We'll be absent from today's meeting. Commissioner Bastian? Here. Commissioner Bermudez? Present. Vice Chairwoman Regalado, Chairman Gilbert. Four members present, we have a quorum. All right, reasonable opportunity to be heard is now open. Reasonable opportunity to be heard is now open. If you have business comments regarding an agenda item that you would like to be heard on, please approach the podium, give me your name, your address, and I'll give you two minutes. And then we'll be done with it. All right, no one approaching, reasonable opportunity to be heard is now closed. Madam Attorney? A motion to set the agenda would be in order. It's been moved by Commissioner Bastian, it's been seconded by Vice Chair Regalado. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed, show the agenda adopted. First order of business is running in order. There are no additional changes to your agenda other than those noted on the changes memo, which include the addition of 1G2 supplement and 3K. The first item is a public hearing, 1G1. 1G1, public hearing on 1G1 is now open. Public hearing on 1G1 is now open. Mr. Chair, may I read the title of 1G1? Thank you. 1G1 is an ordinance relating to passenger motor vehicles, motor carrier vehicles, amending sections 31-102 and 31-107 of the code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, revising vehicle age requirements for certain passenger motor carrier vehicles, amending definitions, making technical and conforming changes, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 1G1 is a public hearing. It's open. Public hearing is open. Anyone wanted to be heard on 1G1, come forward. Public hearing is now closed on 1G1. I see you, Roy, you're like, you don't want to speak? You were looking like you did, because I didn't really want you to, but, Regalado? Um, yes, I just want to hear from the administration. Um, I actually voted against this one. It was, um, first presented to the board. And one of the reasons is it could negatively impact the city of Miami. Um, so I know they have older trolleys. So this was my understanding from the sponsor, uh, was modeled after something that was passed by Corey Gables. But, obviously, there's a cost associated with these requirements. So I just want to hear from, um, staff in terms of, um, any changes that have been made to the item, and if we've talked to our partners about potentially this costing them. Because I know the city of Miami, for example, owns their trolleys, and a lot of them are older than this. Um, and also, how would it impact us? I thank you. Through the chair, Stacey Miller, Director, CEO, Department of Transportation and Public Works. Um, I've just actually spoken with Commissioner Melian Orbis, and she is willing to make a friendly amendment to this item. Unfortunately, she's not here right now. She'll be working with the attorney's office to make that modification. What's the amendment? I, I don't want to speak out of turn. It hasn't been proffered yet. I'm asking the attorneys. So I'm asking them to speak out of turn. It's a sunshine meeting, so we're all good. Yeah, I don't, there's no prohibition, like, against telling me. I don't know what the amendment is in a properly noticed meeting at my committee. So what's the amendment? Yeah. Because I can make the amendment for her. Right. Yeah. Mr. Chair, I have not received that communication yet, so I'm- All right, let's push this, um, let's, let's roll this item. Let's not, let's push to the end agenda. No, to the end agenda. To the end agenda. Then someone talk to the commissioner. All right, let's go to the next item. The next item is item 1G2, an ordinance relating to the Rapid Transit System Development Zone, amending Sections 33C2, 33C3.1, and 33C3.3 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, expanding the Smart Quarter Subzone of the Rapid Transit Zone to encompass certain private property in the vicinity of Southwest 30th Avenue and Southwest 28th Lane, located within a quarter mile of a public transit station, providing procedures and criteria related to public benefits proffers to be provided to the county and allowances for certain development bonuses for certain properties, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. This is a public hearing item. Public hearing on this item is open. Public hearing on this item is closed. Move it. It's been moved by Commissioner Regalado. Vice Chair has been seconded by Bastien. It's an ordinance. Any questions, anything the administration wants to add? Hearing nothing, call the roll. Commissioner Bastien? Commissioner Bermudez? Yes. Vice Chairwoman Regalado? Yes. Chairman Gilbert? Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Next. The next item is item 1G3, resolution approving an amendment to the fiscal year 2026-2030, five-year implementation plan, update of the People's Transportation Plan, PTP, director actively include the purchase of 40-foot buses for I-95, Phase 1 and 2, project funded in part by Charter County's transportations or tax funds. This is a public hearing item. Public hearing on this item is open. 1G3 is open. Public hearing on 1G3 is open. No one's approaching. Public hearing on 1G3 is closed. Administration, I guess this is your item. Commissioner, we only ask for this to be considered to be waived to July 21st for full consideration of the board. Well, first you ask for us to pass it. Yes. Then you want us to waive it. And so I don't necessarily have a problem, but somebody help me with this. There's like a new procedure for waiving something, right? Yes. Yes. We need to explain why. We need to explain why. Okay. So I don't mind signing the memo, but you're asking to waive it, so you actually have to prepare the memo for us to forward it. So we have to provide an explanation, and I think the explanation probably has to be not only why it needs to advance, but why it's just coming now. I think that's what it has to be. So it's not as easy as it was before. But I don't mind that. But let's get through passing it first. Yeah. No questions? I'm moving. It's been moved. It's been seconded. Call the roll. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Bastian. Yes. Vice Chairwoman Regalado. Yes. Chairman Gilbert. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. All right. What is next? We're going to talk about the budget. It's going to be great. The balance of the agenda, no? Yeah. There's one thing. Where's that item that I – where's Stacey at? Stacey, what's the item that I added on for you? The underline. Yeah. We can take everything together. I just want to be shown no on that. And I added it on. No worries. Yeah. Just to be nice to Regalado. I appreciate it. Yeah. But I'm going to be shown no on that one. So we'll take the balance of that, I guess, the agenda without that, and then – I'll move the balance of the agenda with the exception of 3K. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? All right. So that passing and now move – 3K. It's been moved by and it's been seconded by Bermudez. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay, show me as a no. It's passed. All right. Thank you. Do you want to discuss the budget while we wait for the amendment? Sure. Sure, we can do that. Is someone actually calling the commissioner's office? I'm just – I'm an abundance of curiosity. Yeah, I know. I'm an abundance of curiosity. Good for all our – okay. Good. Good one. My man. All right. Let's go. Budget. Madam Director. On down. Thank you. All right. So I would like to provide you all with a brief overview of information that was utilized to develop DTPW's budget moving into this season. So as you can see, we have our vision and our mission statement. Obviously, our goal is to provide safe, efficient transportation for all users. We are the largest transit agency within the state of Florida and the 10th largest in the country with a budget of over $2.2 billion and a dedicated workforce of 4,241 persons. Our transit operations obviously involve a multitude of different functions. Last year's boardings eclipsed 81 million with the largest number obviously within our bus services. Public works operations obviously with the Department of Transportation, which is the transit component, public works component. We oversee roadways, bridges, traffic signals and signs, pavement markings, streetlights, and of course we took over stormwater utility and the maintenance of canals. We obviously provide regional connectivity for the, not just Miami-Dade County, but for South Florida, as well as regulate the for-hire industry. We have many customers, but obviously we are committed to making sure that we are an essential function of our economy. Most people talk about the airport and the seaport. Those don't function without the road, bridge, and transit network to support them. So we are an essential function within Miami-Dade County. We are committed to accessibility and safety for all vulnerable road users. And as noted, our infrastructure is the underpinning of a successful delivery of vital services. Some key accomplishments were the launch of our SMART program first milestone project of South Corridor, which launched on October 27th. This has been a major improvement for South County. We're very excited about that. With your assistance, we also established the mobility sourcing program, which allows us to go to original manufacturers for items, which quickly shortens the time frame for procurement. And we continue to work on transit amenities, which you all recently assisted us with. Some key issues are transit funding shortfalls. This has been an issue that has been looming for over 10 years. We have approximately a $100 million shortfall moving into fiscal year 27. The mayor has proposed a solution for fiscal year 27. And I know we all look forward to working through the solution for next year and years forward. We have an infrastructure backlog of over a billion dollars of needs. We have workforce vacancy issues of approximately 20% right now. And we have aging technology. We continue to work with you all to make sure that we can update our technology and provide a better user experience for our patrons. Director, hold on for a second. Let's let's for a second. You you talked about a shortfall and and I appreciate describe for us exactly what you mean by shortfall, because the way I understand our transit system right now, we're not we don't have a shortfall. We were designed in a way that requires us to supplement from the general fund transportation. A shortfall seems to indicate that there's something we could do to make that up. And I don't know that there there is something that we could actually do to make it up. I think our system and rapid and public transit generally throughout the country is not designed to pay for itself. So sometimes we get into we use this kind of nomoculture to and vocabulary that says that it kind of indicates that, well, it's running a deficit. It's not running a deficit. There is no shortfall. We planted in a way to allow the public generally to move. The public generally could not pay the cost of the bus ride. The people who need to take the bus could not pay the cost of the bus ride. So we plan our system in a way to supplement that. So when we start using words like shortfall, I would have the administration start to look at the vocabulary we're using so we could actually properly inform the public about how this system operates and how it's designed to operate. Because if we were actually to do this like proprietary systems, it would look completely different. This is not proprietary. It's not meant to be. And proprietary, when I say that for the folks who might not know what that means, our proprietary systems are designed so that the fees, the users actually pay for the service. The users are not meant to pay for the full service of this system. And so I just want, I know that you have your whole nice little presentation. I can see it in front of me. You spent a lot of time on this, I can tell. So I'm not asking you to change it now. But let's get into the habit of speaking about transportation in our transit system in a way that does not compare it to our proprietary systems. So we aren't doing that. And we're not intentionally misleading the public, but we are misleading the public about what public transit, not even just represent, public transit is meant to do. Regalado. Yeah, I just want to add to that. I think it's important for us also to consider that in the last two years, we have not received as much funding from the state as we have in the past. Not your fault, not my fault, not your fault, right? I think there were promises made about, and we were expecting a lot more funding from the state. That is not the case. This year, we were even conservative in our ass, and we still didn't get it. So that's the first one. Also, you know, we had the TIDs, and Mr. Chairman, the work that you did on the RTZ has benefited the TID, right? You know, so we have seen a benefit in the TID, but we have been drawing down on the TID, right? So as our needs and our maintenance increases, we've been drawing down on the TID. We also had a lot of deferred maintenance, and I want to thank the administration for working on that. I mean, for those of us that represent part of the Metro Rail, I mean, these are 30-plus year old stations. So in the case of my district, I've done a lot to have developers pay for some of that, but we still have data lands and the transfer station and things that are way beyond anything that zoning could negotiate. So I think it's a combination of things. We had talked about how this was going to be a difficult year, I think like four years ago, and unfortunately, while the rapid transit zone has aided with the TID, we still don't have a revenue source. We're still at a loss. We subsidize 80% of this. And I agree with the Chairman. I think we need to be honest with people about the level of the subsidy and our commitment to transit. So I'm with you. I think that when we talk about transit, we should be mindful of the terminology that we use to speak of our commitment, because our commitment is from the General Fund. That's kind of where we're at. You know, we get a little bit from here and from there, but all in all, we have been taking from the General Fund from its inception. So I think that that's a necessary point. It's not anything that this commission is doing. I think we've gone above and beyond for the maintenance and operation, which I think is important to our users because it impacts the level of service. I'll just finish my last couple of slides then. Thank you. So as noted, understood regarding the verbiage I use when moving forward, discussing our key priorities or initiatives that we've done, that we continue to do and have done in the past, our marketing program for Drive Less, Live More is an opportunity that we use to interface with the community and talk about how we run our business, gather our feedback. We've used it as well, not just in the Drive Less, Live More, but Drive Less, fill in the blank more. We've used it for a lot of different opportunities. It's been a really great marketing program for us. We are also in the process of our asset inventory and condition assessment. This is something the commission approved previously. We are now starting to gain that data. This will help us make better engineering decisions about our priorities moving forward. This is a first opportunity for Miami-Dade County to have a full accounting of our assets as it relates to our infrastructure within the Department of Transportation and Public Works, and we are winding down construction for the South Dade Transit Operations Center. This is the first new operations center in over 40 years, and this supports, obviously, the South Dade, South Corridor and other bus routes that will occur in the South County area. That should be completed in the fall. Our future outlook, as was noted, we used the word funding shortfalls. I won't be using that anymore in the future, but we have known about this looming funding gap in our budget. We continue to work with the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the