptions in Florida law that apply to the mediation proceedings that took place and also to real estate purchases. The county's negotiations with the property owner, HRP, are subject to confidentiality, so we will not be discussing the terms or the negotiations that took place over the last several months. To the extent you have questions or concerns about any of this litigation or issues related to the property, I urge you to have conversations with our county attorney's office privately and directly. Did everybody understand what I just read? Because, again, we are in current litigation. It is expected that we may enter additional litigation. So anything we say can be used against us, and I will be interrupting any discussion of that sort to protect not just this body, but to protect Miami-Dade County and its residents. Commissioner Regalado. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, and I signed an NDA before I read the documents and then also met with the mediator. But I think that there are some basic questions that we can ask that does not inhibit our litigation. My concern is, I understand we want to protect the county's future interests, but there is also a chilling effect to this. I think we do also have the right to ask some questions of staff and ensure that what is being brought to us today is the best path forward. Absolutely. As long as it doesn't, I mean, you've been doing this long enough. You know that what could hurt us in litigation and what won't. So let's just keep that in mind as we all discuss this, but I'm sure we will have plenty of discussion on it. So with that, I will call the item officially, AJ1, and I can start. Through the Chair. Yes, Madam Mayor. If I could start, I'd be grateful. That works, yep. I was going to start with the sponsor of the item, but you're welcome to lead. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So first, I'd like to acknowledge the many people who've come here to speak to this item today and in support of this item, the crews and the cargo operations, and to our employees. I also want to acknowledge that this has been a tumultuous few weeks for all of us. I'm pleased to see that the entire port community has come together around this item, from our cruise lines to our cargo and labor partners, and we are united in seeking a solution. In October of last year, this board directed this administration to negotiate with the owner of the fuel facility property on Fisher Island, and if negotiations failed, the administration was authorized to initiate an eminent domain suit. Two weeks ago, I announced that I had been presented with the final terms of the deal, and I found them unacceptable. While the deal has merits, including that the county would own the asset outright, and the deal would have paid for itself over time with new revenues, ultimately, the price tag was too high. And since then, my administration has been working with the county attorney's office to initiate an eminent domain proceeding, and we have moved quickly and decisively to ensure that the port's fuel supply is protected. So today's item is a cleanup item for the resolution authorizing eminent domain. Since the authorizing resolution is filed as part of the legal proceedings, it's critical that it accurately reflects the parcels to be acquired. The authorizing resolution also includes additional analysis supporting the public necessity of the taking. My decision was not made lightly. The path comes with risk, but we will not allow this community to be held hostage, and we will do whatever it takes to ensure the fuel continues to flow at Port Miami. I ask for your support today in protecting this vital economic engine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Commissioner Gilbert, would you like to, as a sponsor of the item, say something now, or would you like me to go to the pooling commissioners? I think that we can, well, I'll say this now, and then hear the comments from the pooling commissioners and my colleagues, and then I'll go into the item. But I just want to say this in the very beginning. I told you all that we would be here doing this. I told you all that we would be here doing this, and then it would be more expensive, a much more expensive conversation. It was nonsensical to believe that we shouldn't have negotiated with the people who owned the property versus the people who were buying the property. And so now when they make expectations of cost, we can call it unfortunate. We can't call it unforeseeable, because it was not just foresaw, it was foretold. And so, yes, there have been, this has been tumultuous, Mayor, there's been mistakes. But ultimately, when this board decided to negotiate with the buyer instead of the seller, we made a mistake. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. Commissioner from District 8, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am in support of Item 8J1. I do have a friendly amendment. If the attorneys can read it, the spirit of the amendment is simply this, understanding the level of contention surrounding the item, and anticipating that contention will continue, having the greatest confidence in our county attorney's office and understanding that all parties involved in this transaction happen to be some of the most wealthiest residents of Miami-Dade County, I would like to equip our county attorney's office with as much support as possible to make sure, as much as we can, that we offer them the support that they need to successfully litigate this eminent domain proceeding on behalf of the county. So, if the attorneys can read the amendment, please, to 8J1. Commissioner Danielle Cohen-Higgins moves to amend Item 8J1 to authorize the county attorney to select outside counsel as needed to provide specialized legal expertise and assistance in a supportive role to the county attorney's office. Regarding the acquisition of the subject property via eminent domain and waives conflicts consistent with board policy for waiving conflicts for outside bond counsel, the county attorney will brief commissioners as needed regarding this matter. Funding for compensating the selected outside counsel will be subject to confirmation by the Office of Management and Budget of legally available funding. So, is that it? You accept it? All right. So, it's a friendly amendment. And then, just for procedural, like, are you moving the item as well, as amended? I move the item as amended. All right. So, it's been moved as amended, seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. And then, I have Commissioner from District 7, you're recognized. Thank you. First of all, I think that there are a lot of things that we can talk about that do not impact the county's position. This board, time and time again, whether it's a comp plan item or a simple resolution, has a tendency to question administration, even when they're being authorized to change a Scribner's era. Yet, on this issue, and an issue that we all agree on is important. Everyone in this room, everyone in this community believes that fuel for Port Miami is important. The question of how we get there, we have almost no information, we have to fight to get information, and we're not given complete information. So, I find it fascinating that in instances that have been so chaotic, in a situation where the people that were negotiating this are no longer employed by Miami-Dade County, we are asked to blindly trust the administration when making this decision. I signed an NDA. I looked at what was provided to me, not everything was provided to me. I made requests to meet with people. I was not allowed to meet with everyone. I did meet with the mediator. I wish you all would meet with the mediator. I requested a shade meeting. I requested that the mediator present at a shade meeting. We could have a shade meeting because we have the Fisher Island litigation. I requested information on the future mediation that would come as a result of this. I requested information on the current state of the law in terms of taking and pricing. I requested information on the permitting and the permitting timelines. There's a series of things that are not being considered. We're being told that there is a crisis and that the only path forward is to purchase Fisher. There has been no discussion of the $79 million investment that Miami-Dade County made, along with the federal government, for the FEC rail line. There is no discussion of the current negotiations that the county has with FEC to do an inland port and how those negotiations would open up space on Port Miami. There is no discussion of how Senate Bill 1629, which goes into effect on July 1st and was signed by the governor on April 23rd, will impact shore power and the winding down of shore power. There's no conversation about how that's going to change the dynamic at the port. There's no conversation about FCC's desire, as was mentioned here, to put a fuel facility on the port. There's no consideration of the impact that the Little River Station that was approved by this board and the location of MSC outside of the port has on the master plan and how that rail line and station that was brought by Commissioner Hardiman could potentially help others on the port to co-locate outside of Dodge Island. There's been no conversation on how MSC moving there would change the footprint at the port. There's been no side-by-side comparison of long-term cost and what we are actually purchasing. There's been little to no information from Transmontane as to the fuel facility and its current situation. There's no details on the long-term costs of updating the Fisher Island fuel facility and the current sites and how the current site is not in compliant with current standards. There's been no discussion of the environmental risk associated with the current barging practice that is outdated circa 1950 and impacts everyone that lives around Dodge Island. There's been no discussion of funding. We've alluded to reserves in the past, but we haven't spoken if funding for this taking is going to come from reserves, bonds, or a tariff. And there's been no discussion about permitting and what is currently available to us. We all want a long-term plan. My fear is that first we are making this decision without enough information, that this is going to be another situation similar to the Westchester Government Center where we buy something and then we get a bill afterwards. We could negotiate more time for this fuel facility and find another alternative. From the inception, the folks that were negotiating this did not want to consider that. Those folks are no longer at the table. I ask you to please allow us to go back to the table and have a real conversation about other placement before we move forward with eminent domain. The taking of personal property is not a small thing. It will be expensive and it is a dangerous precedent. This board has not received enough information to make this decision. We have not been given access to all the details. The chairman negotiated it. Some of us signed an MDA. Some of us have spoken to the mediator. Some of us have not. There has not been a determination of impasse. This is a decision that will impact this county for the next 50 years and it should not be made lightly. Every time we scream crisis here, we run into a burning building without getting all the facts. And I ask you all to please, at a minimum, have a shade meeting or have everyone meet with the mediator and consider other options before we move forward with eminent domain. Commissioner from District 5, it was going to be you, but Commissioner from District 11, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not an I-told-you-so type of person, but Oliver is. And I do remember that meeting very, very clearly. And I do remember you saying that. And I do remember us having an entire conversation on that. And although it's easy to play Monday morning quarterback, now we're here. And what are we going to do to move forward? I do have some questions to lay the foundation as to how we got here. And I know that the administration is ready to answer these questions. But I think it's important to understand how we got here so that we can get to the proper solution and really understand what the next move should, could, not would be, right? So to the administration, what is the exact date that the property was listed for sale? I don't know if this is better for Mr. Cooley or for the director of the port, but can somebody answer the question? Hold on. I don't have the date it was first listed for sale, Commissioner. What we have is we have the information that some say that the port knew the property was for sale or should have known the property was for sale. But what I can tell you is the moment that the mayor found out the property was for sale, it was already too late for her to stop it. And what specific date or around what date was that? That would, you got a date? Yes, sir. Through the chair, Mr. Commissioner. From what we understand, it was April of 2024 as far as when the port was notified. So this is when the port was notified? Not officially notified through the media. So were they notified or were they not, sir? That's when we ended up getting notified in April 2024. And when you say we, are you referring to the port, sir? Port administration, yes, sir. When did closing occur on the property? Pardon? Can you repeat that, sir? When did the closing occur on the property? October 2025, Commissioner. October of 2025. Did the county submit an offer on the property prior to October of 2025? No. No, no, Mr. Commissioner. Before you answer this to the county attorneys, can we get into why didn't we submit an offer? You may, Commissioner. Why didn't we submit an offer? Commissioner, I believe the best answer for that is, is this property has changed hands about six times since it's been a fuel supply. It's always been a fuel supply. I think that the port staff assumed it would always be and just failed to notify the mayor that this possibility was out there and just didn't act on it, assuming it would always be a fuel supply as it's changed hands six times in the past. So in the past it had been sold and bought? We have a record of six title changes from the time Belcher Oil that originally built the facility sold it to various people and had been acquired and so forth. Thank you, Chief. Chief, was the possibility of imminent domain contemplated prior to the purchase? And if it was, why did the county not proceed with imminent domain at that time? And I'm specifically trying to get to if imminent domain made sense prior to our September 18, 2025 special meeting. And why didn't the administration come to the board at that time seeking to institute imminent domain proceedings prior to the September 18, 2025? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This board authorized the administration to negotiate. The mayor appointed a negotiating committee that spent nine months trying to negotiate this deal that ultimately she canceled and puts us back where we are now. You originally, this board directed the administration to negotiate and if they could not reach agreement to go immediately to imminent domain. So we were already authorized to go to imminent domain. What we're doing here today is merely clarifying the legal description and making it more correct. And it's actually a smaller amount of property than the first legal description that you approved for imminent domain to authorize us to go for the smaller property. Thank you, Chief. And that was actually my next question. And I think if you could please just clarify it because you just answered it, but if you could just clarify it once more because we gave the administration the authority to proceed with imminent domain should the negotiations not work. And so, why do we have this before us today where we're saying again, yes, move forward with imminent domain? If you could just explain it. Simply stated, sir, the legal description that you approved included an adjoining folio that does not need to be eminent domain. And this corrects that and brings it to the exact piece of property, which is one less folio. Got it. So in the original memo, the parcel just wasn't correct? It was larger. It included another piece of property adjoining it that has been determined we do not need eminent domain, that we have an easement on it. Got it. And to the port or to the chief, whoever feels more comfortable answering the question, of course, always through the chair. But were alternate sites, including on-port sites, thought of to be viable prior to the closing? Mr. Commissioner, we hired, the administration hired an outside expert, a professional engineer with AECOM to evaluate all of these. He's in the room with us if you want to ask him any questions. His name is Mr. Phillip Hatfield. He's the Vice President of AECOM, and he's over these matters, and he's responsible for the report he gave us on alternative analysis. And then, Mr. Phillip? Phillip Hatfield. If you could please, while you do that, and you could probably do that, I just want to, first of all, I want to thank you Commissioner Gonzalez for actually asking the attorneys if your line of question was accurate. On that note, A, I encourage all my colleagues that are going to speak to do the same. Maybe, to the attorneys, if you can just, I said I would be jumping in, but if you catch something that I don't, please feel free to jump in and just advise any Commissioner of the same. But go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Phillip, were alternate sites, including on-port sites, thought to be viable, or according to your research, was it viable to have an on-port site prior to the closing? We evaluated, ultimately, five sites on-port, strictly on-port. One was determined to be not viable at all. A second was determined to be too small to accommodate the current capacity of the existing Fisher Island facility. There were three sites that we advanced and developed layouts, concepts, costs, and schedules. From a technical, strictly technical perspective, there is viability. However, there are business decisions that need to factor into that, and we are not a part of that component. We provided the technical information for the port and the county to utilize as a part of their business decisions. Wait, so your analysis came to the conclusion that there was viability, but there had to be, I guess, business contemplations, but you determined that there was viability? I'll explain further. Thank you. A new on-port facility would require taking away land from existing terminals, existing facilities. It would require demolition and replacement of existing infrastructure and facilities. There are challenges that need to be addressed further, utility connections, power connections. It also requires conversion of waterfront berths or wharfs over to fuel uses, which would take away from existing cargo operations, also would require upgrades. It would also require new pipelines through the port to connect the berths to the new facilities. These are all significant challenges that require considerable permit, have permitted costs and schedules associated with them. And when I hear you say all those things, and I like how you ended it, because I'm thinking that there are certain considerations that need to be looked at specifically with financing and timing. Is that correct? Correct, yes. Thank you, sir. To the attorneys, I just have two questions, and again, stop me if we shouldn't get into this, but can you explain the procedural difference between a quick taking and a slow taking? Yes, Commissioner. In reference to an imminent domain process? Yes, Commissioner. In a quick take, the county would take title to the property early on in the proceeding by making a deposit based on an initial appraisal. After an order of taking hearing. The county would take title at the very same time that it makes the deposit. The case would then proceed to a 12 person jury trial on the value of the property. And the final determination of the compensation award to the property owner. The county would be obligated to pay the property owner the compensation award determined by the jury, without consideration of affordability of the amount determined at that time. In a slow take, the county would take title to the property after the jury has determined the amount of compensation. In a slow take, once the jury determines the amount of compensation due for the property taken, the county makes an election as to whether to take the property given the ascertained value or to forego the taking. In which case, the county is required to pay the property owner's attorney's fees and costs as it would in any eminent domain scenario. In both cases, the date of value of the property is the date that the county takes title to that property. In a quick take, it usually takes about six to 12 months from the time this board authorizes eminent domain to get title to the property. This is not a typical case, so it's difficult to predict. In a complex, contested case, it could take up to a year or more to get title in a quick take. Condemning authorities rarely use the slow take procedure because it could possibly take more than a year to get title after a jury trial. A complex case could even take closer to two years. In that time, a property owner may take action to add value to the property, and property values also tend to increase over time. Thank you, that was a great answer. Mike, my next question is geared towards, just for clarification purpose, because this is what I'm getting. But I'd like for you to clarify, specifically in a quick taking, the counties obligate to compensate the affected party at the value of the property determined by the jury. Is that correct? That's correct. The ultimate compensation award is determined by the jury. So the biggest difference here is that there's no opportunity for the county to go back or, well, to back out of if it disagrees with the valuation of the jury. That's correct. Okay, no further questions. Commissioner from District 5, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the district commissioner that includes the port and Fisher Island, I think it's fitting that I give my remarks today. So thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez, for that very pointed line of questioning. You have taken some of my questions, and the clarity is perfect, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the fact that we're having discussions that could impact future decisions that we have to make and legal proceedings that we may be involved in. So I'm grateful for that. So I'm just going to really just say my comments. I don't really have any questions. As much as I appreciate the cruise lines and the cargo industry coming, the most important thing to me, believe it or not, are the workers and the ILA representatives that came today. This port is an economic engine in my district, and I'm such an incredible supporter of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are impacted here every day and really grateful for the ILA members who go to work every day and are such an integral part of the success of that port. I was on the port this past week because we have a fire station there, and that fire station was built when the port was not anywhere near as big as it is. And the issue was that firefighters need more space on the port, and yet we haven't been able to find the space that they require. And I found that so incredibly telling because this is a public safety issue. They are not, because of the traffic on the port, they're incapable of getting to their boats that are stationed there in order to address or comply with an emergency that may occur on the port. They also now, because of the fact that they can't get to the cruise ships within a certain period of time if someone is sick and needs to be taken off the ships, they have to put people on the north, I guess what I would call the east and the west end of that island, in like a small little, like I would call it, I guess, a golf cart that has emergency services on there. So to think that there would be any room for anything else when I can't even provide the proper room for public safety is a concern for me as well. And something that I hope to work with the administration, because should something happen in the cargo side of our port, which it can and has, it takes almost 20 minutes to get from the station to the cargo side because of the traffic, because there's no leeway for an emergency vehicle to get through it on a given day when the traffic is so backed up. So I just want to say that I'm in support of the item, very much so. I was not here as a commissioner in September of 2025, nor when they voted to, when this commission voted to negotiate with the new owners, nor was I here in October when we moved for a resolution of eminent domain. And I do understand and thank you for the clarification of what we're actually doing here today, which is to lessen the amount of property that we're taking so it represents the exact property that we would be taking. But having said all of that, I agree with Commissioner Gilbert that I probably would have said, I told you so. There is an incredible need. If we're the number one cruise capital of the world and we have so much cargo coming in and out, I just can't understand how we're even having this discussion. We owe it to our economy. We owe it to the workers on the port to move forward and ensure that the operations of that port are not disturbed in any way delayed or interfered with. And as the district commissioner, I need to tell my colleagues I'm in complete support of it. It is what it is. And unfortunately, there have been missteps along the way. And we probably didn't do what we should have done, which was negotiate a deal with the owner before he sold the property. But that was then and we are here now. And we have to be responsible. And we have to make a responsible choice for the public good. And thank you again, ILA members. I am so grateful that you are here because I understand very clearly the importance that you play in all of the operations of what goes on in our port. And that is why we are such an incredibly famous port now. And to not look at the fire issues and to not look at your issues would be irresponsible on my part. Thank you so much. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner from District 2, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to thank Commissioner Gilbert for this item. And I heard you clearly. You were right then and you were right now. As a mental health professional, we are taught to make the decisions that are important now. We could have done so many things. We could have taken so many decisions, hard, but we could have taken different decisions that would prevent us from being where we are right now. But we are here. What do we do? I'd like to thank Commissioner Gonzales for his line of questioning. And then a couple of my questions were answered. But we all agree, colleagues. We all agree that the Port of Miami is one of our biggest assets. And its success is important because without its success, Miami-Dade will not be the premier cruising destination that it is today. And then we have reasons to be so proud, so proud of the importance of this port. But I love cruising. I love to go to cruises. I go to cruises for leisure. And I've also liked to go to conferences on cruising, which I've done in the past. And I've always marveled when the boat is entering the port. I always marveled at the beauty of it all. I marveled about the beauty but also the possibilities because I've also traveled a lot. And I've seen other ports, and I've seen uses, and I've always dreamed of a day where the Port of Miami could also make changes so that besides the cruising and all the activities that all wonderful, hardworking employees do every day, other uses that could amplify this port. Now, I have a couple of questions. And then lawyers, again, stop me. I don't think that could put us in legal problems, but if it is, let me know. There are several articles about the decision before us, many of which mention taxpayer money going to the port. However, I would like the administration to confirm for the record, does the Port of Miami receive funds for the county's general fund? Commissioner, they do not receive general fund monies. They do generate their own funds, but it is an asset owned by the taxpayer. So that's the conversation. It's a taxpayer-owned asset, but general funds does not support it. It has to generate its own fees. Thank you for clarifying that. As I indicated, some of the questions have already been asked and answered. Has the county received any proposal to build a fuel facility on the port? In the past, has the county received any proposal to build a fuel facility on the port? Commissioner Bastion, we have received a number of people reach out and offer solutions, both building on the port and off the port. That is the purpose of us having the outside expert for AECOM to evaluate those. I have been in regular meetings, and what I tell these folks when they have their grandiose ideas, that we ask them to talk with our experts from AECOM and let AECOM vet it. And if AECOM comes back with anything viable, we're more than happy to consider it. But so far, we don't have that. So you have not received any viable? Well, I wouldn't say it's impossible. When I say not viable, extremely costly, such as if you decided to build on the port. We've never said it's impossible, but all of that land there now is claimed by somebody. It's either under lease from a cruise company or it's under lease from a freight company. We would have to break leases. Those have economic impacts. Those could take a long time to work through the system as well as deciding where we're going to berth the ships that will come in to deliver fuel, which will take spaces away from those that currently have berths. And so all of those issues would have to be worked through, and those could take years. And that's the warning that our outside expert gives us. We've got to work through the property issues. Then we've got to select the property. Then we have to design it and then build it. And they've estimated it could be nine years before we could be ready to go with the facility there. And we don't know the exact cost. We have estimates, but we don't know what the cost would be to go in and tell one of our partners, whether it be a cruise line or a freight hauler, that you've got to give up your property. You've leased from us because they currently have it. And so that would take a negotiation, and it could be a long one. So it is important that the administration is confident about its position on eminent domain. However, there are risks, right? What are the risks for the Port of Miami if your request for eminent domain is rejected? If we were to be rejected in eminent... By the courts? By the court. If we were to be rejected by the court, we would have to bring in a temporary fueling solution, which we have already developed a plan for, which would essentially be bringing in a fuel ship and tying it up where one of our freight ship berths would be. So we would lose that, and we would have to supply the rest of the ships out of it until we could do something different. It would be costly. It would be costly to us. It would be costly to those buying fuel. But that would be the consequence if we lost. Thank you. All right. Commissioner from District 12, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me just start by saying there's a difference between being notified and being aware of something. Being notified, whether it's legally sufficient or you read it in the paper, is different from being aware. And the question I would pose, and I don't know, Roy, if it's you or the attorneys, the original lease was for 90 years. And what year did that lease really finish, so to speak? We're not aware of a 90-year lease. My understanding was that from up to the year 2015, that's what you guys said last time, there had been a lease on that property from the county side. And the county had opportunities, even a prior administration, to try to buy this land. And I will tell you, that's what the attorney said. That's what you guys said. Now, if that's not true, it doesn't matter, because by 2024, you should have known it. The fact that you assumed there would always be a fuel facility is an assumption, and you know what happens when you assume. This is the same issue that we had when we talked about the airport hotel, which hasn't even broken ground, where we don't even know what's underground. But somebody that in 2014, under a prior administration, prior commission, has access to. So we don't even know what's under our own airport. So both of these examples, when we talk about the port and the airport that employ so many people, and are so key to the success of this county, we need to pay a lot more attention to. And moving forward, I think, and I've said it before and I'll say it again, that if we have leases anywhere in this county with anybody, anywhere, we should really take a look at it. We have the county's largest law firm, maybe arguably not, maybe not the largest per se across the country, but the largest one here. So if everybody does their job, we wouldn't be in this position. And that's not a criticism of you or this administration or my colleagues, but certainly the prior commission and the prior administration and prior county attorneys certainly should have known that also. So at some point, we have to admit and recognize we dropped the ball. Well, that's why we're in this position. To say anything