Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

All right. Show Commissioner Gilbert present as well. All right. Now, if you can please quietly stand for the invocation given this morning by Rebetson Shani Lipsker of the Shoal of Bell Harbor at the invitation of Commissioner Steinberg. And he is accompanied this morning by Bell Harbor Mayor Salver and Bay Harbor Island Mayor Salver. So thank you all for being here this morning. And please bow your heads for an invocation.

Amen. Thank you so much for those heartfelt words. And thank you again, Commissioner Steinberg, for having them out this morning. If you cannot join me for the pledge.

We have a very long agenda this morning, guys, so we're going to get right into it. Thank you all. We have a packed house, so thank you all for being here. Madam Attorney, good morning. Is it appropriate for us to move into reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at this time?

all right so reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard is now open i will call your name seeing that i have several registered to speak um you will have one minute to speak i state the item on which you're speaking on your name and address and please be respectful of other people's time i will start I'd also like to welcome some elected officials that I know we have in the chamber today. I don't know if everyone's here, but I know some city of Miami elected officials are here. I see Gabela, I see Pardo, and I see Rosado. Thank you guys for being here. And with that, actually, if you al

Wow, that was great. Thank you, Commissioner.

Jason Liberty, President and CEO of Royal. Phil Err, Joe Capo, John Armbrust, George Rovirosa, Salomon Sinord, Duce Martinez, Noel Cleland, and Theophilus Williams. All right, wow. You all speaking together?

All right, so who, is it most that I just called right now?

Mr. President, just, sorry, I've allowed you the liberty.

I'm almost done. To continue given that I'm assuming everyone behind you is going to yield, is yielding their time.

All right. Up next. I think there's more people standing than what I called, but pretty sure.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cabal. Thank you, guys.

Thank you, sir. All right, I have Gerard van den Hovel, Theophilus Williams. Geneva Claus, Jeff Agron, Steve Leifman, Sharon Frazier, Mighty V Betancourt, Stanley Young, and Rabbi Jessica Jacobs.

Thank you so much. And I have Geneva Claus and Mr. Ron Book. Geneva Claus and Ron Book, you can come up.

Thank you. Mr book. Appreciate it. And thank you for that as well. All right. Um, that is all the speakers I have registered to speak on a reasonable opportunity. Um, so therefore reasonable opportunity is now closed. Madam attorneys in order to set the agenda at this time.

It's been moved by a second vice chair second by commissioner Lopez all in favor of setting the agenda with all of those 2 ways one just from service to mission Hardeman on the agenda is on the agenda.

Yes, I just want to be clear 3, a 1 is definitely first that correct.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just wanted to make sure I'm listed as a co-sponsor for 14A1.

All right, so with that, all in favor of Commissioner- Mr.

Chair, I also requested co-sponsorship of 14A1.

All right. Anyone else? All right, with that, all in favor of setting the agenda, signify by saying aye.

All opposed, nay. Show the item, the agenda here set. All right, so. We have a time certain, as most of you probably noticed, on two items, on AJ1 and 14A1. I am going to first take up AJ1, which is our fuel farm item. But before we begin on it, I'd like to make a statement to lay out some groundwork for today's discussion. There are a number of issues that require us to limit what is said publicly today. As we all know, we are making a decision today about entering into an eminent domain litigation. We have already been sued. the fisher island condo association and the fisher island club so w

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, and I signed an NDA before I read the documents and then also met with the mediator, but I think that there are some basic questions that we can ask that does not inhibit our litigation. My concern is, I don't I understand we want to protect the county's future interests, but there is also a chilling effect to this. I think we do also have the right to ask some questions of staff and ensure that what is being brought to us today is the best path forward.

Absolutely, as long as it doesn't, I mean, you've been doing this long enough. You know that what could hurt us in litigation and what won't. So let's just keep that in mind as we all discuss this, but I'm sure we will have plenty of discussion on it. So with that, I will call the item officially, AJ1. And I can start- Through the Chair. Yes, Madam Mayor. That works, yeah. I was going to start with the sponsor of the item, but you're welcome to lead.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Commissioner Gilbert, would you like to, as a sponsor of the item, say something now? Or would you like me to go to the pooling commissioners?

I think that we can, well, I'll say this now and then hear the comments from the pooling commissioners and my colleagues and then I'll go into the item. But I just want to say this in the very beginning. I told you all that we would be here doing this. I told you all that we would be here doing this and that it would be more expensive, a much more expensive conversation. It was nonsensical to believe that we shouldn't have negotiated with the people who owned the property versus the people who were buying the property. And so now when they make expectations of cost, We can call it unfortunate,

Commissioner from District 8, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am in support of Item 8J1. I do have a friendly amendment, if the attorneys can read it. The spirit of the amendment is simply this, understanding the level of contention surrounding the item and anticipating that contention will continue having the greatest confidence in our county attorney's office and understanding that all parties involved in this transaction happen to be some of the most wealthiest residents of Miami-Dade County. I would like to equip our county attorney's office with as much support as possible to make sure as much as we can that we offer them the

So is that it? You accept it? All right, so it's a friendly amendment. And then just for procedural, are you moving the item as well? As amended? All right, so it's been moved as amended, seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. And then I have Commissioner from District 7, you're recognized.

Thank you. First of all, I think that there are a lot of things that we can talk about that do not impact the county's position. This board, time and time again, whether it's a comp plan item or a simple resolution, has a tendency to question administration, even when they're being authorized to change a Scribner's error. Yet, on this issue, and an issue that we all agree on is important. Everyone in this room, everyone in this community believes that fuel for Port Miami is important. The question of how we get there, we have almost no information. We have to fight to get information, and we'r

Commissioner from District 5, it was going to be you, but Commissioner from District 11, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not an I told you so type of person, but Oliver is. And I do remember that meeting very, very clearly. And I do remember you saying that. And I do remember us having an entire conversation on that. And although it's easy to play Monday morning quarterback, now we're here. And what are we going to do to move forward? I do have some questions to lay the foundation as to how we got here. And I know that the administration is ready to answer these questions. But I think it's important to understand how we got here so that we can get to the proper solution and really under

And what specific date or around what date was that?

When did the closing occur on the property? October 2025, Commissioner. October of 2025. Did the county submit an offer on the property prior to October of 2025? No.

Before you answer this to the county attorneys, can we get into why didn't we submit an offer?

Thank you, Chief. Was the possibility of imminent domain contemplated prior to the purchase? And if it was, why did the county not proceed with imminent domain at that time? And I'm specifically trying to get to if imminent domain made sense prior to our September 18, 2025 special meeting and Why didn't the administration come to the board at that time seeking to institute eminent domain proceedings prior to the September 30th closing on the property?

And that was actually my next question. And I think if you could please just clarify it, because you just answered it. But if you could just clarify it once more, because we gave the administration the authority to proceed with them in a domain should the negotiations not work. And so, Why do we have this before us today where we're saying again, yes, move forward with eminent domain? If you could just explain it.

Got it. So in the original memo, the parcel just wasn't correct?

Got it. And to the port or to the chief, whoever feels more comfortable answering the question, of course, always through the chair, but Were alternate sites, including on-port sites, thought of to be viable prior to the closing

If you could please, while you do that, and you could probably do that. First of all, I want to thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez, for actually asking the attorneys if your line of questioning was accurate. On that note, A, I encourage all my colleagues that are going to speak to do the same. And B, to the attorneys, if you can just, I said I would be jumping in, but if you catch something that I don't, please feel free to jump in and just advise any commissioner of the same. But go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Philip, were alternate sites, including on-port sites, thought to be viable? Or according to your research, was it viable to have an on-port site prior to the closing?

Wait, so your analysis came to the conclusion that there was viability, but there had to be, I guess, business contemplations. but you determined that there was viability?

And when I hear you say all those things, and I like how you ended it because I'm thinking that there are certain considerations that need to be looked at specifically with financing and timing. Is that correct?

Thank you, sir. To the attorneys, I just have two questions. And again, stop me if we shouldn't get into this, but can you explain the procedural difference between a quick taking and a slow taking?

In reference to an imminent domain process.

Thank you. That was a great answer. Mike, my next question is geared towards you. Just for clarification purpose, because this is what I'm getting, but I'd like for you to clarify. Specifically in a quick taking, the county's obligated to compensate the affected party at the value of the property determined by the jury. Is that correct?

So the biggest difference here is that there's no opportunity for the county to go back or to back out if it disagrees with the valuation of the jury.

Commissioner from District 5, you're recognized.

Thank you commissioner commissioner from district to you recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to thank Commissioner Gilbert for this item. And I heard you clearly. You were right then and you are right now. As a mental health professional, we are taught to make the decisions that are important now. We could have done so many things. We could have taken so many decisions. Hard, but we could have taken different decisions that would prevent us from being where we are right now. But we are here. What do we do? I'd like to thank Commissioner Gonzalez for his line of questioning, and then a couple of my questions were answered. But we all agree, colleag

Thank you for clarifying that. As I indicated, some of the questions have already been asked and answered. Has the county received any proposal to build a fuel facility on the port? In the past, has the county received any proposal to build a fuel facility on the port?

