All right. Good evening. The City Council Workshop on Procurement is now called to order at 5 o'clock. Ms. Beggereau, please call the roll. Council Member Anderson is not online yet. Council Member Andreu? Here. Council Member Fadgen? Here. Council Member Horland? Here. Council Member Reinstein? Here. Mayor Sortel? Here. City Attorney Ezra? Here. Thank you very much, Ms. Beggereau. So this workshop is about the procurement ordinance of the City of Plantation. Mr. Ezra, do you need to read that summary? We're not voting on it? No. Okay. All right. So I will turn it over to Mr. Spencer. Good evening, Mr. Spencer. Good evening, Council President, Council Members, Mayor, City Attorney, City Clerk. Today I have the opportunity and the pleasure, and I'm super excited to present the Procurement Code Rewrite. We have been working on this for about two years now. This is a product of all your wonderful comments, some best practices that we've observed, notes taken over many years, and just some overall evolution changes within the City of Plantation. I did provide a PowerPoint presentation. It doesn't really focus on the code so much, but it is for the public's benefit if they wanted to understand why we wanted to present ourself on rewriting our code, some of those benefits. I can go through the PowerPoint, but it doesn't really offer any substance as it relates directly to the code. So I'll take some direction from you all if you just want to dive into the information. Council, would you like to dive into the information or see the PowerPoint? I'm ready to dive. Okay, let's dive. All right, let's dive. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Spencer. All right, great. So you would notice in the code there's a few changes. One more important change was really identifying that there is a Chief Procurement Officer. When the Procurement Code was established back in the day, a procurement department was not contemplated. So there was no accountability when it came for having roles and responsibilities as it relates to a Chief Procurement Officer. This code now identifies some accountability, some structure, and some process and procedures as it relates to how that position is supposed to act in this role, and then allowing some permissions and structures to their approval processes and things like that. Another change in here is monetary limitations. You'll notice that there is a change of $35,000, which is currently the Council's threshold, to $50,000. It was important to make this change because of just the increase in CPI indexes, PPI indexes, ENR indexes, because the dollar yesterday is not the same dollar today. So we want to make sure that we adjust ourselves accordingly when we're looking at these approvals, not to take away the position for the Council to approve items. That is important for me to know. It's important for you all to understand and know what's going on in the city and have that ability to approve these items at that monetary value. But $35,000 a few years ago is not the same $35,000 today. We believe this $50,000 is representative of what it is. When we polled a few cities, we are still well below a few cities when it comes to this monetary value. There are a few at $350,000, $100,000, and they fluctuate depending on the size. But we found the $50,000 would be reasonable when it comes to this size city. A few other things you're going to note is that there are some exclusions, what we currently call exemptions, into this code. We now call them exclusions to the procurement competitive process. What that does is we've increased the number of those exclusions, allowing for some other items and services that would just help the city operate in general. For an example, currently we don't have an exemption for resale, which we have a golf course. So having a golf course is important to be able to exempt the procurement process for resale because when you're buying Nike, you can only get Nike attire. There is no three-price process. There is no competitive process when it comes to that. So because of that reason, having an exemption when it comes to resale products and services are important. Another one is owner-direct purchases. We do not have an exemption for owner-direct purchases. As an example, if we went out for a bid for a water main project and that contractor quoted for labor, services, and equipment, and we were able to recognize a tax savings on the equipment, under our current process we would need to go through a formal bidding process just to buy the equipment for ourselves, which would slow down our entire construction process. But under this owner-direct process, it would allow us to lean into the contractor's vendor, make sure that the prices are reasonable, and be able to purchase directly from their vendor saving 7% of tax if we so desire to do that. That is not a tool or a resource we use very often, but we want to have the tools in the tool bag just in case we want to expedite our process or recognize some savings. Another change in there you will notice is a less judicial-ish, make sure you want to be cautious here because it's the attorney, appeal and protest process. Right now, our process is very convoluted. It is a lot of steps, a lot of dates, a lot of memorandums and timelines and things of that nature. We're not taking away the essence of the appeal and protest process. It still can become before you all. It still will get reviewed. It still has that – the contractors still have the ability to appeal and protest anything that they desire to appeal with a fee. Same process