administration and you all, to find a means of modifying how we move forward with our operations and capital funding shortfalls in the future. I won't use that word. Sorry, I used it. I apologize. We continue to find WISE 305 opportunities as we move forward. We believe there are more to come with our new scheduling system. We believe we will have the opportunity to provide better scheduling and reduce our costs in the future. We have just started to use that. We're using planning frameworks, our new county master plan, which we are using to help us make better decisions. We also have master plans for our escalator and elevator and other facilities as we move forward. Happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Munez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with you that, obviously, no public transportation system in this country that I know of, of major size, can operate without, you know, it cannot break even. That's just a reality. But I want to point out something that we've talked about before, the difference between transit and traffic, and your department has to deal with both. We can argue to the end of the day about whether it should or shouldn't, but the reality is a large part of this county deals with traffic. The other part deals with transit. The issues to the east traditionally have been more referenced transit, but to the west it's been traffic, where many, many, many people live. So I would ask you, and I think that that's important because as you move forward, you have to keep that in mind. And that doesn't make your job any easier. It probably makes it more complicated. But the reality is that our system is really trying to, it's not maybe what may happen in other cities traditionally in the northeast, for example, where there's less of a, there's always a traffic issue, but less of a traffic issue, more of a transit issue. In our case, it's really a composite of both. And for growth to occur or where growth has occurred, it needs to happen. And, you know, I've been a stickler with the administration and reiterated to you that one of my concerns is always a lack of metrics, the lack of knowing where we're at. I mean, it drives me crazy when we sit up here and there's things that pop up from 2014, 2013 that nobody's, you know, and nobody knows where it's at. So, first of all, do you, in both instances, well, I mean, first of all, do you have metrics that really, and not like, you know, some make sense, like how long does it take to fill a pothole? For example, but are there, are the metrics being followed or are there metrics, are they being looked at? You know, that's, that's, that's one of my questions. Through the chair. We do have metrics associated with the time when we receive, I don't want to say complaints, but an issue to the time that we complete it. But we are wholly underfunded for sidewalk improvements, pothole filling and resurfacing. As I mentioned, we're about a billion dollars behind on maintenance and improvements associated with our existing road and bridge network. Okay. I mean, that's, that's a, that's a big concern because the, we, a lot of times we're talking about things like the underlying, and I support it, have no problem. But a large, vast part of this county, and not just my district, I'll be honest, going south to the west is impacted. Even in Commissioner Gilbert's district, it's a combination of both. It's not just a matter of one. And so I think that that's something we need to really kind of focus on and not always make it Eastern-centric as it is. And talking about these old, old, old things that have been approved and what happened to them, the bus depot on 14th and 15th Street here by the old Miami Herald building. And what's happening with that? Because way before I think most of us got here, there was money awarded to, to fix that. And what's going on? Is there, does anybody know? I apologize. I do not have that information, but I will find out. Okay, perfect. I appreciate it. Because I, look, I, and, and this is not a criticism of anybody that's been here before. God bless them. I'm sure they're watching, they can enjoy it, but the reality is one of the big problems that I've seen, and now as our chairman goes on to bigger and better things, bigger, I don't know if they're better, but they could be bigger. The, the, the reality is that a lot of times the headaches that we inherited have been around for 20 to 25 years, including the transportation plan. Because I think Chairman Gilbert remembers that we were probably both in local elected office when this plan first came up a long, long time ago. And we're still talking about it. So, but one of the problems I see, and I, I point that out, if you could look into it, because, you know, we can't just, these things get lost in, you know, in the, in the, in the nether world of county politics. And then they pop up out of the blue, and then everybody points fingers in each direction. But there has to be some sort of accounting. It's kind of like knowing what's under your airport and not having a private company know what's under your airport. But you as a county don't know what's under your own airport, which, you know, is something that's a problem. So, if you could check into that, I'd appreciate it. Well done. All right. That's, that's great. So, you know, it's interesting. The memo the administration produced about, I think, the funding possibilities, that is something I requested for rapid mass transit is an interesting thing. It's especially interesting when we compare it with the possibility, well, we analyze it under the context of how much we supplement transit through the general fund. And then we add in the possibility of reducing the general fund with property tax reform. So, it's, but we've been thinking about this from perspective of rapid mass transit. The question isn't going to be rapid mass transit alone. The question is going to be how we actually operate this transit system at all. Because that's not one of the, you know, necessary things that we have to do. So, pretty soon, there's going to have to be a reconciling of how we rep, how we run the system and the split that has to exist between the service that's provided and how it's funded with regard to whether it's funded with a general tax through general taxes or whether it's funded through the people who actually use the system. That's the question that's actually going to be on the ballot in November. You might not know that you're answering that question, but that's the question that you're going to answer. Because if you institute property tax reform in a way that does not allow the general fund to support this transit system, you will be raising, either raising the bus rate and the metro rail rate, or you'll be eliminating services. That is what you will be doing, and the administration probably needs to start having real honest and direct conversations about how that's going to look. Because everyone on this board and everyone in this building understands that we can't afford to take the level of hit in transit through the general fund if that's contemplated in that ballot initiative. We won't be able to run this system that way. We understand that. We probably better tell people that. Explain to them that they're paying basically whatever, what is it, 11 cents, 19 cents. Our return is 11 to 12 cents on the dollar. They're paying 11 cents to 12 cents. Let's say 12. They're paying 12. 