All right. So it is important that the administration is confident about its position on eminent domain. However, there are risks, right? What are the risks for the Port of Miami if the request for eminent domain is rejected?

All right, Commissioner from District 12, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me just start by saying, there's a difference between being notified and being aware of something. Being notified, whether it's legally sufficient or you read it in the paper, is different from being aware. And the question I would pose, and I don't know, Roy, if it's you or the attorneys, the original lease was for 90 years, and what year did that lease really finish, so to speak? We're not aware of a 90 year lease. My understanding was that from up to the year 2015, that's what you guys said last time. There had been a lease on that property from the county side. An

That if you ever have that opportunity again that we have an in the shade meeting, which we can legally because it was already a lawsuit. And we could all talk openly and that becomes public record after the resolution of the lawsuit. That's a lot better than having a mediator listening to, I don't know how many points of views, because I think it weakens the position. of this commission when 13 different people meet separately and give an opinion. So I would proffer it in the future. I hope that doesn't occur. I'll say two other things, on or off the port, and I'm gonna support this item beca

All right, I've said my piece and I just tell my colleagues and caution you again and to the administration, please. Go back and look at these leases. Tell them, the attorney's office, or tell all your staff. Look at all the leases that we have. Look at them now. It happens with housing. My August colleague to the left has pointed that out on many occasions. And it happens with the airport. Now it's happening, it happened here. It's not that hard. You know, I think that if you assign the right people, and now with artificial intelligence that apparently everybody's using, just run all those th

Commissioner from District 7, you recognize?

Thank you. I just want to make some points to the administration. Obviously, you have the votes. And I just want to clarify, Commissioner Bastien brought up the point, and I know for a fact that we've received several offers. To build this at the port and Roy, you said, you know, we sent it to a calm and then a calm figures it out. My issue is that a calm doesn't have all the information. So I'm just going to list some things that I hope you all give to a calm because my. I go back to the information that we haven't been provided with and what they are not considering in making a determination

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Bermudez, you recognize that Love Island is actually your show of preference?

Recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My staff correctly reminded me. So everybody knows I was on medical leave, which is why I was watching Mark and Kelly because I was not able to walk at the time. It wasn't that I was skipping the meeting. Okay, we know everybody's clear and I appreciated all of your concerns at the time. All my colleagues and the mayor who were very kind, but it was because I was on medical leave. But I did switch the channel, and I admit it. Don't take it personally, guys. It was just, you know, in the afternoon I was tired. I just got out of the hospital and had to relearn h

Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a follow-up to AECOM, because I think that their remarks have been important. So if AECOM can approach, again, I know you mentioned looking at five sites and that three of them were deemed viable, but then you said there would be a higher cost and operational and policy decisions that need to be made. Can you speak to what that cost is? Can you articulate on the record what the estimated cost is of selecting potentially one of those three sites, in addition to what you already mentioned regarding there being existing tenants on that land and needing to shift the enti

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for that. All right. Listen, I've been listening very closely, and I'll call a question here shortly. Look, I'm going to support this item because on the surface of it, and not on the surface, actually, the reality of this item is I look at it as something like a scrutiner's error or correction of the legal description on to what this item is. my only hesitation with it and i said this back whatever that was nine ten months ago and it's still my hesitation today is the very real risk associated with the eminent domain proceedings and the risk even if miniscul

Thank you. One of the things I want to point out to my colleagues is that with this, wouldn't it have been wonderful to have purchased this property many years ago? Yes. It wasn't always for sale, as I understand. But at some point, it became available. And Miami-Dade County didn't take that opportunity. So it's part of our responsibility to protect this baby. We talked about this in the past, right? We have to protect this thing that exists for us. And it gives us tremendous benefit and it feeds our community. But I want to be clear. if we were not if we were not successful in this we didn't

Commissioner from District 1 for a closing.

Thank you. This has been a very interesting conversation. I'm very happy that I let you all go first. Just a couple of notes. Just a couple of notes. I'm not going to say I told you so again. I'm not going to do that. I will say this. I listen attentively to each of you. And when my colleague and dear friend Commissioner Regalado says we know, I want you all to remember we know is actually she believes. And I think we probably better correct the record on that. We don't know. And I don't believe. We don't know. I disagree with nearly 100% of the stuff that she just said. So I understand it's i

So what that covenant does is it says the property has to be used as a fuel farm unless we say, It doesn't. Is that correct? That's correct, sir. The $25 million appraisal made a lot more sense when I found that out. What also made a lot more sense, though I disagree with port employees not reporting up to the boss, telling them that this property's for sale. It had been sold several times and everybody used it as a fuel farm because the covenant that runs with the land says it has to be used as a fuel farm. So assuming we can't come to a negotiation, and I hope that we can, though I believe t

It's been moved. It's been seconded as amended. As amended. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay.

Show the item passed, just reflecting one nay. All right. Now, thank you all. Please exit quietly if you were here on the fuel farm item. Please exit quietly. That is not quietly. That is the opposite of quiet. That is the opposite of quiet. Please exit quietly. And while they exit, to my lovely attorneys and staff, I looked at you all kind of funny yesterday when you were optimistic and thinking we could put both of these items time certain for the same time. And that my colleagues were not going to really elaborate. They were optimistic. the some in the county attorney's office and some on t

With its supplement, yes. Can we please finish exiting? There's a lot of people here for Fuel Farm. All right. So first, of course, I want to start. By thanking everyone involved in getting us to where we are today on this mental health item. And what I anticipate today will be the supportive action to move this building in the direction for it to open its doors in the coming months. So first I want to start by thanking Judge Leifman. I would allow it for Judge Leifman because he has been working on this for 20 plus years and your passion, dedication and leadership for those 20 plus years has

It's been moved. It's been seconded by Commissioner Regalado. Madam Mayor, you have the floor.

I let the first one slide because it was warranted, of course.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. With that, Commissioner from District 2, you're recognized.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to thank the maker, the sponsor of this item, Commissioner Regalado. I know all the hard work that you've put to get us here, so I commend you for that. I thank you and commend you for that. Mr. Chair, thank you. I've listened to you with a lot of attention. All the amendments that you brought into this item strengthens it. Strengthen it beyond measure. It changed it into like what we would do as a piecemeal approach to a more comprehensive approach, which really brought a lot of strength to the item. So thank you for your leadership on that. I rea

Thank you commissioner. All right. And I skipped, I skipped, I'm going to add you guys. Now I skipped, um, the actual pooling commissioner. So commissioner from district that you recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sure all of our colleagues are going to speak on this item, and thank you for recognizing me. I do think, and I pulled it because I wanted to make sure that the item received the attention that, frankly, it deserves. I think that this is a historic day in Miami-Dade County, and I think it's worth noting, as a number of our colleagues have done, and I want to take a moment to do as well, The journey that it took us to get where we are today, and it was somewhat of a tumultuous journey, unfortunately, but here we are. And I say unfortunately because throughout the proce

Thank you commissioner and thank you for sharing that personal story with us. I would I will recognize now have in line the commissioner from District 5, but I want to add. I should have said this earlier, but I want to thank my co-chairs for our intergovernmental committee, both co-chair Lopez and chair Orbis, and all the members that sit on that committee. I know that includes, you all know who you are, because if it wasn't for your tough questions and what could have been posed or was posed in the news of stalling, or moving the goalposts, we wouldn't be here today with this more perfected

Thank you again, Commissioner, for all your leadership during these negotiations. Commissioner from District 11 is next on my list, but I don't see him. So you may be, I'll have the Vice Chair, D11, and then I can add you to the list as well. Commissioner from District 11, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, man, I just want to say I'm so happy we're here. I'm so happy we're here because this is bigger than one facility, okay? This is what America needs. Because what we're seeing right now is we're seeing unity. This is not a left thing, it's not a right thing. It's just a good thing to do. And Judge, you know this has been a mountain to climb. And I want to talk about how we got here, because it hasn't been easy. But many times, the things that are the most difficult to accomplish are the things that are most worth doing. Some of our most vulnerable residents are living

Commissioner from District 7, you're recognized.

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. I didn't know it was coming with a soundtrack, but thank you. I appreciate it. I just want to echo some of the mayor's comments about all the staff that has worked on this. Obviously, Judge Steve Leifman has been amazing. He has the patience of Job. As the Mayor mentioned, this was not easy when we started working on it, and we've come very far. And I want to thank you all for your support. I know that there were moments that were difficult, but I truly believe that leadership is about creating consensus, not gauging it. So I think that today is a wonde

Thank you. Thank you for that, Commissioner. Vice Chairman. All right, Commissioner from District 4, for your one-liner. She's going to hold it against me. Yeah, for your one-liner. Go ahead, Commissioner.

Well, I was just going to say, even Rocky needed a Mickey in his corner. All right.

