Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

. .

Bye. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. I know that's...

May I jump in?

Of course.

Thank you.

Thank you.

these great women. Take a seat. Let's get this show started. And I will confess ahead of time, I did not pay attention in my briefing. So I don't know the run of show very well. All right, let's take a seat so we can get started to honor these great, beautiful, powerful, prestige women. 8.15 a.m., arrival and seating. I said I did not pay attention to my briefing, so I'm winging it.

You're winging it.

I am. You know what? I'm going to do something I don't usually do. I'm going to read the script.

Okay, read it.

I'm going to read the script. I don't usually do that. I never do it. But you know what? I'm going to honor my team for being so efficient in writing these words, and I'm going to actually just read it. And I haven't read it before, so hopefully it's all correct. all right good morning and welcome everybody good morning and welcome please take your seats please take your seats i promise you will get the pictures and videos and all the good stuff when the time comes for your preferred recognized beautiful powerful woman thank you all for coming i want to thank everyone for joining us today as we honor the 2025 And 2026, Miami-Dade County Women's Hall of Fame inductees. And I'm going to go off script here because it's what I do. So this is actually a very special one. Very special one. I won't get into the politics too much, but those that follow politics know what I'm about to say. This is a very special one because this might, maybe, might be, unless the lawyers get creative, this might be the last one that we are allowed to do in Miami-Dade County. based on some state legislature that passed. So this is a very special one. So congratulations to all of those that are here today. I want to recognize the Miami-Dade County Commission for Women and the Board of County Commissioners for their partnership in celebrating these extraordinary women. I also want to acknowledge my fellow elected officials, community leaders. I saw Dariel and others. Dariel no se pierde ni una. El presidente de Cuba. You know you're the only male receiving our recognition today, did you know that? But again, acknowledging all my fellow elected official, community leaders, family members, friends, and all of our distinguished guests here this morning that came out to support our honorees. Today is about more than a recognition, it is about celebrating leadership, perseverance, service, and the lasting contribution that these women have made and continue to make in our community. Each of today's inductees have helped shape Miami-Dade County through dedication, excellence, and a commitment to public service. I want to congratulate our 2025 inductees. So I want to get a few words from our chairwoman. Where's our chairwoman? Come on up, Daniels. So say a few words, and then I'll start calling them up so that we can officially honor them.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Chairman Rodriguez. On behalf of the Miami-Dade County Commission for Women, it is both an honor and a privilege to welcome you to the Women's Hall of Fame inductee ceremony. Today, we gather not only to recognize achievement, but to celebrate the power of women whose leadership, dedication, and service have strengthened our community and inspired others to dream big, serve greater, and lead with purpose. The Miami-Dade County Women's Hall of Fame was established to honor women whose contributions have left a lasting imprint on our county. Today's honorees represent the very best of Miami-Dade County. They come from diverse professions and backgrounds, including government, public safety, education, civil leadership, philanthropy, and the arts. While their journeys may be different, they are united by a common commitment to excellent service, and creating opportunities for others. Their stories remind us that leadership is not measured by titles alone. It is measured by the lives they touch, the barriers they break, and the doors they open, and the legacy they leave behind. These remarkable women have used their talents, influence, and dedication to make a meaningful difference in the lives of countless individuals throughout our community. Their contributions have strengthened Miami-Dade County and helped pave the way for future generations of women and girls to follow. Today, we proudly celebrate their accomplishments, and ensure that their contributions become a permanent part of rich history, legacy of Miami-Dade County. So on behalf of Miami-Dade County Commission for Women, congratulations to the distinguished members of the Women's Hall of Fame. Thank you for your leadership, your service, and your unwavering commitment to make our community stronger. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. All right, so now I will officially congratulate and call up each one of you one by one. You will receive your award, your recognition, you will say some words. So I hope you prepared like a really long speech, under one minute. And then we'll do that, and then at the end we'll also, you know, we'll do photos, and then at the end we'll do a group photo as well, and family and friends will have the opportunity to take photos as well. So I will start, actually I'm gonna do it opposite. I'm gonna leave the house for last, right? That's not the etiquette, like you leave yourself for last? That means you, Mayor. All right, all right. So, all right, I'm gonna start with our sheriff, Rosie Cordero-Stutz, come on up. Come on up. Thank you. We got a beautiful recognition here and we have a proclamation as well. So I'll read, I'll read the part that I like to read, which is just about, I'm not going to read the whole thing, but be it resolved that the mayor of the county, Danelle Levine Cava, uh, myself as chair, Anthony Rodriguez and the members of the board of County commissioners on behalf of Miami Dade County. Uh, and it's nearly 2.8 to 3 million residents do proclaim today, Tuesday, June 2nd as Rosie Cordero studs day. So congratulations. We'll hold it for you so you can say a few words.

I did write a few words. I promise it's not long. I promise. All right. I just didn't want to forget.

It could be as long as you want, just under one minute.

Yeah, please. I'm not going to lie. I don't have my glasses. I'm going to hold it about here.

Hey.

Hello. Good morning, everyone. It's really an incredible opportunity to be here amongst incredible, incredible leaders, women in this community. To be inducted into the Miami-Dade County Women's Hall of Fame is both humbling and deeply meaningful. And I'm really, really proud to stand alongside so many amazing women for their leadership, their service, and determination to have made a lasting impact on our community. This recognition is not mine alone, it belongs to the mentors who guided, the colleagues who stood beside me, my family who supported me, and the dedicated men and women of our Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office who serve with courage and commitment every single day. I have been fortunate to spend my career serving others, and I accept this honor as a reminder of the responsibility we all share as leaders with purpose. Thank you for the recognition. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Sheriff. And we love you. We honor you. We thank you for your service. And we thank you for being a law enforcement officer first, an elected official second. So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Thank you again, Sheriff Cordero Stokes. All right, next. Where's Mary? She gets jealous sometimes. Oh, Mary's not in the chamber, thank God. The supervisor of election, Alina Garcia, come on up. So Alina, we thank you for not just being an advocate, a pioneer, a trailblazer for women, but I have to say like a 30 second story about Alina. One that I've never said publicly and I probably shouldn't say in the chamber. But when Alina and I met, we didn't meet under these circumstances. You see, Alina happens to be one of the most loyal people that I've ever met. I mean, hands down. And my first run, which I lost that race, I ran against someone that is like a child to her, like a second son to her. And that person and I could speak normally, but Alina couldn't speak to me. Because she was that loyal and just felt, she disliked me just because I was running against this person. Which, by the way, that person was running against me because I filed first. But no one's really keeping count of that. But today I'm honored to call you my friend and someone that I love dearly. So congratulations. Very well deserved. And they all say the same thing that I read for her.

I'm going to read this. Since I'm old school, I use paper. Yes, I agree.

She's also bossy.

Very bossy. I love you, too.

I want to begin by thanking the amazing Miami-Dade County Commission for Women, the Chairman and Board of County Commissioners, and my fellow honorees and everyone joining us today. While this is very special and a personal honor, the greatest honor for me is being recognized along these extraordinary women, leaders, trail-bracers, and dedicated public servants who are making a positive impact on our community and whose contributions will be felt for generations to come. My message today, especially to the young girls who may be watching, is simple. You can achieve anything you set your mind to do. Dream big, work hard, and never underestimate your ability to make a difference. But opportunity does not happen by accident. It is made possible by the freedoms and the rights we enjoy through our democracy. And one of our most powerful ways we can keep our democracy strong and to ensure that the doors of opportunity remain open for future generations is by exercising our right to vote. The midterm elections are coming up, and I encourage everyone to make your voice heard and participate in our democracy. May God continue to bless our wonderful country and each and every one of us. Let's vote Miami Dade. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm not going to sell you short. I'm going to keep reading this over and over for each and every one of you. You all deserve it.

No, of course. All right.

Be it resolved that our mayor of the county, myself, as your chairman, Anthony Rodriguez, members of the board of county commissioners, on behalf of Miami-Dade County and on behalf of Daria Fernandez, proclaim today, Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026, as Alina Garcia Day. Oh, wow. All right. Picture. That's it, people.

Take a tiny step back on this side. Here we go.

Alrighty, I'm going to skip one because it's the one that couldn't come. Gloria Stefan is also an inductee, but she's somewhere filming, I think, in New York right now. So, yes, I'm assuming she's filming. She has like a new show coming out, right?

On Broadway.

On Broadway. Oh, pretty cool. All right, so make sure to follow that. But Gloria Stefan is one of ours as well. So congratulations to Gloria Stefan. She couldn't be here, but... All right, someone that I've known for a good amount of time now, time kind of catches up to you. I felt like we just met, but no, it's been almost a decade already, if not a decade, is someone that I call a friend, president of FIU, Jeanette Nunez, come on up. So talk about a real trailblazer. Someone that, when I met, was, I was gonna say just, but that's not just, and I was in that role too, so I won't diminish it, but was a state legislator in the Florida House. Then goes on for even bigger and greater things to become lieutenant governor of the great state of Florida, the free great state of Florida. And then just when you think she's gonna go back to private life and, you know, get away from this all, she takes on the role of president of one of our most prestige universities in the entire state of Florida. So the real meaning of a trailblazer is standing beside me right now. So congratulations, very well deserved, Jeanette.

Well, good morning. Thank you, Chairman, for that kind introduction. And to the fellow honorees, well-deserved. I am so honored to be in such illustrious company. You call me a trailblazer, but really and truly, my mom is a trailblazer. She was the one that paved the way for me, and I'm so thankful. And for me, my three guiding principles are faith, family, and freedom. Faith, because without that, we can do nothing. I honestly believe that God has blessed me and the ladies here in front of me as well. And truly, you have a lot to do as elected officials. You accomplish many great things. You pass legislation. You work on the budget. And that's all important. But what really is important is how you leave your impact and your legacy. And I believe faith, for me in particular, is so important. When you talk about family, I mentioned my mom. She came to this country, she barely knew the language, came with nothing more than the clothes on her back, but yet she was able to work and to accomplish great things at a time when it was very easy for women to be executives in the private sector. And so I'm so blessed that I had her as an example. And then lastly, freedom. We're celebrating America 250. We are blessed to live in the greatest country in the history of the planet. And we have a responsibility to ensure that we leave it better for the next generation and that we provide examples. So for my own daughter and for many daughters that are here and watching, just know that you can have an impact. You can leave a legacy. But nothing should be more important than your faith, your family, and promoting freedom. So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you to all the commissioners for being here.

Thank you. Madam President, and with that, be it resolved that, again, the mayor of the county, Daniel Levin Cava, myself as your chair, members of the Board of County Commission, and on behalf of the 2.8 plus million residents of Miami-Dade County, and of course, as you know, my friend, Daria Fernandez, we proclaim today, Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026, Jeanette M. Nunez Day. So, congratulations. I know, Daria did not sign it, but we're going to get his signature. He has this for you, too. He has this.

What do you call your signature?

What is it, a citation? It's like he's... It's not a parking one. Yeah, no, it's not a parking citation.

All right, here we go. I'll get right here. Thank you.

All right, second to last, second to last. We're good on time. All right, so this next one is someone that I honestly, so I'll say this. Let me start by saying this. You normally, all of us, have our foretastes. We have our strengths and we have our weaknesses. And you're lucky if you're self-aware to know what those weaknesses are. Some of us think we're strong on everything. We know it all, but that's not the truth. I have not met someone, and I mean this, it's not just because we're here today in the chamber and we're doing these proclamations and recognitions. I have not met someone that is such a tough gal, yet so compassionate, and the balance between the two are something that I've never seen. Because you either have the rough and tough, And they could be soft behind closed doors at home, but you don't see it. Or they're just very soft and got nothing of toughness. But to see that balance is something that, to me, is second to none. I've not seen it. This person, to me, is a 10 out of 10, one of one. My friend, Madeline Pumariega, come on up. All right, not enough words I can say, my friend, so I'll let you say some words, and then we'll do the whole thing.

Thank you, my friend. Thank you. First, to the commission, thank you so much for your service to our county and to selecting all of us. To everyone that I'm being honored with, you all are friends. Together, we do God's work in this community, and I think some of that toughness comes from those days in Hialeah. Being raised by a mom who started in La Factoría, you learn about resilience and toughness and always sticking with your community, but I accept this today really on behalf of all of the women at Miami Dade College that every day give me the opportunity to represent our college and be able to advocate for our students. For all of our students, and especially our female students, keep the dreams alive. Never would I have imagined that when I was bouncing a basketball at Miami Dade College, I would be here in the County Commission of a community that I love of the 305 being inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame. The work that we do every day is to make sure that we elevate women and we elevate our community. And we know that we do that through the power of education. And closing, I would just like to thank God that every day my prayers that I'm the instrument of his love and that I carry out what he wants and his purpose every day in our community. And to my daughter Alyssa, dreams come true. And to all the young girls out there, keep believing and just keep going on. Thank you and God bless you and thank you to all of you.

Thank you, Madam President. And with that, we resolve that the mayor of the county, Daniel Levine Cava, myself as your chair, members of the Board of County Commissioners, and on behalf of Miami-Dade County, it's 2.8 million plus residents, and all of Miami-Dade College, we present today, proclaim today, Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026, as Madeline Pumariega Day. So congratulations. He is the king of the pictures. All right. Last but not least, very important, the house, as I called it at the beginning. Our Madam Mayor, Mayor, I talked about, very little, but I talked a little bit about everyone. And for me personally, and I think we can, I hope we can all share this, I think we can, is I think I speak for all of us, maybe. different words but is for me it's been an honor to serve uh under your mayorship i think that when when not not often but when we have not seen eye to eye uh you have always approached it very compassionately you've always been very honest very respectful and you see i told you that i can speak for them um and and we've you you've had an open mind despite perhaps some differences, despite difference of opinions, you've always kept an open mind to discussing whatever is best for our community and for our county. And that is something that there is not enough time on TV or radio or flyers that you can put out that people will see that it is only seen behind the days, and certainly as chair of the board, I got the privilege to see that even at a step further than the rest. So with that, come on up, Madam Mayor.