we have today. It just takes away that judicial kind of stigma of the process. A judicial order has to be written or a judicial-ish order has to be drafted, and it's very time-staking. And we've also increased the protest and appeal fee to align with some of the expenses that occur when it comes to a protest and appeal. Currently, it's $500. That does not cover our legal expenses when we have to go through that process. So we've increased that number in order to try to capture some of those expenses that the city goes through. And there's a number of other things, but I'm sure you all had an opportunity to review it. So if you have any questions, I'm here to answer anything. Mr. Spencer, before I turn it over to my colleagues, could you state for the record, though I did read the backup, what that fee is going to go up to? Yeah, it's a $5,000 cap. That's the cap of the fee. When I looked at other cities, it ranges from no fee, which is their right to do so, to I've seen fees to $12,000 to $15,000. So you've got to pick your bag when it comes to that. We don't want the process to be a deterrent. We want to make sure that contractors feel that they have the ability to appeal and protest our process if they feel as if they were wronged in any way. And we don't want the fee associated with that to deter them from doing that action. So we felt the $5,000 cap was reasonable. So I'm sorry, and how would you determine the actual fee if there's a $5,000 cap? So I believe it's percentage-based after that, yes. Percentage-based on the contract awarded. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to turn it over to Councilmember Andreu. Sure. And then Councilmember Fajon up next. Thank you, President Horland. I want to thank Mr. Spencer and the team because I know how much work went into this. We had a lengthy conversation yesterday, so I know that he's heard some of my comments, several of my comments already, but I wanted to bring it up because there were a lot of things that I guess we would have to discuss and reach consensus on. So I think some of the items that you mentioned are in the procedures manual but not necessarily solidified in this ordinance. So going back to the cap, we'll start there. Is there any way we can bring up the ordinance or no, we cannot? Can we see it? Because I can't toggle between both screens. Mm-hmm. If we can. But the cap. So I think that the ceiling should be higher than what it currently. So first, I apologize. It was not a percentage. It was $1,500 was the minimum application fee. It's not a percentage. And then the cap is $5,000. Correct. And so we talked yesterday about doing a percentage because I do think that having a percentage, I find, might be more equitable. And maybe if you still want to have a minimum, because I know that, you know, the conversation that Mr. Spencer and I had, if the bid is, say, something for $50,000, it still might not cover the fees. So if you wanted to establish a minimum, but in the event we were to have a protest on a very large construction project that, say, a million dollars, then, you know, $5,000 still might not be sufficient. So I recommend it either increasing the cap of up to $15,000 or basing it on a percentage. I don't know if you want me to just shoot all these off on rapid fire and we discuss them individually or keep going. Okay. In terms of local preference, I don't think you discussed that piece. Right now, the ordinance that's before us today, it is a revision to what we currently have. So it's being recommended that the local firm, which is usually a small business, not always, but usually, would have to meet their, the lowest bid and then beat it by one additional percent. Again, I, again, I'm not in agreement with that. I think we already don't get enough local business participation. I am absolutely, I know all of us are advocates of our local businesses. So I would just want it to remain the same where they, you know, are able to do what we call a baffle, a best and final offer and match whatever the lowest bid is. They don't have to go the additional one percent lower. So that would be my personal preference for local preference. The emergency declarations piece. I'm sorry to jump around. No. Okay. I don't know if you all are following on the screen. Thank you, April, Ms. Biggerow, for bringing it up. In terms of emergency declarations, I think all of the emergency declarations should be in writing from the mayor or the CAO in the event, obviously, there's something happening, like, right now. We don't expect our leadership to stop and not address that, but they can do it even, you know, 24, 48 hours after that declared emergency. But I, again, think that our leadership team should put that in writing. It shouldn't just be a verbal declaration. So I would also ask that that be included. And you mentioned that it might be in a different ordinance, but I think that should also be included here. From a procurement standpoint, respectfully, I can't say what the office of the mayor can and cannot do when it comes to declarations. What we can do is say that emergencies in general are exempt from the competitive procurement process. How the mayor and the administration team acts on that is not a process of procurement. It's just an allowable competitive procurement exemption based on the emergency. I will tell you, I did some research. I don't know outside of the H storms that we experience here that we've ever used, to my experience, an emergency exemption. Typically, we use time of the essence because emergency has its own definition. So