Well, we did skip an official prayer. Lord bless us all as we discuss the garbage of this county. So, it is important. All right, Madam Attorney, I know we didn't need quorum. This is just a workshop, but what I would like to do today is perhaps, and you can tell me if there's any official statements or anything that I need to say, but what I would like to see done today, guys, and what this was scheduled for, as agreed in the last commission, the last two commission meetings, really. But I would like to kind of start with Chief Coley kind of giving just a very, very extremely brief intro as to what has transpired since the last meeting to today. Not a presentation, just a quick briefing, and then roll right into a presentation from the companies that I understand and, per my packet, have joined and will be presenting where they are today. And then once we fully conclude that presentation, then, of course, we'll go into a Q&A on the day as either amongst us and the administration or us and the companies. But I would ask at the time that the companies are giving their presentation that we, you know, if we have questions as they go, just kind of write it down, remind yourself, have your team remind you, but let's have them finish their entire presentation prior to that Q&A so that we can get through this in the most efficient way. Does that sound right, Jerry? Yes, that's all appropriate, Mr. Chair. All right. So with that, Chief Coley, you are recognized for a brief update as to where kind of we landed after, I don't know, it's been, what, three weeks or so? Yes, Mr. Chairman, since our last meeting, the administration has continued to communicate with representatives from both FCC and FPL into developing this path forward. What seems obvious to us, speaking with both of them, that they need from this body to where they can give further certainty and some pricing is they need us to determine one property to focus on of the two they've proffered. They also need to provide back to us what is the proper size plant to build. We have all been talking about what size plant to build based on what our existing is. What we did when we spoke to them was said, if there is a more efficient size, tell us now, don't wait till afterwards and say it could have been done more efficiently if we had to give a different size. So we've asked them to verify that, and then they also need for us to provide them the waste diversion techniques that we want them to price, whether it's anaerobic digestion, composting, materials recovery, whatever those things are that we want them to provide a menu of price, and they need us to tell them where they can give us the price, and we're ready for the presentation just as you are, sir. All right. Sounds good. That's exactly what I wanted. Short and sweet. All right. So who will be presenting on behalf of the consortium? All right. Come on up. All right. Sounds good. So do us a favor. Introduce yourselves again. I know you guys look familiar to me at least, but reintroduce yourselves. Kind of state if you're each representing collectively the consortium, but a different entity from the consortium, and then just go right into the presentation. I asked, so I'd like to ask you, but I had asked that the presentation remain until about 10 to 15 minutes the most. Does that sound fair, and is that within? I mean, I have it, and I've gone through it. I think you could probably get it done in that and then open it up for Q&A thereafter. Yeah, that's very fair. All right. And for those commissioners that just walked in, what I had asked is Commissioner Steinberg, if you can listen for a second, for the commissioners that just walked in, no, I'm letting you guys know because you guys just walked in, that we're going to do the Q&A afterwards. Like, we're going to let them go through their whole presentation, take notes, write down your questions, and then we'll open up for Q&A if that's fair. All right. Let it rip. We really appreciate it. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board and staff. My name is Matthew Kozo. I'm with Florida Power and Light. I'm the director of development. I'm joined here today with Juan Garidi, president of FCC Environmental Services, and we're here to present on a joint basis a proposal for Miami-Dade County's sustainable solid waste campus, a consortium that's been formed at the direction of the board. Following our individual presentations last year, the board encouraged us to explore how FPL and FCC can work together to deliver the best possible outcomes for Miami-Dade County. We took that directive very seriously. What you'll see today is the result of that collaboration, which is a unified approach that combines FPL's proven capabilities in large-scale infrastructure development and financing in FCC's global leadership and waste management operations. This consortium brings together complementary strengths that directly benefit the county. FPL, as you're probably very familiar with, brings decades' experience financing, constructing, and owning critical infrastructure assets across Florida. Including our renewables portfolio, our gas fleet, and our nuclear plants to serve millions of customers across the state of Florida. FPL has a proven track record delivering complex, capital-intensive projects on time and on budget with the financial strength and credit profile that ensures project bankability without placing financial risk on the county. FCC brings nearly a century of waste-to-energy expertise operating facilities across Europe and the United States that process millions of tons of waste annually while demonstrating the ability to meet the strictest environmental standards globally. FCC's deep operational knowledge will ensure reliability, efficient facility performance of waste-to-energy and other ancillary facilities. We've also assembled the best-in-class partners for the project. Maztec provides proven EPC capabilities with extensive experience delivering complex waste-to-energy and other critical infrastructure projects. Canadaevia Inova supplies state-of-the-art combustion and boiler equipment technology deployed in waste-to-energy facilities worldwide. And Babcock and Wilcox delivers best-in-class emissions control technology, ensuring this facility will meet or exceed the stringent air quality standards. Together, we've structured a comprehensive solution that addresses the project priorities, supported by unrivaled development track records, proven technology, operational excellence, financial strength, and alignment with Miami-Dade County's zero-waste objectives. This isn't simply two proposals that were merged together. It's an integrated program designed specifically to serve the county's long-term interests. To advance this project responsibly, we are requesting the board authorized to negotiate an interim pre-development agreement between the consortium and Miami-Dade County. Given the current project landscape, uncertainty around site selection, evolving technology options, and variable design capacities, both the county and staff face more questions than there are answers at this time. The interim agreement is specifically designed to resolve this uncertainty and provide the clarity necessary for informed decision making. This approach serves the county's best interest for five critical reasons. First, it eliminates risk-based pricing. Second, it will accelerate the delivery of the project. Third, it allows for a collaborative approach with county staff. Fourth, it establishes clear recommendations and decision points for the board. And finally, it delivers cost certainty before a long-term commitment. We recommend that the board put the experts to work by entering into an interim agreement at the next board meeting, allowing for project scoping and site due diligence to proceed at no cost to the county. Until a final proposal that includes definitive price is presented to the board later this year. So with the combined resources of FPL and FCC provides two site options. Each entity has a land purchase option in front of them, which we will evaluate both of those sites in the interim agreement period. Enabling us to, the interim agreement period, sorry, enables us to evaluate both sites concurrently. We can evaluate engineering, environmental constraints, and project economics in parallel. This simultaneous analysis ensures we identify the superior site based on objective data. Whether the determining factor is technical viability, cost efficiency, or construction timeline. The county receives transparent, comprehensive analysis demonstrating which site best serves its interests. In advance of the next board meeting, we plan to submit our joint proposal to the county. At that time, we're asking the board to direct staff to negotiate the interim agreement with this consortium. We anticipate bringing that negotiated agreement back to you in April, which is in alignment with prior resolutions in October. Once approved, we'll spend May and June in a planning period, working directly with staff to establish governance, align on priorities, and set up work streams. Then starting in July, we move into execution, running due diligence and design activities in parallel, while simultaneously developing the definitive terms of the long term comprehensive agreement between the county and the consortium. Throughout this process, you'll receive regular updates at each milestone, ensuring full transparency and giving you the opportunity to evaluate progress at every stage. Thank you for your time, and I'll pass it to Juan Garidi, again President at FCC, to discuss the different technology and design solutions in consideration for the interim agreement period. Thank you, ma'am. Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners, and Chief Coley. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. Before I get into the presentation, I just want to say that with me, today are my technical team, which includes Mr. Ashley Cork, that is the Vice President of Waste to Energy, and Andrea Rodriguez, that is the Vice President of Engineering and Recycling. They are here today to answer any questions that you have about the technologies proposed. Before I present the specifics on the different technologies, I would like to highlight our joint proposal fully aligned with the Resolution R80125, which mandates that at least 40% of the county waste must be diverted through recycling, composting, or reuse, not combustion. The proposed waste energy facility will handle up to 37% of county-managed waste, leaving 63% available for zero waste solutions. This means waste energy serves as a complement to, and not as a replacement for the county's zero waste objectives. It's a balanced, diversified strategy. We are diverting waste from landfills while preserving the county's availability to exceed its zero waste targets throughout innovative recycling solutions, compost, and reuse programs. In short, we are meeting the county's policy requirements while supporting its environmental leadership. The proposed waste energy facility will process between 1.4 and 1.9 million tons of waste annually, providing significant diversion capacity with built-in expansion capability. We are developing proven, best-in-class technology, Canadavia's Innova mass burn combustion system and multi-pass boilers, paired with Babcock and Wilcox advanced flue gas treatment and state-of-the-art fire suppression systems. The facility delivers multiple benefits. It's expandable to meet future county needs. It will be cost-effective compared to alternatives. It will be land efficient, which is critical given South Florida development pressure, and it will produce renewable energy that returns values to the community. Beyond waste disposal, the facility enables material recycling, support resources recovery, and creates opportunities for sustainable waste management education and community engagement. To summarize, this waste-to-energy facility will deliver proven technology, expandable capacity, and tangible community benefits, all while keeping waste out of landfills. Beyond energy generation, this facility maximizes resources recovery through advanced bottom ash recycling. After combustion, the residual ash undergoes operating using magnetic and eddy-carrying technology, extracting ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals for recycling. This process delivers three critical benefits. First, it increases the county's overall recycling rate by recovering value material that would otherwise be lost. Second, it reduces the volume of ash requiring landfill disposal, extending landfill capacity, and further reducing disposal costs. And third, it lowers greenhouse gas emissions by diverting metals from landfill and enabling their reuse in manufacturing. In summary, we are not just managing waste. We are recovering