Those were very beautiful words. I appreciate them deeply and to my core. So yes, it is a very big deal. That's what this chairman has been saying. This is a big deal. And it's a big deal for many reasons. For me personally, I was raised by a mother and father who believed that I could do anything I set my mind on. So I never lacked for support. In fact, they often pushed me beyond my comfort I've been so fortunate to have had the incredible support until they passed of my parents, who were until then my biggest fans, and now my biggest fan, my husband, Robert Cava, who's with us here today. And my daughter, Eliza, who said to me on many occasions, Mom, fix it. So I always have that in my heart. There's a lot of things to fix. And I, of course, do my very best in every role that I've played to fix the things that need fixing in our society to make sure that people have what they need to thrive, especially the children. It's always been about making sure that our children have the love, have the resources, the support to achieve their greatest dreams. And I'm very proud of serving as Mayor, the dream job of my career, to do my very best in partnership with all of you on the Commission and with our partners in the community. I really didn't think much of the fact that I was the first mayor of the county until during the pandemic wearing masks, a girl scout troop was interviewing me for a badge and there they were on the screen. They could ask anything they wanted and one little girl said, how does it feel to be the first girl mayor? Some of you have heard me say that before, but I just want to tell you that has it's emblazoned on my heart that it's not what we do, it's how we inspire others to do what they can do. And that's what that moment meant to me. So I'm humbled and grateful to be able to serve in this role and to achieve this recognition in the women's park, no less, where I expect we will all be enshrined. And I want to say I'm so proud to share this day with these wonderful sisters. All friends, thank you. Thank you and God bless. Please, I'd like my husband to come up. And this is the only proclamation in the history of my mayorship that I have not signed.

Yeah, that's what I was about to say, thank you for, so be it resolved that I, as Chairman of the Board, Anthony Rodriguez, and the members of the Board of County Commissioners on behalf of Miami-Dade County and this entire community, and let's add, you know, Dariel Fernandez to that, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026, as the Honorable Daniela Levine Cava Day. Congratulations, Mayor.

Is this your first recommendation? Yes. Is it? I mean, my organization started that.

Rob, you want to come on up pretty quick?

Go right over here.

Congratulations, congratulations. All right, now if I can just have the five honorees that are present to come up for a photo with the board, and then we'll get their family and friends. Yes, and the, oh, thank you. And the Commission of Women board, board members that are present as well. All right, so let's get the honorees in the middle. Let's all step to the side. Let's get the honorees. Yeah, the commission and Daria. Daria should come up as well at this point. Oh, he's already there. Actually, silly me. Silly me to think I had to actually call him up. So silly of me. Yeah, exactly. All right, the Commission for Women. All right, perfect. Commission for Women, we got you. And we got the commissioners that are present. And the five, okay, all right. Tell us where to look, guys. Okay, over here.

Here we go.

Hold it, okay, over here. One more.

Congratulations. Hold on, family and friends. Hold on guys, one more photo. Family and friends that are present, Rob could come back up. Or was Rob here already? Rob. Families and friends, staff? Staff from?

Alina, do you have staff?

Yeah, your FIU folks, I saw them. I saw Didi. I saw Frankie. Frankie, Didi. Undersheriff, the undersheriff.

Staff, family members, friends.

Frankie, Didi Contents, Didi Contents. Angel Sayon.

Angel Sayon.

Angel Sayon. Titi Cantense, come on down. Titi, you're not a lobbyist. Come on down. You should have worn a tie today, my friend.

She told me I didn't have to. Oh, no.

Titi, come on in. You got to support your president. Yeah, the entire chamber. All right, undersheriffs. Let's go. The sheriffs, 27,000 officers that are present. Chiefs. The entire chamber, come on down.

Angel Sayon, where are you? Angel Sayon.

I have heard.

that wasn't an issue we thought would happen if you're looking at the back of someone's head

All right, congratulations. Once again, congratulations.

Where do you want to go? Thank you. Thank you. so so

Those that are staying for the meetings, take your seats. Those that are exiting the chamber, exit quietly. Alright. All right, clerk, if you can call roll.

Good morning. Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis. Present. Commissioner Regalado. Present. Commissioner Steinberg. Vice Chairman McGee. Chairman Rodriguez. We have eight members present, we have a quorum.

All right, sorry, I didn't say present. You got me though? All right. All right. Please stand quietly for the invocation given this morning by Reverend Father Denrick Ephraim Roll of the historic St. Agnes Episcopal Church of Miami at the invitation of Commissioner Hardiman, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by Senator Garcia.

Let us pray. Almighty God, we give you thanks for our commissioners. We give you thanks for their staff members. We ask your blessing upon our mayor. Grant them health and strength, knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Bless them in their going and their coming. Make us as a people ever grateful. not complaining for everything, but thankful for the things that you've blessed us with. We ask that you take from us the temptation to indulge in greed. Help us to work together towards the building up of the common life. Go before us, therefore, O Lord, in this and all our doings, with thy most gracious favor. And further us with thy continual help, that with all our works begun, continued, and ended in you, we may glorify your holy name. And finally, by your mercy, obtain everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. Amen.

Please honor the flag of hope and freedom. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

You may be seated. All right, Madam Attorney, can we move into reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard? Yes, Mr. Chair. All right, reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard is now open. When I call your name, please state the item you're speaking on, your name, address, and you will have two minutes to speak. Sergi Kelly, Nicholas Rodriguez. Sergi Kelly and Nicholas Rodriguez. Please come up to the podium, to the well. Sergi Kelly? No? Going once, going twice. Nicholas Rodriguez? Going once, going twice. All right. Reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard is now closed. Sergei Kelly? Nicholas Rodriguez? No? All right. Reasonable opportunity is now closed. Madam Attorney, can we set the agenda at this time?

Mr. Chair, may I please have a couple minutes just to finalize? I'm still getting requests.

Yes-ish, yes. On that note colleagues, I think and I know that this is this may fall on deaf ears, but it is helpful when we submit our request to the attorney's office with ample time not last minute. Motions deferral requests pulled items bifurcations. We understand that. Not everything is perfect, but in those cases where it is possible. It is appreciated that we do that ahead of time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I'm ready now.

All right, Madam Attorney, go ahead.

We do have a few changes. Item 2B1, Commissioner Bastien is requesting deferral to no date certain.

Which is that?

2B1. I also have some requests to bifurcate first reading items at the appropriate time. It would be to bifurcate 4B and 4C by Commissioner Regalado. I have some requests to bifurcate public hearing items. They are as follows. 5B, Senator Garcia. 5M, Commissioner Millian-Orbis and Mr. Chairman Rodriguez. Five O, Commissioner Millian-Orbis and Chairman Rodriguez. Five P, Chairman Rodriguez, Commissioner Millian-Orbis and Commissioner Regalado. And five S, Senator Garcia. I have request to bifurcate ordinances for second reading at the appropriate time. 7A, Commissioner Bermudez and Commissioner Regalado. 7B, Commissioner Millian-Orbis. And 7C, Commissioner Bermudez and Bastien. Also, item 8A1 and its supplement, Commissioner Bermudez and Commissioner Millian-Orbis add this item to the pull list. 8F1 and its supplement, Commissioner Regalado adds this item to the pull list. Items 8G2 and 8G3, Senator Garcia is adding these items to the poll list. 8K1, Commissioner Milian Orvis adds this item to the poll list. 8N4, Commissioner Bermudez adds the item to the poll list. 8N6. 8P1 and 8P7, Commissioner Millian-Orbis, she's pulling these items. 8P8, Senator Garcia adds this item to the pull list. 8P9, Commissioner Millian-Orbis adds this item to the pull list. 1185, Commissioner Bastien adds this item to the pull list. Mr. Chair, on 11A6 and its supplement, Senator Garcia is requesting deferral of this item to no date certain, but I do have a request to pull the item by Commissioners Milian Orbis, Regalado, and Bermudez. The board would need to decide how it wishes to proceed. Do we proceed with the deferral? I'm happy to withdraw it and proceed with the deferral.

Okay, and it was who else? It was Regalado and who else?

Milian Orbis and Bermudez.

Are the two of you good with drawing your poll since it's going to be deferred with the agenda? Yeah?

Yeah, the senator's going to defer it. Yeah, no problem.

Perfect, I figured. All right.

Thank you. So with the setting of the agenda, the item will be deferred to no day certain. 11A7, Commissioner Bermudez is adding this item to the poll list. In addition, item 8 and 6, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is adding her name to the poll list. We also have the following request for co-sponsorship. For A, Senator Garcia. 7C, Steinberg. 7E, Senator Garcia. 8P6, Senator Garcia is assuming sponsorship of this item. 8P11, Senator Garcia, co-sponsor. 981, Steinberg, co-sponsor. 982, Senator Garcia is assuming sponsorship. 11A4, Senator Garcia, co-sponsor. 11A5, Commissioner Bermudez, co-sponsor. And 11A7, Senator Garcia, co-sponsor. The items to be considered at today's meeting will be those listed in the printed final agenda with the additions, deferrals, withdrawals, and scrivener's errors noted in the chairman's memorandum. And the items I just mentioned, the commission will approve all of these items by a single vote setting the agenda, except ordinances for first reading, public hearings, ordinances set for second reading. Items 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, and 8P6, which are your commercial service airport contracts that must be voted on separately and have not been pulled. And the following pull list items, 881 and its supplement, 881 and its supplement, 8K1, 8N4, 8N6, 8P1, 8P7, 8P8, 8P9, 11A5, 11A6 and its supplement will be deferred to no date certain with the setting of the agenda. 11A7, 14A1, and 14A2. A motion to set the agendas in order.

So moved by Commissioner Bastian. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Orbis. On favor of setting the agenda, setting five, I say an aye. All oppose nay. Show the agenda hereby set. Madam Attorney, we're going to get into first reading items. I understand there's just two bifurcations, 4B and 4C. Anyone else wish to bifurcate any items? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr.

Chair, I need to read the titles, please.

Yes, go ahead. I'm getting ahead of myself.

4A is an ordinance relating to the rules of procedure of the Board of County Commissioners amending section 2-1 of the code, revising requirements relating to notification provided by the county mayor, mayors as they need to all applicable district commissioners of certain matters that originate with the administration. Providing severability inclusion in the code and an effective date. 4B is an ordinance relating to boats and waterways in the incorporated and unincorporated areas, creating section 7-40.1 of the code. Adopting overnight anchoring regulations, providing exemptions, and providing for enforcement by civil penalty and other remedies. Amending section 8CC10 of the code, updating schedule civil penalties to conform to amendments, providing severability inclusion in the code and effective date. Four Cs in ordinance relating to passenger motor carrier vehicles amending sections 31-102 and 31-107 of the code. Revising vehicle age requirements for certain passenger motor carrier vehicles. Amending definitions, making technical and conforming changes, providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. Four Ds in ordinance relating to four higher motor vehicles amending sections 31-83, 31-304 of the code. Revising provisions relating to the temporary and permanent removal of chauffeurs. From the Ambassador Cab Program, revising eligibility requirements, providing conditions under which chauffeurs removed from the Ambassador Cab Program may regain eligibility to reapply for authorization to operate an Ambassador Cab, making technical and conforming changes, providing for severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. And Commissioner Regalado's requesting bifurcation of 4B and 4C.

All right, sounds good. With that, I'll entertain a motion on the two non-bifurcated items, which is 4A and 4D. So moved by Commissioner Bastien, seconded by Senator Garcia. Are you good with it? All right, it's been moved, it's been seconded. Clerk, please call the roll.

Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez? Yes. Senator Garcia? Aye. Commissioner Gonzalez? Commissioner Lopez?

Yes.

Commissioner Villanueva? Yes. Commissioner Regalado?

Yes.

Commissioner Steinberg? Commissioner Steinberg? Chairman Rodriguez?

I vote yes.

Motion passes unanimously.

All right, Commissioner Lopez moves for B, seconded by Senator Garcia. Clerk, please call the roll.

Commissioner Bermudez? Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gonzalez? For. Commissioner Lopez?

Yes.

Commissioner Milian Orbis? Yes. Commissioner Regalado?

No.

Commissioner Steinberg? Yes. Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez?

I vote yes.

Motion passes 8 to 1.

Commissioner Orbis moves 4C, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. Clerk, please call the roll.

Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gonzalez?

For.

Commissioner Cohen-Higgins?

For.

Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis? Yes. Commissioner Regalado?

No.

Commissioner Steinberg? Commissioner Bastien?

Yes.

Commissioner Bermudez? Chairman Rodriguez?

I vote yes.

Motion passes 8 to 1.

All right. Mr.

Chair, can I take just a moment of personal privilege?

You may.

On 4C, just to let everybody know that there's going to be an amendment coming. We couldn't get it done for that, but there is an amendment coming that I think will resolve any issue. Thank you.

All right, thank you for that clarification. And I also wanted to I did not have the pleasure of knowing her, but if we can take a moment of silence in recognition of former Miami-Dade County Commissioner Mary Collins, who has passed away. Thank you, Mayor, for letting me know as well. If we could just join me in a moment of silence for former Commissioner Mary Collins. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Bermudez, I'm going to recognize you for what I understand might be a motion to defer.

Yes, it's item 7D. The applicant and the administration or the staff of the administration are still having discussions and there's a request to move it to the July 21st BCC. So it would be a motion to defer to the date certain of July 21st of the BCC.

Second.

All right. It's been moved to defer. It's been seconded by Commissioner Regalado. All in favor of the deferral signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed nay. Show that item deferred.

Mr. Chair, that's item 7D and it's two supplements.

That is correct. Yes. All right. Public hearing items. Do we have any aviation items, Madam Attorney?

Yes, we have six, Mr. Chair. They each have to be voted on separately. The first one is item 882.

Okay. Somebody just want to start moving these? Anybody want to start moving the aviation items? All right, Commissioner Gonzales moves 8a. What is it? Madam attorney?

8a2.

Okay, so Commissioner Gonzales moves 8a2. Seconded by, seconded by, can we have some commissioners? All right, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. We need a voice vote here. A voice vote's fine. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed nay. Show 8a2 passed.

The next one is 8a3.

