Fiscal Accountability and Government Relations Committee - Regular Meeting

Okay, good morning and welcome to the Fiscal Accountability and Government Relations Committee meeting of Wednesday, October 1st, 2025. I'm now calling the order to meeting. Can we please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by our Board Chair, Ms. Maritere Rojas. 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. Please remain standing for one minute for a moment of silence. Thank you. Before I get started, I want to state the committee membership. You have myself, Roberto Alonso as chair, Mr. Danny Espino as vice chair, Ms. Luisa Santos as member, Mr. Joseph Geller as member, and Dr. Dorothy Bendos-Mendigo as an alternate member, and Ms. Mary Blanco as an alternate member. Our first order of business is to approve the minutes of the Wednesday, September 3rd, 2025 Fiscal Accountability and Government Relations Committee meeting. Are there any questions or concerns for my fellow board members? All those in favor?

Aye. Mr. Chair, before you go on, Ms. Blanco has a price made that she is running late, but she will be in attendance.

Thank you so much.

Okay, the next order of business is to move the E items to the floor. May I get a motion to move the E items to the floor? All in favor?

Aye.

Our first item is E1. Mr. Steiger, this is your item.

Yeah, E1 is the monthly financial report for the period ending July and August 2025.

One moment, sir, please. Mr. Chair, I've also been apprised now that Mr. Espino is on his way, but he may be a little bit late as well.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Steigerman, continue.

E66 is approval of the premium equivalent rates for the calendar year 2026.

Mr. Chair, I do want to speak on this one.

You're recognized, Ms. Ross.

Thank you, sir. Just a very quick question. The chart on page 205 after the statement which states the composite rate for 2026 will be $4.27 PPM. The year stated is 2023. Is this correct?

Oh, sorry, Madam Chair. It's just a typo. We'll fix that for the board meeting.

Okay, thank you. And on page four of five, under the Medicare eligible retiree health care options, I saw four supplemental plans that were being offered. That was plan A, F, G, and N. It's a question that I have because I'm not really sure if there are any restrictions regarding who can take advantage of this plan through the chair.

Madam Chair, you are beyond my depth, so I'm going to have to call in either Rosa or Mike, whoever wants that.

Good morning.

Thank you. Good morning, through the Chair. There are Medicare restrictions, like on programs like F that are grandfathered in, but individuals, retirees that are currently enrolled in an MA program, can definitely enroll in the supplement program that we're offering.

So it's the ones that are grandfathered in through the chair?

Specifically through the chair. Specifically in the F, and that's Medicare because it's no longer offered, but if it was offered at the time that Medicare stopped awarding that contract, then yes, they can remain.

Okay, thank you. And through the chair, I thought that Medicare had 10 supplemental plans. that any retiree could go and they could apply, enroll, and pay whatever the rates were at that time. I know that the rates have always been in the past, and I've addressed this, based on obviously your age at the time of purchase. So why is it if we have, I believe, 10 plans, why are we only offering four plans through the chair?

So thank you through the chair. The plans that you have in front of you are the plans that were part of the award of the RFP when it was last awarded in 2020. There are different programs out there. Not all of them offer the same level of benefits that these are providing our retirees. So currently these are the plans that we offer and it's the continuation of the plans for next year. As you know, We are in the middle of the cone of silence because there was an ITN that was released and is for benefits for 27. Medicare is constantly changing, so we'll see what those responses, those solicitations provide us the opportunity of awarding contracts for our retirees for the 27 plan year.

So through the chair, and I appreciate your response, I understand, but if there are 10 plans, I think that that's something that needs to be evident and obvious and available to everyone that we represent because we have a limited number showing here. And in addition, this is an open market, so the supplemental plans can be purchased. So what benefits are we really giving our employees that are retirees? And I've been asking this for a long time because I do represent a lot of our retirees.

I will let Rosa give an answer, but I will tell you, Ms. Rojas, I often think, especially for those over 65, I'm not certain why we really are involved in this business. I understand that some people like him. Honestly, if I'm going to give the honest answer, I think it's because of Rosa. I think people just like dealing with Rosa. Like they just go to her because she informs people. She sits down with them, that she helps them out. Other than, I mean, it's all the same plans everywhere. We can't, we're not even allowed to improve most of them. So I really just think it's her, but you can answer.

So, if I may, through the chair, before you respond, everybody loves Rosa. There's no question about that, starting with me, but that's not the question I asked. But everybody does love Rosa, for the record. All right.

So, through the chair, thank you, Madam Board Chair, and thank you, Mr. Steiger. And if I may, a point of clarification. So... These are market programs, the supplement plans. You can go to any other carrier, not only the United program that we have currently, but you can go through Blue Cross and Blue Shield, many different carriers. It's a very broad marketplace, the Medicare, because it does provide dollars, federal dollars on a guaranteed basis, and the carriers are very interested in these offerings. However, as a point of clarification based on Mr. Steiger's comment, the reason we offer Medicare programs, right, we're in the Medicare space, is because statutorily we have to offer benefits continuation to employees who retire from the district pre- or post-65. The statute doesn't specify age. So in order to protect our self-insured program, our under 65 population, when you're Medicare eligible, you retire and you're Medicare eligible, we offer you the Medicare group plans. That is part, besides, I appreciate the comment of people like me, it's that statutorily we have to offer programs, so protecting right, the under 65, the last time we offered Medicare programs to the under, I'm sorry, we offered the under 65 program to Medicare, which was when we were fully insured in 2008 for nine, we were running at 434% loss ratio. that is unsustainable in an ASO platform. So if you retire and you're under 65, you can continue with the under 65 product that is the Cigna product that you have in front of you. But if you're over 65 and you retire, I don't have to offer you the Cigna program. I protect our dollars by offering you the Medicare programs. But I wanted to respond to your comment, Madam Board Chair, through the Chair. If you look at the supplement, that is one component of the Medicare group offering. We actually currently offer 14 different programs. And we do offer programs that offer better benefits than what are found in the marketplace. If you look at the passive PPO, for example, it's a program that offers you in and out of network the same out-of-pocket. So you don't even have a network to follow. You can go anywhere, and your out-of-pocket expense is the same. And it even has a prescription program, which programs like that are only offered through a group setting. So like I always refer to the Medicare platform, the alphabet soup, the 31 flavors of Baskin Robbins, you have a lot of options to choose from. So when you look at the supplement itself, you have four because that's what the carrier responded. But you really have 14 benefits this year. For next year, as you have in front of you, the AFMED programs will not be offered because AFMED walked away from the Medicare because of some of the challenges with funding and regulatory challenges in the Medicare space. But it's not only the supplement. Our retirees do have options.

Through the chair. Thank you. I had to go, though, by what's written on the document in front of me. And I read all about AFMED and everything that occurred there as well. And you brought up the issue of the prescription plans, and those are very problematic. That's Plan D, and there are lots of questions on that arena as well because of prescription drugs and everything else, I mean, the causes. Yes. is beyond in some cases. So if you have an issue with your thyroid and you have to take Synthroid in lieu of the generic because that's the one that works for you, you are talking a tremendous amount of dollars that you have to pay aside from whatever is being covered. And you have a lot of people that have many, that's just one example out of many others that I could give right now. But I do appreciate you explaining about the four team, because that's all I see is here's four. And lastly, through the chair, I've asked that in the past. I've requested that once the rates have been already approved by the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services that a copy be sent, but I haven't received it. So if you could please follow up with that, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Sure. So if I may, as a point of clarification through the chair, Madam Board Chair, The MA programs, those are rates that we can definitely, you know, share with this board, with this body. But the supplement, we have to wait until the Medicare approves those. And those are, which I've never understood how the federal government does this. You're asked to start enrolling in October, but the rates are not approved until November in the supplements. So definitely when those come in, which may be late November, December, through the proper channel, those will be provided.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all I have.

Thank you so much. Any further questions? Okay, we'll now go to E86. Mr. John Goodman.

Through the Chair, good morning. E86 through E89 were discussed extensively at the September 16th ABAC meeting. E86 is the overview for the RSM external audit. It's not the audit itself, it's just the plan. You'll get the actual audit in December. Any questions on E86 through the chair?

I don't see any. You can continue if you want to.

Okay. E87 is our office's annual report. E88? E88 is selected schools, 40 selected schools that were audited. There were no exceptions on this time around.

Mr. Chair, if I may on that one. I just want to commend all of our principals, our treasurers, and everyone involved in this process because honestly for not one to be identified is a very big positive for us. So thank you to them and thank you to everyone else who's been providing the assistance and the training so that we would not find ourselves in situations where some schools were identified as not having been satisfactory. So congratulations to everyone, and thank you to your team for the audit. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you. E89?

E89 is the audit of the district school bus safety program.

Any questions or comments? Okay, I want to first... Go ahead. No, you can go first.

Thank you. Through the chair, Mr. Goodman, I know this is a portion of the things you are auditing related to this program. So do you have a timeline and estimated outlook on when the remaining portions of what your team has been working on will be completed?

Through the chair, yes, you're correct. This first report addressed objectives one and two. We're working currently on objective three. as to when we would issue that report is going to be dependent on the information, whether we get the information and when we get the information requested, the data and records from the various external parties, bus patrol, the sheriff's office, and the clerk of the court. So far, we've We've gotten only a small portion of that information, but we're in talks right now and we're currently receiving more information. So I don't have, I can't give you a definite on when we would have that completed. It's dependent on when we get the records.

Thank you. Through the chair. If you don't get records for any reason, what's your internal deadline on when you will move forward? Are we looking at three months? Are we looking at two years? Is it going to be forever?

Well, if we come to an impasse and we're not getting records, the audit would have a scope limitation, and we would not be able to issue findings and conclusions on the audit. So... If we get the records, as I expect that we will, in the involvement, I would estimate that the report could be done by the early February ABAC meeting. Okay?

Thank you.