that's been my experience is that we have not used emergency outside of a declared emergency by the governor. But that doesn't mean it cannot happen. But I don't have the position to be able to require such a – what you're asking in the procurement side. So if you're asking for that to happen, that's something that you would need to ask – Well, that's why I'm recommending it be in the ordinance. Yeah. So once it's solidified, then they would have to comply unless Mr. Ezra has a different – Mr. Ezra, do you want to weigh in on that? I think it's something that we'd have to discuss with administration and look at the code specifically. I do know that with respect to the pandemic emergency declarations, those were all in writing. There were some nuances because we were – you know, initially we took a leadership role. Then the county got on board. Then the governor got on board. So it's something that we would have to look at. I understand the discussion and the concept of what we're trying to accomplish. Thank you. You're welcome. And the pandemic actually is a great example. You mentioned the informal bids. Yes. But I don't think it was also included in terms of the informal bids that are being posted on DemandStar in which three formal quotes are required. Right. So the informal bid process from $50,000 – currently our process is a little unique for the city of Plantation. So under our current code, anything from $5,000 to $35,000 is sourced by the departments directly. We plan on maintaining that if this code reaches first and second approval after hearings, from $5,000 to $50,000. From $50,000 to $100,000, this procurement department will get involved, and we will source that through an electronic process similar to what we're doing today. The current code identifies that anything over $35,000 will be posted electronically until it reaches the $100,000 mark, which then would trigger the sealed or formal bidding process. Nothing will change from that, except that $50,000 to $100,000 will be identified in the procurement manual rather than in the code directly because it's a procedural thing. But from $100,000 and up, we'll still trigger a sealed formal bidding process. We're not changing any of those numbers. From the $5,000 to $35,000, though, are you still – even if the user department is handling it, are you still requiring them to get more than one quote? Yes, that is true. Anything from $5,000 to $35,000, they are diligently attempting to get three competitive quotes. In some cases, that doesn't always happen. With the onboarding of our new ERP system, their process will now be actually Internet-posted and electronically driven, too, rather than just Rolodex dialing and making phone calls. So the new ERP system is going to make this process a little bit more efficient for the departments as well. But I guess, again, that's in practice, but do we have that solidified here? So, yeah, our current manual dictates that three prices are required, and if less than three prices are received, it needs the approval of the procurement director in order to proceed in our PO system. So we do not approve any purchase orders unless there's three prices, and if there's at least three prices, and there's less than three prices, they need to justify that they attempted to get three prices. Is that something we want in the ordinance, or we want to leave that in the procedures manual? I have not seen the procedures manual. Yeah, it is in my opinion that we put that in the procedures manual and not in the ordinance as a process. But, again, these are brought to you all for conversation. Actually, could you send us a copy of that? Sure. So our manual is outdated, and that's the reason why we are doing this code, so that we can draft a new and current manual. Okay, and then my last comment is the exclusions. Sure. So there are several of them that I was concerned about, and I'm sorry, if you can go back to, I think it's Section 2. 2-224. 2-24, the application and exclusions. But there are several, like number 18, 21, 22, if you can thank you, Ms. Biggaro, in there. Entertainment, repairs, renovations, and maintenance support. Yep, I got you. So I'll just, you know, I won't belabor it, but for 21, as an example, right, the purchase of instructional technology, that could be a very large purchase if we were purchasing desktops, laptops. So to have that as an exclusion, but I know you told me, and I know that's factual, that we do go out to bid when we're purchasing hardware. So I think our exclusions are so broad, though, that that's not known by the layperson just reading this. So I don't know if we need to add some language, but I was concerned about how many exclusions we have and how broad they are. So for that exclusion specifically, that's a crossover from our current code, and that's exactly the way it reads today. Nothing has changed from that exclusion. It is in practice that we ask that we go out to bid for all items when possible. There are some unique and security-related items that we rely on, someone like the IT department, to seek prices from known and secure sources, so not to publicize or jeopardize some security-type nature in the IT environment. But there are some unique sources where we can't solicit or obtain prices because it is so unique to the city, and that's why this exemption really exists is for those unique opportunities. Most departments know and understand that I'm going to ask the hard question, did we do some diligence as it relates to this item, and is there other suppliers as it relates to that? This