Senator Garcia, Vice Chairwoman Regalado, Chairman Gilbert, three members present, we have a quorum. Third, Javier Bettencourt, please, public, two minutes. And Mr. Chairman, I believe it's a public hearing item, so I don't know if you want me to speak at that point, okay. Mr. Chair, we've received notification that Commissioner Regalado would like to assume sponsorship of items 3G and 3H. With that, there are no other changes to your final printed agenda, a motion to set the agenda is in order. Second by Bermudez, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed, show the agenda adopted, all right, got it. All right, what's our first item? 1G1, ordinance relating to the Citizens Independent Transportation Trust, CITT, and the People's Transportation Plan. Amending by a two-thirds vote of the commission membership sections 2-1421 and 29-24 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Revising membership and appointment process and term of office for the CITT. Revising procedures for amendments to the five-year implementation plan. Clarifying the powers and duties of the CITT. Revising the deadline by when the CITT shall annually present the five-year implementation plan update to the board. Revising certain requirements relating to the board's rejection of the CITT's recommendations. Providing that the board may reject the CITT's recommendations under certain circumstances. Revising provisions relating to term of office for CITT members appointed by county commissioners. And providing for expiration of such terms for existing members. Providing for county commissioners to make appointments or reappointments to fill vacancies. Making technical and conforming changes. Providing severability, inclusion in the code. Including inclusion in and exclusion from the code and an effective date. This is 1-G-1 and a motion to set the agendas and I'm sorry, this is 1-G-1 and it's a public hearing. I know. Javi, do you want to talk now or do you want us to have, this item has amendments, right? Yes, Mr. Chair. Let me do the amendments first so he can actually hear the amendments first. We have copies of the amendments? Somebody give us the amendments, please. Yes. I'm not voting on them unless I read it. I was about to say it. I don't have them. They're distributing the amendments now. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Chairman Gilbert moves to amend item 1-G-1 to change the membership of the Citizens Independent Transportation Trust by adding two additional members. One directly appointed by the Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization and the other directly appointed by the Citizens Independent Transportation Trust. Two, replace the proposed language regarding policy positions by the trust to instead state that the trust shall not urge, recommend, or present. Any policy position to an entity that is inconsistent with any policy position of the Board of County Commissioners. And three, change the deadline by when the trust must present the recommended five-year implementation plan to the County Commission and post such recommendation online from November 1st of each year to January 1st of each year. For a second. Excuse me. Excuse me. Please get off your phone or step outside. Thank you. Now, Javi, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'll try to get through this without my teeth chattering too much in this frigid air. Good morning, Chairman Gilbert and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Javier Betancourt, Executive Director of the Citizens Independent Transportation Trust, or CITT, with offices here at the Stephen P. Clark Center. First, Chairman Gilbert, congratulations on your appointment as chair of this distinguished body. The CITT looks forward to working with you more closely in advancing our shared mobility goals for Miami-Dade County. I'm here today regarding agenda item 1G1 concerning proposed amendments to the CITT and the PTP ordinances. With your permission, I'd like to enter into the record CITT resolution number 26002, adopted by a board at its January 28th meeting. I emailed the resolution to committee members in advance, and reflects the CITT's general position regarding the item before you today. Chairman Gilbert, I also want to sincerely thank you and your staff for meeting with me over several days to hear our concerns and consider our recommendations. Many of which you just amended as part of the item. We truly appreciate your openness and your commitment to improving how we conduct the people's business. Substantively, the CITT supports the goal of streamlining the member appointment process, though we may differ on the best mechanism for doing so. And we also support the proposed changes related to the five year plan approval process to make that a much more streamlined process. Where we respectfully have concerns, actually this was prior to your recent amendment, was with the limitations on the CITT's ability to provide independent oversight and timely feedback. However, I think with this recent amendment, that concern has been, is no longer a concern. In closing, we respectfully ask that you continue to support the CITT and its voter approved role overseeing the half penny surtax and to preserve the independence that is central to our effectiveness and to the public trust. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm available for any questions when the item is heard. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Executive Director. That's the only card I have, public hearing is now closed, I will move the item. Members, the amendment is language that we worked out with the CITT and my office to find compromise on the points. And so that's what it is. You're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the amendments. I don't have any issue with changing, eliminating the selection committee. I just want to understand from the attorneys, what exactly are we, what do we mean by policy position of the board? Because I think the amendment is much better than what was originally drafted, but the CITT is an oversight mechanism. So, I mean, I don't, I don't have a problem with them disagreeing with us. So, I just want to ensure that they could still take a position. So, when we say like that we're not, that they're not going to recommend or urge or present anything that is in opposition to the policy of the BCC, how broad is that? Can we have some examples? No, the attorneys, that's not the attorneys. I'm sponsoring the item. I'll answer the question. It's, they still have the ability to talk about the things, the administration of the CITT dollars, but we have one position on transportation as a county. It's determined by this county commission through our urgings and through our policy. So, when they're advocating to Washington, for instance, if we're advocating for one thing in Washington, they can't be advocating against us. They can't do that. They're functioning at this county. They're empowered to be oversight and watch over the money that's generated for the CITT funds, and that's great. But when we decide something as a board, and we advocate that something to Tallahassee and to Washington, they cannot advocate against the interests of the stated policy directives of the county. I don't disagree with, I don't disagree with that part. What I'm saying is, like, let's say, let's take an example. Let's say that we have a tough budget year, and we decide to sweep all the money that's in the fund, right? So, let's say that we sweep it all. That is a policy decision that we would make in our budget. That is something that the CITT could take issue with, because it could be in conflict with their long-term plan. So, I think we make a lot of policy. I agree with you in terms of the partners, and when we decide on things, that we should all be kind of on the same page. I just think that policy decisions are very broad, because it could be interpreted. That's why I asked the attorney. I mean, that's a very broad interpretation. So, I don't want them to be in a position where they cannot be in disagreement with us. So, that's my only concern, because I think there's a certain level of healthy disagreement. I don't think we should be working against each other in terms of funding. That's a different situation. But I think we can all disagree and still work together. I mean, I think that they are entitled to be in disagreement with us. That's my only point in terms of what that really encompasses, because policy is a lot. Commissioner, with any due respect to the question, I think it's a question in search of a problem. I don't, first of all, legally, I don't think we could sweep all of their money. That's not something we can actually do. That's the first thing in the example. The second thing, just based on that example, yes, they come to the microphone and they could advocate as a board to us. Yes, they could. I think that we've gone through this and we've gotten them, they agree with the language, and you're making a point that's so remote, abstract, and irrelevant that they didn't make it in defense of their position. Like, so what you're doing right now is you're saying, you're arguing for them something that they didn't argue. So, I can appreciate what you're saying, but Bermudez, you're recognized. Yeah, Mr. Chair, look, and I agree with you, because what I see from an oversight board is that they can come and disagree with the Board of County Commissioners. I think, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that the intent here is that when we go to the federal level or the state level, that we don't have a body that is an oversight board on certain dollars to have a policy on transportation contrary to ours that could go beyond their reason for existence. So, while I see your concern, I am not as concerned because I do think they have every right to come in front as a oversight board and say, dear county commissioners, we think you're allotting, you're doing this, or this is being done in a way that we don't agree with. If that was to be taken away from them, then I would have a concern because that would be really, you know, then there'd be no, you'd really be nullifying anything they would do. So, but I understand. I mean, at first I was like, I kind of, I don't want to have a chilling effect, no pun intended, in this room on them, but I see what the amendment does. And I think they still have the opportunity to, and I'm sure Mr. Betancourt will let us know if there's, or the members of the board will let us know if there's a concern about some position that may be taken by us that they have concerns with, or if they want to let us know their position, period, before we even take a position. Mr. Chair? Yes. Thank you. And listen, I understand that Javier agrees with this. I mean, this is not about Javier or us. This is about the future of CITT. I think that a lot of the recommendations that were made in the letter that he sent us yesterday, I think there's a great argument to be made about looking at CITT holistically and looking at the PTP holistically. So they have actually studied this and they presented us with a ton of things. So I think this is a first step. My concern is, like, for giving another example and the timing of it. So what we're saying is they can only object before we make a policy decision is pretty much what we're saying, that their objection is limited to before we make a policy decision. In the same item, we're also changing the selection committee so that we directly select the people that are at the CITT. So since we directly select now the people who are at the