resources, protecting landfill capacity, and supporting the county's environmental goals. Our vast experience in the design, build, and construction of MERS include 200 plants worldwide, with several of them in the U.S. Our facilities have been recognized by the National Waste Recycling Association in the years 2017 and 2019, as the best recycling facilities in North America. The proposed design is a state-of-the-art single stream facility, able to treat 40 tons per hour for 140,000 tons per year, with the latest technology to enhance the quality of materials, reduce operating costs, and increase the amount of materials ultimately recycled. We have good market knowledge and a portfolio of buyers that are very interested in buying the fire products coming from this facility. Construction and demolition debris management is a core competency of our organization. We manage these facilities in Florida. The proposed design can be treated up to 140,000 tons per year with the latest in AI image recognition technology in the industry. This will include an innovative dust suppression system and will improve the operations environment. This facility will help to meet the recovery rates established by the county. The materials recovered will be marketed in the second raw material market, given a second chance. In the compost, we have also vast experience working with different types of organics, materials from green waste, jar waste, food, and municipal organics. We have over 50 compost facilities worldwide. We know the importance of managing the organics within all environmental regulations, and for that we propose building a proven technology, cover aerated static pile, or called CASP, which reduces others and maintains water management control. The result is a high-quality compost. We operate a compost facility in California, and our final product has received the gold certificate by OMRI, that is the Organic Materials Review Institute. As part of the Comprehensive Sustainability Solid Waste Campus, we are proposing an integrated anaerobic digestion system, which processes organic waste stream, food waste, yard waste, and biosolids. And aerobic digestion is a natural biological process, where microorganisms break down organic material in an oxygen-free environment producing gas. This technology delivers multiple benefits for the county. First, it diverts organic waste from county's landfill, maximizing the county's zero waste objectives. Second, it produces renewable energy biogas that offset fossil fuel consumption. Third, the process creates an additive from compost, closing the resource loop. And critically, anaerobic digestion significantly reduces the greenhouse gas emissions by capturing methane that would otherwise be released from decomposing organic waste in landfills, contributing to the environmental impact. We design all our facilities focused on environment, health and safety, dust-free, nose-free, and environmental-friendly. Together with the waste-to-energy facility and the other proposed ancillary facilities, this creates a truly integrated, diversified waste management system that maximizes resources, recovery, and environmental benefits. Thank you, everyone, and I will give it back to Matt. Commissioners, this consortium was, again, formed at your direction, and this presentation reflects our shared commitment to delivering a world-class facility, sustainable solid waste facilities, to Miami-Dade County. We believe the interim agreement is the prudent next step. It transforms uncertainty into clarity, identifying the critical questions about site selection, technology configuration, cost structure, and project feasibility before any long-term commitment is made. This approach eliminates risk-based pricing without comprehensive due diligence. Any pricing today would require substantial contingency, premiums to account for unknown conditions, and unknown scope. The interim agreement enables good old-fashioned engineering and environmental assessments, replacing assumptions with actual data. The results are transparent cost, based on real conditions. Together, this partnership aligns global expertise, proven operational excellence, and financial strength, to deliver the best-in-class sustainable waste solution to the county. Thank you for your time today, and we're prepared to answer your questions. All right, well, thank you for that, Matt and Juan. Thank you for that presentation. So, look, I have a few questions myself, and I'm going to go ahead and open it up to my colleagues now. But, look, I understand that when you all bring this back in April, and I appreciate you kind of holding to that original timeline that we agreed on and voted on in the status back in, I guess, October that was. But, and I understand that giving pricing today is not the best option for either, right, because now is when the due diligence really begins, and you guys go through that. So, I kind of would urge my colleagues to keep that at a very $30,000 view when it comes to cost for this workshop purposes. Now, there is some fixed stuff, right, that shouldn't really change much once negotiations are final. And one of the things that I want to say, and I probably shouldn't, and some may look at me like, why are you bringing this up now? But one of the things that I would urge you, because I think it's important that when you come back to us in April, you come with the closest to an accurate proposal as possible. And I understand that even after April, negotiations will still be on their way. You've got to go and explore, you know, land feasibility, surveys, and plans. But there's something that I've heard already for a few months, and certainly, you know, I asked about it. And it's on the two site proposals that the county would essentially acquire, one of them. And I understand that both sites have a set price, whatnot, and then a royalty in perpetuity. There is a, in fact, there is not a chance. It is a fact that I am no expert in this field. So, maybe as I learn more, I realize that this is common practice. Today, I reserve the right to change this as I do more due diligence, but today, I see those proposals from ex-sellers as pure greed. And it is disrespectful and insulting to the taxpayers of this county that they are tying and binding their sale to a royalty in perpetuity. And any taxpayer that's sitting in the audience, which is probably everybody, or in this dais, should feel insulted by such a proposal or such a... Now, every seller has a right to put whatever ticket price they want on their land, and they're in the right to do that. I am not okay with that. And I say that today so that when you all come back to us in April, you've had an opportunity of month, two months, to go back to these sellers and have that conversation. That is just one piece of the pie. I know that this is a much broader issue and much broader proposal. But as I go through this and not getting into the fine details, that is something that continues to stand out to me, is being tied down to a royalty in perpetuity. Again, I don't know if this is common practice. I don't know if it's the opportunity because some may think that we're up against a wall, up against a corner. I don't know. Maybe it is common practice. And I will learn this through due diligence and through meetings and so on and so forth. But that is one thing for sure that stands out to me. Look, I'll reserve to speak at the end, but I'll now open it up for Q&A to my colleagues who wants to kind of take the first stab at it. Thank you. And I appreciate that smile that Commissioner Regalado just gave me because that smile is kind of like, I'll do as you please. But I know that if I speak now, I'm going to speak again. She's acknowledging it. So, you know, acknowledging is the first, you know, the first step. So we'll, let's see. All right. So, okay, go ahead on the point of order. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Point of order, procedurally, we are at a workshop. There's no order of business for the board today. It's purely informative. And my question is, at the end of the presentation, and thank you for that presentation, they prompt us and say, we direct, we ask that you direct the administration to negotiate. Are we taking a vote or sending any directives to the administration at today's workshop? Not today. No, my understanding is that they're asking that you take that action at the board of county commissioners meeting next Wednesday. I understand. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yep. All right. So with that, everyone recognizes that I am about to recognize Commissioner Regalado, and she will have a second bite at the apple. All right. With that, Commissioner Regalado. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, thank you all for being here. I have a few questions about the merger, and then we'll go into the agreement. I appreciate that in your presentation, you provided us with kind of a schematic of who's going to be doing what. Obviously, that was one of the questions in the merger. The other question is, what was presented to us was two very different financial models. So obviously, I know that the purpose of the interim agreement is to do the due diligence so that then we could determine a price. We don't want a price that has embedded in it a ridiculous amount of risk because that's not really a price. So I'm not against the interim agreement. I am cautious at anything that says, at no cost to the county, because obviously you're going to be doing this work. And if the county decides not to proceed after we receive that, I would assume there is some cost to the county. Just a point of clarification, we're willing to do the pre-development activities and site work, preliminary engineering studies, topographic work, what have you, at our expense. I think what the county is really committing for this interim agreement period is really time, and time is valuable. So I think that would be what is valued and what you'd be committing to is allowing us a duration of time to do that diligence and come back to you at the conclusion with recommendations, optionality that have definitive price and terms associated. Okay. All right. So because this has come up before, when we were doing airport, city, and then the hotel, who's going to own the due diligence? Because you have not purchased the properties. So you're going to do the due diligence. Who owns it? Because if the county is eventually going to be, and I'm going to get to the financial differences, if the county is eventually going to purchase this, if that is part of the merger, then one of the lessons learned here from our many other endeavors is that we want to own the due diligence because we've run into that problem before. Yeah. I think this is a good opportunity to also clarify what we would do between February and April. We want to negotiate the terms of the interim agreement exactly as you stated, work out those details, um, with, with the county, um, and, and arrive at a definitive interim agreement. So everybody knows exactly what the scope of the interim agreement activities are, who will pay for them, how, how, um, the work product will be managed, who will own that at the conclusion of the interim agreement period. Um, and then overall, you're correct. The county, we're still under the, um, business proposal that FPL laid out, whereby FPL would be the owner of the, the waste energy facility, the improvement on the land and the county would own the land. So in that arrangement, obviously the county would have, um, a right to the, to the detailed information that we. So just to clarify that point, um, because, so you guys have decided to follow the FPL financial model. That was that, that they're responsible, the developer's responsible for all the financing. So the county doesn't have the upfront capital except for the land. That's correct. So that's part of your current merger. You've agreed to that. Yes, that's correct. And then the county is responsible for the purchase of the land. Uh, in the FPL agreement, it was 65 million plus closing costs right now up in the air because there are two sites and that's part of the initial agreement. And then the payments begin in 2035, um, at, we had 201 million annually escalating to 2.5 over 40 years. Is that to be determined or have you guys added that too? Yeah. The, the terms around the land, um, are based off of an existing option. Um, but the financial terms that we put in our proposal are indicative and that's what we're asking for the interim agreement to really firm those up and eliminate any effects of, um, risk premiums from uncertainties associated with the grounds. Okay, but, but I'm saying there's two different things. Obviously the, the interim agreement is going to flush out what happens when you don't, you don't have a