12 cents of every dollar it takes to actually ride that bus. So this board and this administration is not recommending increase the rate in the rate right now. But in truth, we're going to have to need, we're going to need to find what we believe to be the appropriate balance. So we know it can never be 100%. We know that. Is it 50 cents on every dollar? Is it 60 cents on every dollar? Is it 70 cents on every dollar that we're going to supplement it? So, in other words, the people who are using it and just whatever it is, it is. But the conversation needs to be had and we need to standardize it because if we don't, this system cannot sustain itself. And that's not counting what we know we have to do. We know that if we don't actually invest in rapid mass transit, we've known for 30 years, 40 years, if we don't invest in rapid mass transit, identifying these corridors, housing prices and congestion will cripple this county eventually. We understand that. We know that's what we have to do. But we're not prepared to do what we're doing right now if property tax, the property tax initiative actually passes. So that conversation probably needs to be a real conversation because we're not some of these other counties that are small and insignificant. When we cripple our economy, we actually change the state of Florida. And the department that you run and you oversee is what allows the most recovered and robust economy in this state to exist. If you stop rapid mass transit or you make it cost substantially more, it's not just Dade County, it's Florida. So we probably better be having that conversation. I know the chamber and those folks have started to think about it and talk about it because we don't necessarily see it. But how much we invest in public transit actually allows our businesses to thrive because they actually have workers who can come to work. And so it's a challenge that we have to have a more active conversation. You all have been doing a lot of talking in the corner. I haven't interrupted you. Do you all have an amendment? Okay. Bessian. Okay. I just wanted to say that I agree with Commissioner Gilbert and with my colleagues, Commissioner Bermudez, and Regado for that matter. These discussions need to be had sooner than later. I, for one, have so many residents, and I know there are other colleagues who experience the same thing. A lot of our residents are on fixed income. They will not be able to contribute much. So if we agree and we know that transportation must find a way to fund itself, and there are so many residents that rely on these services to move around. In my district, I get calls from residents all the time who are having a hard time because of the changes in the routes. In the routes, they are really, really, really having a hard time because some of the elderly on fixed income rely on transportation, relied on the routes to go buy groceries. And I receive these calls every day. So I think we need to be proactive because every year we have people moving in to Miami-Dade County. This is a destination. So you have to balance the needs of the residents and the needs of those who are coming in from other places because, you know, they are attracted by what we have to offer. I agree that we need to be proactive. We need to really have these hard discussions sooner than later. And another thing I'd like us to really consider is to look at the contracts that we give to fix these roads. And in the past, I've talked about some of the changes, infrastructure changes in my district, and then how soon after repair they deteriorate. So these are also discussions that we need to have. We have to do an overall assessment of how we do this work, how we award these contracts, how we assess the work after it's done so that we don't have to continuously invest in repair and only for the roads to deteriorate again. So I think there is a lot of work to do. And I agree with Commissioner Gilbert. These are discussions that we need to have. We need to come to the fact that, to the point that we have to find a way because so many of our residents cannot afford it and transportation, you know, cannot fund itself right now. Thank you. Regalada. Thank you. I have a few questions. So Commissioner Gilbert mentioned, the chairman mentioned the Smart Plan memo. Thank you for putting that out. I think it was necessary. I mean, we all kind of know. It's, you know, we know, but it was about time that we, you know, actually put it out there and started talking about our challenges. The one thing that I wish that Smart Plan memo included was the opportunity to have enterprise departments do some of this work. Specifically, I've mentioned it at the TPO and I've mentioned it to the administration. I think that we have an opportunity to put a tri-rail station at the port where the airport pays half and the port pays half. It would be between $30 million and $33 million. And it would give us access to the railroad that we already spent $80 million on. This board already approved a station at Little River. And then it goes to the port. So why not do a port station? And get a transit win without it coming out of the transit budget. So I think we also need to get a little creative here in terms of places where we know that there's a need for transit and there's enterprise funds that could do it. So the idea, to Commissioner Bermudez's point about alleviating traffic, we have so much congestion between the airport and the port if we had a transit line. Now, when this was presented to the TPO, it was like a billion dollars, you know, to extend Metrorail, a billion dollars to extend Metromover. That's madness. We don't have that kind of money. But if we could do a tri-rail station for $30 million, like, let's do that. You know, I think we have to start changing our mindset because what happens to us a lot of times is, you know, a lobbyist has to come and pitch the thing. And then we, like, react to it as opposed to us saying, hey, look, wait a second. There's an opportunity here. So I think that we can have some transit that is a little different, and I give that as an example. And in Little River, we got a tri-rail station built by the developer, and that's because of the RTZ, which leads me to my second point. You know, we have a dependence on the TID. I think we need to, now that the RTZ has been in place for some time, I think we need to look at the growth in the TID since we started these developments and start looking at where, you know, where these developments have come and what our options are for the places in the RTZ where we haven't seen development. So the RTZ has seen development in my district, in Lopez's district, in Keon's district, and a little bit in Bastien's. And the question is, Mr. Chair, do we go back to the drawing table and try to figure out what we do for those other areas to incentivize that development and how do we capture that? Because the growth of the TID is what we need. And for those of us, you know, that have transit, we're also having a tremendous amount of development along those transit lines, and that money is going into the TID. So it's important to start having that, you know, baseline conversation to see where this is coming and what changes we can make. Because with the RTZ, we have proven that changes to zoning can benefit our transit system. So let's keep having that conversation. Let's not just, like, leave it in a vacuum, right? The other issue is the mover. I will say it and say it again. We should charge for the mover. Speaking of tri-rail, we're going through a whole process with our fare collection. And one of the things that we're looking at is starting with digital first and not the fare gates. And I think that this board should seriously consider starting with a pilot for the mover that has a digital price collection. Those people are sophisticated enough over there in Brickle and downtown to be able to do it. And that will bring us some revenue. We may not capture all of it, but we're capturing nothing. So whatever we capture, right, I think it would be a benefit to us. And I think we need to eliminate this idea of free transit. I think, you know, and I've said this last budget. I'll say it again. We need to kill Baylink. Nobody wants Baylink. We don't have money for Baylink. Why are we still talking about Baylink? I think instead of the planning money that we're spending on Baylink, we need to get a trolley and put a trolley that goes across the Venetian or something and be done with this. You know, Miami Beach doesn't want it. FDOT won't pay for it. We can't afford it. I mean, at some point, we got to cut our losses, right, and move forward. And if a BRT was