Commissioner Gonzalez moves 8A3, seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay, show it passed.

8A4.

We got to do one by one. 8A4 is moved by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Cohen-Higgins. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay, show the item passed.

8A5.

Moved by Gonzalez, seconded by Cohen-Higgins. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show it passed.

8A6.

Moved by Gonzales, seconded by Cohen-Higgins. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Show it passed. 8P6. 8P6 moved by Gonzales, seconded by Cohen-Higgins. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Show it passed.

Mr. Chair, items 14A1 and 14A2 were not pulled by any commissioners. Do you want to take those? Move it.

It's been moved by Commissioner Regalado, right?

Mm-hmm.

Regalado. We could take both of those at the same time, right?

Yes.

It's been seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay. Show 14A1 and 14A2 also passed. All right. Can we go into public hearing at this time, Madam Attorney?

Yes, Mr. Chair, I will go ahead and read those. Item 5A is a resolution amending resolution number R35826 and co-designating that portion of Northwest 25th Street between Northwest 117th Avenue and Northwest 112th Avenue as Our Lady of Guadalupe Street. And its supplement 5B is a resolution approving issuance by public finance authority of Wisconsin unit of government of its revenue notes in one or more series in an amount not to exceed $40 million on behalf of Sky Harbor. Opelika Airport LLC to fund a plan of finance which includes capital projects located in Miami-Dade County. 5C is an ordinance amending ordinance number 93-5 relating to the Coventry Security Guard Special Taxing District. In accordance with the provisions of chapter 18 of the code to allow the use of license plate readers or other updated visitor management technology to document visitor vehicles entering and exiting the special taxing district. Providing severability exclusion from the code and an effective date. 5D is an ordinance amending ordinance number 94151 relating to the Oak Forest Stationary Security Guard Special Taxing District. In accordance with the provisions of chapter 18 of the code to allow the use of license plate readers or other updated visitor management technology to document visitor vehicles entering and exiting the special taxing district. Providing severability exclusion from the code and an effective date. 5E is an ordinance amending ordinance number 94-68 relating to the Highland Lake Security Guard Special Taxing District in accordance with the provisions of chapter 18 of the code to allow the use of license plate readers or other updated visitor management technology to document visitor vehicles entering and exiting the special taxing district. providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. 5F is an ordinance amending ordinance number 95-77 relating to the Enchanted Lake Security Guard Special Taxing District in accordance with the provisions of chapter 18 of the code to allow the use of license plate readers or other updated visitor management technology to document visitor vehicles entering and exiting the special taxing district, providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. 5G is an ordinance approving, adopting, and ratifying fiscal year 24-25 end of year supplemental budget adjustments and amendments for various county departments and funds. Amending ordinance numbers 24-97, 24-99, and 24-102 to make budget adjustments. Ratifying and approving implementing orders and other board actions which set fees, charges, and assessments for fiscal year 24-25. Appropriating grant donation and contribution funds for fiscal year 2425 in accordance with section 2-1796D of the county code. Providing certain budgetary reallocations, providing severability, exclusion from the county code, and an effective date. 5H was deferred to July 21st. 5i is an ordinance granting petition of Lennar Homes LLC for establishment of a community development district generally bound to the north by Southwest 355 Street, on the east by Southwest 189 Avenue, on the south by Southwest 358 Street, and on the west by Southwest 192 Avenue Tower Road. Creating and establishing San Diego Villas Community Development District, providing for name powers and duties, providing description of boundaries, providing initial members of Board of Supervisors, accepting proffered declaration of restrictive covenants, providing severability exclusion from the code and an effective date and its supplement. 5J is an ordinance granting petition of Biscayne Drive Estates Community Development District, generally bounded as amended. On the north by Southwest 284th Street, on the east by Southwest 167th Avenue, on the south by theoretical Southwest 293th Street. And on the west by Southwest 177th Avenue, Chrome Avenue, amending the boundaries of the district to expand its total acreage by approximately 54.43 acres, providing severability from the code and an effective date. 5K is an ordinance creating and establishing a special taxing district in the county, generally bound down the north by theoretical Southwest 215th Street. On the east by Southwest 110 Avenue, on the south by Southwest 216th Street, Hainland Drive. On the west by theoretical Southwest 110 Place, known and described as Palm Bay South Multipurpose Maintenance Special Taxing District. Identifying services to be provided, authorizing and directing may or designee to cost to be maintained and operated by various public improvements and providing for exclusion from the code and an effective date. 5L is an ordinance approving adopting and ratifying special assessment district rates for certain special taxing districts in the county for rates decreasing or remaining flat for the fiscal year commencing October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2027. And providing severability, exclusion from the code and an effective date. 5M is an ordinance approving, adopting, and ratifying non-advalorum assessment rules, rates, and assessments for 15 certain multipurpose maintenance special taxing districts in the county for the fiscal year commencing October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2027, and providing severability exclusion from the code and an effective date. 5N is an ordinance approving, adopting, and ratifying non-evaluable assessment rules, rates, and assessments for certain newly active street lighting special taxing districts in the county for the fiscal year commencing October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2027, and providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. Five O is an ordinance approving, adopting, and ratifying non-advalorm assessment roles, rates, and assessments for 20 certain security guard special taxing districts in Miami-Dade County for the fiscal year commencing October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2027, and providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. Five P is an ordinance approving, adopting, and ratifying non-advalorm assessment roles, rates, and assessments for 219 certain street lighting special taxing districts in the county for the fiscal year commencing October 1, 2026. ending September 30, 2027, and providing severability exclusion from the code and an effective date. 5Q is a resolution approving the plot of Biscayne Apartment Central. 5R is a resolution approving the plot of Liminar Estates. 5S is a resolution approving the waiver of plot of 766153rd Place, LLC. 5T is a resolution approving the plot of Jackson Hospital. 5U is a resolution approving the plot of Upland East. Mr. Chair, 5V, 5V supplement and 5W relate to a new CDMP standard application before you today for first reading, public hearing and transmittal. I will read the resolution for transmittal as well as the ordinance title for first reading. The board can vote on the resolution and ordinance together by roll call. If the board decides not to transmit, the ordinance will be deemed withdrawn. 5W is a resolution pertaining to the May 25 cycle application number CDMP 2025-0007 filed by GPC Miami Business Park LLC. Requesting amendments to the comprehensive development master plan, directing the mayor or mayors as they need to act in accordance with the transmittal instructions included in this resolution. Related to application number CDMP 2025-7 located on the west side of the homestead extension of Florida's Turnpike. generally east of Southwest 112th Avenue between Southwest 186th Street and Southwest 196th Street. Requesting state land planning agency to review application number CDMP 2025-7, reserving the right to take final action at a later date, and declaring intent to conduct one or more subsequent public hearings. 5e is an ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, providing disposition of application number CDMP 2025-7, located on the west side of the Homestead Extension. of Florida's Turnpike, generally east of Southwest 112th Avenue between Southwest 186th Street and Southwest 186th Street. Followed by GPC Miami Business Park LLC in the May 2025 cycle to amend the county's comprehensive development master plan, providing severability exclusion from the code and an effective date. 5X is a resolution approving the plot of Upland West. And retroactively authorizing the mayor or designee to file the plat application and authorizing the mayor or designee to execute the plat. Those are your public hearing items. I do have some requests to bifurcate. I have 5B, Garcia. 5H was deferred. 5M, I have Millian Orbus, Chairman Rodriguez, and Bermudez. 5N, I have Commissioner Bermudez. 5O, I have Millian Orbus, Rodriguez, and Bermudez. And 5P, I have Millian Orbus, Regalado, Rodriguez, Bermudez. 5S, Senator Garcia. A public hearing. All right. Yes. You can open the public hearing at the appropriate time. Thank you.

And Madam Attorney, I understand that 5V supplement and 5W need to be bifurcated as CDMP items as well?

5W and 5V?

5W, 5V, and 5V supplement, yes.

You can take a vote on those together.

I'll bifurcate them and I'll take them up. Correct. I also have, I don't know if I need to do public hearing first, but I also understand the administration's intent is to defer 5P. Can I take that deferral up now or should I do public hearing first? it's it's at your discretion if you want to do the public hearing and then defer or if you wish to it's a deferral so might as well just get it out of the way okay um i'll entertain a defer a motion to defer on 5p moved by commissioner lopez seconded by commissioner cohen higgins all in favor of the deferral signify by saying aye all opposed nay show that deferral passed all right i'm going to go ahead and share um is that to the next meeting we could do it to the next meeting yes

Chairman.

Senator Garcia.

Can I release 5B?

Yes, you can release 5B. Well, hold on. We still have to do public hearing, but it's just not bifurcated. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open a public hearing at this time. When I call your name, I have a few. Let me see. Actually, so most of my – let me see how I do this. You know, you'll have a minute to speak, your name and address, and the item you're speaking on. But I have, I don't know if there's like a representative, but all the items are for 5B or 5W, of which I bifurcated. And I'll take up first since it's the only one that people are here for. And it all says 4. Position is 4444. I have a few infos, but no against. Is anyone, are you all willing to waive in support since I see that you're all 4? Do you all need to speak? So waving in support, raise your hands. Okay, any that need to speak? Any that need to speak for or against, that need to speak? All right, so once again, show of hands who's here in support? All right, hands down. Who's here against it? All right, it's covered. So with that, I will close public hearing. as that is all that I have is only registered for 5V and 5W. And, all right, public hearing is now closed. And I will take up 5V, 5V supplement, and 5W first.

Mr. Chair?

Yes.

Let me take up 5M, and I want to say something.

Sure. I'll... Let's take up these 3 and then I'll recognize him for them. Would you move these items commissioner a lot or so commissioner a lot of most 5 the 5 the supplement and 5 w second by commissioner Lopez and clerk please call the roll.

Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner hardeman or. Commissioner Lopez?

Yes.

Commissioner Emiliano Orbis? Yes. Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Commissioner Steinberg? Yes. Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez?

Yes.

Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Chairman Rodriguez?

I vote yes.

Motion passes unanimously.

All right. I'm going to take up item 5M. Thank you. And you are recognized, Commissioner Regalado.

Thank you. And I know that this impacts several districts, but it also impacts mine, so I'm happy to move it. I've spoken a lot to my residents about these issues, and I was going to make the same comment if we took up the lighting districts, but it appears that we're going to defer that. So I just wanted to... Take the opportunity to speak to the board that I've made a legislative request that I think is going to respond to a lot of the concerns about these districts. I have a lot of special taxing districts in my area, and it appears that we get more and more requests for them, but. 1 thing is to create them and the other thing is what happens when we have those increases. Usually, when someone calls my office about the increases, we give them the data, like, for example, the lighting districts. This is what it costs. This is what we're charging you. The county really isn't making money off these things, but I do recognize that there is a need for disclosure. So, my legislative request that I just wanted to talk to you all about, and we're going to work on it quickly. Is in the same way that I brought an item to the board so that if you have a septic tank, it's disclosed to you when you purchase it. And then I brought another item so that the information on the septic tanks is in the property appraisers website. I'm bringing an item for special taxing districts. So there'll be a required disclosure. at purchase of a home or apartment that has the information on the special taxing district and then I'm also going to request that the property appraiser include this information so that people who were not there when the special taxing district was created have knowledge and can take this up when they're purchasing it and and Put that into the considerations as they negotiate a price. A lot of the complaints that I get are not from the homeowners that were there when the districts were created. But homeowners that purchased afterwards that were not necessarily informed by their realtors or by the sellers that there was a taxing district associated with this. They all want the lights, they all want the security. they just didn't know that they had this extra cost and I think that that would be the most fiscally responsible way of dealing with that is starting with the disclosure and ensuring that we have that disclosure I have yet to meet a resident that wants us to turn off the lights so I hope that we can deal with that when that run that item returns but I'm happy to move this item and I'm working on the other one as soon as possible because I think especially at the sale point and on the property appraiser's website. I think that knowing is going to eliminate more than 50% of the issues. Thank you.

All right. With that, would you move that item?

I did.

Commissioner Regalado moves 5M. Seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Clerk, please call the roll.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

Nope.

Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Milian Orvis? No. Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Commissioner Steinberg? Yes. Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez?

No.

Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? No. Senator Garcia? Aye. Chairman Rodriguez?

I vote no.

Motion passes 6-5.

All right. All right. Let's take, all right. Can I take, I didn't, I didn't point out the ones that all the ones that were bifurcated except for five M five Oh five P, but all the non bifurcated items, can we have a motion to move them? Gonzalez moves the non bifurcated items seconded by commissioner Bastian, commissioner Hardiman, you wish to bifurcate an item?

No, I wanted to, um, Just have some clarification on the vote, who voted yes and who voted no on the last item. 5M?

A clerk can provide that. I voted no, but it passed.

Okay. No, I got it. The nays are as follows. Commissioner Gonzales, Commissioner Millian-Orbis, Commissioner Bermudez, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, and Chairman Rodriguez.

Okay.

Is that, okay. All right, it's been moved, it's been seconded by Commissioner Bastien. Clerk, please call the roll.

Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez.

Yes.

Commissioner Mila Norvis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado.

I'm sorry, let's start this again.

It's the non-bifurcated. The non-bifurcated.

The non-bifurcated, okay, yes.

Commissioner Steinberg? Yes. Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez?

Yes.

Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Aye. Senator Garcia? Aye. Commissioner Gonzalez?

Aye.

Chairman Rodriguez?

I vote yes.

Motion passes unanimously.

Madam attorney what what are the other I know there's 5, 5, 0, and 5, 5, and we passed already 5, 0, and 5, P, we have 5, N, 5, 0, 5, P, was deferred and we have 5, S, remaining. So, all right.

All right. So, 5, N is moved by. I'll entertain a motion on 5, N. It's been moved by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by Commissioner Bermudez. Clerk, please call the roll.

Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Emilia Norvis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Yes. Commissioner Bastien. Yes. Commissioner Bermudez.

No.

Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gonzales.

For.

Commissioner Hardiman. For. Chairman Rodriguez.

I vote yes.

Motion passes 10 to 1.

All right, 5-0. I'll entertain a motion on 5-0. It's been moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by- Second. By Commissioner Regalado. Clerk, please call the roll.