Through the Chair, by the way, I have Ms. Elvira Sanchez here, who led the audit and did the first section of the audit, the first report. and in my estimation, a very thorough report. And she's here to help me with any questions and if you want to ask additional questions and go into detail.

Thank you, Mr. Goodman. Any other questions or comments? Yes. Dr. Gallin, you're recognized.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, I want to first of all commend Mr. Goodman for his staff for doing a very thorough, comprehensive report Audit of this particular program would be remiss if I did not thank and commend the board and the maker of the item Board member Alonzo for initiating this particular process. I know we often have the proclivity to either Remain silent or very careful and nuanced in our comments regarding things that are somewhat controversial somewhat problematic but but I think When we're silent, we become somewhat complicit. And with respect to some of the findings here, I think it's important that we have a conversation relative to some of the issues that came up at the Audit Committee. We didn't have an extensive discussion, but there were some findings that were of concern, specifically finding number one. And I want to have a conversation relative to the finding of lack of sufficient vetting. I know there was some disputes around the administration's position and the auditor's position, but let's have at it. Let's have at it. And I say this respectfully because I know that when it comes to vetting, I've gotten calls from employees who have to navigate through employment opportunities for issues that happened 30 years ago. and it gets resolved. So I think the vetting takes place in most respects, but this was a finding that raised a lot of eyebrows. It's a finding that obviously in its implementation came to fruition with some of the challenges that we had. So through the chair, Mr. Goodman, can you really speak to that particular finding? with respect to the lack of vetting because that's really the elephant in the room as it relates to the expedient manner in which this program was launched. And if there is some explicit or implicit indictment that the vetting was insufficient, let's have a conversation about this because we still have a lot of game to play with respect to this particular program. but I want to just be very, very candid, and it's easy for me to say no questions, but I am the member that's appointed to the audit committee by our chair, and I want to represent, and if there's a significant finding that has caused a great degree of consternation, cacophony, and rancor throughout this community, and to some extent, some degree of heartburn, let's not take it as a loss, let's take it as a lesson, so I want to really be clear about this particular finding as well as an additional question I may have through the chair.

Through the chair, I'd like Ms. Sanchez to walk through the finding initially.

Good morning, through the Chair. I do want to mention one thing before I explain that particular finding. It is important to mention that the contract for this vendor, Bus Patrol, was a revenue-generating contract, and it was exempt from the competitive bidding process. So as far as policy, we want to make it clear that policy was followed. with regard to this contract. So having said that, I'm also going to recognize a comment that administration made back in the audit committee, which is they were looking for a vendor that could handle the capacity. So and I guess they can speak to that if they'd like shortly. But we stated that we found a lack of evidence that bus patrol and the overall program was sufficiently vetted prior to MDCPS entering a contract with the company. We state this because we did look into bus patrol and contracts with other vendors prior to Florida taking on this particular legislation. And that was our way to determine what this vendor could do and what services they could offer in other states prior to our district contracting. And we did find that in other states prior to 2023, we found that there were some issues very similar to the issues that we encountered here in our own district. So again, having said that, we found some issues in Pennsylvania, some issues in New York, And again, it was very similar, some issues with medians, issues with contested violations and disputed tickets that were not being heard by any administrative hearing process, a backlog of cases, and things of that nature. So we wanted to share that. Sure.

Through the chair. So we found issues in other places that the identical thing happened here in Miami. And that's basically defining.

I saw through the chair, I don't know. So in the spirit of my construct, I often talk about anticipatory leadership. Are you saying through the chair that what eventually happened here happened somewhere else and it was easily, not easily, you were able to make a determination that what happened here that created some challenges happened in other places?

Yes. Okay. And our recommendation is that going forward, that we have a more robust vetting process for the vendor and also the program, whether it goes through the competitive bidding process or whether it's exempt from the competitive bidding process. So that's the recommendation going forward from this. So this was exempt from the competitive bidding process, but if it had gone through the competitive bidding process, there's procedures in place that would require forms to be filled out and more work to be done on vetting.

Follow up, Mr. Chair? Yeah, I don't want to conflate the exemption with the notion of vetting. because the exemption would not abdicate the district from vetting. There is some level of due diligence that could still take place, but pursuant to policy, the documentation that you're referring to may not be a requisite of that particular process if it's eligible for the exemption through the chair. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. But the due diligence is not prohibited. It still can continue.

It's not prohibited, and I think it would be expected, but when they do go through the formal competitive process, there's forms that need to be filled out.

Yes, through the chair. Mr. Chair, I don't know if the staff wants to respond to that. I saw Mr. Diaz.

I agree with that. I'd like to hear from staff their side kind of view.

Through the chair. Yeah. So I believe Ms. Sanchez kind of hit it on, on the nail. Um, yeah. So the recommendation of the auditors related to vetting, um, in the sense of documentation based off of the process in which we follow was something that I believe that obviously we can work upon. There was vetting that took place. I want to be clear about that. Um, when I spoke about that, it's at the auditors, um, at the audit meeting. Um, at that time when the law was passed in March, 2023, as a district, we started to look into this, to the statute and basically saw this as a safety measure. Right. At that time, we started to reach out. We did research. Honestly, procurement looked at it to see if other districts within the state were actually utilizing this statute and implementing within their district, as well as just online vetting, trying to figure out if there were companies out there that actually have a stop-arm program. At that time, we determined there were two. There was VERA and there was Bus Patrol. Vera, at that time, again, this is 2023, had a capacity that we researched that had the largest entity that they had was a bus entity of 200 buses. Bus patrol was out there. I think at the time of 2023, they were within already in 17 different states. Their largest capacity, I want to say, was Nassau County in the state of New York, a bus capacity of 5,000. We have about 1,000. So one of our vetting scenarios, at least in my work, has always been apples to apples, not apples to oranges, right? I always try to look at entities in which we know have a capacity that could possibly have experiences to a large district such as us. So that was one major, major key component for us utilizing and moving forward with the bus patrol. At that point in time, I know there was reference to New York and Pennsylvania having issue. I believe in August of 2023, when we signed this contract, it was certified in August 28, 2023. There might be a little bit of conflict of... I guess, opinion on that. If those two states actually already had those issues prior to August 28, 2023, I do believe they did eventually. But when our contract was signed, I'm not sure those issues had already arised. However, the recommendation of the auditors was to vet a little bit larger when it comes to big operations such as this. as a district as an administration we believe that is something that we should definitely do as we move forward uh maybe document maybe utilize some of the procedures that are over when you have contracts that are over 50 000 by policy those are things we definitely believe that we can definitely do and we can enhance as we move forward follow up mr chair um thank you thank you for that response mr diaz so i at some point i want to get um

to the disputed issue. You're representing there may be a dispute in terms of the timeline when those issues were available. And when the auditor was able to make that determination, I think that's critically important. But I would also suggest that as we look at the process for vetting and the process that's analogous to the competitive bidding process, yes, you look for experience and qualifications. That's usually one criteria. You look for capacity, which I think that's something you alluded to. But there's also another metric, and I'm sure Ms. Mumford could probably cite it, that other metric that I'm aware of speaks to performance. So that's one of the several. I think it comes down to about four. But performance is always important as it relates to us making those determinations. I have some follow-up questions that I'll make, but I'll defer to my colleague, Board Member Espino. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you for the item, for having this discussion. Thank you for that statement of having tough conversations. I don't think there's anything wrong with evaluating, looking back, especially a new program. And when I had my briefing with Mr. Goodman, obviously welcome the finding. We always reserve the right to analyze a little bit deeper. I did push back a little bit and say with two qualifiers that I thought should have been included. And let me just qualify this further in my comments in saying that obviously this is my first iteration implementing a program like this, but in cities, from time to time, the law changes, and we've had sort of similar issues with other programs that are, to my first point, new. This is a brand new program. And while other states have rolled it out, how Florida rolled it out is probably a little bit different than Pennsylvania and other places, so I believe that there should be like an asterisk somewhere on this finding that it's a new program. Secondly, and I think this is maybe the hardest thing perhaps us as an organization is that it wasn't solely reliant on us, right? We had to do this with other community stakeholders, community stakeholders, the offices of whom are going through transition, a judicial system that's overwhelmed. And so there are things that even taken on face value, through thoroughly vetted as potential issues, As I relate to Mr. Goodman, there's probably very little we could have actually done to preempt that. And so, again, I welcome that, and I did have another comment on another one, but I just wanted to put those two as like provisos to this thing that obviously this was a very big endeavor that focused on child safety in a measure that didn't cost us anything. As a matter of fact, it generated revenue, and we were able to turn that revenue and give it back to our employees that are providing the critical service. while also providing additional safety measures for the bus drivers inside. And when you look at the landscape, I mean, I was just floored that there was no other apple to compare that apple to. So we're learning with the sheriff. We're learning with the courts. We're learning as we go along. And I just wanted to add those two provisos. And I don't think he disagreed with them, but I think it just undermines it. I don't want it to undermine

finding but i think there should be considerations of that thank you through the chair if i may make a comment um yes some of the um what we did research and vet did take place before we set the contracts here it was information that took place between 2020 2022 in these other states and some of the problems again um Just to keep it clear, this is the only reason I'm stating this, the issues are very similar. The backlog of cases, the courts not being able to hear, the administrative process is not set in place. VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS THAT REMAIN UNPAID. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO THAT DETAIL, AND WE WON'T UNTIL REPORT 3, BUT THESE ARE ALL VERY SIMILAR THINGS THAT HAPPENED THERE IN THOSE 2020 TO ABOUT 2022-23 BEFORE WE IMPLEMENTED. SO AGAIN, CONTACTING THEM COULD HAVE ASSISTED. And I want to mention this in connection to finding 1.2, which is that although Bus Patrol advertised and communicated to Miami-Dade County Public Schools a turnkey program that provides these services to include coordination with the law enforcement and adjudication and court services, we found, and the administration of MDCPS acknowledged that there should have been more communication and interaction with the involved entities to ensure these mechanisms were in place. Again, the vendor did state in many different manner that they had a turnkey system and that this would be something that the district could just basically go into and have these services established. They were not established. and this in other areas seemed to happen similarly so it might have assisted the district this is an excellent safety program clearly it has an excellent purpose but some processes did not happen i believe as intended is there a follow-up on that dr gallon just because i think you were the one that started this conversation with staff

Yeah, just very, very quickly. I think through the chair, I think she responded with finding 1.2. But I just want to put to bed the notion of a dispute. I'm hearing that your vetting reflected issues between 2020 and 2022 through the chair. Is that correct?