good enough for South Dade and is working, why is a trolley not good for Miami Beach? Is there a different standard? Because last time I checked, it was all the same, right? We had to prove ridership, and we had to prove interest in order to move forward. So I think when we look at the smart plan, we need to say, okay, what doesn't have the ability to get funding, and let's find a solution. And I think that that is something that Miami Beach would like to consider. It concerns me that we keep cutting bus routes, and I'm not going to get ahead of the budget, but I just want to say that, you know, the constant cutting of the bus routes, if we're going to keep doing this, we have to go back and look at Metro Connect, okay? We have to go back and look at it, because we need to use the same standard that we use for the buses for Metro Connect. How much are we paying for that one rider? Because time and time again, we come back to the buses, and we say, oh, it's low ridership. Cut the bus route. And meanwhile, Metro Connect is existing somewhere out there in the ether, and I think we're getting to a point where we might be reverting back to the original better bus that just had buses and arteries, and if we're doing that, we need to be honest about it. I think we just need to be honest about it, because if you start looking at the pattern, the pattern is moving us towards that. And we need to be honest with people about the bus routes that are working and the ones that are important, you know? And if the BRT is working, we need to invest in it because it's working and have a comprehensive conversation, not just a reactionary conversation to better bus. I also think we need to deal with some of our liabilities. I know that our legal department was looking into the Proterra issue. We haven't really heard what's going on with that. We're not the only ones that have this issue, but we also have SB7046. So SB7046 now puts a pin in some of our electric bus purchases, and the question is, what are we going to do about that? Because after Proterra, Brower decided to purchase diesel. So that's another conversation that now we need to have. How much are we investing in this? How much is it costing us? And now how do we deal with the state preemption that makes us look at that money differently? So I would like to see that. And finally, in terms of the roadway issue, I think we need to have a conversation about the stormwater and the stormwater fees, you know, and how we do that and how we collect that. And are we really doing that work? What would it actually take for us to be able to have a good stormwater plan? And what does that cost? That doesn't mean that we're going to, we have that money, but as we have these conversations, we should at a minimum have an idea. And when we do zoning, we need to take that into account because sometimes we do and sometimes we don't, right? But maybe there are some changes to the comprehensive master plan that could help us alleviate some of this. And we also need to start looking at our impact fees. And I am not a fan. I, you know, this administration has been good to my district in that we're finally fixing some of the roads, you know, and we fight for them and I thank you. Um, but my district for 10 years had the impact fees taken and put in other districts and I had roads that hadn't been milled and resurfaced for 30, 40, 50 years. And I know that that happens in some, there's, there's a, there's a disparity here, right? And I, and I understand that, you know, some people have more development than others, but for those of us who are suffering the development, those potholes are more painful because people drive down our streets and they say, I don't understand. I see this building. What's this pothole, you know? And meanwhile, we're talking about building roads outside the UDB, you know? So what, what's, what's going to give here? You know, I think that we need to look at the impact fees and be really honest about what our road plans are so that we could then articulate to our residents what the needs are and how we're doing our best to, you know, to meet those needs because we're put in a, in a difficult, uh, position. So I think moving forward, as we go into the budget, we have to look at what are our revenue opportunities and what are existing liabilities and try to match things up. Because there's a lot of policies that have been set by this board that, you know, then get mirrored back to us in the budget. And I think we're at a point where we need to reevaluate those and figure out, you know, is this really working for us or not, um, and try to find some revenue generation. And I think that the RTZ has showed us that zoning can help transit. So we should revisit that and start having these conversations about different ways to fund transit. Um, and, and what we can do to ensure that where the density is coming, that, that money at a minimum, fix the roads that are adjacent to it. Thank you. Just, just one thing, um, when we look at impact fees, municipalities collect impact fees too. The one we're in now collects them. So their responsibilities also have to be, um, you know, we've got a, it's, it's not a one-way road for, and, uh, uh, unfortunately to the West where we do need roads. In particular in areas, uh, that this county allowed, the city of Hialeah to annex, um, you know, any growth there within the UDB, and even, you know, which I, you know how I feel about the UDB. I think it's got to be looked at. If we got to stop with this, uh, 52 years, we can't talk about it. Like if it's a bad word, cause you know, uh, everybody, everybody should be at the table, the environmentalist, uh, you guys, us, everybody. But I, but I, when we look at impact fees, I want to make sure we look at what municipalities also do because they charge impact fees. Thank you. Um, quickly on, on, uh, the bus route, uh, changes, uh, moving forward, I think it's important, um, that, uh, district commissioners sit down with you before, uh, the, the, you change the routes. Um, I've, I, for example, uh, I have, uh, pockets of residents, uh, who are basically cut off, mainly elderlies, the elderlies that I was referring to earlier, cut off. So before these changes, I would definitely would like to sit down with, with the department to, to analyze, to, to, to, to, to see the plan for these bus routes because we know our district best. We know where, where, where, where our residents' needs are. So I really would like to be part of that conversation, and I know that other commissioners would, would, would like to do so also, um, to make sure that we just, just react to the changes after we hear from, uh, the residents. It is important for us to sit down with you, for me personally, to sit down with you moving forward, to find better solutions, uh, to keep our elderlies moving. We need them to keep moving. It's, it has, uh, an impact on their health, you know, and on, on, on, on their life in general. So this is something that we really need to work on. And then on the free transit commission of Regalado, um, I agree that it cannot be free, but there are, will, there will always need to be considerations for, for others. Because not everyone can pay. And then, uh, especially, um, I'm, I'm always referring to the elderly because I know what they are going through right now, you know. The decisions, the hard decisions they have to make every day to, to make ends meet, to keep their homes, to pay insurances. Many are losing their homes because of the high, uh, cost of living. So we have to find ways, uh, to help them. Whatever plans we make, we have to take into consideration that in Miami-Dade County, there are big groups of the elderly populations that are hurting right now, like so many other families. They have to decide whether to buy food or pay for medication or pay for taxes, insurance. Everything is, everything is going up, that their income remains stagnant. So these are things that we need to take into consideration as we plan forward because it's all length. You understand? It's all length. You