Commissioner Milian Orvis. Commissioner Regalado?

Yes.

Commissioner Steinberg? Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez?

No.

Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? No. Senator Garcia? Aye. Commissioner Gonzalez?

No.

Commissioner Hardiman? Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez?

I vote no.

Motion passes six to five.

All right. And then the last one is 5. S right. I want to take a motion on 5 s moved by commissioner busty and seconded by commissioner Bermudez. And I believe this is a voice vote, right? Yep. There's a result. Yes. Uh, all in favor of five S signify by saying, aye, aye, all opposed. No. All right, show the item passed with one no. All right, is that the last bifurcated item of public hearings? Yes. All right, I'm moving to second reading at this time. If any of my colleagues wish to bifurcate any of the second reading items, any bifurcations on second reading?

Mr. Chair, I have request to bifurcate 7A, 7B, and 7C. Okay, bye. I have 7A, Commissioner Bermudez and Commissioner Regalado, 7B, Commissioner Millian-Orbis, and 7C, Commissioner Bermudez and Commissioner Bastien. And at the appropriate time, I do need to read these titles.

All right, go ahead and read the titles at this time.

7A is an ordinance creating the Miami-Dade County Solid Waste Advisory Board, creating Article 172 of Chapter 2 of the code, providing purpose, composition, and duties of the advisory board and other related matters, and providing severability, inclusion in the code, and an effective date. 7B is an ordinance relating to zoning, creating section 33-39.5 of the code, providing for administrative acceptance and approval of covenants relating to the Live Local Act in connection with proposed developments located within transit-oriented developments or areas in the county. Under certain circumstances, providing criteria, requirements, and procedures applicable to such covenants and modification of such covenants, providing severability, inclusion of the code, and an effective date. Seven season ordinance relating to the infill housing initiative program. Amending section 17-124 of the code to limit the number of extensions and time that may be granted to developers under the Miami-Dade County infill housing initiative program. Providing severability, inclusion of the code, and an effective date. And 7E is an ordinance amending the boundaries of the OGIS sanitary sewer special benefit area in the county by adding one property, ratifying the non-advalorum assessment rule rates and assessments for the area for the fiscal year commencing October 2026 and ending September 30, 2027, and providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date.

All right, that's all. All right. I'll entertain a motion on. Oh, actually, they're all different. They were all bifurcated. So the other ones were deferred already and pass on. All right. Uh, commissioner Bermudez on 70, you're recognized.

Yeah. I applaud the intent of, uh, of this proposed ordinance in the sense that certainly regionalism is something we can argue would be great, whether it's traffic and other things. Having said that, this commission has gone through numerous headaches when it comes to deal with, and many times we've repeated on this dais, to our friends in Broward and Palm Beach to try to do some of these things collectively. I'm a little bit concerned that a creation of this board, which is a Miami-Dade County board, will have representation from people from Broward and Palm Beach County when there has been no contribution, at least I haven't seen it, from a really valid discussion on how to work together despite this body telling the administration and requesting, I think they have done it by the way, to discuss the issue of solid waste with Broward and Palm Beach. So I'm hesitant because of that, and I think the intent is good, but I don't like the makeup of it in the sense, I like the makeup of the fact that we get to appoint them. But when you don't have a skin in the game, uh... is very easy to defer to the largest county with the things that are happening and you know that we all know what happened probably today or these days in tallassee what are we doing you know and that concerns me uh... uh... regional cooperation on uh... south florida planning council uh... certainly with the tpo and and the three uh... metropolitan planning organizations that's a different thing because everybody has the same say but here we're opening up the door to in my opinion, two counties that while they are sister counties and we certainly should be working together on this particular issue, knowing that it has been a very divisive and difficult issue for Miami-Dade County, there's been no, at least I haven't seen any effort from either of these counties to move forward. So I'm not going to be supportive of appointing individuals that don't have skin in the game and that in the end could impact our constituents in the pocketbook and in the future, many constituents down the road. And I'm just not going to be supportive of it. I understand the intent. The intent may be good, but the end result here I don't think is good for the residents of Miami-Dade County, and I won't be supportive of it. All right, Commissioner Regalado.

Thank you. I also appreciate the intent, but I have a lot of issues with the item. My take on the tri-county issue is that the makers should consider what we're doing in transit. So currently in transit, we have biweekly meetings with the three counties and their departments to deal with SFRTA and other issues. And I think if we wanted to do something with Broward and Palm Beach, we should engage their staff in that way, and that isn't happening. Okay. So that's number one. In terms of the layout of this board, there are certain things in the item that are policy determinations that this board has not made. In fact, this board has, on several occasions, discussed diversion and other things that are not represented in this item. We also had an RFI process where different proposals were brought to this board as we began the incinerator conversation. And I met with a lot of those proponents. There were a lot of good ideas that were proffered. And we haven't really gone back to those ideas. so i think this board has a lot of information that we have acquired throughout this process and i think the right thing to do would be to sift through that information and to also look at our master plan miami-dade county spent a lot of money on a solid waste master plan that has never been brought to this board as anything other than an exhibit, and we've never deep dived into any of that. So before we create yet another group of people to talk about solid waste, I think we need to finish the solid waste conversation on our end. And I'm happy to do that in the committee process. I'm happy to do that in a workshop. I'm happy to consider having staff meet with the other counties. But I think that would be the better pass forward. I think here what we're going to do is just create another committee where people are going to have a bunch of other ideas that are disconnected from the department. disconnected from our current reality, disconnected from our contracts, our existing contracts, and in some cases, in contrast with our existing contracts and with the policy decisions that have been made by this board, I'm not a fan of just creating these committees and setting them off and 9 times out of 10, we create a committee. We waste people's time. Everybody has to attend and then some report comes back to us and we put it in some drawer somewhere and we never really effectuate on it. And I think it's difficult enough. For us to get vendors to take us seriously and to negotiate prices without creating yet another hurdle and yet another opportunity for lobbyists for waste management to go and sit and bill when in reality there really isn't. A nexus between what we're doing and this we have an infrastructure committee. I think that would be the best place to have these conversations or we can have a workshop and bring all these folks. You know, when we had the surf side issue, I use the infrastructure committee to bring experts and we allowed people to provide testimony and input and we provided that information. to the Florida Bar and to the state attorney when they were working on that. And that was really a better use of people's time. The other issue that we're going to have is when you set up a committee like this, you don't necessarily get the best in the industry because the best in the industry don't have the time to commit to this. We just get a room full of lobbyists. So I'm a no on this. I like the idea, but I think this is just going to create more confusion for us as we try to to effectuate a solid waste portfolio that is environmentally supported by our residents and also fiscally responsible to our residents. Thank you.

All right. Senator Garcia, you're recognized as this is your item.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the comments and Commissioner Bermudez. The reason that we included representative from West Palm and Broward is for exactly that, is to try to bring some regional approach to the issue of solid waste. We know that Palm Beach has done a phenomenal job uh with their solid waste and trying to bring some of the expertise from up there down here to see if we can do a better job that's why i included them into the conversation there's been conversations at the south florida regional planning council as for as uh as to take a regional approach at looking at solid waste maybe someone does a better job with Another one could do recycling and so forth. The conversations are continuously being held. But if you feel comfortable, if I take that item out, would you vote for the item or no?

I don't have a problem with the board, but yes, if the representation is solely from Miami-Dade County, I don't have a problem with it, because I do believe we should hear from residents on this, and I'm fine with that.

Mr. Chairman, and if I may, just to clarify a couple of points, and I appreciate that, so I'll be happy to mend that out. But I just want you all to understand that when we, this would not be a room of lobbyists because it's all of us and need to appoint folks. We created the Behavioral Health Board that we brought in all professionals. I think Commissioner Vicky understands and knows how good that board is working. The point of this board is to make sure that we have other options. Bring experts to the table, it's taken us three years to come up with a decision. We haven't been able to do it on the incinerator, we're getting close. But I think when we look at solid waste, it's the much broader conversation that we sometimes don't have the full conversation here at the board. So Mr. Chairman, that's the item before us. I'll amend that out to try to appease, get the commissioner to approve his vote.

All right, so Senator Garcia moves his item as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Lopez. And clerk, please call the roll.

Commissioner Regalado? No. Commissioner Steinberg? Commissioner Bastion? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez?

It's amended, yes.

Commissioner Cohen-Higgins?

Four.

Senator Garcia? Aye. Commissioner Gonzalez?

Four.

Commissioner Hardiman?

Four.

Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Millian-Orbis? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez?

I vote yes.

Motion passes 10 to 1.

Congrats. Good work, Senator Garcia. Flipped the vote on the days. I mean, very senator of you. I like that. Commissioner Orbis, you're recognized on 7B.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a few questions to the administration on this. I wanted to ask if these covenants or these agreements, are they currently reviewed by the commission? Do these come to the commission right now? Or what is the approving authority for these agreements currently, if I may?

The administration and or the lawyers are recognized to, I guess she said administration.

I just want to know anybody, the attorneys or the administration, whoever can answer my question. Thank you.

Commissioner, this is implementing a allowance under the Live Local Act to accept agreements that would set parameters for the development of a live local project that is located in a transit oriented development. There's currently nothing in our code that addresses that allowance. This is providing a procedure for that, that would both allow the administration through the RER director to accept those administratively. But it also of course the board retains the authority to accept those covenants in connection with the zoning hearing or to modify them.

Okay, but is this taking away the authority from our board to review these covenants?

It is delegating authority to accept them administratively, but it's not taking away this board's authority over the covenants to review them at the special exception hearing, to request modifications, or to approve them at that step if they're not accepted administratively. So there is a delegation of authority, but the board still has the authority to approve them in connection with public hearing.

Your answer is not very clear. So if we approve this, will the covenants come to us, or will they be approved by the administration?

Commissioner, they will be able to be accepted by the administration administratively.

Okay.

But this board still has authority to also accept the covenants. So it doesn't delegate authority.

It does, okay. It does. Okay, yeah, my concern with this is that live local can be modified by the state, right? And this takes away oversight. And today it may be okay, but tomorrow we are delegating a great deal of authority over these developments. So that's my concern. I would like more clarification on this. Um, Mr chair, I see that the commissioner is yeah, I think commissioner, my question, and this may shed some light.

How is this different than. Because I'm following your, your, your line of questioning. I get it. So how is this different than. How it is today right like today you enter into a covenant with the applicant and when you the item comes to us it already comes with a recommended. Accepted covenant by the administration that then we vote on is this a different.

It does include the delegation of authority, as I mentioned, Commissioner, Mr. Chair, so it would be for the administration to accept them. The significance of that is the board does not see live local covenants until the special exception hearing, which is after the board has already decided whether to allow a property to come into the RTZ. And once they're in the RTZ, the full parameters of live local would then apply. So this is a tool, if you will, that would allow for a covenant to be accepted on the front end, which may give some assurances in certain circumstances that fair or not could be abided by. Mr.

Chair, I still have another question. Yes, go ahead. So this is allowing the administration to determine, I mean, I'm reading off the item, maximum height, density, parking requirements, right? So the administration would have the authority to make those decisions for the covenant before it comes to us.

The statute calls for it to be an agreement, so of course this would have to be a voluntary proffer by the developer. But it would allow the administration to accept those or to comment on whether those are appropriate for the area, those parameters.

But it gives the administration more jurisdiction or power over these proposed developments.

There is the delegated authority to determine if that is an appropriate proffer by the applicant.

Okay. I'm still not very clear on this, so I'm not comfortable with it as it is.

Commissioner Regalado.

Thank you. When we passed the RTZ, live local didn't exist. So there is a gap in the RTZ legislation. So what happens is, if you bring an item into the RTZ, they can avail themselves of live local. The reason that the administration has to be given the authority to do this is in order to comply with live local. Live local allows the way that it is set up by the state is that it goes to the administration. So all I'm doing is dealing with the gap between the RTV and live local so that there can be a covenant because right now it's just a free for all. So this allows a vehicle. in certain areas because i have gotten requests in my district next to transit for rtz that's going to be live local so there is no vehicle to contain that request and once we add it to the rtz then they could just trigger live local without a covenant and i want to be able to have the covenant so this was vetted so that we would not be violating live local Because we have to comply with the state, but at the same time, if you avail yourself of live local within the RTZ, we have a vehicle to curtail and make some sort of adjustments.

Commissioner Gonzalez, you recognize?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank Commissioner Milliana-Orbis for the line of questioning, because these are some of the concerns I had. But I think I'm starting to see the big picture here, right? If I could get the director to come up for a second. Through you, Mr.

Chair? You're recognized for an event-flowing Q&A.

Director, I'm just seeking clarification, right? So, as it stands now, we would vote on this rapid transit, and then afterwards, we would then get the covenant after we vote? Is that how it happens now?

So the way in which properties enter into the RTZ, you do separately bring those parcels as legislative considerations, ordinances. before you. So that is the first step of a property entering into the RTZ. Afterwards then they would follow through with whatever process would apply to their site in terms of actually getting site-specific zoning.

Got it. So the site-specific zoning would be attributed to the covenant that we're talking about here. What this would do is bring it ahead of time, but we still vote on it? Because I'm trying to follow where this is going.

It could be. I think it does depend on the circumstances of each parcel. The intent at the state level when this was approved was to enable jurisdictions to have greater control over what was occurring in transit spaces, which it was viewed as a benefit at the time. And to the extent that we have the ability to negotiate with folks on certain parameters that then make the development overall be more compatible with the area, contributive to transit, that was the intent to give some space for that.

Understood, and I guess the only thing I'm trying to to understand to get there is if this were to pass, it would give you the authority to accept the covenant, but that doesn't mean that the covenant is then enacted, right? Does that, or does it, does it then come to the board with the covenant in place and then we vote on it? No. So you would have the authority then to accept the covenant and enacted.

Recall that live local already removed our authority. So, you know, they would be administratively approved. That's why from the perspective of providing parameters for local control, this was viewed as being beneficial to attaching, you know, characteristics to the commitment and obviously accelerating the development of affordable housing.

