Infrastructure, Innovation & Technology Committee - Regular Meeting

So we will wait a little bit more. Yes, we're going to go check. Thank you.

Thank you. So we're going to begin. Thank you for joining us today. This is our Infrastructure, Innovation, and Technology Committee. We are going to start with a moment of silence and reflection. Tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of 9-11. Horrific day that we will commemorate tomorrow, but we'll do a moment of reflection and silence, followed by the pledge led by the Commissioner Hardiman. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we're going to get started, but before we, we're going to open it up to reasonable opportunity to be heard. Anybody wishing to speak on any item that is not advertised as a p

All right, thank you so much. With that, before I open it up to the public hearing items, I wanted to know before we set the, do I have a motion to set the agenda? Thank you, by Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Cohen-Hagan seconded the setting of the agenda. All right, that passes. Anybody have any items before we get to the public hearing item that they wish to bifurcate? I do wish to bifurcate item 3C, as in cat. Anybody have any other items? Nope. Would someone like to pass the balance of the agenda?

Move the agenda with the exception of 3C, Madam Chair.

Do I have a second? And 1G1, obviously, is going to be taken separately. All right, seconded by Commissioner Hardiman. All in favor? Show that passed by acclamation. Why don't we get right into the ordinance, since we have Commissioner Regalado joining us for that. And I'm now going to open up the public hearing portion of the meeting for item 1G1. If anybody wishes to speak.

Thank you. Now, public hearing is officially open. Seeing no one approaching.

Okay. Do we have any speaking cards? Nope. No speaker cards. With that, anybody? All right. Public hearing for this portion of the agenda for public hearing item is now closed. And with that, Commissioner Regalado, I'll give you a couple quick minutes to introduce the item so that we can, I know we have some questions. I know I have a couple questions. Sure.

Thank you. I'll open it up to the commission. Would anybody like to be recognized first? Yes, Commissioner Conehiggins.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the sponsor for being here. I certainly have a number of questions on this item, and I'll start by asking, first of all, I understand the spirit of the item. I'm not in opposition to the item in its spirit, but there are a lot of details included within the item that I do want to go through. And ask some specific questions on, because I think the point is well taken that if our department hasn't previously used this money. We're going to, I think the spirit of this item is to release the money to be utilized for its intended purpose, which is environmen

Okay, so out of the 180, you say 125 is programmed, but within the 125 that is programmed, that is not inclusive of the waste to energy facility that we may or may not build at some point in the future. Of the 125, no dollars are programmed to the environmental remediation that we know that we'll have to do at some point in the future, at some location, assuming this board decides to build that campus.

Okay, well, if that were to be included, would that program the entirety of the $180 million?

Okay, so 125 plus 23 takes us to $150 million. The reason I'm asking is because the way that the item is written, it speaks to allowing for money that is unencumbered and available. So even though the pot is at $180 million, $150, is that considered what's encumbered? So then only the balance would be available for lending? No.

Yeah. And so this is why I'm asking, because if I'm a developer and I want to take out a loan and I make an application, assuming that this passes and I find out there's $180 million, environmental remediation in Miami-Dade County is extremely expensive, especially in parcels that are in excess of 10 acres or more, which is what this item speaks to. So the loan amounts are going to be for high dollar amounts, I'm assuming, in the millions of dollars per application. So my question is, do we not even know what the dollar amount is as we sit here today that we would actually make available to th

Okay. And so then that leads to my next question. So how long has this money been aggregating? How long has it been collecting to reach the 180?

Yeah, and so it's always interesting to me when there is a status quo that has been maintained for an extended period of time, and then some disruption to that status quo gets introduced. And then all of a sudden, you know, there is we need to use the money. And that's what it feels like right now. But I don't understand because I would like to have seen that money utilized for environmental remediation. I'll give you an example. One of my municipalities had to, you know, remediate a parcel of They spent $16 million doing what Durham required them to do just to prep the land in order. And that

Thank you. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for answering that question. To the administration, regarding the $25 million for the Doral site, is there a plan to have Doral pay for that? And so would that lower the programming allocation or the unencumbered allocation?