All right. So if that doesn't give us hope for tomorrow, I don't know what does. No, but I just want to thank everybody for getting us to this point, and it does fill me up with hope for tomorrow. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be very brief. Listen to everyone who had a hand in this. This is huge. I'll say it now and I'll say it again. We're going to pass hundreds if not thousands of pieces of legislation from this dais. But I do honestly believe this is going to be one of those most consequential ones that we'll be able to look back on and identify that moment and that memory that actually gave birth to something that so many people in this community definitely need. Secondly, let me just say this, my favorite line in life is, bear one another's

I'll be brief, but ditto to everything that all of you have said. First of all, I'd like to start by saying that thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez, for making a reference to Mr. T. We may never hear it again on this dais, but thank you very much. And of course, the mayor and the administration for the great job they've done pushing this item and these ideas. Commissioner Regalado, obviously for her effort to push this forward. And you, Mr. Chairman, for making sure that we codified the concerns that many had, which is important as we move forward. And the word metrics and accountability are alw

Commissioner from District 2, you recognize? Yep, you are.

We've heard so many praises for Judge Leifman. Now I'm talking to all the young leaders who are watching this morning, this afternoon rather. How did he do it? How did he do it? I've known him since I was in graduate school. at FIU, 1987, that's when I graduated, and then I followed his parkour, French, or path, over the years. And in terms of this item, Imagine you've had most of the important stakeholders in this community calling you. I know, colleagues, you've experienced it, right? You have business people calling you. You have mental health professionals calling you. You have other elect

Thank you, Commissioner, for those words. And as I get ready to call the vote, I just want to say, and echoing a little bit of what Commissioner Bastien just said, but I'm going to go in a little different direction, is we've praised A lot of the folks in this room for their hard work, and sure enough, we've all worked tirelessly. I know I have my staff, the administration, a lot of staff, many other commissioners here, as well as Judge Leifman, the justice system, the chief judge and her team, Jackson's team. I mean, we've all worked tirelessly, but the vote that I'm about to call isn't reall

I'm sorry. I'm about to call the vote for- I know, I know, but very quickly, there's just one name that hasn't been mentioned that I think is deserving of mention. She was here at the beginning. She's a former commissioner, a dear friend of us all. I think Commissioner Sally Haman deserves a thank you as well.

Yes, I was literally going to say that after the vote.

Thank you, Commissioner Haman. Many, many champions and leaders, but this is all done for those that are personally affected. So with that, all in favor signify by saying aye.

All opposed, nay. Show the item officially passed. Congratulations. Thank you all. And for those that were here on this very sensitive and important topic and item, please exit quietly. Guys, please exit quietly. We have a lot. All right.

Mr. Chair. Commissioner. Can I just say something to Commissioner Steinberg because Rocky's trainer was Mickey. That's the whole point, yeah. Yeah, but I wanted her to get the recognition because she's, you know, wanted, she needs to get that. She definitely grounds me. She definitely grounds me. I'm ready to run through a door like Rocky right now for our trainer.

Mickey keeps us, you know. So, all right, guys, again, please exit quietly, and congratulations to everyone that was here in favor of this item. In fact, I don't think I had anybody here opposing it, so congratulations again. Judge, I think people will follow your lead as soon as you exit. Judge Leifman, I think people are gonna follow your lead as soon as you exit. All right. I have, if the attorneys can, before we get into first readings and the rest of the agenda, I have a motion that I'd like to make, and I just didn't want to make it at the end. I wanted you all to have the opportunity to

I will second that and I'd like to co-sponsor that. That is awesome, Chair. That is awesome.

So it's, yeah, I mean, like I accept the co-sponsorship, but it's a motion. I don't know how that works, but yes. Okay, you could co-sponsor a motion. All right. So it's been moved. It's been seconded. Commissioner Hartman.

Can you can you explain what this money is coming from you say tourist development tax dollars is there what entity is actually that money coming from the budget from like help explain a little bit more because we have these we have tdc's tdt's tdt's we have all kinds of td's supplements so I want to be clear of which pot is coming from.

As a follow-up, so that fund is different from the funds of money that comes from the TDC?

I'm supportive of the item, but I've got a question. Because the Marlin Stadium, one of the greatest fiascos of this county's history that led to the recall, the largest recall in the nation at the time, still one of the largest, was in part from some of these dollars, was it not?

At some point I hope you give us a report because those of us who were not on the dais at the time but opposed. What was, I believe, a not necessary expense, and it doesn't matter to me that the person that sat in this seat or in my district seat voted for it, limits a lot of the things that we can do in the future. So I hope at some point you give us a report, especially now that times are going to be fiscally tough on where we are on repaying that ridiculous debt that ends up costing over a billion dollars for a baseball stadium. uh and i'm a big sports fan but um i think we need to know bec

Please, Mr. Chair, first of all, I'm going to support this, but can you give some details about the World Expo? What would it consist of and benefit to the county? And number two, how much money, maybe this is for the administration, how much money is there in the TDT?

As we speak, there are two millions in the TDT tax fund. Is that what I'm hearing?

And commissioner, let me kind of give you some you and all others. Uh, so we were, we were selected, uh, by the. U. S government to host the world expo on behalf of the U. S. And by that means we weren't selected by the host committee. We were selected by, uh, the administration, the federal government, uh, to apply to see if we're, uh, granted this, uh. if we're selected by the World Expo Committee. And we haven't done this in, the U.S. has not participated in decades. There is not enough FIFAs, there is not enough championship games, Super Bowls that we can count in our lifetime that will eq

Do we know who is actually going to be the ones conducting the study? Who are we spending this money with?

Yes, we do. The name, I don't know if we have it, if the administration has it, but yes, it is the same company that they've used to do the feasibility study for the last few World Expos in the places that they've won. It was recommended by the group that's managing this at the federal level. It's not like a local company.

Is it a part of the motion? The motion doesn't identify that. So how do we guarantee?

That might be a good point to identify it. I don't know if we need to because it'll be contracted through the GMCVB. Maybe that's why it's not in the motion. But I think if we can include it and we have that information,

Yeah, I'm okay with that. I think that's safe. I trust that the gmcb is going to contract with the adequate consulting company or feasibility company, but it would it would be fine with me.

All right. Mr. Chair, just for the clarification purpose, so you said that it will last six months. Is this the infrastructure or there will be six months activities?

So the infrastructure will take years. It'll take seven years to build. The six months is the actual expo itself. So rather than it be a weekend, a week, or a month, it's a six-month expo. It lasts six months. And they build tremendous infrastructure. And then every country participates. or most every country participates. For the first time, one of the wishes of the federal government, and I think they have the buy-in, is that in the U.S., not only will we be participating as the hosting county, but they want every state within the U.S. to also have presence here for the six-month of the Expo

Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'll ask the county attorney to read this, um, this motion.

And colleagues, this is an item moving on behalf of Senator Renee Garcia.

All right, so it's been moved by the Vice Chair.

Okay, second by Commissioner Gilbert, and then Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized.

Yeah, I mean, just from Ray, like, how much money are we talking about? Because we're drawing on this fund, and I would like to know. I'm all in for the expo. I think that that, I mean, it's a feasibility study, so, and nothing against the pageant. But I just want to know, kind of, how much money are we talking about, and where would that get swept if we don't have these motions? Where does it go? Does it just stay in the account, and then...

Okay, so that's what you have. Yes. And then how much is this costing?

Yeah, I'll support the item. Ray, I was curious. I know we only budgeted 95%. Are the projected numbers higher than we thought they were going to be this year

I just want you to say that. I just want everybody to hear that. Just that one, that was it, right there. Sometimes we don't connect the dots, but when we make decisions about things like the World Cup, the argument is always, hey, you know what, it drives in money. Well, it does drive in money, because it drives in occupancies. That's what happens. That's the economy of large scale events coming to your community. And so we don't have the conversation on the back end where we connect the dots so that people see that we actually use that money to do things. Help organizations in some instances

Thank you, Commissioner. With that, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show that motion passed. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized for motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since we are on these floor motions, I have a floor motion and Commissioner Gilbert just raised FIFA. I have a motion, if the attorneys will read it, as it pertains to FIFA. And it's my understanding that the contract that the host committee signed with the county already has language in it that says, to the extent that there is any overage, i.e. money that you all have not found necessary to spend, we need you all to give it back to the county. But at the time that that contract was signed, that was in advance of our FIFA host committee, who, by the way, is doing an amaz

Excuse me. One second. We still have an agenda, right? Because we've got a lot of motions that are just popping up. We haven't even got an agenda.

People are waiting. We haven't even started first reading.

How does he say it? Taylor Swift, you got the best album of all time. How does it go? I don't know. Kanye West interrupted. All right.

I just don't want us to continue on down this line.

You can continue, Taylor. Yeah. All right. Can the attorneys read the motion, please?

I'll recognize, is there a second on the motion?

Thank you. And just to staff to clarify something, my understanding is that. When we entered into this agreement, the sheriff's department was still under the county and they and when we did our budget, there was money that we had to give to police for FIFA. I remember we went around and around on that. The money that FIFA received from the federal government was for policing. So I don't think there's necessarily like a clawback because whatever money we get back from the sheriff goes back into the pot, just like any other constitutional officer, if we get back and then we start the budget aga

Right. I just wanted to clarify that because it's a little complicated because it's in kind to the sheriff, but then we have the obligation to the sheriff. And then obviously we have, you know, conversations during the budget process with the sheriff on how much they're going to give us back that they haven't spent and how much we owe them as a result of in kind. So I just, I just think we have to be a little careful with like the clawback language because I don't really think that that's what, that's what's happening in this situation. So, um, Ray do you have any changes to the motion or do y

Sorry. I don't think Ray has the ability to Change a motion.

