Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Committee - Regular Meeting

Thank you very much. I would ask that Senator Garcia lead us in the invocation and Commissioner DCH, Danielle Cohen-Higgins, lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

Please bow your heads. Dear Father, grant us the wisdom to do your service today, to make sure that we take care of the people of Miami-Dade County in the best way that we can, always keeping you at the forefront of all our actions. With that, we pray in your Holy Son's name. Amen. Thank you. So, county attorneys, good morning. I think at this time it would be appropriate to extend the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we will have a reasonable opportunity to be heard on all non-public hearing items. I don't have any cards before me. I don't know if anyone else has any cards. Seeing none, we will just ask if anyone present wishes to be heard on any non-public hearing item. Seeing none, we'll move. Mr. Attorney, can we proceed to set the agenda?

Yes, I would, please. Does any commissioner want to bifurcate any item?

Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to bifurcate 3J, and I also want to talk about 3F before we set the agenda. Madam Chair, I know that there was a motion, there's some talk about deferring it, but i would like this item to to not be deferred and move to the full bcc so we can make a decision on it because at the end of the day we are rejecting all bids and wanting to re-bid this contract out i think it's important that we don't delay the process and hopefully we can have a decision by by the full board come the next bcc

Does anyone else have any items they wish to bifurcate?

Madam Chair, I have a couple. Yes, please. I have 3A, 3C, 3D, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J. Thank you, Vice Chair.

Commissioner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to pull 3C, 3D, and 3L, and please be listed as a co-sponsor on 1G1.

Thank you. There's no other bifurcations. And I'm going to bifurcate 3F, Senator Garcia, just so that we can have that discussion. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. So do we have a motion to set the agenda? Second.

So I have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, a second. I need a second. I'll second it.

I want her to also be listed as a co-sponsor on 1G1. Thank you. Second.

So I have, any objection? All right, motion carries. All right, so let's move to the first item.

Vice Chairwoman, we'll start with 3A. Okay, I had some questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I see that this one's particularly pertaining to the supervisor of elections. And there's some changes that are happening, but there's also the crosswalk policy in here. And I just wanted to know, because this is a change that's coming a little bit later, is there any other constitutional office that has the same issue that will have to take care of this later with the crosswalk? Or is the supervisor election the last one that needs to do this change?

Okay, so there's there's 3 components to this, right? There's a switch of the filing of the financial disclosures. Those things are switching over.

It's financial disclosures and outside employment, which used to be housed with the elections department.

Okay, and as part of this item, the crosswalk is also included, correct?

Which, so it would be applicable the same as for the tax collector and the other- Exactly, correct. Property appraiser. Yeah. Okay, thank you. No further questions.

I'll move it if it's- We have a motion to move the item. Second. Second by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. All in favor, say aye. So we'll move, Vice Chairwoman, we'll move to 3C. I released that one. You released it, but Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you had pulled 3C.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm certainly supportive of the item. I just have a few questions of the administration. There are millions of dollars of carryover funds indicated here, and it's my understanding that we have passed policy at the board. in different areas that captures 100% of carryover funds and distributes it in different places. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund is one example. There's previous legislation that said 50% of all carryover funds gets automatically swept into that fund. And so my question is, is it accurate that 100% of our carryover funds, assuming that that we ever ha

And thank you for that. But that's a recommendation from the administration. Is that recommendation pursuant to board policies? Or is that just a preferential recommendation being made by the administration?

Okay, and so I'm not sure that I still have a clear answer to the question. I'm not trying to belabor the point. I'll ask it differently this way. I know 50% is allocated pursuant to the board's policies. The other 50%, could we as a board say, we greatly appreciate your recommendation. However, we believe that these funds should be allocated elsewhere, i.e. not into reserves. Could we as a body do that?