site selection. So we can't have a price for the site because we have two sites and we haven't selected it. We're going to do the due diligence to see which one is a better fit. Um, but in terms of the payment, are you going to be adding those terms to this interim agreement? The, the payment under the structure that FPL proposed, right? You have the upfront land payment at the close of the longterm agreement, but there are no financial burdens to the County for the development of the facility until it goes operational, which we project in the 2034 timeline timeline. Separated aside from the land payment, right? Aside from the land. Correct. Okay. All right. The other, the other question was when you presented your timeline, because one of the things that we have to consider on our side, separate and apart from what you guys are doing is how we continue to collect waste and what we continue to do with it until your, uh, your site is operational, right? So what is your operational? Cause here we just have like submission of permits. We kind of, we kind of end here. And then we have regulatory and permitting construction, submit permits, then 2029 to 2030. So what, what are you looking at in terms of actual opening? Because one of the things that we have to work out as we negotiate with you all is to figure out how long we need to keep carrying the costs of our current waste disposal till we open. Yeah. We, we think we would get our permits and be able to start construction in 2029 timeframe roughly. And that, that would be a four to five year construction timeline to be concluded in 2034. All right. So you would have, that's what that number is. It doesn't say, it just has like the two numbers. So just as a point of clarification, you would be opening in 2034. Correct. Okay. Um, and your current plan is the County would be paying for the land upfront. So we would be financing that, but we wouldn't be paying for the facility until 2034 that we start using it. You wouldn't pay for the service at the facility until 2034, um, how we want to structure the land acquisition costs, you know, our proposal was upfront at close, but that could also be reviewed and negotiated upon. But the, the, the, the fundamental point is that the County would retain ownership of the land, um, in some form or fashion, and we could structure that, um, securing that payment out however fits the County's needs. Okay. Yes, we have two different insights. We need to clarify on that, but we are open to it. All right. Um, in, in terms of the size, so you're going to do the due diligence to determine the site. Do you have any clarity for us regarding the size? Cause I, I would assume that that impacts obviously the price. So has there been any conversation about the size? I know that in the past, what was, what we were told is, well, you know, when the mayor rolled out, um, kind of her desires for, um, Opel Laca West, there was this understanding that that was kind of the footprint. We have all been very clear that we're not married to any footprint. We just want what is most efficient back to my Honda Accord. Right. Um, so have you guys had any conversations about the size that you can share with us at this point? No, not really. I mean, we have both sides and we are, we know the size of, of each land and is more for you. What, uh, what are you finally planning to put there? What facilities you want to put on the side to define what is the final one that we are going for, but we are open on that. That's what I thought your answer was going to be. So, so that takes us to the diversion options. You know, one of the, one of the things that we talked about is at what point are we going to have some sort of like decision tree where we're going to be like, okay, this is what we're prioritizing, right? This is what we want on the site. So at what point do you all see us doing that in, in this negotiation? We, we see that happening at several intervals along the interim agreement period. Uh, what we look forward to in the interim agreement period is being able to share our ideas openly with, with the staff and, and show them some different scenarios on how we could manage the waste through waste energy, what component will be available for divergence, and then through that, um, feedback and discussion, uh, we'll be able to present an array of different structures and options, um, you know, conceivably something that is predominantly waste to energy, um, with definitive cost, a recommendation with, Hey, if you want a more enhanced recycling facility with a smaller waste of energy, just to provide you the board with some optionalities and in, in our recommendation. But I think the key thing that we want to deliver through that timing and that process is more definition around what that will cost under other scenario. Are you going to be comparing that to our current contracts? Because right now we have a current recycling contract. Roy, when is our recycling contract up? I'll verify that with Anisha. I don't have the date. Okay. I know that we're like at 10 years with the, you know, moving the trash, but I think the recycling, I want to say it's like five or seven. 2035. She verified. Yeah. 2035. Okay. So, so my request would be on the recycling side, a comparison to the existing recycling contract, right? Um, I think we could get better. Um, I think we can be offered better recycling options, but I would like to, since that one will sunset near when this is opening, it would be good for us to, to get an apples to apples, right? I just, I feel like we've had so many theoretic conversations, right? I would like for us to start comparing what we're doing to what we're going to be doing so that it gives us all a little bit of a firmer grasp of what exactly we're purchasing and what we're going to be doing with it. Um, so you think that the diversion options are going to happen with staff during the interim, as opposed to kind of what was mentioned on the dais, which was another cart where we would be given the prices and then kind of pick. I don't, I'm not saying one or the other. My only concern with that is you have to get to a final agreement and you've actually laid out a pretty aggressive timeline for that final agreement. Not necessarily that I want you to keep coming back to the board of county commissioners, but I just feel that to spend a lot of time and come up with something that then may not work for the board might not be the best. We agree. Yeah. We agree. Yeah. So, um, so what I would ask, uh, Mr. Chair is as we work on this to, um, to give us opportunities during this, um, timetable to have similar workshops like this where, I mean, we're not necessarily making a decision, but we're at least going to be looking at the facts as they're being presented so that you don't go through the trouble of like baking a pie and then we send you back to the kitchen, right? Because I think that'll just complicate the situation for us. Um, so that would be a recommendation that I would make in terms of the, of the interim agreement. Um, one of the things that I mentioned, um, in your page seven, um, you're talking about our zero waste solutions. And obviously this chart is reflective of what this board approved in terms of how much we want to divert versus how much we want to burn. Um, that is an important aspect to this, but one of the things that I discussed last time we were having this conversation was also having a consideration of the waste that is part of our system, but not necessarily part of solid waste. So that is the yard waste, the park waste, right? There's a series of other things, um, hurricane waste, right? So there's all these different silos that are still within our solid waste system. Um, I'm not saying it has to be included as a top line, but I think it would be useful again, for it to be included as a consideration as we move forward. And again, comparing it to our existing, right? So this is what you pay now, right? This is what you could pay if you included it in this plan. Cause the idea is to provide a comprehensive waste solution, correct? Correct. Yes. So, um, I know that I've talked about that with, with staff, but, um, I don't see that really here. And, and I think that that's something that we should consider. The, the other thing that's not here, when you go through the byproducts, will there be an opportunity to profit share on the byproducts? So what, what's the plan there? Yes, we haven't closed that yet, but yes, there will be an opportunity to, to work with you around that. Yes. Okay. Um, the other thing I think we need to consider in this interim period, as we look at the byproducts is our existing regulations in terms of use of those byproducts. Okay. Miami-Dade County has more restrictive regulations on use of everything from, from composting, uh, to fill, right? JC can give you a dissertation on fill, right JC? Um, so we have a lot of different restrictions based on our October water line. There's a lot of different things that are packed into that. I don't need to unpack that today, but I do think that as you move forward, you need some clarity from us as to what those policies are and whether or not the byproducts could be used in Miami-Dade County or they would leave Miami-Dade County. And if there's anything that we need to consider moving forward in terms of potential policy changes to allow us to better utilize that byproduct, because I, I'm, I'm, I think it's safe to assume that there's going to be moments in time and there's going to have to be some changes to the things that we do in order to move those byproducts, use those byproducts, you know, um, and either use them ourselves or have our municipal partners use them. Um, or if that's not the case, then I would assume there's a different price associated with moving them outside of Miami-Dade County. So, um, I don't know how the board feels, but I would be for a preference of if possible that we would use the byproducts ourselves. That's what we do in water and sewer. Water and sewer has been very efficient in all the byproducts. We kind of, you know, use them and reuse them and move them around. Um, so that would be my, my preference as we discuss that. And so the other issue is the ash. Um, do you have an idea about the landfill and, and the ash and the reuse of the ash? Cause there's not a lot of detail here. So obviously we know that there has to be a landfill with ash. What is the plan for that? Do you have more detail in this? Yeah. So prior to relying on landfill of the ash, um, we're going to use enhanced metals recovery to minimize that volume to the maximum extent. Um, at this time, we don't have a definitive solution for ash management. Um, those, there are options available within the county. There are options available outside of the county. And we want to explore those options, um, with the, the, with the staff and make sure we're not making any bad assumptions or we have the entire kind of plan in mind when we make those decisions. Okay. Um, Roy, do you know if we could use ash to, with the sludge or is it only lawn waste? So far, any vendor that has spoken to us about it, it's always either been lawn waste or other solid waste, but not ash. Okay. All right. Things to consider. Yeah. There's, um, interesting progress on the reuse of ash and rose road base and concrete. Um, those aren't fully approved and, you know, long-term sustainable options just yet, but there is, there are ways to optimize the use of ash that are under study. So, um, we're going to, we want to explore everything and maximize the reuse and minimize landfill. Um, the other thing that I would consider, you know, is since we're looking at a timeline of 2034, if there's any piloting of things that we should do from here to there, right? Um, so I know we're working on some pilot programs for sludge, but is there any pilot programs that we could be working on from here to there to kind of figure out how to best use these byproducts, just something to put out there? Because it will reduce our bottom line, uh, and we might as well make use of the time as we wait for this, um, to be finalized. The other, my, my last question, there was, there was nothing here about decentralization. Um, I mentioned some decent centralization last time. Um, did you guys consider it? Obviously part of the problem here is the cost that it will, the cost that we incur moving all the trash to one location. Uh, so I think there's no one, there's no resident of Miami-Dade County that wouldn't tell you that our congestion is already insufferable. I can only imagine what it'll be in 2034. Um, but, but that being said, are you still married to this idea of moving everything to one site or is there the possibility of putting some of these pieces in other parts of the county so it won't be so expensive to move the trash