No, I'm asking for his concerns on the motion in terms of the buckets.

Okay. Okay, Ray. Do you have any? concerns about the motion

Okay. Madam Attorney, please reread the motion.

Absolutely, I mean, I'm speaking with the attorneys. I would appreciate the motion that I wanted to be read because it addresses the issue that my colleagues are bringing up now. It's my understanding that there's $25 million in potential recapture of funds. The way that that motion was just read speaks to only the 21 million. in cash contribution, not the aggregate $60 million of in-kind contribution, which is where we are recovering and have the opportunity to recover. So to the extent that we can get a motion that is clear on those issues so that we have the opportunity to recapture the $25

All right. So there's a motion. Is that the new motion? Yeah. All right. So that's the new motion. Seconded by Commissioner Orbis.

Yeah, because it includes in kind. Right. Right. Yeah.

All right. Perfect. So. Yeah. All right. So I got Gilbert and then or unless Gilbert is still serenade like marinating on it.

I'm very comfortable with the motion. What they're trying to determine is, because I'm the board's designee on the host committee, they're trying to determine whether I have to recuse myself. Right. Okay, okay. Yeah, that's the question.

Yeah, I support the motion, certainly. But can we, moving forward, as Commissioner Hardiman made reference with these last minute motions, if we know they're coming up and we know the attorneys are going to get them, can we get a copy of it before? It's nothing personal, I think it's the best way to do business on this day. And I'm supportive of the motion, but collegiality requires that we be collegial. So it would be great if we could get these things beforehand, Mr. Chair. That's the only thing I would say.

Understood, thank you, Commissioner. All right, so with that, we have a motion, we have a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Show the motion passed. All right. No. Where was I? Where's my slide? Oh, here it is. All right. Now we'll get into first reading items. Right? Is that in order?

Mr. Chair, we're going to call up. Oliver's coming back. Just come back, Oliver. Yes.

Please read all the first reading items. Yes.

14. All right. So we have a bifurcation on which one is it?

Well, this is first reading. All right. So will someone move any other bifurcations? Will someone move the remainder of the agenda? It's been moved. Was it Commissioner Regalado? Seconded by Commissioner Bastien. And clerk, please call the roll.

Just for clarification, this is ordinance of first reading, correct? First reading. Four.

All right, is there a motion on 14A2? I'll entertain a motion on 14A2, Commissioner Regalado moves it, seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Clerk, please call the roll. Or is that a voice vote? Roll call? Roll call. Please call the roll.

All right, Madam Attorney, is it in order to take up public hearing items at this time?

All right, do I have any bifurcations? Seeing none, do I have a motion?

Yes, sorry, I have none. I have no speaker cards, so public hearing is open, public hearing is closed. I have a motion to move all of the public hearing items by Commissioner Regalado. I have a second by Commissioner Bastien. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Show the public hearing items passed. Madam Attorney, can we get into second readings?

All right, Commissioner from District 2, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been committed to using every tool at our disposal to end the affordable housing crisis in Miami-Dade County. And infield housing represents an important tool for the county. giving developers the opportunity to bring units online that are more affordable for rent and for sale. I have said previously that despite this tool being a powerful one and a useful and powerful one, there are changes of the program that are needed. However, I want to be sure that making such changes will not negatively impact developers who wish to build infield housing in our districts. I ha

All right, yeah, so I accepted that same amendment for 7A. I'll accept it for, what is it, 11A4. So yes, that is a friendly amendment. To both, yes. Commissioner from District 12, you're recognized.

Chair, thank you. Yeah, I have a friendly amendment that, obviously for both, and I'll certainly let the attorney read it if he so chooses. But essentially, I think it's important for us to send the message that if you don't comply one time, We need to know why, and you need to explain to us why you didn't comply. Because I just think it's good public policy for us, in particular in this area, to start sending the message, let's get things done and done timely. So I don't know if the attorney wants to read the language or he wants me to read it.

Commissioner Bermudez, I'm comfortable with them. I think you're right, accountability is important. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support 7A. I think I'm a co-sponsor on it. And I think that these measures are important to the administration. I've been working with you all on implementing order 8-4 and updating it. And I'd love an update on that. And I bring it up because in District 8, for example, I've been in office I think five and a half years. I've never, I think I'm just now for the first time conveying property for infill housing program. And the reason I haven't done it in the past is because when an applicant would come and ask for an opportunity to develop and we convey the parcels for

Thank you so much. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner from District 4, are you recognized?

Yes, since we're taking both 7A and 11A4, I know I would like to be listed also as a co-sponsor to 11A4. Listen, I think philosophically, if you want to see things happen, especially to resolve the affordability crisis, You have to give parameters and safeguards, and you have to have a finite amount of time to do it. And if you can't deliver what we're looking for, then, of course, we have to look at other remedies. Because I think this is a great piece of legislation, so thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. With that, clerk, please call the roll on both 11A4 and 7A.

It's been moved and seconded by Commissioner Steinberg.

All right. Sounds good. Now let's see what we got left. Are we on the pool list now? All right. So on the pool list, I'm going to see, there might be some that I had pulled. So let's see what I could dispose of. Let me see what I could dispose of here. All right, so 1485, I'll release a release it. So I'll move if someone could just move 1485. Okay, second commissioner, a lot of seconded by Commissioner Orbis. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. All right, on 801, on 801, I just pulled it to do an amendment. If the attorneys can read my amendment.

Item is moved as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Regalado. Moved by Commissioner Orbis. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Questions on it? You can still make your statement if it's just a statement, yes.

Thank you, Commissioner Lopez. That is correct. That's the spirit of my amendment. 8P1, I don't know if it will get discussion, but I pulled it for an amendment as well. So I'll take, actually, 8P1, I think, is Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' item. So I only, oh, it's co-sponsorship? Okay. So I only pulled it for an amendment. I'm hoping it's a friendly amendment. um i will say that i spent a significant amount of time going back and forth on this uh with the administration uh and with and with uh you know the parties involved uh so i would have the attorneys i guess read my amendment and then you

And guys, very simply stated, and it's a very short amendment. The reason for this amendment is, after a lot of back and forth, they were able to reduce the cost by that amount. And feel free to ask all the questions that you all have, but that reduction comes at no... No risk to what we were acquiring, no risk to the service or actual amount of devices or the technology within the devices. So again, I hope it's a friendly amendment, but you have the floor, whichever one of you. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you all recall this item at committee, I had a number of questions regarding whether or not we could do better on price. And I met with the leadership of Motorola in my office and we spoke at length and Comparisons of other municipalities or counties that they had sold similar radios to and assured me that the price that we were getting was the best price. And so I have questions on the $5 million reduction. If someone from Motorola can approach, I'd like to understand where the $5 million reduction is coming from without affecting either the service or the device, bec

If someone from Motorola is in the building, you're welcome to approach the wall.

Is no one from Motorola here? I find that difficult to believe.

You may approach the wall at this time to answer the commissioner's questions. Yeah, I'm- A little pep in the step will probably go a long way. With a little bit of enthusiasm and urgency.

I hope the I hope the walkie talkies don't work at this speed. As in corrections is in trouble at that point. What's that jeopardy in music? Anybody Gilbert?

No, no, no. I'm asking you, where is the $5 million coming from? Because it's being represented that it's not going to cut the number of devices or the service that's being offered to our corrections department. And I'm just trying to understand. First of all, I applaud it, because any time that we're able to save money, of course, we're going to be supportive of that. So I want to make that very clear. But I also want to understand, where is the $5 million in savings coming from from Motorola's end? Because if you recall, you sat in my office and we spoke at length about you all not being abl

Okay, but the number was very specific. It wasn't like 5 million flat. It was 5,254,000. I mean, where did this number come from? It certainly came from somewhere.

So, Commissioner, I'd encourage you to continue down that line of questioning, and I'll give you, if you want to write down this number, because this goes to what your question is. So the original price per radio that they provided was $8,595.79. Okay. The new price per radio that equals the 5.2 million is 6,574.93 cents per radio. Someone at Motorola must have given that number. I can't imagine that our county administration would... would make that number up. So that's where the $5.2 million come from.

No, that's fair. To the administration, is this the same radio? Because, I mean, I've received a lot of letters that this is the radio that they need, this is the radio we want. And so this radio that we, I guess, presumably at one point we're going to pay $8,500 per radio for, we are now agreeing to pay $6,500 per radio for? Yes.

Had we not asked the questions, and the cosponsor asked these questions, I asked the question, clearly the chairman has asked the question because he now has an amendment. we would have agreed to pay $8,500 per radio for almost 30,000 radios. Because that was the original price that was presented to us as an item for us to sign off on. And so help me understand that, right?

Okay, this is just for corrections, correct? Motorola has already provided radios to our law enforcement officers and to our firefighters, correct?

