Thank you very much. I would ask that Senator Garcia lead us in the invocation and Commissioner DCH, Danielle Cohen-Higgins, lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please. Please bow your heads. Dear Father, grant us the wisdom to do your service today, to make sure that we take care of the people of Miami-Dade County in the best way that we can, always keeping you at the forefront of all our actions. With that, we pray in your holy son's name. Amen. To America and to my nation, liberty and justice for all. Thank you. So, County Attorneys, good morning. I think at this time it would be appropriate to extend the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard. Good morning, Madam Chair. Yes, now would be an appropriate time to have the reasonable opportunity to be heard on all non-public hearing items. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time we will have a reasonable opportunity to be heard on all non-public hearing items. I don't have any cards before me. I don't know if anyone else has any cards. Seeing none, we will just ask if anyone present wishes to be heard on any non-public hearing item. Seeing none, we'll move. Mr. Attorney, can we proceed to set the agenda? Yes, Madam Chair. Before we set the agenda, would you like to have a poll list for today's meeting? Yes, I would, please. Does any commissioner want to bifurcate any item? Yes. Yes, Madam Chair. We would like to bifurcate 3J. And I also want to talk about 3F before we set the agenda. Madam Chair, I know that there was a motion. There's some talk about deferring it. But I would like this item to not be deferred and moved to the full BCC so we can make a decision on it. Because at the end of the day, we are rejecting all bids and wanting to rebid this contract out. I think it's important that we don't delay the process. And hopefully we can have a decision by the full board come the next BCC. Does anyone else have any items they wish to bifurcate? Madam Chair, I have a couple. Yes, please. I have 3A, 3C, 3D, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J. Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner. Thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to pull 3C, 3D, and 3L. And please be listed as a co-sponsor on 1G1. Thank you. There's no other bifurcations. And I'm going to bifurcate 3F, Senator Garcia, just so that we can have that discussion. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. So do we have a motion to set the agenda? I'm moved. Second. Madam Chair, in addition, Senator Garcia would like to be listed as a co-sponsor on items 1G1, 2A, and 3L. Thank you. Thank you. So I have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. A second. I need a second. I'll second it. I wanted to also be listed as a co-sponsor on 1G1. Thank you. Second. So I have any objection? All right. Motion carries. All right. So let's move to the first item. Vice Chairwoman, we'll start with 3A. Okay. I had some questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I see that this one's particularly pertaining to the supervisor of elections, and there's some changes that are happening. But there's also the crosswalk policy in here. And I just wanted to know, because this is a change that's coming a little bit later, is there any other constitutional office that has the same issue, you know, that we'll have to take care of this later with the crosswalk? Or is this the supervisor election the last one that needs to do this change? Through the Chair, I'd like Ryan LaFarga to respond. Yes, of course. You're recognized. Thank you. Good morning. Ryan LaFarga, Office of Management and Budget. We have, per the Board's direction, we have executed the employee crosswalk and amendments to the IALAs for the Clerk of the Courts, for the Sheriff, and for the Tax Collector. The property appraiser for went the extension, and this, for the supervisor of elections, although the Board has already directed us to do so, this would memorialize that amendment. Okay. So there's three components to this, right? There's a switch of the filing of the financial disclosures. Those things are switching over. Yes. So this item, in summary, there's the financial disclosures before we went to the transition to supervisor of elections. It wasn't a statutory duty of the supervisor, so we transitioned that to the Commission on Ethics. The supervisor houses the system, so the county is currently working with the Commission on Ethics to house that system in-house, to develop our own system. So we just asked the supervisor, essentially, to not turn off the lights while we still go ahead with and implement our new system. Okay. So that's one of the portions of the agreement. It's financial disclosures and outside employment, which used to be housed with the Elections Department. Correct. Yeah. The outside employment has been fully implemented with the Commission on Ethics, and now the financial disclosures is the same thing. They've been operating it, but we're just using their system for now. Do you have a timeline for completion? Yeah. The last timeline was in July. We believe, I believe, I saw in informs there was an update. We can get that update for you, but it should be this fiscal year. Okay, and as part of this item, the crosswalk is also included, correct? Correct. It's just amending our interlocal agreement with the supervisor of elections to include the extension of the crosswalk. Which, so it would be applicable the same as for the tax collector and the other... Exactly, correct. ...property appraiser. Yeah. Okay, thank you. No further questions. I'll move it if it's... We have a motion to move the item. Second. Second by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. All in favor, say aye. Aye. So we'll move. Vice Chairwoman, we'll move to 3C. Oh, I released that one. You released it, but Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you had pulled 3C. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm certainly supportive of the item. I just have a few questions of the administration. There are millions of dollars of carryover funds indicated here, and it's my understanding that we have passed policy at the board in different areas that captures 100% of carryover funds and distributes it in different places. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund is one example. There's previous legislation that said 50% of all carryover funds gets automatically swept into that fund. And so my question is, is it accurate that 100% of our carryover funds, assuming that we ever have any, and obviously I'm happy when we have carryover funds, but is it accurate that 100% of those carryovers are swept by our own policies into one place or another? I know 50% off the bat goes to Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Is the other 50% automatically allocated within the board's existing policies? Through the chair, I'll ask our director of OMB to respond to the question. Director, you're recognized. Good morning. Ray Baker, director, Office of Management and Budget. We do have latitude into where the additional carryover above and beyond what goes into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. And in this item, we are making some recommendations, particularly part of the additional countywide money beyond the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is going to reserves and a couple of other obligations that were passed in the 24-25 budget and changed after the 25-26 was adopted. And we are recommending 100% of the UMSA go into reserves. And thank you for that. But that's a recommendation from the administration. Is that recommendation pursuant to board policies, or is that just a preferential recommendation being made by the administration? I believe we are following the budget ordinances. And then in this item, we're indicating that's where it will go. And then when the mid-year comes to the board, the full recommendation by the mayor, in accordance with the board's policies on the budget, will be recommended. Okay. And so I'm not sure that I still have a clear answer to the question. I'm not trying to belabor the point. I'll ask it differently this way. I know 50% is allocated pursuant to the board's policies. The other 50%, could we as a board say, we greatly appreciate your recommendation. However, we believe that these funds should be allocated elsewhere, i.e. not into reserves. Could we as a body do that? Yes, ma'am. I mean, turn to the attorneys, but I believe the answer is yes. I prefer the county attorney's respond, but I think the answer is yes. Go ahead, Michael. Yes, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, pursuant to Section 2-1799, subsection G of the county code. After the first 50% of unallocated carryover is dedicated to affordable housing, the remainder is applied in the discretion of the county commission, listed for any of the following uses, tax relief, profit sharing with departments who generated additional revenue, buildup of reserves, placement in the capital outlay reserve fund in the fiscal year following the fiscal year. So those are all possible reasons, but it's up to this board's discretion as to how it gets distributed. Thank you for answering that. So I'm going to support this item now and advance it to the full board. I do, however, want to have discussions with the administration about the allocation of the discretionary portion of the carryover funds as we enter into what we know is going to be a very difficult and tight budget season. I'm not sure that reserves is the best place for those funds, but I look forward to having those conversations with you between now and final hearing. Lastly, kind of going down memory lane a bit, today is May, and I'm not sure what the date is, May 13th. Exactly a year ago today, it