there? Yeah. The, the sites that we have identified are primarily, um, dedicated for the use of the waste energy facility, uh, we, we think it makes sense to be selective and put certain complimentary technologies at that same site. But, um, the strength of this consortium can deliver, um, any one of these options more locally, um, in areas where they make a better sense logistically and financially, um, whatever's in the best interest of the Miami-Dade County resident. The good thing with the consortium. And so my saying is that we have these two sites and depending of, as you saw here in the presentation, we have an expandable option for the waste to energy. We need to talk about what, um, ancillary facilities we are finally going for, but we have the flexibility because the sites are big to go around one side or look for different options. So I understand that, but I don't, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Um, my, my request is in terms of the, the decentralization of some of it, like I understand you have these two sites and you could expand that footprint and that's great, but we have to move trash from all over the County. So, um, are, are we, is it then going to be on us to establish transfer stations that get the trash there? Or are you guys going to make recommendations about the trend, right? How do we get everything there within a certain amount of time? Because that's only going to get more complex. And to my question, I mean, one of the, one of the good things about this site is accessibility roads and then also potentially rail. So if, if rail is one of the things that you're considering, that makes it a lot easier because we have rail down South. We have rail, there's rail in different places, right? So we could rail it there. Is your plan to like truck it, rail it, is that piece of the logistical plan part of this? Yeah, I think, I think that's where we really rely on the interim agreement and the collaboration with the department to make the best informed decisions. Our efforts are going to be very site driven and site specific and trying to get you the most definitive information for the projects that we want to build on site. We don't want to make any of those decisions in a vacuum which have other implications to the broader system. If it makes sense to decentralize some aspects of the system, that's a consideration. But generally speaking, your department is very knowledgeable about the inner workings of the system and where it's headed and where it's been. And we really rely on the interim agreement period to foster that collaboration and bring back fully vetted thorough recommendations with definitive implications. That's part of the get. Right. Roy, I just think that one of the things we should consider is, because we look at the overall like tonnage price, but obviously we know that there's a price associated with collecting that, right? So I think we need to add the collection price and figure out, have some sort of estimate as to what it would cost to get all that trash to this location. And maybe there's something that can be worked out in terms of using some of our existing sites, you know, as transfer stations, because we know that it's going to be physically impossible every day to move all this trash to this one location, right? I would prefer rail. I think that it is a cleaner, more efficient, you know, more effective, fiscally responsible. Um, and, and to include that when you design, because that, that's one of the things that I think that we should, that we should consider, um, with that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to hear the rest of my, my colleagues. Um, thank you. All right. Um, all right. Thank you for that. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you both, uh, for being here. I have a, I have a number of questions. I want to start on the site selection and again, I need you all to please refresh my recollection on a number of these things, but there was one of the two of you that came to us initially with a site already selected. Who was that? FPL or FCC? Uh, if you're referring to the December meeting, that was FPL. I am referring to the December meeting, which I think was the only point in time that a site was selected by either FCC or FPL, but I'm sorry, your answer was FPL or FCC? FPL. And, okay. Thank you for that. And you're with FPL? I am. Okay. And which of the two sites that you all are proposing now did FPL choose during that December hearing? Yeah. If you look at, if you're looking at the map, it's the site that's further north, um, further to the left on the, on page five. Site A or site B? You have it identified as A? It's A. It's A. Sorry. Okay. And so between December and now February, you have an additional proposed site and you FPL are in agreement that site number two is equally, uh, adequate as the original site that you all had selected. So the second site was brought by FCC. Um, I can't speak necessarily to the diligence on their site. I can speak to the diligence on the site that we've done to date, which includes survey and title work, um, you know, in site A that FPL brought, um, everything is, uh, looking very nice with that site, but I would leave it to my colleague here, Mr. Greedy to respond. Okay. And, and thank you for that. So FCC, what is the diligence that you've done on proposed site two B, um, on your page five, what site work have you done to identify site B as a potentially adequate site for this waste-to-energy facility? Well, this site, as, as you may remember, when in December, we came with three different options from the three different options. So this was one of the three that we have already there and from December till now getting through, um, through the, uh, size of this site that I was mentioning before is a size that is having, uh, a, a big acre space that could help in doing the waste-to-energy and the ancillary facilities also. That's why we finally go with this, with this site. And in, and in this site, we got into an, and first stage of, uh, we talked to them and we are working on, on having more information, but we don't have right now any, uh, No site workup on site B. Well, we have visited the site and we are working on having the survey and the different elements on that. But we have, we have looked into the requirements that the site need to be feasible for, for, uh, being under the criteria for Miami-Dade and is fulfilling all the requirements. Okay. Thank you. And to the administration for the two proposed sites that FCC and FPL are presenting to us, which are the two, what are the names of these two sites in from our verbiage? Because previously there were five sites that we as a county identified as potential sites are either, or both of these two included in that previous list of five sites? The site that FPL proposed on was a site that we once talked about and, and, and it's been known by several different names in conversation, but, uh, near the rock quarry is what's been talked about the most. It's out in those rock lands. And then the, the site that FCC has proposed on had not been looked at before, but you may know the site is it's currently the site of, uh, of a truck parking lot in high, in the Hialeah area. So, uh, most people know it by the, by the trucking company. Okay. And so just again on, on the sites, because it's important for us to kind of hone in on, on where this thing might be located. Um, a, you said, uh, to the chief was previously considered by the administration. B was never considered by the administration. What did we call a, when we were talking about potential sites for this waste to energy facility? What, what, what is the, what is it that we referred to it as? Was it idle George Medley Okeechobee 58th street? I know it wasn't airport West. No, it was not those sites. It was none of those sites. Oh, that was the Okeechobee. She said, okay. So Okeechobee is the site that we previously were presented with as an option during this process. Okay. And I have that. Are these, what are the, what is the acreage on A and B? A is, um, 65 acres and I believe B's about 77 to 80 acres. And how many acres do you need in order to build a waste to energy facility? For the waste energy facility, somewhere in the range of 25 to 30 acres. Again, it is dependent on the capacity and size that we agree to build on. But I think you, about 30 acres would work. Okay. And FCC, do you agree? Yes. The only comment that, uh, our site is 77 acres with another 10. So it's going to be up to, with potential extension of 10. So we'll be up to 88 roughly. But yes, I agree on the size of the waste to energy. That is what we need. 30 acres? Yep. Roughly. Okay. And we, the county would be purchasing the land in order to build the waste to energy facility to the administration. Is that what's kind of understood as the unofficial terms of the non-deal? That was the original proposal that FPL made to the county, was the county would purchase the land. Is that what's being considered currently, that we, the county, would purchase the land and then you all would have the expense of actually building the brick and mortar and the metal and all of the technology, but we would be the ones purchasing the land? That's correct. That's correct. Okay. And so to the, have we, have we spoken to the owners of these parcels to price this out at this juncture? Do we have any idea of the pricing of the two proposed sites that are before us? Yes. Yes. We have an exclusive land purchase option agreement with the site owner for site A. You as FPL has an exclusive land purchase agreement with the site owner of site A? That's correct. And FCC, do you have a similar arrangement for site? Yes. We have an LOI with him and we have an exclusive right, right now with him. Okay. What's the price? What's the price? Yeah. Our, our land option is a million dollars an acre and then there's an associated royalty which begins at site operation of $2.05, which escalates at CPI annually. That is the current terms of the, of the price in our land purchase option. Okay. And for site B? And our site is also $1 million per acre and we have a fixed price of $3 million for the, for the length of the contract. Instead of the royalty, we have a fixed price that don't have escalation. So it's going to be $3 million a year for the duration of the contract. Okay. Uh, sort of like a royalty, which is what our chairman mentioned at the beginning, right? Yeah. Without the escalation piece. Our price is going to be fixed all the years. And so since we, the county are going to be the ones purchasing and acquiring the land, we would be responsible for the royalty that you both just described. We meaning the residents. In, in FPL's proposal, we would, um, the county would pay the upfront costs for the land acquisition, but the royalty component is factored into our tipping fee. Sure. So, and that tipping fee gets passed on to the residents, presumably, correct? That's correct. Okay. So help me understand, um, and maybe the administration can kind of step in here where, and I, and I get that you all can't and haven't proposed numbers yet. And I understand that, um, but I think the messaging from this board has persistently and consistently been that we are concerned about the costs that are just going to be borne by our residents inevitably by this decision, this vote, and, and this very important project. So to the administration, how is it in the best interest of the taxpayer of Miami-Dade County to buy a private piece of property when we have land that we own currently within our portfolio of, of, of land, we're going to buy a property for $65 million, pay millions in royalties every year under each of these agreements. How is that more cost efficient? How is that cost efficient at all? In fact, it's not a hypothetical question. It's an actual question because when I look at the sites that are available to build, I don't know why we need 65 acres. That's number one. Why do we need 65 acres? Why do we need such a large piece of land when you need 30 acres to build? We evaluated the project and the land based on the sustainable waste campus approach. So while the waste energy requires 30 acres, the ancillary facilities will have other acreage requirements. So depending on how many different technologies you consolidate at the site, you will use a fair amount of that 65 acres. Furthermore, on the waste energy specifically, we're designing it in the future that it can expand as the county's needs grow. So you would want to reserve some additional space as well for expansion and growth of the system's capabilities. And thank you for clarifying that. To our administration, how many acres was the Doral site or is the Doral site? How many acres is that? It included a dump as well, but it was minimal. Just for the plant, 60. Doral is 60 acres? Just for