Okay. Um, who normally pays absent this loan program advancing this environmental remediation is required. It's been required for years. Who would norm who pays, for these fees absent this loan program existing?

That's a great question. Who pays for the environmental remediation should this loan?

Okay. And so we're using, the way that this is proposed, we're using developer paid fees. Who pays into this program? Where's this money coming from?

So rate payers of the water and sewer department?

Okay. So we are collecting this money from rate payers and residents of Miami-Dade County to then give it to developers at no interest for them to pay for something that they already have to pay for? I mean, is that what this is essentially doing?

Okay, so that's what I have a question on because, again, whether I refer to the municipality in my district or the many conversations we've had with the developer community on Durham environmental remediation and the cost, I'm just not understanding. These developers pay for this through loans that they get on projects, but one thing I can assure you is that those loans are not at a 0% interest rate. So I need help understanding why we would have our rate payers of Miami-Dade County pay a 6% fee that they are paying by mandate or by policy of this board to then give that money to developers a

I agree on the Doral issue, and if you want to take that up, I couldn't agree more because I remember those conversations in intimate detail. But whether that Doral site gets remediated and we pay for it entirely and whether it costs $25 million, I am – what I'm trying to understand is the financial – um why this is beneficial to miami-dade county i have and i'm very clear on this like i don't like us making deals that are not that i don't think are in the best interest of the taxpayers and i know you're going to say of course this is in the best interest of the taxpayers but the fact remains

So yeah, what I'm gonna do is I know I want you to finish your thoughts and then I'm gonna let Commissioner Hardiman Speak I have some comments and then Commissioner Regalado what I think we should do is then after you hear everybody then kind of okay Yeah, okay and so I'm asking the questions because I really want to have a conversation because like I said at the outset I understand the spirit of this and I understand that

the maker's frustration in saying let's deploy these dollars. I'm not entirely convinced, however, at this juncture that deploying the dollars in this fashion, i.e. giving the money to developers at a zero-interest 35-year term loan is the best way to move taxpayer dollars. I need to be convinced of that. I would feel more comfortable if there was an interest rate attached to it, if there was a cap placed on the amount that they could borrow. Because what's going to happen also if we pass this, and let's say the unencumbered dollar amount is agreed upon at $50 million. Let's say that. I guaran

Thank you for your comments and questions. Really great conversation I think we're going to be having. Commissioner Hardin.

Thank you for recognizing me. You know, in circumstances like this, you know, I think to myself, what are we doing here? And the goal of this fund is to provide potable drinking water to everyone. If that's not in the benefit of the people of Miami-Dade County, I don't know what is. And so when you start there, that is our responsibility. We should be spending that money, but we're not. And the question is, why? Why are we spending this money to remediate sites that we own? Many of you might not live in areas where you have things considered to be brownfields or contaminated water, soil. But l

Okay. Thank you for that. If I may. So I just have a few questions. So first of all, I want to thank you for bringing this forward because remediation obviously is an important factor in what we need to be doing. I just want some clarification because I didn't have a chance. Obviously, the original item differs from the substitute that you provided. But when you get last minute substitutions, we kind of like to take a moment to go through it. So I haven't had that chance. Literally, your staff sent it to us as we were sitting down on the dais. And so some of the particulars I'd like to underst

Great timing. No, of those properties that have been identified as potential to the few properties, are all of them run and leased by outside entities or does the county run any of them?

So my question is to that. Could a department apply for this loan? Because are they charged with the same? I'm sorry? Okay. Yes. So I could hear you, but I couldn't hear you. I'm sorry.

I thought you, nothing. Don't worry about it.