else would be unfair. Commissioner, I was not here in September, but I was here in October. And Commissioner Gilbert, I shared his sentiments in October precisely because we probably should have done that in September. Because that's a fact. I was at home watching TV and I thought it was as simple as somebody seconding his motion, guess what happened? Turned into a long conversation. And I started watching another show. I think it was Kelly Ripa and her husband or whatever that is, because it was going to be too long a conversation. Kelly and Mark. So, you know, I think Commissioner Gilbert, you know, I shared his sentiments in October when I was back. He's correct. We knew that we were going to be back here. Absolutely, we knew we were going to be back here. Because when you arm some, and I've done thousands, if not hundreds, if not thousands of mediations over the years, and arbitrations, one of the things you've got to arm your client with is the tools to succeed. And I don't think we armed our clients with the tools to succeed that day. We did not. We did not. Because we refused, by not arming our clients with the tools to succeed, we told the other side, this is what's going to happen. And that's what happened. And they took advantage of it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Because after all, they're business people. They're not necessarily a government. They don't have to worry for the good of all the people. They've got to worry about their business. And that's what occurred. And that, to me, has been one of the biggest problems with this whole process since, and like the Monkees said in their comeback album, that was then, this is now. So this is now, right? But let's acknowledge the fact that even now, we've got to do a better job. Because there's a lot of people in this room, just some. That have their businesses here in this county that have chosen this port over other ports. There are other ports, by the way. Just go a little bit further up north. There's a lot of fuel in that place up there that some of you may call Fort Licordale, but some people call Fort Lauderdale. So the bottom line, and we can go further up north, they have options. They have options. I want to say, and this goes to the county attorney's office. I got a call from my staff about talking to the mediator. And, yes, we could, and I agree with Commissioner Regalado, we could have had him in the shade meeting. But it's a terrible negotiating tactic to have 13 different people and a mayor have conversations with a mediator. I've never gone into a mediation or an arbitration where 13, 14 different people speak for the client. As a lawyer, I don't see how that works. So I'd like to get some clarification because I decided not to, because I thought this body, maybe I'm wrong, I thought we gave one person on this commission the right to be part of that process. And to me, that's what makes sense because there's 13 of us, 13 different points of views. And none of us, they're all type A's, so none of us are going to not want to say what we think, which is okay if we're in an in the shade meeting. But I'd like to find out from the attorneys, how does it work? Has this ever happened where 13 commissioners just go and meet with a mediator while you guys are discussing things? Commissioner, the purpose of the meetings that were offered to each of the commissioners was not for negotiation. It was informational as to what had occurred. You're correct that the item that was approved in November designated from the commission only the chairman to participate in the negotiations. And otherwise, you know, it would be as would normally done through the county mayor, the county mayor's designee, that the negotiations would be conducted. But it was not. Those meetings were sometimes requested by commissioners or their staff, but they were purely for informational purposes, not for negotiation. Okay. I would proffer that if you ever have that opportunity again, that we have an in the shade meeting, which we can legally because there was already a lawsuit, and we could all talk openly, and that becomes public record after the resolution of the lawsuit. That's a lot better than having a mediator listening to, I don't know how many points of views, because I think it weakens the position of this commission when 13 different people meet separately and give an opinion. So I would proffer in the future. I hope that doesn't occur. I'll say two other things. On or off the port, you know, and I'm going to support this item, because I think it's the right thing to do. I thought it was the right thing to do, and I agree with Commissioner Lopez, and I'm not going to defer just because she's the commissioner of the district, but she makes perfect sense. And that's why I'm going to support the item. The bottom line, the bottom line is whether it's on or off port, we should never stop discussions. This county should never stop trying to get better. And that's what I see sometimes when we find ourselves in these conundrums. We find ourselves in a position after instead of before. Information isn't provided. Messages are sent incorrectly. Those are things that I think we should avoid, and that's upon us as commissioners and upon you as the administration and everybody that works in the county, including your office, Madam County Attorney. So I think that's very important. I'm going to go back to something Commissioner Lopez says, which is the most important thing from my perspective as a public policymaker, which is, and it's not just about the cruise lines. It's also about the commercial aspect of it. This port is one of the top ports in the United States. As a matter of fact, the prior commission spent a lot of money to make sure that certain types of ships could come into this port. This port employs hundreds and thousands of people, some that are here today, but some that are not. A lot of people that come to this county, the first thing they see when they come here is this port or the airport. And to me, the most important thing is I don't want some of these companies that were speaking over here today to move to that port to the north or Port Canaveral or anywhere else in the United States. I don't want the commercial entities to move so some of the people that are here that work and their families live off this port and this would have to go somewhere else. So my decision, in my opinion here, is we have to give you the tools to give us the best option, and then we make the decision. I thought that's how it worked. Because apparently, you know, I don't know, maybe I'm in la-la land or something, but that's how I thought it should work. That's why in October, when I did come back, and I'm going to ask him for the lottery numbers after today's meeting, Commissioner Gilbert, I joined him and I agreed with him. He was, absolutely he was right. It made no sense. You do not, if you ever practice law, you do not go into a mediation without giving your attorney all the tools needed to get the result you would like to see, which you may not get the result you'd like to see. But you're certainly not going to get it if you don't give them all the tools that are needed. And I think the viability of the port is the greatest issue in front of us today. I'm going to say one last thing. This habit of telling businesses how to run their businesses, which is apparently something that is very common, is something we need to really think about. There's a number of business owners, both on the commercial side and on the cruise side, that are here today. Unless one of us slept at a holiday, even if we slept at a Holiday Inn, we're never going to own that business as well as they do. And I caution all of you that these businesses do not have to stay in Dade County. And the day they decide to move from Dade County, whether it's in this case or in other cases, we're going to lose jobs. And the income disparity between those who have and those who don't is going to get worse. And then crime is going to increase. And all these things are going to lead to problems. So I would hope that all of us, the mayor, the administration, my colleagues, understand. And by the way, this is a call to the business community. It's time that the business community tell us what they really think, not just what they think at the time of the campaign, what they really think. Because, you know, you can do well for the community and do well for yourself. But it's time that we get told by the business community, this is what we really think. Now, what I want to hear, and I say that with some of the people that are here that have been the heart and soul of this port to a certain extent, I don't want to hear what I want to hear. I want to hear what you know. And if you know that if this is not going to work, you're going to end up in another place and we're going to lose people in Dade County and it's easier to go somewhere else, let us know. So I just think, look, this is a really one of it's not no one's fault on this commission. And I don't think in large part it's a fault of this administration. But we're in a bad situation. And unfortunately, we have to do the best that we can in a difficult situation. But I caution you, please, as we move forward on this item and any item that deals with facilities that are critical to the operation and the financial success of this county, or at least the viability, I'm not even going to call it success, the viability of this county, do not, the business community has to let us know what they really think. Not what we want to hear. And we, as a commission, the administration, and even you, this wonderful group of attorneys that make up the county attorney's office. Oh, one last question. With Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' suggestion, I feel comfortable because it says as needed. But I want to make sure you guys are comfortable with the proposal that you are able to get outside, hire outside counsel if needed. Yes, Commissioner, this would be in a supporting role, and we're comfortable with the motion. Okay. All right. I've said my piece, and I just tell my colleagues and caution you again, and to the administration, please, go back and look at these leases. Tell them, the attorney's office, or tell all your staff. Look at all the leases that we have. Look at them now. It happens with housing. My August colleague to the left has pointed that out on many occasions. And it happens with the airport. Now it's happening. It happened here. You know, it's not that hard. You know, I think that if you assign the right people, and now with artificial intelligence that apparently everybody's using, just run all those things and try to figure out, is there a lease out there that we need to look at? Catch it before it becomes a problem. This happens with the concessions. It happens with this. It happens with that. It's constant. And it's something that I think we need to avoid. And, Roy, I'm sorry. I know you, I'm not even making a reference to your Alabama drawl, because you're doing the best you can. And that's okay. That's all we can ask. Because all I can ask of my colleagues, of myself, of you, and all of us, and even of our residents and business owners, is do the best you can. But let's make sure that we do the best that we can so we avoid these situations. And I don't ever want to go into any sort of situation where we do not give ourselves, okay, and the county attorney's office, we have to give them the tools. If they don't have the tools, they're not in a position where they can represent us fully or at the best way that they can. And that's what happened in this situation. I never saw the end of the show, because I went off, like I said, to, what is it, Kelly and Mark. But Commissioner Gilbert, when I came back in October, was more than right. We're back where we knew that, unfortunately, we were going to end up in. And that's happening way too often on too many issues. And I think we need to really do something about it. Commissioner from District 7, you recognize. Thank you. I just want to make some points to the administration. You know, obviously, you have the votes. And I just want to clarify, Commissioner Bastian brought up the point, and I know for a fact that we've received several offers to build this at the port. And, Roy, you said, you know, we sent it to AECOM, and then AECOM figures it out. My issue is that AECOM doesn't have all the information. So I'm just going to list some things that I hope you all give to AECOM, because I go back to the information that we haven't been provided with and what they are not considering in making a determination that impacts the well-being of the county. So I mentioned it earlier, and I think it's very important, the current negotiations with FEC for the inland port, specifically how that inland port and the $79 million investment that we've already made would free up cargo space. We know that it's going to reduce the footprint. We know that there's going to be a subsidy involved, and that should be considered by AECOM when they're making their decision. The second one is, Commissioner Lopez mentioned the ILA, there has been no conversation about the broken cranes and the current situation with cargo. There has been no consideration about how the taking of all this funding to purchase the Fisher facility would impact the capital program that impacts that commercial operation. So I think that we should look at those leases, and we should also look at the needs for the infrastructure on the cargo side that have not been met, and what will happen if that funding is used for something else. Commissioner Lopez also mentioned Miami-Dade Fire. Miami-Dade Fire not only believes that their station is inadequate, but they have mentioned releasing that land and going to the two ends of the port. I know that they were in discussion, they have a semi-permanent site that they want to do, and there should be a consideration of the impact that this decision would have on Miami-Dade Fire's ability to consider providing service that's adequate for the port. There was also a mention of electrical, that's mentioned in the report. We recently, three years ago, did a complete electrical overhaul of the airport. That has not happened at the port. When AECOM did their analysis, they dumped that all on the new facility. That needs to be done. Hard stop. The fact that it would need to be done if we had a new facility just allows you to accelerate an existing need. But I think we need to consider that separate and apart, because that is a cost that the port will have, irrespective of purchasing Fisher. And the question is, where will we get that money if we spend everything to purchase Fisher? And finally, I know that the mayor will agree with me. I believe that the way that we move fuel through Fisher right now is not the best. The barges, the way that they function environmentally, they are a risk to Biscayne Bay. And I would really appreciate if, as part of this analysis, AECOM also looks at best practices and how other ports are moving fuel. I'm in full support of the cruise industry, of cargo, but we are buying a dinosaur, and we'll be back. First a year to pay for the dinosaur, and then a few years later. So I cannot support this item. But I hope I'm wrong. I hope that we buy a wonderful property at a wonderful price, and it's good for decades. But I sincerely doubt that, given the information that I've been given by the administration. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Bermudez, you're recognized. Thank you. To verify that Love Island is actually your show of preference. You're recognized. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My staff correctly reminded me, so everybody knows, I was on medical leave, which is why I was watching Mark and Kelly, because I was not able to walk at the time. It wasn't that I was skipping the meeting, okay? Everybody's clear. And I appreciated all of your concerns at the time, all my colleagues and the mayor, who were very kind. But it was because I was on medical leave. But I did switch the channel, and I admit it. Don't take it personally, guys. It was just, you know, in the afternoon, I was tired. I just got out of the hospital and had to relearn how to move and all that good stuff. So it was on medical leave. I wasn't just watching. I wasn't leaving them to all the difficult decisions. All right, Commissioner. Love Island it is. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a follow-up to AECOM, because I think that their remarks have been important. So if AECOM can approach, again, I know you mentioned looking at five sites and that three of them were deemed viable, but then you said there would be a higher cost and operational and policy decisions that need to be made. Can you speak to what that cost is? Can you articulate on the record what the estimated cost is of selecting potentially one of those three sites, in addition to what you already mentioned regarding there being existing tenants on that land and needing to shift the entire operation of the port around? Give us an idea of what the cost is. As the chief already made clear, it's not impossible, but we need the fuel today, right? We're moving hundreds of thousands, millions of passengers. We need access to the fuel right now, 340,000 jobs. So, yes, pie in the sky 10 years from now, potentially we could build a fuel farm on Port Miami, maybe. But at what estimated cost? You're recognized. Yes, so going back to the three options that were determined the most viable, and in looking at what it would cost to build the new facility, what it would cost to upgrade and, in some cases, replace existing wharf facilities, the pipelines connecting the two, and also relocation of existing facilities, which, depending on the option, are either cargo-related, cruise-related, or otherwise. We estimated costs, and this was using the county's formula, factoring in not just construction costs, but soft costs, et cetera. The cheapest option was in the range of about $733 million, with the most expensive option of the three, approximately almost $1.2 billion. Thank you. Nothing further, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you for that. All right. Listen, I've been listening very closely, and I'll call the question here shortly. Look, I'm going to support this item because on the surface of it, and not on the surface, actually, the reality of this item is I look at it as something like a scrutiner's error or correction of the legal description on to what this item is. My only hesitation with it, and I said this back, whatever that was, 9, 10 months ago, and it's still my hesitation today, is the very real risk associated with the eminent domain proceedings and the risk, even if minuscular, of not succeeding in a taking and losing that Fisher Island site, and that keeps me up at night. I know it's a minimal from the conversations I've had. I won't get into details, of course. I also signed an NDA, as many of you did, and was privy to a lot of back-and-forth negotiations between the administration and the parties involved in the ownership group. But, again, that is my only hesitation with eminent domain. I'm comfortable with this item today because we already voted for eminent domain in the event of an impasse. My only struggle with that is that I don't believe we were at an impasse. We just did not agree, and by we, of course, the administration, you've rolled out your memo, Madam Mayor, on how you feel. So I have concerns with that as well. I don't think we were actually at an impasse. I think we just kind of didn't, or the administration didn't agree with the negotiations. Rightfully so. You're in your right to do that. And it was a very hefty price tag associated with it. But, again, I just hope that we're successful, and I appreciate my colleagues' concerns on and being cautious in the right line of questioning to not jeopardize our litigation or future litigation. Commissioner Hardiman, I'm ready to call a question, but you're recognized. Well, thank you. You know, one of the things I wanted to point out to my colleagues is that with this, would it have been wonderful to have purchased this property many years ago? Yes. It wasn't always for sale, as I understand. But at some point, it became available, and Miami-Dade County didn't take that opportunity. So it's part of our responsibility to protect this baby. We talked about this in the past, right? We have to protect this thing that exists for us, and it gives us tremendous benefit and feeds our community. But I want to be clear. If we were not successful in this, we didn't kill this baby. There's an entity that's making this purchase, that actually purchased the land already, that's trying to sell this asset to us at a cost that is prohibitive, that is way beyond reason. That entity has a face, it has a name, it has many faces and names. And so when you talk about what it means to have a community, that's the face that's destroying this community if things don't go our way. I want to be very clear about that. And when we talk about America and we have the right to profit and all those things that are wonderful, that make this place a wonderful place to be, unlike other places that are 90 miles away and things of that nature, this is the problem with America from time to time, the greed. This is way beyond, you know, what is a measure I think that we find ourselves comfortable with. And the reason that we're having this tough discussion is because you know that the request is just too much money. The request is not something that is reasonable of anyone who cares about Miami-Dade County and the future of this county. The fact that we're having this discussion about the future of Miami-Dade County because we can't provide fuel is incredible when, in fact, the players that are involved with this sale are in that industry. Talk about letting someone come into your house and abuse your child. So this is a very tough discussion that we're having here, and we're tiptoeing around it. But I'm not losing any sleep because I know that I'm not the person that's trying to destroy the industry as it is. And I'm also not trying to take advantage of the people. It's okay to make profit. Profit is good. People take profit, and they put it into public service all the time. I've seen it happen time and time again. A lot of our beginnings of the United States of America, the railroad industry, all this stuff is built on profit, and people did a lot of money and did great good, and it existed for hundreds of years. But at some point, people have gone too far. And so, Madam Mayor, the first time I heard that this thing was available to us, before the sale was even completed to the last instance that made the purchase, I said we should take the property. And here we are once again discussing the taking of the property. I hope that each of us has the tough discussions with all of our friends that we know that are involved with the sale of this property because we, as board members of this commission, yes, we have a responsibility to help protect this baby. But at the same time, it is not our responsibility to give away everything, to give so much resources towards something in a way that is irresponsible. I think it's gone too far. And so, I urge everyone to support it as we are today, but just remember that it is not I, it is not you, who are trying to destroy the economic viability of Miami-Dade County. It is another person. It is another entity. It is another organization that seeks profit over the people. It is another organization that continues to move forward that may or may not be based here in Miami-Dade County. But there's enough faces in the organization that are. Commissioner from District 1 for a closing. Thank you. This has been a very interesting conversation. I'm very happy that I let you all go first. Just a couple of notes. Just a couple of notes. I'm not going to say I told you so again. I'm not going to do that. I will say this. I listen attentively to each of you. And when my colleague and dear friend, Commissioner Regalado, says we know, I want you all to remember, we know is actually she believes. And I think we probably better correct the record on that. We don't know. And I don't believe. We don't know. I disagree with nearly 100% of the stuff that she just said. So I understand this in the public record. And I think part of the problem we've had is, and quite frankly, Commissioner Bermudez, you're correct in how you feel about all 13 of us meeting with the mediator. It's not just the 13 opinions. It's that you're getting the county's position, even though you're not supportive of the county's position. And you're actively working against the county's position. It is reckless and irresponsible to share that type of information with someone who is not supportive of the will of the body. Absolutely not. We should stop that practice immediately. Because if we do get in litigation, what you're saying is you're giving information to people who may give information to people who aren't supporting our case. JC, maybe we see it different because we were litigators. But that is the height of recklessness. Stop that. Please stop that. There are some things that I looked at. And the guy from AECOM, and by the way, I trust the engineers to be engineers. Engineers are engineers. We go and hire one of the largest engineering companies in the entire world. And then we say, oh, by the way, your report is wrong because I know better. This is, I've never seen folks try to contort themselves to give away more money. He said something. He said, the date, the title, the value of the property is going to be linked to the date the title is transferred, the date we take title. So it's interesting because when you look at our appraisals, it kind of tracks that out. The one for $25 million is the first one. The one for $180 million, the date is predicated much later. And the one for $430 million is the latest date. So people who are advocating we wait are literally advocating that we pay more. And in the same breath of advocating that we wait and pay more, saying how will we do other things at the port? Listen, you're right. This is not coming out of the general fund. Your Avalorum does not go to this. But let's be clear. That is a public asset. And if we spend money on this that's less bondable income, we have to do other improvements that are actually needed at the port. When I look at those cruise ships, I don't see the big cruise ships. They're all nice. I'm going to tell you, I've only been on three cruises my entire life, and I don't like being captured on a boat like that. It's a thing with me. But, you know, I like, but y'all are cool. I like y'all. But it's just not my thing. I'm not a cruiser necessarily. People have told me they can convert me. It's a thing. Maybe. I don't know. But what I see is families paying their mortgages. I see people sending their kids to college. I see the vacations that they take, the groceries they buy. I actually see the economic engine. When we say words like economic engine, that's a broad, like, term of art that we use, but we don't actually break it down. What that means is it's how we pay our bills, that people fly into our airport, which is the number one economic engine in the state, to get on our cruise ships. How have we hurt the cruise ships? We also hurt the airport. It's an economic engine. We owe it to the community. We should have passed this item and started the taking before. And I don't believe in taking people's property. I don't offer that lightly. But the eminent domain exists for reasons. We wouldn't have an interstate, you know, highway system without eminent domain. We wouldn't have airports around this country without eminent domain. We wouldn't have some railways without eminent domain. We don't have a lot of the things that make the country go because there had to be an acknowledgment in the law that the greater good was more important to us than the singular value to the person who owned the property. That's not easy for us to do. That's why we don't do it a lot. But this isn't meant to be easy. It's not easy now. But it's not a difficult decision because the alternative is waiting and paying more. That is the alternative, waiting and paying more. The appraisals were also interesting in another respect. One of the appraisers, the one for $25 million, said, I'm appraising this property for $25 million. And I forget the exact quote, but it essentially meant because the property is zoned IU and it can only be used as a fuel farm. Now, the other appraisers did something different. They appraised it, one for residential and the other for, I guess, mixed use, higher residential. But I started to ask the question, why did the one appraiser say it could only be used as a fuel farm? And so immediately I was drawn to the zoning, Mr. Chairman, and the zoning allows IU, that's a fuel farm, it's not zoned for residential. So it's a hypothetical use. And then the other appraisers actually listed as a hypothetical. They say it's a hypothetical assumption that if you change the zoning on this property, then it could be valued as something different. That's the hypothetical assumption built into the increased valuations. But why didn't the $25 million appraiser do the same thing? And so I started to ask questions. It turns out there's a restrictive covenant on this property that runs in favor of the county. Is that correct, Chief? Yes, sir. It is correct. A portion of the property, about maybe half the property has a covenant. So what that covenant does is it says the property has to be used as a fuel farm, unless we say it doesn't. Is that correct? That's correct, sir. The $25 million appraisal made a lot more sense when I found that out. What also made a lot more sense, though I disagree with port employees not reporting up to the boss telling them that this property is for sale, it had been sold several times, and everybody used it as a fuel farm because the covenant that runs with the land says it has to be used as a fuel farm. So assuming we can't come to a negotiation, and I hope that we can, though I believe that the amounts that I'm hearing are far too great. I'm not going to let you buy property for $180 million and flip it in six months for $400 million. That's insane. You know, that's, but just assuming that our port employees knew that it makes a little more sense that no matter who bought the property, it was still going to be a fuel farm. And it kind of makes sense that we would have a restricted covenant that we have to release. We have to release the restricted covenant. And the reason why it makes sense is because somebody years and years and years ago when it was first entered said, you know what, this fuel farm is so important to the operations of this port that we have to make sure this property is always usable as a fuel farm. Unless the county commission by extraordinary vote, it's not a simple majority, I believe it's two thirds, two thirds vote. Unless two thirds of us or our successors say we don't need it anymore. We're having a conversation about a piece of property that was meant to be used as a fuel farm indefinitely. We're having that conversation with people who would need us to say that we don't need a fuel farm anymore. And the whole purpose of that conversation is so they could raise the value of the property to make us pay more for it. Initially, I said it was nonsensical. It is nonsensical. I move this item. It's been moved. It's been seconded as amended. As amended, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Nay. Show the item passed, just reflecting one nay. All right. Now, thank you all. Please exit quietly if you were here on the fuel farm item. Please exit quietly. That is not quietly. That is the opposite of quiet. That is the opposite of quiet. Please exit quietly. And while I exit to my lovely attorneys and staff. I looked at you all kind of funny yesterday when we when you were optimistic and thinking we could put both of these items time certain for the same time and that my colleagues were not going to really elaborate on. And they were optimistic. Some in the county attorney's office and some on the staff were optimistic that given that we were in litigation with fuel farm that we may not have a robust discussion. But I don't want to say like Oliver. I told you so. All right, guys. Sergeants, please. Can we make sure that they do exit quietly? I got to get to the next item. Through the chair. Madam. Could I have some brief opening remarks on this item? Sure. At the appropriate time, I will. So, all right. I am now going to take up Madam Attorney, item 14A1, which is my item. With this supplement, Mr. Tear. With its supplement, yes. Can we please finish exiting quiet? There's a lot of people here for fuel farm. All right. So first, of course, I want to start by thanking everyone involved in getting us to where we are today on this mental health item. And what I anticipate today will be the supportive action to move this building in the direction for it to open its doors in the coming months. So first, I want to start by thanking Judge Leifman. I would allow it for Judge Leifman because he has been working on this for 20 plus years. And your passion, dedication, and leadership for those 20 plus years has shown. And we have finally gotten, I think, to the moment of truth here today. His commitment to improving mental health services in our community has been unwavering. And we would not be where we are today without his efforts. So thank you, Judge, for that. I also want to thank, of course, Commissioner Regalado and the administration for their hard work on this