cannot take any of these, uh, uh, uh, problems or issues and deal with them in silos. And then it is, uh, in our best interest to find ways to keep all the elderly population in Miami-Dade County moving. They need to be able to, to, to, to, to, to walk. It's best for them. It's better for them. We win in the end if we find ways to keep them moving. So before we change this bus route, I'd like to sit down and meet with you. Um, no. Okay, hold on. Let me say, hold on. It's not super quick. Bermuda, is it going to be super quick what she says? Does anybody think it's going to be super quick? Anybody? Bueller, Bueller? You can time me. You can time me. You can time me. Okay, go ahead. Jesus. All right. And just, maybe I was too subtle. I just want you guys to consider that Metro Connect should not be a sacred cow because she needs to find money. And if we're, Metro Connect, we're paying for it because we canceled bus routes. And in order to continue Metro Connect, we need to keep canceling bus routes. At some point, we need to decide what is more important, the bus routes or the Metro Connect, because the tail is wagging the dog again. So we can increase the price of Metro Connect, so we can increase the price of Metro Connect, we can cut it, we can geographically limit it, we can focus on the elderly. You're repetitive now? Okay, thank you. All right. Well, we need to have this conversation. Okay, hold on. All right. So, my turn. I agree that we need to, I think they called it the golden passport for the seniors. We need to keep it free. We still have golden passport. Yeah, I know, I know. 40% of our patrons pay either nothing or half price fares. So, I know, that's why I was in the middle of a sentence, but it's, thank you. Yeah, I think we need to keep that in place, but then you probably need to look at raising the rate on other people. So, you probably need to look at it to 50%. I mean, we're going to keep it, it is not a free ride. The ride is going to be paid for or subsidized. So, the question is where you're going to get that subsidy from. What you're saying with Metro Connect is essentially the same thing. If you provide a free ride to someone, someone else has to pay a little more. And so, I took rapid mass transit and transit to go to law school. I paid bus, and I remember when it used to go up, like 10 cents and 15 cents. And if you had years where, you know, hey, it went up a nickel every year, then you would never face a system that was so far out of balance. So, what happens is, for folks who are watching, the price of just this basic stuff, the price of gas goes up. And we use gas in the buses, but the bus ride doesn't go up. So, it's really basically that simple for people who want to take it a little farther. Every year, we'll give a cost of living increase, which we should, to our people who operate transit. But the price, and we'll give that because we should, because the cost of living has gone up. So, to actually live here, then they have to actually make more. Not unlike everyone else. But the price of the ride does not go up in a commensurate way. That's not fiscal responsibility. That's dishonesty. So, this system is fundamentally not supporting itself. That aside, you're right. Rapid transit zones have increased. The TID, it's, we know that we increase zoning. We allow people to do, you know, different FARs and high density along the corridors. We can increase the taxable value. The increase goes into the system. We understand that. You all, last year, you came to me when you rated the TID, and you said, we just need to do it for this year. Now, I thought you all were being a little optimistic when you said that. We got a plan. We're just doing it for this year. But now, that was last year. And this year, you're rating the TID again. And I don't know that I'm going to be supportive of that, only because it places me in a position of essentially doing what prior commissions have done. When they made very difficult decisions. When they took the half penny that was promised for rapid mass transit and used it to support a system. I don't begrudge them their decision. They were facing a situation where the county was broke. The housing was in a free fall. Like, they did the hard thing. But now, we're faced with essentially the broken promises of the half penny. So, we have to live with the legacy of a broken promise of the half penny. People will not understand that the buses they ride on, they're able to ride on those buses. They were able to continue to do things because those commissioners made a very difficult decision. I understand that. I do not, you know, begrudge them their decision. It was difficult. It is difficult because you have to choose to do some very hard things. It's really a rock and a hard place. The question is what we're going to do. So, we know at some point where there is a dedicated millage, another half penny, a general obligation bond. Something has to fix the system. Not just operate the system. Something has to fix the system. The money that we have in, you know, maintenance that's behind, something has to fix the system. That's what I'm looking for from the administration and my colleagues before I leave. It's just, and if I end up going to Congress, I would, you know, I'll fight for it. You know, I'll fight for it. It means that much to me. This is the system that got me my law degree. It literally took our system to my future. I want that opportunity to exist for young people going forward. But we have to come up with a plan. There has to be, like, when I tell you this is not a sustainable orbit, and it's not a sustainable orbit, and there's a crash coming quickly for us. Well, we're going to make some real hard decisions about millages or cuts and services or terminations. There's some real hard decisions coming our way. Like, we can look at the budget the administration proposes, and we can tread water. But, you know, there's a point when you're treading water, and, you know, you're treading water, and you're not going forward. But most people can tread water, and they can tread water for maybe an hour or two hours. But this ain't the movie Titanic. You know, you usually just drown. That's coming our way. That is coming our way. So we know it's coming our way. It is not. It's undesirable. It is not unforeseeable. So when Regalado talks about we have to have a plan, oh, there's going to have to be a plan, and everything has to be on the table. Everything has to be on the table. And so I don't know where we end up on the TID this year. What is likely will happen from my perspective is I want that plan. Because if you're telling me that I spent 18 months traveling up and down this county fighting with our residents about the RTZ so that I could find funding that would pour into the system that would eventually accumulate enough money to fund rapid mass transit, but I did all of that fighting so that you all could take the money every year to support the system, that's problematic for me. Because now you're putting me in a situation where I've gone to those people, I've made those arguments, and you all are essentially making me into a liar. And you all have been on the board with me when I start using the word liar. I just can't do that. So that's my problem with raising the TID is because we said something else. We said something else. And I said it. When I said it, it was true. This is what it was meant to do. And so it was an emergency. Okay, last year, but every year can't be the same emergency. Every year can't be the same emergency. And so that's my problem with it. And that's a conversation. I'm going to need a plan. So this is my notice to all of you. I'm going to need a plan. Last year, I took your word you wouldn't do it again this year. All this stuff popped off. We lost more money from the legislature this year. We could just stop asking. We know we're not getting it at this point. They're not going to help. We have to do it ourselves. So let's figure out a plan for doing it ourselves. Thank you. I agree with you 100%. And look, that's why I