the plant site, yes. Okay. We have a lot more land in Doral, but it's a lot of other uses. No, I mean just the location of our previous waste of energy. There's 60 for the waste of energy. It's 60 acres. Okay. And to FCC or FPL, this idea of a mandatory royalty being placed on either of these parcels, in your professional experience, is that something that you all have seen before or are accustomed to when it comes to building waste to energy facilities, i.e., a royalty tacked on to the acquisition of land in order to build a facility? Yeah. Specifically with this site that we have under option, the landowner does have a beneficial use of that property for his own enjoyment, or their own enjoyment. They do a lot of rock mining in the area, so the way that it was explained to us is it's an opportunity cost or revenue cost for the landowner to go and sell that property. Versus using it for other operational uses if they continue to utilize it for their own enjoyment. So that was part of the commercial reasoning that was provided as to why the royalty was necessary. I appreciate that. I don't buy that, though. That's built into every sale price. I mean, anybody that's selling any piece of property could always make a similar argument, right? I mean, you purchase a property with value built in and however you want to quantify the value, because otherwise we could attach royalties to essentially every transaction that we do here in Miami-Dade County. Yeah. Of the sites that were allowable, the ones that you rattled off previously, we did get pricing from each of the landowners, and we arrived at what was the most cost competitive based off of the parameters and the ask of each of those landowners. And you felt like the one that is before us, Site A, was the most competitive? Yeah, it was the most competitive. It was the most competitive. And FCC, similar? Yeah, similar case. In our case, as we were mentioning before, we were planning this as the waste campus that we were asked for, so the waste-to-energy plus the ancillary facilities, so we are going to need a big space. But, yeah, the rationale is similar. And I know FCC, you've built waste-to-energy facilities in the past. You're representing that in the past where you all have built waste-to-energy facilities, you've paid a royalty fee on the acquisition of land? We didn't build any waste-to-energy facilities specifically here in the U.S., so we built them across Europe in different parts in the world, and each country is different. But here in the U.S. is the first one that we are facing for build. So we have one that we own and we operate, but we didn't build it, and we are operating another one, but we haven't built one. You haven't built one in the U.S.? No. And the idea of the royalty fee, you're saying it's an issue of first impression for you, building either in the U.S. or around the world? Well, there are different systems. For example, in the U.K., we have a number of facilities, and in a number of cases, there is county-owned where we build the facility, the land, so we don't have that situation. So we haven't faced much situations where we need to buy the land, because normally it's a land that is proposed by the county. But in the cases that we have seen, no, I will not say it's market practice, but I will say that we have seen that here in Florida. Yeah. To our administration, have we ever acquired a piece of land from a private seller where we have agreed to a royalty fee in perpetuity on that land? Commissioner, I'm not aware that we have. What I can share with you is I have met with the team with a number of landowners looking to sell land to the county for this purpose, and many of them have asked royalty, and what I have told each of them the exact same thing, is that if the county selected their land, we would be more than willing to pay fair market value for the land. We might even be willing to recommend a slight premium, but that we would never recommend paying fair market value plus a royalty, because it just wouldn't make sense to the administration to recommend that to this board. And I've also gone so far to tell each one of them if the land costs cost so much that you're going to raise the price to our solid waste customers' annual fee substantially, nothing would work, that you just price the whole project out of the market. So we've told everyone that we've met with that, and it's been a number of people. Okay, and thank you for that explanation. I would imagine that that is why, at the time that we were given a presentation of five potential sites for waste to energy, and this particular one, i.e. site number A, there was no mention of a royalty fee at that time. And, again, I know that we weren't offering. I know that there wasn't contracts being signed, but I know that I would have remembered if there was any particular site that was at that time offering or mandating a royalty fee. So to the best of your recollection, Chief, do you recall whether that royalty fee was attached to the Okeechobee site when it was first presented to us? No, I never got a proposal that included a royalty fee on that site, but some of the other sites in your hand we did. And so the site that you have, we met with them, but we never received an official offer from them. We gave our spiel, and then they never gave us a price. Okay. Thank you for that. And, you know, I think that it is extremely important for us as a board to give direction on this issue and really echo the sentiments that our chief just articulated on the record, which is the sentiments that he said to all of the previous landowners when they approached him or he approached them exploring potential sites. I can't imagine, and, again, I'm only speaking as one commissioner. There's obviously 13 of us here. But out of the 13 of us, I think all of us have been very clear that we need to build something that is most cost-efficient for the residents of Miami-Dade County, except that the two proposals that are before us seem to be quite the opposite. I'm not paying a royalty fee. I'm not voting for something that attaches a royalty fee. I agree with our chief entirely. I agree with our chairman entirely. So the question becomes, what do we do now? Because the two sites that you have as proposed sites that you've done surveying on that appear to be the most cost-efficient are the exact opposite. So what does that mean for the consortium? And, again, I'm only speaking from my perspective. I'm not speaking as a board. We haven't taken a vote. We're not taking votes today. But I can't see how that translates to cost-efficiency for our residents. So assuming that the board agrees with me, what do you all do as a result of that? We need to take that back under advisement and discuss it and probably discuss it with our landowners as well. Yes. Okay. So to the landowners, to site A landowner and site B landowner, again, I can't speak for the body, but you've heard the chairman, you've heard the chief, and I certainly want to make clear in echoing my intention to not vote on anything that has any kind of a royalty fee attached to it. It is simply price gouging on the backs of the hardworking residents of Miami-Dade County, and that will certainly never earn my vote. I have questions now regarding the actual consortium and the makeup and the way that you all plan to work together on this behemoth project, and I appreciate you all including the timeline because I know that I asked for it, and I understand there has to be a level of flexibility built into that, but I at least appreciate you all providing us with parameters, something for us to take a look at. My question is, this April timeframe, which I appreciate our chairman kind of instilling at the very beginning, and you all have stuck to that, but help me understand what exactly is happening before April, because it was my understanding that you all were going to work together and put together some sort of bulleted MOU or LOI, memorandum of understanding, letter of intent, that gave us the bare bones understanding, bullet points of how you all were planning to work together on this. You all haven't done that yet. That's part of the joint proposal that we're currently working on that we would expect to deliver early next week in advance of the BOCC meeting on Wednesday. Oh, perfect. So we will have that by our February 18th hearing? Yes. Excellent. The plan is to have that by the next BOCC. Perfect. And you all are working well as far as reaching material terms on your agreements? Yes. We have the primary building blocks, the roles and responsibilities of each entity, and the business plan in the way we will conduct our contracting operations amongst each other fairly well aligned. Okay. And procedurally, to the administration, when they prepare this MOU, will it go to the administration? Obviously, it will get prepared as an item. Will there be a recommendation attached to the item, or how will it come before us for a vote? It's going to be an MOU. They just articulated that. That's what the board asked them to do. We could see the terms and whether or not it seems feasible that these two huge companies are going to be able to work together to make this work for our residents. But what procedurally will it look like when it hits the agenda, and will it have a recommendation attached to it? If you request a recommendation, you'll receive one. In the past, we have been told by this body that you did not want an administrative recommendation on this proposal. We're more than happy to provide one if you request. What we're told that is being requested of you by this group is that at the next board meeting, there will be an item directing us to negotiate with them is our understanding. And then we would bring back that negotiation to you, and that could come back. Obviously, if you direct us to negotiate, it would have a recommendation. Understood. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are all the questions that I have for now. All right. Commissioner Gonzalez, and then the vice chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I have to agree with a lot of the sentiments to my colleague to the left here. So in the essence of saving time, I'm not going to go through the same line of questioning. I think what you folks should take from this meeting, because it's been said not only by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, but also by the chairman, is that a royalty deal is completely unacceptable and off the table and frankly insulting. But what I do understand at this point in time is that this is a very preliminary process right now. And this interim agreement, if you will, would only allow you, as was just stated by the chief, to negotiate with that administration, something that the gentleman from FPL said that not only do I agree, but I appreciate is that the only thing that this board has to lose right now is time. And so I want to keep my comments brief, but I want to be clear that time is of the essence. We've lost way too much time to the point of Commissioner Regalado to my right. I think it would behoove every party involved, including the administration, to keep every commissioner up here, up to date with every decision and negotiation, so that we're not back here in April wondering why we have to go back and make a different decision. Something that I think you've heard from every single commissioner on this dais is that the most important thing is the rate to the taxpayer. And so the worst case scenario here, as pointed out by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, would be for us to come back here in April for the negotiation to have happened, for nobody on this board to have been informed of big key decisions, and then the board decides that there's going to be no deal because wasting more time is going to cost taxpayers more money. So I would implore you to please keep every commissioner up to date and to do this in the fastest time possible. I'm sure, I'm positive, that the administration is going to work as quickly as they can. My other comment is to the administration, I am concerned with a letter that I received along with my colleagues that raises some very concerning issues regarding the insurance. Now, I have had a conversation with the county attorney's office. I don't want to say anything that would or could impact any potential litigation, but what I will say is that I would highly appreciate a full briefing to me and my staff yesterday regarding some of these allegations because, again, time is of the essence, right? And the taxpayer in their pockets is the most important thing, as I know that you have said many times and this board agrees with. So that's my two cents, Chairman, and I appreciate you putting this together. Commissioner, I have not seen that letter. I don't know if it was sent to all of us or, oh, okay. I have not seen this letter, but certainly it's something that I think we need an update on, not just your office, but I think all of us need an update on. So make sure that we, you know, we have. We'll send out requests tomorrow for scheduling appointments with each of you where the county attorney's office and I can meet with you. It's the same set of facts that I've already met with some of you commissioners on and some others we've not been able to coordinate a date, but we'll resend it tomorrow. Sounds good. All right, was that all, Commissioner Gonzalez? All right. Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. I've got the vice chair and then Lopez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Chief, quick question. How would this proposed scope of business include or impact SBD, our small business? That has not been discussed or contemplated. That would have to come from our negotiations. We do know that we're preempted in state contracts for a public works contract from having SBE, so I'm sure it would be limited. Okay. And although it's limited, you're still going to be able to have that conversation or somehow with them? We can certainly negotiate that with the vendor, yes. Gotcha. And I do have a slew of questions, but since we've already agreed that we're going to have a briefing, I'll spare my colleagues those questions now. But the next question that I would ask is, since we're here, you know, elevating the discussion about our particular recommendations, have we looked at the possibility of including a community benefits agreement as part of negotiations with these teams? At this point in time, we have not. They made their proposals to us, and it did not specifically have a community benefits section, and we have not entered negotiations with them to ask. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. To both FPNL and FPNL, would that be something you would be interested in also having to include in your proposal a community benefits agreement section that would benefit our community overall? Yes, Commissioner. Okay. Vice Commissioner. Yes. Okay. And Roy, that would be something you would have during that time of negotiations, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. I also, last question here, if I'm listening correctly, because I also have the question about the royalty fee, hypothetically speaking, if the owner chooses not to agree with removing the royalty fee, do you have backup properties that would be able to serve the same purpose in the event that it's a no-go for the owners? I'll say that as part of the benefit of the consortium coming together, that certainly provides two options to go back. So I think that's somewhat productive to the conversation. At this time, from an FPL perspective, we have not concluded on any alternative sites for the project outside of what's already been acknowledged by the board. Thank you. Yeah, in FPL, in FCC case, it's the same. I mean, we thought that with the consortium, we have these two options, and we haven't explored further the other options that we took on the December POCC because we were focusing on this one. Thank you so much. Also, is there a world where, as opposed to including the royalty cost into the tipping fee, can there be a carve-out if the options are not going to be advantageous to an agreement amongst each and every last one of you? If it came down to the last choice and or the opportunity, is the tipping, excluding the tipping fee from including the actual royalty fee, would either one of your companies be willing to absorb that as part of doing business if this was the last resort? Yeah, I think there's ways to contract around that royalty fee and look at other alternatives. We'd be willing to explore that. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Lopez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So at our last meeting, I heard Commissioner Gilbert say that we needed to distinguish what we need versus what we want, and I agreed with him because he said we need to understand what it will take to just have the waste-to-energy facility without all the ancillary services. So I just want to ask if there's a way in which you can do that when it is presented either to the administration or to the consortium because it's clear that it will be far more expensive if we had all the ancillary services. And I, like everyone up in this dais, is concerned about how much this may cost the taxpayer or certainly the people that use solid waste. And so it's important to me to know what is the deal if it's just waste-to-energy and what is the deal if it's all the ancillary services because I think to Commissioner Cohen Higgins' point, the amount of land you need obviously is going to be far less, as you have described today, if we just build the waste-to-energy facility. So can you respond to that if that's going to be a possibility that you can tell this board, this is what the deal is if it's just waste-to-energy and this is what the deal is if you all want all the bells and whistles? Absolutely. We've heard the will of this board loud and clear, and we intend to provide detailed financial impacts for waste-to-energy and then for the ancillary facilities separately. The benefit of the interim agreement and the development work that we need to do, it's at a site level. So you're already at the site. You're gathering data and information to inform all of those decisions and to form all those bids. So it is absolutely the objective of the interim agreement and the team here to bring you all of those answers. So as a follow-up, Mr. Chairman, so it appears that you would also, given the discussions that we've heard now about the royalty of the property from the owners that obviously are holding us hostage, I think that if you're just going to do waste-to-energy, then you could be looking for a different site at 30 acres who may be more amenable to deal in a real estate fashion that does not include royalties. Because I, like everyone else on this board that has spoken, would never vote to encumber the taxpayers to a lifetime royalty fee. So I think you would have to go back and start to look and see if we just do waste-to-energy, what's a good location that's only 30 acres for that facility? We would agree. A 30-acre footprint would definitely potentially provide additional options to evaluate, and we would take that under consideration. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. And I'll go to Bermudez now. Look, here's my fear, right, is that we, and this is somewhat on us, if not more on us than on you guys, is we sort of take one step forward and two backwards. That's kind of a Spanish saying, right? I'm translating that to English. And we're sort of doing that in our conversation right now because on one end, next week, and I want to be cognizant that you guys are private businesses, essentially, on one end we are agreeing that next week, I think, and we're not deciding anything today because it's a workshop, but the gist of it and the idea is that next week in our BCC meeting we will direct the administration to enter negotiations with you all. And that part is fine. I think that part should still, we should still stay on track for that. But what that triggers on your end is all of that due diligence that you've all outlined in your presentation. Well, thank you for taking up that cost, but that does have a cost. And now this body has thrown a monkey wrench into the system because we're telling you under the current sale options of both of these properties that you've proffered, we're not good with that. So how are you now as stockholders and you've got to go back to your boards going to make that decision to spend good money after bad? You're not going to do it. You're not going to start surveying the land and engineering. You're not going to go do that and spend all that money, which is probably millions of dollars, not 10,000 or 20,000. It's probably millions of dollars, especially that you've got to do that for two sites. Because if these sites don't work ultimately for us, given, again, we're not making decisions here. This is a workshop, but you've kind of understood that the general gist of this body by means of this workshop, which is what this workshop was intended to be. So, again, I just, you know, you have a week to go back and speak to these. So what I don't want to do is direct you guys, based on this proposal or this presentation, this is not a proposal, proffering two pieces of property, I'm going to be honest. And I know that we've gone down this path before and this board then essentially, you know, nimbyism on our part is we've excluded this side and that side and we've carved it. I mean, this looks like a very creative architectural carve out that we've done. But I agree that I think we might need to start exploring a county-owned site again. I mean, just acquisition costs, this is going to be nearly $100 million, day one. Not to mention, hopefully we never get to that royalty part, but just for acquisition when we do own a ton of land. But we've carved out a ton of areas and we've kind of just put that off to you all. And this is more to us, to my colleagues, not so much to you. I know you guys are agnostic. I know you guys are agnostic or indifferent or neutral on the site per se, but this is something that will certainly drive up our cost. Just as a point of order. Yes, go ahead. Just as a point of order, because I think it's important to clarify it, this board did not approve just a waste-to-energy site. This board specifically approved a waste-to-energy site that included recycling and composting and other. So we can consider just a waste-to-energy, but then we would have to figure out how to do the other piece. So, you know, how we do the other piece is up for discussion, whether we do an anaerobic digester, whether we do composting, whether we incorporate recycling in this or we do it separately. But the other piece is being done, either by them or by us, which is why I said that I want them to look at our existing contracts. And all of that gets put together into what the ratepayer pays, including community benefits, including all these things get, like, tacked on. It's like a giant waste lasagna. And we just keep layering on there. So I just think that they should give us their best price for these things. And then if there's something in the market that's better, we can choose that as we go kind of like a la carte. But I definitely would be concerned about a community benefit and all that kind of stuff. But just a point of order as to what we approved. Yeah, and you're right, Commissioner. And I think that we may have approved that. But I think that original, and feel free to refresh my memory, but I think that original concept actually came from the mayor, right? Like, she wanted a solid waste compound, not kind of spacing it out. And then we adopted it. We thought it would, I think it's a good idea if we can afford it. The thing is, can we afford it? And, again, I think one of the things we have to consider is going back to the drawing board and looking at county-owned land. And that's part of the decentralizing. So, Commissioner Bermudez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got a number of questions of staff that I'd just like to get on the record and answer. First of all, are our experts here? We have some experts here. Which one do you refer to? The entity that we retained that does all our... Is that Arcadia? Arcadia, yeah. Have they been in back? Yeah, Arcadia isn't here. They're not here, though. It's okay. I'm just asking a question. There's nothing... Atkins is here, but Arcadia is not. Okay. So, we have some here. Okay. Ask the question, and we'll see if the right one's here. Okay, okay. We'll come back. Yeah, what's the total tonnage that we need to, regardless of a waste energy facility, move? And that's an interesting question, Commissioner, because Miami-Dade County, if you start out globally, we produce 5 million tons a year of solid waste. The department for Miami-Dade County manages 2 million tons a year of solid waste. Our previous waste-to-energy plant consumed just over 1 million. That is precisely why we've discussed with these proposers that what is the appropriate size waste-to-energy plant that would be most efficient and have the best cost to our customers? Because today, without considering any growth going forward, we need to manage 2 million tons a year. Okay, which, in the end, looking at the numbers, obviously, they'll still be... We've always... Maybe I'm wrong, but I think both, and knowing both of the... Part of this consortium and everybody else has always said it's not going to take all of our garbage, correct? Correct, as it's being proposed, about 60%. Right, right. Okay. On the interim agreement, this is