was May 14th of last year that the administration, or around this time, announced that we were going to expect or anticipate a budget shortfall of $400 million. We're now in that time frame, and this is the Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Committee. My question is a simple one. When are we going to get some sort of an analysis from the administration on what our budget forecast is looking for this coming year? Sure. Thank you, Commissioner. We are planning on, after the preliminary tax roll is released on June 1st, that we will have a very clear picture of where we are, and I believe the mayor is also beginning to organize her strategy in reaching out to each of the commissioners with full briefings on the budget. Thank you. Nothing further, Madam Chair. I'm going to move the item. Oh, happy to move it. Yes. No. Yes, so on the, thank you, Madam Chair. On the carryover, right? I know, I think we have some, we have some unreadiness about the carryover. I've been trying to work on policy, but I know that there's a hold out there somewhere. But I think that we should look at how we can use this money to provide relief back to our seniors. If we're able to move this back into the general fund, I think this is a year where it deserves to look at it. I don't know how quickly the administration can do it, but I would like a directive to the administration to let us know how we can use the 4.7 in carryovers for relief for our seniors under a certain threshold for their property taxes. That is a direction, I don't think we need a motion for it. I think it's a request. I think that's in keeping with some direction that we had at the last Board of County Commissioners meeting when I said, if there's any property tax relief we should be looking at, it should be those that are 65 and older who need the relief more than anyone else. So I think that that's a great direction, and I think it's in keeping with the direction that came from the last meeting. I know that we have to move this forward, so I don't know how realistic that will come back. But if we can see it before this item comes up for final approval, that would be my goal. Through the Chair? Yes, you're recognized. A point of clarification, and I trust the county attorneys may correct me if I misstep. The end of the year item, the carryover, we are basically making a recommendation of what to do with those funds. There's another item that's coming before the Board, which is an amendment, a mid-year budget amendment. And so at that juncture, the Board can contemplate if we've placed money in the appropriate buckets, if that makes sense. Am I saying that correctly? Do you see? So this one is, this is the carryover. Here's how much it is. If the administration would recommend X, Y, and Z, but then we actually need to place those dollars, the placement of those dollars is when you all approve the mid-year amendment to the 26 budget. Yes, so it sounds like if we know what, and I think the county attorney said that property tax was one of the items. Is that not correct? Tax relief is one of the things. Tax relief. That's exactly what we're looking for, tax relief. So I believe that what we're hearing is that when that mid-year budget amendment comes before the Board, with your recommendation, we could say we prefer to use those funds for tax relief, which is under the code allowable, and we'll move from there. Senator Garcia, I know you had a comment. Oh, I had a, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Well, I still have the floor. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, absolutely. I just want to clarify, because I just heard that this is a recommendation, but this is not a recommendation. I don't know if I'm mixing up the language, but this is an ordinance adopting and ratifying the budget adjustments, correct? So it's not a recommendation. We're actually adopting the administration's recommendation, which means we're putting the money where you say to put it. Can you clarify, please? This item is the closeout of FY 24-25, and as part of that closeout, there is additional carryover, and in this item, it is recommending now that it goes to reserves. Further in the item, at the end of the item, we talk about the FY 25-26 mid-year, and in there, we are- Reserves for now until we can make a decision at the mid-year. Okay, but the 4.7, which is a large sum, is from 24-25? Absolutely. And do we know what we have from 25-26? We would be allocating that carryover in the 25-26 mid-year to go to reserves. Okay. Yes. All right, thank you. Senator Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that clarification, and I just want to remind us, I think a couple of years ago, we tried to change the methodology of the 50% for housing and 50% somewhere else. We have the ability to change it, if I'm not correct, if I'm mistaken, correct? You can always change it. We can always change it, because we, a couple of years ago, Madam Chair, before you were here, we had a big debate over this, and this is why they settled on 50%, we, as a board, decided on 50% on housing. And while I recognize that housing is extremely important, affordable housing, if we are entering some budget crunches, we need to be careful on how we budget some of these dollars and not tie our hands. But I just want us to be very clear, understand that we have the ability to change that through a motion or an ordinance and overweigh the rules. So I appreciate that, and I thank you for the clarification on what we're doing with these dollars. But it's important always to be mindful that we do have that ability. So thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to bring it up to those. Thank you for that clarification, Senator. So do you want to move the item, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Madam Chair, excuse me. Before the board votes on the item, may I read the title as it's an ordinance? Yes, you may, please. Three Cs and ordinance approving, adopting, and ratifying fiscal year 2024-2025, end of year supplemental budget adjustments and amendments for various county departments and funds, amending ordinance numbers 24-97, 24-99, and 24-102 to make budget amendments, ratifying and approving, implementing orders and other board actions which set fees, charges, and assessments for fiscal year 2024 and 2025, appropriating grant donation and contribution funds for fiscal year 2024-2025 in accordance with section 2-1796D of the county code, approving certain budgetary reallocations, providing severability, exclusion from the county code, and an effective date. Thank you for that. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Commissioner Cohen- Thank you, Madam Chair. Really quickly, just to respond to Senator Garcia's comment. Thank you for saying that. I couldn't agree more. When that ordinance was passed, allocating the 50%, we were in a completely different financial situation than what we're in right now. And I have an item that's going to be coming. I look forward to working with you and the rest of this board and the entire body as we maybe relook at things and reconsider how we're going to handle carryover funds moving forward. So, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. So, would you like to move the item? I move it. Move 3C. And we would need a roll call. Perfect. Clerk, you'll do the roll call, please. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Vice Chairwoman Amelia Norvis. Chairwoman Lopez. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. So, we'll move to item 3D. Both Vice Chairwoman and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins pulled the item. So, Vice Chairwoman, if you'd like to start, please. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, this is, it's a rejection of bids, right? So, I wanted to ask, when we can expect the new solicitation to come back to us? This is, you know, for materials and items, construction items, I suppose. So, you know, I know that things get more expensive, and so are we working to hold the price that we have now to make sure that if we toss out the solicitation, it doesn't increase as the time goes by? And when can we see a new solicitation in front of us? Morning, Director. You're recognized. Good morning, through the Chair. The proposal to reject all bids is basically because the bids that we received took the option of any land application off the table. And that was because of the pending litigation, legislation. If we can get this body to accept the rejection of all bids, we will be looking to put out a new solicitation as soon as possible. We do want to do an industry day to let the industry know what we're doing, why we're doing it. And therefore, in addition to what's in front of you, we would also ask that if this body were in favor of rejecting all bids, that that be carried over to the next BCC meeting. Point of clarification, and I don't mean to interrupt, but, Director, you said litigation. Legislation. I apologize. Yep, thank you. That's what I thought. Thank you. Okay, so my question, though, is when we'll see the solicitation come back? The solicitation won't necessarily come back to this body prior to being put out. The solicitation will be put out, and if we can move it quickly, we should be able to be back here probably in July with a recommendation for award. The current contract ends the end of December 26th, so that should give us ample time prior to the termination of that contract. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. But I don't know that I got the answer to her question. When will the solicitation go out? I don't know. The solicitation can't go out until we formally reject everything. It can go out in a matter of two to three weeks once we get that rejection. We do want to reach out to the industry, though, and make sure they're all aware of what's going out so that we can solicit the best and most bids that we can get. Understood. Any other questions? You had pulled Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I pulled it for a similar question and comment, just making the request that the rejection of bids be re-solicited as expeditiously as possible. That was it, really. I understand the item entirely, and I understand that Compost USA is one of the current contract holders. I don't see them listed as a participating vendor in this particular procurement, and I know they're doing good work for the county, so I hope that they do re-bid if this goes out or when this goes out. But my only comment was just that I hope that it's able to be done on a very expedited basis. And with that through the Chair, we do appreciate the ability to put this on, or recommendation to put it on the next BCC meeting agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a motion to move 3D? So moved. Second. So we have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Merlion-Orbis. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. So we'll move now to 3G. Vice Chairwoman, you have pulled that item. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I see that the constitutional offices are also using documentum, and we've come across a number of contracts that include constitutional offices. But there's constantly a back and forth of whether the constitutional offices are with us, without, not with us, if they've completely separated from the county. So in this case, what happens if the constitutional offices choose to stop using this service and want to do their own thing, want to use their own service for this support? You know, what are we doing to kind of unwind ourselves from these kind of deals, and are they contributing their fair share to the cost of the contract? Through the Chair, I'll ask Jose Lopez to respond to the question. Thank you. You recognize Jose. Thank you. Good morning. Jose Lopez, CITD. We do support, through the documentum, we do support several constitutional offices, and at the moment, we do continue supporting them. If the decision is made to stop using our services, we're currently right now performing an analysis on all our technologies. Should that happen? What are the ramifications of that? How do we stop it? How do we assist them to transition to wherever they're going to go? So we are, we do have plans in place, not only for documentum, for all our technologies. We're doing that research right now. Do you have any further questions? Thank you. I guess my question, before I move to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, based on Commissioner Milian Orbis' question is, who decides that? I mean, are we being collaborative with them and saying, we'll continue until you decide you don't want the services anymore? Is that how we're perceiving this item? Correct. We're not cutting anybody off. We are in open dialogue, not only with the municipalities, I mean, not only with the constitutional office, with all our departments. We support them. We don't mandate on them. Have any of the constitutional offices expressed an interest to move away from, you know, the county's services? I believe there is one. The tax collector, I believe, has expressed not funding resources to continue growing it. But I don't believe there's been any discussions of shutting it down. So we can't continue supporting the current environment. Thank you. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. No? I had a follow-up question because, you know, now the constitutional offices are separate from the county, right? So this documentum service supports a lot. It says it here in the item. Massive amounts of county data. Is all that protected, separated, so that our data is not mixing with the constitutional offices and vice versa? It's not that it's mixed. We do maintain it, and it is secure. We work with our security office, so nothing's really changed. It is totally secure. And it's not just documentum. We also have our portal. So this documentum has two different technologies that we support, which is the team site and the content management. Both of them are content management. One of them is for the web publishing, which is, you know, you have the portal and a bunch of websites that we maintain. And then you have the content management, which is for the documents and the workflows. So we're coming for both of those things. Any further? No. Thank you. Thank you. So do I have a motion to move the item? So moved. I have a motion by Vice Chairwoman Milian Orbis and seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. So we'll move to 3G. Vice Chairwoman, you pulled that item. I'm sorry, 3H. I have a motion to move the item by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Do I have a second? Seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Commissioner Milian Orbis is opposed. Thank you. Motion carries. So we'll move to 3L. And it was pulled by, did you? No, we did H. No, we did H. Sorry. Okay, I'm sorry. No, no, it's okay. So 3I was pulled by both Vice Chairwoman Milian Orbis and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. So Vice Chairwoman. I have a lot of questions about this item. For example, I didn't know that we were buying golf products to sell at our parks. And I understand we have a number of golf courses in the county. You know, I wanted to ask, how profitable is this really for us? Because we're, from what I see on the item, we're spending $700,000 to buy these items. And we're making maybe $50,000. But given the fact that our parks are so under fire every single year, is this the best use of our money for parks? Through the Chair, I'll ask our Director of Parks to approach. Director, you're recognized. Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Christina White, Pro's Director. So, Commissioner, yes. We have golf courses, right? So these products are sold in the pro shops at the golf courses. So they're very standard items that golfers would like to buy. Golf balls, clubs, hats, apparel, stuff like that, right? So what we're doing here, this is a bid waiver to provide additional expenditure authority. The contracts, we already have the contracts. They expire in 2027. This is adding additional expenditure authority because we are selling those products. So we need to be able to increase our inventory. It's a good thing that we're going directly to the manufacturer on these things because they're intended to be revenue generating. So by going directly to the manufacturer, we can get them at the best price possible and then resell them to golfers who are coming to our golf courses. You follow up? Yeah. Well, I just, you know, with all due respect, and I appreciate the explanation, and I understand it's revenue generating. I just have unreadiness with this because our parks were under so much fire last year, right? And we were considering cutting lifeguards. So for us to be doing a bid waiver to buy golf items, it doesn't sit well with me, and I just, that's just me personally. Nothing against the golf courses. I hope that we make millions of dollars off of this, but that's just me personally. I think that we're waiving authority to buy items, and we really don't know how much we're going to generate off these items. So I don't feel comfortable with the bid waiver. I'm not going to be supporting this, but that's just me. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me clarify, Commissioner. So the contracts already exist. We're adding expenditure authority, and this is bringing money into the park system. We are buying these products to sell them at our pro shops in order to make a profit, and that offsets the cost of running the golf division. So the more revenue we're generating, the less reliance on general fund we need. This is a positive thing in my view. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Okay, Commissioner Gonzalez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to the director, I happen to agree with Commissioner Orbis. I'm not saying that this is bad, and I'm not saying that it's good. But what I am saying is that we need to look at this from a private sector perspective. If we're going to be in the business of selling goods, which you're telling me that we're selling these goods to folks that come to the golf courses, and these are things that they need, we need to make sure that it's profitable. Nobody goes into business to not make profit, which I'm sure that you're aware of. I think her question was how much money we're going to make from this. And in order to derive that question, what we can do is we can look at how much money we made last year and the year before, and then we can make a decision as to whether this is something that we should explore moving forward or whether it's not working. So do you have the numbers on you as to how much we spent and how much we made last year off this golf equipment? Spent, I'll have to get for you, but in the last two years for these contracts, we've generated $873,000. So it was 755, I believe is what it said in the item. That was at the time that the item was submitted, so that number has increased since then. And again, this contract will expire in 2027, so our estimate for the year to come is an additional $648,000. $648,000 for this year, the last two years we made $873,000? Correct. And that's because the contract didn't start until halfway through the first year. So this will be the first year where it's the full year of being able to maximize the contract. Got it, and maybe from procurement, or I don't know who can validate how much we spent, as opposed to how much we made, because with these numbers, if we spend less than this, then this is a great idea. Okay, and I was just told that it's a 53% profit margin. 