Okay, the radios that our law enforcement officers and our firefighters received, we paid $8,500 for those radios?

Yeah. Yeah, but what was it that we paid for them?

So here's the point. Yeah, it's to make the point of when we have such a strained general fund, which all of this comes out of. And we, as a body, continuously repeat the need for us to find savings anywhere and anywhere that we can. For us to be presented with an item that originally asks us to pay $8,500 per radio, and you all are able to reduce it rather substantially, although I think $6,500 per radio seems very high, but that's not my expertise and not my I'm trying to understand if we agree to 6,500 per radio for corrections, why did we pay a higher amount, right? If it's the same radio

Okay, and corrections. understand because at the committee hearing you all approached and said we need these radios i asked you know why are you last in line to get these when this item having this 165 million dollar allocation was back in 2022 you all gave an explanation for that now it's my understanding you're getting i guess somewhat slightly different radios but is the different radio that's being proposed for you and your officers is that something that's agreeable to you under this proposed amendment for a reduction in cost of 5.2 million dollars

Okay, thank you. Nothing further, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Gonzales, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, not only for going through the line of questioning, but for bringing the item originally. And I was actually going to call Director Green because I don't think enough is said about the wonderful work that has been done and is being done by our corrections department. These folks don't get enough credit because they are part of public safety. And so I don't want them to get a lesser radio. That's what I'm going to get at. i do want to be able to save money if it is in the best interes

Thank you, Director. And look, we just came out of a consent decree. This is why I want to make sure that we're all being clear. My question was, and I don't know if it's best suited for the gentleman from Motorola. can these radios do everything that we discussed including but not limited to being able to communicate with police officers outside the reason that that's important is because of custody and i'm sure that the director can elaborate or the chief can elaborate but when when you're bringing an inmate into a facility You have to be able to communicate from outside the facility to make

And as for the functions, like for example, there's a function that we discussed where these radios have screens and they can, for lack of a better word, be able to communicate via, I guess, messaging, which is important because if they're in front of 32 inmates and they say something on the radio and now the inmates know, that could be a problem whereas if they're able to communicate via text message not everybody else hears it and now we can make sure that the situation becomes safe so all of the all of the bells and whistles that are necessary to keep folks alive are all of these included i

All right. So, well, I think, so you co-sponsor Prime? Because I need you all to accept the amendment, but. She's the Prime. But 1 thing that I think it's fair, and I know that commissioner is asking me to take the microphone again, and you'll be recognized in just a 2nd, but I think what's fair and I don't want to. Get ahead of you if that's the line, the path you're going in. I'm not sure, but I think it's fair that while we're here. And we've asked. Um, you know, several questions of Motorola, and my amendment is about ultimately getting a better rate for. The taxpayers, because, like, Comm

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the administration, back in 2022, when this contract was awarded, it was a delegate, not a delegated authority. What was it? What was Resolution 682-22? It was a direct purchase, a competitive bid waiver, if you can just remind me. yes commissioner um it was a like a bid waiver at that time in 2022 that was adopted by the board yeah and it was a bid waiver in the amount of 165 million dollars an original five-year term with a five-year otr right that is correct of the 165 million 83 call it 84 million was drawn down um we're going to draw down an additional dollar amou

We've used all $165 million of this company.

It's much more than $3 million per my math.

Thank you, Chief. And let me just be clear on where I'm going with this. And again, I'm not trying to be anything other than clear. The original allocation was for $165 million. On page two of the item that's before us, it says... The resolution established this amount in 165M dollars in 2022 of this amount. 83.9M was for subsequently the contract was modified under delegated authority for a total of 10.6M dollars. And now corrections is asking for. $17 million in change. What I'm trying to understand is that doesn't show a difference of just $3 million. That shows a much larger amount that ha

Okay, so is it the position of the administration that, are you saying that there's only $3 million left on this $165 million ten year contract and we're in year four? This passed in 2022, it's 2026. It had cumulative value of 165 million. We're four years in a ten year contract, and you're saying we only have $3 million left? In unallocated funds?

Right. What's the balance on the 165 million that is not allocated?

Okay, the reason I'm asking is because, I think that, and I'll work with you all off of the microphone on this. I want to pass this item today so that our corrections department can get the radios that they need. But whatever is not allocated in this $165 million through this exercise, what it has made clear to me is that there is room for savings, okay? There's room for savings. And as we move forward through this $165 million allocation for radios in Miami-Dade County, I want us to consider utilizing other companies for the balance of the unallocated amount that I believe to be far in excess

Okay, so good. We're on the same page with that. And so I don't know if I need to bring an item or what I need to do in that regard. But to the eye and to the end of saving dollars, our law enforcement is set, our firefighters are set, our corrections is set. I think everybody would agree they need the radios that they say they need in order to do their job. The rest of our county departments, however, I cannot see us justified in spending $8,000 and $6,000 per radio. And so I am going to be working with you all. to make sure that we are engaging other companies that are offering us a lower pr

All right. Sounds good. So, Commissioner, do you accept my amendment as a friendly amendment? All right. So, and you move your item as amended? All right. It's been moved. It's been seconded by Commissioner Regalado. Seeing no further, Commissioner from District 12, you're recognized.

I just have a question because I think Commissioner Cohen-Higgins brings up some cogent points. And I just... I want to make sure moving forward and I agree with Commissioner Gonzalez. I would hate to come back because this happens too often and then things do not work. The history of Miami Dade County and some of these radios has not been great for those of you who follow the history of Miami Dade County radios. So I would just want to make sure, and both of you are correct, and there's a big difference between life safety issues, fire, police. uh obviously corrections and other departments a

Thank you commissioner. And I, and I agree commissioner Bermudez, which look, not to muddy the waters, but, and I'm ready to call a boat unless there's more dialogue, but. You know, we have to trust at some point and I'm not an expert, right? And certainly not an it and software or technology and certainly not in radios. So at some point. I think we were all right or at least those that may support this item with its amendment. We were all. Kind of informed that this is the way that we need to go and this is what corrections needs for public safety for the safety of our officers. And so that's

Thank you. Now that the item is passed, because I didn't want to, I'm supportive of the item, and I didn't want to necessarily engage the conversation on this item particularly, or specifically. But this item and one of the other items that was on the agenda, Kind of sent me down a rabbit hole of asking questions about how we actually list things in our budget. And I only ask the question because we have previously bought a lot of things and we buy things, for instance, for law enforcement. And that's the sheriff now. Well, some of the times we actually incur debt. And so I ask the question wh

Yeah, because that is, I was shocked, Mr. Chairman, I was shocked by the fact that we're just still, we're still saying that's our, like the debt is all ours. But the property is all someone else's, and we're not even accounting for the debt service in the money that we allocate to them as a part of the budget. So to me, that seems like something we need to be looking at. I think we definitely will.

All right, thank you. And I'm still on the pool list. Are you taking a personal, are you doing an Oliver Gilbert?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oliver, you remember, we talked about this when we first brought the item on the constitutional officers, and that's why we amended all the contracts that came after, saying that they could either take the contracts or we could keep the contracts, and there was this whole back and forth that we did during that process. But I don't think that... We've had that conversation since then. And I think one of the things that we should consider, and obviously we still have the obligation, so we can't transfer it. But I'm sure that we can account for it, and not just wi

Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I think that's exactly the point. So the property actually belongs to us, even though it's always going to be used for them, the debt actually belongs to us. But we're not actually saying, when we're spending the money, that we're spending the money for them. Because there are things that we buy for constitutions that we will never use. And so we need to have that accounting in the money that we actually give to them. And we did talk about it with regard to contracts, ongoing contracts, but we didn't specify with regard to the debt service.

All right, we're going to definitely make this in committee and have a whole discussion on it, so be prepared to the administration. All right. I got 14A4, 14B1 was not pulled, but it's still pending. Can I have a motion to move these? Moved by Commissioner Lopez. Seconded by, who said second? By Commissioner Orbis. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Show 14A4 and 14B1 pass. I have 11A9. 11A9, Commissioner from District 12. You pulled this item. Was it just a co-sponsor? It's the fog loan program, my item.

Co-prime because we were doing the flow. Absolutely. A fog report. And I just wanted to quickly, if I could, ask the administration, if not now, certainly soon, to give us an update because we were supposed to get some of these fog reports in 90 days. Because you know it's been an issue for all these restaurants. It continues to be an issue. I can tell you at the get committee, It was even a gentleman who flew from Raleigh, North Carolina, who wants to open up two restaurants, and it's a problem. It's making the cost of doing business here much more difficult. So I just want to go on the recor

It's getting a little loud in the chamber. Thank you, Commissioner Bermudez. Yes, you led efforts on the fog issue for sure, and thank you for... For co-sponsoring my item and allowing me to co-sponsor yours as well.

Mr. Chairman, may I add my name just as a co-sponsor?

Yeah, absolutely. Commissioner Steinberg and the Vice Chair has added as a co-sponsor on this item, on 1189. All right, with that, I'll ask Commissioner Bermudez to move my item, 1189. It's been seconded by Commissioner Regalado. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. I'll oppose nay. I think, Commissioner, from District 12, you also pulled 11-8-12. Okay. So you'll move 11-8-12? Hold on a second. I believe this one's your item.