Thank you for answering that. So I'm going to support this item now and advance it to the full board. I do, however, want to have discussions with the administration about the allocation of the discretionary portion of the carryover funds as we enter into what we know is going to be a very difficult and tight budget season. I'm not sure that reserves is the best place for those funds, but I look forward to having those conversations with you between now and final hearing. Lastly, kind of going down memory lane a bit, today is May, I'm not sure what the date is, May 13th. Exactly a year ago tod

Thank you, nothing further, Madam Chair. Want to move the item?

Before Madam Chair. I'm happy to move it. Yes, so on the, thank you, Madam Chair. On the carryover, right? I know, I think we have some unreadiness about the carryover. I've been trying to work on policy, but I know that there's a hold out there somewhere. But I think that we should look at how we can use this money to provide relief back to our seniors. If we're able to move this back into the general fund, I think this is a year where it deserves to look at it. I don't know how quickly the administration can do it, but I would like a directive to the administration to let us know how we can use the 4.7 in carryovers for relief for o

That is a direction. I don't think we need a motion for it. I think it's a request. I think that's in keeping with some direction that we had at the last Board of County Commissioners meeting when I said, if there's any property tax relief, we should be looking at it should be those that are 65 and older who need the relief more than anyone else. So I think that that's a great direction. And I think it's in keeping with the direction that came yesterday.

from the last meeting yes i i know that we have to move this forward so i don't know how realistic that will come back but if we can see it before this item comes up for final approval that's that would be my goal through the chair yes you're recognized a point of clarification and i i trust the county attorneys may correct me if i misstep

Yes, so it sounds like if we know what and I think the county attorney said that property tax was one of the items. Is that not correct?

That's exactly what we're looking for. Tax relief. So I believe that what we're hearing is that when that when that mid year budget amendment comes before the board with your recommendation, we could say we prefer to use those funds.

for tax relief which is under the code allowable and we'll move from there senator garcia i know you had a comment i'm sorry sorry well i still have the floor thank you madam chair i just want to clarify because um i i just heard that this is a recommendation but this is not a recommendation i don't know if i'm mixing up the language but this is an ordinance adopting and ratifying the budget adjustments correct so it's not a recommendation we're actually adopting the administration's recommendation which means we're putting the money where you say to put it

Okay, but the 4.7, which is a large sum, is from 24, 25. And do we know what we have from 25, 26?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate that clarification. And I just want to remind us, I think a couple of years ago we tried to change the methodology of the 50% for housing and 50% somewhere else. We have the ability to change it, if I'm not mistaken, correct?

We can always change that because we, a couple of years ago, Madam Chair, before you were here, we had a big debate over this, and this is why they settled on 50%. We, as a board, decided on 50% on housing. And while I recognize that housing is extremely important, affordable housing, if we are entering some budget crunches, we need to be careful on how we budget some of these dollars and not tie our hands. But I just want us to be very clear, understand that we have the ability to change that through a motion or an ordinance and overweigh the rules. So I appreciate that. And I thank you for t

Thank you for that clarification, Senator. So do you want to move the item, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins?

Thank you for that. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Really quickly, just to respond to Senator Garcia's comment. Thank you for saying that. I couldn't agree more. When that ordinance was passed allocating the 50%, we were in a completely different financial situation than what we're in right now. And I have an item that's going to be coming. I look forward to working with you and the rest of this board and the entire body as we maybe relook at things and reconsider how we're going to handle carryover funds moving forward. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. So would you like to move the item?

Perfect. Clerk, you'll do the roll call, please.

So we'll move to item 3D. Both Vice Chairwoman and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins pulled the item. So Vice Chairwoman, if you'd like to start, please.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So it's a rejection of bids, right? So I wanted to ask when we can expect the new solicitation to come back to us. um i this is you know for materials and items construction items i suppose so you know i know that things get more expensive and so are we working to hold the price that we have now to make sure that if we toss out the solicitation it doesn't increase as the time goes by and when can we see a new solicitation in front of us morning director you're recognized good morning through the chair the

Point of clarification, and I don't mean to interrupt, but Director, you said litigation. Legislation, I apologize. Yep, thank you, that's what I thought, thank you.