Correct.

and the contract was subsequent to March 2023. Is that correct?

Through the chair. I believe it was signed in August of 2023.

But it was subsequent to 2022 through the chair, correct? So through the chair, with all due respect, I don't know where the dispute is in terms of the availability of information regarding vetting. And I don't want to spend a lot of time on that, but what I won't do is sit here and just... have certain things represented that are not the case. Because at the end of the day, you can get behind the facts. And if the facts are in dispute, let's have at it right now. But these are particular timelines. And I'm raising the issue because some of the timelines and issues that you've raised, I'm not an auditor, but I validated them as well. So there's sometimes people ask questions that they already know the answer to. When I hear that there's a dispute regarding the timeline, that doesn't sit well with me, because the facts can ultimately reveal what the reality is through the chair. Thank you.

Okay, Madam Chair, you're recognized.

Yes, thank you very much, and I'm gonna be very brief, but first and foremost, I do want to thank you, sir, for bringing this item forth. It was very important to have the audit. Secondly, I'd like to take a moment to thank our auditors for the job that they continue to do for us in Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and thirdly, I want to thank Dr. Steve Gallen III, who I've appointed to serve on the ABAC and is representing all of us in an exemplary capacity. And this was also part of a huge discussion with the ABAC members that were present. I want to thank them. They all took it very seriously. And all of the comments from everyone have been very helpful. because when we have any program, regardless of what it is, it can always be enhanced, and when there are areas that are identified for enhancement, I think we need to take those very, very seriously. And yes, given the fact that policy was followed, I understand that that was stated, and I know that management's response, as I stated here on 1.2, in future complex arrangements that involve multiple entities, the district will work to have thorough communications with all parties. And I don't have to read the rest, but this is obviously something that was learned through this audit that is absolutely essential. And when you do something the first time around, maybe you don't think, you know, I need to take that extra step, but obviously we do. most importantly for me, is transparency for our community. We have to earn trust. Trust is not something that's given to us. It is earned. And so transparency is the critical point for me. And I'm glad we're having the discussion because we're hearing a lot of different points of view that have been clarified this morning. And it's imperative to know that because regardless of whether it's bus patrol or any other program that we are engaged in, we have to make sure that we do everything in our power to take every step possible so that there is no question from our community ever in any sense of the word that proper steps were not followed. Again, transparency is crucial. so that our community sees that we are earning their trust and their respect. And I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Did you have another comment, Dr. Gallin?

Yes, through the chair, I want to try as much as possible to be fair relative to the audit. I think there was some notable commendations that all of the revenue received were appropriately utilized pursuant to the statute and to the law. Can you state that for the record? So when we talk about trust, as the chair indicated, the revenues were- received in accordance with the procedures and utilized accordingly through the chair. I want to make sure that there is no perception about the utilization of the revenue, and I think that was a positive finding through the chair.

Correct. The monies that we did get and spend were spent in accordance with Florida statute. We spent their money correctly.

Okay.

Yes, that is a big finding, and that is a positive finding.

Yes. Thank you. Through the chair and last comment on that, the audit committee did make a notation relative to potential next steps for such a program if the district decides to continue with such a program. is to engage in a process to validate the revenues and the receipts. And you could cite that specifically in the language on page 21. Last paragraph, colleagues. In the absence, can you speak to that, Mr. Goodman? because there's a significant amount of revenue gross and received, but the idea of validating and confirming the receipts, you want to represent and validate that last statement there, which is important because the audit committee did talk about that through the chair.

So we're getting a certain amount of money monthly from bus patrol, and it could be $800,000, but how do we know that... That's the correct amount. How do we know that we're not entitled contractually to more than that? So that's what the gist of that finding is, and the recommendation is that we have, we vouch from an independent source to ensure that we're, the vendor's counting all the revenue, and our 30% will be, you know, that we're entitled to, that we're actually getting it.

Final question, I promise. Mr. Goodman, through the Chair, raised an issue. The revenue share is 30%? Correct. In the vetting, is that consistent with the revenue shares of other partnerships that exist either in Florida or throughout the country?

I'm gonna defer to my expert here on that.

I don't have the data in front of me, so I can't speak to specifics. It is consistent in some cases, but in some cases, perhaps earlier, the split was different. There was different percentages, but there might have been different arrangements. We don't know the specifics of the contracts. So again, it might be different. There might be reasons for that, and that may have changed over time. But it's not always the 30-70, but other elements may be involved.

uh through the chair follow-up to administration uh i wouldn't expect the auditors are you aware of any splits that are distinct from what dade county public schools is getting through the chair through the chair dr gallon in 2023 at the time the only other into only other district that was contracted within was hillsborough and at that time the split was i believe similar however the only difference was that we as an enhancement received cameras on the indoor of every single bus That was another safety measure that they did for free for us that they did not do for Hillsboro.

Through the chair, would you be surprised if I said that there's distinct splits from other counties and other states that are different from the 30% that we're getting? Would that surprise you?

Through the chair, Dr. Gallin, I have no comment to that.

Well, I have an answer to that, so we'll talk about that. Thank you.

Madam chair. I'm the chair. Oh, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry.

If you like to add to it, you're recognized, sir.

Yes. The possibility absolutely exists. Absolutely exists. What Mr. Diaz is referring to is the work that he's done in this particular point and prior. And I just wanted to say something. We may want to provide a follow-up to the discussion the discord or the disjointed response between the auditor and us. So I just need an opportunity to dig into further. I just don't want to go back and forth on this right now until we are definitively sure in terms of if there are any differences at that point. So Mr. Chair, we will follow up directly with the board regarding that.

But I think these are important conversations to be had, and I think the community deserves it. So we'll look forward to getting further reports from you, but I think this is a healthy conversation, and I welcome it. I know she's been patiently waiting here, so I want to give Dr. Dorothy Bendos-Mendigo an opportunity to speak. She's been patiently sitting in her seat, and now you're recognized, Doctor.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and if you were a teacher, you'd probably put me in the corner, but... I have to listen very carefully to my colleague, Dr. Steve Gallen III, and we're pretty much thinking on the same lines about the audit. I trust our auditor very much, and he knows that. But when you start speaking of money, I just sit up straight. And thank you, Mr. Superintendent, for your comments. But the question that I have, when you mentioned the amount that we get every month, is it the same? Is it different? And if so, why? Through the chair.

Through the chair, it's dependent on the number of violations that were issued. And it's not the same every month.

Through the chair, how is it calculated? Tell me that.

It's roughly $225 per violation. And so that money is collected for all of the violations issued. And basically, the district receives 30% of that.

One more, Mr. Chair. And I'm glad that we're having the conversation through the chair. Thank you, Mr. Superintendent, for saying we're going to continue this conversation because we continue the conversation, as Dr. Gallin said, in the community all the time. And we do have people who are watching us as we're watching you. So make sure through the chair. that we get all of the information that we need to be astute about this. And I could go on, but the chair has allowed me to speak here. Thank you, Mr. Auditor, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. Is it response to Dr. Dorothy Bendos-Mendigo's comment prior? Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So absolutely, this conversation is very important. And I'm... I am glad that we're having this beyond the audit committee. The only thing that I'm following up with is a fact of a discrepancy that Dr. Gallin highlighted between the vetting, the information that was available prior or after. That's the only thing that I want to clarify because I think we need a little bit more time to see the report or the vetting, the record, right, that the auditors saw regarding issues with a company prior and then the response that Mr. Diaz said. That's all I want to clarify. It's that point and I just don't want to start back and forth on that issue because I believe that both of us, we need to speak and just clarify it at that end. Whether that information was available or not available after and so Mr. Bueno just shared with me that the law in the states also change. So I just need a clarifier on that. That is it, no more than that.

I will add to that though. I think there's other things you need to look at. And I think you should review this audit report because there have been some other questions here that have come up from the splits to where the money's coming from and how it's properly being reported, which I think Dr. Dorothy Bendos-Mendigo just requested an answer on. And I understand the auditors answered it, but I think she was... waiting for something else as to how we account to the $900,000 check that we receive on a monthly basis. But I trust in the staff, and I have some comments that I want to, but I want to let Dr. Gallin finish.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I promise, I think I said at a couple of other meetings, Mr. Superintendent and staff, you know I love you. But I love this work as well. There was an individual this morning that said to me when I was walking down the hall, and they know who they are, are you going to be on your best behavior today? They just said that in jest, and the answer was, sure, but on my best behavior, I'm going to be as Lil Wayne says in his new song, I'm just going to be myself. So being myself is not gonna take a pass on an issue respectfully that has been the source of community discussion, consternation, chaos, and confusion. And respectfully, when we have an opportunity, I'm the audit member representative, and I try to let the audit committee weigh in because I know I have an opportunity to do this with the board. And I agree with you, Mr. Superintendent, The back and forth potentially is not appropriate. It's not necessary. But I'm glad you clarified the issue relative to the dispute. I didn't say dispute. Mr. Diaz used that word. There's a dispute. So at this particular point, knowing that agenda item E88 is coming before us, I think any disputes I would expect to be resolved because you do have a management response, you get the audit draft in advance, there's an opportunity to dispute the findings in writing or otherwise. So when I hear that there's a dispute regarding a particular timeline relative to incidents that occurred between 2020 and 2022, and then respectfully, and I love Mr. Diaz, you know I love you too, right? I love Mr. Diaz. When he says that that timeline is in dispute, I'm not just going to just say, okay, let's be at the two parties here. Through the chair, one of the things Dr. Stinson would always tell me, go to the source. Don't go around, bring two people or three people in the room and let's have at it. So when I heard that, and I have the auditor here who has her notes, her pen, her highlighter, and she can cite, and I'm citing pages, let's clarify this because a transmitter was fine. But the transmittal is not going to rise to the level of community discourse and community chaos and community confusion regarding this. And as our chair said, it's important that we have this conversation around this particular issue now to the extent that we can. And I'm always the one to say, hey, if there's a need to follow up, follow up with a transmittal. But when I hear dispute on something that's on the agenda that was deliberated at the audit committee that we know is noticed to the public and then we have an opportunity to address it, it doesn't feel right to me with respect to that. So Mr. Chair, I appreciate you allowing us to have this discussion. As Dr. Bendross-Mendingall said, she's encouraged that there will continue to be discussions around this, but I just want to respectfully say that I'm never one that's going to avoid courageous conversations around serious issues, no matter who I love, no matter who I like, no matter what I support, because at the end of the day, as Lil Wayne said, I'm going to be myself. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. Anybody else want to speak on the item? Yes, Ms. Santos, you're recognized.