way I can further explain that to city council in the memorandum, and that's the process we've always taken, and we will continue to take that course. And that's kind of, I'll just wrap it up with this, that was kind of my reasoning for wanting maybe just a statement at either the beginning or the end of this section that maybe states a little more clearly that it will be vetted to some extent a little more. I'm sure my attorneys that are here can wordsmith it for me, but something that states that. Because, again, we had, I think, this conversation with Director Polio. You know, I don't want it to be written for Mr. Spencer because as great as Mr. Spencer is, one day he won't still be our procurement director. He will go on to bigger, better things, retirement, or win the lottery, or whatever else happens. So, you know, it shouldn't just be, I know this is how you operate, but in the event that you are not here, and, you know, we're all thinking 10, 15, 20 years from now, we want this to still be very buttoned up and ensure that we have these safeguards or these guardrails in place. So there is a statement at the end, and I've mentioned this to you before during our conversation. With respect to the excluded items, which is mentioning the exclusions, the city will make its best efforts to acquire these items and services at reasonable prices from qualified and specified sources, which further kind of, I know you wanted to, our conversation said you wanted to strengthen that a little bit, and I will look into strengthening that without tying the hands of the city and being able to tie the hands of the reason why we have these exemptions in place. But the reason for that statement was for that exact reason, to make sure that we are diligently looking at those prices and we are negotiating with the best effort for the city. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Council Member Andrea, for all those wonderful points. Mr. Spencer, I'm going to ask you to address points one and two, but first I'm going to turn to Mr. Ezra. Did you want to weigh in? I just want to supplement in response to the earlier question. Section 2-453 of the city code does talk about emergency powers of the mayor, and it requires the mayor to issue a written executive order to declare a state of emergency. So I think we can easily update the ordinance to reference the requirement of written order pursuant to this section. Thank you, Mr. Ezra. You were able to address everything that Council Member Andrea brought up, Mr. Spencer, but I didn't hear you comment on item number one and number two, so I'd like to get your feedback on increasing that $15,000. Yes. Yeah, for the bid protest. I'd just like to hear your comment on her question. Again, I'm open to comments, and I'm not going to turn away the idea of increasing it to $15,000. However, I struggle with finding the balance to making sure, again, we don't deter people from wanting the opportunity. I appreciate the reasoning and the rationale of wanting to make sure that the city's expenses are covered during this process. But in all fairness, nothing changes in our process from a $1 million bid to a $15 million bid. It's going to go through the same review process, the same protest and appeal process, respectfully the same hours, which I can't tell what that is until we really get into it. So from a procurement standpoint, we were comfortable presenting this number to you all, but again, if it's consensus to increase this number, I would gladly increase it. We're not opposed to it at all. Again, I want to make it equitable. Yes. What about Council Member Andrea's suggestion to go to a percentage base? So I was reading it again, and it is 5% of the bid with a max cap of $5,000. So if someone submits a bid for $1,000, that's a bad number because $5,000 doesn't work. For $50,000, it will be $2,500 for a filing fee for that. So it is still 5%. Okay. And if it's $1 million, obviously it will be well over that $5,000, but the $5,000 will be the cap. We didn't want that 5% to carry to a $1 million project because we do have a lot of $1 million projects happening in the city, and that number, and asking a vendor to pay respectfully $12,000 to $15,000 of a protest appeal fee could be considered as a deterrent when you look at it from that perspective, although I appreciate the comments because I understand covering the fees, but I need to be cautious on what that looks like from a perception. Equitable, and we don't want to appear to be overreaching. Correct. Okay. What about item number two, which is the lowest bid for local? Well, I'm sorry. Before you go on, can I say something about the cap again now? Sure. I'm sorry. It works both ways, though, right? So it also can, for lack of a better term, and we usually don't have any bad actors, but there are a few out there. It can also encourage someone to protest because the fee is so low. So on a large project, right? Point well taken. Okay. So. And we will discuss it. Yes. Thank you. Last item, the lowest bid for local. To Councilmember Andreu's point, our current code reads that it's a match. Right. Right? It has always been my understanding that the city always seeks to get the best price when it comes to a process. And if we're just matching, are we getting the best price? We're just getting an equal price. By adding the 1% clause now says that we're getting the best price. And it's a better sell to even the person that just lost it, a non-local bidder, gives them the opportunity to maybe they want to sharpen their pencils a little bit more the next time for whatever that looks like for them. So it's just a stronger message that we're getting the best price. But, again, I am open to comments and opportunity of changing it. We will get those comments. Yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Spencer. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to weigh in on that. Sure. Councilmember Fadgen. Thank you, Council President Horland. First, thank you for your work and your department's work on this revision. I got two brief elements. Do we have any idea, like, if we change that $35,000 threshold to $50,000? I believe the $35,000 we changed kind of recently. We did. The last four or five years. It was like $25,000 when we went to $35,000. Yes, sir. Do we have any idea, like, what kind of dollar figure that is if we go from $35,000 to $50,000? What do you mean? I'm not sure I understand. Well, if we go to $50,000, there's that spread between the $35,000 and the $50,000 that will automatically just be approved. Like, what kind of dollar figure is that cumulatively? Do we have any idea? No. I can't say definitively what that would look like. Okay. I'm not necessarily opposed to going to $50,000, but I'm also wondering what kind of dollar figures are we taking our eyes off at that point. No, it's a fair point. And I'm seeking back in my head here because we have such a structured process on how we evaluate these things. And I cannot say that even when we went from $25,000 to $35,000 at the time, there was this influx of changes in our process. I think it just provided a more efficient process for our departments and expedited the work that we're looking at. And I fully understand that. You said we would still be lower than similar cities. Like, where are they at? 75 or 100,000? Some are 75. Some are 100. There are a few at 150,000. There are some cities that are 300,000. It really depends on the demographics of the city, how their commission is made up, things of that nature. And they break them up, too. So a lot of cities have, like, commodities and services at this level, constructions are at this level. We lump dollars all up into one fixed number. Okay. Like I said, I feel like I'm probably okay with 50,000 if that's the consensus of the council. Regarding – is this a title change, chief procurement officer? No. It's just a – that's a fantastic question, by the way. It is not a title change. So procurement director is still my title, but if you read my description in my car route, it actually says chief procurement officer in the description. And chief procurement officer is also the recognized title when you look at OIG reports as well as other Cindy Connors. It's just a more global term. I just got concerned, like, what we were talking about, you know, not you, but in the future, someone reads that, and there's a – well, I'm just going to put chief procurement officer on my card. And then we have this proliferation and inflation of titles. You know, when you think of chief, you think of the police chief, you think of the fire chief, you know, the city clerk, but everyone else is directors. I just don't want to have, like, professional rivalries saying, you know – And that's a fair point. And we interchanged them on the ordinance to make sure that procurement director was actually recognized as chief procurement officer and vice versa. But by title, I'm still the procurement director. Okay. Mm-hmm. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Reinstein. Thank you very much. I want to just ask back to the $35,000 versus the $50,000. So you've told us, I think, generally that it sounds like other municipalities have a much higher threshold. Can you actually – can you tell us which – can you give us some specific examples as to maybe our neighboring cities or – And also in terms of that they break it down differently and maybe just explain why you understand that they do that and we don't. Yeah. I won't rely on my memories to say exactly what cities have which thresholds because that would be – I'll probably be wrong right away. But I do have collective information that I've polled from cities in our neighboring area trying to make sure that there was a fair balance of what I'm asking for today. Based on an average, we are still going to be below of what the average is from Miami all the way up to North Florida when you look at it from the average. When you look at Southeast Florida generally, we're probably right in the window of the $50,000 between – like you have the city of North Lauderdale, which is currently, I believe, and this is not for factual, $25,000, but look at the size of North Lauderdale. And they are actually going through a process right now to increase that number. They are seeking to increase that $25,000 even at their size because they recognize that $25,000 is no longer reasonable for them to conduct business. $35,000 was great when we approved it at the time, and I appreciate the council supporting that. But we have seen the inflation and the market change, and that $35,000 is no longer the same $35,000 then. So I heard you say that before, exactly that, the $35,000 is not the same, although it's still a lot of money. I mean, $50,000 is still a lot of money, whether it's today's value or another day. I would like to see some of the backup just to help me with comparison as to why I should think that $50,000 is the right move for an increase. Absolutely. I can get you that. It does concern me. I have a survey, and I'll be more than happy to supply that to you all. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Weinstein. And we did have a vigorous conversation about that when we moved from the $25,000, and I know that I had concerns about that. But when we look at the procurement process overall, there is a need to expedite it. It's not that there will be a lack of oversight. There will still be oversight. It just will eliminate it coming to council. Yeah. With respect to that comment, it just changes the structure, right? You all still see the bill list, even for those items less than $35,000. Oh, I'm sorry. Just as an example, for a small community of Felsmere back in 2019, my authority was $50,000 for general fund items and $100,000 for utilities. And that's a community of, what, $5,600 and a much smaller budget. Much smaller budget, yeah. And I think that was my point. We had that conversation, and I think you allayed a lot of our concerns at that point. And this is about expediting the process, streamlining it a little bit, but there will still be oversight, and we'll still see the bills. Absolutely. We're not trying to take away information. We're trying to provide you all with more information by also trying to expedite the processes for the departments. That is what we are accused of by Tallahassee all the time, that we're trying to slow things down, right? So, okay. So, Council, we have, I think, that Council Member Andreu, that Mr. Spencer addressed most of your items, but there are two that you probably want to try to get consensus on from Council, the first two. So, Council Members, item number one was increasing the cap on the bid protest. It's currently $5,000 is what Mr. Spencer is proposing to $15,000 or a percentage, so I want to get some feedback on that. We're leaving it at the $5,000. What's Council Member Andreu's suggestion? My suggestion is $15,000 should be the cap. And you feel like... Or if not, I'm sorry, or not having a cap and doing it only, I will tell you, the school board does it on percentage only, so there's no cap. I thought you said with the percentage, it gets capped at $5,000. Correct. That's how we have it currently. Yeah, it's 5%, it's 5%. 5%. But we don't have to have the cap. No, yeah, this is a choice. Well, to the comment you said earlier that you don't want to make it such a barrier where someone doesn't feel like they can fairly protest it, but you also don't want to make it, it's a fine, it's equilibrium is what we want. So, if you think that's what we should do, I agree with that. The percentage, the uncapped percentage, is that what you're suggesting? I think the uncapped percentage is fair and maybe having a minimum, right? So, again, we cover whatever attorney fees, and usually you have to have a court reporter and any fees he incurs. Okay, it was $1,500, you think? I think currently it was $500. Right now it's less than that depending on what you do, but for this conversation, let's just say $500. Right now we're asking 5% of the total value of a bid with a cap of $5,000. What I believe I hear you're asking is maintain the 5% cap but increase the not to exceed to $15,000. Is that what I'm hearing? That is correct. Or not having any cap and just saying a flat 5%. 5%. Right. So, do you want to do the numbers on that? Are you comfortable with that proposal? Okay. Councilmember Reinstein? Yeah, so I have a question in terms of wherever the number goes and both our current process and any change that we would make. Is there a, I don't know if the right term for it is, but a hardship exception so that if somebody wants to appeal but that amount they can't afford, is there a hardship exception? Not currently, no. So, do you, is there an opportunity for somebody to ask for a, call it a downward departure, right? So, I will say that any contractor can present their case to city council during public comments and that is at no charge. They just wouldn't be able to file an actual protest or appeal. So, if they really had a grievance that they just could not afford, they can come before you all and make a case and you all can act on it if you so choose to act on it. And that appeal during that process is no cost to the process. Well, I'm thinking the answer to the question I'm going to ask is yes, but I want to make sure to ask it is that, is that clear in wherever we have our information for this appeal process that there's always an alternative option to appear before council? And I ask because I'm, again, I'm just thinking out loud in terms of call it due process, right? Or call it the ability for somebody, you know, open access to, to, to us. Right. So, no. It's not, it's not articulated that way. We do not present an option to present a, to present someone's case during public comments. The burden of that, putting that in the code would just be immensely put on you all at every meeting because they will always, a contractor will probably always take that opportunity rather than going through the actual appeal process where we can see evidence, we can see how they were aggrieved, look at documentation. That is all part of why we have an appeal process so we can look at evidence and information. If they just present verbally to you all, we don't have a stake in that. I understand that. And, again, just to voice my, my, my concern is somebody who believes that the process they've gone through was, was not fair, was equitable, call it whatever you want. But then the ability to appeal it, they're also finding it difficult to, to go through that process because of its costly nature. And, I mean, maybe I can ask, I'll ask a different question before maybe Mr. Ezra has something. Yeah, I