Okay, thank you. So, to clarify director, just from my understanding too is so, if I understand correctly from commissioner, a lot of explanation and what the attorneys said is. Today, absent this item. You cannot, we cannot enter into a covenant with said gap set properties. We don't have jurisdiction to enter into a covenant today based on live local. That's what I understood from commissioner. A lot of explanation. I guess will give us the vehicle to to be able to even enter into a covenant today. We cannot do that. It's literally what she what commissioner just said on the record. So right. Why is everyone looking at each other like to the director?

We could hear please from our director of zoning.

Yes, this will give us the opportunity. Those covenants before the applications are even brought into the R. T. Z.

Okay, that's not the question. So I'll repeat the question. The question is, today, absent this item that Commissioner Regalado has sponsored, 7B, the administration and or this body cannot enter into a covenant with those properties.

The covenant can only be entered at the time of the special exception, the hearing. A voluntary proffer of the covenant could occur in the special exception hearing.

Okay. And with this, it could be entered into without a special exception hearing?

Prior to the hearing, they could submit the covenant to us administratively.

Got it.

Covers a gap.

Okay. All right. Fair. Now, second question is, why not, and maybe to the maker of the item, Why not so that that covenant comes to this board and why accept it and enact it administratively? Which I think is where some of my colleagues were going, so I'm just trying to say it out loud.

So the issue is when you bring something into the RTZ, you don't deal with this. i don't want to be so prescriptive because something might come into the rtz and they're saying that it's not going to be live local and then later on they decide to be live local right so the way to cover the entire gap is to say you can bring it when you bring it into the rtz or you can bring it after because the property might change after you bring it into the rtz so the way that it's drafted covers the entire gap You can always get a covenant if it's going live local because you may not know when you bring it into the RTZ that it's coming live local. Example, in the city of Miami, we're still in litigation, right? So those projects are not happening because that litigation hasn't been resolved. So those properties came into the RTZ, but they could decide to go live local, right? And then now we don't have a way to effectuate any sort of covenant unless they come in for an exemption. So this just covers the gap.

So would you be open to a friendly amendment of somewhat mirroring the CDMP process, where the administration can enter into the agreement, but it be ratified by the board?

The issue is that it's live local. So I don't want to be in violation of the statute. Because it's live local, it doesn't require ratification of the board. I mean, if they need a variance, then live local comes to us. But the whole point of live local is that it doesn't come to us, which is why we have the gap.

So to the lawyers then, is how is it that there's a disconnect for me? How is it that the administration can, like we're a government, right? The way that the statute, unless the statute is written very specific, which I'm sure it might be, but we're a government body. So how is it that the administration can enter into a covenant, but the board cannot?

Mr. Chair, so the statute calls for the agreement. This is a vehicle for it. As Commissioner Regalado explained, the reason for the delegation of authority for the administrative acceptance is it's a function of the timing to ensure that there's a covenant in place at the time the board brings a property in to the jurisdiction and before up until the point of the special exception zoning hearing. However, this board still retains the authority to approve those covenants at that time or to approve changes to those covenants at that time.

Okay.

That's what I'm saying. You still have that authority to approve covenants in connection with the projects at that time. The administrative acceptance allows for there to be that protection in place before you all have an occasion to see a covenant.

Okay, but can it come to the board for ratification?

If they're having the hearing, isn't it coming to them?

It would come, so it would come to the board and if you all wanted, so look, I don't think ratification would be the word of choice because we want to make sure it's in place. But if you want to have something in this that expressly says the board may consider those covenants as well at the special exception hearing, then I think that would just make explicit what your authority is as well.

I'm fine with that. So the way that Live Local is written by the state is that it is completely administrative. Every now and then, we get Live Local that has variances, so it comes to us. I'm fine with that, but we drafted it because we didn't want to violate the statute because we are preempted from taking a position on the local. The reason that we're able to do these covenants is because you're availing yourself of 2 things. The and live local, the fact that you're availing yourself of the allows us to have input into the live local process. So I'm happy to amend it that way. But just so that you understand, it's giving us more. I want to be careful of my, it's giving us more input, more input, and not less, because there's a gap. There's a world in which you bring something into the RTZ, and then it goes in another direction, and you can't undo that. So, but happy to modify it.

I'm good with it, with that light. Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Steinberg.

Well, I think what you're trying to also stop is the bait and switch.

Yes, right, yes, of course.

However, what other protections can we put in? Are there any other additional safeguards? Because this is actually, you're touching on a very important issue that affects a lot of our residents. They're not very happy, and so I want to make sure that we're looking at this through that lens of what other tools in our toolbox, what other safeguards can we put forward?

Again, this is only in the RTZ because it's the only space in which we can have the input. So I just want to be clear on that. Yeah, because of the statute and the way that the statute was written. Yeah, this is, well, it just, it creates a gap because we as a board are providing a zoning benefit and then someone is availing themselves of that zoning benefit. So as a result, we get to do this. So I'm happy to amend it like that, but I don't want to go further than the RTZ and other things because again, I want to solve this particular issue that we're having.

Yeah, I'll just finish by saying, look, obviously we need, the affordability crisis is a big issue and we need proper housing, right? So we just need to make sure that we're looking through the lenses. Is this actually working and is there an opportunity to have it come back to us at a certain time frame to do a look back and see what the trajectory is, where we're going with this, maybe build that into her as a friendly amendment.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I would, on that, if I may.

Commissioner Orbis.

I would, I mean, not to the director, you're wonderful, but you're not always going to be here, right? So we need safeguards to make sure that we're not going beyond what our community needs and wants. So it would be, as Commissioner Steinberg said, some safeguards around the parameters that are allowable. And I would feel more comfortable if the commission has review.

So I thought... to the attorney. I mean, I don't, I think we just, I think that's what my amendment does to the extent that the law allows, right?

But to the extent that the law allows, please.

So it's either we got it to us for as far as the law allows or we just don't do this. But to the attorneys and I'll recognize you, madam mayor, you can while the attorneys kind of gather their thoughts on that, you have, you recognize

Thank you. Lourdes Gomez, our director of RER, suggests, and I think it's worth consideration, that we notify you when there's a live local application in your district. So that would be at the front end, so you would have an opportunity to weigh in.

So, Mr. Chair?

I think, yes. Mr.

Chair, about that?

Yes, I think that's certainly that. I wonder if we should go as far as... Like when there's any live, because some of these are like larger county wide assets, like.

We do, you passed a resolution directing us to notify your offices and we have automated that when we do have a Live Local application that enters our system. You receive an electronic notification.

And remember, Mr. Chair, you and I did like a sunshine meeting and we created a website. There was like a whole thing. So there's a website. We give people access to the website. They can see the application. So we, when Live Local first came out, we really tried to provide disclosure.

to folks um but but again this is about the gap with live local on the rtz which is a separate kind of situation mr chair i just want to add one more thing um this is another part that gives me heartburn section d says the covenant may be thereafter modified administratively so it can that part be limited because that means that we can review it and then after the administration can modify the covenant uh to their liking and and it says the modification may be approved by the bcc only after public hearing so that gives a lot of discretion to the administration and that part that whole section really gives me heartburn so that that would be my two cents i think that last section needs to be limited

So to the attorneys, I think the general feedback is how far can we go within the state statute for this body to have further say? What's the furthest you can go without encroaching or violating state law?

Through the Chair? Mr. Chair, one additional thing that I think this board could do as part of this ordinance would be to provide that for any ordinance bringing a property that proposes to bring a property into the R2Z, which of course would be a discretionary decision of this board, this ordinance could provide that the existence or lack thereof of the covenant contemplated here would be required to be disclosed in such item, and any such covenant would be required to be attached to that proposed ordinance. And then this additional language could go on to just provide that whether, of course, to bring such property into the RTZ, it's a discretionary decision for this board. So then when this board hears an ordinance to bring a property into the RTZ, it would come to this board together with the covenant that would have been accepted by the administration. If it's then not acceptable to this board, it would be within the authority of the board to not approve the ordinance and not bring that property into the RTZ.

I saw it. I like that. But for the fact that I think that because commissioner got a point where like some may come into the RTC with one idea and then they may shift courses, but they don't, but they're already inside the RTC. They don't come back. Now what happens in that case is that that covenant would still apply regardless of even ownership change, right?

Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Chair, thank you. So the issue is we don't want to incentivize people to not tell us that they're going live local to get into the RTZ in order to get out of this. Personally, I've been very clear in that I want this done during the RTZ process, but it's up to every commissioner. Again, you all have to deal with your items, right? I don't want to create a situation where they're going to say, oh, we're just coming into the RTZ. And then once you're in the RTZ, they're like, oh, now we're going to do live local. So I just that's why I was very careful in that a lot of things can happen in that time period. And what's in the item is just the state law. The state law currently says that anything and everything that is live local is done administratively. That does not mean that we as commissioners do not participate. We do. You and I had a sunshine meeting. We talked to staff. There's a website. Within the parameters of what happens, right, there is some level of participation. Now, usually there is some other variance that brings the item to us. So more often than not, it comes to us. I just don't want to create a situation where we're incentivizing people to kind of do it on the back end instead of the front end. But if you all feel comfortable with that, so be it. Then are you going to take it out of the RTZ? Are we then going to create... And, you know, if it goes live local, then are you going to pull it out of the RTZ? Because now you're saying that in order to come into the RTZ and be live local. So I just don't want the state to consider any of this as a limitation on their preemption. That's my concern. I think that it's well-drafted. It only deals with the RTZ. It's very clear on that. That is a benefit that is being proffered to the property owner. And we just want clarity. And I will say this, staff drafts covenant all the time. I've never seen staff go somewhere with a covenant that does not involve the commissioner of the district, right? And a conversation about that. They have no agenda other than following the code and doing what's right for the residents of Miami-Dade County. So this idea that they're going to run and approve a covenant, I've never seen that happen. But again, this was the way that the statute was created, and this is how Live Local works. This is just covering the gap.

So I guess the question on that proffered option, Abby, because I understand what you're both saying, and that's why I brought it up, is so we cannot impose a covenant on these properties because of live local, but can the applicant or the property owner propose a covenant of their own? Can they willingly do it?

Only with this.

Go ahead.

Through the Chair, yes, I think one of the problems I think this ordinance is attempting to solve is more of a timing issue. When this board has it before them an ordinance to bring a property into the RTZ, that ordinance Would go into effect within ten days if at that time an applicant were to proffer a covenant. The covenant may not even be recorded before that ordinance goes into effect. And so I think one of the things this ordinance would do would be to allow for a covenant to be accepted administratively so it would be in effect recorded in the public records and in place at the time when the board is considering the discretionary proposal to bring a property into the RTZ. It's a little different from when the board is sitting in its zoning capacity or in its CDMP capacity.

I get it, Abby. But I asked that question just, I knew the answer to that, but I asked that question to clarify, because then the gap that I saw in that option, that last amendment option that Abby proffered or suggested, i guess they'll you know we can't force them to come back to us but if there's a covenant tying them to one thing they will they will on their own want to come back and do a new covenant i guess it's not like there's no harm done right in that sense

Well, that's if they came in and they said they were doing live local and then they decide not to do live local. That doesn't answer the incentivizing of coming in, doing RTZ, and not saying you're doing live local and then doing live local. But listen, that's fine. If it becomes a problem, we'll just fix it then. I think now we just need to get her going.

Go ahead.

We can always fix it later if it becomes a problem. This took a lot of time and effort to draft, so I'm happy to amend it with Abby's suggestion and move forward and call the question.

All right, show it. Well, I have a few colleagues I want to speak, but... So show it amended as per the First Amendment and per Abby's suggestion. Commissioner Hardiman, well, Orbis, you technically had the floor. Are you?

I have a question.

Go ahead. And then Hardiman and then Koenigers.

I appreciate your work on this, Commissioner. In the last section D, it says the covenant may be thereafter modified administratively, etc., etc., regardless of whether such covenant was accepted at a public hearing or in connection with prior zoning action. Can you explain that?

You may. Through the Chair. So Section D does mention the administrative modification as permitted in 33310.1. And I would ask the director to confirm this, but that section speaks about very limited circumstances under which covenants may be administratively modified, the conditions of the covenant have been complied with, where there's been some type of scrivener's error, where the conditions have become moot.

I don't know if the director would- So my question, if it's heard at a zoning hearing, at a public hearing, and it was not accepted by that body, the director has the authority to go ahead and override the decision of that body to not accept the covenant and go ahead and move forward with it.

No, Commissioner. I mean, the conditions in there are just those very limited conditions that can be administratively modified, but it's not speaking about overriding a zoning board's decision.

Well, it says they can modify a covenant regardless of whether such covenant was accepted at a public hearing.

Right. May I defer to the director?

Through the chair. So this section of the code allows, currently right now, we can initially modify covenants for certain things, certain small things like increase one story, add 10% of the trips. So this section D refers to that current existing section of the code to let us do the same administrative modifications.

Okay, does that interfere with the live local law? Does that need to be there? Can we remove that portion?

Commissioner, you don't have to have the allowance for the administrative modification.

That would be my friendly amendment there would be to strike that because I think that gives too much leeway there. And I'm okay with the other amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Hardiman.

I'm happy to do that. I mean, normally it's a Scribner's error. I mean, the only thing that I would say, I'll take it out. But then if they have a Scribner's error, then it comes back. So just so that we know that then the item comes back. But happy to take it out to make everyone feel better.

All right. Very, very amicable today, Commissioner Regalado. I like it. I like it. Keep it up. Commissioner Hardiman, you're recognized. Hopefully this time.

So I'm just trying to understand why we're here right so it will walk me through this process for instance not all of our districts deal with our TZ items right for the most part there are certain dishes that deal with our TZ items currently right now. If a property owner wants to bring his property with an R T Z District commissioners ask for legislation to be written for the property to be included first, right? We debate this issue and pass it. is there or is there not well as i understand no covenant necessarily is written at that time so how is this legislation effective because in in that part one and then two i know that when once the property is in for instance the rtz they usually come up with the development project And then that's when typically we've seen a lot of the covenants and agreements come into play. If there were public benefits, whatever it may be. Is this a step in between that? Is this getting rid of that? How does this legislation affect the overall process that we have today?