Thank you, through the chair. This is just a clarifying question for the listening audience and for all of us to be on the same page. Can the administration give us an update on the current status of this program and where we are right now?

Through the chair, Ms. Santos, we Administration had a meeting with bus patrol, I want to say sometime last week. They shared with us some information that they have. But currently, as we stand right now, the sheriff has put a halt on the issuance of citations. And until we don't get a clarification from the sheriff's office as to how to further proceed, we in turn can't do a whole lot. I know that there's an item forthcoming to the board, and that item would obviously direct us to do certain things if it's passed. But right now, the program is halted with the sheriff, and I don't want to speak for the sheriff as to why it's being halted.

Thank you. Through the chair, just for clarification, effective when?

Through the chair, beg your pardon?

When did the sheriff effectively suspend the program?

Through the chair, Ms. Santos, April 17th.

Thank you. And through the chair, can you expand on why? something that we obviously, as we said, there's a lot of entities involved, not why the sheriff suspended it, but why once the sheriff made that decision, we have less control because they're obviously an important entity in this process as well. So just according to the law and to our contract, why is it that when the sheriff decides they're going to suspend that we can no longer move forward regardless of any decisions we will make later today or through the subsequent items?

Through the chair, there was a memorandum of understanding between the sheriff, ourselves, and the bus patrol. As a result of that memorandum, when the sheriff pulls that memorandum, it puts this whole program on halt. We are going to, as I stated, we did have conversations with bus patrol. Our next steps would be to obviously have conversations with our own attorneys to see where that contract sits and how we can move forward with the contract if the board wants us to move forward with that contract, and then have conversations with the sheriff as well and the county clerk and or DOA or whoever else that other entity may be.

Thank you. I'll close by just saying, echoing Dr. Gallin's sentiments, that this is not something that was sprung on us this morning. I do expect all of us to come prepared to this conversation. It's something that's been talked about ad nauseum for months and something that We should have concrete answers today, here, and now, because not only this item is on the agenda, we have another item. And frankly, we have to make decisions, and we should have full information. This is our time to have the final discussion in the sunshine. And so I am concerned when I hear, you know, let's have some time to talk about it. I certainly spend a lot of time preparing for this trying to understand asking follow up questions, and I think you know that's the expectation of all of us who who are here to discuss this today.

Alright, so first of all, thank you to the board, I want to thank the board who supported my board item initially to listen to the Community, the Community was confused. As this board is confused today, I think with what's going on, and I think the Community and this board deserves answers and that's why an audit was conducted. To be able to understand what was going on, because there was a lot of concerns I received a lot of calls. And I know that this board is fully supportive of the Community that we serve and that's why they were all unanimously voted in favor of this audit to really bring answers. I also want to thank staff and bus patrol because I know everybody's been very cooperative. I think this is something in which everybody wants to make right, right? Nobody's here trying to do anything to harm anybody. Can we learn? Obviously, that's what we're here for and that's what the audit's for. The audit is hopefully to be able to allow us the opportunity to learn and do things in a better way. This all started as safety and it still continues to be about safety. The safety of our students is always the number one priority for this district. And I myself personally voted on this bus patrol item because staff had brought it to us as something that was for the safety of our students and our community. And I personally have been in a bus riding it as a bus driver of the day and seen cars fly by the bus while the stop sign sign is out. So I know we have a problem in this community and we need to do something about it. So I wanna make sure that everybody understands that the reason To look into this, and the reason the audit is not because anybody on this board has a lack of of concern around the driving behaviors that occur and the safety of our buses. But I think it's important that we looked into it and use this as a learning exercise. Because one of the first things that we learned is that we need to review our procurement process. Currently, no violation was done from what we found in the audit from our procurement process. So our staff did what they were instructed to do based on our policy, which was if it was a revenue generating purchase or agreement, there was no need to go out to an RFP or an ITN to see if there was anything out there. But I think we learned through some of these questions that that might not be the best thing to do in today's world, especially as we look at other revenue generating opportunities for this district, right? We're having those conversations constantly, whether it's real estate, whether it's services that we sell or provide. And I think it's important as we look at those revenue generating opportunities that this district will have, that we vet them through properly. Because when we do these implementations, Even though there was other parties involved, it's a school bus, and it's a bus that is managed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools. And I was the one that was receiving calls, not the sheriff, not the judicial system. It was the school system that had implemented this bus camera system that was now issuing out tickets that individuals who were receiving it that wanted to contest it could not contest them. They had no way to get through it because our court system, and to bus patrols, defense, they had an agreement that they thought was going to work with the judicial system, according to what was told to us, and I would never question them lying to us. And then that was completely overturned. They also had an agreement with the county at that point, which was the sheriff back then, and then a new sheriff came in. So I think there's a lot of different things that came in that impacted the rollout of this. So it's really important that we learn from it and that we learn that when we go into these types of agreements, we look at what could come from it. And this district is one that always is so careful on that. Dr. Gallin mentioned earlier when somebody's applying for a job here, we run them through so many background checks. Just now, we have security systems for cameras, CCTV running our schools that could detect an armed individual coming in. I have companies that have been waiting over 12 months to just run pilots in this district because we've run them through so many different checks, whether it's IT, whether it's legal. How did we get this far without any of these things coming to light beforehand? That, I think, is what we have to learn from so that we don't make the same mistake again in the future. because I've never seen a district of this size roll something out district-wide at the level in which we did without piloting it in certain areas to learn from it. We're too large to just say we're going district-wide with any system, and we always talk about it. It's not your normal district. We're not a district with 50 buses or 20 buses. We have over 1,000 buses. We're very unique in the way that our city is built. We have medians, we have cars, we have traffic, we have highways. Those are all things that I think we could have learned from to be able to have had a more successful implementation and roll out of this. And then education. Education is so important. Educating the community as to why it is what we're doing. Educating the community on where the money is going. Educating the board and everybody around here as to how we're accounting for these dollars. Because at the end of the day, whether it's $1, $100, or $1,000, those dollars belong to the taxpayers and to our community. And we have to be responsible and accountable for each of those dollars. So it's important that moving forward, and I hope to get further information from our staff as to what did we do and how could we become better. because I think this is a learning opportunity for all of us to learn on how we can become better. And I'm going to be working with our legal team as well to also possibly look at some policy changes that we can make in the future to be able to make sure that this doesn't happen again and that we are vetting all these different types of procurement processes, even when they're revenue generating. And then finally, to Ms. Santos' point, and I think it was mentioned by other folks, I think it's important that this board gets a proper update. A meeting with the sheriff needs to occur and we need to get definitive answers. Right now, we're still in the same position we were at back in April, where we don't know what's gonna happen tomorrow. We don't know what we're gonna do. We have a board item that's coming up later on today that we'll be discussing more about the bus patrol. But as a board member, I'm still confused as to what's happening. And to be here now, four months later, and still not have an answer from the sheriff as to what the future of this system looks like, I think it's unacceptable because there's been a large investment done by this company, Bus Patrol, to our buses. Our district has made a large investment in implementing the system and having staff work on it. And honestly, we have a lot of hardware that's been affixed to our buses that now we have to figure out what we're gonna do with it, right? Is it gonna continue being used? What's gonna happen with our buses and so on? I think there's a lot of questions. I want to thank staff and our auditors for the work that's been done, and hopefully we'll continue to work forward in this, and keeping always our students and the safety of our students our number one priority. Thank you. Okay, we now move to E8, E141.

You want to give Ron a seat back or no?

E141 is an ITN for stage and lighting. ITB, sorry, not ITN. An ITB for stage and lighting. Ms. Santos, your recognizance?

Thank you. Through the chair, certainly have schools that could benefit greatly from this, and I have seen some of these investments already made. My question here is similar, and you see the trend month after month. In some items, we have under-requested on the dollar amounts, and then we have supplementals. Now we're seeing a trend in the other direction, where, for example, in this case, the district spent $158,000 on stage and auditorium lighting this year, but the request here is almost 10 times that amount annually. And so... I'm sure that we have projected and have a clear understanding of why we need 10x this year versus previous years. And so through the chair, if Mr. Niccolo could explain to us the projections, give us some information on how we got to requesting 10x what we've spent in the previous year.

Good good afternoon to the chair. Thank you for the question miss Santos in working with school site administration region offices We've determined that there's a great need for our auditoriums to be upgraded And so we project that that's going to be the need I know that you've requested in the past a data to support that and right now we are compiling that list of schools which I can provide to you to show you where we feel the need arises.

Thank you and through the chair so what I'm hearing you say is this is deferred maintenance that has reached a critical point is that correct through the chair?

That would be accurate ma'am through the chair yes.