started saying that I appreciate the memo. But I also think that there is opportunity in other revenue sources. So I get it. You get a bond. You can increase the half penny. Got it. We all know those things. But can you charge for the mover? Can you put a trolley and get rid of Bay Link? You know, can you find other alternatives, right? Can we go back to the RTZ and try to figure something out? Can we start? I don't think there's one solution to all of these problems. I think that it has to be a collection of things. And I think that we can start with those things. I just, the problem is last year when I said, you know, let's charge for Metro Mover. Oh, it's going to take two years to get fair gates. Oh, somebody has an election. Let's not talk about it. Here we are again. It's an election year. And then by the time we have the conversation again, it'll be another election year. So I think we need to start on these things. And, you know, and whatever it is, at least it's a start. And look, I think we also, like, I don't think we should have free, you know, putting aside the golden passport, which we have. This concept of free transit, unless there's a hurricane or a national emergency, I don't think we should suspend the fares. And we've gotten into these arguments, you know, about fair suspension. I don't think we should. I think if there's a national, if there's an emergency, you know, we suspend the fares. If not, we have to charge because we lose so much money. It's already so subsidized. We lose so much money. So I think there's some policy changes that need to be made so that we can give you the flexibility to come back to us and say, look, these are the different options. But we also have to be honest that the politics of this thing and look, Mr. Chairman, I was with you. You and I took the blows for the RTZ, you know, and now I have to hear my residents say, OK, now we have this density. Where's like the transit? Right. Beyond what we already have. Um, and, you know, when, when projects come to my district, I go above and beyond to try to get money for the stations, to try to get money to, to offset it so that I'm not taking from the half penny. But not everybody does that. You know, some people are just like, I'll just fix my station from the half penny. So, you know, we have to figure out a way to do it so that, um, there's some equity as we all try to make this work because it is to all of our benefits to stretch the money that we have as much as possible. To Oliver's point, um, to get us as far into the smart plan as we can, but that's going to take a little bit of sacrifice. Um, and I don't, you know, and I don't think that there's one thing, but this budget, we should at least have in the horizon one or two or three things, right. That are going to start changing the conversation because if we raid the tid this time, then what happens next year? And then we have an election year and then the same thing. Um, and if we are going to do something, I think we need to be honest about it. I don't think it's like death by a thousand paper cuts, which is what I think we're doing now that it's very, um, reactive. Mr. Chair, thank you. I totally agree with you. We have to have the discussion. You know, I, I, uh, the, the half penny went the wrong way from the beginning. None of us here had anything to do with that. Well, we did, but we didn't, uh, but sadly it went the wrong way from the beginning. Um, but I think when those decisions were made during the crisis of 2008, you know, obviously people lost confidence because when you use money that you promise for something on something else, the voter says, well, you fooled me once. You're not going to fool me again. And this is what we're talking about when we talk about these TID dollars, which is we don't want to repeat that. And the reason this County has unfortunately been in a position with transit that has been so difficult, it's been because a lot of elected officials, yes, transit takes 10, 12 years before you see the results sometimes. And that means that you're not in office to benefit from the fruits of what happens, but we've got to put that aside and make a difficult decision. And I totally agree that we need to have a plan. Uh, I will say, I'm going to, you know, quote Eisenhower, you know, plan plans are useless, but planning is essential. Everybody knows the plan may not be perfect, but if you don't even start thinking about it and what I have seen here, and I'm gonna speak for myself, not for anybody else is a lot of plans that had just sat there. And then we talk about it and that's it. We don't even try it. We don't even know. And then another plan comes along five years later on the same thing. And I think that that doesn't, that's not what Eisenhower meant by that is not that plans, plans are things change within that plan, but you got to have a plan and you got to be planning because if not, it's going to be a problem. So, uh, I share my colleagues, I, you know, chairman, I, I, I would, you will have me on your side. If we trying to get this transparency and before you go, uh, I'll be more than happy to back you up on it. Cause that's the way I felt from the beginning. And, uh, as far as commissioner Regalado, before I forget, so she starts to like me again, I want to wish her a happy birthday in anticipation of this Thursday, since I won't be able to be here Thursday when she's here early, happy birthday to her. And, uh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I don't get to share it with you guys. Usually I'm like at a BCC meeting with a cake. So this will be a first. Oh, darn. Oh, darn. Um, that's what happens when your birthday is so close to the, the budget, you know, the budget free. Well, let me ask you a question on the Ted, you all rating the Ted. Why, why wouldn't it just be alone? Interesting question, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to point out to you, we had a very similar conversation last year and mayor Kava asked the, the board to consider readjusting the gas tax. And she was rejected. She asked you to the board to consider fairs, to consider solving some of this imbalance. It was completely rejected that we couldn't do any of that. That's why the Ted was rated then. And, and right now, quite frankly, she's going to put out a budget tomorrow that is not going to propose any tax increases or fair increases. And the only way to meet the imbalance is the Ted. Now we've never talked about it being alone because you did that Alabama thing where you didn't actually answer the question. And so, because former trial attorney over here, I'd like you to ask the question first, then you can go into the soliloquy. Why is the rating of the Ted, not a loan from the Ted to the general fund? So right now, like last year, you just took the money. It's like strong arm robbery, but in the, the loan is like you borrow the money so you can over time pay it back. I know when I was in Miami gardens at one point, before I got all the development kicking, the general fund had to loan the, the, I guess our version of RER land use stuff. We had to loan the money. But then when I got the development kicking, they paid it back. Why are you taking it instead of borrowing it? Mr. Chairman, we, we have not considered that. I've not had that discussion. I'm happy to have the discussion. I would point out the obvious challenge with that is, is we're so imbalanced now, we don't have a path to even break even much less pay something back. But I wouldn't be opposed to attempting a plan at that. But that plan may include some fare increases or implementing some charges that historically we've not been allowed. Well, well, well, but, but then you also don't know what, what happens, right? So the RTZ eventually, so the challenge with the RTZ and when she talks about, we need to look at it, what, what can we do with, we understand what the challenge is, is that the people along the corridor in the South don't actually want to build density. And so we've left the option for us to come back in the, as a county, impose it if