important mental health initiative. I know that both of you, together and individually, worked tirelessly on getting this mostly to where we are today. So I thank you both for your efforts as well. Commissioner Regalado, of course, I read your op-ed over the weekend. And I genuinely appreciate your commitment to expanding mental health services and for Miami-Dade residents. And thank you for co-sponsoring this item. The reason I introduced this new item is, as you noticed, it has basically, there was nothing removed from the original item sponsored by Commissioner Regalado. There was a lot added to it. And I'll go through some of that now. But all of these additions could have easily equated to equal to four or five, several hours of amendments and discussion. So I thought it cleaner and easier and allowed more time for everyone to fully read it, to bring as a clean slate rather than amendments. And my goal was simple. My goal was to strengthen public confidence in the Miami-Dade County Mental Health Center through clear performance standards, independent oversight, transparency, and ongoing evaluation. These safeguards ensure we can expand access to mental health care while maintaining accountability to the public and to taxpayers. And on that note, I want to also thank, I can't thank everyone that was involved because I had many, many meetings, but from leadership at TGK, to our Jackson leadership team, who I see in the front rows, to our Chief Justice and her leadership team over at the Justice Department, who I also see here today. Thank you for all the information that, as you can see, if you all have read this, I have implemented a lot of the language and information that you all shared and that I thought was very important to add. With that said, I'd like to briefly highlight the key additions that are set in this item before us today, in addition to what you all have been seeing for the last several months and has been in committee, I believe, at least once or twice has been heard in committee. Of course, without advancing from committee, but that was different. So, as far as additions, and I'll move through this fairly quickly, Section 10, the sixth floor transitional housing, and that's based on what Ron Book just expressed on during reasonable opportunity, and it requires the mayor to seek homeless trust funding for transitional housing on the sixth floor, and if funding is not secured, then to put out a competitive RFP issued for transitional housing and or supportive services of this mental health facility. I do trust that an agreement can be reached with the homeless trust. And, of course, I did add there, Mr. Book, that those housed in this, if an agreement is reached, that they be patients from within our program. So, from the mental health facility, from corrections department, but not someone that, I don't know, any other example, that someone that may be transferred from a Camilla's house or something like that, but that it remains from within the program. Section 11, the seventh floor outpatient services, and this was one of the recommendations I received from meeting with one of the folks that were giving input. And it creates an expedited procurement process requesting that the administration put it out for an outpatient mental health and substance use treatment services, expanding care capacity and creating potential revenue opportunities. So I asked, when it comes to this section, I asked the stakeholders, what is missing here? Like, what part of this program do we not have in-house, per se? What are we missing? What can we improve on? We've got two floors that are still vacant. One of them, of course, we just discussed for transitional housing. And several points were made. One was, well, there's a program in place to facilitate these patients, inmates, as you wish to call them, to outpatient programs and facilities that are outsourced. But once we do that, we kind of just lose track of that patient. So it would be helpful if we have an in-house outpatient facility. I said, great. What else? What else is, this is one of the few components of this building that, because it is an outpatient facility, it is fully billable to insurances. In most cases, it may be Medicaid, Medicare, or private insurance, but it is almost fully billable to the insurance, which, in turn, is a revenue-generating mechanism or part of the program. And then lastly, something that has not been talked about, and I'm glad that both the administration has expressed support, of course, after reviewing this item, and Judge Leifman, of course, came and supported, and we've exchanged some communication over the weekend, showing support. You know, lastly on this item, on this section, and I'd really like to see this expanded through the whole entire facility, is the inclusion of substance abuse patients, a lot of which are dual-diagnosed with mental health, but it has not been a conversation. Substance abuse patients has not been a conversation. And as you all know, part of the initial two-year funding that was identified for this is opioid money that was swept from the opioid fund to allocate to this mental health facility. Yet, there was no substance abuse treatment or tox. So I'm adding substance abuse, certainly, to this outpatient facility on the seventh floor, but certainly I'd like to see the entire building treat substance abuse because they go hand-in-hand. That's what I've learned through this process. And I'm seeing a thumbs-up from Judge Leifman, so that's good. Section 12 establishes a centralized system to track patient outcomes, continuity of care, homelessness, recidivism, and other key metrics to measure effectiveness and accountability. Several of us up here have been asking this time and time again. I've heard it was asked in committee. I've asked for it, implementing it in writing now. And, of course, throughout the process, folks have stood at the podium and said, yes, of course, that's going to happen. It was not in writing. We're just putting it on pen to paper. Section 13 requires a biannual clinical and operational review by Jackson Health System or its designate to provide independent oversight. This, to me, was important, and it was important that Jackson had their hands in it. And I'll clarify this, although it has not been said publicly, but I've heard some rumors that Jackson is trying to take this facility at some point. In fact, it's the opposite. I would love them to. They've actually said, no way. Like, we know that this is what it is. We don't want to take this over in any way, shape, or form. But they were kind enough and accepting to be an extra set of eyes and oversight. So thank you for that. I see David here and some of his leadership team. So thank you for that. And I know that there was, of course, going to be auditing and reporting already. I understand that. But it was, A, not in writing, and, B, it wasn't the ones that I know had to happen. Like, I imagine Thriving Minds has to do certain audits for DCF funding. But that is, like, the requirement. It's for the DCF funding. I don't think statute would have required them to audit the entirety of the building and its operations, just state funding. So I wanted an auditing slash reporting mechanism that is wholesome, holistic, and reviews the entire functionality of the mental health facility. And that is where Jackson Health System and or its independent designees come in. Section 14 we've talked about many, many times, so I'm just codifying, which is the performance reporting. It mandates regular reports on operations, patient outcomes, finances, sustainability, and provider performance to ensure transparency and accountability. Section 15, advisory board oversight. It expands the behavioral health advisory board's role in reviewing major operational changes and providing recommendations before this county commission for consideration. Section 16, the homelessness services review. I spoke a little bit about this earlier. It requires annual evaluations of services for individuals experiencing homelessness and the homeless trust funding contributions. And Section 17, the protection of core services. It ensures funding for the mental health center does not come at the expense of essential county services, such as parks, transit, public works, and other core government functions. Of course, this is something that we as a body vote on when we vote on our budgets, but at least it provides the initial directive to the administration to keep that in mind and not jeopardize any core government functions when allocating funds to this in the future. These eight sections represent significant additions that strengthen the legislation and improve accountability. And at the end of the day, mental health care, substance abuse, and fiscal responsibility go hand in hand. And we can expand access to treatment while also protecting taxpayers by establishing strong oversight, transparency, accountability, and performance measures from the very beginning, setting this up for success. We give this facility the greatest opportunity to succeed and serve our residents effectively for years to come. And with that, I will be recognizing first you, Mayor. But I'd like to, at this time, move item 14A1 and its substitute. Second. It's been moved. It's been seconded by Commissioner Regalado. Madam Mayor, you have the floor. Thank you so much. Well, I am so heartened by the extraordinary recognition of the importance of mental health to this community. We have seen an unprecedented outpouring of public support and sentiment to serve the needs of mental health patients. We all are in need of mental health services. And, in fact, you might not know, but we are the largest stigma-free enterprise in the entire country and the only public jurisdiction to declare our government stigma-free. And we've been working very diligently to address those issues with our own employees, especially those who are constantly on the front line, our first responders. And, as you know, we resolved the oversight, federal oversight, of our jails, largely because of our commitment to the mental health needs of people in our facilities. With that to be said, we all do owe a great debt of gratitude to Judge Steve Leifman, who has made this his life's work. All right, guys, moving forward, we're going to do the... Yeah, we're going to go back to the waves. I let the first one slide because it was warranted, of course. Yes. So I want to underscore that this was, as you've said, more than 20 years in the making, and it was dead on arrival when I came to the mayor's office. So I made it my priority to move it forward with the support of our judiciary, our law enforcement, and gratefully to the sponsorship of Commissioner Regalado to move this item forward. Now, through your leadership, Mr. Chair, we've added additional caveats and protections that enhance the item, and we're grateful for that. I personally have worked in the field of forensic psychology, in mental health facilities, in jails where inmates with mental illness were served, and I have very personal experience with this population and am very, very excited about finally launching this program. I do want you to know that so many worked on it, and you thanked so many. Hard work from my mayor's office team went into this. Brenda Newman, who is our chief integrity officer, Kathy Burgos, now our director of community services department, Chief Arnold Palmer most recently, and so many others in my office in this department worked almost two years to negotiate these deals. So this was not an easy situation by any means. We, of course, leaned heavily on Jackson. Jackson was at the table from the beginning and is still, of course, our go-to. We even have a legislative staff who worked diligently. That's Matthias Buckholter and Eduardo Tamburel. And in my office, Leah Weston and Lorna Mejia-Lopez also deserve special recognition. We've assigned Amanda Dominguez. She's a licensed mental health counselor in the community services department, and she will help open and guide the chapter to its next chapter. So to our two sponsors, chief sponsors, the chair and Commissioner Regulato, we say thank you. And with your vote today, which I anticipate will be in the positive, we will be marking a new era in our approach to meeting those with serious mental illness and substance abuse disorders in our community, keeping them out of jails and making sure they have the treatment to be rehabilitated and return to community life. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Mayor. With that, Commissioner from District 2, you're recognized. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to thank the maker, the sponsor of this item, Commissioner Regulato. I know all the hard work that you've put to get us here, so I commend you for that. I thank you and commend you for that. Mr. Chair, thank you. I've listened to you with a lot of attention. All the amendments that you brought into this item strengthens it, strengthen it beyond measure. It changed it into, like, what we would do as a piecemeal approach to a more comprehensive approach, which really brought a lot of strength to the item. So thank you for your leadership on that. I really appreciate you and your involvement to make sure that this item moves forward and then to get us where we are today. And then to the administration, we know that it hasn't been easy. It's been years in the making, but I'm really glad that we are where we are today. And then I would like Mr. Chair to be a co-sponsor of this item, too. Of course. As a mental health professional, I want to reiterate that approving this facility is essential, essential for the progress and well-being of Miami-Dade County. Far too long, our community has felt the strain of limited access to mental health services. Families looking for help often face long wait times, overcrowded emergency rooms. Families even watch sometimes their loved ones face jail time because of the limited access to mental health services. And I've known many families in this predicament doing my work as a mental health professional. Funding this facility, and I'm so glad we are here, not only addresses gaps in services, but ensures that we address the care, compassion, accessibility, and dignity that every human being deserves, as I indicated the last time. And I'm glad to see that we all agree that the benefits are clear. We're investing in people, and then we are investing in our community. We are committing to our role as policymakers to ensure life, health, and safety for this community. I want to thank again. I want to thank you again, Mr. Chair, for bringing this item, for strengthening it. It's structured to ensure that we can sharpen our pencils and reduce costs if the opportunity arises. Colleagues, we all know that we needed this, and I'm glad to see the end of the road finally. Thank you for all your efforts. Thank you, Commissioner. All right, and I skipped, I skipped, I'm going to add you guys now. I skipped the actual pulling, Commissioner. So, Commissioner from District 8, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sure all of our colleagues are going to speak on this item, and thank you for recognizing me. I do think, and I pulled it because I wanted to make sure that the item received the attention that, frankly, it deserves. I think that this is a historic day in Miami-Dade County, and I think it's worth noting, as a number of our colleagues have done, and I want to take a moment to do as well, the journey that it took us to get where we are today, and it was somewhat of a tumultuous journey, unfortunately, but here we are. And I say unfortunately because throughout the process of molding this item and getting it to a place where a number of our colleagues felt a level of comfort, there were a number of us that were charged with leading the opposition to mental health, and that could not have been farther from the truth. We were leading accountability for mental health, and I think that's fully displayed in this item that is before the board today. And I want to thank my colleagues for asking the tough questions when we did and asking about the numbers and asking how this was going to get paid for, not to create delay tactics, but to ensure the success of this facility because so many of us have had experiences with mental health, and we've heard about a number of them here on the dais. We've heard about the Lindas that the commissioner from District 5 has spoken about, and we've heard about Commissioner Gilbert speaking about his family member and so on and so forth. But I'll share a story. When I first joined the commission, I met with Kathy Burgos, and she shared with me her department and the services that she provides. And she is going, her department are going to be charged with operating this facility. And I shared a story with them about a family member of my own, a very close family member, that cycled in and out of our criminal justice system as a young man, undocumented immigrant. And unfortunately, we lost him to substance abuse a few years ago, and that was my brother. And I share that story with you because for me, and I've always said this is very personal, because I will never forget calling Miami-Dade County and saying, we need help. We don't know where to send him. And he lost his battle with substance abuse and mental health. And so when we, as a body, get attacked and criticized for trying to do the best for our residents, understand that there may be other intentions at play, understand that we may be actually trying to make sure that the very vulnerable mental health patients that are going to be admitted into this facility are not just people that we see on the news. They are our family members. And so I am grateful to the entire commission, including the initial sponsoring commissioner. I am grateful to our chairman, and I am grateful to everyone, including our administration, including, of course, Judge Leifman for making this your life work. You have made this your life work for people like my brother. And so I am grateful to you because at this juncture, I feel much greater confidence that we now will open a facility that is set up for success because it's what our residents deserve. And so, again, I extend the greatest level of gratitude to our administration, to all involved, and I am proud of the item that is before the board today. Yes, we will have very difficult financial decisions to make in three years. I believe that we will be prepared to make those very difficult financial decisions, and we will cross that road when we get there. But this is an item that ensures the success of this very, very much-needed mental health facility in Miami-Dade County, and I'm proud of the process that we've taken to get here today. And I hope that I will be accepted as a co-sponsor. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you for sharing that personal story with us. I will recognize now I have in line the Commissioner from District 5, but I want to add, I should have said this earlier, but I want to thank my co-chairs for our intergovernmental committee, both Co-Chair Lopez and Chair Orbis and all the members that sit on that committee. I know that includes, you all know who you are, because if it wasn't for your tough questions and what could have been posed or was posed in the news of stalling or moving the goalposts, we wouldn't be here today with this more perfected item. So thank you for all your hard work in that committee and for bringing us to this point as well. With that, Commissioner from District 5, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to start out by thanking you for having led the charge, starting out when I requested a committee, you know, a commission as a whole discussion on this. I think it really started to change the face of this issue. It allowed all of us to come together and to really talk about this issue in a way that we hadn't been able to do beforehand. And I believe that that was sort of what lit the switch for you to really grab the bull by the horns and listen to what we were all saying. And so I'm grateful that you have brought this item forward. Grateful to Commissioner Regalado for her leadership, you know, in having brought it as far as she did. And I am also grateful to the four horsemen of my committee, and that is my co-chair and Commissioner Gonzalez and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, who did their job, as you asked us to do in committee. And today I think we have a wonderful item before us with a lot of accountability and a lot of safeguards. And I would be remiss if I didn't thank my good partner, Judge Leifman. Judge, you and I started this long before the 20 years. I hate to tell everybody. You and I were working on this issue shortly after I was working with Governor Bush as the chairman of the ex-offender task force. And one of the things that we discovered, obviously, through your testimony to that task force was that people were languishing in jails that didn't belong there. And I can recall so clearly the 60-minute expose of our jail and feeling frightened by the fact that people weren't really getting better. They were just cycling through the system. And you made it your life's work to remedy that in a way that today you will see the fruits of that incredible labor. And to the administration and to the mayor, who was actually early on a partner of the governor's ex-offender task force when she was leading the Human Services Coalition. And so it's been, it's really been a partnership of many people. And to the members of PACT, you know, I've told you when I came to your meeting, your voices matter, your experiences matter. And I think, you know, today we heard a little bit about my constituent, Caitlin, who was assaulted in broad daylight at 1045 in the morning in my district. And had it not been for a good Samaritan, Cassius, a gentleman who stepped in to save that woman from the attack, she might not be alive to tell her story today. But that particular assailant was mentally ill, was homeless, had cycled through the system. And I can't help but think that this wouldn't have happened had the assailant been brought through some sort of treatment, first a crisis intervention and then a treatment. And you're right, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, not only am I concerned about Linda, who, by the way, I want you to know, is doing very well. She's in her own housing unit in, I believe it's Cutler Bay. And, you know, she's an example of what can happen to a woman who's been on the street for 20 years, cycling in and out of our justice system. But we have to do more, and we have to do better. And I think that this is just a start, and I know Judge Leifman's heard me say this. It's not a pilot. It's not. It is a solution, and we are obligated just by the very nature of our role as government officials to provide services for the most vulnerable in our community and clearly those that are mentally ill and are homeless or both is an important part of the role that we play as commissioners. We must support it, but we must say out loud that it's not a pilot. It will be here forever and ever, amen, as part of the big solution of the problems that we are facing with the mentally ill. And, you know, like Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, my sister has substance abuse, had substance abuse issues. Gratefully, she got the help that she needed. But you're right, Chairman. There is no question that we ought to be talking about those that have substance abuse issues because it's two sides of the same coin. If you have a substance abuse issue, you probably are suffering from a co-occurring disorder that somehow brought you to that point. And I, of course, did not have the terrible tragedy that Commissioner Cohen-Higgins had by losing her brother. My sister's fine and sober after 20 years but continues to receive treatment for mental health issues that she suffers. And she's the first one to admit it because you're right, Mayor. We should have no stigma surrounding mental illness. I can't imagine a family who hasn't already experienced it in one way or the other. So this is a start to a huge solution in our community. And certainly I know in my very dense urban area, I have more than 100 Lindas who live on the street and seeing much more of it occur. And we heard someone testify this morning, you ought to come to Brickle now where we're seeing more of this, which is something we never saw before. It was very isolated in the downtown area, but it is now clearly moving into another area. And we should hope and pray that there will be no more Caitlin's. But as I said to Caitlin, your story, as unfortunate as it is and how brave she has been to tell it, is going a long way in making sure that no one else experiences what Caitlin did. So kudos to everyone that worked hard on this issue. And I'm really grateful to see it finally come home and in for a landing. Thank you. Thank you again, Commissioner, for all your leadership during these negotiations. Commissioner from District 11 is next on my list, but I don't see him. So you may be, I'll have the vice chair, the 11, and then I could add you to the list as well. Commissioner from District 11, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, man, I just want to say I'm so happy we're here. I'm so happy we're here because this is bigger than one facility, okay? This is what America needs because what we're seeing right now is we're seeing unity. This is not a left thing. It's not a right thing. It's just a good thing to do. And, Judge, you know this has been a mountain to climb. And I want to talk about how we got here because it hasn't been easy. But many times, the things that are the most difficult to accomplish are the things that are most worth doing. Some of our most vulnerable residents are living with serious mental illness and addiction, cycling between the streets, emergency rooms, and jail cells. A society is judged not by how it treats the strong, but by whether it extends that helping hand to those who cannot help themselves. I believe many of us on this dais share the same expectation when it comes to taxpayer dollars and accountability. And today, we're able to see the compassion and fiscal responsibility come together for a good thing. Chairman, not enough has been said about your leadership on this. And I know you're trying to be modest, but Chairman Rodriguez's proposal strengthens oversight, measures, outcomes, and requires us to evaluate whether this investment is actually improving lives and reducing pressure on our public systems. Extremely important. And I don't think this would have been able to move forward were it not for these amendments. Not because it wasn't the right thing to do, but because these amendments were necessary. Judge, I'm sure that you've read the Book of Esther. I firmly believe that you have been chosen for such a time as this. I firmly believe that this is going to be historic. And I firmly believe that you're going to appreciate the fact that it was difficult to achieve. I have to admit, one of the greatest masterpieces of the 20th century is Rocky III. And if you've seen Rocky III, you will remember that Rocky is already a champion. He's already the greatest of all time. And his strategist, Mickey, passes away. Rocky's already pound for pound the greatest boxer in the world at that time. But he goes into a fight and doesn't have the guidance that he needs in order to achieve the championship. And so he loses to Clubber Lang, who is played by Mr. T. Then, Apollo Creed, so for you young people watching the Creed movies, Apollo is the father. Apollo Creed comes in and he trains Rocky. And Rocky comes back and he easily wins and becomes the champion. And the reason I say that is because were it not for the leadership that Chairman Rodriguez has shown as the Apollo Creed of this commission, we wouldn't have been able to get here. And I know you're saying it's a lot, Mr. Chairman. But specifically, it provides independent clinical review by Jackson, tracking of concrete performance measures, return on investment reporting, oversight by the Behavioral Health Advisory Board, review of the homeless trust participation, an expedited process for procuring outpatient services and protections, so that funding this project does not come to at an expense of core county services such as public safety, parks, and roads. This is important because, Judge Leifman, you're not a lobbyist, man, right? You're not a lobbyist. You're also not a legislator. You're a good man trying to do a good thing. And today, the strategy with the experience and champion mentality came together. And you have my commitment that I will continue to work with you because, man, we worked hard, especially you. But I will continue to work with you to make sure that the funding is always there. We will go together if you'll have me. We will go together to D.C. We will go together to the state. But we will make sure that this moves forward. And that is exactly what I feel everybody on this commission wanted from day one, that it was fiscally responsible and prudent, but that it started so that it can change the trajectory of how mental health is treated in the entire nation and that it doesn't stop. And I believe that with these parameters, it's not going to stop. It's going to be able to continue. These protections offer the transparency and accountability which taxpayers in Miami-Dade County deserve and which, quite frankly, were absent in the original proposal. We should be willing to invest, but we should never stop asking whether the funding source is actually working. Finally, one of the lessons emerging from communities across the country is that not every challenge can be solved with the same set of tools. A smaller population with more complex needs often requires a more specialized response. This proposal recognizes that reality and offers a thoughtful, targeted approach that meets people where they are while demanding responsibility from all of us entrusted with stewarding public resources. I believe that we're living history right now. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner from District 7, you're recognized. Yoko? Mickey? No, no, go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. I didn't know it was coming with a soundtrack, but thank you. I appreciate it. I just want to echo some of the mayor's comments about all the staff that has worked on this. Obviously, Judge Steve Leifman has been amazing. He has the patience of Job. As the mayor mentioned, this was not easy when we started working on it, and we've come very far. And I want to thank you all for your support. I know that there were moments that were difficult, but I truly believe that leadership is about creating consensus, not gauging it. So I think that today is a wonderful day. I congratulate you, Judge Leifman, and everyone that worked on this. All the hours that staff put in, including mine, you know, I'm not even going to tally it, how much time we spent on this. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for getting us to this point. And I look forward to a unanimous vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that, Commissioner. Vice Chairman. All right, Commissioner from District 4, for your one-liner. I'm just going to hold it against me. Yeah, yeah, for your one-liner. Go ahead, Commissioner. Well, I was just going to say even Rocky needed a Mickey in his corner. All right. But, um... Man, that was cute. You know what? But I was going to... Okay. You've got to get a hug. All right. So if that doesn't give us hope for tomorrow, I don't know what does. No, but I just want to thank everybody for getting us to this point, and it does fill me up with hope for tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be very brief. Listen to everyone who had a hand in this. This is huge. I'll say it now, and I'll say it again. We're going to pass hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of legislation from this dais. But I do honestly believe this is going to be one of those most consequential ones that we'll be able to look back on. And identify that moment and that memory that actually gave birth to something that so many people in this community definitely need. Secondly, let me just say this. My favorite line in life is, you know, bear one another's burden. And that encompasses pretty much everything I believe in, everything I stand upon. And, Judge Leifman, let me just say to you publicly, you're the epitome of that statement. You and your team, you have shown us exactly what it means to bear one another's burdens. You have taken this head on. You have shown us exactly how to do it with grace, even under pressure and even under fire. And you've done it in a way that makes all of us proud. Thirdly, let me just say this. As it relates to mental health, I've had a front row seat in this area all of my life. As a matter of fact, the kids who I grew up with, students in my class that I'm articulated throughout school with, many of us were labeled with mental health issues. And we were able to find ways not only to deal with them, but to live with them. And in the process, what I've learned is that even when I became a prosecutor, those issues never left those kids, young men and young women who I've had the opportunity to live with growing up, either in the classrooms, on the streets. And what I found out is those issues don't go away. They don't. Those issues are managed. And if they're managed properly, they help us become productive citizens, especially of this great county. And what your fight has shown us, and your partnerships with so many different people, including the Homeless Trust, Ron Book, and the team, is that our investment should always be into human infrastructure. And human infrastructure is totally different than everything else we're ever going to vote on. Because human infrastructure also includes the quality of life that we must deal with and we must understand and we must appreciate. And when we do that in a way that makes sense to the public, it saves all of us, not just the tears, not just the money, not just the time, not just the love. But you know what else it saves? It saves those people who are my family members and friends, myself. It saves us from the humiliation that comes with it. Because for some reason, it appears that our society has yet to come to grips that all of us, all of us, whether we admit it or not, we all have to come to grips with that we suffer. And we deal with our mental health issues differently. And there are just some people out there who now, in order to deal with their mental health issues, they couple that with drug use. And when you couple that with drug use, you get what they call, in the medical terms, a dual diagnosis. And those are the individuals who I believe this particular facility will help more than anything. It's because instead of us now punishing those who have a substance abuse problem, we are now able to directly, not indirectly, but directly, deal with the issue in front of us. And that is their coping mechanism as it relates to their mental health issues that they're facing. I'll close by simply saying this, and again, I said it earlier, this is probably going to be one of the best pieces of legislation I'm ever going to vote on as a legislator here, i.e. a commissioner. It is a celebratory moment when everyone, I mean everyone, comes to agree that not only is mental health important for this nation, but it's also important for those of us who have a hand into ensuring that this discussion doesn't get swept under the rug. And the reason being because there is probably a five-year-old kid out there or a six-year-old kid who's about to be labeled with a mental illness or a mental health issue. They're either going to label them emotionally handicapped, severely disturbed, and even worse. And the families just don't know what to do. Or they just don't have the financial resources to really deal with the issue in front of them. Or they just may not have been educated enough on how to deal with the prognosis and diagnosis that comes with having these particular labels. You're giving them an opportunity to see that the county does and, in fact, care about their families. And so that's why I am fully in support of this, not because of, again, my sitting in the front row of this movie in my classrooms coming up, or not because I've lost family members to this type of ordeal as it relates to mental health and being duly diagnosed with a drug abuse, substance abuse problem, and not because I hear the stories when I'm walking through the communities and I'm actually working through organizations such as Transition Inc. to try to get people back on track from the decisions they've made that were impacted by either drug use or mental health. Not for any of those reasons, but for, but for the fact that it is incumbent on all of us to bear one another's burden. And their burdens may appear to be a bit different from all of ours, but it is incumbent upon us to carry those burdens because we're in a position to make things happen for them. So with that said, I ask everyone to support it. Mr. Chairman, great job. Commissioner Regalado, great job. To the administration, great job. And to everybody who had a hand in this in pushing this issue forward, great job and have a great one. Thank you, Vice Chairman. Commissioner from District 12, you're recognized. I'll be brief, but ditto to everything that all of you have said. First of all, I'd like to start by saying that thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez, for making a reference to Mr. T. We may never hear it again on this dais, but thank you very much. And of course, the mayor and the administration for the great job they've done pushing this item and these ideas. Commissioner Regalado, obviously, for her effort to push this forward. And you, Mr. Chairman, for making sure that we codified the concerns that many had, which is important as we move forward. And the word metrics and accountability are always very near and dear to my heart, whatever we discuss. So thank you very much. But I did want to take a personal point of privilege to thank Judge Leifman. Steve, I was a young mayor of a brand-new city when I met him, and he had this idea. And he came and said, I got this idea that could change the way things, the way we deal with a very serious issue. So I know it's a legacy of love, and I'm glad for that, that it's a legacy of love. But I want to thank him publicly because he's answered every question. His persistence has been critical. His ability to answer all our questions and the public's questions has been critical. And he's never shied from – and I remember when I got elected in 2022, I found myself during the facility with Judge Leifman. And it's been a long time. And his hair had grayed. Mine had been gone. But nevertheless, I want to thank him publicly because it shows, and I said this earlier, that we can do well for ourselves and do good for the community. And when there are community leaders like Mr. Leifman, then that sends an optimistic message to the future of Miami-Dade County. And I'm glad that we're talking about this serious issue, and I'm glad that the word empathy is not a bad word. It's a good word in this community. But I want to thank you, Steve, because I remember when you started this fight. It was a long time ago. And your persistence and insistence on doing good for the community and never, ever, ever giving up, even when it didn't look like things would go your way, is something that I want to thank publicly because all of us on this day and others in Miami-Dade County and the citizens of Miami-Dade County and even visitors probably will benefit from your foresight. So thank you again for – and the standard that's been set, I think, will be followed by others across the country. And I know that we may not get to see it as clearly as we see it today in the future, but I'm sure they have. So thank you again for fighting. And, you know, I guess you are like Rocky, you know? But I just don't want to see another sequel, okay? We're voting today. This is it. Commissioner from District 2, you recognize? Oh, yep, you are. So we've heard so many praises for Judge Leifman. Now I'm talking to all the young leaders who are watching this morning, this afternoon rather. How did he do it? How did he do it? I've known him since I was in graduate school at FIU, 1987. That's when I graduated. And then I followed his parcours, French or pie, over the years. And in terms of this item, imagine you've had most of the important stakeholders in this community calling you. I know, colleagues, you've experienced it, right? You have business people calling you. You have mental health professionals calling you. You have other elected officials from other cities calling you. How does he do it? He's never angry. He's come here. He's been under the fire. And he's remained collected, calm, sometimes so passionate that he can't wait to answer. And sometimes he says too much, like the last time I said, come on, Judge, calm down. And my chief of staff, Winnie Darje, told me, Commissioner, it's because he's so excited. He's so believed in what he's doing. The question is, how does he do it? He's killed all of us softly with his love and compassion for others. That's what he's done. He's killed us with his love and compassion. Judge Leifman, thank you. And I'd like my colleagues and everybody to stand up. There is a Creole proverb. You don't wait for the person to die to give him his flowers. Give him his flowers today. Let us stand up to give Judge Steve Leifman his flowers. Thank you, Commissioner, for those words. And as I get ready to call the vote, I just want to say, and echoing a little bit of what Commissioner Bastien just said, but I'm going to go in a little different direction, is we've praised a lot of the folks in this room for their hard work. And sure enough, we've all worked tirelessly. I know I have my staff, the administration, a lot of staff, many other commissioners here, as well as Judge Leifman, the justice system, the chief judge, and her team, Jackson's team. I mean, we've all worked tirelessly, but the vote that I'm about to call isn't really for us. It's for all the residents of Miami-Dade County that have loved ones, family members, friends that have or have suffered with mental illness, with substance abuse, and the justice system has not served them because we have not had the right mechanisms and tools to do so. So to all of those who have felt that this issue touches them personally and is near and dear to their heart, and it's personal, as some of my colleagues shared today, and of course Commissioner Cohen-Higgins sharing that very personal story, this vote that I anticipate will be favorable is for all of you guys. With that, it has been moved. Its item and his item and its substitute item has been moved and seconded. And with that... Point of order? Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. I'm about to call the vote for... I know, I know, but very quickly, there's just one name that hasn't been mentioned that I think is deserving of mention. She was here at the beginning. She's a former commissioner, a dear friend of us all. I think Commissioner Sally Heyman deserves a thank you as well. Yes, I was going to... I was literally going to say that after the vote. Thank you, Commissioner Heyman. Many, many champions and leaders, but this is all done for those that are personally affected. So with that, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Show the item officially passed. Congratulations. Thank you all. And for those that were here on this very sensitive and important topic, an item, please exit quietly. Guys, please exit quietly. We have a lot. Mr. Chair? Commissioner? Can I just say something to Commissioner Steinberg because Rocky's trainer was Mickey. That's the whole point, yeah. Yeah, but I wanted her to get the recognition because she's, you know, wanted. She needs to get that. She definitely grounds me. She definitely grounds me. I'm ready to run through a door like Rocky right now for our trainer. Mickey keeps us, you know. So, all right, guys, again, please exit quietly, and congratulations to everyone that was here in favor of this item. In fact, I don't think I had anybody here opposing it, so congratulations again. Judge, I think people will follow your lead as soon as you exit. Judge Leifman? I think people are going to follow your lead as soon as you exit. All right. I have, if the attorneys can, before we get into first readings and the rest of the agenda, I have a motion that I'd like to make, and I just didn't want to make it at the end. I wanted you all to have the opportunity to not be rushed at the end when everybody wants to go home, and if there's questions, I suspect there might be, we can get into it. If the county attorney can read my motion, and then I'm happy to explain it if need be. Absolutely. Chairman Rodriguez moves to allocate legally available tourist development tax revenues, or, if necessary, other legally available funding in a total amount not to exceed $1.3 million from the fiscal year 2526 county budget to the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc., to be used to undertake a feasibility study to support the United States bid to host the 2035 World Expo in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and authorizes and directs the county mayor or mayor's designee to execute a grant agreement with the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau for such purposes. Second. I will second that, and I'd like to co-sponsor that. That is awesome, Chair. That is awesome. Yeah, so it's, yeah, I mean, like, I accept the co-sponsorship, but it's a motion. I don't know how that works, but, yes. Okay, you can co-sponsor a motion. All right. So, it's been moved. It's been seconded. Commissioner Hartman. Can you explain where this money is coming from? I hear you say tourist development tax dollars. Is there, what entity is actually that money coming from the budget from? Like, help explain that a little bit more. Because we have these, we have TDCs, TDTs, we have all kinds of TD supplements. So, I want to be clear of which pot it's coming from. Commissioner, I'm going to let the administration provide you greater detail, but my understanding is that they have money available in the tourist development tax reserve account, and those are bed taxes that the county collects. That's correct, Director. As a follow-up. So, that fund is different from the funds of money that comes from the TDC? That's correct, sir. It does not come from TDC. Commissioner Bermuda, is your recognized? I'm supportive of the item, but I've got a question. Because the Marlin Stadium, one of the greatest fiascos of this county's history that led to the recall, what was the largest recall in the nation at the time, and still one of the largest, you know, was in part from some of these dollars, was it not? A portion of the tourist development tax proceeds do go towards funding the professional sports facilities debt service. At some point, I hope you give us a report, because those of us who were not on the dais at the time, but opposed what was, I believe, a not-necessary expense, and it doesn't matter to me that the person that sat in this seat or in my district seat voted for it, puts this, limits a lot of the things that we can do in the future. So, I hope at some point you give us a report, especially now that times are going to be fiscally tough on where we are on repaying that ridiculous debt that ends up costing over a billion dollars for a baseball stadium. And I'm a big sports fan. But I think we need to know, because we are the ones that inherited this, and this limits some of the things that we can do because of the decisions that were made prior to us. And at the very least, we need to know where we are on some of these things. Yes, sir. Commissioner from District 2, you're recognized. Please, Mr. Chair, first of all, I'm going to support this. But can you give some details about the World Expo? What would it consist of and benefit to the county? And number two, how much money, maybe this is for the administration, how much money is there in the TDT? So, we're specifically talking about the surplus reserve. We budget the TDT at 95%, similar to the way we do the property tax roll. So, as of right now, based on the current year's projections, we believe we have about $2.7 million in excess that we'll have in the current year. And that's where we found the capacity to be able to do this. As we speak, there are $2 million in the TDT tax fund? Is that what I'm hearing? In the Taurus Development Tax Surplus Reserve. Over $2 million? Yes. Okay. And, Commissioner, let me kind of give you some, you and all others. So, we were selected by the U.S. government to host the World Expo on behalf of the U.S. And, by that means, we weren't selected by the host committee. We were selected by the administration, the federal government, to apply to see if we're granted this, if we're selected by the World Expo Committee. And, we haven't done this in, the U.S. has not participated in decades. There is not enough FIFA's, there is not enough championship games, Super Bowls, that we can count in our lifetime that will equal the economic impact that Schalt selected the World Expo will bring to South Florida. And, really, to Florida and the U.S. We're talking of an economic impact anywhere from $15 billion to $40 billion. This is a six-month event that will have an excess of 40 million visitors throughout those six months. The amount of job creation is astronomical. I have numbers from similar other World Expos that they have had where, you know, jobs during the planning and construction could be upwards of 50,000 to 100,000 jobs. Temporary event jobs could be between 20,000 to 50,000, and then thousands of permanent jobs through legacy redevelopment and business attractions. When the World Expo comes, if selected, and they are looking at South Miami-Dade as a site because they need several hundred acres of contiguous acres. And, if selected, they come and they essentially build an entire city. They put infrastructure. If they need to build hospitals, they will. If they need to build or expand an airport, they will. Metro Rail Systems. I mean, the infrastructure that they come and build at their expense and leave behind when the Expo is finished is just there's not enough that we can say. Many, many iconic monuments and things that you've enjoyed in the past and have seen throughout Europe and the country and different countries have come as a result of the World Expo, one of them being the Eiffel Tower in Paris. The Eiffel Tower was built as a result of the World Expo many, many years ago. So it is that level of impact. I'm going to be honest, when I was reached out, actually, by Secretary Rubio directly, who called me on this, I had no idea what the World Expo was about. I had not heard about it. I did not know the impacts of it. And so I have a commitment in front of me from Secretary Rubio's office and his Deputy Secretary as well, Deputy Secretary Landau saying that Miami-Dade County will be the only one submitting for this application on behalf of the U.S., which gives us the greatest chances of winning this, and we're not competing amongst ourselves with any other state or any other part of Florida, which that was my number one thing. If we were going to put some seed money into this for the evaluation of it, but for the feasibility study that's required, I did not want to be competing, certainly with no one else in the state of Florida, like Orlando or Tampa, but it's even better that we're not competing with any other state within the U.S. So the U.S. government and the Secretary's office has agreed to submit the application in conjunction with us. They've hired the best team that has won this for other countries, such as they just won it for Saudi Arabia recently, and that is the same team that will be completing our application here locally. So I think we have the best chances of actually winning the 2035 World Expo for Miami-Dade County. Commissioner Hardiman, you're recognized. Do we know who is actually going to be the ones conducting the study? Like, who are we spending this money with? It is, yes, we do. The name, I don't know if we have it, if the administration has it, but yes, it is the same company that they've used to do the feasibility study for the last few World Expos in the places that they've won. And it was recommended by the group that's managing this at the federal level. It's not like a local company. Is it a part of the motion? The motion doesn't identify that, so how do we guarantee? That might be a good point to identify it. I don't know if we need to because it will be contracted through the GMCVB. Maybe that's why it's not in the motion. But I think if we can include it and we have that information. Yeah, you're correct, Mr. Chair. It wasn't included because the county is giving the money to the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau, and they would be entering into the contract. But if the administration has the name of the company, we can always add that in if that is the board's preference. Yeah, I'm okay with that. I think that's safe. I trust that the GMCVB is going to contract with an adequate consulting company or feasibility company, but it would be fine with me. Yes, sir. If you'll give me a minute, I need to look up the name again. Sure. All right. Mr. Chair, just for a clarification purpose, so you said that it will last six months. Is this the infrastructure or there will be the six-month activities? No, so the infrastructure will take years. It will take seven years to build. The six months is the actual expo itself. So rather than it be a weekend, a week, or a month, it's a six-month expo that lasts six months. And they build, I mean, tremendous infrastructure. And then every country participates, or most every country participates. For the first time, one of the wishes of the federal government, and I think they have the buy-in, is that in the U.S., not only will we be participating as the hosting county, but they want every state within the U.S. to also have presence here for the six-month of the expo. So it will be the largest in the history of the world expo if we're selected. Yeah. You got it? Sir, I have Holder Partners as the name of the firm. Sounds about right. I mean, I trust that that's it. That's it. All right. So just amend it to show that the GMCVB will engage with Holder Partners on this feasibility study. All right. It's been moved. It's been seconded. And so no further questions. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. So the motion passed with all the co-sponsors. All right. Vice Chair, I understand you may have a similar. Yes, Mr. Similar, but you have a motion as well that you want to do at this time? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask the county attorney to read this motion. Commissioner McGee is moving on behalf of Senator Garcia. Senator Garcia moves to allocate legally available tourist development tax surplus reserve revenues in an amount not to exceed $500,000 from the fiscal year 2025-2026 county budget to DBE, Miss USA, LLC, DBA, Miss USA organization, to be used for eligible costs associated with hosting the 2026 Miss USA competition in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and further moves to authorize and direct the county mayor or county mayor's designee to negotiate and execute a grant agreement with a grantee for such purpose. And, colleagues, this is an item, you know, moving on behalf of Senator Rene Garcia. She's my queen to be. All right. So, it's been moved by the Vice Chair. I just have a question. Second or questions? Question. I have a question. Okay. Second. Second by Commissioner Gilbert. And then Commissioner Regalardo, you're recognized. Yeah. I mean, just from Ray, like, how much money are we talking? Because we're drawing on this fund. And I would like to know. I'm all in for the expo. I think that that, I mean, it's a feasibility study. So, and nothing against the pageant. But I just want to know kind of how much money are we talking about and where would that get swept if we don't have these motions? Where does it go? To just stay in the account and then? Right. For this motion, we were looking at the same pot of money that we discussed for the Expo 2035, the TDT surplus reserve, based on our projections for the current year. And that we budgeted at 95%. So, we do have some capacity there to accommodate the Expo 2035 and the Miss USA. What's the number, Ray? About 2.7. Okay. So, that's what you have. Yes. And then how much is this costing? So far, between these two motions, that's 1.8. All right. Commissioner Gilbert. Yeah. I'll support the item. Ray, I was curious. I know we only budgeted 95%. Are the numbers, are the projected numbers higher than we thought they were going to be this year? For this year, we are seeing better results on the TDT. Likely, because of World Cup coming in. I just want you to say that. That's it. Yes. Yep. I just want you to say that. I just want everybody to hear that. Just that one, that was it right there. All right. Sometimes we don't connect the dots. But when we make decisions about things like the World Cup, the argument is always, hey, you know what? It drives in money. Well, it does drive in money because it drives in occupancy as people come. Like, that's what happens. That's the economy of large-scale events coming to your community. And so we don't have the conversation on the back end where we connect the dots so that people see that we actually use that money to do things. Help organizations, in some instances, we use it to draw other big things here. And so I think that probably we should consider a longer-term conversation about how we actually have a set pool of money that we use to actually see these type of big events, because we know we need those big events to come. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner. With that, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show that motion passed. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since we are on these floor motions, I have a floor motion, and Commissioner Gilbert just raised FIFA. I have a motion, if the attorneys will read it, as it pertains to FIFA. And it's my understanding that the contract that the host committee signed with the county already has language in it that says, to the extent that there is any overage, i.e. money that you all have not found necessary to spend, we need you all to give it back to the county. But at the time that that contract was signed, that was in advance of our FIFA host committee, who, by the way, is doing an amazing job. If you all have not been to FIFA FanFest at Bayfront Park, it really is an extraordinary experience. For families and soccer fans everywhere. But that agreement was signed in advance of a $70 million grant from the federal government that, it's my understanding, allows them to have quite a bit of overage that we need here as we prepare for our budget. So, if the attorneys can read my motion. Excuse me. One second. May I interrupt for one second? We still have an agenda, right? Because we've got a lot of motions that are just popping up. We haven't even got an agenda. People are waiting. I haven't even started first reading. How does he say it? Taylor Swift, you got the best album of all time. How does it go? I don't know. Kanye West interrupted. But. All right. I apologize for interrupting. All right, Taylor Swift. You can continue. I just don't want us to continue on down this line. You can continue, Taylor. Yeah. Or Beyonce. All right. Can the attorneys read the motion, please? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins moves to direct the county mayor or county mayor's designee to recapture all eligible county funds from Greater Miami Sports Commission, Inc. Sports Commission, in accordance with the county's agreement with the sports commission dated September 23, 2025, providing funding support in the amount of $21 million to fund direct expenses associated with the 2026 FIFA World Cup and to review all relevant documentation pertaining to the recapture for accuracy and completeness. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins further moves to direct the county mayor or county mayor's designee to provide a report to this board within 30 days after said agreement's expiration and termination regarding such directives and to place to complete a report on the agenda of the full board without committee review pursuant to Rule 5.06J of the board's rules of procedure. Mr. Chair. Yeah. I'll second it. Thank you. And just to staff, to clarify something, my understanding is that when we entered into this agreement, the sheriff's department was still under the county. And when we did our budget, there was money that we had to give to police for FIFA. I remember we went around and around on that. The money that FIFA received from the federal government was for policing. So I don't think there's necessarily, like, a clawback, because whatever money we get back from the sheriff goes back into the pot, just like any other constitutional officer, if we get back and then we start the budget again. So, Ray, if you could just explain, because I know it's gotten a little complicated by the constitutional officers and that accounting. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, for the host committee piece, the county gave the host committee approximately $21 million. I don't know at this time yet how much might be coming back from that. I expect that they'll probably expend their full amount. On the county side, we budgeted $25 million in in-kind for policing and other activities, including emergency management, transportation, and whatnot. The $73.6 million that was awarded by the federal government, only a portion of that is going to the host committee for Miami-Dade County government. I believe it's approximately $30 million. And that's for the sheriff's grant for policing. So, if that funding covers the entirety of what we were budgeting on the county side, we theoretically should have up to $25 million in additional funding that we don't have to spend on the sheriff. Meaning we would have it to hopefully plug the hole in the general fund going into the 26-27 budget. Right. I just wanted to clarify that because it's a little complicated because it's in-kind to the sheriff, but then we have the obligation to the sheriff. And then, obviously, we have, you know, conversations during the budget process with the sheriff on how much they're going to give us back that they haven't spent and how much we owe them as a result of in-kind. So, I just think we have to be a little careful with, like, the clawback language because I don't really think that that's what's happening in this situation. So, Ray, do you have any changes to the motion or do you have any concerns about, I mean, because I think they're different. Could you read the motion again? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Sorry. Wait. I don't think Ray has the ability to change a motion. No, I'm asking for his concerns on the motion in terms of the buckets. Okay, okay. Ray, do you have any concerns about the motion? Through the air, we would like to hear it again. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Madam Attorney, please reread the motion. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins moves to direct the county mayor or county mayor's designee to recapture all eligible county funds from the Greater Miami Sports Commission, Inc., in accordance with the county's agreement with the Sports Commission dated September 23, 2025, providing funding support in the amount of $21 million to fund certain expenses associated with the 2026 FIFA World Cup and to review all relevant documentation pertaining to the recapture for accuracy and completeness. The commissioner further moves to direct the county mayor or mayor's designee to provide a report to this board within 30 days after said agreement expiration or termination regarding such directives and to place the completed report on an agenda of the full board without committee review pursuant to rule 5.06J of the board's rules of procedure. All right. Now that you've re-heard it. My only thoughts would be expand it not just to the host committee, but to all funds that were allocated to FIFA, whether it be by the county or given directly to the host committee. And other than that, I'm fine. Commissioner Codigans. Absolutely. I mean, I'm speaking with the attorneys. I would appreciate the motion that I wanted to be read because it addresses the issue that my colleagues are bringing up now. It's my understanding that there's $25 million in potential recapture of funds. The way that that motion was just read speaks to only the $21 million in cash contribution, not the aggregate $60 million of in-kind contribution, which is where we are recovering and have the opportunity to recover. So to the extent that we can get a motion that is clear on those issues so that we have the opportunity to recapture the $25 million that we need, that's the motion that I would like for my colleagues to entertain. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Commissioner Gilbert. You want to read it? Well, actually, hold a thought. Yes, read the motion that we have. Yeah, we have a second motion that would address Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' concern. Well, then read that one. Okay. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins moves to direct the county mayor as part of her proposed county budget for fiscal year 2627 to separately and clearly identify the amount of funds that are anticipated to remain unused and thereby available for carryover in fiscal year 2627 budget. Out of the $25,155,000 in funds from the fiscal year 2526 county budget in-kind services reserve, previously anticipated to be used to support public safety expenses associated with the FIFA World Cup matches to be held in Miami-Dade County, and to reallocate said carryover funds to the general funds and specify specifically where those monies are going for carryover. All right. Is that it? All right. So there's a motion. Is that the new motion? Yeah. All right. So that's the new motion. Seconded by Commissioner Orbis? Yeah, because it includes in-kind. Right. Right. Yeah. All right. Perfect. All right. So I got Gilbert and then, or unless Gilbert is still serenade, like marinating on it. I'm very comfortable with the motion. What they're trying to determine is because I'm the board's designee on the host committee. They're trying to determine whether I have to recuse myself. Right. Oh, okay, okay. But I don't have this, yeah, I don't, I'm not, that's the question. All right. All right. Commissioner Bermude, is he recognized? Yeah, I support the motion. It depends on, certainly. But can we, moving forward, as Commissioner Hardiman made reference with these last minute motions, if we know they're coming up and we know the attorneys are going to get them, can we get a copy of it before? It's nothing personal. It's just, I think it's the best way to do business on this dais. So, and I'm supportive of the motion, but I'd like to, you know, collegiality requires that we be collegial, so it would be great if we could get these things beforehand, Mr. Chair. That's the only thing I would say. Understood. Thank you, Commissioner. All right. So, with that, we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All oppose, nay. Show the motion passed. All right. No. Where was I? Where's my, oh, here it is. All right. Now we'll get into first reading items, right? Is that in order? Mr. Chair, we're going to call, oh, Oliver's coming back. Just come back, Oliver. Yes. Oliver's coming back. We're ready. Mr. Chair, would you read them all? Please read all the first reading items, yes. Or is an ordinance relating to operation of micromobility devices, electric bicycles, and motorized scooters in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county, recreating section 2-98.3 of the code, providing regulations for operation of micromobility devices, electric bicycles, and motorized scooters on rights of the way, providing for legislative intent, applicability, and definitions, providing mechanism for municipal enforcement of regulations, providing for enforcement by civil penalty, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. For B's and ordinance, authorizing issuance of not to exceed $350 million, Miami-Dade County, Florida transit system sales surtax revenue bonds, pursuant to section 208 of ordinance number 0548 as amended, for paying costs of certain transportation and transit projects, providing that details, terms, and other matters relating to such bonds, including without limitation the ability to issue such bonds, as drawdown bonds under a drawdown bond program be determined in subsequent resolutions, authorizing undertaking of transit and transportation projects and people's transportation plan, authorizing and directing county officers and agents to take all actions necessary to effectuate the purposes of this ordinance, and ordinance number 0548 as amended, and providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. Foresees an ordinance creating section 8-9 of the code, requiring the mayor-designee to develop and implement a same-day permitting program for certain permit applications for certain residential projects, and to provide reports every six months, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 4-D's an ordinance authorizing issuance of Miami-Dade County capital asset acquisition, special application bonds, from time to time in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount, not to exceed $380 million, for purpose of acquiring, constructing, and improving, renovating, and or equipping certain capital assets in our projects. Providing that details of said bonds be determined in one or more series, resolutions providing for severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. 14-A-2 is an ordinance approving, adopting, and ratifying non-advalorum assessment rolls, rates, and assessments for the solid waste collection service area of Miami-Dade County, commencing October 1, 2026. Providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. And 14-A-3 is an ordinance relating to the rapid transit system development zone, amending section 33C-2 of the code, amending the metro mover subzone of the rapid transit zone to add certain private property, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. Those are your first reading items. I do have requests to bifurcate item 14-A-2. 14. All right. So we have a bifurcation on which one is it? It was 14-A-2, Commissioner Milian Orbis and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Okay. Well, this is first reading. So, all right. So will someone move the, any other bifurcations? Will someone move the remainder of the agenda? It's been moved. Was it Commissioner Regalado? Seconded by Commissioner Bastien. And clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Bastien. Yes. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Hardiman. For clarification, this is ordinance of first reading, correct? First reading. Four. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Is there a motion on 14-A-2? I'll entertain a motion on 14-A-2. So moved. Commissioner Regalado moves it. Seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Clerk, please call the roll. Or is that a voice vote? Roll call? Roll call. Please call the roll. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Yes. Commissioner Bastien. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Madam Attorney, is it in order to take up public hearing items at this time? Yes. Can you go ahead and read them? Five A's a resolution declaring certain county-owned property a surplus and revising the inventory list of real properties to include such property. Authorizing conveyance of such property for the purpose of developing such property with affordable housing to be rented to very low, low, or moderate income households. Five D is a resolution approving the plan. Five D is a resolution approving the waiver of plat of HH 7640 LLC. Five E's a resolution approving the plat of Heritage South filed by Miami Dade County. Five F is a resolution approving the plat of Silver Park and five G's a resolution approving the plat of Airport West. Those are your public hearing items. All right, do I have any bifurcations? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Mr. Chair, through the chair, excuse me, just to confirm no speaker cards. These are public hearings? Yes, sorry, I have none. I have no speaker cards, so public hearing is open and public hearing is closed. I have a motion to move all of the public hearing items by Commissioner Regalado. I have a second by Commissioner Bastien. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show the public hearing items passed. Madam Attorney, can we get into second readings? Yes, Mr. Chair, you have just one ordinance for second reading and a couple of commissioners who wish to discuss. It is 7A, ordinance relating to the infill housing initiative program amending section 17-124 of the code. To limit the number of extensions and time that may be granted to developers under the Miami-Dade County infill housing initiative program, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. Mr. Chair, you have a corresponding item 11A4 that's on the pull list. Would you like to take that up with this item? We'll all take them up together. Okay, then it's items 7A and 11A4. Commissioners Bermudez and Bastien had requested to discuss 7A. All right, Commissioner from District 2, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been committed to using every tool. At our disposal to end the affordable housing crisis in Miami-Dade County and infill housing represents an important tool for the county, giving developers the opportunity to bring units online that are more affordable for rent and for sale. I have said previously that despite this tool being a powerful one and a useful and powerful one, there are changes of the program that are needed. However, I want to be sure that making such changes will not negatively impact developers who wish to build infill housing in our districts. I have a friendly amendment that I'd like to ask Mr. Attorney to read. Commissioner Bastien had moved a motion at your last meeting related to 7A, which I believe the Chair accepted. So the only amendment I believe that you have, Commissioner Bastien, is to 11A4, which is Commissioner Bastien moves to amend item 11A4 to clarify that the delays that are caused beyond the developer's control and delays caused by extraordinary circumstances include those caused by the county or other governmental entities and lawsuits that may affect the timely completion of the development of affordable housing to be constructed on county-owned property. I believe a copy of the motion has been shared with the Commission and in the copy that has been shared, the strikeouts and underlines are indicated in the document. All right, yeah. So I accepted that same amendment for 7A. I'll accept it for, what is it, 11A4. So yes, that is a friendly amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course. To both, yes. Commissioner from District 12, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, thank you. Yeah, I have a friendly amendment that, obviously for both, and I'll certainly let the Attorney read it if he so chooses. But essentially, I think it's important for us to send the message that if you don't comply one time, we need to know why, and you need to explain to us why you didn't comply. Because I just think it's good public policy for us, in particular in this area, to start sending the message, let's get things done and done timely. So I don't know if the Attorney wants to read the language or he wants me to read it. Go ahead. I can read it. All right. Go ahead. The amendments are both to 7A and 11A4. They're essentially the same motion, which is Commissioner Bermudez moves to amend items 7A and also 11A4 to prohibit the conveyance of additional county-owned properties under the Infill Housing Initiative Program. Under 11A4, it's related to the properties that are conveyed pursuant to sections 125.35 and 125.379 and 125.38 of the Florida statutes. Moving forward to any developer or organization that has previously been conveyed county property through the program and failed to develop such properties within the time frames established by the program or within any extended time frames granted by the board. Commissioner Bermudez further moves that this prohibition shall not apply if the developer organization demonstrates that it possesses the necessary expertise and financial capacity to successfully develop the property in accordance with the program's requirements. I believe these two motions have also been distributed to each of the commissioners and the underlines and strikeouts are indicated on both of the motions. Commissioner Bermudez, I'm comfortable with them. I think you're right. Accountability is important. Commissioner Cohen Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support 7A. I think I'm a co-sponsor on it. And I think that these measures are important to the administration. I've been working with you all on implementing Order 8-4 and updating it. And I'd love an update on that. And I bring it up because in District 8, for example, I've been in office I think five and a half years. I think I'm just now for the first time conveying property for infill housing program. And the reason I haven't done it in the past is because when an applicant would come and ask for an opportunity to develop and we convey the parcels for $10 or some nominal amount, I say to them, I need you to show me that you are able to actually develop this property. Because it's my understanding that previously someone would come, they'd get an acquisition of land from the commission, and then the administration would have the financial time and burden of vetting whether or not these applicants have the financial ability of actually developing the property. So within District 8, we flip it on the opposite side. We require the developer to show us on the front end that they are actually financially able to develop the properties before we agree to any acquisitions. And we've been working with the administration to update implementing Order 8-4 to reflect that. And so can we get an update on that? Because I think it addresses a lot of the concerns that are coming in Item 7A and the amendments. Through the Chair. Our staff has actually been working intensively on this item. It turns out that it's more complicated than met the eye. And so we'd love to brief you on it shortly to get your input so we can proceed with your direction. Okay? And just so you're aware, Namada Opal and Brenda Newman are the leads on that. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner from District 4, you're recognized. Yes, since we're taking both 7A and 11A-4, I know I would like to be listed also as a co-sponsor to 11A-4. I think this is a, listen, I think philosophically if you want to see things happen, especially to resolve the affordability crisis, you can't, you have to give parameters and safeguards and you have to have a finite amount of time to do it. And if you can't deliver what we're looking for, then of course we have to look at other remedies because this is, you know, this is a great, I think this is a great piece of legislation. So thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. With that, clerk, please call the roll on both 11A-4 and 7A. I need a mover and a seconder. It's been moved and seconded by Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Hardiman. Four. Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Four. As amended. Commissioner Bermudez. Vice Chairman McGee. Vice Chair. Yeah. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Sounds good. Now let's see what we got left. Are we on the pull list now? All right. So on the pull list, I'm going to see, there might be some that I had pulled. So let's see what I could dispose of. Let me see what I could dispose of here. All right. So 1485, I'll release it, so I'll move. Someone could just move 1485. Move it. Second. Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Orbis. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. All right. On 801, I just pulled it to do an amendment. If the attorneys can read my amendment. Chairman Rodriguez moves to amend item 8L1 to create a section 2 of the resolution that would direct the county mayor's administration to conduct a fiscal analysis of whether the county could provide any additional increased discounts relating to private provider fees and other fees included in the item as authorized by Florida law and prepare a report detailing the foregoing for board consideration within 60 days of the effective date of this resolution. The report shall, at a minimum, indicate the fiscal impact of providing a 50% discount for all private provider fees regardless of whether a private provider performs plans review or inspections and regardless of whether the project is residential or commercial as well as any other additional discounts for other fees included in the item may be provided. The completed report shall be placed on an agenda of the full board without committee review pursuant to rule 5.06 of the board's rules of procedure. All right. All right. So. Second. Second as amended. Item is moved as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Regalado. Moved by Commissioner Orbis. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Questions on it or? You can still make your statement if it's just a statement yes. It is. I want to applaud this amendment. If we don't do this, I'll guarantee the state will do it. Correct. And so we got to show that once again, we're proactive as opposed to being reactive to what the state sees is going on here. And we're aligning this with a current state statute now. And the next thing that's going to happen is if we don't demonstrate that we're looking to lower the costs while still providing good service, it will come back to bite us. So thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lopez. That is correct. The spirit of my amendment. 8P1, I don't know if it will get discussion, but I pulled it for an amendment as well. So I'll take, actually 8P1 I think is Commissioner Cohen Higgins' item. So I only, oh, it's co-sponsorship? Okay. So I only pulled it for an amendment. I'm hoping it's a friendly amendment. I will say that I spent a significant amount of time going back and forth on this with the administration and with the parties involved. So I would have the attorneys, I guess, read my amendment and then you too can get into it as the sponsors. Make sure that it is friendly to you all and what's your will. So you want to read the amendment? Chairman Rodriguez moves to amend item 8P1 to reduce Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department's additional allocation request by $5,254,236,000 and to make conforming changes to the title and body of the resolution. And guys, very simply stated, and it's a very short amendment. The reason for this amendment is after a lot of back and forth, they were able to reduce the cost by that amount. And feel free to ask all the questions that you all have, but that reduction comes at no risk to what we were acquiring, no risk to the service or actual amount of devices or the technology within the devices. So, again, I hope it's a friendly amendment, but you have the floor, whichever one of you, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. If you all recall this item at committee, I had a number of questions regarding whether or not we could do better on price. And I met with the leadership of Motorola in my office and we spoke at length and they gave me some comparisons of other municipalities or counties that they had sold similar radios to and assured me that the price that we were getting was the best price. And so, I have questions on the $5 million reduction. If someone from Motorola can approach, I'd like to understand where the $5 million reduction is coming from without affecting either the service or the device because I would need to understand that, please. If someone from Motorola is in the building, you're welcome to approach the well. Is no one from Motorola here? I find that difficult to believe. Someone here? Okay. I see one that represents them. Yeah, they were here. You may approach the wall at this time to answer the commissioner's questions. Yeah. A little pep in the step will probably go a long way with a little bit of enthusiasm and urgency. I hope the walkie-talkies don't work at this speed because then corrections is in trouble at that point. What's that Jeopardy in music? Anybody? Gilbert? Good afternoon. Go ahead. You're recognized. Daniel Sanchez. I need the address. 8000 West Sunrise Boulevard, Plantation, Florida, Motorola. Thank you. And the question was about with the proposed amendment reduction, what arrangements can we make to guarantee that there is no impact? No, no, no. I'm asking you where is the $5 million coming from because it's being represented that it's not going to cut the number of devices or the service that's being offered to our corrections department. And I'm just trying to understand. First of all, I applaud it because any time that we're able to save money, of course, we're going to be supportive of that. So I want to make that very clear. But I also want to understand where is the $5 million in savings coming from from Motorola's end? Because if you recall, you said in my office and we spoke at length about you all not being able to reduce the number further on the price that we were getting the best price that Motorola could offer. So what I'm trying to understand is where is the $5 million reduction coming from that you all are now offering via this amendment? I'm grateful for. Where is it coming from? Yeah. I think the amendment is being proposed in a way that we are being expected then to collaborate with SPD and the department to figure out how to get that done. But as of right now, we will be able to be flexible and work with you guys offline. But right now, I don't have the details to be able to tell you a good answer. Everything that you said about what we told you earlier was true, right? And that still stands. But this proposed amendment, I don't have the details. We are not privy to that information. And we have not participated in the process for that proposed amendment. Okay. But the number was very specific. It wasn't like $5 million flat. It was $5,254,000. I mean, where did this number come from? It certainly came from somewhere. So, Commissioner, I'd encourage you to continue down that line of questioning. And I'll give you, if you want to write down this number, because this goes to what your question is. So, the original price per radio that they provided was $8,595 with 79 cents. The new price per radio that equals the $5.2 million is $6,574 with 93 cents per radio. Someone at Motorola must have given that number. I can't imagine that our county administration would make that number up. So, that's where the $5.2 million, you know, come from. Okay. So, thank you. Feel free to continue down that line of question. Thank you for that clarification. I was not privy to that detailed information that you just described. I thought it was something in addition to how the numbers that you just described. So, we got to those numbers by way of negotiation with the SPD department. Right? Namita's organization negotiated with us back in April. And based on the outcome of that is the numbers that you just described, which is the same numbers that we conveyed to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins and the rest of the commissioners that we briefed with. Okay. So, that was done by way of looking at the scope. The department wanted certain capabilities, certain scopes, certain accessories, certain quantities. And they also asked us to challenge ourselves on the pricing, which is how we came to that already. So, that was already there. I thought that we were talking about a new proposed amendment to further decrease the dollar amount. No, that's fair. To the administration, is this the same radio? Because, I mean, I've received a lot of letters that this is the radio that they need, this is the radio we want. And so, this radio that we, I guess, presumably at one point we're going to pay $8,500 per radio for, we are now agreeing to pay $6,500 per radio for? So, Commissioner, we've been with Motorola for a few months and there have been three radios we've been talking about. So, the radio that we have selected now, the N70 is the latest one, which is $6,574. Yes. Had we not asked, had we not asked the questions, and the co-sponsor asked these questions, I asked the question, clearly the chairman has asked the question because he now has an amendment. We would have agreed to pay $8,500 per radio for almost 30,000 radios, because that was the original price that was presented to us as an item for us to sign off on. And so, help me understand that, right? So, Commissioner, originally there were two different kinds of radios that we were going to buy, and I think that's what I stated in the committee meeting. When you sent us back, we looked at a third radio, which met all of our requirements, and the price of that radio was $8,000, and then back and forth with negotiations with Motorola, and the discount that they had in our contract, plus the volume that we are buying. So, we agreed upon a $6,574. Okay. This is just for corrections, correct? That is correct. So, Motorola has already provided radios to our law enforcement officers and to our firefighters, correct? Yes, and there's economies of scale in terms of providing the basic services, training, and all, since we already do that for fire departments, so we're leveraging that also. Okay. The radios that our law enforcement officers and our firefighters received, we paid $8,500 for those radios? I have to go back, Commissioner. Those might be a different model for fire. I don't have the exact model number. Yeah. Yeah. But what was it that we paid for them? I have to defer to fire. So, here's the point. It's not to, yeah, it's to make the point of when we have such a strained general fund, which all of this comes out of, and we as a body continuously repeat the need for us to find savings anywhere and anywhere that we can. For us to be presented with an item that originally asks us to pay $8,500 per radio, and you all are able to reduce it rather substantially, although I think $6,500 per radio seems very high, but that's not my expertise and not my profession. And I'm trying to understand, if we agree to $6,500 per radio for corrections, why did we pay a higher amount, right, if it's the same radio for thousands of radios for our law enforcement officers and our firefighters? That's what I'm trying to understand. And I can help a little bit with that. Go ahead, Danny. So, the law enforcement and fire radios did have even further additional capabilities that corrections radios through the process of scoping and negotiations did not need. So, the police and fire radios actually have multiple bands in them for interoperability between police and fire and other stakeholders that are necessary to communicate with. So, those are even higher tier radios. So, those radios are more expensive, the ones that police and fire ended up with. Okay. And corrections, I understand, because at the committee hearing, you all approached and said, we need these radios. I asked, you know, why are you last in line to get these when this item having this $165 million allocation was back in 2022? You all gave an explanation for that. Now, it's my understanding you're getting, I guess, somewhat slightly different radios, but is the different radio that's being proposed for you and your officers, is that something that's agreeable to you under this proposed amendment for a reduction in cost of $5.2 million? Yes. Director. Good morning, through the Chair. Yes, it is. Thank you. Nothing further, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gonzalez, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, not only for going through the line of questioning, but for bringing the item originally. And I was actually going to call Director Green because I don't think enough is said about the wonderful work that has been done and is being done by our corrections department. These folks don't get enough credit because they are part of public safety. And so I don't want them to get a lesser radio. That's what I'm going to get at. But I do want to be able to save money if it is in the best interest of all parties. These folks, life is on the line every single day to the extent that if, for example, one person comes in and a second shift does not come in, they have to stay no matter what. They do not have weapons. Their only line of defense is a radio in order to call for backup so that, for lack of a better word, they possibly don't get killed. But they're putting their lives on the line every single day to keep those inside and out safe. So I just want to be absolutely crystal clear. Is there a difference with the radio that was originally proposed and the radio now? And if that difference is that that radio cannot communicate with police outside, then I have a problem with it. So can you elaborate on the difference of the radios? And then director, I need you to tell me if this is going to be sufficient for the brave men and women that are putting their lives on the line every single day. Thank you for the question, Commissioner, and you are correct. This is a life safety request. So currently, and I'd like to explain it really quickly, that Corrections is really a city within a city. We have 5,000 inmates in our custody, and we have approximately 3,000 staff members, of which over 2,000 are officers. And our radios, that's our number one tool that we need. Communication is very important. We don't have seconds to waste. And so having that unified front, that interoperability with fire and police is extremely important. And there are features that the Motorola radio provides that are very important, such as roll calls, where we can communicate system-wide, where all of our officers, where they can receive the same message and there is no miscommunication. If an officer is down within 10 seconds, there is an alert that will go out so we can send help. We are responding to disturbances. And this provides us, these radios will provide us an opportunity to not only make sure that our officers are safe, but as well as our MA populations. So thank you for the consideration. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Director. And look, we just came out of a consent degree. This is why I want to make sure that we're all being clear. My question was, and I don't know if it's best suited for the gentleman from Motorola, can these radios do everything that we discussed, including but not limited to, being able to communicate with police officers outside? The reason that that's important is because of custody, and I'm sure that the director can elaborate or the chief can elaborate. But when you're bringing an inmate into a facility, you have to be able to communicate from outside the facility to make sure that the facility is safe. I'm sure everybody has seen the movie Con Air. This is why this is important. So, sir, yeah, I'm a movie guy. Clearly. So, sir. Commissioner, thank you for the question. The answer is yes. They are fully interoperable with Miami-Dade law enforcement agencies, not only the Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office, but also with other county municipalities that are using the same radio platform. And as for the functions, like for example, there's a function that we discussed where these radios have screens, and they can, for lack of a better word, be able to communicate via, I guess, messaging, which is important because if they're in front of 32 inmates and they say something on the radio, and now the inmates know, that could be a problem, whereas if they're able to communicate via text message, not everybody else hears it, and now we can make sure that the situation becomes safe. So, all of the bells and whistles that are necessary to keep folks alive, are all of these included in these radios? Yes, sir. Okay. So, with that, I am comfortable. My last question, okay? And, sir, I need you to be candid with me, okay? Because originally we had a conversation about, and Commissioner Cohen Higgins also had a conversation about the price point, the price point, and trying to figure out how we can lower the price point. What I don't want, sir, with all due respect, is for you folks to come back six, seven, eight months from now and say, hey, you know what? We can't do it for that price. So, I heard some hesitancy in your voice. Are you 100,000% sure that you can do it, that these radios have all the capabilities and can be brought at this price point? Are you 1,000% sure today on the record? Yes, sir, we are. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And with that, I'll second. All right. So, well, I think, so you co-sponsor, because I need you all to accept the amendment, but one thing that I think it's fair, and I know that Commissioner Cohen Higgins is asking me to take the microphone again, and you'll be recognized in just a second, but I think what's fair, and I don't want to get ahead of you if that's the path you're going in, I'm not sure, but I think it's fair that while we're here, and we've asked several questions of Motorola, and my amendment is about ultimately getting a better rate for the taxpayers, because, like Commissioner Cohen Higgins pointed out, corrections is a tax-paid department. It's not a proprietary fund or department. So on that note, I think I've received a ton of briefings, and I trust that most of my colleagues have, and not to delay the meeting, but we are on the pull list already. We're getting close. But I think it's fair for those listening, like how we got here, right? So I wouldn't go too far, especially that I know it takes you a little bit to get to the well, so I wouldn't go too far. But I think, you're good, but I think it's important that the, I don't know what to call it, the competitive company or the company that was rated, well, not rated, this wasn't an RFP, right? This was never an RFP. This, so, but the company that has it today, which is L3 Harris, who I see sitting here, and again, I don't want to jump if that's, I don't know if you're going in that direction at all, Commissioner, but I think that we should hear from them as well, and I think that we should hear from the administration or the appropriate person to tell, like, again, I've been told privately in my office. I understand the reasoning, but what is, why are we here? Why are we essentially paying some more money, even with the negotiated discount? Why are we paying more money for Motorola than we would have had we stayed with L3 Harris? With that, like, I'll let everybody kind of marinate on that, where my head is, but with that, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the administration, back in 2022, when this contract was awarded, it was a delegate, not a delegated authority. What was it? What was resolution 682-22? It was a direct purchase, a competitive bid waiver, if you can just remind me. Yes, Commissioner. It was like a bid waiver at that time in 2022 that was adopted by the Board. By the Board, yeah, and it was a bid waiver in the amount of $165 million, an original five-year term with a five-year OTR, right? That is correct. $165 million, $83, call it $84 million, was drawn down. We're going to draw down an additional dollar amount now. Assuming this item passes today, what's the balance that will be left under resolution 682-22 of the original $165 million allocation over a period of five years with a five-year OTR? So at this time, Commissioner, obviously MDSO is separate. From the remaining amount for rest of the departments, which is Fire Rescue, CITD, we have approximately, I would say, about $3 million left. We've used all $165 million of this contract. Well, not the OTR. We're not in the OTR yet. Just the initial term. Let me pull up the initial item, Commissioner. It's much more than $3 million for my math. So, Commissioner, the initial five-year term included $134 million, of which approximately $84 million was for police, MDSO. So we're given like $50, $60 million left for the rest of the county departments. So of that, there's only $3 or $4 million left, and Fire can explain what are the projects that were done using that allocation. Sure. Madam Mayor. Through the Chair and Commissioner, your question is spot on. I just wanted to make sure we clarified that the request is for us to expend money on that contract that was awarded with an up to amount. And we are required to come back any time we want to expend money that was approved that's above the Mayor's authority. So it seems a little confusing that we're looking like we're talking about a new contract. You said it very clearly, Commissioner, and I wanted to make sure everybody understood. We're asking for an allocation for that existing contract, and we're actually very appreciative of the Chairman helping us ensure, right, that the unit price is rock solid as we add corrections to a device that our other law enforcement officers have used very successfully. And we're very appreciative as well of you, Commissioner Gonzalez, of helping set the stage for the value of corrections being able to be on the same platform as their brothers and sisters. Thank you, Chief. And let me just be clear on where I'm going with this. And again, I'm not trying to be anything other than clear. The original allocation was for $165 million. On page two of the item that's before us, it says the resolution established this amount in $165 million in 2022. Of this amount, $83.9 million was for MDSO. Subsequently, the contract was modified under delegated authority for a total of $10.6 million. And now corrections is asking for $17 million in change. What I'm trying to understand is that doesn't show a difference of just $3 million. That shows a much larger amount that has not been drawn down on on this $165 million contract. I'm just trying to figure out what that number is. And the reason I'm trying to figure out what that number is is because there is another provider that is repeatedly informing us and saying to us that they can provide similar or if not almost the exact same radios for a much lower dollar amount. So before I even get to that, I'd like to understand what the dollar amount under this contract is that is unallocated. It can't just be $3 million. It has to be substantially more. Or the item before us is leaving information out. Greg Rubin, fire rescue through the chair. Good afternoon. So this contract is not exclusively used for communications, sorry, radios. It's also used for other motor oil items in the county, such as the computer aided dispatch system utilized by the sheriff's office and fire rescue. So I just want to be clear that not all of that is just for radios. Okay. So is it the position of the administration that are you think that there's only $3 million left on this $165 million 10 year contract and we're in year four? This passed in 2022. It's 2026. It had a cumulative value of $165 million. We're four years in a 10 year contract. And you're saying we only have $3 million left in unallocated funds? Approximately, I would say 70 to 80 million is already for MDSO. We know that. That's clear. Right. What's the balance on the $165 million that is not allocated? So, Commissioner, of the $165, I would say we have to subtract at least $30 or $40 million that was projected for the OTR, which we haven't touched. Sure. So that remains about 133 and of which you take out 80. So I would say, Commissioner, for the initial five year term, let's just say we allocated $65 to $70 million for the county departments, not MDSO. Of that 65 something million dollars, FIRE has used about 52. And I can tell you the other departments, for example, CITD has 4 million left. So FIRE has about 3 million left. So that's what they left. Okay. The reason I'm asking is because I think that, and I'll work with you all off of the microphone on this, I want to pass this item today so that our corrections department can get the radios that they need. But whatever is not allocated in this $165 million through this exercise, what it has made clear to me is that there is room for savings. Okay. There's room for savings. And as we move forward through this $165 million allocation for radios in Miami-Dade County, I want us to consider utilizing other companies for the balance of the unallocated amount that I believe to be far in excess of $3 million, right? We're only in year four on a 10-year. That is correct. We're on the same page with that. Yeah. And so I don't know if I need to bring an item or what I need to do in that regard. But to the eye and to the end of saving dollars, our law enforcement is set, our firefighters are set, our corrections is set. I think everybody would agree they need the radios that they say they need in order to do their job. The rest of our county departments, however, I cannot see us justified in spending $8,000 and $6,000 per radio. So I am going to be working with you all to make sure that we are engaging other companies that are offering us a lower price that is equally, if not better functionality, because the price has to be the top consideration for us. Absolutely, Commissioner, just so we do buy Harris radios for non-public safety. So everybody else that's non-public safety has their Harris radios. But we could work with you before we even go in the exercise, the option to renew term, we'll work with you before we exercise that. All right, sounds good. So, Commissioner, do you accept my amendment as a friendly amendment? I accept it. All right, so, and you move your item as amended? I move it. It's been moved, it's been seconded by Commissioner Regalado. Seeing no further, Commissioner from District 12, you're recognized. I just have a question, because I think Commissioner Cohen-Higgins brings up some cogent points. And I just want to make sure moving forward, and I agree with Commissioner Gonzalez, I would hate to come back, because this happens too often, and then things do not work. The history of Miami-Dade County and some of these radios has not been great for those of you who followed the history of Miami-Dade County radios. So I would just want to make sure, and both of you are correct, and there's a big difference between life safety issues, fire, police, obviously corrections, and other departments. And I think we need to be cognizant of that as we move forward. So I just want to, you know, and I wasn't here, I don't think many of us were here. Some of us may have been here in July of 2022, but a lot maybe were not here when we got to the award at that time. And moving forward, I'd just like to make sure that if there are going to be any issues, we get told timely. Not late, not after the fact, not when the item comes in front of us, but timely. Because there is another provider that has indicated continuously that there's better ways to do it. So I'd like to know that beforehand as opposed to after the fact moving forward. Thank you, Commissioner. And I agree, Commissioner Bermudez, which, look, not to muddy the waters, but I'm ready to call a vote unless there's more dialogue. But, you know, we have to trust at some point, and I'm not an expert, right? And certainly not in IT and software or technology and certainly not in radios. So at some point, I think we were all, right, or at least those that may support this item with its amendment, we were all kind of informed that this is the way that we need to go. And this is what corrections needs for public safety, for the safety of our officers. And so that's why we're here today, right? But when listening to all the arguments and this, you know, kind of slow move, this item, as we were negotiating, you know, better rates and trying to learn it. But, you know, one of the competing companies, one of the things that they brought up to me, and it stuck with me. And so I appreciate Commissioner Cohn-Higgins now, you know, making sure that we'd certainly keep them and embed them for anything outside of public safety, is that they pointed out. So it's like, hey, yes, Motorola has all these features and advanced technology in their radios that they're claiming. We're not disputing that. That said, your network can't support some of those techie portions of that radio. So you won't be able to fully, you know, then when I went and met with Motorola and the team, they said, no, no, no, we can support. So, again, at some point, you know, something that I say more often than not, I say this on the radio all the time is, up here, we're all expected to be masters of everything. People think we know it all. And some of us, unfortunately, some of you guys think you know it all. But I am very self-aware knowing that I am not an expert in what I do not know. Talk to me about what I do for a living privately, and I could talk for days, hours with my eyes closed. But in a lot of the stuff that we see, it is our duty, our job to get informed and listen to the experts. And that's, I think, what brings us here today. So with that, I will call the vote. Is this a voice vote? All right. All in favor of the item as amended, signify by saying aye. Aye. I'll oppose nay. Show the item passed. All right, Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized. Thank you. Now the item is passed, because I didn't want to, I'm supportive of the item. And I didn't want to necessarily engage the conversation on this item particularly or specifically. But this item and one of the other items that was on the agenda kind of sent me down a rabbit hole of asking questions about how we actually list things in our budget. And I only asked the question because we have previously bought a lot of things and we buy things, for instance, for law enforcement. And that's the sheriff now. Well, some of the times we actually incurred debt. And so I asked the question whether the debt we incur and the debt service that we pay for things that are now used by the sheriff is included in the allocation of the sheriff's budget. So, for instance, if we pay for, I don't know, a helicopter as a part of debt service, is the amount of that prorated debt service that went to the helicopter a part of the money that we say the sheriff's, that's in the sheriff's budget. The sheriff gets, I don't know, $800 million, is it the $800 million plus the debt service? And so what they're telling me is, and I'm not sure this is right, and I'm very keen on things I'm not an expert at, that it's not. It's a part of the debt service that's already wrapped in, and we don't include that in the money that we call a part of like MDSO. So if that's how we choose to do the accounting, that's fine. But I would suggest if we were really going to have an accurate number on how much we're spending in each of these discrete areas that we find ways to apportion the debt service on the things that we buy for those different departments. So if we're buying equipment that's used by the sheriff, the debt service, at least on our books, should be something that's attributed to the sheriff, because if we did that, it might actually better inform how much money we're actually spending on law enforcement, how much money we're actually spending on fire, how much money we're actually spending in those departments. And so it's just something that, it's a rabbit hole that we don't necessarily need to talk about now, because I see Raquel is going to, she knows something. Let's see, but it's, I think it's something maybe the chairman that you could maybe assign to like a committee or somebody could, just to look at how we actually do these things. We will. Yeah, because that is, I was shocked, Mr. Chairman. I was shocked by the fact that we're just still, we're still saying that's our, like the debt is all ours, but the property is all someone else's. And we're not even accounting for the debt service in the money that we allocate to them as a part of the budget. So to me, that seems like something we need to be looking at. I think we should, definitely will. All right, thank you. And I'm still on the pool list. Are you taking a personal, are you doing an Oliver Gilbert? Just really quick. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oliver, you remember, we talked about this when we first brought the item on the constitutional officers. And that's why we amended all the contracts that came after, saying that they could either take the contracts or we could keep the contracts. And there was this whole back and forth that we did during that process. But I don't think that we've had that conversation since then. And I think one of the things that we should consider, and obviously we don't, we still have the obligation, so we can't transfer it. But I'm sure that we can account for it, and not just with the sheriff, with all the constitutional officers, right? There are assets that we have purchased that they are receiving from us. I think we do account for some of the payments. But I think maybe whatever's left on those assets would be the best way to account for it. So kind of like a five, ten year on whatever the assets are that we have purchased for the constitutionals, and then the depreciation of that and how it refers back to our debt. Through the chair, we've heard the request, and we will explore ways to account so that it's fully transparent what's allocated to the constitutionals and what is on the county side. With the exception of the tax collector, the constitutionals cannot acquire or own real assets. But we can have a more visible way of demonstrating what is attributed to the constitutionals vis-a-vis our budget. So we are happy to take that into advisement. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I think that's exactly the point. So the property actually belongs to us, even though it's always going to be used for them. The debt actually belongs to us. But we're not actually saying when we're spending the money that we're spending the money for them. Because there are things that we buy for constitutionals that we will never use. And so we need to have that accounting in the money that we actually give to them. So it's, this is, and we did talk about it with regard to contracts, ongoing contracts, but we didn't specify with regard to the debt service. All right, we're going to definitely make this in committee and have a whole discussion item. So be prepared to the administration. All right, I got 14A4, 14B1 was not pulled, but it's still pending. Can I have a motion to move these? Moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by, who said second? By Commissioner Orbis. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Show 14A4 and 14B1 passed. I have 11A9, 11A9, Commissioner from District 12. You pulled this item, was it just a co-sponsor? It's the FOG loan program, my item. To co-prime because we were doing the flow. Absolutely. A FOG report. And I just wanted to quickly, if I could, ask the administration, if not now, certainly soon, to give us an update because we were supposed to get some of these FOG reports in 90 days because, you know, it's been an issue for all these restaurants. It continues to be an issue. I can tell you at the GET committee, there was even a gentleman who flew from Raleigh, North Carolina, who wants to open up two restaurants. And it's a problem. It's making the cost of doing business here much more difficult. So I just wanted to go on to the record to make sure that we could possibly get a report in time. It's getting a little loud in the chamber. Thank you, Commissioner Bermudez. Yes, you led efforts on the FOG issue for sure. And thank you for co-sponsoring my item and allowing me to co-sponsor yours as well. Mr. Chairman, may I add my name just as a co-sponsor? Yeah, absolutely. Commissioner Steinberg and the Vice Chair is added as a co-sponsor on this item, on 11A9. All right, with that, I'll ask Commissioner Bermudez to move my item, 11A9. It's been seconded by Commissioner Regalado. All in favor, signify by say an aye. All opposed nay. I think, Commissioner from District 12, you also pulled 11A12 for the amendment. I'll release that. Okay. So you'll move 11A12? Hold on a second. I believe this one's your item. Oh, wait a minute. That's the one I have at front. Well, can I have the attorney read the amendment? Absolutely. Because it's really a cleanup issue for the... If the attorney can read the amendment that Commissioner Bermudez has on his item, 11A12. Sure. Commissioner Bermudez moves to amend item 11A12 to waive the provisions of resolution number R-1306, requiring that any contracts of the county with third parties be executed and finalized prior to their placement on an agenda of the Board, and to waive the provisions of implementing order number 08-04, requiring the Commission order to review and comment on the proposed leasing and conveyance of county property prior to submission of an item, an agenda item to the Board, and to make conforming changes to the title. Show it amended and moved by Commissioner Bermudez, seconded by the Vice Chair. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. All right. Show Commissioner Gilbert moving 8P3, and seconded by 8P3, seconded by Commissioner Bastien. I have a pulling commissioner, but I understand... It was to vote no. Okay. So all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show... Do you have... Commissioner Bastien, do you have... Something else. I just wanted to be listed... Also be listed as co-sponsor for 11A9. Okay. Show Commissioner Bastien co-sponsoring 11A9. Okay. So show the item 8P3 passed, reflecting Commissioner Orbis and Steinberg as no's. All right. 802. Commissioner from District 12. I released that. All right. And you'll move it? Yeah. It's been moved by Commissioner Bermuda, seconded by Gilbert. All in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. 8P1, that's the one that we heard already and passed. 8P4. 8P4, Commissioner from District 5, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I just have a couple of questions on certain things for the administration. So one of my questions, I need some clarification on what is the singular rates and how it's burdened by overtime on this particular procurement. So maybe Namida, you could explain. Good afternoon, Commissioner. So the commissioner, the RFP was advertised and asked for different rates for different positions, like project manager, monitor, truck certifier, field supervisor. And we stated in the RFP that you have to give a flat rate, no overtime. And so we got multiple proposals. So Tetra Trek was ranked number one, and they had a flat rate for each position. And that's what we negotiated with them. I do realize that Thompson Consulting proposed that their rates are going to be hour and a half for overtime. Like 1.5 times, I'm sorry, for overtime. But the RFP called for flat rates for no matter what. And that's how we have been, the monitoring service has been obtained by county historically, too. And so how did that then intersect with addendum number two that talks about the zero, talks about zero dollars? I'm confused, and I guess what I want you to do is put on the record exactly what you've just said about the flat rate and that it was, is that a requirement of the RFP to have given a flat rate? Correct. Okay, so then what does, does it intersect at all with addendum two that said that there could not be, you could not, the answer was provided to a solicitator that said you can have the rate of zero dollars if those roles are not anticipated? So I think those two are different things. If the roles are not used, then you could put in zero, yeah. But the roles, everybody gave us the rates for all of the roles that we asked for. Okay, so the roles that were specified in the RFP were in fact, and everyone gave a rate for the. Correct. Okay, and then were there any other positions that someone said they needed? Like why, I guess I'm trying to figure out, why would you specify some positions and not specify others and allow for other positions to be said and put a zero rate? So, Commissioner, the positions that were listed in the RFP are based on our historical usage of what we have used in the prior disasters, surfside, all of the hurricane. Okay, and what happens is if something, God forbid, some unusual disaster comes in, so a lot of times, you know, we just ask for additional positions that could be used later down the road. Are there additional positions that you may need to use later down in the road? If, and I'm making, let's say surfside was a very unusual example. Very unusual. Right. Hopefully never happening again. Right. Right. So if we, since FEMA requires us to have a debris monitor, and let's say we needed a unique expertise from this monitoring company, and that position was not contemplated, we have the right to add position in the contract. But why wouldn't we already anticipate that? I don't know how to anticipate all of the positions based on future disasters, but we have, I think we have covered 95, I would say 99% of the positions, I would say. I'm going to look at the addendum that you are talking about. I'm unclear as to how you can estimate some positions and not estimate the others when you don't even know what the estimate, the disaster might be. So, Commissioner, to do a plain apples-to-apples comparison, what we did is we listed the positions that we have historically used and the hours in the RFP. So we could say company A versus company B based on the hours that we have, so we could have a plain level field. If they anticipate, they did not. No, but let me pause, because I don't know, and I don't want to speak for Commissioner Lopez, but what I'm understanding her asking is not what you're answering. I think you're just not understanding her question, right? She's not explaining herself correctly, one of the two. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here, but I actually have similar questions, and I won't jump the gun, but I think, are you referring to the zero dollar amount, not the zero hours, because, of course, we don't know if there's going to be a hurricane or not. Of course, this is all projections. I think she's referring, it's important that you listen to what she's referring to, because I don't think you're... It's the zero dollars. It's the zero dollars amount. Are you referring to specifically under project manager? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner. I misunderstood. That's all right. And on that note, while you answer her question, I will ask something that goes in line with that. I'm interested to know why, in the item that I have before me today, it is a zero dollar amount, but in the proposal that they submitted, it is at $95. How did that change? Because once you submit a proposal, you can't change the numbers. So, I misunderstood totally, Commissioner. So, it was, okay, so during the RFP, when they proposed us rates, so Tetra Tech was ranked number one, we negotiated all of the rates with them. They brought down, for all of the positions, they brought their rates down, and for the project manager, they are now going to charge us. Not that we're not going to use them. They are not going to charge us for that project management services. So, it was a negotiated rate, and RFP allows us to negotiate it down, not higher, but down. But I guess you actually responded. I don't know who actually responded with the project management position, but if my notes serve me correctly, there was a question. May proposers list certain job categories with a rate of zero dollars if those roles are not anticipated to be utilized under the proposer's staffing structure. The response the county gave was no. So, I don't understand. If you're saying that you could not propose a zero dollar, but someone did, how is that possible when you yourself during the, someone did, I'm sorry, I'm not saying you, I would say the county, provided a response of no. I don't get it. So, no one proposed zero dollar. Everybody gave us hourly rates. We just negotiated it down to zero for that position with Tetra Tech to arrive at the negotiated rate to present the board the best possible award. So, you negotiated with every company or just with Tetra Tech? Just with Tetra Tech. You only negotiated with one of the companies? Because the way- Because they were the number one ranked. Yes, the number one ranked. Yes. And then my only other question is, I know that FEMA's reimbursement requires that strict compliance with the federal procurement requirements under 2CFR part 200. Did all the respondents qualify for that? In other words, is everyone's proposal under that strict compliance? Everybody responded well. Here's the question. It would be very direct. Did every respondent and every proposal fall under the strict compliance of the federal government for FEMA reimbursement? That's the only question I have. Commissioner, based on the scoring that I see, that every company is qualified- That is such a yes or no question, and I don't even know- Yeah, I don't even know. I don't care about the scoring. Listen carefully to the question. Did every proposal fall under the strict compliance for FEMA reimbursement? Yes or no? Yes or no? I can't answer that question. Wow. The most important part of this RFP is that we would be reimbursed by FEMA should we have to use the debris removal services. Shocking. I'm sorry. The top-ranked, the contract that we have in front of you, Commissioner, the Tetra-Tuck that we negotiated will comply with all of the FEMA requirements. I can tell you Thompson proposed one and a half hour rate, and if we go back to negotiation with them, they have to eliminate that, so that won't comply. So I don't know what other things are there in the other proposal. You're telling me that- I guess the question is so clear. Did all of them- would the answer- is yes or no? I don't know. You're saying I don't know. Respectfully, if I could ask a question of the Commissioner. Yes, please. Because is the idea that if they did not qualify, then they should be determined to be non-responsive? Correct. Definitely. Okay. So the fact that they were even referred to the selection committee means that they were responsive. So she's suggesting that the county attorney should answer the question. You're welcome to answer the question and give Commissioner Lopez a response to her very simple question. It was so simple. We have not received any requests raising any responsiveness issues. We could look into that, but we- you know, there's been no request for a responsible opinion, so there's been no issue raised as to any vendor being non-responsive or non-responsible. All right, Commissioner Gilbert on- you're recognized, Commissioner Gilbert. You still have the floor afterwards, Commissioner Lopez, but- Okay. So I think we just need to slow down and back up a little bit. So we don't do an initial responsiveness evaluation for responses. I'm nearly certain that we have to do that. We do. So when it comes to responsiveness, you're absolutely right. They all are responsive. Okay. Yes. They're all responsive. Correct. So the Commissioner's question was, with regard to the FEMA regulations, that all the submittals address it in a way that allowed them to be responsive. That is correct. And so the answer is yes. Okay. Because that got- All right, Commissioner Lopez, do you still have- No, that was my final question. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner from District 4, I'm skipping to you, but I've got other pulling commissioners. Oh, well, I- Okay. I will then- If you pull the item- No, no, no. Okay. Just really quickly, on the FEMA, I asked this question yesterday, and I'd like a response. Because this is a contract that would be prospective for reimbursement, right? This is a reimbursement from FEMA, which is why she wants to ensure that they're eligible to receive that. So we are eligible to receive that reimbursement. I know that FEMA is going through a process of changing what the floor for reimbursement is going to look like. So I don't know if someone can address that for a moment, just so we can also understand that. Meaning that the amount of dollars that we can recoup might change and be a much higher threshold so that we may come out of pocket more. Is anybody familiar from the administration on these changes coming down the pipeline? Through the Chair, yes, it is our understanding that FEMA will have less resources available to distribute. And so the amount of money that may be available, it will be different in the future. So there's a risk of us probably having to expend more dollars than we would have in the past. And have we contemplated? Well, there is an actual figure, I believe, that is being floated in a proposal. Does anybody have that? Because I just, has that been baked into what we look at in numbers in the event that we are not reimbursed at the levels that we used to be reimbursed at? Through the Chair, Maggie Steenberg is our Assistant Director in the Department of Emergency Management. If you could, she'll approach. You're recognized. Thank you. If I'm understanding the question correctly, what has, there have been a lot of changes proposed at the federal level, specifically through the FEMA Act, which was introduced last year, but has not passed, as well as the recommendations of the FEMA Review Council, which have been accepted by the White House, but none of it has been implemented as of yet. There have been suggestions that the threshold for federal disaster assistance or presidential disaster declarations be raised. Right now, for Miami-Dade County, it's based on a per capita indicator, both for our county as well as for the state. So, for the county, our current threshold is 12.4-ish, 12.7 million would be the minimum amount of damages we would have to sustain before we would be potentially eligible for a declaration. They have proposed increasing that threshold, although it has not gone into effect yet. As it stands, we are still, for this season and for the foreseeable future, still going off of that per capita indicator as it exists. Although it has been proposed to raise that, it would take congressional authorization for that to occur, and they're thinking these measures, if they come to fruition, would probably take two to three years. So, it still hasn't changed. Okay. And do we know just the long range of what they're thinking about in terms of? Well, it's been floated in different places. They had floated in the FEMA Act, I believe they floated maybe quadrupling that, for example. So, the minimum threshold would be much higher. As it's presented in the FEMA Review Council recommendations, they call for a review of the baseline and realigning that with the Consumer Price Index because it's sort of gotten out of whack over the years. Well, I really appreciate the response. Thank you so much. Are you able to – wait, wait, wait. Don't go anywhere. Come back, please. Are you able to answer the question that Commissioner Lopez was asking, and then Commissioner Gilbert decided to get all work? I just want her to answer questions for everything. You can answer questions about parks. I mean, yeah, because that's how – Very diligent. Just answer a question. Just answer the question. So, thank you. That's a yes or no question. Through the Chair, our Chief Procurement Officer is prepared to address the question. The way it was presented was confusing to her, but she has the answer. Okay. All right. Well, let's – yes, we will get to that, Madam Director, but Commissioner from District 8 as a pooling commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When this item was presented to us at Policy Council, the number one ranked bidder under the procurement scoring process was bumped because it was – we were advised that there was a significant savings, and our body can't stress enough how much we're going to advocate for savings. And so it advanced out of committee, and if anybody watched or if you recall from that committee, there were questions that I had, but they were not able to be answered because there wasn't anyone to answer it at the time, and I understand why I spoke with the director after, and there was a very, very excusable reason given for her not being present, and I appreciate you calling me directly and sharing that. But since I didn't have the opportunity to ask the questions at Policy Council, and I think I made it pretty clear during Policy Council that I would follow up with asking questions at final hearing, that's what I'd like to do now. Now, in the item, it gives us, on page 5, the final scores, and it says here that the price score for Tetra Tech is 87, and the price score for Thompson Consulting is 97. But it doesn't say what the aggregate bid amount is between the two companies. What I'm trying to understand is where I'd like to understand where the savings are because that's how it advanced out of committee with Thompson being selected as the number one ranked bidder. So what is the differential between the two bids that came in under the procurement the way that it was written? What are the two numbers that were bid between Thompson and Tetra? So we had hourly rates, and we projected scenario, okay, these are the hours for, let's say, a sample disaster. Based on that, when you plug in the hourly rates, the differential, straight hourly rates, not overtime, the differential was about $800 and something thousand dollars that was shared with the board members and OPBA. But that did not take into account the overtime that was proffered by Thompson. Okay, so let's stop right there. The $800 differential was where? Who had the $800? Between the Tetra tax rate that we have and the Thompson's proposal. Who was $800? Where were? Thompson was higher, I'm sorry, lower, based on that. Thompson's price as submitted during the bid process was $800,000 lower. Right. Well, so Tetra tax negotiated rates that were shared. Nomina, the answer is yes to her question. So Thompson was lower, $800,000, yes. That's the thing. You just got to