53% profit margin, that was great, that was awesome. We should lead with that respectfully, because this is a great initiative, you see what I'm saying? No further questions. Thank you, Commissioner, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? So do we have a motion to move the item? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins moved the item. Commissioner Gonzales seconds it, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Commissioner Milian Orbis is a no. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So we'll go to 3J. Senator Garcia, you pulled 3J. Vote just to vote no. Okay, do I have a motion to move the item? I have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Do I have a second? 3J? Yes. I pulled this one as well. I'm sorry. Yeah, but if you want to move it. Yes. Yeah? I'll second it, but I just have some questions. Go ahead. I have a motion and a second. Vice Chairwoman has got some questions. I wanted to ask if the leases of these vehicles include electric buses and the electric vehicles as well. Director Baker, you're recognized. Thank you. There are no electric buses in this item. There are 43 electric vehicles out of the 787. Most of those are sedans and light trucks, but there are no buses that are electric in there. Okay, thank you. That's it. No further questions. Question by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chan. Thank you, Commissioner Milian Orbis for pulling the item. This item is specifically and only for leasing fleet vehicles, and it's $80 million. Have we done an analysis of whether or not it's more cost-efficient to the county to lease versus to buy vehicles? Every year we have an item at the beginning of the year asking us for $100 million to purchase new vehicles because of our aging fleet. And now we have $80 million in leasing. How do you all make a decision between leasing versus purchasing vehicles? And have you all done an analysis on what's most cost-efficient to the county? I'm going to need some help with that one, ma'am. Okay, I didn't mean to catch you off guard on it. I'm happy to work with you between now and final hearing as this item travels. But the item didn't really speak to that, and I know we do always have a fleet item for always over $100 million. And so it raises the question when we're spending so much on leasing. And if you're not prepared to answer now, that's great. I'll work with you between now and final hearing. But I would be interested in that cost-benefit analysis. Will do, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have a motion on the floor and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Commissioner Garcia is a no. Thank you. So now we're at the end of Commissioner. Yes, Carla Denise, you're recognized? Thank you, Madam Chair. 3D, we were asking to get moved to the BCC meeting. I was mentioned, but I don't know if it was fully captured that we were asking for 3D to go to the May 19th BCC meeting? Yes. Okay. I have that, and I also have item 3C. My sponsor has requested that that item also be waived and moved to the May 19th. So there's two items. Thank you. And one more thing, Madam Chair. Just, I don't want to belabor that last talk, but for the record, I do want it to be noted that we're doing a lease purchase, and we will meet with Commissioner Cohen-Higgins to discuss the cost-benefit analysis that's been done that got us to this conclusion. Thank you. Thank you. 3L. So I have item 3L before I go to 3F, Senator. So, yes, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, 3L. Thank you, Madam Chair. I pulled 3L. I certainly am supportive of this item. I know it's a long time in the making, but I do need some clarification because the sponsor of the item is not the district commissioner, and this involves a conveyance of land. And so when we're conveying land, our rules don't allow us to convey land in other commissioners' districts, i.e., I cannot say I'm going to convey a parcel of land in Commissioner Garcia's district unless there's a two-third vote, I think, either of the members present or what have you. So I need to know, and I'm glad that the sponsor is here. I welcome her, and I'm glad that she's here. Without the sponsor, excuse me, without the district commissioner being present, I don't feel comfortable advancing this because I have no idea whether or not he's supportive of this item. So I'm happy to our Madam Chair whether I can recognize the sponsor. I know there was a Sunshine meeting that took place, and I just want to get clarification on the record so that I can feel comfortable making sure that the district commissioner is supportive of this land conveyance in this district. We welcome Commissioner Regalado, who's the sponsor. Thank you. Thank you. And, yes, we had several Sunshine meetings, and he is in support. This item has taken a very, very long time. And my understanding from the attorneys is that, obviously, the base is one of these things of regional significance. So there was a hold and a back and forth about it. And the commissioner and the district and I have met about it, and we've also met with the congressman of the district. So Carlos Jimenez is also supportive of it. So it's been a long time to get to this point, and it's been part of a much broader conversation about ensuring that the base secures its runway. Thank you for the clarification, Commissioner. Happy to move 3L. And thank you for being here, and thank you for providing that clarification. Thank you. So we have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Senator Garcia, we're now ready to look at 3F. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm looking at 3F, and 3F has to do with a contract solicitation for fair collection applications. It's a software system. There has been some questions as it relates to this RFP, but the reality is that the administration is looking to defer the item. I'm thinking it's important for us to move the item to the county commission, asking the administration with a certain number of items as it relates to the scoring mechanism and the amount of the money is associated with this. Because what my understanding is, Madam Chair, is that there was one of the awardees came in about $20 million less. And I don't think that we should be really delaying this process. I think it's important for moving to the county commission, let everyone do the work they need to do. And I'll make a motion to ask the administration to provide some level of details as to the RFP and some of the numbers so we can move this forward and not, again, have another delay throughout another RFP and so forth. Is there any discussion? Yes, Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not necessarily against this item or the deferral, but I do have a variety of questions as to how we got here, just because I want to understand it further. If I can get somebody from the administration, why exactly are we asking for a deferral? Through the Chair, I'd ask our Director of Procurement and Director of Transportation to respond to the questions. Thank you. Director, you're recognized. Both directors are recognized to answer any questions of the committee members. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Namita Upal, Director of Procurement. Commissioner, the reason we're asking for deferral of this item is the item contemplates that we're going to put out an RFP, and it states the reasons why we are rejecting. But there might be an opportunity for Department of Transportation and Public Works to look into if there is something they could do with the current system, and still make it upgraded, and be compliant, and save some money for the county. That option was presented to us recently, and DTPW technical team needs little time to evaluate that option. And we think that between now and June committee, we will be fully fleshing out that option, and so that's why we asked for deferral. Got it. So we're trying to work it out with the company. As I understand, we've had this contract since 2008, is that correct? That is correct. So- The system is there since 2008, yes. Understood. When was the solicitation initially put out, like the solicitation to replace? The solicitation was advertised in May of 2025, and we received proposals in August of 2025. So this solicitation process, the procurement process in general, has taken about almost a year, correct? That is correct. Why was the possibility of working with the current vendor not explored prior to issuing the solicitation in the first place? Because it seems like the current vendor is open to fixing the issue. Did we explore having them fix it before we even put out a solicitation? I'll have Director Miller. Mr. Chairman, I mean, Madam Chairman, if I may, again, and I appreciate your line of question, if I may, because these are the issues that we have. And again, why was that not explored beforehand? Is there issues with that? We have now an RFP that we have two vendors before us, and now we're thinking of exploring, oh, let's talk with the other vendor. This is why I think instead of getting into the whole conversation, debate over this, move this forward. Let's get the information. Look at the two vendors that were selected, the two top vendors. Give us all the pricing points. Make sure we clarify that so we can move it forward, and then we make a decision as a board, as opposed to, you know, throwing out this RFP, deferring it. What are they going to afford to negotiate with whom? So we're saying that we're going to waste people's time. This is what happens time and time often here in the county commission. I'm sorry. Thank you for giving me a platform, Madam Chair. This is what happens far too often here, where there's monies that are