CITT, it would be very odd that they would disagree with the commissioners that put them there. But setting that aside, in terms of notice, sometimes we take positions here and not everybody gets notice, right? So there are times where we bring items at the end of the meeting, where things don't go through committee. So if we're going to go down this road, I just want to ensure that at some point we look at all the other safeguards to ensure that they get notice, that the notice isn't waived, and that if their only opportunity is to object before we make a policy decision, then that's a real opportunity. Not because we would do that, but because a future board could do that. It's not personal. I'm just saying in terms of process, I want to ensure that this change comes with an adequate change on the other side so that they always have ample opportunity to object, if their only opportunity is going to be to object at a committee meeting or at the BCC. I don't really chair committees often. I just chair the commission. But just as a rule of thumb, everybody will have an opportunity to express themselves, but redundancy won't be something that we actually do here. Say it, be done with it. Debate it. Vote on it. That's how we're going to run the committee. And, yeah, while I appreciate, I don't necessarily appreciate it, but I understand what you're saying. I still think it's in search of a problem, and it's actually a straw man argument, because no one said they only had an opportunity before we made a decision. And that was just inserted by you. No one – the item doesn't actually say that. I didn't actually say it. When Commissioner Bermudez expressed himself, he didn't actually say it. No, no one said that. That's something that you just created, to have a straw man argument. And while I appreciate that, I don't agree with it, and I don't think it poses a substantive concern. So they have an opportunity. And, by the way, we appointed their members before. We all agreed, we both agreed, that it needed to be streamlined. So we streamlined it, and then we gave them appointed authority. So these are things that we actually worked with them on. And so I get what you're saying, and I am all for protecting and setting up a system that exists beyond he and us. But I don't think that what you're saying actually matches up with what the ordinance and the changes says. And so I think that you're creating an argument. Brimero, you're recognized. Mine is more of a question to staff. Is there a notice process? Is there an issue? Doesn't the CITT usually get anything that deals with transportation? I mean, can you explain that to me? Because, I mean, I do have a concern that notice has been a problem. But that's not, I don't know if that exists here, so I'd like to know what the process is, if any. Commissioner, the CITT is tasked with reviewing contracts that are funded in whole or in part with the surtax funds. All such contracts go to the CITT first. They review and provide a recommendation to this board, and then this board reviews the contract with the CITT recommendation. Additionally, they're tasked to prepare, in conjunction with the administration, a recommendation on the five-year implementation plan, which are the projects that the county is intending to, transportation projects and transit projects that the county is intending to implement over the next five years. That is reviewed, prepared, and reviewed by the CITT, provides a recommendation to this board, comes to this board with their recommendation, and then this board acts upon that plan, that document. Yeah, Commissioner, it's literally their job to actually pay attention to, they typically will see those things before we do, as a board. So, it's kind of handled. I'll move the item. It's been seconded. As amended. As amended. Thank you. Call the roll. The clerk's office received notice that Senator Garcia will be absent from today's meeting. Commissioner Bastian? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez? Yes. Vice Chairwoman Regalado? Yes. Chairman Gilbert? Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Next item. Does anyone have any questions about any of the reminding items, or can we take them as a whole? All right, does anyone have any questions about those items first? Anything want to be bifurcated? I need a motion on the remaining of the agenda. I'll motion it. It's been moved by Bermudez, seconded by Bastien. Call the roll. I show Commissioner Senator Garcia present. Call the roll. Commissioner Bermudez? Yes. Senator Garcia? Commissioner Bastian? Yes. Vice Chairwoman Regalado? Yes. Chairman Gilbert? Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Chairman. Mr. Chair? Oh, yeah. I just had a question if there's going to be a follow-up on the CITT based on what the CITT sent us this week and their review of their procedures and the People's Transportation Trust. Yes. Okay. Are you going to draft that then? All right. Fantastic. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Jimmy Morales, operating officer. We would ask that, if possible, items 3C and 3E be forwarded to the next BCC meeting. Anybody have an objection to that? I have no objection to it. Okay. We'll process it. Can I show voting yes on the other items, Chairman, that I was listening to in the car? Yes. Thank you, sir. I show Senator Garcia as a yes on all items. You were listening to it in the car? Man, you're a glutton for punishment. All right. Anything else, Madam Attorney? No, Mr. Chair. Motion to adjourn. So moved. You forgot? Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yes. You had something? I'd like to have a point of privilege, Mr. Chair, to ask you to co-prime an item for the surtax ship home RFA process and also any future items regarding award and applications. Okay. Accept. Thank you so much.