Thank you, I look forward to getting the list of schools because I am happy to always support every department in doing, addressing the needs, but also will continue to hold every department and us as a district accountable to making sure that any requests like these are made with the appropriate planning and that ideally we are able to get enough planning, and frankly, enough funds to invest in the things we have to, to not be addressing short-term critical needs as our main driver of how we plan, but rather long-term planning. So I look forward to getting the list before the school board meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Niccolo, for the update. As you very well know, as we all do, visit our schools. And for those of us who did our time as principals, we know the very first place we go in a school is the cafeteria. And some of them, as you know, are just barely there. In terms of the stages and what some of the cafeteriums look like, I too am interested in that list As to what you're doing, I appreciate it, but it is a lot to be done. I want to thank our superintendent and others who braved the storm that day, and we walked and walked and walked, and we saw some things that were unacceptable, as our chair just said. We want to do our very best for all schools, but some of them are in dire straits. So I look forward, as my colleague, Member Santos said, She was interested in the list. I'd like to have a look at that also, Mr. Niccolo. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Blanco, you recognize?

Thank you. I just want to echo the comment of getting a list of the schools. I have one in particular that I have been attempting to hold a town hall for the last two years, and because it's in such dire need of repairs, we're not able to use it. I understand we'd like to plan, but sometimes needs come up as they come up. So if I could get a list of that and then also some kind of timeline as to when we can expect some of these updates. Thank you.

If I may, through the chair, I will be touching base with our advanced planning department. A lot of these needs are embedded into the capital five-year plan. So I'll be reaching out to our planning department and get a comprehensive list of what those projects entail. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. With no further questions, we now move to E142.

E142 is, and I know there's a lot of interest at the board from all of you, I'm glad Mr. Geller made it, rejection of the ITN for ground lease opportunity at Hialeah Middle Amelia Earhart and authorized direct contracting. And Mr. Chair, I'll just, I don't often give intros to the item, but I will just say, yes, this is a rejection. Oftentimes that's meant that we start the process over again. That's not what's happening here. We're not starting the process over again Working with the attorneys, this is rejecting the ITN, but immediately moving forward with a direct negotiation with the three entities that have expressed interest in this project, whether through an unsolicited proposal or a response to this ITN. The reason why we have to reject is actually in response to the ITN, we only got one formal response, but we have three companies express interest.

Madam Chair. Questions or comments? Madam Chair.

Oh, excuse me. Mr.

Chair. You're recognized, Mr. Geller.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee. I just want to place something on the record. One of the three, Coral Rock Development, is a former client of mine. They are not a current client. It's been probably three years since I represented them. So I've consulted with the board attorney. I'm told I don't have a conflict because they're not a current client of me or my firm. But I think it's in the interest of full disclosure to place on the record that some years ago I had represented that company. And I just thought that that public disclosure of that fact should be made. But I'm advised that, as I said, that by the board attorney, it's not a conflict. And when the time comes, I would participate.

but i think the public's entitled to now thank you very much mr chair thank you so much together any other further question comments just uh one quick question um so in an effort transparency because questions will always be asked everybody who has ever showed an interest through his itn which was publicly posted is going to be part of these direct discussions now in negotiations through a committee that will then come back to this board, correct?

Yeah, any, the three entities that have given us proposals, right, whether it's through the unsolicited proposal process or the actual response to the ITN are now, and only them are, will direct negotiate. This doesn't open up the process now to new people who want to come in. This is within the guardrails of people who, of the entities who have already expressed formal interest through the process. And

We did give proper timing in noticing it so that the general public, the county, the state, the country,

knew that this property was up and people did have an opportunity to show their interest yeah absolutely we followed the the we followed our process we emailed out to to all the entities and all the parties that we knew had interest um so we were happy to receive the response from pinnacle communities which was the new response um and we're excited to move forward with these three it should be enough for a healthy healthy negotiation and obviously as recommend three um says We are now required to bring all proposals that we actually do negotiate back with the board. And as you know, even before we come back to the board, we'll go to the community with the results to get their input to.

Can you share estimate timelines on what the next steps will be? I think we're all going to be seeing projects like this coming up in our districts most likely. And I think it's important to kind of understand what those timelines look like. especially that I think our first unsolicited came last year. So we're now at a little over nine to 10 months since the first unsolicited request came in for this property.

Yeah, absolutely. And if Mr. Perez behind me wants to correct me, I'm sure he can come up and do so. But just using, this is obviously not, this is not our first attempt at this, but it's also, this isn't something we've done all that often. So I'll use our past experience here. I'm to kind of guide what we think the timeline is going to be. So for the last one, we award to the board. I'm sorry. We award the board is granted by the board. We enter into direct negotiations. And then from the point we enter into direct negotiations. Our estimate to bring a final conclusion back to the board is about six months. That's including. all negotiations with the vendor, and going back to the community. So I would anticipate from this moment, probably in late spring, early summer, this would come back to the board. You know, and we have, you know, we don't have an unlimited amount of staff working on all of these, but we will do our best to make it as fast as possible. Thank you.

I think that's an appropriate time. Thank you so much. All right. E201.

201 is the request authorization to accept this month's grants award and donations.

Any questions or comments? Yes, you're recognized, Ms. Rojas.

Yes, thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And I was very, very happy to see that we have the Title I Unified School Improvement Grant given back to us, and this time it's gone up with an increase, and that's to surf students that are attending the Title I schools by providing targeted academic interventions and additional instructional support through the implementation of extended learning opportunities. Is this something that through the chair is going to be given to a limited number of Title I schools or how is this going to take place through the chair?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, Ms. Rojas. So, yeah, the UNICEF grant is slightly different than the rest of Title I, right? It's just for very specific schools that qualify through a certain criteria. In this case, one school, in fact, it is a school that you and I were at in the first day of school, will receive the lion's share of that new allocation per state formula.

Thank you very much. You've answered the question that I had. All right. Thank you.

Okay. Any further questions or comments? Okay, with that, all E items have been discussed. We'll now take a motion to recommend the E items.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

The next order of business to move our G items to the floor. Can I get a motion?

Move it.

All in favor? Aye.

All right, first one is G1, Mr. Harvey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. G1 is for final reading amendments to policy 8320. This is following up on an item that was proffered H2 by the chair, which directed the superintendent to, among other things, amend this policy. 8320 as necessary with regard to the transfer of records and the keeping of records for board members. In addition, and that pretty much summarizes this item. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Ms. Rawls, you're recognized.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Just a very quick comment. Thank you to our general counsel, sir, for following up accordingly. I think that this is imperative and will avoid future findings of any type from the Office of the Inspector General. uh if we have audits related to this just as we recently did have and i think it's imperative because now it's in black and white it's very clear everybody knows exactly what has to be done especially when a board member is departing from uh the current office and records have to be maintained here at the site so thank you very much uh again i appreciate it i'm very happy to see this coming through thank you mr chair

Okay, with no further questions or discussion, we now make a motion for all the G items to move to a board meeting.

Move it. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Next order of business to move our H items to the floor. Can we get a motion?

Move it. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All right, our first item is H1 and is being presented by our board chair, Ms. Maritere Rojas.

Yes, thank you so very much, sir. And H1 is the approval of the sixth amendment and restatement to the interlocal agreement between the school board of Miami-Dade County, Florida and Miami-Dade County for the provision of inspector general services through the office of the Miami-Dade County Inspector General extending the interlocal agreement for an additional three year period. It is imperative that this is something that we look at very closely on a continuous basis. We started doing this five times. We've done it five times already in the past, as I said. Each time it has been for a three-year term and it has happened by board action on July 14, 2010, July 17, 2013, October 5, 2016, April 17, 2019, and on July 20, 2022. Again, during the period of time that we have had the IG with us, they have provided us with so many reports via an independent investigatory process, which is exactly what we want to have. They have been an absolute pleasure to work with for all these years. Their professionalism, their expertise and knowledge, and simply an office that has provided very important documentation to this board. And so now, through this interlocal agreement that is in front of you right now, if it is approved, it would be for another three-year period, and this would end on December 18th. So this is the item, sir, and it's up for discussion if anybody has any questions.