listen to the question. Okay. Thompson was $800,000 lower. But if Thompson was $800,000 lower, why did Thompson receive a price score by the selection committee that is 10 points lower than Tetra tech? Tetra tech got an, why is that? Thompson received a higher score, 10 points higher for the price. That's what I'm trying to understand. If they had the lower price, why was their price score? They got, they offered lower price, so they've got higher price score. Oh, I understand. I see that now. Okay. That, that makes better sense. Okay. So Thompson got the higher score on pricing than Tetra tech, but didn't overall get the higher score. I understand. And I apologize for making this more confusing than it needs to be, but I'd really like to understand the difference in the scoring. What was the percentage of the score? I guess it was 100 for pricing, 400 for technical. Explain to me the overtime issue, because I understand that there is an issue with overtime that I, that I need to understand. So commissioner, the RFP, uh, asked for flat rates, no overtime. Okay. Who submitted overtime? Thompson, in their pricing proposal, put, uh, added an asterisk and said they will be charging overtime beyond eight hours. Okay. But help me understand, help me understand, because we, we've been here before, right? In fact, we're here now on another RFP where we have advocated for strict reading of the RFP language as it's put out. And so this RFP said no overtime to be considered in this bid. I understand that I'm paraphrasing. I don't have it directly in front of me, but you've said it a couple of times now on the microphone. And I just want to be clear on what the RFP language said specifically regarding overtime. Either you or someone, can they read it to me? I have to find it. And, and while you're looking for it, this is the kind of stuff that, that puzzles me because I'm going to, it's in the fair collection procurement, right? And fair collection procurement during committee hearing last week, we were told that it's the opinion of the attorneys that we have to strictly comply with the language of the RFP that is written, whether it's pursuant to a past policy of this board or not. Here, we have a representation from the administration on a different solicitation that there is strict black and white language in an RFP that says no overtime, yet we have a bidder that has bid an amount that includes overtime. So I'm trying to understand what the language was in this RFP specifically, and why, Chief? Through the Chair. Nomada's looking for the exact language. Oop, did you find it? Nomada's looking for the exact language. The bidder that gave it as an asterisk was giving additional information. That information was not, we scored based on the requirements, not based on the additional information. So the actual financial proposals, as you noted, was one had a better outcome. The substantive proposal, the other one had a better outcome. When you do the math, the first ranked bidder that the administration put forward was the one that their two things adding together gave us the best value, right? So this is not a fixed price contract. It's a fixed rate contract. So the fixed rate, based on the scenario of a generic incident, gave us the better value. And that's Tetra Tech? Correct. Okay. And so the way that the scoring and the recommendation is currently before the board recommending Tetra Tech, or was this item amended in Policy Council? Wasn't it amended in Policy Council? Yes, it was. And the amendment reflected to give the contract to Thompson, the number two? At Policy Council, the committee recommended the award to Thompson as number two for pricing, as a pricing that was rated higher. And then there was also some discussion regarding Thompson's experience and personnel. Okay. And so my question is as simple as regarding overtime, the way that the bid has been written, and what's currently before the administration as a proposal. Is it possible that Thompson charges overtime under what was submitted? Is it possible that we get charged overtime? I know there was an asterisk, and I have the asterisk in front of me, although I don't have the language of the RFP. Is it possible that we, as a county, get charged overtime by Thompson, if Thompson is awarded this contract? If the RFP prohibited overtime, the scoring was ranked. And my understanding from the administration is that these scores, the pricing was scored, assuming that overtime would not be ranked. If Thompson was ranked number one or if they proceeded in negotiations, we could not negotiate a term that would be in deviation of the RFP. I understand. So Thompson, under the terms of the RFP, cannot negotiate a contract that allows them to charge overtime to Miami-Dade County. Is that correct? That is correct. If it's prohibited in the RFP, they would not be able to charge overtime. My understanding, it was prohibited to be in an addendum. Okay. I see you approaching. I didn't ask you to approach. I am trying to get my head wrapped around the technical variances of this issue. I would like, no, you can approach. I didn't mean for you. I didn't mean to indicate for you to sit down. And through the chair, if it's okay, if I can ask a representative on behalf of Tetra Tech a few questions. Because here's the thing. I respect that they've been with the county for a while. I respect that they helped us through Hurricane Irma and the Surfside building collapse, and that they've been successful in obtaining FEMA funds on behalf of Miami-Dade County. I value all of that. I'm not casting that to the side. I am, and I remain focused on pricing. Because at the end of the day, that has to be not the ultimate bottom line, but a significant factor for us here in Miami-Dade County, all things considered. So if you don't mind just spending a minute explaining to me, if you will, why it is that Tetra Tech, I believe is the company that you represent, has a better price than Thompson. Because for me, as far as voting on this item, that's what I need to understand. You're right. Through the Chair, Brian May, with offices at 235 Catalonia Avenue in Coral Gables, representing Tetra Tech. There's a fundamental question on the pricing, Commissioner, which is if the RFP specifically states that you cannot provide two rates, right, for any one position. And Thompson, in their proposal, in what they propose to the county, specifically says that they are going to charge a different rate that is one and a half times their base rate for overtime, they should be found nonresponsive to the RFP. I'm going to put a pin in that, because I don't disagree with you. I don't disagree with you, especially when we have another RFP where we're advocating as a county and an administration to follow the black and white ink of the RFP. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't disagree with you. Which is why I ask the question, for someone to read to me that very critical language in the RFP that stated only flat rate hourly submissions would be considered, because I need to know what that language states. Through the Chair, Director Uphal. The Director has referred to it. The Representative on behalf of Tetra Tech has referred to it. What is the language in the RFP state that all of the bidders read prior to submitting proposals on this RFP? So the RFP in the price form only asks for single hourly rate for each position, and that single hourly rate language, all hourly rates shall be inclusive of all expenses, material, travel, miscellaneous costs and fees, and single rate for each position. There was no provision for anyone to add any overtime rate or any different rate, just single rate for all positions. That's how the form was designed. And despite that language in the RFP, no one on the committee or the attorneys found the response from Thompson to be nonresponsive as a result of them including an hourly rate in their response to the attorneys? We were not asked to review the responsiveness. Pursuant to the I.O., the policy, procurement does a review of the proposals, and then they identify potential responsiveness issues, and they request an opinion from us. So then we do the responsiveness review. So that was not given to us. I do note, though, that pursuant to the RFP, the language of RFP states, and this is standard at the time, the county shall treat the proposer's inclusion of exceptions, assumptions, or alternate terms in the proposal as a request to negotiate project elements, and the inclusion of same shall not result in the proposal being deemed nonresponsive. The county is not bound to accept any exceptions, assumptions, or alternates during negotiations, and the county shall consider a proposal submitted to be an offer to supply goods or services in strict compliance with the terms of the solicitation. Exceptions, assumptions, or alternates may be considered by the county during negotiations to the extent such exceptions, assumptions, or alternates do not materially change any provision in the solicitation. It's been our view with that language. If we get an assumption or exception, we won't deem them nonresponsive, but if they try to negotiate that into the contract, then they will not be, that will not be allowed. Is that standard procurement language contained in all procurements that Miami-Dade issues? Yes. Wow. I mean, you see where that goes, right? Because that is a shield and a sword. You can use that to, you could use that to justify a lot. So, I mean, you're an attorney, you understand what it is, what I'm saying. You're reading one provision that is included in every single RFP that goes out on behalf of Miami-Dade County. Namada and one of the bidders is reading language that is specific to this RFP that said, we're not entertaining over time. We want flat rates and flat rates only. And so, legally, I see what it is that you are saying. Go ahead, Edwin. Commissioner, we're getting this issue on us right now, so we haven't given a responsive opinion on that. I do know on previous opinions, we have used that language. If a proposer has given an assumption or an alter or an exception, we've used that language to deem them responsive. But if they try to then negotiate that into the contract, we heard you can't materially deviate. But to be fair, I don't want to say that we're given an opinion because we just, we're looking at this as a fly. So we would like to have some time to look at the whole proposal as a whole before we say it's responsive or not. We have not been asked to provide our opinion, so that's, so, yeah. And so through the chair, Commissioner, I just, I'm not sure if it was clear that that was not used as part of the evaluation. So proposers can propose lots of things. The evaluation criteria is the evaluation criteria. And so those rates were not what was used. What was used was what was presented based on the evaluation criteria. And with that being said, that we recommended a number one that met the evaluation criteria with the highest ranked total score because that had the best value based on the services we're trying to procure. Yeah. And I think this is an interesting position because it's not as though there was an opportunity or was there an opportunity to file a bid protest on this? Has that window come and gone? Has that opened and closed? That is correct. The window to file a bid protest on this has opened and closed? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Nothing further, Mr. Chair. Commissioner from District 7, you recognize? Thank you. I don't want to complicate matters more. Time out, Mr. Chair. Time out. Time out. Time out. No mas. No mas. No, but look, my district was very impacted during Irma. Irma was a high debris storm, and it was very, very expensive. So I've looked at the numbers. And while I appreciate that we're looking at this contract hypothetically, I would love to compare these bids to what occurred in Irma because that has been, for us, worst case scenario. So there's been a lot of discussion about overtime. I would love to see some empirical information as to what happened with the hours because during Irma, the county was well positioned in that our contract allowed us more access than the municipalities. Currently, that is not the situation. So I think there's a lot in this item. I appreciate the conversation about procurement and the selection committee, and I love any conversation that has to do with process. But I'm really concerned about the end result and that we may be in a situation where we live to regret this particular vote. So I would really like from emergency management some information on Irma, and I think that it is important for us to follow the process irrespective of what happens with FEMA because we can't change what happens with FEMA, but I think that we can do our best to follow the current FEMA rules. So can emergency management give us some information on what happened with IRMA when the past contract, I don't know if that would be procurement, but I just want to know what the costs were with IRMA and what the overtime and the hourly and all of that was, and how did that inform the drafting of the RFP? Because I assume that that informed the drafting of the RFP, correct? That is correct. Commissioner, in Tetra Tech's current contract, there's also a flat rate for each position. There is no overtime rate. So at the time of Irma, it would have been a flat rate. I did try to get information on Irma, like how many hours were used for different positions to see if we could compare. And I did reach out to the clerk's office, and they could not, because it's prior to informs, so we could not get information readily available from the system. However, the clerk's office was kind enough to do the analysis and share the regular hours and overtime hours for Surfside incident. So I used that as a calculation, and I can share that based on the hours, 63% of the hours were regular time hours, 37% is overtime hours. So when we do the split based on the scenario that we have in the RFP, Thompson would be expensive. All right, and I appreciate that, but obviously Surfside and Hurricanes are a little different. But I do know that during Irma, we were going around the clock with the debris also. But what you're saying is the reason we don't have those numbers is because since it was a flat rate, we didn't quantify it as overtime. Right, so even for the Surfside, I think we pay the flat rate. They may be docking their hours for a regular and overtime, but our rate for both of those categories is a flat rate reimbursement or payment to Tetra Tech. So this agreement was also used for Surfside? That is correct. Okay, thank you. Commissioner from District 6, you're ready. Thank you. I have a question because there's an I.O. that is over this type of RFP, correct? I don't know if this is for the director. The I.O. establishes a time frame for evaluation. And how long was the evaluation time frame for this RFP, for the committee? Commissioner, proposals were shared in January and the evaluations were held in February, so about a month, month and a half. Okay, so it's 30 days. Yes. But then there's other information in the back of the item that says that the evaluation could not be held within the 30-day window. So are we violating the I.O.? Commissioner, sometimes the committee is not able to meet within the 30-day window that we have from the last check that we do. So, yes, if that happens, then we don't comply with the 30-day deadline. And what does that mean for the RFP? So, no, what it means is the committee members, if it's because of some committee members, they don't get the administrative leave. Like in this case, four people got it. That was a resolution adopted by the board. So they get... So, I have a question because it says there was four committee members, right? There were five. Actually, four of them complied with all of the deadlines. The fifth one did not. So the fifth one did not get the... But three were replaced. And one was included initially but then had to be removed because they were no longer employed by the county. So did we have the same evaluation committee the entire time or did you have to change them out? It says it here on page six of the item. We're under other information. So can you clarify what happened with the committee? So, Commissioner, by the time we established the committee and got to the evaluation, I think one member had left. And then there was two members because of scheduling. We could not get them together, so we replaced them. So basically, everybody got the opportunity to review the proposals in a timely manner, like 30-day window. But were there different... Was it a different group of people initially reviewing and were... No, no. It was the same group's got information. Yes. The same five or four? The same five. Reviewed the entire time, but they were not able to complete it within a 30-day required window. That is correct. Okay. So to the attorneys, does that have any impact on the legality of the RFP? No, Commissioner. No? Doesn't matter? Okay. No. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. So, Commissioner from District 1, are you going to wrap this up or should I... I mean, I'm like running on fumes here, but I'll get a second wind. Do you want to bring this home or should I bring it home? I don't have a lot to say. I think it's confusing that we have... I have a question. Okay, we got others, so we're not bringing it home. We have, what is it, price requirements in a solicitation, but then an I.O. that says if you don't comply, you're still not responsive. It's not non-responsive. So I think that's kind of... I don't know that we should be able to deviate in that way. So if something says something in a solicitation, I think the solicitation should govern whether something's responsive. And so we haven't done it in this instance, so it's not really relevant, but probably something we need to take a look at. That type of latitude, having an exception that invalidates the rule, probably means that you don't have a rule. So I don't know that we knew that existed in that way before this moment, but I'm certain it's not going to exist in that way for much longer. All right. I got Commissioner Bermudez, Bastien, and the Vice Chair. I have two questions, and I agree with Commissioner Gilbert on, I don't know why we have rules if it turns out that we don't follow them. But I'm still confused, if I may ask Mr. Chair, on is there a possibility that Tetra Tech will charge us for overtime or not? There's no possibility they'll charge us for overtime. Okay. And then the second thing is, on the bid protest, this is for the attorneys, assuming there's a decision made today and either party has an issue, what can they do, if anything? There's no longer a protest period in play, Commissioner. Any party is welcome to seek whatever remedy they think they're entitled to in circuit court, and we would defend the action of this board and see what happens. Okay. And then I guess the last thing would be, well, two more things. Number one would be, and Commissioner Lopez is not here now, but when she asked a yes and no answer, it was very difficult to get a yes or no answer, which is what complicates it. But I agree with Commissioner Gilbert in the sense that, you know, and I know there's so many procurement ordinances that it baffles the mind. And this, you know, some of the answers that have been provided today have really confused everyone on this process. At least I'm confused. I'm like, you know, maybe because the answers are nebulous, maybe because. But I think that we need to do something with our procurement process that everything is as clear and as transparent as possible, because I just think this has led to more questions than before. But that's all I can say, you know. I don't even know, and Commissioner Gilbert, I think, was right. If it says don't include this, then you include that, then you're not responsive. But that's why we're here, I guess. Commissioner Bastian. Thank you so much. Y'all can put your hand out. Commissioner Bermudez, you're not the only one confused. I'm also confused, and I think we're probably all confused. And, Mr. Chair, it's going to be very difficult for me to vote on this item today. So my proposal to you is whether you should consider a best and final offer for Thompson Consulting and Detroit Tech, you know, so that we can ensure that we receive a competitive offer from both. I'm really hesitant to move forward today with the recommendation without comparing apples to apples. And the more I hear the responses from my administration, the more confused I get. So, Mr. Chair, would you consider that? Best and final offer from the two. Thank you, Commissioner Bastian. I don't want to recognize any of you two. You both already went. Well, the Vice Chair hasn't gone, actually. So, Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I didn't have an opportunity to see this item before, so this is my first time. So, listening to the discussion going back and forth, I just now want to hear from the Thompson representative, if they can come up and give some clarity and give their position, if that's okay, or hear from both. Both sides would be great. You're recognized. Good afternoon, Commissioners. John Hoyle, President of Thompson Consulting Services, 2601 Maitland Center Boulevard, Maitland, Florida. To my knowledge, there is no reference in the RFP at all related to overtime not being allowed. We've pored over it, looked over it, and, you know, the reality is is when you get a singular rate, the proposer is building overtime cost into that rate. Now, it's very likely that they're going to assume a high amount of overtime that they would need. When, in actuality, they may need less. So, I think it's important to note that that argument kind of goes both ways. The other important on the zero dollar issue, the addendum two clearly said that you cannot have zero dollars as a bid item. We were provided Tetra Tech's original proposal yesterday, and there was no zero bid items, which was what got them to their original 3.66 million. They were then able to, through a negotiation, reduce that to 3.36 million, but that reduction came because they were able to zero dollar bid a position. And, obviously, the intent of the no zero dollar bid is so that they can evaluate this, you know, apples to apples. So, I think it's important to understand that, that there is a zero dollar bid in the schedule that's being considered by the county, which is in direct violation or direct conflict, at least, with the county's procurement Q&A. So, on behalf of Thompson Consulting Services, we've done $5.5 billion worth of this work on behalf of 390 government entities, longstanding track record. It's all in our proposal. I don't think the qualifications are at hand here. I think it's more a matter of this price form. And, I think, though, some competitors in this process may have challenges with managing overtime. It's something that Thompson has done routinely. It's something we're familiar with. In instances where there's a hurricane, we talked about Irma, the residents that would be working on this contract would be impacted by that disaster. And so, to say that they could work 80 hours a week and still meet with their insurance agents and still take care of their children that aren't in school and things of that nature is probably not realistic. And so, I know there was a scenario that was floated. That scenario showed the number of overtime hours that you would have to work in order to get to an equivalency. And it was, like, 40 percent of the total hours, which is high, I think, if you evaluate that analysis. I think it's also important they used reduced negotiated rates for two positions of 12 to show that cost differential in the letter that you received yesterday. So, their analysis included two of 12 rates. And it was the two that had a favorable impact. Let me stop you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. So, listen, so, and here's, I'm just getting to the core of the issue here in front of us. How is it that this item was fleshed out in the policy committee and then it comes here and it's almost as if you guys are preaching your positions to us to then question the procurement side of this ordeal? It's kind of, I'm not going to say confusing, but it's almost as if there was a side of this equation that was never anticipated or discussed and now it's coming before me for the first time and asking me to get in the middle of a food fight and make a determination based on what I'm hearing and what I'm seeing. And I'm sure that when Tetris steps to the podium and give its position, it's going to possibly say, yeah, that's exactly what's happening. But if the policy committee has already vetted this and it was vetted by the procurement side of it and the agreement now is based on this legislation is to give it to Thompson, then what are we arguing about and why is it so confusing and convoluted at this particular juncture right before the full BCC? And is that a question for me? I just needed to be answered to help me out. Help me help everybody. That's what I'm asking. So the proposals were reviewed by the committee. They scored the proposals. Thompson actually filed an objection to the scoring based on the way that they didn't use a formula to award points for price. They just arbitrarily assigned points, said, you know, Thompson gets X number. So we filed an objection there and it was dismissed. Just got an email back saying that it was dismissed. This item then went to policy council and they evaluated the true cost difference of these contracts that were being put forward and made that ruling. So I'm here at the request. Procurement sent me an email that said that policy council had reviewed our contract differently. And so that's why I'm here. All right. Thank you, sir. And the vice chair is indicated. He's done with his questions. But I'd like Tetra Tech to, of course, approach the opportunity to kind of give us a one minute, two minute. Jonathan Burgill, business unit president for disaster recovery for Tetra Tech, 4101 Gulf of Mexico Drive, Longbow Key. Commissioners, Chairman, Mayor, we bid on probably 150 of these projects a year. Most of them, 99% of them require a single rate as specified in your RFP, all costs included. We did exactly that. All the other proposers on this RFP did exactly that, except for Thompson. Only one or two a year do we see where a client says, we want you to specify your rates and chart. You can also offer a time and a half rate. Thompson recently has been adding these types of little footnotes as a way to lower their pricing on a rate table. And that's exactly what happened in this circumstance. I've been managing work for the county for 21 years now, since 2005, all the way back to Katrina and Wilma. I've been on the site, working in the EOC, working with your solid waste department, 14-hour days, months upon months. And on average, during Irma, it was about 34-35%. You heard Surfside from Namita, it was about 37%. So it's pretty common to pay folks overtime. 95-97% of our staff are hired locally from your community. They appreciate the overtime, because those are people that have lost their jobs because of the storm. They can't go to work. They come to work for us, and they want to work the overtime. They work, on average, 60-65 hours a week. They work 10 or 11 hours a day. They have to show up at 6.30 in the morning, work until about 5.30, 6.30 in the evening, and they want to work that 6th and 7th day. 35% is a good number. It could be somewhere between 30 and 50. In this case, we have actual data to prove it. And we'd be happy to share that with you. We've invoiced you in the past. You can look at actually the invoices, add up the hours for every single one of the 500 employees worked during IRMA, and you will see the exact same results that we tabulated as well. But the point I'm making is, you know, we're a very reputable firm. We've done very good work for you. You know, we've filed paperwork for you for years now, helped you get reimbursed for several hundred million dollars of reimbursable expense. Obviously, there's still some outstanding because the state continues to do their audits of work, but that's not our issue. We've done a very good job. We consider ourselves a very close partner to the county. We'd like to continue that relationship. We believe that the procurement was done appropriately. We scored very well technically. You know, I would argue on the pricing issue, if they had factored in the overtime, then, you know, our estimate would be the pricing would be a little bit more expensive for Thompson, actually. But what you are getting from us is 20 years of dedicated experience and success in getting recovery, as, you know, some of the commissioners have pointed out, that we've done very good work for you in the past. And we understand the concerns about pricing. We did negotiate down some rates during the negotiation session, which lowered the gap that we saw before, you know, adjusting for Thompson's time and a half, where it was about $400,000, not a million dollars that I heard during the committee video that I watched. And when you factor in the 35 percent overtime, certainly they're going to be more expensive than us. So, you know, I'm trying to clear things up for you. There's a lot of smoke here. We're a very reputable firm. We've always responded. We hire people quickly. You know, we had to manage 33 contractors after Katrina Wilmer with 700 trucks, six contractors with 500 trucks, and we helped you get that work done and, you know, have the stores back open, the roads back open very rapidly, and we want to do that for you again in the future. If there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer for you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. All right. I need to bring this in for a landing. So a few things. We need to make a decision today. This contract expires June 30th. We're in the middle of hurricane season, so we need to make a decision. I suspect that maybe we can extend the existing contract 30 days or so, but ideally, you know, this item went to committee. It was discussed. We didn't have all the questions answered there because we know why. It was said already. And this item moved forward with a recommendation from committee. It followed the process. It was not bypassed. This body doesn't have to vote on that recommendation. It doesn't have to support that recommendation, but there is a recommendation before us, which is, of course, to support and move forward with Thompson. I've done the math every which way. I've done the girl math. I've done Miami math. I've done the math. I've done all the maths. And on a bad day, with all these reductions that Tetra Tech has now done, Thompson's still about 6% less expensive. If you add up all the stuff and do other math, they're somewhere between 25% and 30% less expensive. So I stand by the decision that came out of policy council. So the way I see it to start wrapping this thing up is one of two things. We either do what Commissioner Bastien said on the record, a baffle, and we could try to extend their existing contract for 30 days, have them negotiate with both companies, or the option of what we've done on this dais several times, which is splitting the baby. We're a large enough county that we can split the baby. And if they both agree to it, that's an option that we can discuss here today. I feel extremely comfortable on qualifications for both companies. They both have a great history. They're both reputable. In fact, it was outlined, and I think the attorneys alluded to that, that in policy council, some of Thompson's leadership team actually came from Tetra Tech. So I have the utmost respect and confidence in both of these companies. So I'm willing to hear from those that are still having, but we need to start wrapping this up, and we need to make a decision. This item went to committee. Through the chair. Five, four of you, in addition to me, were in that committee. So we need to start moving forward and start and stop funding something that we have the information in front of us. Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as I understand it, there really was not discussion at policy council because it, for whatever reason, that our staff was not present at the moment and it passed very quickly. That's what I understood. But as far as any legalities, we have to defer to the attorneys on that because obviously there are restrictions when it comes to FEMA funding and other things. So I would suggest that we just get an opinion from the attorneys before you proceed with other options. I agree. And I think the attorneys should chime in for sure. I think if we go into a baffle, there's complications with that as well. Not that we can't do it, but there's complications with it as well. And it may come back as a bid waiver at that point, right? So in the absence of a baffle, I mean, again, I'm willing to hear from all of you, but I'm prepared to make a decision. I'll start with Commissioner Regalado. Thank you. It's very concerning to me that we're turning into like a selection committee. This is happening a lot. You know, the reason we have selection committees and we have recommendations is so that we're not put in this position. We can't do a baffle because then it comes back in a way that threatens the FEMA recommendation. But I also think that splitting the baby is not appropriate either because in terms of accountability, when there is a disaster, it's going to be different, right? The reason that historically we've had one company do all of it is so that we don't have a logistical issue and we don't have finger pointing. So I'm comfortable with the committee's original recommendation. I'm happy to make that motion. I think that because this is FEMA, I think that we should stick with the selection committee. I don't think that we need to get involved. I think it's been explained to us the difference in the pricing. Time and time again, when we've done this, there's been overtime. We could sit here and quibble about if it was responsive or not responsive. But at the end of the day, we asked for a flat rate. We got a flat rate and the selection committee picked the ones that gave us a flat rate. I'm all for saving money. But in this situation, whatever we save may end up costing us more in terms of FEMA. So are we really saving money? I don't see a reason to change staff's recommendation. So I'm happy to move the item with staff's original recommendation and not policy council's recommendation. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for Thompson. You said that there was nowhere in the RFP that said only flat rates were required. Correct. But you heard what was read on the microphone by our administration regarding the RFP written such that flat rates were required. No, I didn't hear that. I did hear the reading of the clause in the RFP that talks about proposing alternative approaches to delivery and that it would be dealt with in negotiation, which is exactly what we footnoted. It was outlined in the RFP. Yeah, I understand. That makes perfect sense. So your footnote said, and I quote, So the hourly rates proposed herein are applicable to regular time hours worked by an employee in a work week. Employee hours worked beyond 40 regular time, parens, overtime at employee option shall be charged at one and a half times the proposed rate. That's your footnote. Correct. Okay, so my question to you is, did you do what has been alleged, i.e. lower your rates in your bid proposal, i.e. yielding an $800,000 perceived savings with the intention of bumping up the rates via overtime, which is exactly what your footnote and your caveat says. Because what I'd like to know is, I want savings, we all want savings. The administration has already said, if we were to negotiate with you, we're disregarding that because it runs afoul of the black and white language of the RFP. So my question to you is, can you do the work at the rates that are bid exclusive of any consideration of overtime? The rates that we proposed are necessarily lower than a blended rate because we essentially said, you'll pay us for the work that we do. If it's inside 40 hours, you pay us a lower rate. If it's over, we pay the employee more, you pay us more. So it's the most direct way. And contrary to what you heard, we're also seeing that this is more and more the way these contracts are being issued because it directly aligns the cost of providing the service with the service that's being delivered. Okay, so I'm going to ask the question again. Are you, on the record today, representing that you can perform the work at the rates that you bid originally, completely disregarding and eliminating your footnote and your caveat regarding charging time at one and a half times the proposed rate for overtime? For us to do that, we would operate with no employees working any overtime. We would just work 40 hours a week. Okay, but that's not practicable, though, because we know that in disaster recovery and relief, our historical data shows that 38% of the time worked is overtime. And we have delivered these programs operating on shifts where employees can have a reasonable work week. Um, where the overtime doesn't have to be. That's the convenient way for a consultant to deliver this work is just to, to hire it, one employee, and work them 80 hours a week. But you could just as easily hire two employees and work them each 40 hours a week. Okay, but that's why I'm asking the question. I understand that explanation in that you're going to add, I guess, additional employees to not yield overtime. But then that wouldn't that change your numbers because you would then necessarily need to hire more staff. So I'm giving you an opportunity here, and I hope you recognize that because it's your RFP. You gave numbers that are substantially lower than the incumbent, right? For a project manager, the incumbent bid $95 an hour. You bid $75 an hour. For a data clerk, the incumbent bid $75 an hour. You bid $32 an hour. And then you put that caveat that said that's only for 40 hours. Anything over 41 hours, you're now charging, in your own words, one and one-half times the proposed rate. My question is a simple one. Can you do the work at just the bid rate that is substantially lower than the incumbent and completely disregard anything regarding one-and-a-half times the proposed rate? Can you do the work at your original bid price and disregard the footnote and the caveat? It's a yes or a no. The answer is I can do the work for the rate that I proposed as long as we're offered overtime in the event that it's needed. So, sir, I think you're a terrible presenter, terrible, but I understand what you're saying. It makes sense, but either you're not understanding the question or you're not explaining yourself right, so I think you need to reset. This has happened here before. I recognize that standing at the podium is intimidating, even for executives and business owners and CEOs. I recognize that. You need to reset because what you're saying is what the commission is trying to get to. It's the same thing. You guys are saying the same thing. You really are, but you're explaining it so complex that you're about to lose this for yourself. Okay. Because you're just explaining it so complex. You're saying what she's saying. You're just saying it so complicated that you're about to just – you're confusing everybody. Okay. You're confusing everybody. So do you want to reset and do you want to continue your line of questioning or go to the next person? Are you done, Commissioner? You're half-breath. I'll let you finish because this is – listen, we have disasters in Miami-Dade County, okay? We have disasters in Miami-Dade County. We also have a budget crisis in Miami-Dade County. We need competent professionals that know what they're doing, and I agree with our chairman. I have no questions regarding Thompson's ability to do the work. I am questioning your pricing by your own language included in the bid. And as the chairman stated, we're making a decision today. This is not going to get bumped down the road. My question, I've asked you three times the same question, and you have answered, yes, we can do it so long as we either staff up or we're going to include overtime. Right. Is that correct? Correct. And we can do it either – we can operate this with minimal overtime or no overtime. Commissioner Steinberg. Thank you. I appreciate the line of questioning, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. And I understand where the Policy Council kind of brought forward their kind of perspective on things. But I guess I'm going to bring a different perspective to this. As I listened to the conversation, I actually went from, okay, listen, we're going to save money. Well, the FEMA reimbursement is what we're really talking about, right? It's not necessarily – we have the outlay, whichever company we give it to, up to X amount. Then it becomes a FEMA reimbursement. So we want to make sure that, first and foremost, whatever company that we award to is eligible to, you know, get that FEMA reimbursement. And now we're dealing with a situation where, as I think Commissioner Cohen-Higgins just said, we do deal with disasters. That's a big issue. And residents will be calling us or whoever is sitting up here in the future when we have an issue and they can't get home because there's debris blocking the road and they want it done fast and they want the power lines picked up and the debris from everywhere. And that's just a normal, you know, terrible storm like Irma. It wasn't an actual hurricane, but it was a very high debris-producing storm. We did have Surfside, which was an unimaginable devastation. And we had a company that actually worked and was reliable during those events with the county. So I do think we need to be very smart here. I don't want to go back to the sargasm conversation, but I will say that we need to be looking at our partners and are they doing a good job and can we rely on them and what future disasters could happen. They're giving us the whole pricing. They're giving it to us all in. They're not hiding the ball. They're saying this is what it's going to cost, so we know full well. And so when we do those FEMA reimbursements, we know how to identify and why it's being justified and why we're going to get those reimbursements back because at the end of the day, we work very closely with our federal partners to ensure that we're all helping our residents. So I think I agree with Commissioner Regalado for the first time today. No, I'm kidding. Listen, the clock strikes. No, I'm kidding. No, but I think in this situation, while I really, really appreciate where the policy council was on this, I do think we need a known entity. This is something that we really need to really focus on. I can't worry about the unknowns. The disaster is unknown already. I need to have reliability. And so if that's the staff recommendation and that's who came in first technically, I think we really need to give that weight. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Bastien, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. It's a difficult situation to be in. And listening to you, Commissioner Steinberg, I'm concerned about the message that we are sending to the business community, too. And what we think about our procurement process, right? Mr. Chair indicated that this item was discussed at the policy committee and then it passed. But the question I'm asking while listening to Commissioner Steinberg is that if both companies went to the procurement process, one of them scored higher. Staff selected the one that scored higher. Why wasn't that honored? Why did we have to start over? And it is confusing because, and then most importantly, the other company did not file a complaint, right, after the procurement process. So I would tend to side with Commissioner Steinberg and Commissioner Regalado that we must honor the company that went to the process and then submitted a proposal and then was rated much higher. That's what I, especially since there wasn't any complaint filed by the other party, the other entity. It would be very hard for me to vote for the item that is in front of us in light of all that we have heard during this process, Mr. Chair, and then some of the comments that I've had. And I agree, Commissioner Bastien. My issue with it is the following. My issue is that the whole point of committee is to iron these things out. And if staff was not available to answer these questions in committee and there was confusion and clearly a ton of questions on this. And now we have done the opposite of what committees intended to do. We have spent hours on this in the full board instead of having ironed all this out in committee because whether it was justified, as Commissioner Cohen Higgins stated, that she had an excusable, like someone from the director's office or from procurement should have been there in committee knowing that this item was up. And we would have discussed that then. The fact is that I have all sorts of issues. Thankfully, we have strip coming our way and we'll be addressing a lot of this. But I have a ton of issues with the fact that you go and negotiate with the top bidder before it gets to, between the bid proposal and the time that it gets to our first committee. So we're now not seeing apples to apples. We're seeing on one end the second, third place, fourth place bidder. We're seeing their bid numbers. But on the first place winner, we're seeing their negotiated numbers. So I don't know if I'm the only one seeing a disparity there or how that's not apples to apples. But I agree that we should negotiate with everyone, absolutely, to get the best rate for the county, which is what I think this dialogue has been about. And he's the ones that have been advocating for the cheaper number. Because at the end of the day, this is all reimbursable by FEMA, but we've got to up front the cost. I asked a question that I haven't gotten an answer on yesterday, is how much of the IRMA reimbursable dollars are we still pending? And I asked to have an answer by today. I haven't received that answer. Through the chair. I know that we've provided some updates in writing. I don't know what the most recent report was. There were still some dollars pending. Is it possible that somebody could confirm for me that the state received some funding, but we hadn't received it locally? I don't know if anyone has that information. But I know we did receive the bulk of the funding. And I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, we don't have emergency. I don't know if Maggie Stingberg knows, can find out. She's here on behalf of Department of Emergency Management or Ray Baker. Can you answer that question? How about our Office of Management and Budget? Can we get an update on that? They don't have the answer, right? They don't have the answer. And let me just add something, Mr. Chair, if I could. You know, the process that is engaged in is the same, that when we get a number one bidder, we still try to get a better price. Mr. Chair, Namada Upal's process in general is when we have a top bidder, we go back and we still try to get a better price, which is what she did here. So that is the normal process. So nothing unusual about that. If sometimes we're directed to negotiate with more than one, and we do that, and then we bring back the, I guess, best and final. For reasons here, because of the federal rules, that apparently is not permissible in this particular case. So, you know, our procurement process led to the selection of the top bidder, and our department stands by that recommendation. The, unfortunately, as you said, there was not a staff representative, as my understanding was, that the meeting was over very quickly. There was no time allotted to give someone the benefit that they could show up, and I'm very sorry that that happened. It would have, we would have preferred a deferral on this item, of course, so that we could have had a full discussion in committee. I mean, look, the meeting was quick, but they should have just been on time. That was going to be my, wasn't it? I mean, the meeting went quick, but they should have just been on time. But, so, can the attorneys walk me through what the issue with negotiating with both, i.e. a baffle, or call it what you need to call it, what's the issue with that? The solicitation documents don't currently provide for a best and final offer process, so you'd have to do a bid waiver to create that essentially, to comply with your obligations under state law. The FEMA reimbursement requirements require that the proposals be awarded on a competitive basis and consistent with the federal procurement requirements. And so there is a chance that even though your BAFO is still competitive, right, you'd still have two people competing on price, that the vehicle we'd have to use to get there, the bid waiver, that FEMA would deem that to be inconsistent with federal obligations and therefore say you're ineligible for reimbursement. So I think you need to confirm that with FEMA before going down that path to ensure reimbursability. Got it. And you can ask, go ahead. So could we just put in all of our solicitations, the option for us to do a BAFO between the top two bidders? That way, giving us the opportunity to actually still stay within the solicitation. But if this board wanted to actually get a best and final offer at any time? Yes. Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe that should be the policy. Maybe we should have in our solicitations going forward through strategic procurement a BAFO option built in, so that if we wanted to do that, we could in fact do that and still be within the four walls of that solicitation. Bid waiver though. So once we built it into the bid, it would no longer be a waiver. So that's what they're saying, right? And future solicitation. And future solicitation. So it would no longer be, so maybe just from a policy perspective, maybe we ought to probably consider doing that, Mayor. And thank you. And through the Chair, the question that was asked previously of NAMIDA about whether all of those were eligible under the FEMA rules, and to Commissioner Lopez's question, as was explained to me by NAMIDA, Paul, it's really the process that the FEMA is looking for, integrity in the process, not so much a particular eligibility. So by deviating from the process, therefore, we could run afoul of the FEMA eligibility. Commissioner Lopez, I hope that answers your question. Thank you. All right. So our options are very limited. We either take a vote on one today, which I think we potentially are prepared to do. We can defer it, and the incumbent would have to agree to extending their existing contract, because they certainly don't want to leave the county without coverage in the middle of hurricane season. I don't know. The boards will. I, because I've done these numbers, I've had discussions on this 10 times, I know that despite the overtime, Thompson is still less expensive. And we're talking about even a 5-6% on the low end, a 5-6% on these numbers is actually not that impactful. But the estimate that the county administration actually said that we should be looking at is about a $200 million expense, $190 million. And on that, it could be from $15 million to $30, $40 million savings, which, while it's FEMA reimbursed, we're coughing that up at the beginning. So that's a real savings. That said, I can go in either direction now. I see you standing up, sir. I don't know what you're going to approach. No, no. Go ahead. I think that there's also the ability to just take the proposals as they are and run a scenario on the full rate schedule. What you saw was two of 12 positions and the impact that that overtime would have, not the full. Thompson, any way that you run the math on it is still 6% cheaper. It's a lower cost proposal. I've done the math, and I know you're right, but you've done a lousy job at explaining that on this board, and you got, like, 60 seconds of fame. You kind of didn't. If you were on The Voice or on one of these shows, you would have been X'd out by the Voice host and the judges. But I know that. That's why it's frustrating, because at the end of the day, and the reason I asked about the reimburse, because both of you guys, both companies, stated, you stated, you indicated to me at one point that your reimbursement rate is 100%, and Tetra Tech also said similar. They said 99 point something. But over what time? Because we still have IRMA funds that are outstanding, and I just heard the representative from Tetra Tech say, well, they're still, because the state is having issues, but that's not our issue. Well, no, it is your issue. It is absolutely your issue. The fact that nine years ago. The monies get reimbursed to the state and then the state to the county. We don't control that. So has you guys get paid as we get paid, or are all the services for IRMA already been paid to Tetra Tech? Like, I don't know how this business works. I'm not saying you did it right or wrong. How does it work? Explain that to me. Chairman, we have been paid. We are very good at what we do. We cannot control what the state does. They do 100% audit of the files. They have several accounting firms, big six accounting firms doing audits. All of the clients across Thompson's, ours, others, are waiting on money. You know, I can't speak for why the state does what they do, but it's not because of our paperwork. Understand, we get a very good paperwork. Thank you for that. And I assume that the same goes for Thompson. They also alleged the same 100% return rate, reimbursement rate. So, I mean, it's not one better than the other. But the reality is, you know, I don't know where you guys get those percentages from because the fact that we're still waiting nine years for IRMA, and I'm sure that your company has similar scenarios in other contracts because, to this point, if it's the state, it's the state. I don't know where you guys get that, but is there a way for either contract, and I don't know what the standard in the industry is, is that you guys get paid as we get reimbursed? Like, is that a norm in the – because what's the incentive that you guys have to follow up with all of this and push the state to draw down these funds? Federal procurement won't allow you to enter into a contingency contract that says you'll only pay me if they pay you because you're making them party to it. On your other question about the reimbursement rates, FEMA issues formal de-obligations for work that wasn't done properly, and those are essentially the scorecard for a debris monitor or a hauler. So, when we say we have 100% reimbursed, there's no de-obligations or findings from the federal government that the work was insufficient. Yeah, that's – I figured that would be the answer. Yeah. All right. I'm ready to take action here. Madam Mayor. Through the chair, you asked for information on FEMA reimbursements from Irma. Yes, ma'am, please. And we do have some data. Okay. Do you want to – is it – It was from March, so we issued a report to you because we issued periodic updates. We don't have since March. I don't know if we've received any since then. We have received some. Through the chair, I'm happy to share with you what's in the March 20th report. Can you just get it to my office? Okay, we'll send it to your office, no problem. I need to be asher with them now, but get it to me, please. Because I asked for that yesterday, I should have probably had it before the meeting. We're not even done with the pull list yet, almost, but not quite yet. All right, so what are we doing? I have a motion. Well, there's a motion by Commissioner Regalado to move forward with the Selection Committee's recommendation, right? Mm-hmm. Yes. Which is Tetra Tech, the incumbent. We have a second by Commissioner Steinberg. I know I had seconded it already. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show three nays. Show three nays, four nays. The item passes. All right, congratulations. All right, 14B2. No. Commissioner from District 8. All right, 15B1. Commissioner from District 7, you're recognized. This is just for an amendment, if the attorneys could read it. Don't worry, I got it. Commissioner Regalado moves, one, suspend the board's rule of procedure and waive committee review. And the four-week, six-week municipal notice requirement as to item 4A, Legislature number 261016 to amend item 15B1 to schedule the public hearing. And second reading item 4A at the July 21st, 2026, Board of County Commissioners meeting. Three, direct the agenda coordinator to send the appropriate municipal notices. And four, direct the clerk of the board to publish all necessary notices relating to this item. I'll second it. Move it. Thank you. I got a question. It's been moved. It's been seconded. Commissioner Bermudez, you're recognized. I just wanted to be clear, Commissioner Regalado, it's only for Key Biscayne, is that correct? Only for Key Biscayne. Okay, perfect. I'll support it. I just want to remind everybody, I've been banned in Boston. I've never been on the policy committee. Thank you. Hilarious. All right, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay, and show that item passed. 14B2, Commissioner from District 8, are you in the chamber? What's left? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I pulled this item only to ask the administration, if you recall, back in December of 2025, we made a motion directing the administration to work with all of our constitutional officers to try and gather as much information as possible as early as possible so that we can be best prepared going into our budget season. And then subsequently, I see on April 9th, our administration sent all of our constitutional officers very detailed letters asking for those pieces of documents and information. And I would just like to know from the administration how that has been going as we prepare for the budget coming up in just a couple of months. Through the Chair, Ray Baker, Director of OMB, will answer. Mr. Chairman? So, good afternoon. So far, we have received four of the five constitutional budgets as required. May 1st, we received the sheriff, clerk, election supervisor, and then June 1st, we received the property appraiser budget. So far, we have the required information from three of the four. We are pending the sub-object level from the sheriff. And we have been making multiple requests to get the level of detail that's required by state law for us to do the level of analysis that we need on that budget. Yes. That was it, Mr. Chair. I pulled the item just because I wanted to know whether or not our constitutionals were working with us pursuant to the motion that we made at the end of December so that we can best prepare going into budget season. And I'm happy to move the item. Thank you. Second. So the item moved and seconded. Commissioner Steinberg, you recognize? Yeah, that's fine. No, I just want to know, when are we getting our mid-year budget? It is running behind. We are going to try to push it to the July 21st BCC meeting. It is kind of starting to overlap with the budget process. So I'm not really sure how much of a point there is at this time to even bring it to the board. Because I don't think there's anything of consequence in there at this point in time that we couldn't otherwise accomplish in the budget proposal and in the 26-27 budget. All right. Let's move it along. All right. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. I believe that was our last pulled item. Any other on the pool list? Mr. J, you have the addition of those. Do I have any other on the pool list, though, or no? No. No. Okay. So then can you guide us through? I have some walk-ons for the CBA agreements. Do I need to open up reasonable opportunity for these? Yes, Chair. All right. So reasonable opportunity is we're on the CBA. I think there's six or seven CBA items that are being walked on to the dais now. So we are opening up reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard. I have no speaking card, so reasonable opportunity for the public. If there's anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on the CBA specifically, you're welcome to approach the well. Seeing none, reasonable opportunity is now closed. Yes, Jess. Just to read to the record, this is 14A6 through 14A12. Yes, which are the CBA's agreements. All right. Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to you and my colleagues for this being late. We're trying to get this done as soon as possible. It was delayed. We have members of different collective bargaining units that are in the audience right now. This basically maintains the status quo. The bill does not contemplate the financial aspects of collective bargaining. That's going to be pending what happens with the property tax relief that their folks will be voting on. I have a motion that actually will go with this also, and as Commissioner Gilbert moves to direct the county mayor and the county mayor that needs to negotiate a memorandum of understanding, which each of the county's collective bargaining units referenced in legislative numbers. 261082, 261083, 261084, 261085, 261086, 261087, and 261090. And that is agenda items 14A6 through 14A12 to provide that the collective bargaining agreements would not get reopened by the parties for the purpose of negotiating wages, overtime compensation, cost of living adjustments, or pay supplements for fiscal years 26, 27, 27, 28, 28, 29 until January 1st, 2027. And this just moves the reopen date from November in the item by memorandum of understanding so they don't have to go back to their collective bargaining units to January, which is basically a month. And so I think that that's agreeable with the collective bargaining units, it's agreeable with the administration. And with that I would amend my item and I would propose this be amended to all the items and move them forward. Second. It's been moved as amended, seconded, Commissioner Bermudis, you may lead. Yeah, and Commissioner Gilbert, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. Two things, because when I get something like this this late, I feel like it's, I'm in Dante's Inferno, the poem. You know, you are, and I'm going to trust you, you're saying that the unions are fine with this, the way it's being presented. Is that correct? Yes, and the moving around, they're all nodding back then, they're nodding. I just want to make sure. Yeah, the moving around is so that we don't, they don't have to take this back to their body. We're doing the amendment via a memorandum of understanding between us and the collective bargaining units. We are not amending the actual document, the actual CBA, so that we know that we can't, we're not going to reopen negotiations until January 1st, which is approximately a month after the November, the middle of November deadline when we would have. So the union's okay with that, they're nodding yes. The administration's okay with that, they're nodding yes. It's been very difficult to get this done. I'd appreciate everybody's support. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure, because, you know, I think that they work very hard on these collective bargaining agreements, and I don't want them to, you know, it's just, and I know it's January, by that time we should know any of these questions we need answered. So, okay, that was my question. Commissioner Orbis, did you, were you, no? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. These collective bargaining agreements speak nothing to, what is missing from these collective bargaining agreements? The reopeners for the purpose of negotiating. Through the Chair. Commissioner, what's missing is any changes to the financial obligation that the county would have to bear. So, for all intents and purposes, it's flat. We did not give any increases, nor are there any decreases reflected. What we did negotiate was reopening the contracts after the November election related to property tax, and so what the Commissioner is proposing is that we don't start any conversations about the financials until the calendar year 2027. Okay, so these maintain the status quo until January of 2027, specifically in the area of the financials? Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions? Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And quick question to the administration. This would not include the PBA and the fire union, is that correct? Correct. Their contracts are not due to expire at the end of the month, and we're still in conversations with those two bargaining units. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, Mr. Attorney, can we move all these items at one time as amended? Thank you. Commissioner Gibber, would you like to move the item? I would like to move the items just to the county. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I do want to move all the items at one time, but I want to make clear that the motion doesn't amend the item. We have to take the motion up separately so that they don't have to go back to their collective bargaining units. So let's move the items. I move the items, seconded. All right. So once we vote on that, and then I want to take up this motion as a separate item. Okay. But just for clarification purposes only, so the motion in itself will impact the- Yes. Yes. These items, but you want to take the motion itself separately for purposes of not having to go back to- Yes. Got it. All right. All right. So Senate item moves, items second, items 14AC, item 14A7, 14A8, 14A9, 14A10, 14A11, and 14A12. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All against? Item passes. All right, now the motion, we're taking up the motion that was submitted by Commissioner Gilbert. Do we have a second by commission? Did you second Commissioner Lopez? All in favor of the motion? Aye. All against? Item passes. Are there any other items on this agenda, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Vice Chair, I think we have some motions. You have some motions? Yeah. Okay. I'm reading those in now. Let's start reading them. I believe Commissioner Steinberg is going to move on behalf of Senator Garcia an appointment. That is correct. It is in Senator Garcia moves to appoint Daphne Gurry to the Miami-Dade County Historic Preservation Board. I move on Commissioner Garcia's behalf. What did my trainer say? Yes, Senator Garcia moves, Commissioner Steinberg, Commissioner Steinberg's, Commissioner Steinberg's move on Senator Garcia's behalf to appoint Daphne Igueri to the Miami-Dade County Historic Preservation Board. And it's second by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor? All against? Item passes. Motion passes. Mr. Chair, I have an appointment as well. Okay. Commissioner Orvis. Thank you. I'd like to appoint Theodore D Caroncalis to the Miami-Dade County Commission on Disability Issues, Cody. Second. All in favor? All against? Item passes. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Hardiman moves to appoint Marilyn Roscoe to MDC Commission on Disability Issues Board. Seeing a second. All in favor? All against? So motion passes. Are there any other outstanding issues anyone want to put on the record now? Motion to adjourn? Moved. Thank you.