Okay, so. My question, though, is when we'll see the solicitation come back.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. But I don't know that I got the answer to her question. When will the solicitation go out?

Understood. Any other questions? You had told Commissioner Cohen-Higgins.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I pulled it for a similar question and comment, just making the request that the rejection of bids be re-solicited as expeditiously as possible. That was it, really. I understand the item entirely, and I understand that Compost USA is one of the current contract holders. I don't see them listed as a participating vendor in this particular contract. procurement and I know they're doing good work for the county so I hope that they do rebid if this goes out or when this goes out but my only comment was just that I hope that it's able to be done on a very expedited ba

Do we have a motion to move 3D? So moved. Second. So I have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Millian-Orbis. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. So we'll move now to 3G.

Vice Chairwoman, you have pulled that item. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I see that the constitutional offices are also using documentum. And we've come across a number of contracts that include constitutional offices. But there's constantly a back and forth of whether the constitutional offices are with us, without, not with us, if they've completely separated from the county. In this case, what happens if the constitutional offices choose to stop using this service and want to do their own thing, want to use their own service for this support? What are we doing to kind of unwind ourselves from

I guess my question, before I move to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, based on Commissioner Milian Orbis's question is, who decides that? I mean, are we being collaborative with them and saying, we'll continue until you decide you don't want the services anymore? Is that how we're perceiving this item?

Have any of the constitutional offices expressed an interest to move away from the county services?

Thank you. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. No?

I had a follow up question because now the constitutional offices are separate from the county, right? So this documentum service supports a lot, it says it here in the item, massive amounts of county data. Is all that protected, separated so that our data is not mixing with the constitutional offices and vice versa?

Any further? No, thank you. Thank you. So do I have a motion to move the item? So moved. Second. I have a motion by Vice Chairwoman. Millian Orbis and seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. So we'll move to 3G. Vice Chairwoman, you pulled that item. 3H. I'm sorry, 3H.

Yeah, I just wanted to vote no on it. Okay.

I have a motion to move the item by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Do I have a second? Seconded by Commissioner Gonzales. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Commissioner Millian-Orbis is opposed. Thank you. Motion carries. So we'll move to 3L. And it was pulled by- Is that J? Did you- No, we did H. No, we did H, sorry. Okay, I'm sorry. No, no, it's okay. So 3i was pulled by both Vice Chairwoman Millian Orbis and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, so Vice Chairwoman.

I have a lot of questions about this item. For example, I didn't know that we were buying golf products to sell at our parks. And I understand we have a number of golf courses in the county. I wanted to ask, how profitable is this really for us? Because we're, from what I see on the item, we're spending 700,000 to buy these items and Maybe 50,000, but given the fact that our parks are so under fire every single year, is this the best use of our money for parks?

Yeah, well, with all due respect and I appreciate the explanation and I understand it's revenue generating. I just have unreadiness with this because our parks were under so much fire last year, right? And we were considering cutting lifeguards. So for us to be doing a bid waiver to buy golf items, it doesn't sit well with me, and that's just me personally. Nothing against the golf courses. I hope that we make millions of dollars off of this, but that's just me personally. I think that we're waiving authority to buy items, and we really don't know how much we're going to generate off these ite

Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, quick consult. Okay, Commissioner Gonzalez, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And to the director, I happen to agree with Commissioner Orbis. I'm not saying that this is bad, and I'm not saying that it's good. But what I am saying is that we need to look at this from a Private sector perspective, if we're going to be in the business of selling goods, which you're telling me that we're selling these goods to folks that come to the golf courses and these are things that they need. We need to make sure that it's profitable. Nobody goes into business to not make profit, which I'm sure that you're aware of. I think her question was how much money we'r

For this year, the past two years, we made 873. Correct.

Got it. And maybe from procurement, or I don't know who can validate how much we spent as opposed to how much we made. Because with these numbers, if we spend less than this, then this is a great idea.