was going to lean on the city attorney for that. I was trying to avoid it if I could. But is that, are you aware of any situations where we've had somebody who wanted to, maybe here or anywhere else, where somebody wanted to appeal and said, wow, this percentage is more than I can afford or this cost to? Not that any contract has actually stated to me. But as I mentioned, there are some agencies that do not have protests and appeal processes. There are some agencies that do not have protests and appeal fees. There are some agencies, it's just, there's a mix of different agencies that do different things. But to answer your question directly, a contractor has never emailed or written or called me and says, Charles, I can't afford this. What can I, what's my next step? Okay. Mr. Ezra and then Council Member Andrea. I'm not sure if there's a question for legal, but, you know, I've been here for seven years. We've had three or four protests. The process that we have been involved with, with staff has become more efficient after the first time we've done it. And I assume the same would be the case with a new process. To me, I am not aware of situations where somebody's right has been impacted by a filing fee. I mean, you're talking about, you know, professionals, contractors, they have money, they want to do business with the city. It's not the kind of situation where there's going to be a hardship, in my opinion, where they can't pay a filing fee based upon 5% of the bid if there's a cap or not a cap. It's not, in my opinion, a due process issue. And if it is a due process issue, they still have a right to go to court and file a lawsuit and challenge some deficiency in the process. Or appeal, or bring it directly to us, even if it's not something that we advertise in the same code section, it could always be brought to us, just like any matter could be brought to us. Right, right. If somebody has their three minutes to come before, you know, council and raise an objection, if you want to take it up on your own, you could always take it up on your own. Thank you. It answers my questions. Thank you, Mr. Ezra and Council Member Reinstein. Council Member Andreu. I was just going to give you an example. It wasn't so much that that business could not afford it, but we did have an incident or an instance where an owner came to us a few months ago when we were purchasing some vehicles. And took issue with the process and did bring it before us and didn't file a protest. So I think, again, to the attorney's point, these are business owners who understand the process and know the process. And this is, you know, this is what they do for a living. So they're very familiar with how protests work versus coming before any government body and pleading their case. So I don't think, again, that needs to be spelled out. And I do feel like they, Mr. Ezra said it, they know it's the price of doing business. In that same vein, Mr. Neutermaker just reminded me of a situation that occurred when it came to Circuit and Freebie. We went through a process and Circuit showed up and pleaded their case to you all and you all decided to take it up and make an action. And I think they know generally that that right is always there. But writing it into that protest rules, I don't know what that would look like for you all. So I would prefer to leave that out. So we have, I'm hearing two for a, two for and possibly two against. I don't want to put words in your mouth. I respect your knowledge in bringing this to us. I am concerned about looking like we're trying to put up barriers to the process. I'd be more comfortable with the 5% or the 15,000, which you had also proposed, rather than the unlimited cap. I think that that strikes a better balance than what was presented. And again, I respect your experience in this tremendously. I'm just looking, you know, I tend to look at it as like, what is the legislature going to look at when they look at us? So I just don't want to look like we're putting undue barriers in place. So I'd like to hear what Council Member Weinstein has to say on that. Yeah, just, I know we've been focused on a 5% or no cap or whatever. But typically when I think of an appeal, I think of cost and fees, right? It is that what is the actual, when somebody is bringing something that's going to make our city do more work and it's going to make legal do more work and we're going to pay legal for it, you know, why aren't we just looking at a charge of costs and fees? Because then it would be specific to every matter could be different based on the amount of attorney time and such. So it's still, instead of a percentage or a cap, it would be based on each individual project's cost and fees for us to handle that matter. No, that's a great question. And one is collecting that becomes an issue. So when they file their fee is filed up front before any action is taken. So we have the money in the bank account, wherever finance does what the money is sits in the bank account. So that money is always there. If we wait to add up whatever that figure looks like, then we run the risk of not being able to collect those fees. Well, what about in that situation, and I respect that and that makes sense to me, is that if you did the 5% upfront, but it would still be based on costs and fees. I mean, my, again, what I want to make sure is that we're only charging what is necessary and we're not charging anything that is going to put a roadblock before people to take upon this opportunity to appeal. And so, you know, I'm thinking of sometimes, I know there are