invested by these companies to do these RFPs. These RFPs aren't cheap. And then we go ahead and say we're going to throw this out, negotiate with the old one. It's not right. This is why people refuse to do business. Some people refuse to do business with the county because it's so unpredictable. I think it's important for us to continue to send them a message, and this is why I stick by. I'll make the motion if you want me to make the motion now, and we can vote it up or down. But I think it's important that we move this to the full board. You can certainly make a motion, and if there's a second, we can. I'd like to give at least, you know, Commissioner Gonzalez and anyone else who just has a comment. But if you're making a motion, what would your motion exactly be? Listen, I would move that we reject. I'm going to read it, Madam Chair, just to be Ryan's spot, all right? I move that we reject the recommendations by the mayor and that we direct the mayor to present to the board a report to assist the board in the ultimate allocation of price points among the two highest technically qualified proposals. You know, and it should include pricing sheets and analysis of what was included or excluded in the pricing offered together with an estimate of any excluded items. That's the item, Madam Chair. Second. So we have a motion by Senator Garcia, a second by Commissioner Millian Orbis. Under discussion, Commissioner Gonzalez, are you continuing, please, your line of questioning? Madam Chair, I have a variety of questions to go through, but I will go with the will of the Chair. I don't mind voting this up. And then you can meet with staff? I can definitely meet with staff, and then if not, we can go through the line of questioning during the BCC. Okay. So I think in the interest of time, if you don't mind getting with the administration on some of your questions, if there's any other, do you have? So I know that Commissioner Cohen-Higgins wanted to have a comment as well. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is super interesting, because we don't typically get a rejection of all bids, especially on a contract of this size, with this many participants. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine or so. Maybe my math is not so good, but I think I can count. Nine or ten participants, and the justification for rejecting all bids is that the incumbent vendor is proposing. Help me understand. Because in the item, what it says is, you all received a lot of objections. That's the language in the item. That you were recommending a rejection of all bids because you all received, during the evaluation of proposal, staff received numerous objections from the multiple proposers. To allow for updates to the RFP and to provide further clarity on the evaluation process and to assure a best value contract upon review of the objections with the county attorney's office, a rejection of all proposals is recommended. But that's not how we do things. Like, we get objections all the time to highly competitive, very valuable RFPs. If we were to reject all procurements based on objections, we would never complete a procurement. What we do when we get objections is we issue addendums. This is what we do. So why didn't we issue addendums here? I need to understand that. Commissioner, you're absolutely right. We don't take rejections lightly. It's not an easy decision because, as Senator mentioned, there's a lot of time and effort on our end and these companies. We did get healthy participation under this RFP. Now, rejection and deferral, I want to separate those two decisions. So decision to reject all proposals was approved by the mayor in April based on the recommendation that I made along with Director Miller to the mayor. And the reason for rejections were, during the RFP process, we advertised the RFP, we answered all the questions, we did the addendums, we got nine proposals. Great. During the evaluation process, there were some anomalies that we discovered that we could not rectify. Considering this, we plan to seek FTA funding for that. Any deviation from the process that was advertised in the RFP would result in us not getting the federal funds. So, and there were three key issues that we encountered that could not be cured. So that's why we were recommending a rejection and starting fresh the process so we could be eligible for federal funding. But when the question was just asked by Commissioner Gonzalez, the answer was very different because he asked the same question. Why are we? He asked for deferral. Okay, in fairness to you, you're right. You did distinguish deferral from rejection of all bids. And the explanation you just gave was an explanation as to why you're recommending a rejection of all bids, ambiguities, FTA funding. I get that. But the reason for deferral, you said, was to work with the current contract holder for better pricing. So now I'm authentically confused. Yes. So the item contemplates that we, the item says we're going to put out a new RFP. So that was the intent because at the time we were rejecting, we made a recommendation to reject. We were contemplating putting out a new RFP, but in between from that time now, there is a possibility that we may work something out for the existing system for a little bit time frame. So the item is not, then we may not put out the RFP, but I'm not sure that option is fully vetted. That's why. Madam Chair, I don't mean to cut her off, but this is exactly the line of questioning that I have just to get to the bottom of all of this. I'm not saying that they're doing anything wrong. I don't think that they're doing anything wrong. I just want to get to the bottom as to, you know, why we're here in the first place. I don't mind sending it to the BCC and having this discussion at the BCC. I also don't mind the deferral, but the line of questioning that I had was specifically to answer that question and to answer why we're in the deferral process in the first place. No, and I appreciate that. I believe that there's so much confusion right now, and clearly amongst the committee members here, I hear your concerns, and I certainly hear the senators' concerns about so many things. I think there's a laundry list now, but here's what I would say. In the interest of time, because there appears to be lots of questions about this, we need to get our answers, and I think the senator's motion actually directs the administration to answer these questions. So I guess I would say, with all the questions that everyone seems to have, maybe what we can do is submit your questions to the administration so they are part of the report that your motion contemplates, and we can move this to the full board, because I know I have a motion and a second, and I think that that's just, yes, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. So I have unreadiness with moving this to the full board, because we say time and time again that committee is where we are tasked with fleshing these things out. But I understand where the senator is coming from, because I understand the import of the item. So, you know, I am not sure where I land on the motion to advance it to the full board, because what we're going to do is we're going to end up being the selection committee, because there's no recommendation for one awardee. And so I wonder what the ultimate outcome is going to be. Are you envisioning us making a decision at the full board on picking one of these vendors, or getting, you know, our answers to our questions? And so that will help me in deciding how to vote on the motion. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, if I may, you know, I think we've done this quite a few times already in the past. I would like to advance this so we can continue to have the conversation, understanding very well that there is two vendors right now that are at the top. There's a $20 million spread between both of them. And I think from here to the time that we get to the county commission, I think we can all sit down with the administration, have conversations, and figure out where we land on this item and get the clarification that we need. Again, my concern is trying to delay another RFP, making it harder, making it take more time when we know the software is the software that's needed for our transit system. And now we're talking about the former vendor. This goes back to your question, your line of questioning, and yours both, where why wasn't that contemplated prior to the RFP going out? Why are we now talking to the previous vendor, to the current vendor? So, again, these are some anomalies in the whole process, and this is why I think it's important to move it forward, put pressure on the administration to answer our questions, and by the time it gets there, we should be able to have a fully vetted contract, an RFP. And I guess I would respond that I see a process problem here, and potentially an ongoing process problem, of which maybe this item should have been directed to the Transportation Committee to discuss fully transportation issues, because now we have an offer with the current vendor to potentially do better, and we have the RFP that, you know, went out and seemingly appears to be flawed from what the administration says. So I think I would have moved this item to transportation, and I know the chair is here, and he probably would disagree with me or agree with me, but out of process, I believe that now when we're starting to talk about the way we do procurement, if it's a transportation procurement, the Transportation Committee should look at the process and try to figure out what's the best way for us, because I don't disagree with Commissioner Cohen-Higgins that we, in fact, become the de facto selection committee, which is not what we're supposed to be doing. That's