53% profit margin. That was great. That was awesome. We should lead with that, respectfully, because this is a great initiative. You see what I'm saying? No further questions.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? So do we have a motion to move the item? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins moved the item. Commissioner Gonzales seconds it. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Commissioner Millian-Orbis is a no. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So we'll go to 3J. Senator Garcia, you pulled 3J? Vote no. Vote just to vote no? Okay, do I have a motion to move the item? I have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Do I have a second? 3J?

Yeah, but if you want to move. Yes. Yeah.

I'll second it, but I just have some questions. Go ahead. I have a motion and a second. Vice Chairwoman has got some questions.

I wanted to ask if the leases of these vehicles include electric buses and the electric vehicles as well.

A question by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Millian-Orvis, for pulling the item. This item is specifically and only for leasing fleet vehicles, and it's $80 million. Have we done an analysis of whether or not it's more cost-efficient to the county to lease versus to buy vehicles? Every year we have an item at the beginning of the year asking us for $100 million to purchase new vehicles because of our aging fleet, and now we have $80 million leasing. In leasing, how do you all make a decision between leasing versus purchasing vehicles? And have you all done an analysis on what's most co

Okay, I didn't mean to catch you off guard on it. I'm happy to work with you between now and final hearing as this item travels. But the item didn't really speak to that. And I know we do always have a fleet item for always over $100 million. And so it raises the question when we're spending so much on leasing. And if you're not prepared to answer now, that's great. I'll work with you between now and final hearing. But I would be interested in that cost benefit analysis.

So I have a motion on the floor and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Commissioner Garcia is a no. Thank you. So now we're at the end of commissioner.

Yes. Okay. I have that, and I also have item 3C. A sponsor has requested that that item also be waived and moved to the May 19th. So there's two items.

So I have item 3L before I go to 3F, Senator. So yes, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, 3L.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I pulled 3L. I certainly am supportive of this item. I know it's a long time in the making. But I do need some clarification because the sponsor of the item is not the district commissioner, and this involves a conveyance of land. And so when we're conveying land, our rules don't allow us to convey land in other commissioners' districts. I cannot say I'm going to convey a parcel of land in Commissioner Garcia's. District, unless there's a two-third vote, I think either of the members present or what have you. So I need to know, and I'm glad that the sponsor is here. I w

Happy to move 3L, and thank you for being here, and thank you for providing that clarification. Thank you. So we have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Senator Garcia, we're now ready to look at 3F.

Thank you, Madam. Madam Chair, I'm looking at 3F, and 3F has to do with a contract solicitation for fair collection applications as a software system. There has been some questions as it relates to this RFP, but the reality is that the administration is looking to defer the item. I'm thinking it's important for us to move the item to the county commission, asking the administration with a certain number of items as it relates to the scoring mechanism and the amount of the money is associated with this because what my understanding is, Madam Chair, is that there was one of the awardees came in

Is there any discussion? Yes, Commissioner Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not necessarily against this item or the deferral, but I do have a variety of questions as to how we got here. Just because I want to understand it further. If I can get somebody from the administration, why exactly are we asking for a deferral?

Both directors are recognized to answer any questions of the committee members.

Got it, so we're trying to work it out with the company, but as I understand, we've had this contract since 2008, is that correct?

Understood. When was the solicitation initially put out, like the solicitation to replace?

So this solicitation process, the procurement process in general has taken about almost a year, correct?

Why was the possibility of working with the current vendor not explored prior to issuing the solicitation in the first place? Because it seems like the current vendor is open to fixing the issue. Did we explore having them fix it before we even put out a solicitation?

Mr. Chairman, I mean, Madam Chairman, if I may, again, and I appreciate your line of question, if I may, because these are the issues that we have. And again, why was that not explored beforehand? Is there issues with that? We have now an RFP that we have two vendors before us, and now we're thinking of exploring, oh, let's talk with the other vendor. this is why i think instead of getting into the whole conversation debate over this move this forward let's get the information look at the two vendors that were selected the two top vendors give us all the pricing points make sure we clarify tha

You can certainly make a motion, and if there's a second, I'd like to give at least Commissioner Gonzales and anyone else who just has a comment. But if you're making a motion, what would your motion exactly be?