Thank you so much for your board item. Are there any questions or comments from any of the board members? Seeing that, any co-sponsors? All right. Now we will take on the motion as recommended. All in favor? Aye. Okay, we now move to H5. This is a board item presented by Board Member Dan Espino. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And how appropriate that this item was on there the day of the audit, because some of the topics that this item intends to address, we've already broached. It's not foreign to us to have to modify policies or programs from time to time based on statutory changes. My item is no different. As I mentioned in the previous comment, and that's why I wanted to stress it, this was a new program created by statute. What's being circulated right now is simply the same item with a corrected date. I was going to get to that in a moment. I thought it had already been circulated. And I'll get to that in a moment. You'll see it highlighted on the item. That's the only thing that's been changed. This program was implemented under state statute. Whether it's live local or something else, from time to time the legislature will go session after session and make adjustments based on the feedback they get from industry, they get from the public, and this is certainly no different. It's not lost on anyone that there were significant challenges in the implementation of this program because of the backlog and ongoing operational challenges with the contestation hearings. something that was within our agreement, but certainly not necessarily within our purview to control. I will say, though, that the volume of violations speaks very, very loudly. And if you see some of the videos, it's shocking how we don't have Almost any fatalities, but more fatalities than we do based on the egregious traffic violations associated with buses stopping on our roads. I see it on my commute to my kids' school every single day where if you stop behind a bus, they honk at you. Like, what are you doing stopping behind a bus with a swing arm open and kids getting down and they'll jet around it? And it's a challenging thing that I think we all set out on a mission to try and provide a safety mechanism that happens to bring additional benefits as well. Well, in 2025, the Florida legislature unanimously passed Senate Bill 462, which revised the implementing statute on this program and provided some additional mechanisms that are available to us as a school district. We can now appoint or contract with local hearing officers to conduct those administrative hearings, authorizes that pending contested violations be addressed through, and that's the date that we changed, July 1 of 2026. I said July 1 of 2025. We're not going to go back in time. and then extended time frame for violation contestations to 60 days, and required penalties and administrative costs collected to be remitted to school districts for safety initiatives, which we're already complying with. This was put into law July 1, and already Hillsborough County, which implemented the system, took the proactive step to create a memorandum of understanding with the Division of Administrative Hearings, an entity that we already use when we have employee contestation hearings on grievances and whatnot, so not unfamiliar to us, to create a clear and transparent process by which drivers can contest school bus passing infractions, which is absolutely required in a due process. And so the idea here is that we recognize a problem with the backlog of traffic courts. We create an alternative mechanism by which a seasoned experience and basically purpose-driven administrative law judges can hold virtual hearings that gives motorists with plenty of opportunity to participate and notice the opportunity to contest their hearings. This model already has shown in Hillsboro to create a well-defined, legally sound process that balanced all the issues that we've discussed here. And to your point, Mr. Chair, on next steps, if this were to pass, obviously the district has to go and discuss with DOA, come back to us with a formalized understanding, and we would go to the sheriff saying we are availing ourselves of additional procedural safeguards that the statute now provides us, and this allows, I think this may even go so far as to provide the sheriff the comfort that she needs that when they are imposing the violation, there is a due process behind it to effectuate a lawful outcome And the other thing I will say is not only is this a safety measure that has worked, has worked, I can tell you it has worked. I've seen firsthand people stopping behind buses, maybe people that have gotten infractions, but also the fact that we are already deploying the funding for this for lawful purposes, for bus drivers, for bus aides, the fact that our program already incorporates, as Mr. Lewis said, additional cameras in the bus, which was actually supported by our bus drivers as a safeguard for them as well as for our children. I respectfully request everyone's support to make sure we can get this program back online with the fix that the legislature so graciously provided us. That's the item, thank you. Thank you so much, Board Member Espino. Do we have any questions or comments for the board? Oh, Mr. Chair, if I may. One thing, based on the conversation we had at the last item, and I just hand wrote this in, obviously it's not circulated in what you received, But I see no issue with, now that we're sort of discussing this item, that we bake into the second recommended item from the audit that create a procedural mechanism that confirms the money based on the number of violations and the money being owed to us as part of the change that we see in that contract as well. So that would be a friendly amendment to my own item, if I can do that. Thank you, that's it.

Thank you so much, Board Member Spino. I think first we have Board Member Blanco, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, when I work with my students, I'm constantly telling them, it's okay if we try something, And it's not perfect the first time right, we need to learn and I love I arrived late, but I was listening in on the conversation I did miss something so I didn't want to chime in. When we were talking about the audit because I missed a couple things that I want to get clarification on later, but Dr gallon I loved where you point out, we learn right, and so I am. in full support of the item, I do have a couple things that I do feel I need to go on the record for. For me, this item is about the safety and the lives of our students, hands down, right? There are additional benefits that come from it, such as the financial ones, the cameras on the bus, but at the end of the day, when we are presented with anything that can ensure the safety and the lives of our students, to me, that's paramount, we say it all the time, that is our main, that's our priority as a board. It's not in, as I look at the recommends, right, and we look at recommend one, which is utilizing the DOA administrative law judges, and we know that under Florida statute, we can now do this. The only thing that I have to say is what did we learn from that audit, right? We need to vet. I want, if we're going to do this a second time around, I want to make sure that it's done right. So I would like for as part of number one to have some kind of vetting process to ensure that the DOA administrative judges are able to hear the backlog that we have in addition to any new infractions that come in. If we don't have solid concrete Assurance that that can happen. I have some hesitations, right? So I don't know if you want to make that as a friendly amend But I need to go on record at staying that that I think we need to ensure that we do that Everything with with recommend two is good with recommend three where it talks about coming back to us and the feasibility of further improvements in public communication driver education and program transparency and I think that's required. In my opinion, if we're going to do this and reinstate, I think we need to ensure that. I myself learned that of a certain infraction that I wouldn't have thought was an infraction, which had to do with a median and a crosswalk. I thought that if there was a median, you didn't have to stop. But it turns out that if there's a crosswalk, you do have to. And so I just can't help it. wonder is every driver informed enough to minor details so either and what I was informed because I did have some conversations with bus patrol is that the sheriff kind of outlines which infractions they want enforced right so let's make sure it's clear and whatever the sheriff says and I think and this was alluded to earlier in the implementation of this the first time around Bus patrol was talking to Miami-Dade police. Then we had a shift with sheriff. So it kind of set us up to have some errors, I guess you could say. But again, let's make sure we're going to do this right if we're going to do it again. But I don't think that that falls only on us. I think that ensuring that there is a public campaign to let them know that this program is being reinstated, to let them know exactly what is and isn't worthy of an infraction should not just fall on us. I think it should fall on bus patrol and it should fall on the sheriff's office as well. If every entity is going to come together as an MOU, again, I think this is, for me, a necessary step, but I don't think we should carry the ownership of it. And then I was going to make a comment about what you already said, that you will make a friendly amend to yourself. So I'm good with that and at the proper time. And I'd like to hear your feedback on some of the things that I mentioned. More than likely, I will be in a co-sponsorship.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And now I'll have Mr. Geller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to first express my support for the item, and I want to associate myself with the comments of Board Member Blanco, which I think were very thoughtful and right on point. To me, also, this is a student safety item. I mean, if there are financial benefits, great, but I would hope there would be no financial benefits as we move forward because everyone would get the idea of what they're supposed to do and comply and there would be no fines because people would know, be careful around these school buses, don't speed past, you're gonna be punished if you do, better if everyone just complies. That would be great and then there's not a nickel that comes from it. I hope that happens. I do have the same concern, but I'm not sure I want to co-sponsor it. I think it's something important and I think to me it's a life safety issue. We have to do this. As far as the DOA thing, I concur with what the sponsor has said. I think DOA is a very good choice. I think that Board Member Blanco is correct in saying we want to be sure that DOA can do it. I've heard they're doing a great job in Hillsborough, and that's very encouraging, and I've had cases in front of DOA for decades, and they do a great job, and their ALJs are very good, and they're very well trained, but Miami-Dade is not Hillsborough. We're big, and can they do it? Can they also tackle the backlog? That is a real, they may be perfectly able to come in and move us forward, I hope they can tackle the backlog. I think they're the best choice if they can get enough people and train them to their standards and get up to speed. But I would hate to see us derailed if there turned out to be a delay or snag with DOA. So I'm not going to actually move to amend in any way. I'm just going to do this as a suggestion to the sponsor. I don't care if it gets done today. I'm going to be for the item if it doesn't get done at all, but as a suggestion to the sponsor, somewhere, whether it's in number one, or maybe it should be in number three, where we say utilizing DOA administrative law judges in one, or in number three, where we talk about feasibility, I would say, I would add, or other lawful means, and just If there turned out to be a snag with DOA, I don't want to be back here 60 days from now saying, well, look at something else because DOA is going to be another 90 days or something. If there's some other lawful mechanism, and I'll name two, and I don't know that I would necessarily vote for one of them because they'd have to be vetted also. One possibility is hiring our own magistrates. I understand there's some real skepticism there. about that from some quarters and maybe it's not the way to go. I also acknowledge the possibility that although there has been some apparently handoff issue that existed between the clerk of the courts and the court system itself, an independent branch of government that's not even part of the executive branch and it's not under our control, but it's always possible that maybe we get people to handle the backlog, like DOA, and maybe going forward the court system comes into play. So my only suggestion to the sponsor, and I think it's a great item, I want to be a co-sponsor, I'll be for it whether or not we change any language, but think about whether acknowledging the possibility of and asking the staff now to study the feasibility of any other lawful means I think DOA is the way to go. And if we can work it out, we should go DOA. And if not, let's see what our options are. I would hate to lose this program.

Thank you. OK, going down the line, we'll go to Dr. Gallin and then Ms. Carucci.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the chair, I want to thank the maker of the item for exploring a possible pathway toward resolution. But I want to be very, very clear as it relates to what this action is reflecting. I'm hearing the conflating of the exploration of DOA with potential implementation and or restoration of the program. And I think we need to be very, very clear regarding that. I'm in support of leveraging the statute because I understand that we have outstanding citations that have not been resolved, an extensive amount for this community. And I think we, to a certain extent, have some obligation to seek a pathway toward their resolution. But I would be naive to think that we have some outstanding issues as it relates to the implementation in recommend number three of the audit. When we talk about vetting and doing our due diligence, we have a capacity and a mechanism to make some determinations from our own auditor. And recommend three really speaks to the implementation. So on one hand, I believe it's important for us to resolve the outstanding issues and potentially find a pathway that is statutorily allowable, I want to be sure that this is not a conflation of the restoration of the program as it currently sits. So if I were looking at number one, recommend one, explore the feasibility utilizing DOA administrative law judges to adjudicate, I would say, outstanding contested school bus infraction detection systems as of whatever the date the suspension was. Through the chair, what was the date?

Due to chair, April 17, Dr. Gallin.

2025.

That is correct.

So for number one, that would at least resolve that issue because we do understand that it is impacting people's lives, that level of uncertainty. You have something hanging over you. And if you've never been in a situation to have something hanging over you, whether it's small or major, I still have major things hanging over my life. A ticket can be an issue for a person concerned about their insurance, whatever the case may be. So I think if there's a pathway that can be explored to resolve that, I can support that. That's my thought on recommend one. Number two, if deemed a feasible and appropriate, amend the existing interlocal agreement with the Miami-Dade County sheriffs and entering into an MOU between MDCPS and DOA. And I took out some of it, coordinated to adjudicate the same language, contested school bus infraction detection systems as of that date. I have a question or potentially a concern relative to us entering into the MOU but if it's something that's going to be finite to the disposition of the outstanding citations, then I could support that. because potentially this could be restored or this could be amended through the sheriff office. And people will question reasonably if the sheriff office is not taking, you know, what's the question with that? So that's just a reasonable question. The other language adoption, I think that's pretty standard. I think it's important that we Look at the timeline through the Chair, Board Member Spino. I know we have 30 days, but I think we have until July 1st, 2026 to dispose of those particular items. Is that, through the Chair, is that correct? July 1st, 2026?