the administration's role, And yet, we have concerns over the way this whole process was, you know, obviously conducted. So, yes, we are joined by Commissioner Gilbert, the chairman of the Transportation Committee. Thank you all very much. I'm aware of this item, and I thought it was coming to transportation also. I think that there are some problems with the process, but I also think that while we're evaluating the process, why the Transportation Committee is there, is so that we can evaluate the process and the needs of the system going forward in conjunction with everything else. And so, to the extent that this is going to go to the entire board, I don't know if the board is well-placed to do that. I think it's probably a transportation item, but it would, and I don't really like, to take a phrase from Commissioner Regalado, I don't like dumpster fires, and this appears to be one. But I think this probably, at some point, I would petition this board and the chair's office to send it to transportation, and let us evaluate everything in conjunction with it. Well, Madam Chair, if I may, I mean, it's an item that has economic impact, and I think that's why it's here. No, clearly. Well, yes, but that's why we're reviewing it. Madam Chair, if I may, I think the motion stands. Look, the reality is, this is the first time we've done this. It's not going to be the last time. And we, as a board, have dealt with much more complicated issues and are dealing with much more complicated issues. I think by advancing this, we send a message that we need to look at our processes, and we're not going to hold our private companies that are doing business with the county hostage. We move it forward, we'll have the conversations that we need to have, and then we make a decision. By the time it gets to the full board, the administration gave us their explanation as to why they did what they didn't and who they recommend by that point. And at that point, I think we could have conversations with different vendors and so forth, and then we make a decision at that point because we just can't continue to delay. And this could be a perfect example message that we said we're not going to delay any more projects based on the whims of some folks or objection by the other protesters of these contracts. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. So, Senator Garcia, I don't disagree with you. But the question is, if we advance it, are you okay with us advancing it without recommendation? Because I don't think that you support the item as it stands, because the item is requesting a rejection of all bids, which is I'm not gathering from you that you're supportive of that. So, do you recommend advancing it without a recommendation? We could advance it without the recommendation. And, you know, looking at the two top vendors, I think there was two vendors that were at the top, and looking at all the different price points, spreading that out, so we can get a clear understanding as how it was done and moving it forward without any recommendations. I'm perfectly fine with that. Okay, and follow-up question. This item that's on our agenda has six pages. Where are you seeing rankings of vendors? Or is that something that you obtained? So, Vice Chairwoman. Can I jump in, if I may? I don't see a ranking of vendors in our- I'm asking for that ranking. I wanted to add, because I was very surprised that a rejection of bids came through without a score sheet or anything, nothing. I received it once I asked for it. I got it this morning at some point. So, I think when we have a rejection of bids, we need to have that information so we know exactly what we're looking at. And I was shocked to see the price differences between these different competing companies. There is a huge difference in price. So, I'm not sure how the weight was placed on price in the scoring. But that leads me to many, many more questions that I'm sure my colleagues have as well. Madam Chair? Yes, you may. And so, although I don't disagree with Senator Garcia, I'm comfortable with moving it to the full board. I think that there's an explanation for all of this. This is why I had the line of questioning. I don't think I would be comfortable deferring this without going through the line of questioning. Because I want to validate that a deferral would be proper here. I would support sending this to the full board. But to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' point, knowing that this is going to be a long one. But otherwise, I would not support a deferral. I'd like to go through the questioning if we want to contemplate a deferral. So, maybe I can be convinced that a deferral is necessary. But as it stands now, without the questioning, I, for one, am not going to support a deferral respectfully. So, we have a motion on the floor and a second to move the item to the full board without recommendation. I believe, Senator, you're good without a recommendation. I'm told by the county attorneys that if we move that motion, we have to clean it up a little bit. So, Bruce. I want to make sure that we send it to the full board with all this information that we were requesting. Let's hear from the county attorney. Bruce, you're recognized. Okay. If you just move it as is, it would go as is without recommendation. If I'm gleaning what Commissioner Garcia was indicating is, he would want to forward with that recommendation as an amended item. And so, I believe Commissioner Garcia would be asking to move forward agenda item 3F as amended to direct the county mayor or county mayor's designee to present to the board a report to assist the board in the ultimate allocation of price points among the two highest technically qualified proposers. The report shall contain the prices offered, the pricing sheets, analysis of what is included or excluded by the price offered, together with an estimate of any excluded items, and a proposed rational analysis for the allocation of the 15% price points in the RFP. I'm rejecting. Is there more? Bruce. Yes, that's fine. I'm fine with that, guys. We're getting the details. At the end of the day, it's coming back to the county commission. So, yes. I have a question. Sorry. We're now getting caught up in. And this would be a motion to move it forward without recommendation. Yes. As amended. Fair. All right. So, let me just ask real quick. Is the maker of the motion in agreement with what was read into the record? Okay. And is the second. Who seconded the item? Commissioner, Vice Chairwoman, I'm sorry. The maker of the motion agrees to the amended language that was read into the record by Bruce. Are you good with that? I'm good with it, yeah. Okay. So now. Madam Chairwoman, I apologize. I just want to clarify. The motion to amend includes the rejection of the mayor's recommendation to reject all bids. Yes. I understood that. I think the maker of the motion understands that. But I think there might be some question on the committee. Sorry. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Okay. So, just to recap. The motion that I heard asked for a report on only the top two. There were nine or ten. I don't want just the top two. I want to see how everybody scored. Why not just give us everything? Do you have an objection to that? I'm fine with that. Okay. And then the second part that I have a question on. Your motion is to reject the mayor's recommendation of rejecting all bids. Is that correct? Yes. I'm not sure that I'm ready to do that. I'm not sure that I'm ready to reject the mayor's recommendation. I thought that's the whole purpose of advancing it to the full board so that we could have that discussion at the full board, which is why we're advancing it without a recommendation. We will still have a conversation at the full board. But I feel like the motion goes too far. I think that's my point. I'm comfortable advancing it without a recommendation so the full board can have a discussion with all of the information. I will take that. I will take that as the motion as well. Yeah. Just because I don't want – there's ten bidders here. And if we're not going to get into it in committee, I don't want to advance it, excluding anybody from the potential of what we're going to do, whatever that may be, at the full board. I think by – I've seen this board – when we've ranked one, two, and three, I've seen this board go with number five. So this is why I think we're putting a lot more detail and emphasis on things that we still have control over as a full board. So if we advance the first two, we still have the option to access the other eight. But if you feel more comfortable with that, I'm okay with it. Oh, yeah. So now I'm even more – I certainly do not feel comfortable only advancing – No, that's fine. If you want, we'll advance them all together, and you get a scoring sheet from all of them. So we'll see. The reason I picked the two, because those are the top two, normally – and there was such a price point differential between number one and number two. So that's why I go, let's pick those two. Let's get analysis on those two. But if you feel comfortable – I feel comfortable getting analysis on eight or six or whatever it was there and move that forward without a recommendation, that's perfectly fine. Thank you, especially because Commissioner Gonzalez, in fairness, said, I have a whole line of questions, and I want to do that now. But we said we're going to do that at the full board. And so if we're going to do that at the full board, I think it's only fair to advance the whole thing so that all of the board can consider all of the candidates. Thank you. So to our attorney, I don't know – you need to read another motion, please. Hang on for a second, if you would, Bruce, because I think Commissioner Gonzalez has a few remarks. I