Listen, I would move that we reject. I'm going to read it, Madam Chair, just to be on spot, all right? I move that we reject the recommendations by the mayor and that we direct the marriage present to the board. a report to assist the Board in the ultimate allocation of price points among the two highest technically qualified proposals. And it should include pricing sheets and analysis of what was included or excluded in the pricing offered together with an estimate of any excluded items. That's the item, Madam Chair.

Second. So we have a motion by Senator Garcia, a second by Commissioner Millian-Orbis. Under discussion, Commissioner Gonzalez, are you continuing, please, your line of questioning?

Madam Chair, I have a variety of questions to go through, but I will go with the will of the Chair. I don't mind voting this up.

I can definitely meet with staff, and then if not, we can go through the line of questioning during the BCC.

Okay, so I think in the interest of time, if you don't mind getting with the administration on some of your questions. If there's any other, do you have, so I know that Commissioner Cohen-Higgins wanted to have a comment as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is super interesting, because we don't typically get a rejection of all bids, especially on a contract of this size with this many participants. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine or so. Maybe my math is not so good, but I think I can count. Nine or ten participants, and the justification for rejecting all bids Is that the incumbent vendor is proposing. Help me understand because in the item, what it says is you all received a lot of objections. That's the language in the item that you were recommending a rejection of all bids because. You all

But when the question was just asked by Commissioner Gonzalez, the answer was very different, because he asked the same question.

Okay, in fairness to you, you're right. You did distinguish deferral from rejection of all bids. And the explanation you just gave was an explanation as to why you're recommending a rejection of all bids, ambiguities, FTA funding, I get that. But the reason for deferral, you said, was to work with the current contract holder for better pricing. So now I'm authentically confused.

So you're- Madam Chair, and I don't mean to cut her off, but this is exactly the line of questioning that I have just to get to the bottom of all of this. I'm not saying that they're doing anything wrong. I don't think that they're doing anything wrong. I just want to get to the bottom as to why we're here in the first place. I don't mind sending it to the BCC and having this discussion at the BCC. I also don't mind the deferral, but the line of questioning that I had was specifically to answer that question and to answer why we're in the deferral process in the first place.

No, and I appreciate that. I believe that there's so much confusion right now, and clearly amongst the committee members here, I hear your concerns, and I certainly hear the Senator's concerns about so many things. I think there's a laundry list now, but here's what I would say. In the interest of time, because there appears to be lots of questions about this, we need to get our answers, and I think the Senator's motion actually directs the administration to answer these questions. So I guess I would say, with all the questions that everyone seems to have, maybe what we can do is submit your q

So I have unreadiness with moving this to the full board, because We say time and time again that committee is where we are tasked with fleshing these things out. But I understand where the senator is coming from because I understand the import of the item. So I am not sure where I land on the motion to advance it to the full board. Because what we're going to do is we're going to end up being the selection committee, because there's no recommendation for 1 awardee. And so I wonder what the ultimate outcome is going to be. Is it is it you are you envisioning us making a decision at the full bo

And then if I may, you know, I think we've done this quite quite a few times already in the past. I want to would like to advance it so we can continue to have the conversation understanding very, very well that there is two vendors right now that are at the top. There's a $20 million spread between both of them. And I think from here to the time that we get to the county commission, I think we can all sit down with the administration, have conversations and figure out where we land on this item and get the clarification that we need again. My concern is trying to delay another RFP, making it

And I guess I would respond that I... see a process problem here and potentially an ongoing process problem of which maybe this item should have been directed to the Transportation Committee to discuss fully transportation issues because now we have now we have an offer to with the current vendor to potentially do better and we have the RFP that you know went out and seemingly appears to be flawed from what the administration says so that I think I would have moved this item to transportation, and I know the chair's here, and he probably would disagree with me or agree with me. But out of proc

Well, Madam Chair, if I may, I mean, it's an item that has economic impact, and I think that's why it's here. No, clearly. Well, yes, but that's why we're reviewing it.