Through the chair. Commissioner, this is really about kind of a parallel process. The process that you described where there's first the item bringing in a property into the RTZ would remain. And then the typical projects that this board sees at the special exception hearing, those would still come to a special exception. Today, if a property owner wants to proceed under live local, then depending on their plan, whether they, for example, might need certain variances that aren't part of the live local provisions, they might still have to come here before this board for public hearing. But they might. be eligible for just administrative modification today. For those properties, when this board is making the decision whether to bring them into the RTZ, that's still a discretionary decision. But you're correct that this board doesn't have a covenant that's been proffered to Miami-Dade County at that stage. And so this ordinance would enable a covenant to be proffered administratively and accepted by the zoning department before the board considers that legislative action to bring a property in or not. If a property is located in a city and hasn't been brought into the RTZ, it's possible that under city zoning they may be eligible to proceed under live local. But once they're under county jurisdiction, If they wish to proceed under live local, arguably the height that we have authorized may in some cases be significantly higher than the height that would be applicable under live local where it's under the city's jurisdiction.

So in that case that it would be a bad thing for us to bring them into the well, I guess it depends on whose oxygen go right so if you're saying the height is higher, which is a major benefit to that property owner versus the high being lower because that's that will be a loss of that property. to that property owner versus the neighborhood. The neighborhood may say the height maybe is too high. So that's why I said it depends, right? But what I'm trying to understand, moreover, and you know, maybe Commissioner Regalado could help me after they've given this description better, is Typically, the covenants that we're entering into, the agreements that we come to, once the property is proposed to be developed, those are of greater sort of nature. They are more significant than any agreement that we've done necessarily before, well, than any other type of agreement. So if a property owner wants to be included in the RTZ, what you're proposing then with this is that they have some proposed covenant before we're actually hearing the item, so we have some agreeance. If so, would you then require or ask for them to provide their public benefits or their statement of public benefits at that time? And say, for instance, they do. What you're telling me is that they can still pivot and not act on those covenants. Or in concert with those covenants.

Commissioner, the covenant that we're, and I'll see if I can, hopefully I'll answer your question, but the covenant that we're talking about here in this ordinance is pursuant to a particular state law allowance that's in the Live Local Act for transit-oriented development where the statute allows us to enter into an agreement with the property owner with respect to certain parameters such as height and density. So it is a particular paragraph in the state law that the county could avail itself of. I think it's unclear in terms of including additional things that aren't referenced in that statute. In terms of its enforceability, assuming that the county has regulatory authority over that property, you know, the covenant can be written in a way where it's enforceable. It just continues to be enforced and it's not necessarily limited to whether that property owner is exercising live local or not. But if they're not exercising live local, then you're correct that it would very likely come before this board just through the much more typical special exception process where you have a full public hearing and you're typically receiving um, additional proffers in a cut in a covenant.

Even with the Mr chairman, even with the, say the statute talks about density and height. There are many times in which we do tie public benefits to additional height and density. Is that within the scope of the initial covenant?

Anyone could answer his question, yeah.

If they proffered, so this doesn't prevent us, again, bringing something into the RTZ is a benefit. So if they, whatever they proffer, this just allows us to do that. And by the way, it's not, it doesn't just have to be about height and density. It could be that Where that municipality is, it takes forever to effectuate live local. And they would rather do it with the county because the county is faster. So it doesn't necessarily have to be about the size of it. Sometimes it's about the speed of it or the process of it. Um, so this doesn't prevent us from doing more if everyone's okay with it, right? We have to be very careful with live local and that we cannot impose, but that's why this is the nexus of RTZ and live local, right? So whatever, you know, you request on the RTZ side can now be effectuated in a covenant. So that's the issue. And look, whenever I bring an RTZ, sometimes I add an MOU. I try to beef it up so that it doesn't get done later. But that obviously takes a lot of time. I just, I wanted to provide a vehicle so that that could be effectuated in that period. So, because it is just more than live local. So live local, we track the statute and that's what it is, right? But what we're saying here is this combination of things, the live local and the RTZ can beget a covenant.

Okay, Mr. Chair, the last thing I'll say is We it sounds like something we need. And then also appreciate the the adage that the commission and many on August August added because I would hate to have things that we included dismantled, if you will, you know, by the administration because they don't necessarily agree with what we did. They wanted something a little different. So I'm agreeable to that as well. Thank you.

Through the chair.

Yeah, Commissioner, Madam Mayor, sorry.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the way the staff have explained this to me, and it's consistent with the intent of Commissioner Regalado's item, is that this makes sure that the county has leverage. And this has been a very productive discussion with a lot of information shared about Live Local. It would be very helpful to us if the item could be deferred so that we could have a chance.

No, please. No.

Okay. Just to be clear, we are concerned about eliminating the ability that we have to... Frame a live local application for the best interests of the county am I can you? Lourdes if you don't mind can you please amplify on the point you may amplify Lourdes I

Certainly, what I explained to the mayor was that right now, live local is a preemption on our control. This is providing us a mechanism, as has been explained, to insert parameters that are beneficial to the development that we otherwise do not have a vehicle to effectuate with the developers who otherwise just have the right to go to permit. under the parameters that the state statute gives you. So that's why the social equity statement characterizes this as a positive because right now the one clear benefit of live local is acceleration of affordable housing. What this is doing is providing a vehicle to ensure that some of our local rule desires are manifested in that development. That is how we see it. You know, not barring, you know, it is a site by site, so I apologize if the answers have been confusing because the reality is, like with every zoning decision, it depends on each site. It depends on the history of each site. There may or may not be a pre-existing covenant. There's a whole host of factors that go into a specific zoning site. But in general, that is the benefit of this. It's giving us that mechanism to do the things that we would be asking for as part of the normal course in our code.

All right. Commissioner Regalado for a response.

Thank you. Madam Mayor, I appreciate that, but I've worked on this a lot with staff. And if you all want to bring an item about live local, you can. Have at it. This is about the RTZ and the nexus between the RTZ and live local. And I don't want to muddy the waters by turning it into a whole live local thing, because it's not. we are very limited in what we could do on the live local side. This is very specific about the RTZ. And to Commissioner Hardeman's point, we all bring these items. The commissioner of the district brings this item. And in that item, we get to establish what we believe is important for that particular site. It's still a zoning application. So I don't want to add a bunch of stuff that it may or may not apply to that particular site. It's a very specific thing, and I am very thoughtful about every item that I bring into the RTZ, and I look at the site, the impact, and all of it. We currently have this issue with the RTZ and Live Local, and I think we should solve it sooner rather than later and not turn this into an omnibus about live local because it's not. It's just specifically about the RTZ and it has a lot of clarity and the administration gets to weigh in. When the RTZ items are presented, the administration gets to weigh in if they want to weigh in. They get to do it before it comes to the agenda before we vote on it. So they already have the opportunity to do that on a case-by-case basis. I do not want to create a litany of other things that then we have to consider before we even bring these items. And if we want to do that, we can do it amending the RTZ, right? So that it applies to all RTZ. This is very particular to RTZ and Live Local. So if there are priorities and considerations that the administration wants for the entire RTZ, it should be done in the RTZ item, not in this particular item, which is about Live Local and the RTZ.

All right, Commissioner Cohen Higgins, and when she's done, Commissioner Gonzales.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an easiness and unreadiness on this because, and again, I'm paying very close attention to the conversation as it carries forward. In the whereas clauses, it says here, Um, speaking it, it introduces live local and it says, however, the statute also provides that for proposed live, local developments located within a transit oriented development, which is what we're talking about now or area. The applicant and the county may agree to development parameters for the project that differ from what is specified in the statute regarding. height, density, floor area ratio, and parking. That's what we're talking about. My question is, the same way that this item is drafting a law saying administrative acceptance of covenants in this very narrow circumstance, i.e. transit-oriented developments and live local, can't we write a law that says something different? Can't we write a law that says that we as the county, because it says in this section that I just read that the applicant and the county may agree to development parameters of the project that differ. Can't the county in that reference be us, the board, as opposed to you, the administration? So similar, I understand that we're not going to run afoul of Live Local, but I understand that there is a gap. So why are we writing the gap such that the administration has the authority as opposed to us? Why can't we write the exact same statute giving us the authority as opposed to yourselves? That's my question to the lawyers or to staff. This to me seems like an opportunity and I recognize it because it's been said. It gives us some level of control regarding these applications that everybody recognizes tends to be rather controversial throughout the county and in our district. So why would we as a board yield that little sliver of authority to you as opposed to us when we are the ones that are representing single districts and know these and would be the best ones to say this covenant is great or this covenant doesn't go far enough, which is what I think Commissioner Hardiman was addressing. Whether it's a community benefit or whatever the neighborhood may need, why wouldn't we want that for us as a board? It's not a philosophical question. It's really a question of, can this be drafted in the opposite way? Can it be drafted such that the board has the authority? It's kind of yes or no.

Through the chair. Commissioner. Commissioner, I think something like that could be done where it's for the board. However, I think we may want to think about how the RTZ ordinance, typically those are just ordinances that come in through the legislative process and there's not like a zoning public hearing. We may need to think about how that could be structured with that so that that ordinance would not go into effect. unless or until the board has the you know the covenant in recorded in the public records and in its final form it so it may be there may be kind of a mechanics question that um in terms of the the how but but whether it can be done the answer is yes

Okay, so if the answer is yes, it can be done. And the concerns that I've heard from my colleagues are pretty consistent. Why would we yield this and delegate this authority when we could write a law that retains it with ourselves? And if the answer to that is yes, and I understand it may be mechanical, And I understand that there's been a lot of time spent on drafting this ordinance. I personally would prefer to keep that authority. And again, it's the only sliver of authority we have left under Live Local, as stated in the item. And so as it's written now, I won't be supporting it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank Commissioner Cohen-Higgins for that line of questioning, but also Commissioner Hardiman, because I think he did a good job at getting to, I guess, the meat and potatoes of what we're talking about here. I think Lourdes did a phenomenal job at kind of clarifying the issue. I think that there's an easiness with the board. However, I think that this is an important item to Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Hardeman's point. It seems like this is something that's very important. The mayor has requested for a deferral. I'm going to motion to defer the item. And if I have a second, the reason I would be motioning to defer the item is so that we can have perhaps more time to fully digest what authority, if any, we are letting go of. Because through all the line of questioning, I think the consensus here is we would rather not delegate authority. But the way that I understand it after um the director explained is that perhaps this just facilitates that authority so i'm going to go ahead and i'm going to motion to defer the item respectfully commissioner i think that it's a well-drafted item but i'm going to motion to defer the item and if i can get a second second all right it's been moved to defer there's a second on the deferral any discussion on the deferral

Deferred to if it was to be deferred.

I want to speak on the default.

Sure.

But I mean, if it were to be deferred, obviously to the next meeting, um, first of all, You've amended the item several times here, and I've accepted every single amendment. And the statements that have been made are in conflict with the amendments that I've accepted. So yes, we can contort the item and put it on a hinge and make it completely different. But I accepted the amendment that said that everything comes back to us if it's legally permissible. I accepted the amendment that said that no changes occur at the administrative level. So you're all still talking about issues that you have on an item that you've amended that I've accepted the amendment to. So if you want me to defer it to add that, I'm happy to do it because I've already accepted those amendments. But what I don't want is to defer it and then to have the item rewritten again when it comes before the BCC. I did not effectuate Live Local. There is a gap. We have a problem. We cannot declaw live local inside the RTZ because we will be sued by the state. It was mindful and it was thoughtful as presented. There are a lot of things that we can do, but we can also be sued for those things. Live local does give us heartburn, but it is the law in the state of Florida. And I am trying to provide us a vehicle so that people cannot take advantage of the RTZ with live local. In our current state, every item that we bring into the RTZ can be morphed into a live local, and this board can do absolutely nothing. And I do not think that another day should go by without us being able to change that. If you want to take more time to think about it some more, that's fine. But just to be clear, this is about giving us authority, not taking away authority. And this constant mistrust of the administration and our staff, I don't understand it because We are the commissioners that bring the item. We are the commissioners that bring the item. We are the commissioners that bring it into the RTZ. Staff does not bring items into the RTZ. We are the commissioners that bring it into the RTZ. So if there's an issue, with the RTZ, then we can always amend the RTZ. I have amended the RTZ. I bought three items amended the RTZ. I amended the RTZ for the impact, you know, the impact fees. I've amended it. And we can continue to amend it. And we can add more things to it. But in this particular area, there is a gap. And I'm just trying to provide us access to a vehicle to respond to that gap. Because currently, we are exposed. And because we are exposed, our residents are exposed. And if our residents are exposed, we are then the ones that facilitated them being exposed. Thank you.

So I will recognize Commissioner Lopez. Go ahead, Commissioner Lopez, on the deferral. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've really appreciated all the comments here. I think I know Live Local probably better than all of you. And I want to first appreciate the fact that Commissioner Regalado... You don't have to rub it in. Sorry. I appreciate Commissioner Regalado attempting to fill a gap that I'm painfully aware of since most of my development comes through the RTZ. And I too want to secure that they can't make the bait and switch, as Commissioner Steinberg said, which they do. I don't think that I would be giving up authority here at all. And somehow, I don't know how this got convoluted into, you know, we don't love Live Local, and we want to try to figure it out using this vehicle, which would be, I think, a grave mistake. Here's what I think, and I understand, Commissioner Gonzalez, that you think a deferral would help, but I actually want you to know that I'm prepared to vote on this, yes, in the affirmative, because the gap is real. And I prefer to know what the covenants are prior to it coming to me to make a decision on whether or not I'm even going to accept them into the RTZ. It's a safeguard that doesn't exist now. And that is why I can support this item. um I don't know that we we should spend much time arguing about you know the merits of the live local what what we are arguing about here is very specific to any project that comes into the RTZ and there is a gap and I agree with Commissioner Regalado that I'm getting more control by doing this as opposed to losing control So I just want, I waited and I listened and I listened and I listened and then I said to myself at some juncture and I thought your closing remarks Commissioner Regalado were clear and concise enough for me to just say I can support it right now. I think deferring it doesn't do anything And I appreciate you taking the amendments that address some of the concerns that our colleagues have with this, but I don't know that a deferral makes sense because it's either this or, in my opinion, nothing. And we go back to me having this angst around the gap and watching people play with it to our detriment. I like more transparency. I like it sooner in the process than later in the process. So I just wanted to give you the benefit of my comments and what I have also experienced in bringing in projects into the RTC. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. So look, well said. And well said, Commissioner Regalado. Look, I personally, I could support the deferral just because I understand that They just need more time to understand that I've personally. I see every item before this point. I read and get briefed on it at least 3 times before we get to this point. So I'm comfortable with the item, especially with the amendments that you've agreed. So I'm prepared to vote and support it today. I'd support the deferral only in the event that they might need more time to just understand it. Again, I'm comfortable with it. with the item, I'm comfortable with deferring it till the very next meeting and you all just getting further briefed. It's really the will of this body, but I can do either. I appreciate the friendly amendments. You're right. You did concede on a lot of things that I think are good amendments, but I do appreciate you for accepting them as friendly amendments. Look, we have a deferral and we have a motion to defer in a second. We can take, you can speak on it, Commissioner Gonzalez. I agree.