the staff, again, more to the attorney's office. Obviously, we're talking about a serious amount here. So, on the interim agreement, I hope, legally, that we always have the options to, you know, be able to make a decision that doesn't tie us into something. And Commissioner Regalado is correct. I think I was very flabbergasted when Airport City turned out to be that one of the applicants had, and refused to, and had, the proprietary interest of what's under our airport, which I think is ridiculous. But that in itself is scary. So, the second thing is, this might be also to staff, but it could also be to the consortium here. The reuse of ash in other parts is something that I know has been difficult in Florida because the industry sometimes has, you know, gets involved. But, you know, some other states have permitted the reuse of ash like they've done in other parts of the world. So, and hopefully by 2034, you know, ash, we won't have a state legislature that doesn't allow competition. It's funny how we've got to allow competition. That's always, and I think the reuse of ash in the rest of the world and other parts of this country probably make a lot of sense. Do you know where we're at if Tallahassee has had any interest in changing their perspective on this, these asphalt companies? We don't have any information that you don't out of Tallahassee, no. How about you guys, no? I'm familiar with a study the University of Florida has conducted for the use of ash in road base, that it's currently still under kind of a pilot in trial period. Over and above that, I'm not familiar with anything in Tallahassee, but our friends here at FCC might have some more information. No, we don't have any further information than that. Okay. Thank you. There was a, but one of the things that, and I'll get to it in a second, but one of the things that, and I'm glad, you know, both of you are working together, and I thank you both for being here, but I haven't even gotten an answer from the entity that is going to help you build this, and there were requirements, and I was very specific about it, and I was hoping to get something from them, and I haven't gotten anything from them to date. So I agree with Commissioner Gonzalez that really, and by the way, thank you for bringing up that letter because I had not seen it. Thank you very much. And that letter does ask some very poignant and important questions. And I think one of my colleagues, she's not here, but Commissioner Cohen-Higgins have brought that up, is not competition the best way to get the best price? So we need to ask ourselves that, too. I think that letter makes reference to that, but I'm not going to get into it because I haven't had a chance to read the whole letter. Look, today I'm going to get into a little history. I promise not to be as long as Commissioner Regalado. Sorry, Rico. But we are here, okay, in large part because the decision that was made by the prior Board of County Commissioners was done in less than a minute, which to me was befuddling. Crazy and smacks of something smelling in Denmark. But that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. So when I got elected, one of the first things I did, and I thank my colleagues unanimously, went ahead and opened it up to looking at other sites, specifically focusing on District 12, which, by the way, we're talking about a county-wide facility. So if we're looking at county-wide property, we shouldn't be limited to District 12 if we're going to do that. I always felt that from the beginning that it shouldn't be the onus. In fact, I pointed out that we have two landfills. Still can't, you know, and I know, Roy, you've tried to give me an answer, but I still need to know what can we do with all these landfills. And any time it steps on somebody's toes, then we don't talk about it, but we should be talking about it. And today is the third anniversary, by the way, of being interrupted watching the Super Bowl, of the burning down of the facility that had a number of fires before and was actually an issue with prior mayors and prior commissions for many years because it was way beyond what it should have been. But a site was found. It was a 413-acre site that's owned by Miami-Dade County. And then a municipality in another county decided to fill up this place. And somehow, which, by the way, I find that ironic because they find themselves in the same situation. So I hope you guys, if we ever work with them on something, remember that. And we took one of the, for some reason, we took a very logical site off consideration that's already owned by the county. I don't think either of these companies care if it's on that site because they're into the business of building it and operating it and, you know, working it across. So I want to be clear because I know the chair did and respectfully. I don't, you know, if there's going to be no nimbyism, let's look at the whole county because we're elected as county commissioners. You know, for me, obviously, and I thank my colleagues very much that it was logical not to put it in a place near municipalities. And I still have that opinion whether or not it's in District 12 because I just think that there's other things. And it's beyond, you know, other issues. Everybody talks about the smell, this and that. That's not even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about traffic, other things, et cetera. So I also don't feel, and this is kind of the first time I've heard this discussion on royalties and perpetuity. I believe there's many ways to structure financial deals, and any time you put the word perpetuity, it's kind of like the county's mitigation. It used to be in perpetuity, remember, when I sued the county as the mayor of Doral? George Burgess, King George, if you remember him, he was very big on perpetuity, and we won. We had to go to Tallahassee, but we won. I don't like the word perpetuity because things change. We don't know what may happen in a number of years. Because technologically, even these two operators may turn around and say, look, you have this facility, but there might be a better way to do this now. And that would be very possible, right? We know that if we sell some of the energy, the guys over on that side are the ones that are going to buy it because that's just the way it is in Miami-Dade County. But I want to be clear that because all of a sudden, if I hear it correctly, you know, and the chairman correctly said, un paso para adelante, dos para atrás, one step forward, two back, like the Cuban economy, which is now probably five steps back. But if we're going to do that, let's not go back on the decisions we've made to find a site that makes sense further away, as far away as possible from any municipality in Miami-Dade County. We were the ones, and it's not their fault. We were the ones that obviously said, hey, this is a good direction to go. If you're going to go in District 12, this is the right way to do it. And I agree. So, and now there's a bill, you know, the state senator, I don't think it'll pass. I hope it doesn't pass. Whereas state senator actually basically is trying to limit our choices of where we can do this. And that's wrong. That's wrong because that's being done to help somebody in Broward County. Okay? It's actually being done, well, I'm not going to get into it. Maybe not today. Maybe another day. The issue is this body has been given a very, very difficult task that is not a result of any of our doings. It's a result of many, many years. And I, we can go back. I know Commissioner Regalado remembers this, of when we made a decision. This body made a decision, or whoever encompassed this body made a decision in the 80s to go away from the structure of how to deal with this issue of garbage. And I think maybe we should revisit that because we talked about revisiting that under the prior chairman, but we never had a real discussion on it, which I think we always, we really should. Because in the end, everybody here wants to make sure that it has the least amount of impact to the constituents of Miami-Dade County, the residents of Miami-Dade County. We have, and Roy, I thank you for pointing that out, that we have a unique situation that we have a lot of visitors. There's a lot of factors that come into limitations that we have. But that, in the end, will be something that, at least for me, will, you know, will, but I can't, I cannot eliminate the concern I have for any resident of Miami-Dade County on quality of life issues. Because as we sit here today, there, you know, there was a lawsuit filed over this fire by residents. As we sit here today, I don't want to be in a situation where we pick a site that then we're going to have a bunch of, we're going to have more delay because more people will be saying we're, this is very close to, you know, and it's just going to be, I would not like us, Mr. Chair, to take two steps back. Hell, I certainly don't want us to take five steps back. And I understand politics. I understand, look at this place. Look at this gentleman right here, Mr. Dodson, former Palmetto High basketball superstar. Look at him. They're sitting here because it's their business. But it's our business and our job to make the smartest, wisest decision for the residents of Miami-Dade County in the short term, in the midterm, and the long term. It's not our job to just make a decision that does not, I don't want a commission sitting here 10 years from now blaming, well, I might say the word blaming, but saying, well, they didn't really think that out. So, look, I'm going to be, like my colleagues, I believe the cost is, and the end to the end user is very important. I think both of you share it. To be honest with you, it's unfair to pontificate politically and try to make you guys the ones that were responsible for it because you're not. Second of all, I think there's many ways to finance things. The use of the word perpetuity is always a bad word. You already heard them. It's going to be used politically in campaigns ad nauseum. Maybe 2026, probably 2028, who knows? But it'll be used ad nauseum. And I don't want, you know, this shouldn't be a political decision. It should be a decision for the, well, it's going to always be a political decision, but it shouldn't be. It should be based on what's the best, not for an individual's scenario, but in their political interest, but in what is for the best of Miami-Dade County. And I share my colleagues' concerns that we really should look at the end user. What is the cost? With that, I will leave you with one. And I don't want the question answered today because it's going to be impossible to answer. And I don't think you should be answering it today because it's not fair to both of you. In the end, we had, I believe, last time from the administration, a map. Well, not a map, but a printout of the cost on a yearly basis. I would like you to look at that and something similar that says this is what's going to cost the end user at the end, and this is how it works. If, in the end, you get, you know, there's a royalty in perpetuity included in there, too, because that's going to be a cost. But what I want to know is what's it going to cost, well, me, Miami-Dade County resident. You know, and I think, I hope, and look, by the way, I want to be clear. You know, I did not join the lawsuit that some of my neighbors joined in because I'm a county commissioner. But there's a lawsuit from this fire that took place three years ago today as we celebrate the anniversary. Sorry, Jerry, I had to mention it. But the, it's, I just hope, and I thank my colleagues for taking it. And by the way, I know that a lot of times people say, you know, I think we are doing the right thing. We're taking time to make a right decision. We're not doing the wrong thing. We're actually doing the right thing. And sometimes, you know, people say, this is a big decision. I don't remember how, the facility as it stands today, if it was only waste of energy, how much would it cost? Ballpark. Thank you for the question, Commissioner. We looked at it, we looked at the, you asked us not to answer the cost of the question, so I was with you. Well, not the, I don't want you the day-to-day cost, the cost of build. I'm sorry, I apologize. That should have been clear on that. Yeah, we have a capital assumption range somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.3 billion, roughly thereabout. Thank you. So I leave you with that, and by the way, I want to be clear on this. I think that both, both of these companies, okay, and they're working together have been very, very straightforward and honest of where they stand. At least I am cognizant of the fact that they're companies. They're in the business of doing business, much like some others. And that's okay. But our responsibility is making the right decision with the