Madam Chair, if I may, I think the motion stands. Look, the reality is this is the first time we've done this. It's not going to be the last time. And we, as a board, have dealt with much more complicated issues and are dealing with much more complicated issues. I think by advancing this, we send a message that we need to look at our processes and we're not going to hold our private companies that are doing business with the county hostage. move it forward, we'll have the conversations that we need to have, and then we make a decision. By the time it gets to the full board demonstration, give

So Senator Garcia, I don't disagree with you. But the question is, are you okay with us advancing it without recommendation? Because I don't think that you support the item as it stands, because the item is requesting a rejection of all bids, which I'm not gathering from you that you're supportive of that. So do you recommend advancing it without a recommendation?

We could advance it without the recommendation and, you know, looking at the two top vendors, I think there was two vendors that were at the top and looking at different price points, spreading that out so we can get a clear understanding as how it was done and moving it forward without any recommendations. I'm perfectly fine with that.

Okay. And follow up question. This item that's on our agenda has six pages. Where are you seeing rankings of vendors or is that something that you obtained? So vice chairwoman. I don't see a ranking of vendors in our- I'm asking for that ranking.

I wanted to add because I was very surprised that a rejection of bids came through without a score sheet or anything, nothing. I received it once I asked for it. I got it this morning at some point. So I think when we have a rejection of bids, we need to have that information so we know exactly what we're looking at. And I was shocked to see the price differences between these different competing companies, there is a huge difference in price. So I'm not sure how the weight was placed on price in the scoring, but that leads me to many, many more questions than I'm sure my colleagues have as we

And so although I don't disagree with Senator Garcia, I'm comfortable with moving it to the full board. I think that there's an explanation for all of this. This is why I had the line of questioning. I don't think I would be comfortable deferring this without going through the line of questioning because I want to validate that a deferral would be proper here. I would support sending this to the full board, but to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' point, knowing that this is going to be a long one. But otherwise, I would not support a deferral. I'd like to go through the questioning if we want to co

So we have a motion on the floor and a second to move the item to the full board without recommendation, I believe. Senator, are you good without a recommendation? I'm told by the county attorneys that if we move that motion, we have to clean it up a little bit.

If we can clean it up, because I want to make sure that we send it to the full board with all this information that we were requesting.

Let's hear from the county attorney. Bruce, you're recognized.

Yes, that's fine. I'm fine with that, guys. Hey, we're getting the details. At the end of the day, it's coming back to the county commission, so yes.

Let me just ask real quick, is the maker of the motion in agreement with what was read into the record? Okay, and is the second, who seconded the item? Commissioner, Vice Chairwoman, I'm sorry. The maker of the motion agrees to the amended language that was read into the record by Bruce. Are you good with that? I'm good with it, yeah.

Yes, I understood that. I think the maker of the motion understands that, but I think there might be some question on the committee. Sorry, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins.

Okay, so just to recap, the motion that I heard Ask for a report on only the top two. There were nine or 10. I don't want just the top two. I want to see how everybody scored. Why not just give us everything? Do you have an objection to that? Okay. And then the second part that I have a question on your motion is to reject the mayor's recommendation of rejecting all bids. Is that correct? I'm not sure that I'm ready to do that. I'm not sure that I'm ready to reject the mayor's recommendation. I thought that's the whole purpose of advancing it to the full board so that we could have that discussion at the full board, which is why we're advancing it without a recommendation.

We will still have a conversation at the full board.

But I feel like the motion goes too far. I think that's my point. I'm comfortable advancing it without a recommendation so the full board can have a discussion with all of the information.