Right. So the condo loan program had a cap, right? They could only apply for up to a certain amount of money. It wasn't even paid to that individual applicant. It's paid to the association. So how would this work? And by the way, they've had to tweak that program. And then they had to eventually really focus it on the really necessary, you know, that group that fell short and also seniors. And they had other parameters that they were trying to give preference to. And that program is currently closed right now, as we know. And like we did for the private adaptation for the septic to sewer conve

So let me tell you. So I do think we need, and when you say 20% of what's not encumbered or what's not programmed or whatever terminology we want to use, but within that 20%, what is that cap, right? So let's say you're talking about, you know, you have $100. That's our money. And 20% of that, $20, right? So within that $20, how much is everybody eligible for? Are they eligible for $2, for $10, for $15, or is one person eligible for the full $20? How did you work it out? Because we did have caps on these other loan programs.

Maybe there's a hybrid here that we could come forward with where we give relief for the remediation, but we're not doing it at the detriment of draining this fund or that portion of the fund. And honestly, I guess, let me back up a second. These properties that the county owns that has, I'm assuming, some sort of tenancy, right, long-term tenancy. For those properties, what do the lease agreements actually dictate the terms of who's responsible? Who's responsible for remediation? Are we, as the landlord, responsible anyway and they're taking it upon themselves and they're asking us for the re

Okay. I need a moment to think on this. Commissioner, yeah, we'll go back around.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleagues for the discussion. I am Here's what I would like to see on this item and to the maker and to the administration if they're agreeable. I do think that the universe of the properties that this would actually apply to, I think would help because that would eliminate some confusion. I also think it would be, is this retroactive? So can those who have already paid to environmentally remediate with Miami-Dade County, are they able to get access to these funds?

So if you've already remediated with Miami-Dade County and paid millions of dollars, you're not able to try and recoup those costs through this fund?

But I'm glad that you said that, because this is the part that I need clarity on. The idea that this is spirited in incentivizing remediation, I really need clarification on this, because it's my understanding, and Commissioner Hardiman made this point, that our developers, they don't have to do a damn thing. That's not exactly true, though. It's my understanding. If you are in a lease with county-owned property to develop on it, Durham requires you to environmentally remediate. If there's contamination, is that correct? And that's the universe of properties that we're talking about here. Do t

Yeah. And so they already have to do this. And then there was discussion about what's the price that we're going to pay on the backs of accessing or being able to access potable water. Well, it's already 6%. I mean, our rate payers are paying 6% of their water bills for this environmental remediation. I'm not sure... Why our developers can't pay a premium that they would have already had to pay anyway When they negotiate these deals, so I'm not sure that I understand That way of framing this and I think that this is an issue that affects all of us in Miami-Dade County. I don't think that this

And that clarification I think is helpful because it's really only geared and targeted towards those that have long-term leases on county-owned land that need to develop and that need to do this environmental remediation um or the county or ourselves the county which we should be doing i think everybody agrees that we should be doing that this this why has there been any and i know that this has been worked on for months have you all received a directive by way of an item or a floor motion by us to say, deploy these funds, go do this work. Like everybody agrees that we want this money deployed

Yeah. And so again, if our goal is to have this money spent by us or by developers to remediate the land, we could and we should direct the administration to do exactly that. And I do think that having a conversation, especially with a pot of money as large as this $181 million that's being paid by our residents and our rate payers, I think we should have a conversation about how we handle that money and what's in the best interest of the rate payers of Miami-Dade County. If the maker is amenable to changing the terms from a zero percent, it's not a grant because they have to pay it back. But

You know, I just want to get it done is really the key. Yeah, I don't disagree. And, again, I will hear from my colleagues. I think our previous loan programs, as our chairwoman – adequately highlighted were intended to help residents through difficult financial times. This is different. These are developers that are already very, very successful businesses having access to money being paid by our residents at 0% interest. That's a totally different, those are two different pots of human beings and different interests entirely. And so the struggle for me, like I mentioned, I understand zero in

Yeah. And so how would we to either our chairwoman or to the administration or to the maker? I do think a cap, I think an interest rate is appropriate. And I think, as we've said many, many times before, that committee is where we should do that work. And so I would look to the direction of the maker or the administration to give us some proposals to consider. I certainly don't want to make that proposal, but I do think that those are some amendments to be considered. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, if we want to give the rate payers some dignity, how about we just remove the fee? Since we're not spending the way that we intend to spend it. I mean, if we remove the fee, then rate payers wouldn't have to worry about that. They just pay whatever their water bill is plus whatever other fees that we have and call it a day. You know, so it's like... If we want to couch it in sort of the idea that this is about dignifying the person who's actually paying the fee, then remove the fee. Because clearly the fee is not going the way that we expect it to have been going. It's not being used