Right, that's the updated version.

Yes, so I know we want an update relative to that, and I'm okay with an update, potentially, on the possibilities of this, but I wanna be clear about the feasibility and the word implementation. Implementation of what? I have implementation of a process for disposition of outstanding citation. I don't want to conflate that as implementation of the bus patrol program because we have an outstanding issue relative to assessing and evaluating the operational effectiveness and I think it would be prudent for us to allow that work to continue and be prudent relative to the issues that have come up with vetting and due diligence. If we have a pathway for our own internal due diligence, why not allow that to take its course? I have a few other comments, but those are my only concerns regarding that. I don't want to conflate my support or the item's language with the implementation of a process for DOA with the headline reads, Miami-Dade County Public Schools restores the program despite the pending finding and other issues that we may have to address. And I don't want to get too much into that. I raised some of those issues, and I'm going to be candid and unapologetic about it. I asked questions here previously. I want to know that. And I didn't give you that last quote, Mr. Superintendent, but my late father would always say, in life you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. If you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. So where I have a foundation for my previous questions regarding rates, it's fine what other people get, but we're the third largest school district in the nation. We are a pristine school district, and I'm always going to fight like hell to get the best deal for our children, our school district, and this community. And if I have some evidence that we may or may not have the best deal for textbooks or for training or for technology, that will be always a concern for me. So I'll leave that as it is. But I think before I commit to the full restoration of a program, I think the operational issues, Board Member Blanco, lessons learned, there are still some outstanding lessons that we have yet to receive. And I want to... know more about the operational issues. So through the chair for listening public, the two findings were relative to vetting and the other finding was relative to collaboration. Those are the only two findings we have. The third finding, which is significant, speaks to implementation. And that's where the rubber meets the road. And I think that puts us in a position to be somewhat obligated to embrace a pathway for additional due diligence on that particular issue. So I just want to to be clear about my position on that and don't want to conflate and recommend three, what that implementation represents. Implementation of a process to not have this hanging outside of the heads of our citizens, to potentially, Board Member Espino, have a proven evidence framework for what works. That could be it, but we'll have evidence that it worked and to resolve it, but I just want to be clear about that and That's my concern regarding the discussion and I'll add some additional comments after my colleagues speak. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, as we move down the line, Board Member Colucci? Ms. Ross, did you have any comments? Okay, Ms. Colucci.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I've been listening very attentively to the whole conversation earlier as well. And ultimately, I think, and I know what caused from the outcry from the public, from listening to my constituents, the cause to stop and cease the program was the lack of due process. That's what it was. You got this ticket. And I had a gentleman come in and explain all of these logistics to me. He was an engineer. He showed me his whole case he had done. And a ticket for quite a hefty amount. And there's no way to contest it if you feel that you have not gotten your day in court. And I think that's the essence of this, where we're at right now. Ultimately, ultimately, and this is just me narrowing it down, my way of thinking, as a board, we decided unanimously that safety is the priority of our students. That a child just, doesn't matter one or many, one child is too many to lose at the expense of an accident that could have been prevented if there were laws in place to protect that safety of that child. And there would be consequences if those laws are not followed. I am all about the law and due process. I think it is imperative right now that we have to move forward with the DOA component of this and exploring that option because we have a backlog. and people need to get this resolved. So for the listening public, Mr. Harvey, can you explain what DOA is in layman's terms so that they understand what that is through the chair?

Yes, through the chair. DOA, it's the Division of Administrative Hearings. They're based out of Tallahassee. They have a group of administrative law judges that are appointed through a process at the state level. and they serve districts as well as other governmental agencies, and they provide services with regard to quasi-judicial matters throughout the state.

Through the chair, and what qualifies them to be an administrative judge?

Through the chair, they have to be obviously a licensed attorney. Typically with it, I think it's five years of experience as an attorney. They also go through a rigorous interview process whereby they're interviewed by the chief judge who's appointed by the governor. They go through a process whereby their qualifications, they submit an application, they're interviewed by a panel, and then they're selected through a process. And it's pretty elaborate. And we use them for discipline, employee discipline matters. We use them for student discipline matters. We use them for bid protests and almost every quasi-judicial issue that the board has to address, we pretty much use DOA.

So through the chair, I just want to put the listening public at ease that these are qualified individuals that have expertise in the law. If they have to contest their citation. Given the backlog, does anybody have a number for me what the backlog is right now through the chair?

Through the chair, Ms. Colucci, it's approximately 8,600 and change. Okay.

Through the chair, would we have a way to find out to meet the deadline by July 1st, 2026? For me, that's imperative. how many judges we would need, how many hearings they would have to do in a day to catch up just for that through the chair. And I don't expect you to have that number offhand, but is it something feasible? And if we keep letting the clock tick, we're really constraining the opportunity for, according to statute, to address this backlog of cases through the chair. Is there any way we can get that through the chair?

Through the chair, Ms. Colucci, all I can share with you is that we have not, at least I have not, spoken to DOA. So I'm going based on my conversation with a third party. So I want to make that very clear. And their quote to me was six cases an hour, ma'am. Six cases an hour. Correct. So, in other words, a judge would be able to listen to, let's say, if he works eight hours, six times eight, 48 cases. Okay.

Through the chair. So, yeah, a lot of cases. So... And I understand what Dr. Gallen is getting at, not conflating the two, because right now my main concern is the due process of these individuals getting their day to be heard. But first and foremost, we have to look at who is ultimately responsible for the implementation of a bus safety program according to statute. Can anybody answer that for me through the chair?

Yes, through the chair. Under the old statute, the district was not involved in this process with regard to hearing the citations, issuing the citations, hearing the appeals, and if there's a further appeal, forwarding that to the courts. They were not involved. That was all handled through the court system or through bus patrol, and it was a turnkey process. Under the new statute, now the district is responsible for handling the appeals, which means liability, which means cost. And the cost, I mean, I don't want to speak for DOA, but we pay about $200 an hour for an administrative law judge. Right now, that would be a cost that has to be borne by someone. Currently, under the current contract, it's not provided for. That's obviously an issue. That has to be addressed. Obviously, if the item passes, we bring that back as part of our analysis.

Through the chair, I think it's upon us to incur that cost because we did not have, not us, but whatever the process was, was not in place to have the due process, which for me, as an American and as a due process, you have to have a place to go and have your day in court when you feel that you have not been rightly fined or accused of something. And that's the premise of our legal system. So whatever that may be, I mean, we have to incur that, but right now we have to look at that because we do owe that to our community to allow them to have that. And I feel if we do not allow, if we allow the clock to expire, what happens, Mr. Harvey, If July 1st, 2026 rolls around and this backlog doesn't get addressed, what happens then through the chair?

Yes, through the chair then. If it doesn't get addressed during that time period, then your ability to collect on those citations would expire. So at this point, and if I understand correctly, because I'm just sitting here with Louis doing the math, so that's 8,600 cases. Right, so we're talking about a, how much is that, $100 million? Yeah, I went to law school not to do math. $100 million. I'm sorry, I know that I'm getting, you know, I'm sorry. So... So yeah, we'd have to do the math to figure it out.

That's fine. I don't want to go into a math lesson here. I was a math teacher. And then we have to calculate as a board through, excuse me, Mr. Harvey, I don't mean to interrupt you, through the chair. We have to calculate also how much is it going to cost us to get out of this contract through the chair? What is the cost? Because there is a cost if we do not use this company through the chair.

Before you respond, because the superintendent is the one that signed the contract through staff, would you please answer?

Yes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Colucci, we just have to be very cautious in saying that we are going to bear the cost. That's really, really important. That's not the way. And at the end of the day, I have to say this, right? And the auditor said this. This was a program that was supposed to be turnkey. Right? In fact, one of the reasons why we did it was we were not going to be involved in the intricacy of this program. That kind of safeguarded us from it. And we trusted that those two other pieces would be in place. So in terms of the findings, to me, the most important one, which I happen to give to John, to be all honest with you, was the fact that we are a local entity and we should, regardless of whatever anyone tells you, we should have been at the table, the three of us together, solving and verifying, is it possible, is it not possible? So with this, we have to be really cautious and saying who's going to take on the cost. And there is also, again, going back to Dr. Gallin, the important word, even negotiation at this point. So I want to make sure that we understand that this is not only about us. This is really, and to be honest with you, we typically don't implement anything that does not involve our children that we monitor and control. This was this one element, right, that we implemented, but really the implementation is in the hands of others. And so when the issue comes about vetting, and I don't want to go back there again, but that was the crux of it. Whatever we do in terms of cost, it has to be analyzed. I just don't want to make sure that we say that we're going to cover it all. That's basically what I'm saying.