Yeah, just because I don't want... There's 10 bidders here. And if we're not going to get into it in committee, I don't want to advance it excluding anybody from the potential of what we're going to do, whatever that may be, at the full board.

I think by... I've seen this board, when we've ranked one, two, and three, I've seen this board go with number five. So this is why I think we're putting a lot more detail and emphasis on things that we still have control over as a full board. So if we advance the first two, we still have the option to access the other eight. But if you feel more comfortable with that, I'm okay with it.

Oh, yeah. So now I'm even more. I certainly do not feel comfortable only advancing.

No, that's fine. If you want this, we'll advance them all together and you get a scoring sheet from all of them. So we'll see. The reason I picked the two, because those are the top two normally, you know, and there was such a price point differential between number one and number two. So that's why I go. Let's pick those two. Let's get analysis on those two. But if you feel comfortable, I'm feel comfortable getting analysis tonight. Or six or whatever it was there and move that forward without a recommendation, that's perfectly fine.

Thank you, especially because Commissioner Gonzalez in fairness said, I have a whole line of questions and I want to do that now, but we said we're going to do that at the full board. And so if we're going to do that at the full board, I think it's only fair to advance the whole thing so that all of the board can consider all of the candidates. Perfect. Thank you. So to our attorney, I don't know, you need to read another motion, please.

Hang on for a second, if you would, Bruce, because I think Commissioner Gonzales has a few remarks and so does Vice Chairwoman Millian-Orbis. Commissioner Gonzales, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And this is precisely why I did want to go through the line of questioning, because towards the end of my questioning, I wanted to ask why there was five That were considered and then there's there's an issue as to how many could present and then I don't know how certain people ended up presenting, but then they weren't supposed to present. So I just wanted to get to the bottom of all of that.

And Commissioner, that was one of the reasons why I thought this should rightfully go to the Transportation Committee to sort out all of those details before it came to this committee. Because I think the Vice Chairwoman is right. It has to do with money, but there is a process issue here. And we're now going to ask the board to go through, really, a whole selection, which I'm not certain, in fact, is something that I want to support.

Yeah, and respectfully, Madam Chair, I think that if we did go through the line of questioning that I had, I think that we can all get clarification and we can make a decision today. I'm not against it going to the Transportation Committee, but I certainly would like my questions answered.

Yeah, no, of course. And I think it would have been a committee that all of this would have been flushed out. I'm afraid flushing this completely out now, because now it's like all of the people who responded to the RFP. And in a fact, we'll become the de facto selection committee. And we're going to spend commission time actually going through the process the administration should have gone through. And I know that, Commissioner, are you done with your comments? I'm sorry, I didn't want to cut you off, because I know Vice Chairwoman Milian Orbis wanted to say a few comments.

I mean, look, my two cents was just I'm prepared today to get to the bottom of this and make a decision and go through the committee process here. But I am not opposed to sending this to the full BCC. But I mean, I am going to have questions at the full BCC.

Vice Chairwoman Leonorvis. I'm obviously supportive of the motion. I was a seconder. I think that I've heard our colleagues. I think this was here. I think this will be a very, very lengthy discussion to flesh out at the commission meeting. And I think I would make an amendment to send it back to our committee for the next committee meeting. Send this item back with everything else and just instead of BCC sending it back to our next scheduled committee.

But respectfully, why not just do it now?

Yeah, it's in committee now. Madam Chair, that in itself is the deferral itself. So the reality is we do this to ourselves so many times, Madam Chair, that we have a lengthy conversation and debate to end up in the same place. If we move this forward with With what Commissioner Cohen-Higgins recommended, with analysis of all the parties, we look at the price points at all points, at all levels. Then in itself, it goes to the full county commission, and then we could get a report from the mayor's office determining who, what, why, and where. And then we can make that determination at that point

Before we move forward, the commission chairman has joined us, and I want to recognize him, Commissioner.