Oh, wait a minute. That's the one I have up front. Well, can I have the attorney read the amendment? Absolutely.

Because it's really a cleanup issue for the- The attorney can read the amendment that Commissioner Bermudez has on his item 11-8-12.

Show it amended and moved by Commissioner Bermudez. Seconded by the Vice Chair. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. All right, show Commissioner Gilbert moving 8P3. And seconded by 8P3. Seconded by Commissioner Bastien. I have a polling commissioner, but I understand- It was to vote no. Okay, so all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Nay.

Commissioner Bastian, do you have- Something else, I just wanted to be listed, also be listed as a co-sponsor for 1189.

Okay, show Commissioner Bastian co-sponsoring 1189. Yeah, I'm on 1189. Okay, so show the item AP3 passed, reflecting Commissioner Orbis and Steinberg as no's. All right. 802 commissioner from district 12. All right. And you'll move it. Yeah, it's been moved by commissioner Bermuda. 2nd, by Gilbert all in favor signify by saying, aye. All opposed nay. Um, 8 P 1, that's the 1 that we heard already. And passed 8P4, Commissioner from District 5, you're recognized.

I'm going to look at the addendum that you are talking about.

Let me pause, because I don't know, and I don't want to speak for Commissioner Lopez, but what I'm understanding her asking is not what you're answering. I think you're just not understanding her question right. She's not explaining herself correctly, one of the two. Given the benefit of the doubt here, but I actually have similar questions and I won't jump the gun, but I think are you referring to. The 0 dollar amount, not the 0 hours because of course, we don't know if there's going to be a. Hurricane or not, you know, of course, this is all projections. I think she's referring number. It's

So you negotiated with every company or just with Tetra Tech? You only negotiated with one of the companies?

That is such a yes or no question and I don't even know.

So the fact that they were even referred to the selection committee means that they were responsive.

You're welcome to answer the question and give Commissioner Lopez a response to her very simple question.

All right, Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized, Commissioner Gilbert. You still have the floor afterwards, Commissioner Lopez.

Okay, so I think we just need to slow down and back up a little bit. We don't do an initial responsiveness evaluation for responses. I'm nearly certain that we have to do that. We do.

Okay. Yes. They're all responsive. Correct. So the Commissioner's question was with regard to the FEMA regulations. That all the submittals address it in a way that allowed them to be responsive. And so the answer is yes. Okay, because that got- Wow, wow.

All right, Commissioner Lopez, do you still have- No, that was my final question, thank you. Okay, Commissioner from District 4, I'm skipping to you, but I've got other polling commissioners.

Well, okay, I will then, if you pull the item. No, no, no. Okay, just really quickly on the FEMA, I asked this question yesterday and I'd like a response. Because this is a contract that would be prospective for reimbursement, right? This is from FEMA, which is why she wants to ensure that they're eligible to receive that. So we are eligible to receive that reimbursement. I know that FEMA is going through a process of changing what the floor for reimbursement is going to look like. So I don't know if someone can address that for a moment, just so we can also understand that. Meaning that the a

Is anybody familiar from the administration on these changes coming down the pipeline?

And have we contemplated, well, there is an actual figure, I believe, that is being floated in a proposal. Does anybody have that? Because has that been baked into what we look at in numbers in the event that we are not reimbursed at the levels that we used to be reimbursed at?

Okay. And do we know just the long range of what they're thinking about in terms of?

Are you able to, wait, wait, wait, don't go anywhere. Come back, please. Are you able to answer the question that Commissioner Lopez was asking and then Commissioner Gilbert decided to get all work?

I just want her to answer questions for everything. You can answer questions about parks. I mean, yeah, because that's how you answer a question. Just answer the question.

Okay, all right, well, yes, we will get to that, Madam Director, but Commissioner from District 8 as a pooling commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When this item was presented to us at Policy Council, the number one ranked bidder under the procurement scoring process was bumped. Because we were advised that there was a significant savings and our body can't stress enough how much we're going to advocate for savings. And so it advanced out of committee, and if anybody watched or if you recall from that committee, there were questions that I had, but they were not able to be answered because there wasn't anyone to answer it at the time. And I understand why I spoke with the director after, and there was a very, very e

Okay, so let's stop right there. The 800 differential was where? Who had the $800?

Based on that. Thompson's price as submitted during the bid process was $800,000 lower.

The answer is yes, to her question. But Thompson was lower, $800,000, yes. That's the thing, you just gotta listen to the question.

Okay, Thompson was $800,000 lower. But if Thompson was $800,000 lower, why did Thompson receive a price score by the selection committee that is 10 points lower than Tetra Tech? Tetra Tech got an... Why is that?

Oh, I understand. I see that now. Okay. That makes better sense. Okay. So Thompson got the higher score on pricing than Tetra Tech, but didn't overall get the higher score. I understand. And I apologize for making this more confusing than it needs to be, but I'd really like to understand the difference in the scoring. What was the percentage of the score? I guess it was 100 for pricing, 400 for technical. Explain to me the overtime issue, because I understand that there is an issue with overtime that I need to understand.

Okay, but help me understand, because we've been here before, right? In fact, we're here now on another RFP where we have advocated for strict reading of the RFP language as it's put out. And so this RFP said no overtime, to be considered in this bid. I understand that I'm paraphrasing. I don't have it directly in front of me. But you've said it a couple of times now on the microphone, and I just want to be clear on what the RFP language said specifically regarding overtime. Either you or someone, can they read it to me?

And while you're looking for it, this is the kind of stuff that puzzles me, because it's in the fair collection procurement, right? In fair collection procurement during committee hearing last week, we were told that it's the opinion of the attorneys that we have to strictly comply with the language of the RFP that is written, whether it's pursuant to a past policy of this board or not. Here, we have a representation from the administration on a different solicitation, That there is strict black and white language in an RFP that says no overtime, yet we have a bidder that has bid an amount tha

Correct. Okay. The way that the scoring and the recommendation is currently before the board recommending Tetra Tech, or was this item amended in policy council? Wasn't it amended in policy council? And the amendment reflected to give the contract to Thompson number two?

Okay, and so my question is a simple one regarding overtime, the way that the bid has been written and what's currently before the administration as a proposal. Is it possible that Thompson charges overtime under what was submitted? Is it possible that we get charged overtime? I know there was an asterisk, and I have the asterisk in front of me, although I don't have the language of the RFP. Is it possible that we as a county get charged overtime by Thompson if Thompson is awarded this contract?

I understand. So Thompson, under the terms of the RFP, cannot negotiate a contract that allows them to charge overtime to Miami-Dade County. Is that correct?

I see you approaching. I didn't ask you to approach. I am trying to get my head wrapped around the technical variances of this issue. I would like, no, you can approach. I didn't mean for you. I didn't mean to indicate for you to sit down. And through the chair, if it's okay, if I can ask a representative on behalf of Tetra Tech a few questions. Because here's the thing. I respect that they've been with the county for a while. I respect that they helped us through Hurricane Irma and the Surfside building collapse. And that they've been successful in obtaining FEMA funds on behalf of Miami-Dade

I'm going to put a pin in that because I don't disagree with you. I don't disagree with you, especially when we have another RFP where we're advocating as a county and an administration to follow the black and white ink of the RFP. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't disagree with you, which is why I asked the question for someone to read to me that very critical language in the RFP that stated only flat rate hourly submissions would be considered because I need to know what that language states.

The director has referred to it, the representative on behalf of Tetra Tech has referred to it. What is the language in the RFP state that all of the bidders read prior to submitting proposals on this RFP?

And despite that language in the RFP, no one on the committee or the attorneys found the response from Thompson to be nonresponsive as a result of them, including an hourly rate in their response to the attorneys.

Is that standard procurement language contained in all procurements that Miami-Dade issues?

Wow. I mean, you see where that goes, right? Because that is a shield and a sword. You can use that to justify a lot. So, I mean, you're an attorney. You understand what it is what I'm saying. You're reading one provision that is included in every single RFP that goes out on behalf of Miami-Dade County. Namada and one of the bidders is reading language that is specific to this RFP that said, we're not entertaining overtime. We want flat rates and flat rates overtime. Only and so legally I see what it is that you are saying. Go ahead.

Yeah, and I think this is an interesting position because it's not as though there was an opportunity, or was there an opportunity to file a bid protest on this? Has that window come and gone? Has that opened and closed? That is correct. The window to file a bid protest on this has opened and closed? Correct. Okay, thank you. Nothing further, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner from District 7, you recognize? Thank you.

I don't want to complicate matters more. Time out, Mr.

Chair. Time out. Time out. No mas. No mas.

No, but look, my district was very impacted during Irma. Irma was a high debris storm. And it was very, very expensive. So I've looked at the numbers. And while I appreciate that we're looking at this contract hypothetically, I would love to compare these bids to what occurred in Irma because that has been, for us, worst-case scenario. So there's been a lot of discussion about overtime. I would love to see some empirical information as to what happened with the hours because... During Irma, the county was well positioned in that our contract allowed us more access than the municipalities. Curr

All right. And I appreciate that, but obviously surfside and hurricanes are a little different. But I do know that during Irma we were going around the clock with the debris also. But what you're saying is the reason we don't have those numbers is because since it was a flat rate, we didn't quantify it as overtime.