Thank you. Okay, so bringing it back to this item with the, you know, listen, a lot of really great points are made. Problem is this actual item doesn't address those issues because we're talking about really large 10-acre plus homes. areas. I guess I know the administration has concerns with this item. What I don't appreciate is not understanding what those dollars are programmed towards and what the timeline the realistic timeline for everything is. I think we need that. I think you make a really great point, Commissioner Regalado, on that. In terms of the fee or no fee, I do think there nee

Right. So every year, right, this is what gets collected by Miami-Dade County. I'm saying prospectively. There's a pot of money right now in there. And there's an accumulation from all these years and to this USAP, what's the acronym? USAP? Right. Okay. So of the dollars in the USAP, prospectively speaking, next year there's going to, you know, if it's a utility that everybody has to pay, fine. That utility, that percentage that would normally go into USAP, Perspectively, I don't want part of the discussion of the... You want to freeze it. You want to freeze the 20%... Well, I want to keep the

So I know we have a motion to just approve it as is. I don't know that that has a second. So I would defer to, you know, and I think this is great. I think, look, it's tough because we're only three members. And so you're... But I think it's a great discussion that we are having. And really, this is where it's supposed to happen in committee so that we can really work on making this, at least from a policy standpoint from ours, it could change again, BCC, and it might very well. So I'll leave it to Commissioner Hardiman and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Please let me know how you prefer to move

If I may be recognized, Madam Chair, I think that the item needs to be amended in committee. It is always repeated at the final board that this work needs to be done in committee. And I don't think that the requested amendments, which I think generally have been accepted by the maker, I think it needs to be amended. and I appreciate the openness by the maker to have this looked at, but I would feel more comfortable having an item that is fully vetted in committee because, again, that's the message that's always being sent at the final board. And to agree with something Commissioner Hardiman sa

Okay, and so we know moving it without a recommendation requires unanimous vote or it dies, and we don't want to kill it because there's a lot of really good in here. So what we'll do, Commissioner Hardiman, maybe if you want to make the motion to defer to the next committee, but I definitely want this on the October 20th. BCC. I think it needs to happen next month because I think we do need to discuss it, especially before the end of the year. At that point, we'll be past the fiscal. We don't have BCC in September, right? When's our next BCC, please? October 6th. Okay. So then October 20th wo

Madam Chairwoman, as I understood, Commissioner Cornhiggins was making a motion with those amendments. Is that what happened?

Through the chair? Yeah, I said that those were the amendments that I'd like to see, but I said that I'd look to the administration or the maker to actually make a proffer, right? So I said that I wanted to see an interest rate and a cap, but I haven't heard an interest rate and I haven't heard a cap. So we could do this here now, or we can amend the item and bring it back. I'm certainly not going to propose it. I'm not the maker of the item. Those were just the concerns that I had expressed on the record. Thank you.

Commissioner Regalado, I will give you, you know, what would you like to see? Do you want to work it out now, or do you want to bring it up? I want to leave it to you and your discretion.

The interest rate wasn't the issue for me. It was more the cap, so I'll defer to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins.

And I'll tell you, I was trying to understand, Madam Chairwoman, what you were saying about the freezing or the, like, basically the capture of whatever funds were left unavailable. Because I'll tell you, by the end of the day, that that amount of encumbered dollars is going to grow. Because there's no, we're playing fast and loose when it comes with what is encumbered. I would think that it being encumbered happens after a budget cycle where we've approved a budget to do certain things. That's when generally things are encumbered. Well, there's some specific legislation that does that, but wh