I'm comfortable with the item, but I do see some uneasiness from my colleagues. I would hate for this to move forward for a vote and because of uneasiness for it not to move forward without everybody understanding it completely. I'm comfortable with voting. If the will of the board is to vote today, I will withdraw my motion to defer. I'm comfortable with voting right now. But I would hate for this to fail because of uneasiness.

Okay, so Commissioner Bastien.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been listening with attention, and I'm not going to make a long speech, but I agree with Commissioner Regalado. I think she's agreed to a lot of the amendments, and I'm ready to vote. If there is anything that can be anything specific right now that she can answer, Let her clarify it. From where I am right now, I'm satisfied and I'm comfortable, especially after listening to Commissioner Lopez, I'm comfortable to vote now. And if there is any clarification, let's make it and move it forward.

All right. So with that, Commissioner Gonzalez withdraws his deferral. We'll take a vote. I mean, what's the worst that could happen? So we have a motion by Commissioner Regalado to move her item as amended, like I think like three times. You got all the amendments. Second. This gives us more protection. Yeah, we've established this gives us more protection. Seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Do I need a clerk? Please call the roll.

Commissioner Steinberg? Yes. Commissioner Bastian? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez?

Yes.

Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? No. Senator Garcia? No. Commissioner Gonzalez?

No.

Commissioner Hardiman? No. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. Commissioner Millian-Orbis? No. Commissioner Regalado?

Yes.

Chairman Rodriguez?

I vote yes.

Motion passes 8 to 2.

Thank you.

All right.

And then as amended, as amended and amended and amended.

So I did have one that wasn't bifurcated. We could take that up. Mickey Steinberg moves 7E. Seconded by Commissioner Lopez. I mean, it's your item. So if you don't want to move it, I mean, I'm happy to have someone else move your item. It's seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Clerk, please call the roll.

Commissioner Bastien? Yes. Commissioner Bermudez?

Yes.

Commissioner Quinn-Higgins? For. Senator Garcia? Commissioner Gonzalez?

For.

Commissioner Hardiman? For. Commissioner Lopez?

Yes.

Commissioner Millian-Orbis? Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Commissioner Steinberg? Yes. Chairman Rodriguez?

I vote yes.

Motion passes unanimously.

All right. Commissioner Bastien, you're recognized on 7C.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to preface my quick comment to say that I support the item, Mr. Chair, and I thank you for bringing it. Since I've been elected, I've been committed to use every tool at my disposal to eliminate the housing crisis in Miami-Dade County. And then, as we all know, the infield housing program represents an important tool for the county, allowing developers to use infield housing for rent, for affordable rent, and then for sale. Stating that, we have already stated on record also that there are problems with it, and I think that's why, Mr. Chair, you brought the item. But I want to make sure that the changes that are needed are not unfairly targeting developers who are doing their best to really bring additional housing stocks to the county. So that's why I bring this amendment because often times the delay is not under the control of the developers and I don't want them to be negatively impacted for bringing housing and for something that they don't have any control over. So I'd like the attorney to please read the amendment.

You're recognized to read her amendment.

Sure. Commissioner Bastian moves to amend item 7C to clarify that delays that are caused beyond the developer's control and delays caused by extraordinary circumstances include those administerial delays caused by the county or other governmental entities and lawsuits, excluding lawsuits brought by or against the county. That may affect the timely completion of homes to be constructed on county-owned property. Commissioner Bastian moves to amend the ordinance to allow the board by a two-thirds vote of its membership to grant one additional extension where the developer has demonstrated that the home is substantially completed. The amendments are reflected in the handout that has been shared with each of the commissioners.

All right, and I'm good with that, Commissioner Bastian. I think that still accomplishes the idea. I mean, it's a fair amendment, so I'll accept that amendment. Commissioner Hardiman.

Before I go into an argument regarding the matter, I think that this item is worthy of a continuance, a deferral, just until the next hearing. And the reason why I say so without getting into any major argument is because this item affects especially two districts that are not present today. right so that would be commissioner mcgee's district and also commissioner oliver gilbert's district because these items these these infill parcels are primarily located in mcgee gilbert my district and and commissioner um What's your name again that she's that's your sister. I don't want to long. Yes, thank you. So you know. So I would like first before I made the motion about the children to be okay with this. And then if not the will make the motion would get into the argument. But you know I don't want to have to make argument twice about something this is clearly This is an issue that, of course, affects all of us in this sense because it's county property, but it's particular to certain districts. And then it elevates discussion about other properties. And so before I get into that, what I'd like to do is make a motion to defer the items to the next hearing so that we can all be here who are primarily affected to discuss it.

Commissioner Hardiman, look, I'm not in opposition of deferring it to the very next meeting. I kind of want to hear your argument just for...

I know, I know, but I think...

I kind of want to hear your argument now.

I don't want to waste all of our time. Nobody voted against it in committee. It went to committee. It went through the process. I didn't waive it out of committee or anything like that. And yes, you're right, and thank you for saying that. There is certain districts that just have more of these lots, properties, but they are county properties, and I... When I brought the item forward, I'll say this. I don't know if to use the term watered it down from my initial thought process to make it as fair as possible to all parties. I really did. And now accepting Commissioner Bastien's as well. The idea is not to create an issue for anyone that's doing it. We want more of this. We just don't want someone sitting on a lot for eight years, 10 years with no movement. Now, if it's stuck because permitting or mitigation of land, like that's all covered in this item, like protecting them, you could still get extensions based on those issues. It's just like when they're just not doing anything. And we have, maybe not a lot, it's not the majority, but there's been some of those. I'm just trying to put some limits on that. That's... That's it.

I agree with you that there are issues. I don't think there's anybody who's been most affected by those issues than me and my district. In fact, I'm being sued personally because of those issues between me and my district, which is incredible, but it is the truth. So my point to you on this is that I'd rather make

rather ever want to be included in the discussion so that we can really have a discussion and then you know we decide what we want to do if i will i will tell you this i based on my co-sponsorships and reading the room i can tell you i can pass it today but i have no issue deferring it to include the two commissioners that are not present i understand that i want to be as inclusive as possible uh just If you have concerns, work with us.

Yeah, I'm here to work with you. I'm not going to hold you. I always have great things to bring up in discussion.

I will tell you this, though. I will tell you this. Next meeting is a very, very long one. So if your argument is going to be lengthy, I'd rather you do it now.

Yeah, I don't know if it's lengthy. You never know until you get into the fight, right? But, no, I mean, I think it would be good to have all heads included. That's all.

You want to move to defer it? Yes, sir.

Properly moved.

It's been moved to deferred, seconded by Commissioner Bermudez.

Yeah, but I'd like to make a comment first. Sure. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing up this item, which is important to me. I come from a little bit of a different position, though I also understand Commissioner Hardeman's point of view. And I just want to throw that out there because I was also, with Commissioner Bastien, pulled the item. And I'm not going to read the language now, though I have something to run it through the attorneys. But I just want to make sure that entities that continue to do this, whether developers or organizations, Developers organizations that continue to not meet the standard we set. They just can't keep on coming back again until they can show us that they have the financial wherewithal to develop these properties for housing. Because in my opinion, I'm going to support deferral, in my opinion, The infill does impact the whole county, because when we talk about affordable housing, it impacts us all. Every time we talk about the west, we're still talking about the east. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And I think it's very important for everyone to understand that what I find incorrect, and there's no particular organization, so nobody takes this out of context, or no particular developer. If you continue to get these properties and don't do anything with it, there have to be consequences because we need to put this in the hands of people who move forward and build the housing. And I would like some of that language to be included, and I'm not going to belabor it, but that's what's important to me. Other than that, I'm-

All right, so there's a motion to defer 7C, seconded by Commissioner Bermudez. All in favor of the deferral to the next meeting, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. And then on that note, if we can pass a similar item, Commissioner Hardiman, I don't think you'll have a hard burn over this one, 11A5 does the same thing, but for affordable housing, which is not the infill lots. It's different. So we should be, you're good with that one? No not to defer not to pass it because it's not the same. Same parameters, but not the same program. But it's it's not the same properties in the same districts.

So you think to my question will be. The the parcels for affordable housing. What you're telling me is then that. There are a lot more districts that are affected that are trying to build affordable housing than what the mainstay of the affordable housing districts are today.

i know that i like for example i don't have infill lots in my my district but i have affordable housing lots i know that i don't know how many you know lopez has in her of infill but i know she has a ton of affordable housing same with regalado she doesn't have a ton of infill but she has a gazillion afford so i i don't think it's the same exact but i just want to make sure you don't have heartburn with that one

I would ask that it also be included for that reason. For the reason that you have two main districts that, I'll give an example, look. Just move to defer it. Okay, thank you. All right. Probably move to defer.

All right, so the next meeting, Commissioner Bermudez moves the deferral, seconds of deferral. All in favor of the deferral, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. Show that those two items deferred. All right. Madam Attorney.

Your chair.

Who said, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Regalado.

Can we take up 8F1?

8F1, let me see. We're on the pool list.

I pulled it to amend it.

We can take up 8F1. Yes.

So this actually, this item was very properly vetted, and we've been working on it for over three years. But at the last minute, we found out that there had been an issue between PIOD and fire. So if the attorneys could read the amendment that deals with this issue, we've spoken with the base and with everybody involved.

Yes. Commissioner Regalado moves to amend item 8F1 to 1 indicate that approximately 2 acres out of the 32 acres of land are currently needed and will continue to be needed and used by Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Department through no later than June 2027 and are therefore declared surplus to the county's needs as of June 2027 following MDFR's relocation. Two, provide that the balance of the 32 acres of land are declared to be surplus as of the effective date of this resolution. Three, authorize the county mayor or mayor's designee to retain a surveyor to bifurcate the legal description of the 32 acres as between the acreage to be used by MDFR and the balance of the 32 acres. Authorizes the immediate conveyance of the balance of the 32 acres to the Air Force and authorizes the conveyance of the approximately two acres to the Air Force following the relocation of MDFR from parcel, from that land, which is anticipated to be honored before June 2027 and make conforming changes to the title. Thank you.

And Mr. Chair and the Board, it's just fire has a warehouse there, and it's going to take them a few months to get everything out.

It's been moved by commissioner as amended as amended commission Gonzalez just you're recognized.

I appreciate that amendment. I'd like to include an amendment to add five acres for the sheriff's office as well. Okay.

There hasn't been a request for the sheriff's office and there's nothing there. They don't have anything there. Did they?

Yes, I just got off the phone. I just got off the phone with folks within the PBA. Sheriff's office would like five acres.

Okay, so let me explain something. No one is giving anybody five acres. The whole idea here is that this land is going back to the federal government. So, Director Palmer, you want to speak to the request?

Yes, through the chair, Commissioner Gonzalez. The five acres you're talking about is the other property adjacent to this property.

Got it.

It's not including in this. It's not including in this conveyance. It's the one adjacent. The other property, and that's the plan. Got it.

This is simply to give them full access to the runway. This has been the issue with this item is that the runway is not fully protected. And that's how we started this whole thing like three and a half years ago. So I'm happy to move it.

Okay.

All right. So it's been moved. As amended. As amended. It's been seconded by Commissioner Bermudez. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Show that 8F1 and its supplement passed as amended. 8A1 and its supplement. Commissioner from District 12, you're recognized. Yes, on 8A1, the sole source MDAD.

Yeah, the problem that I see, the words sole source, while they apply sometimes, when I went through the list of some of these sole source, for example, I think it included grease traps, which I don't think is a sole source, but I'm a little bit reticent, in particular with the airport, to continue to sole source as many things as we do. Some make sense, like for example, what do you call those tiles on the roof? Whatever, acoustical tiles, that makes perfect sense. But others don't make much sense to me to be sole source. I just think it opens it up to not a process where, at least from the public's perspective, is seen as fair and impartial. I kind of felt this way about it when we talked about the procurement process for a couple of months before or whatever, a year before on some of the businesses that were getting approved. So that's my concern with this. And while some of them make sense, I would still like to see them in front of us because if we don't, then something that may not need to be a sole source all of a sudden becomes a sole source. And like some of the things on the list, I don't know, I'm not necessarily, I don't know, roll-up door controllers, even video cameras. Competition is at least what I believe will get you, if not the lowest price, the best and lowest price. So that's my concern with this, Mr. Chair, and I'm not, I think we talked about earlier about seeing everything, you know, seeing most of these things. The grease traps are a tremendous issue for me because, as you know, we have the flow issue, which if we don't resolve that, we're not going to get any restaurants opening up in this county that can grow into big restaurants. So I've got an issue with it. So that's my concern. And I'm going to vote no on it.

Director Kuti, could you approach and speak to some of the concerns that were addressed by Commissioner Ramirez?