So this agreement was also used for Surfside? That is correct. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner from District 6, you're recognized.

Thank you. I have a question because there's an IO that is over this type of RFP, correct? I don't know if this is for the director. The IO establishes a time frame for evaluation. And how long was the evaluation time frame for this RFP, for the committee?

But then there's other information in the back of the item that says that the evaluation could not be held within the 30 day window. So are we violating the IO?

I have a question because it says there was four committee members, right?

The fifth one did not, so the fifth one did not get the- But three were replaced and one was included initially but then had to be removed because they were no longer employed by the county. So did we have the same evaluation committee the entire time or did you have to change them out? It says it here on page six of the item. were under other information. So can you clarify what happened with the committee?

Was it a different group of people initially reviewing?

The same five or four? Same five. Reviewed the entire time, but they were not able to complete it within a 30-day required window? Okay. So to the attorneys, did that have any impact on...

the the legality of the rfp no commissioner no doesn't matter okay thank you thank you commissioner so commissioner from district one are you going to wrap this up or should i i mean i'm like running on fumes here but i'll get a second wind do you want to bring this home or should i bring it home i don't i don't have a lot to say i think it's confusing that we have um okay we got others so yeah we're not bringing it home we have what is it uh price requirements

in a solicitation, but then an I.O. that says if you don't comply, you're still not responsive. It's not non-responsive. So I think that's kind of, I don't know that we should be able to deviate in that way. So if something says something in a solicitation, I think the solicitation should govern whether something's responsive. And so we haven't done it in this instance, so it's not really relevant, but probably something we need to take a look at. That type of latitude, having an exception that invalidates the rule probably means that you don't have a rule. So I don't know that we knew that ex

All right, I got Commissioner Bermudez, Bastien, and the Vice Chair.

I have two questions, and I agree with Commissioner Gilbert. I don't know why we have rules if it turns out that we don't follow them. But I'm still confused, if I may ask, Mr. Chair. Is there a possibility that Tetra Tech will charge us for overtime or not? There's no possibility that they'll charge us for overtime, okay. And then the second thing is on the bid protest, this is for the attorneys. Assuming there's a decision made today and either party has an issue, what can they do, if anything?

Okay, and then I guess the last thing would be, well, two more things. Number one would be, and Commissioner Lopez is not here now, but when she asked a yes and no answer, it was very difficult to get a yes or no answer. Which is what complicates it, but I agree with Commissioner Gilbert in the sense that, And I know there's so many procurement ordinances that it baffles the mind. Some of the answers that have been provided today have really confused everyone on this process at least I'm confused I'm like you know and maybe because the answers are nebulous maybe because but I think that we nee

Commissioner Bermudez, you're not the only one confused. I'm also confused, and I think probably you're all confused, and Mr. Chair, it's going to be very difficult for me to vote on this item today. So my proposal to you is whether you should consider a best and final offer for Thompson Consulting and Detroit Tech, you know, so that we can ensure that we receive a competitive offer from both. I'm really hesitant to move forward today with the recommendation without comparing apples to apples. And the more I hear the responses from administration, the more confused I get. So, Mr. Chair, would

Thank you, Commissioner. I don't want to recognize any of you two. You both already went. Well, the vice chair hasn't gone, actually. So, vice chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I didn't have an opportunity to see this item before, so this is my first time. So listening to the discussion going back and forth, I just now want to hear from the Thompson representative, if they can come up and give some clarity and give their position, if that's okay. Or hear from both, both sides would be great.

Let me stop you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. So listen, I'm just getting to the core of the issue here in front of us. How is it that this item was fleshed out in the policy committee And then it comes here, and it's almost as if you guys are preaching your positions to us to then question the procurement side of this ordeal. It's kind of, I'm not going to say confusing, but it's almost as if There was a side of this equation that was never anticipated or discussed. Then now it's coming before before me for the 1st time and asking me to get in the middle of a food fight and make a determinati

I just needed to be answered to help me out. Help me help everybody. That's what I'm asking.

All right. Thank you, sir. And the vice chair has indicated he's done with his questions. But I'd like Tedra Teich to, of course, approach the opportunity to kind of give us a one minute, two minute.

Thank you, sir. All right, I need to bring this in for a landing. So a few things. We need to make a decision today. This contract expires June 30th. We're in the middle of hurricane season. So we need to make a decision. I suspect that maybe we can extend the existing contract 30 days or so, but ideally. You know, this item went to committee, it was discussed. We didn't have all the questions answered there because. We know why. It was said already. And this item moved forward with a recommendation from committee. It followed the process. It was not bypassed. This body doesn't have to vote on

Four of you in addition with me were in that committee. So we need to start moving forward and start and stop putting something that we have the information in front of us. Madam Mayor.

I agree. And I think the attorney should chime in for sure. I think if we go into a baffle, there's complications with that as well. Not that we can't do it, but there's complications with it as well. And it may come back as a bid waiver at that point, right? So in the absence of a baffle, I mean, again, I'm willing to hear from all of you, but I'm prepared to make a decision. I'll start with Commissioner Regalado.

Thank you. It's very concerning to me that we're turning into like a selection committee. This is happening a lot. You know, the reason we have selection committees and we have recommendations is so that we're not put in this position. We can't do a baffle because then it comes back in a way that threatens the FEMA recommendation. But I also think that splitting the baby is not appropriate either because in terms of accountability, when there is a disaster, it's going to be different, right? The reason that historically we've had one company do all of it is so that we don't have a logistical i

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for Thompson. You said that there was nowhere in the RFP that said only flat rates were required. But you heard what was read on the microphone by our administration regarding the RFP written such that flat rates were required.

That makes perfect sense. So your footnote said... And I quote, the hourly rates proposed herein are applicable to regular time hours worked by an employee in a work week. Employee hours worked beyond 40 regular time per ends over time at employee option shall be charged at one. and a half times the proposed rate. That's your footnote.

Okay. So my question to you is, did you do what has been alleged, i.e., lower your rates in your bid proposal, i.e., yielding an $800,000 perceived savings with the intention of bumping up the rates via overtime, which is exactly what your footnote and your caveat says? Because what I'd like to know is, I want savings. We all want savings. The administration has already said, if we were to negotiate with you, we're disregarding that because it runs afoul of the black and white language of the RFP. So my question to you is, can you do the work at the rates that are bid exclusive of any consider

Okay, so I'm going to ask the question again. Are you on the record today representing that you can perform the work at the rates that you bid originally, completely disregarding and eliminating your footnote and your caveat regarding charging time at one and a half times the proposed rate for overtime?

Okay, but that's not practicable, though, because we know that in disaster recovery and relief, our historical data shows that 38% of the time worked is overtime.

Okay, but that's why I'm asking the question. I understand that explanation in that you're going to add, I guess, additional employees to not yield overtime, but then wouldn't that change your numbers? Because you would then necessarily need to hire more staff. So I'm giving you an opportunity here, and I hope you recognize that, because it's your RFP. You gave numbers that are substantially lower than the incumbent, right? For project manager, the incumbent bid $95 an hour, you bid $75 an hour. For a data clerk, the incumbent bid $75 an hour, you bid $32 an hour. And then you put that caveat

I mean- So I think, sir, I think you're a terrible presenter. Okay. Terrible. But I understand what you're saying. It makes sense. But either you're not understanding the question or you're not explaining yourself right. So I think you need to reset. This has happened here before. I recognize that standing at the podium is intimidating, even for executives and business owners and CEOs. I recognize that. You need to reset because what you're saying is what the commission is trying to get to. It's the same thing. You guys are saying the same thing. You really are. But you're explaining it so com

Because you're just explaining it so complex, you're saying what she's saying. You're just saying it so complicated that you're about to just, you're confusing everybody. You're confusing everybody. So do you want to reset and do you want to continue your line of questioning or go to the next person? Are you done, Commissioner?

All right. You're half breath, I'll let you finish because this is, listen, we have disasters in Miami-Dade County, okay? We have disasters in Miami-Dade County. We also have a budget crisis in Miami-Dade County. We need competent professionals that know what they're doing, and I agree with our chairman. I have no questions regarding Thompson's ability to do the work. I am questioning your pricing by your own language included in the bid. And as the chairman stated, we're making a decision today. This is not going to get bumped down the road. My question, I've asked you three times the same qu

Thank you. I appreciate the line of questioning, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. And I understand where the Policy Council kind of brought forward their kind of perspective on things. But I guess I'm going to bring a different perspective to this. As I listened to the conversation, I actually went from, okay, listen, we're going to save money. Well, the FEMA reimbursement. Is what we're really talking about, right? It's not necessarily, we have the outlay, whichever company we give it to up to X amount. Then it becomes a FEMA reimbursement. So we want to make sure that first and foremost, whatever

Okay, Commissioner Bastien, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. It's a difficult situation to be in. And listening to you, Commissioner Steinberg, I'm concerned about the message that we are sending to the business community, too. And... what we think about our procurement process, right? Mr. Chair indicated that this item was discussed at the policy committee and then it passed. But the question I'm asking while listening to Commissioner Steinberg is that if both companies went to the procurement process, one of them scored higher staff uh selected the the the the one that that scored higher why why wasn't that honored why did

And I agree, Commissioner Bastien. My issue with it is the following. My issue is that the whole point of committee is to iron these things out. And if. Staff was not available to answer these questions in committee. And there was confusion and clearly a ton of questions. On this, and now we have done the opposite of what committees intended to do. We have spent hours. On this in the full board, instead of having ironed all this out in committee, because. Whether it was justified as commissioner Cohen Higgins stated that she had an excusable, like someone from. director's office or from procur

I mean, look, the meeting was quick, but they should have just been on time. I mean, the meeting went quick, but they should have just been on time. But so can the attorneys walk me through what what the issue with negotiating with both, i.e. a baffle or call it what you need to call it? What's the issue with that?