No, I agree, which is why I think we've all said we need to see that list as to what the dollars are programmed for. I agree completely. What I meant was not freezing it from remediation. This loan program right now is very, very, like she said, she narrowed it. It's really just for county-owned property that is being leased long-term of 10 acres or more? Owned by the county. Or owned and run by the county. Correct. Thank you. I'm saying we don't know who falls into that bucket. What I'm saying is right now we know there's at least 30 to 55 million that is, quote, not programmed, which, by the

And by the way, I don't know that it should be an open-ended program. We should also have a chance to revisit what does that look like? What is it doing? And I know you would agree with that. And so that's why I think this has been great conversation and great discourse of really trying to fine-tune something and bake it a little bit, right? And I appreciate you taking the time because one thing you do is you dive in and you look for these creative ways to try to solve an issue. So I actually really appreciate you doing that. So thank you for that. Okay, so what are the open-ended things that

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the maker, I mean, are you in a position to propose these now? Yeah.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I misunderstood then. I thought when these amendments were proposed earlier, you were amenable to them. I'm hearing something very different now, and I will vote accordingly. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm in a twilight zone because what I hear is, no, no, no, seriously, I'm in a twilight zone. I heard the commissioner say, I'm open to what you all want to put in there. I don't think these things make sense the way that you necessarily want them. For instance, I want 0%. I don't want a percentage point. But if you want a percentage point, propose a percentage point. I'm okay with that. What it sounds like is that You want her to propose a percentage point when she has proposed a percentage point. That's zero. So if you want a percentage point, you should say it's one. Two, I would happily se

Madam Chair, if I may, thank you for that. I'm sorry that you feel like you're in the twilight zone, Commissioner Hardiman. Typically, when I raise a concern and a sponsor of an item is amenable to whatever the proposed change is, mind you, this literally was handed out to us as we walked in today, the amended item. I'm not, whatever our precedent is on setting interest rates, I'd want to hear from the administration. I'm not currently prepared as someone who hasn't worked on this item to throw out an interest rate. Everybody has said that this is a small universe of parcels. I, as the sponsor

Yes. Okay. I'll let you, I'll let you speak and I'm going to turn it to the maker.

This isn't about bullying. This is about wasting everyone's time. The energy is about wasting time. You don't want to make a motion because you don't want to be in support. You don't want to be the person that made the recommendation for what it is that we're going to be deciding. This body, we make changes to things. The last cycle we were on, we just made an administrative change to our entire procurement process. And people asked for more time. We didn't give it to them. We moved forward when people had general concerns about how every single person was going to apply in a process that Miam

I'm trying to appease your concerns. Okay, so this is what we're going to do, because typically we don't, you know, we can proffer suggestions, and, you know, I never want to, if someone has a piece of legislation, we make our recommendations, we all do it to each other, but a lot of times, you know, you're the maker, so we're trying to respect that as well, because you're the one who's been living, breathing, working on this. So for purposes of today... And I would see if Commissioner Cohen Higgins would be comfortable with this if we sent it without it, because there are concerns. And like I

And I'm going to defer real quick before we wrap this up to the administration. Can you please let us know if there are any other changes that you would like to see? Again, we might be passing this without a recommendation anyway, just so that we have it at least to the full body and you all have the opportunity to work with the commissioner. And also, I would appreciate you reaching out to my office. I think we all need to know the list of properties that this would impact, the list of programmed properties. I guess those that have been promised for programming, what does that look like? What

Okay. That would be interesting to see because then we need to understand the prioritization. Do we want this to be the prioritization or what they're going to be presenting? So maybe what we do is we move it out of committee to make the changes that were made today on the record. And also maybe put a caveat that we move it, but it also has to run parallel to a recommendation from the administration as to the work program that they want to put forward. So we have that to make the full determination, because if you all don't support this, we may have a different conversation at BCC.

I mean, do you have any comments or thoughts on that? I'm just, yeah. That could work as an exhibit. Commissioner Hardiman. Do you have a motion? Yep. We've been...

I hear the discussion, but is there a motion?

So the motion is to move it without a recommendation out of committee so we have this full discussion, including the amendments as it relates to having the administration set the rate. Having them set the cap and putting on the exhibit of the work And providing an exhibit of the work list for this particular item. And also, I would like it to run, you know, I would like to hear from the administration as a part of this as a condition to better understand what are the. So we go in eyes wide open. What are the you know, if we fund this, what are we not funding? What else is there right now happe

That would be set by the administration. Okay.