information that we get. It doesn't have to be the perfect decision sometimes because nothing's perfect. But as Commissioner Gonzalez said, we need to get the information to make the best decision possible that we can. Again, I, you know, for me, the things, the key thing's going to be cost. Obviously, the agreement, what's inside the agreement, I'll leave that up to the great Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office to advise us on that. And obviously, I would like it away from residents because that was the whole purpose to begin with. And just because, I can guarantee you this, the closer you are to residents, you think Miramar was bad? I got news for you. If you get it closer to cities in Miami-Dade County, because they don't have to travel as far, they may not get as much support from. I think there was nobody working in Miramar when Miramar came to protest here. Which, to me, by the way, and this I'll say to my colleagues clearly, I love Broward County. They're great. We're adjacent counties. We work together when we can. As a matter of fact, we instructed Mr. Morales at the time to see if Broward County wanted to work together with us on a site. And by the way, if, in fact, we end up building a site and they use it, you better believe, I'm going to bring up the fact that, you know, that citizens of Miami-Dade County shouldn't be building a facility and burying it for other counties without them ponying up something. So I think the third thing would be, obviously, it needs to be, and the sites that you've proffered, I think are substantially enough, the distance is enough. It's in an area where there's really just rock mining. There's a couple of cemeteries and a lot of cement and type of work. So it's not a, if you're going to find a site in District 12, this would be the one. I'm not saying you can't find a site in another district, but that's a different story. I understand the political reality. I understand the task that we were given. I understand the task that I was given. And I appreciate my colleagues' support unanimously to move forward to a good decision. But I hope that as we move forward, you guys just call it as clearly as you can. Let's eliminate future potential political races, and let's leave it on what is going to be the best decision in the long term for the residents of Miami-Dade County. And if, as Commissioner Regalado says, we look at other sites, even in other cities, I can tell you this, there's other sites in other cities where some people are willing to do something that may help us. We need to look at it, truthfully, you know. So I leave you with that. I want to thank you again, because I know this is something that it is, I mean, when you use that number, this is probably the biggest decision for this body since we went out to a vote on a bond back in the early 2000s. I don't remember anything being this big. Maybe I'm wrong. Well, and by the way, we have built stuff and really screwed it up. See Marlin Stadium, okay? So, and we ended up paying, we're still paying, we're going to end up paying a billion dollars. I love baseball, by the way, before Alfie Mesa gets mad at me. I love the Marlins, they're my favorite team. But it's still a bad deal for Miami-Dade County. I'm not into pronouns, but it's they. They. We did not. No, we did not. We did not. Well, I'm saying, I'm saying, well, that's right. I won't say that we, they. But in that case, it wasn't this commission. But it's important to recognize that this commission has made decisions in the past to really leave us on the hook, which we're still on the hook. We are still on the hook, because they are gone. They're somewhere down south. Some of them are making a lot of money as mayors. But that's okay. Anyways, the bottom line is, those, you know, I don't want to get into that position again, where we make a decision that economically, years down the road, I mean, there is no David Sampson to laugh in our face, I hope. But whatever decision we make has to be based on, that we make, will have to, will be based on not becoming the they for another commission. So I leave you with that. And I want to thank you. You know, we had the opportunity, I think, to meet in Europe, actually, when a group of us went to see your facilities. And you, I've known you guys a long time. Obviously, FPL has been a great partner in Miami-Dade County for a long time. So thank you both for taking the time. I'm glad we finally got the workshop, Mr. Chairman. I know that Commissioner Regalado was an advocate for it, and I backed her up, because I didn't want to be put on double secret probation. Left it up to her. And I thank you for setting up the workshop. All right. Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized for? Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Bermudez. I just wanted to point out some things. Because I think we've brought up a lot of issues. But I think moving forward, you're still, like, needing direction, right? Because it just went, the ball just went a little all over the place. So there is a bill in Tallahassee, as Commissioner Bermudez mentioned. I think that was amended today to be, like, a mile. So it was, like, two miles, which there's no sight. I think it's a mile now. Still a preemption. Still a bad idea. But the last thing we want to do is go down this path and then be preempted so that we can't do any of it. So we're carefully monitoring that. But since we're talking about 2034, I just want to, I want you to consider something. When the mayor said, do this one enormous site, my understanding is that the thought was, we pick everything up and, like, take it there. And then we'll just sort it, right? We'll sort the composting. We'll sort the recycling. You know, we'll do, we'll have an incinerator. We'll do everything in this one site. And while that may make sense today, I don't necessarily think it makes sense in 2034, right? Because of the way that Miami-Dade County is laid out and because of our ever-increasing cost to pick up trash, which is why I originally said to decentralize it. So to some of my colleagues' point, you could put an incinerator in one site. But you could also put the other components of this in other sites. And those other components are not as highly regulated as the incinerator. They could also potentially be stood up faster than the incinerator, right? So the recycling piece could be stood up faster. The composting piece could be stood up faster. There is a world in which even our collection of it can change in the next two to three years. So Palm Beach, for example, doesn't have two bins. They have three bins. In my district, we compost. We're the only ones that do. So technically, well, I mean through the county, through the county. So those are all things that I think we could factor in as we look at the starting date of this and the different pieces. An anaerobic digester could be put up relatively quickly. We already have some of those, right? What could you use it for? So there's parts of this. I don't think this idea of a start date on 2034, that would be for the entire system to work, right? I'm not a fan of the incinerator, you know, but I understand that it is a component of this portfolio. So just moving forward, I think that that's something that you should consider because we have transfer stations. We have other properties where we could do some of this work, you know? And I don't think that in 2034, we're going to be sifting through like one bin that's going to have all this stuff. Unless you tell me, listen, financially, that makes more sense. Financially, it makes more sense just to have one large thing and like sift it through using AI. I don't know. That's for you all to kind of tell us what would make more sense. The final point I wanted to make is, and look, I leave the purchasing of the land to you and however you guys figure out how to do this. Obviously, our concern is and has always been the price point to our residents. So whatever escalates that complicates this decision and we'll continue doing what we've been doing, which is outsourcing, right? And dealing with the risk associated with that outsourcing and looking at other alternatives. So I think you're very aware of that and where everyone stands. At our last meeting, seven of us said, you know, we're concerned about the final impact on the rate payer, right? So that was very clear. One thing that has not been brought up that we mentioned at our last meeting that I think is important is other folks being able to use the incinerator, right? So Broward is currently looking for a solution. West Palm is looking for a second. You know, as we move within these modalities, is there capacity for someone else to step into those shoes? Should we get better at this? Should we want to burn less or should it financially be better for our residents? What I don't want to do is tie future commissions to a one solution. They have one price point and they cannot move within that price point. So that was not kind of in here. I would appreciate that because obviously that changes the price. Someone can like step in. Right now, this just deals with our 350,000 households, right? This doesn't deal with commercial trash. At the end of the day, our residents pay commercial trash. They don't pay it directly, but they pay it indirectly, right? So those are all things. It doesn't have sargasm. It doesn't have all these other things that we know are kind of floating around that we all end up paying for. So I know that that's very dynamic. I know that's very dynamic. But I think as you provide us with alternatives, maybe a best kind of way to present it is these trash streams kind of move together and are more fiscally responsible in this format versus these. Right? So if you say, for example, okay, we're going to take the recycling. When we sift the recycling, there's a percentage of that recycling that is not recyclable. It makes more sense to have that sifting done at the incinerator because then we burn it. That makes perfect sense. Right? But the composting, you could say, look, it would be better to collect it separately and take it to another site. Right? And that's where we're going to have composting and an anaerobic digester because some of it is going to really stink. And you don't want to compost it. You want to digest it. Right? So those are the things as we kind of listen to what the board, you know, is interested in that I think are important. So with that, again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for the workshop. I think that one of the things that we should have as part of this is more workshops. And I just caution the board in terms of adding on other things to the collection of trash because, again, there has to be a nexus between what we're doing and who we're charging. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Get back, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So it sounds like you guys have your work cut out for you. I guess you heard all the concerns and the issues and the observations. Thank you. Chief Coley. Just one comment, sir. Several members have discussed the letter they've received. And while I know we can't talk about the contents of that letter because it's potentially litigation, I would like to point out to those that have not read it that are going to read it, from my opinion, this is a disgruntled vendor that has sent you a letter at a last minute making a lot of claims. And I will tell you that when we meet privately, I will make it clear many of those claims are not true and place an excessive amount of weight on this last minute letter. It just doesn't have any bear in here. Well, the paper will hold all the ink you could put on it, right? Yes. All right. So with that, any other comments or questions from my colleagues from the day? Can I just make one comment? Sure, Commissioner. I don't want to get Raquel, Commissioner Regalado. So I'm not against workshops, but let's not do this every week. Well, so here's what we're going to do. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to get through next week. We're going to direct the administration to start negotiations. I'm sure that if I was a betting man, I'd say some that did not attend today will have questions next week, right? And then I will leave it upon Commissioner Regalado to call them out publicly, right? I know you are. That's why. And then if there's a need for a workshop at some point, I will stay in clear communication with you, and I urge you to do that with all my colleagues. But if there's a need for a workshop, we'll discuss it. Even if we don't have a BCC meeting, I can still call a workshop. But if it's not necessary, then we'll just wait until April. All right. With that, I don't even know that we need to officially adjourn because it's a workshop, but show us adjourned.