we want to. So this future boards can actually impose that because zoning is our right. We believe that, but we haven't gone that route, but things will happen and there will be more money that comes in. The question just being, hey, even if we adjust the percentages, right, of what, what comes from the TID, there are things you can do in the future to reclaim some of that money if it's a loan. But if we're just giving it to you and see also it being a loan actually helps from my perspective, because it's very difficult for me to reconcile the fact that I told people this was going to go into the fund that would help with rapid mass transit. And then I let you rate it every year. So last year was an emergency. OK, cool. I explained it. But I can't explain an emergency two years in a row. That's that's just a challenge for me. So I don't know if I can do that. So that that is the challenge speaking. And this is everyone here and everyone watching in TV land. This is these are the candid conversations that I have with the administration behind closed doors. We don't have the opportunity to speak behind closed doors, but this this is this is it. And so I understand that their their need is actual pressing. It is not an insignificant or trifling need. There is an actual problem. They're solving an actual problem. This is the only way they think they can solve it, because the board, to your acknowledgement, has not allowed you to raise fares monetize. I understand that that. But two things can be true at the same time. That can be true. And also what can be true is I told the residents, if they pull out this RTZ and it goes into the TID, we'd be able to bank money for rapid mass transit. That's true, too. Regalado. Just to follow up on that, Roy and Mr. Chair, look, my cities, it's been painful, but they've matched our zoning. Cor Gables created their own RTZ overlay, which we helped them create. And they're doing that. South Miami met our zoning. So along the corridor, like you, I have asked our partners to suffer this density in the name of a comprehensive transit plan. So I agree with you. The question is, what are our revenue sources in the future? Like, what what can we do? And what it's very difficult for me to go back to my residence and say, you're suffering density along this corridor. You're building the TID and we're paying for people to have, you know, subsidized Metro Connect. That doesn't you know, the fact that we've spent 32 million on that over the last four years. Now they're paying something, but it's still a huge subsidy, you know. So for someone in my corridor, they're like, well, we would like to have transit that goes countywide. We're suffering the density. But then somewhere out there in the ether, you know, someone is doing, you know, something else. And I'll give you an example. At TriRail, we got FDOT money to do first and last mile. And we actually contracted with Uber and my board wanted to do something similar to what we did here with Metro Connect. And I was against it. Instead of subsidizing the full ride, we just gave people a $5 credit. And if they were going to go beyond $5, that was on them, not on me. It's it's insane that we do it the other way around. So we're having the user pay 350 and then we subsidize whatever the difference is, irrespective of what the difference is. So even at TriRail, we did this for a year. We followed the metrics. We had FDOT paying half of it. And when it came back and we looked at what we were investing versus what we were getting, we decided to give the money back to FDOT. And we canceled it. And we only kept our shuttles at the airport, which was not an easy thing to do. So you can invert it. You can invert Metro Connect and say, you know what? This is the line item. This is what we're doing. We'll give you, you know, a credit. And then you deal with it with the rest or you can shrink the geography of it so that it's actually meeting its needs. But the reason that we're in this conversation is because we canceled bus routes. And now we're going to continue to subsidize Metro Connect so we can cancel more bus routes. And then what are we going to do? We're going to cancel those bus routes and we're going to come back and we're going to say we need more Metro Connect in order to deal with the canceled bus routes. It's madness. It's madness. So I think we should look into some sort of mechanism that brings the money back. But in order to do that, we need to have a conversation about revenue generation. And that means putting a pin in some of these things. I mean, we got a tourniquet here. I mean, we're bleeding out in transit. And we need to be honest about what our priorities are. And I think our priorities should be buses. We run a bus system. So we should prioritize buses over alternatives to buses. And then we need to figure out what we're actually building and what we're doing and how we can get some easy wins in terms of transit. And I think that we can do some of that in the next few months as we look into this budget and create some revenue generation. All right, to the attorney, do we have language from the commissioner that we can read to us? You can read to us, see if we can amend the item, get it out. Good morning, Mr. Chair. So the motion would be to amend item 1G1 to provide that passenger motor vehicles used to provide municipal circulator service be operated until such vehicles reach 20 model years of age. The change would only apply to municipal circulator vehicles and not fixed road vehicles. And reference to 350,000 miles will be stricken from the ordinance. That works for the city of Miami. The city of Miami's issue is because, because remember, this was birth from Corey Gables. Corey Gables has short routes. So their mileage is low. City of Miami travels a lot more. Their mileage is high, but they're less than 20 years old. So that, that was the issue for the city. So I think if we take out the 350,000, the mileage issue, it's good with the city of Miami. I just want to make sure that it doesn't impact us. So if it's just for municipalities, I think that's. Correct. With this change, it would only apply to municipal circulator vehicles. Show the item amended. Okay. And then I'll need a motion on the item. I'll move it. Moved by Regalado. As amended. Seconded, as amended, seconded by Bermudez. All those in favor, signify by, is there an ordinance resolution? Ordinance. Ordinance, call the roll. Commissioner Bastion? Commissioner Bermudez? Yes. Vice Chairwoman Regalado? Yes, as amended. Chairman Gilbert. Motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chair? I need to move 2A to our next PCC because of the gap. I'm happy to draft the memo. 2A is the interlocal agreement between Miami-Dade County and the Village of Key Biscayne for the e-bikes. Yeah, perfect. Thank you. E-bike crisis. Mr. Chairman, we'd like to request 3K advance to August 21st. And if you're so inclined, we'll draft a memo for your consideration. Yes. Please. Pretty, pretty please. July. And I'm committed to helping transit while you're gone. Committed. No, no, no, no. Don't let her say that she's committed to helping transit because all of us are committed to helping transit while you're gone. She's trying to butter you up. Really credit Stacey, you know, with this. Like, she called at 741 in the morning. Holy moly. Pleading this case. You don't answer my call at 741 in the morning. I don't. But you answered hers? I did. It's called caller ID. She calls a lot less frequently than you do. So you can wait until 10. If she's calling at 741, it is a pressing issue. I might have a bus on fire. Something might be going on if she calls at 741. So I guess we'll move it ahead. Thank you. You got to draft a memo and the chairman has to. It's your birthday, too. Yes. Happy birthday. Thank you. But let's remember, the chairman's office has to approve this. I am not. I'm just recommending it to. All right. Thank you all. Yeah. So anything additional? All right. Need a motion to adjourn? So moved. Show us adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.