So could we just put in all of our solicitations the option for us to do a baffo between the top two bidders, that way giving us the opportunity to actually still stay within the solicitation, but if this board wanted to actually get a best and final offer at any time? Yes. Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe that should be the policy? Maybe we should have in our solicitations going forward through strategic procurement, a baffle option built in so that if we wanted to do that, we could in fact do that and still be within the four walls of that solicitation.

So once we built it into the bid, it would no longer be a waiver. So that's what they're saying, right? And future solicitation. Future solicitation. So it would no longer be, so maybe just from a policy perspective, maybe we ought to probably consider doing that, Mayor.

All right. So our options are very limited. whether to go vote on one today which I think we potentially prepared to do. We can defer it and the company would would have to agree to extending their existing contract. They certainly don't want to leave the county without coverage in the middle of hurricane season. I don't know. The boards will. Because I've done these numbers, I've had discussions on this 10 times, I know that despite the overtime, Thompson is still less expensive. And we're talking about even a 5-6% on the low end, a 5-6% on these numbers is actually not that impactful. But th

I've done the math, and I know you're right, but you've done a lousy job at explaining that on this board, and you got like 60 seconds of fame. You kind of didn't... If you were on The Voice or on one of these shows, you would have been X'd out by the... voice host and and the judges uh but i i know that that's why that's why it's it's frustrating because at the end of the day and the reason i asked about the reimburse because both of you guys both both companies stated you stated you indicated to me at one point that your reimbursement rate is 100 and and tetra tech also said similar they sai

So do you guys get paid as we get paid, or are all the services for Irma already been paid to Tetra Tech? I don't know how this business works. I'm not saying you did it right or wrong. How does it work? Explain that to me.

Thank you for that. And I assume that the same goes for for Thompson. They also alleged the same 100 percent return rate reimbursement rate. So, I mean, it's not one it's not one better than the other. But the reality is. i don't know where you guys get those percentages from because the fact that we're still waiting nine years for irma and i'm sure that yours your company has similar scenarios and other contracts because to this point if it's the state it's the states i i don't know where you guys get that but is there a way for either contract and i don't know what the standard in the indust

Yeah, I figured that would be the answer. All right, I'm ready to take action here. Madam Mayor.

I should with them now, but get it to me, please. Because I asked for that yesterday. I should have probably had it before the meeting. We're not even done with the poll list yet, almost, but not quite yet. All right, so what are we doing?

There's a motion by Commissioner Regalado to move forward with the selection committee's recommendation, right?

We have a second by Commissioner Steinberg. I know I had seconded it already. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show three nays, four nays. The item passes. All right, congratulations. All right, 14B2. Commissioner from District 8. All right, 15B1. Commissioner from District 7, you're recognized.

This is just for an amendment, if the attorneys could read it. Don't worry, I got it. Commissioner Regalado moves one, suspend the board's rule of procedure and waive committee review and the four-week, six-week municipal notice requirement as to item 4A, legislature number 2610162, amend item 15B1 to schedule the public hearing and second reading item 4A at the July 21st, 2026 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Three, direct the agenda coordinator to send the appropriate municipal notices and four, direct the clerk of the board to publish all necessary notices relating to this item.

I got a question. It's been moved. It's been seconded. Commissioner Bermudez, you're recognized.

I just wanted to be clear, Commissioner Regalado. It's only for Key Biscayne, is that correct? Okay, perfect. I'll support it. I just want to remind everybody, I've been banned in Boston. I've never been on the policy committee. Thank you.

hilarious all right all in favor signify by saying aye aye all opposed name show that item passed 14 b2 commissioner from district 8 are you in the chamber

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I pull this item only to ask the administration, if you recall back in December of 2025, we made a motion directing the administration to work with all of our constitutional officers to try and gather as much information as possible as early as possible so that we can be best prepared going into our budget season. And then subsequently, I see on April 9th, our administration sent all of our constitutional officers very detailed letters. asking for those pieces of documents and information. And I would just like to know from the administration how that has been going as we

That was it, Mr. Chair. I pulled the item just because I wanted to know whether or not our constitutionals were working with us pursuant to the motion that we made at the end of December so that we can best prepare going into budget season. And I'm happy to move the item. Thank you. Second.

So the item moved and seconded. Commissioner Steinberg, do you recognize?

Yeah, that's fine. No, I just want to know, when are we getting our mid-year budget?

All right, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. I believe that was our last pulled item. Any other on the pull list?

Chair, you have the addition of the- Do I have any other on the pool list, though, or no? No. Okay, so then can you guide us through? I have some walk-ons for the CBA agreements. Do I need to open up reasonable opportunity for these? Yes, Chair. All right, so reasonable opportunity is we're on the CBA. I think there's six or seven CBA items that are being walked onto the dais now. So we are opening up reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard. I have no speaker in cards, so reasonable opportunity for the, if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on the CBA specifically, y

Yes, which are the CBA's agreements. All right, Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to you and my colleagues for this being late. We're trying to get this done as soon as possible. It was delayed. We have members of different collective bargaining units that are in the audience right now. This basically maintains the status quo. does not contemplate the financial aspects of collective bargaining. That's going to be pending what happens with the property tax relief that their folks will be voting on. I have a motion that actually will go with this also. And as Commissioner Gilbert moves to direct the county mayor and the county that need to

All right, it's been moved as amended. Seconded. Commissioner Bermudez, you may lead.

Yeah, and Commissioner Gilbert, thank you, Mr. Chair. Two things, because when I get something like this this late, I feel like I'm in Dante's Inferno, the poem. You know, you are, and I'm going to trust you, you're saying that the unions are fine with

this the way it's being presented is that correct uh yes and the moving around they're all nodding back in there and let's reflect they're nodding i just want to make sure yeah the moving around is so that we don't they don't have to take this back to their body we're doing the amendment via a memorandum of understanding between us and the collective bargaining units we are not amending the actual document the actual cba so that We know that we're not going to reopen negotiations until January 1st, which is approximately a month after the middle of November deadline when we would have. So the

Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure because I think that they work very hard on these collective bargaining agreements and I don't want them to, it's just, and I know it's January, by that time we should know any of these questions we need answered. So okay, that was my question.

Commissioner Orbis, did you, no? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. These collective bargaining agreements speak nothing to what is missing from these collective bargaining agreements. The reopeners for the purpose of negotiating.

Okay, so these maintain the status quo until January of 2027, specifically in the area of the financials?

Thank you. Are there any questions? Commissioner Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and quick question to the administration. This would not include the PBA and the fire union, is that correct?

Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, Mr. Attorney, can we move all these items at one time as amended? Yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Gilbert, would you like to move the item? I would like to move the items just to the county. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I do want to move all the items at one time, but I want to make clear that the motion doesn't amend the item. We have to take the motion up separately so that they don't have to go back to their collective bargaining units. So let's move the items. I move the items. Seconded. Seconded. All right. So once we vote on that, and then I want to take up this motion as a separate item.

Okay. But just for clarification purposes only, so the motion in itself will impact the- Yes. Yes. These items, but you want to take the motion itself separately for purposes of not having to go back to- Yes. Got it. All right. All right. So, Senate item moves, item second, item 14 AC, item 14 A7, 14 A8, 14 A9, 14 A10, 14 A11, and 14 A12. All in favor? All against? Item passes. All right, now the motion, we're taking up the motion that was submitted by Commissioner Gilbert. Do we have a second by Commissioner? Did you second Commissioner Lopez? All in favor of this motion?

All against? Item passes. Are there any other items on this agenda, Mr. Attorney?

That is correct. Senator Garcia moves to appoint Daphne Gurry to the Miami-Dade County Historic Preservation Board. I move on Commissioner Garcia's behalf. What did my trainer say?

And it's second by Commissioner Lopez. All in favor? All against? Item passes. Motion passes.

Mr. Chair, I have an appointment as well.

Thank you. I'd like to appoint Theodore D. Carranzales to the Miami-Dade County Commission on Disability Issues CODI.

Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All against? Item passes. Thank you.

Second. Seeing a second. All in favor? Aye. All against? So motion passes. Are there any other outstanding issues anyone want to put on the record now? Motion to adjourn? Move. Move. Thank you.