We appreciate you, Mr. Chairman, for clarifying the committee structure and its roles. Let me just, I think we had a motion on the floor. The seconder wants to amend the motion, and she is wanting to amend the motion to have all of this be discussed at our next committee meeting. Is that correct, Vice Chairwoman? So does the maker of the motion agree with that?

I'm going to vote no. So you guys, it's my motion. You can do whatever you want, but again.

Are you withdrawing your motion then if you don't agree with the amendment that the seconder made?

What is the amendment? We're going to ask for that information to come back to the full board? Yes. It appears that that is exactly what- If that's the case, what you all want to do, it's perfectly fine.

I believe it does, but it also includes any questions that the committee has that they will forward to the administration. Because I don't know if that language encompasses all of the questions that Commissioner Gonzalez has. So, yes, a report that at least includes that and other items.

Madam Chair, what the report does with the amendment? It really is listing out all the vendors by price points and comparing them so we could compare apples to apples. And that's what the actual amendment will be doing. So yes, and it includes Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' inclusion of all the vendors that did the RFP.

It does that, but it also should include the process. Yes, that's right. How we got here, which is what Commissioner Gonzalez is trying to do. He's trying to trace how we actually got here to this point where there is so much confusion.

All right, so- And again, Madam Chair, the Chairman just came out and said that we should hash this out in committee. I just want to reiterate, I am ready to go through these questions right now, whether they're prepared or not, respectfully.

We, I would appreciate if we would, you know, we have a committee of the whole meeting that is scheduled for immediately following this, and we're already over time. So I want to just make sure, because we also have a public hearing item that still needs to be heard before we adjourn. So I believe, Commissioner, Senator Garcia, are you withdrawing your motion? No. You'll keep the motion? Okay, so the amended motion is exactly, Bruce, what you had anticipated. Can you please clarify the motion, Bruce, so that everyone knows what they're voting for?

Okay, so that's the motion and we have a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Commissioner Gonzales is a no. Thank you. So we're going to move to the public hearing item. I do not have any speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Attorney. I do not have any speaker cards, but certainly if anyone is here to speak on item 1G1, you may approach. Seeing none. Does anyone have any questions on 1G1? Any questions, comments? Do I have a motion to move the item? Move 1G1. So I have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Vice Chairwoman Milian Orbez. All in favor say aye. Aye.

I'm sorry, we need a roll call on a public hearing. My apologies. If the clerk would please call the roll call.

Thank you. We have one final item of importance. It's a discussion item. I want to go through just really quickly what has happened with Senate Bill 1134 that we know as the DEI bill. So the bill was in fact signed by the governor a couple weeks ago. The bill broadly prohibits counties and municipalities from funding or promoting directly or indirectly or taking official action as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion. For purposes of the bill, diversity, equity, and inclusion generally means county action, preferences, benefits, training, programming, or activities tied to race, sex,

I can answer this question. It's not in the name. It's in the activity. And it's not any activity. It's the activity that would be funded with taxpayers' dollars or any kind of funding from a county. Yes, there would have to be due diligence on our part, and the bill does speak to a certification by those who receive the funds that they will not spend that money on any activity that is not allowable under the bill.

I believe the county attorney's office is going to be that for us because again it could be that we're going to need very specific facts around any specific funding request. I'm just cautioning all of us that we have discretionary funds we also give out so I would I would just say I would say govern yourselves accordingly, be conservative, always check with the county attorney's office. Always, always. They will be the guide to this because I could not agree with you more, Commissioner Gilbert. This is the most sweeping legislation I believe ever seen passed by the legislature, but it has very

I know this will be lots and lots of discussion around this when the county attorneys bring it back. I just thought it was important to tell, obviously, the Economic Impact Committee that we are now going to be faced with the consequences of this bill. And I wanted to just do a very high level discussion. That's why I made sure to read it into the record so that everyone is now aware that come January 1st, 2027, The world, as we saw it before, has dramatically been revised by this bill. And so I want to thank the county attorney's office for their hard work. I, for one, have read the bill eigh