As you said that, I wrote down two years that we would revisit in two years. I guess it would sunset in two years and then we would, yeah, we would sunset in two years.

I believe that's correct. Thank you, Madam Chair. And the amendments... Are they going to be determined by the administration before the final hearing or just to be determined by the administration at some future time? So the way that you worded it made it sound extraordinarily open-ended, meaning that the item that's going to come to the board that would advance out of this committee would be exactly this item with the caveats that you just mentioned and that you just read. That is not my intention at all. It is my intention to have an interest rate that is not zero. determined by this body a

Thank you. So, Commissioner Regalado, the reason I think we want to see that, I think you would want to see it, too, so you know what they would be putting forward as the administration. Because you may say, as the maker of this item, you know what? No. And then you can make your argument as to why you don't think that would work. Do you agree with that?

But they need to provide it prior to second reading. Right. With the item. Right. Okay. Yes. Okay. So can we amend your amendment that what you read? No. So that it is part of the final hearing of this item at second reading.

Okay. I'm fine with that. Roy, do you understand? Do you all think you have enough time? And now I'm being realistic. We have our second budget hearing. We have a lot going on in September. October 6th is right around the corner. We can't get sometimes things from the administration within three months, let alone two weeks. I think this probably should be October 20th. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that. To give you time.

We were trying to respect the maker of the motion. It proffered either without a recommendation, barring all of these things, or I think Commissioner did offer to bring it back. We were trying to be respectful of the maker at this point.

Madam Chair, if I may, is there any time sensitivities on this?

That $150 million, that needs to be deployed ASAP. But regarding this particular loan program, are there any time sensitivities to make the board aware of?

I mean, OK, then, you know, we'll do then. Look, I'm trying to get out of out of committee for you. But at the same time, if they feel that they're not going to be able to bring it to us, if it can guarantee on the October 20th, then there's no harm done because it's going to be a committee before the October 20th meeting.

I completely agree. That's what the board is for. If you think that we're going to do all the work in the committee, then we're sadly mistaken. That's how this thing works. I fully expect to continue to talk about it. If they come back with recommendations, then we're going to talk about those recommendations. And even if we adopt those recommendations, we just have to understand that it doesn't appear to the administration that they don't like what we have being presented to us. And so that may never change, right? So it's just best that if we want to remediate the properties that we own that

Okay. Listen, there's an argument to be made for deferring it, and there's an argument to be made, you know, sending it out of committee without a recommendation is a strong statement, too, that we may not be supporting it at committee, at commission, that we have a lot of concerns and issues. And so perhaps, so deferring it to work it out, we might all unanimously approve it. or we may end up relitigating the same thing. But I'm going to move that we pass it out of the committee without a recommendation, which I do think sends a really strong message that we're not in agreement here on what i

We already have a motion on the floor. It was already previously moved and seconded. Can we stop to clarify with the motion? Okay.

Yeah, Madam Chair, it was moved and it was seconded, and then I asked the attorneys for clarification, and they confirmed that my understanding was not the way that the amendments were worded. So I need clarification from the attorneys on what was moved as amended and some sort of an articulation on the record that what we are advancing is going to provide that information before October 20th.

Yeah, I don't listen. I know Commissioner Cohen Higgins has to leave and I don't know that that's exactly what she was inferring. So again, you need to be unanimous to pass it out. I don't think I feel that right now. So I think I will then withdraw, move to defer and to the October 15th. Is that the next committee?

Okay, to the October 15th committee. Provided we still need that information by then, please, and then hopefully we get it out for the 20th. Second. And with that, item 3C that I pulled is being deferred by the administration. Any other questions or comments before we adjourn? Madam Chair. Yes.

That's correct. They need to do that. All right. Thank you with that.

Aye. Okay. Show it done by acclamation. Wishing all those who celebrate a happy Rosh Hashanah.

Yes. Show it done. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.