did so. Does Vice Chairwoman Milian Orbis. Commissioner Gonzalez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this is precisely why I did want to go through the line of questioning, because towards the end of my questioning, I wanted to ask why there was five that were considered, and then there's an issue as to how many could present, and then I don't know how certain people ended up presenting, but then they weren't supposed to present. So I just wanted to get to the bottom of all of that. And, Commissioner, that was one of the reasons why I thought this should rightfully go to the Transportation Committee to sort out all of those details before it came to this committee, because I think the Vice Chairwoman is right. It has to do with money, but there is a process issue here. And we're now going to ask the Board to go through, really, a whole selection, which I'm not certain, in fact, is something that I want to support. Yeah, and respectfully, Madam Chair, I think that if we did go through the line of questioning that I had, I think that we can all get clarification and we can make a decision today. I'm not against it going to the Transportation Committee, but I certainly would like my questions answered. Yeah, no, of course, and I think it would have been a committee that all of this would have been flushed out. I'm afraid flushing this completely out now, because now it's like all of the people who responded to the RFP, and in effect, we'll become the de facto selection committee, and we're going to spend commission time actually going through the process the administration should have gone through. So, and I know that, Commissioner, are you done with your comments? I'm sorry, I didn't want to cut you off, because I know Vice Chairwoman Milian Orbis wanted to say a few comments. I mean, look, my two cents was just, I'm prepared today to get to the bottom of this and make a decision and go through the committee process here. But I am not opposed to sending this to the full BCC, but I mean, I am going to have questions at the full BCC. Vice Chairwoman, Milian Orbis. I am obviously supportive of the motion. I was a seconder. I think that I've heard our colleagues. I think this was here. I think this will be a very, very lengthy discussion to flesh out at the commission meeting, and I think I would make an amendment to send it back to our committee for the next committee meeting, send this item back with everything else, and just instead of BCC, sending it back to our next scheduled committee. But respectfully, why not just do it now? Madam Chair, that in itself is the deferral itself. So the reality is we do this to ourselves so many times, Madam Chair, that we have a lengthy conversation and debate to end up in the same place. If we move this forward with what Commissioner Cohen-Higgins recommended, with analysis of all the parties, we look at the price points at all points, at all levels, then in itself, it goes to the full county commission, and then we could get a report from the mayor's office determining who, what, why, and where, and then we can make that determination at that point. Before we move forward, the commission chairman has joined us, and I want to recognize him. Commissioner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, really quick, and I'm getting briefed in my office, I'm in meetings, but I also have it in the background, I'm listening a little bit, not entirely. So not so much on the context of the item itself. The reason for this committee and every other committee is for you all to iron things out here. Advancing something to the full board does nothing for anybody, and if that's the case with this committee, I can dismantle this committee and just not have it exist or send it to another committee. All items. Everything has to be worked out in committee, not at the full board. If they weren't prepared, if the administration did not brief you guys enough, if you guys didn't ask the right questions, if your staff didn't brief you, that is not the responsibility of the full board that the administration did not do their job. So while I understand that it could look as a deferral, it is not. It is things need to be ironed out in committees, the purpose of committee. And Senator, you understand that because you come from the legislature where it has three committee stops, sometimes four if we want things to die in the legislature. But that's not the case here in the county. So we have one committee stop. We need to iron all items out. And I know that this is fair collection. I've not been following the actual debate on that item and the context itself. But I urge you all to have it discussed here today and forward it to the full board with a decision. Or have it come back with whatever, I didn't follow what the report is asking for, but have it come back to the committee it was assigned to. Whether it should be assigned to a different committee that is at the discretion of the chair of the board, which is yours truly. This was the decision that I made and my team found fit. And if the chair of the committee thought it should go to transportation committee, that should have been talked about when it was sent over to your office. Not here when it's already being discussed. The fact that it's here at this point, it needs to be resolved because that is the purpose of committee. And that's all I had to say. It was not so much on the item itself. You could resume your meeting, Madam Chair. We appreciate you, Mr. Chairman, for clarifying the committee structure and its roles. So let me just, I think we had a motion on the floor. The seconder wants to amend the motion. And she is wanting to amend the motion to have all of this be discussed at our next committee meeting. Is that correct, Vice Chairwoman? So does the maker of the motion agree with that? I'm going to vote no. So you guys, it's my motion. You can do whatever you want. But again. Are you withdrawing your motion then if you don't agree with the amendment that the seconder? What is the amendment? We're going to ask for that information to come back to the full board? Yes. It appears that that is exactly what this is. If that's the case, what you all want to do, it's perfectly fine. Madam Chairwoman, that would be treated as a motion to defer with a directive to the mayor's designee to provide the report as requested. And I just want to clarify, is that with Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' request that it be include all of the responsive and responsible proposers, not merely the top two? I believe it does, but it also includes any questions that the committee has that they will forward to the administration. Because I don't know if that language encompasses all of the questions that Commissioner Gonzalez has. So, yes, a report that at least includes that and other items. Madam Chair, what the report does, what the amendment has, is just really is listing out all the vendors by price points and comparing them so we can compare apples to apples. And that's what the actual amendment will be doing. So, yes, and it includes Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' inclusion of all the vendors that did the RFP. It does that, but it also should include the process, how we got here, which is what Commissioner Gonzalez is trying to do. He's trying to trace how we actually got here to this point where there is so much confusion. And again, Madam Chair, I mean, the Chairman just came out and said that we should hash this out in committee. I just want to reiterate, I am ready to go through these questions right now, whether they're prepared or not, respectfully. We, I would appreciate if we would, you know, we have a committee of the whole meeting that is scheduled for immediately following this and we're already over time. So, I want to just make sure, because we also have a public hearing item that still needs to be heard before we adjourn. So, I believe, Commissioner, Senator Garcia, are you withdrawing your motion? You'll keep the motion? Okay, so the amended motion is exactly, Bruce, what you had anticipated. So, can you please clarify the motion, Bruce, so that everyone knows what they're voting is? It is a motion to defer this item and to direct the county mayor or mayor's designee to present to the board, to this committee at its next meeting, a report to assist the board in the ultimate allocation of price points among all of the responsive and responsible proposers. The report shall contain the prices offered, the pricing sheets, an analysis of what is included or excluded by the price offered, together with an estimate of any excluded item, and a proposed rational analysis for the allocation of the 15% price points in the RFP. The report shall replace the agenda of this committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Okay, so that's the motion and we have a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. Commissioner Gonzalez is a no. Thank you. So, we're going to move to the public hearing item. I do not have any speaker. May I read the title? Yes, you may. Item 1G1 is an ordinance relating to the infill housing initiative program, amending section 17-124 of the code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, 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. And this is a public hearing item. Thank you, Mr. Attorney. I do not have any speaker cards, but certainly if anyone is here to speak on item 1G1, you may approach. Seeing none. Does anyone have any questions on 1G1? Any questions, comments? Do I have a motion to move the item? Move 1G1. So I have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Vice Chairwoman Milian Orbis. All in favor say aye. Aye. Madam Chair, I'm sorry, we would need a roll call. I'm sorry, we need a roll call on a public hearing. My apologies. If the clerk would please call the roll call. Commissioner Gonzalez? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? 4. Vice Chairwoman Milian Orbis? Yes. Chairwoman Lopez? Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We have one final item of importance. It's a discussion item. I want to go through just really quickly what has happened with Senate Bill 1134 that we know as the DEI bill. So the bill was in fact signed by the governor a couple weeks ago. The bill broadly prohibits counties and municipalities from funding or promoting directly or indirectly or taking official action as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion. For purposes of the bill, diversity, equity, and inclusion generally means county action, preferences, benefits, training, programming, or activities tied to race, color, sex, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation. The bill will become effective January 1st, 2027. The bill provides that any existing ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, program, or policy in a prohibited DEI-related category is void. The bill further prohibits counties from expending funds, regardless of source, to establish, sustain, support, or staff, a DEI office, or employ, contract with, or otherwise engage in a DEI officer. The bill also prohibits county funds from being used by employees, contractors, volunteers, vendors, or agents to promote DEI initiatives. A county commissioner or other county official acting in an official capacity who violates the bill commits misfeasance or malfeasance in office. This provision is significant for the commissioners and other county officials who approve, fund, promote, administer, or implement county action. How the bill applies in practice will often depend on specific facts, and the bill also contains several exceptions that may preserve certain county actions, programs, services, or recognitions. Commissioners and staff should consult with the county attorney's office before approving, renewing, funding, promoting, or publicly supporting action that may fall within the bill's scope or one of its exceptions. This will be especially important during the upcoming budget cycle and for any action item that may extend beyond January 1st, 2027. I give you that report so that you understand what has happened and what are the implications of the bill. That's my report. We will certainly have more on this prior to the budget cycle. Yes, Commissioner Gilbert? I had a question because I know we fund organizations. We fund organizations that might fall, the name of the organization might fall within the scope, but their actions are not unique to one group. And I'm thinking of the Cuban American Bar Association, but we fund them, and they do immigration or legal services for us for a broader community, not just for Cubans. We do the same thing with Haitian Lawyers Association. So what's being prohibited, giving money to a group that has a name or the activity that's broadly based? Miami-Dade County is a majority-minority community. So from our perspective, all of the services, even through our CBOs, we don't have CBO allocations that go just to blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, gay, straight. We just don't do that. We don't do that now. So if that's the test, then we're cool. But if the test is that we don't give money to a group that has a name, a word in their name, that would draw the ire of the diversity police, then we'd have some challenges. And I'm concerned about how our budget is a big thing. So are we meant to put in place processes that check every dollar that's spent in the $13 billion, even in the proprietary funds, to see whether those companies have a LGBTQI day? That would be – so we'd be asking Microsoft whether they have LGBTQIA days in the relevant month. I don't understand if it's policeable. I can answer this question. It's not in the name. It's in the activity. And it's not any activity. It's the activity that would be funded with taxpayers' dollars or any kind of funding from a county. So, yes, there would have to be due diligence on our part. And there is – the bill does speak to a certification by those who receive the funds that they will not spend those items – that money on any activity that is not allowable under the bill. Okay. So then – and I guess the attorneys weigh in on this. So then at some point when it comes back to us – so in our CBO process, because our CBOs that we actually fund actually provide service to the broader community, those CBOs, in theory, for the money that we fund them for should be fine. Because we don't fund them to do something, and they don't do that with our money. They don't just help one group. They help whoever shows up. So we should be fine. And to the extent that we have our advisory committees or, like, the Hispanic community, the black community, like, committee, all the communities, the advisory committees, when they have their events, they might celebrate culture. It's an education of culture, but it's to a broader community. It's not actually just for Hispanics. It's not just for blacks. And when you look at the people who attend, it's never one race or gender anyway. So I'm just trying to figure out – I read the statute, which has the benefit of being nuanced and stupidly overbroad. Sweeping. At the same time, which is actually an amazing drafting feat. It's very difficult to draft something that's this specific and this overbroad all at the same time. But it is confusing to see what exactly would be a prohibition. And it would seem to be that – I don't know if Tallahassee is in the business of creating government. Oh, but we're going to have somebody – we're going to hire somebody to be the diversity police, which that might actually be a prohibition under the statute. I believe the county attorney's office is going to be that for us because, again, it could be that we're going to need very specific facts around any specific funding request. I'm just cautioning all of us that we have discretionary funds we also give out. So I would just say – I would say govern yourselves accordingly, be conservative, always check with the county attorney's office, always, always. They will be the guide to this because it's – I could not agree with you more, Commissioner Gilbert. This is the most sweeping legislation I believe ever seen passed by the legislature. But it has very serious consequences because to be charged with misfeasance or malfeasance requires that the governor may review and remove us from office. But it also means that it could remove any official, any official. So it's not just an elected official. It could be a member of the administration, a member of our staff. I mean, anyone who's acting in an official capacity needs to be very careful, and that is why the county attorneys will provide a much more specific briefing for us prior to budget cycle. I think maybe we ought to consider – I know we're going to have a tight budget, but I'm having worked with this county attorney's office, and they're very capable. What we're asking them to do is ensure the intimacy of every action. We're asking our county attorney to be put in a position to be removed for office if we miss one thing. Yes, we are. So as a practical matter, they aren't – our spending police, the clerk is. The clerk – the clerk, the elected clerk of Miami-Dade County, Juan Fernandez-Berking, Juan Fernandez-Berking, we all know him, good guy. He's the person who decides whether the money – so I would hope that they are paying attention because they have to sign off on those expenditures. That's the first thing. Not the county attorney's office. The second thing is I don't know that they have the capacity. I don't – this works in a county like – I don't know. I'm not picking on like smaller counties, but I don't know, Putnam. In Dade County, you are literally asking our employees to sign up to be eligible for removal on a mistake. And so I just – so I would – I think this is a good report. I think we need to put it – we need to have some serious conversations with the clerk and see – and we probably need to consider – I don't know. I know people don't use – like this word, but hiring a firm to do this, like hiring somebody to do this. But I would hate to put our county attorneys in the line of fire because we all know that it's the person – the other people who are actually going to have to take the hit or the clerk says it's not going to be – we don't know. We're not doing the investigations. We're not doing the certifications. So I would just think that we're going to need – we're going to need some money to enforce this. Thank you. I know this will be lots and lots of discussion around this when the county attorneys bring it back. I just thought it was important to tell, obviously, the Economic Impact Committee that we are now going to be faced with the consequences of this bill. And I wanted to just do a very high-level discussion. That's why I made sure to read it into the record so that everyone is now aware that come January 1, 2027, the world, as we saw it before, has dramatically been revised by this bill. And so I want to thank the county attorney's office for their hard work. I, for one, have read the bill eight times, and sometimes I'm even confused. I know the county attorney's office has been working on this since the bill was passed in anticipation that the governor would sign it. And so they have put in, I can't tell you, untold hours and are doing the very best they can to prepare us for the budget cycle and specific examples so that we know how to handle it. So with that, that is the end of our agenda. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Thank you. I have a motion and a second. We stand adjourned. Thank you.