cities or there are entities when there are public records requests that there, there may be a estimated charge that they have to agree to pay or pay. And then if it turns out it's less, then they're going to end up in the final amount of pay less or a reduction or something in that realm. So here, a 5% flat fee upfront as, as you do already, I think, and, and it would be reduced by the total cost and fees in the end. Okay. I, I, I think it adds another layer of calculating the actual cost that is precise. Yeah. Agreed. I don't disagree with the precision of it. I think it just adds another layer of complexity of adding the numbers and the hours taken from not just the appeal committee, but from all those individuals involved in the process. And then, and then calculating their salaries associated with that work could become complicated because tracking those hours time serve reviewing information. I agree with you at the outset, at the very beginning, when you, the first few times, it would be, it would be timely, difficult to figure it out, but then I think it would be a standard process subsequent to that. But, okay, um, I understand your point. And then I think that I'm more comfortable with just a set expectation upfront, um, for anybody that's filing that appeal, because I think you brought up public records requests and sometimes that can be challenged where people don't believe that the costs are the actual costs. So I think I'm much more comfortable with the set expectation, but I'm going to get council member Andrea you in and then council member Fadgen the same. I, I think we should just have a set amount. It does get very complicated and, um, it depends on how far they go down that journey. And I don't think it was stated that in the event they file and then Mr. Spencer meets with them and they come to some kind of resolution and they end up withdrawing it. Their, their money is returned to them. And I don't think that was stated. So they're not just paying this and we keep their money, even if, you know, it gets resolved there. Their, their funds are only, um, usually, you know, encumbered and kept if it actually goes to fruition, if that makes you feel any better. Thank you for that. Council member Fadgen. I would just say, let's try to keep it as simple as possible. They'll keep it and create the expectation at the beginning and know what it's going to cost and then they can decide if it's, um, to their benefit to proceed under the process. Thank you. Okay. So let's try to put this one to bed. Um, we have a proposal, uh, for 5% without a cap. And then we have a proposal for the 5% with a $15,000, uh, cap. So we need to come to some kind of consensus. 5% or 15,000 cap. Are you, you're okay with that? Because you also proposed that one. Okay. How are you with that? So percentage with the cap? 5% with a $15,000 cap rather than unlimited. Okay. I'm fine with that. Okay. Council member Weinstein. If, if you're in favor of it, then that's the majority. Um, okay. I, I, I, I have, I have some concerns. Okay. All right. Um, and perhaps some of the questions that council member Weinstein had asked even about other cities, you could bring that back and send that to him. Yeah. What we'll do is, um, we'll take a look at the, to, um, Mr. Ezra, um, point. We haven't had a whole lot of protests here. Um, but we can look at the last ones and kind of see at least what the legal expenses were, um, and see what that number kind of looks like. Now there are low dollar values are not going to get to that $15,000 mark because we have not experienced being protested on a large project. But I think the information is worth you all looking at and understanding. So yeah, we'll look into that, those dollar figures. And congratulations that we have not had many bedfrockets in the city of Plantation. So thank you for that. Council members, any other questions for Mr. Spencer? Again, yes. One last one. What was the decision on the local preference? Oh, local preference. Um, I don't think I heard from the gentleman to my right. Anything we can do for local preference. Well, we have the, well, be more specific, what do you, what, what was the proposal? Are you in agreement of the 1% change or are you in disagreement of the 1% change? And just a match with a, right. Do you want me to refresh? Yes, please do it. So right now, if I'm local, and I come in, um, within, are you doing 2% or 5% of the lowest? 5%. 5%. And I bid 5% of the lowest. I can either match the lowest, and now I would be the awardee, or in the new revision, I have to be 1% more than the lowest. Less. 1% less than the lowest. So I said they should just have to match. I'm in agreement with the match. We're trying to, um, utilize our local businesses, our city businesses. And again, we don't even, quite frankly, have a lot. No. If you look at our procurement items, we try to engage all the ones that we do have. But we don't have many. Yeah. So it's not, you know, a huge sticking point. Does that lend any clarity? Would you like to, for that? No, that's fine. That's fine. I mean, um, the, the goal is to try and encourage more local businesses. And, um, if we think that that will, will help, then, sure. Okay. You have your answer on that. I got it. All right. Anything else, council members? All right. Mr. Spencer, again, you've heard it. Thank you to your team. I know this was a heavy lift, and we appreciate all your work on this. No, thank you. All right. And with that, it is 5.51. The procurement workshop is concluded, and we will come back at 6 o'clock for the city council.