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Commissioner, if I can kind of walk you through the rationale for the item. The purpose of the item is to be able to have us be able to implement certain projects. It's a limited delegated authority, so it's not very far reaching. It only applies to the 15 projects listed in Exhibit B of the item. So the purpose of it is to allow us to implement those projects faster, more cost-effectively, and with minimal operational disruption. And that's extremely important, and I'll get into that in a second as to why. But it is a limited delegated authority, and it's not for sole sourcing. What it does is it allows the mayor or her designee to specify certain sole source components within those projects. And the reason for that is to allow us to, like I said before, perform the projects more efficiently, faster, more cost-effectively, and most importantly, minimize operational disruption. If we have to do tear-outs on the airfield, as an example, Airfield lighting, there's items in there for doors in the terminal, terminal doors, etc. A lot of that technology, a lot of that infrastructure is proprietary. So if you have to tear all that out, it creates a significant operational disruption, which results in delays to the projects and also higher costs. So the purpose of this is to just, for those specific projects listed and for those components that are listed, just have that delegated authority so we can specify in competitive solicitations that will go out for these projects, That's all this does. So it's not an agreement for sole sourcing per se, although it does mention sole source because that's how the statute refers to it. So secondly, what we did. We did a significant amount of due diligence on the item as required by the state statute. So included in the item as one of the exhibits is approximately 50 letters drafted by about 14 engineers of record that work at the airport in support of this for the reasons that I mentioned. And then as belt and suspenders, we also had our bond engineer who's been at the airport for about 60 years and does the annual facility inspections of all of our facilities and are very familiar with all of our facilities, the item and also the other engineer records letters also in support of this. So the idea is not to take authority away from the board, is the idea is to have a limited delegated authority just to specify those components in those solicitations. All those competitive solicitations, when they're advertised, will come back to this board for approval. It'll just allow us to just, and for me specifically, minimizing disruption as we continue to maintain our operation and as our operation continues to grow is extremely important. And that's really what's behind the item.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Mr. Chair, may I ask just one other question? Sure. I understand, Mr. Director, and I understand your intent, and I think you're well intended. By the way, is that guy that's been there 60 years, was he here when we don't know what's under the airport? I guess he was, right?

Because 60 years... They're a bond engineer.

Oh, the bond engineer has been 60 years.

By the way, that was competitively procured a couple of years ago.

We still don't know what's under the airport. Only the people that proffered one of the... Which is amazing to me, but... Anyways, my concern is what will stop other departments from doing this? And my concern with the sole source process, in particular at the airport, but in other places also, I am not the biggest, let me rephrase that. I think our procurement needs a lot of improvement. In our first committee meeting, and I think Commissioner Cohen-Higgins was there, and so was Commissioner Regalado, we found out there were 177 ordinances that deal with procurement, which to me is, Astonishing, but nevertheless, as we seek to be more efficient and more effective, and your explanation is a good one, and I appreciate you and the administrative taking. And the administration taking the position to try to streamline these things to be more effective and efficient, which is important. I just want to make sure that. We just, you know, and being efficient and effective, there are certain things that certainly deserve or could be, like you said, proprietary, and you've been using it at the airport for so long, and they might be the, that's okay, okay? But my concern is that we don't continue this cycle of business as usual. And I said it to you very bluntly, and Mr. Morales, after the vote on the the concessions and a group of some others that were in the room. I just don't think it's good policy. I think it sets up really bad, it just sets a bad precedent. Having said that, you've given a good explanation, and I think that you've given me some good response. I wish I would have It's a good response, but I still feel a little bit of uneasiness. But because I trust in you and believe that you are someone who is committed to bringing this airport into this century, I'm going to go ahead and I feel satisfied with that response, and I'm going to be supportive of it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleague, JC Bermudez. I appreciate that. I also wanted to ask, at what point do you all review contracts for the end of the sole source? So when do you reassess to see if there is another company that can provide the services or the materials outside of the sole source?

That's a very good question, Commissioner. Typically, that's an ongoing process. As technology changes, Our procurement teams working together with NOMIDA's team are constantly evaluating new technologies. For example, access control is an area where we've looked at maybe some better technologies, and we may end up bidding that out sometime later in the future. But in the meantime, we don't want to hold up these projects as a result of that. So to your point, it is an ongoing process all the time. We don't wait until the end of a contract. That evaluation is going on constantly between our in-house technical staff, our engineers, and also our procurement staff.

But you're not automatically required to go with that same company if there is someone else available?

Yeah, I mean, we always have the option of bidding it out. We weigh the different factors in that. I mean, I'll give you one example. Years ago, I want to say six, seven years ago, we had a renewal contract for Honeywell because it would have cost three and a half times as much to tear out all their infrastructure and replace it. But that doesn't mean that we don't constantly evaluate something that maybe could be better than they are or any other system.

Thank you.

I don't know, Mr. Chair, Madam Chair.

I want to put a little bit, and I appreciate everything Ralph said, put a little context. This is limited to four or five major projects that are moving forward at the airport now. D60, that brand new multiple terminal, Terminal K, the central terminal. And all those projects will be competitively bid out. There are sub-components in those projects, like the security cards that are used across the airport, or the lighting on the runway, which is all based on one system. Replacing those in their entirety would be really traumatic because not only are you going to use different cards in the new terminals, you're now going to have to replace it everywhere else. And so we had the bond engineer look, are there a certain number of contracts that would have that level of disruption that would slow down the project and raise costs? And I think that's what this list is. These projects are going to be bid out overall, but these subcomponents So that we're consistent with really the environment that is the airport. It's really one building, functions as one building, and we want to make sure critical systems, whether it's security, lighting, etc., are working hand in hand together and not having different systems. Commissioner Regalado.

Thank you. I understand. I understand the point. My concern is that I don't want us to enter into the zone where if it's a proprietary, then sole source is okay. I find that very concerning because we're constantly talking about competition and giving people opportunity, but now we're saying, oh, but if it's proprietary, just have at it. So I just want to know why we didn't consider, like, pools? Because that's my kind of in-between, right? I understand that the RFP process takes a long time. I understand that you may get a higher price because of the time that the RFP process takes. But when we deal with this issue in water and sewer and in solid waste and in a lot of other departments, our answer is to use pools because... Because pools allow us to be competitive, to give different people opportunity without getting bogged down. So is there a reason why we're not doing pools?

I mean, to answer your question, Commissioner, the reason we didn't consider pools is because all of these components are project-specific to the projects listed here. So all of these projects that are going to be bid out and have to be designed, et cetera, so the components will all be tailor-made or tailor-designed for that specific project. So a pool... wouldn't necessarily be able to address some of the concerns I raised before, which is the disruption, tearing things out, etc. So the idea is that by having this authority, a limited authority, we can go ahead and include those sole source components for these companies that will design and build these projects. So it's a matter of project specific versus pools. Pools are great. We use them all the time at the airport, but for more general type things. But for these kind of large, very, very complex, project-specific type projects, we wanted to make sure that they were tailored for that, and that's really the reason for it.

I get that. The optics bothers me because the airport already has its own procurement. So it's already separate from the rest of the county. And now we're saying, okay, you have your own procurement. You can enter into your procurement process with flexibility that other people don't have. And now we're doubling down on that by giving you more authority for sole source. It's just, it's a very, it's a bridge, right? And I just, my concern is that under the banner of You know, expediency, we're agreeing to a lot. So that's my concern there. I get it. You want to do it. You want to do it fast. But I just, yeah.

Commissioner, if I can make one point. Yeah, we do have our own procurement department at MIA, but we work very closely hand-in-hand with the county's procurement department and NAMRA's folks. So we handle typically our own construction procurements, but A&Es and goods and services, we work through NAMRA staff. So it's not like we do everything on our own. I just wanted to clarify that. We do work together with nominative staff on a lot of procurements.

Through the chair, if I may, Commissioner, thank you. I just want you to know when I was commissioner, I had these very same concerns and worked on procurement issues, of course, at the time. And one of the things that we've done is work through procurement, which, by the way, is not totally separate at the airport. There's a strong coordination with our chief procurement officer, Namita Opal. And so we don't want to be stuck with products that we can't replace. that their legacy that's not good for us and also we want to be sure that other companies can work on the the the procurement if necessary so that is part of what we do in the procurement process to make sure that we're not left with things that give us no flexibility

I understand. But the state of Florida, the statute already provides the airport with a ton of flexibility. And so, you know, this is this is just like more of that. Right. So you already have a lot of flexibility and you bring us items under the banner of we need to get this done yesterday. I this is a lot. It's a it's a lot that that's my my my hesitation is that that Just the optics of it might not might not be the best I understand the purpose of it. It's just it the breadth of it and What it's saying about sole source Every time we have a sole source here We have to be very explicit in our other departments as to why and I just feel like this is very Blanketed and and just covers a lot. That's my concern.

Thank you Commissioner Steinberg

Thank you. Okay, so from what I understand with this particular situation here, the county will still competitively bid the construction contracts. Correct. But you want to maintain them under, or you want to set these pre-existing conditions of what brands and what specific models. because you want there to be some sort of synergy so that there's compatibility between the existing infrastructure.

It gives us the ability to specify certain sole source components within those competitive solicitations.

Okay, but that being said, I have a separate question for you. Are we having issues with the current existing systems that we currently use? Because all we're doing now is enhancing those same systems. So I know it's a $300 million potential savings and cause delays if we go completely different and open it up fully. And I understand that argument. I just want to better understand, are these the best systems that we have, prospectively looking, if we go forward, are these the brands that are giving us issues already?

Well, again, that's a very good question. It's sort of related to what Commissioner Milanova said. So we are constantly working with NOMEDA's team. evaluating those systems, so anytime that we can find something that's either a better system or better technology, we will always look at pursuing a competitive procurement. That's why, even within this, if we have a competitive procurement for some other system that comes in after, we can always bid that out and include it. For example, in D60, we're looking to advertise D60, which is our biggest project in the CIP, it's $1.1 billion. We're going to be advertising that by August. So we're looking at right now our access control system, which is our security system, because we've been told that there may be some better systems out there. So we are working on scoping the actual RFP for that, which will come out sometime later in the fall. But that's going to be after we advertise D60. But we will still have the ability, as D60 is going to take about a year to get that project awarded, and that's a design build. While the project is being designed starting in summer of 27, we will still have the ability to fold in that access control system, assuming we decide to change it. So we do have the flexibility to do that.

Okay. I'm not sure you fully answered the question. In terms of the existing infrastructure that we have now that we're trying to tie in, when we have the flexibility, but then we're saying we don't have the same flexibility because we want to stay with those for the cohesive infrastructure. Future like if it's gonna save us 300 million now in the future if we have issues, it's gonna cost us more So I'm trying to just I'm just trying to get get there. So help me get there, right?

Okay So I mean the the three hundred two million dollars is a conservative estimate as far as the savings that we would experience I I believe it's going to be significantly more but that being said in Anytime that we identify a system that is not working properly, I hope this answers your question. Then we do have termination clauses in those contracts where we can eliminate them. I'm not sure if that answers the question.

Through the Chair, Commissioner, I think what you're asking is, of these 13 to 15 systems that were identified by the bond engineer as being not necessarily proprietary, but source them because as part of the ecosystem of the airport, if you're going to put new ones, you're going to have to rip everything out, that kind of stuff. Your question, I think, is, is it our opinion that those 13 and 15 actually are good systems? Yes. That's what you're saying. Or are any of them problematic? I think that's the question. Ralph.

I'm sorry. The answer to that is yes. And the one example that I use of one that we're looking at maybe replacing is our access control. But, yeah, the answer to your question is yes, Commissioner. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

All right, Commissioner Regalado.

Yeah, just a thought. Ralph, would you be open to the idea of limiting this authority a little bit so that it has to come to the full BCC? Maybe it doesn't go to committee. Maybe it just comes to the full BCC just so that we can see the numbers and just see it. Like, do we hate that idea?

I'm trying to understand your question. So what you're saying is come back to the BCC for the award? For the award. That's going to happen anyway, as a matter of course. For all these projects, these components will be specified in these competitive solicitations. So those awards will come back to you. I guess one thing we can do is break out those components within that award to show what the cost was. I don't know if that...

Yeah, but I just feel like we need more information on it. And the problem is when it comes back to us, it's still a sole source, right? So we have to approve it because it's a sole source. But can you provide us with, right, it's an award, right?

Commissioner, quite frankly, I don't know why we need this item. They kind of do this now, right? Well. Kind of do this now?

Not really. Anytime we have a sole source contract that we're going to procure, it has to come to the board for approval.

So the process for the sole source is different than this. We are giving them authority. I just think we need more information on it because we have no way to vet what the price would be if we didn't go with the sole source. There's just a gap there. And I understand why you want to do it, and I get it. I just feel like maybe the answer is to provide the board with more information about what the market... And look, Namita does that. She gives us, like, a market, you know, kind of perspective. I mean, can you tell us in the item what... What your feelings are on on on the sole source price compared to the market so that at least we know at least we can see something right and we can. Up or down because right now you're just going to come with us and say, this is a source source. It costs a 1M dollars and there's nothing we can do about it. Approve it. Yes or no. So can we add the component of a market analysis?

So I think if I understand your question correctly, Commissioner, when an award for any of these projects come to the board, you want to have a market analysis for those sole source components in that award included in the award item.

Yes. So we can't make it competitive, but at least we have an idea of what the competitive market is when we vote on it.

We can certainly do that.

Okay. I don't know if the maker is okay with that, but that would be my friendly amendment.

Is this your item?

Jimmy. Just a quick comment. Commissioner, through the Chair. Commissioner, I would ask that we include, though, in that as well, not just the competitive pricing, but what's the cost to the airport of replacing our existing system? You know, because that's part of the savings. That would have to be included.

That's fine. That's fine.

It's not just that. It's what I mentioned before. It's the operational disruption and the cost to tear everything else out. That has to be included as well. It's not just the cost of the item.

Commissioner Quinn-Higgins, is that a friendly amendment?

Sure.

Okay. All right. Show it, uh, moved by commissioner Cohen Higgins as amended seconded by commissioner Gonzalez on favor of, Oh, go ahead.

No, go ahead. Call the vote. Sorry.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

I'll oppose nay. Show the item passed and you're recognized.