Okay, and through the chair, typically when you go to court, there's a court cost, correct, through the chair? That's in any, so it wouldn't be all incurred by the district. There would be a fee that a person that wants to go to court would have to pay in order to, which would be significantly less, of course, than the actual citation. So we have to factor that in as well, the offset through the chair. Correct? Okay. I'm sorry, my line of questioning is the way I think. So where I stand right now, we need to move this item forward as far as looking at, as a board, if we want to continue having safety of our students be a top priority, which I know we do, we have to look at giving due process to our community, and we have to look at the essential question at hand. When we went into this, and I'm gonna steal an expression from Dr. Gallen, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Is that yours? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I think we have a program in place that is designed to save lives. We have a program in place that is designed to, no pun intended, put the brakes on people that are being irresponsible around children. And I understand that there was not the proper vetting at the time, I agree. However, if we decide as a board to keep a program, whichever one it may be, what is the cost gonna be to go with a new program? So there was a lot of questions here at play that we really have to look at, and I know I'm taking a lot of time, but it's the only time we can discuss it, and it's in the sunshine. So those are my two cents. I do want to co-sponsor the item because I really am a firm believer in due process and safety. And all of that other information is food for thought. I want to see what my colleagues have to think about it. I echo the sentiments of Board Member Blanco, what she said. I thank the maker of the item for addressing this because it is critical that we address the issue It is one that has been immensely concerning to me as a board member and to our community. So it's something we have to address. We have to be, as our chair said, we have to be transparent, completely transparent. That's why I'm asking all of these questions so the public is aware of where we stand. And we need to decide as a board, and I present it to all of us, what is the issue at hand here? The issue at hand is the safety of our students. And is there a program in place to help our students, keep them safe? Yes, there is. Now, as a board, it is upon us to make that decision. And we have to weigh every single option with being responsible. But for me, there is no cost to a life. It's priceless. So that being said, I will close Just by stating that I think we really need to have this discussion further. I don't know what the maker of the item is. I support the item. I'm going to co-sponsor it. And I want to thank you for bringing this forward. And I want to thank my colleagues for having this robust conversation and really bringing this forward. So thank you. And those are my comments.

Before I move on to further board members, just for clarification, and maybe if by the creator of the item, because we're talking, it's been mentioned multiple times that this board needs to vote on the safety of our children. But my understanding, this is for the pass log of tickets. I'm for the safety of children. I have some concerns. For the record, I'm for the safety of children, but this vote is not about the safety of our children. This vote is about a backlog of 8,600 tickets that have been issued. So am I incorrect or correct in that statement to the maker of the item, Mr. Spino? Just because I think it's important for the dialogue that we're having here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Correct in part. First of all, let me say that this is an interim step. This has not reestablished the program. We did not stop the program, so we cannot restart the program unilaterally. So this is an interim step. The legislature has given us an additional tool to create a mechanism by which to reauthorize, to reimplement the program. You are correct that this would be, as a statute provided, this would provide for addressing the backlog. It also would certainly provide for a mechanism by which to enforce and adjudicate new violations. Because again, the reason it was stopped was because it was an obvious problem. It wasn't because the virtue or the merit of the program was bad. there was a contestation issue. There was a notice in issue. So just now that I have the mic for a moment, and I know some of my other colleagues want to speak, I do want to say that I welcome the friendly amendment by Board Member Blanco and also contributed to by Board Member Gallin. This would be a vetting to assure that the DOA judges can hear the backlog of the 8,600-some-odd cases for violations through April 17, 2025. While I do... Right, right, through that date, meaning as of that date, correct. And certainly the law does authorize other lawful means. I think based on our experience right now, the DOA process is the one we're most comfortable with. And so I'd like the administration to focus their attention on that. If they come back to us and say in 30 days, look, DOA is a dead end for whatever reason, then we'll decide at that point if we want to expand beyond that. But I think those, at least that addresses a couple of measures because, again, I don't, beyond for the listening public, for the listening media, right, This is not reauthorized, a reimplementation of the program. It's just a step to get to that point. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you for the clarification because I just wanted to make sure that everybody on the board and the listening public, this vote is not about the safety of our children right now. The bus system has been paused by the Sheriff's Department and it's out of our control to restart that system in today's world. What we're talking about here is the backlog of 8,600 citations that were issued out. And I'll speak at the appropriate time. I wanna now move to the next board members who wanna speak. Moving down the line, Dr. Dorothy Bendavindigo, do you have any comments? Ms. Santos, you're recognized.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Board Member Espino, for bringing us sort of a next step in a process. Certainly, I echo the sentiments of Dr. Gallin in that there are still so many pending, well, one pending objective of an audit that is related to this program that... I certainly want to make sure we complete that. However, it was just stated that this is really a different issue at hand with this item. I echo the request that This action recommend be narrowly tailored to the existing outstanding citations in the action recommend. That would be very important for me to be able to support it. And I also leave up to the administration, but 30 days certainly seems like a fast turnaround. I hope DOA is quick and that they can meet it, but that is certainly something that That brings me pause because I, again, don't want to maybe rush, get something wrong again, and find ourselves right back where we started and how we found ourselves here. I did do some quick math and 8,600 citations you said six cases an hour was quoted earlier. That's 1,433 hours. If it's $200 an hour, you're looking at $300,000 basically, just for the judge, right, just for the judge. And to be clear, that is a cost that we as a school district, under the way the new statute is written, would basically incur to create this process and administer this process through the chair. Is that correct, Mr. Harvey?

Yes, through the chair, unless we could negotiate something else with the vendor, but yes, that would be the case.

Thank you. And through the chair, and obviously that's just the cost of the judges. I'm sure there's tons of indirect cost. I did want to get clarity on what was discussed earlier. You said that If these citations, let's say we wouldn't have taken action, time would have passed, July 1st, 2026 comes around, your words were that we lose the ability to collect on the citations, Mr. Harvey, through the chair. That's what happens to our ability. My question is what happens to the person who received the citation? What is... what happens to their citation, their record, their penalties on July 2nd, 2026, if nothing is done through the chair?

Yes, through the chair. It can't be enforced. It can't be collected.

Through the chair. I know you're a lawyer, but most people are, frankly, like I've gotten a ticket before, it doesn't feel great. You want it to be resolved. You want it done. You want it clearly off your record. Clearly, you don't feel like you owe money. You want to either pay it or contest it. And while certainly... If I could roll back the clock, I would want to ensure that we had thought of due process. It is the most important tenant of our society, really, that when you're accused of something, you have a process by which to be fairly judged on that. However, we're here and I'm happy to support exploring the feasibility, again, only if it's narrowly tailored to the pending citations, outstanding citations. But I also see here that it says, if deemed feasible, we're in this action recommend already giving the authority to amend the interlocal not report back to the board, then the board take action and decide, okay, well, if it's $500,000, we may or may not feel that that is a good investment to clear this backlog, or we might decide that we could dismiss all citations and not incur any of these costs. I certainly am concerned about building bureaucracy, adding positions, adding additional contracting for things that, that honestly have happened. This is not talking about the future of the program, as we very clearly stated, and I'm glad that distinction was made. So I think I've made my comments clear on the friendly amendments that I've heard that I would support. but the one thing that hasn't been addressed is that this as written would give the authority and the direction to go amend and move forward where I think we should consider having this analysis and feasibility be done and brought back to the board. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Board Member Santos. And we now have... I just wanna get, are you gonna accept the amendment? I'll incorporate that as a friendly amendment and recap it at the end. Okay, thank you. All right, so now we have Ms. Colucci who first wants to have a rebuttal and then we have Board Member Rojas.

Not a rebuttal, it's a comment, Mr. Chair. No, and I do agree. I'm glad you did the math. What I was going to say is that there is a cost that would offset, because I know that whenever someone goes to court, there is a cost that you incur unless the citation is thrown out. So that, you know, it would probably be less if, through the chair, am I correct, Mr. Harvey? It would be less if there's a, like let's say there's a fee of $40 to take it to court.

Yes, through the chair. Some violators may be found responsible. And then they would have to pay the cost. And they'd have to pay the court costs. Others may be found not to have violated it. so we would have to eat those calls.

And the other thing, and I agree with you, that when you have something hanging over your head like this, you want to resolve it. You don't want it to be... And I think it's our obligation to give these people, these constituents, their day in court if they really feel strongly that they have not had that opportunity. I think it's essential, and it's upon us to do that. And you're right about... you know, coming back to us, that's fine. I have no problem with that. However, the clock is ticking on the statute. And where we are, what my thing is in cutting through bureaucracy and cutting through spending time Where do we want to go as a board with this is this something that we want to do, or is this something and i'm not asking anybody to as you know you don't have to answer me right now. But if it's something that we've decided that we're going to move forward with that we don't want to do, we have to we have to come because that's the crux of this conversation. are we gonna move forward with this or are we not? And that's for us to decide as a board. I'm not saying we have to decide it right now, but it's something we have to look at and we have to discuss very seriously. So I will leave it at that. And Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to make a comment. Thank you.

Okay, before I go, just a point of clarification from Board Member Santos and then you'll be up, Ms. Rojas.

Thank you. Through the Chair, on the time comment, because it's very important, I just wanted to also say, if we do the math that you had shared, that's the 1,400 hours. calling a 40-hour work week, that's 35 weeks for one person. Let's say you have three judges, that's 11.9 weeks. So really, once we put this into place, depending on how many judges would be hired, this could be a one-month process, it could be a three-month process, it could be a six-month process. But that's certainly what I would expect to see in the feasibility that you bring back to us to understand what that would look like.

Thank you so much, Ms. Santos. And now we have Board Member Rojaski.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and that was one of the points I was just going to bring out right now. I am very familiar with the DOA process, having come from the Office of Professional Standards, where due process is critical to every single employee that we represent. We made sure that anyone who was contesting any decision that was being made at the school board and that individual was not in agreement with, they had the opportunity to request a DOA hearing with the ALJs, the administrative law judges, who did a wonderful job. And yes, they are very well respected, And without a doubt, I'm sure they're capable of doing a fine job. However, there is a cost that comes with it, and I'm not going to go through it again. It's already been alluded to by several of my colleagues that are here. But there is no doubt that that cost is huge. going to be significant for 8,600 pending cases that we have to deal with in some type of a timeline, right? And April 17th is basically the period that we've got going on here. So this is something that we have to look at very, very closely. I wanted to first and foremost also thank all of my colleagues for comments that were made. I have several pages that I wrote, that I have written, and a lot of it has been said, but I want to start off with my colleague, Board Member Colucci. Safety and security is the number one issue for this board, and absolutely 100%. whether it's one child or more than one, that is our number one priority. And that is why we invested in this program in the first place on the initial period where we first started to deal with bus patrol. I understand clearly, based on the responses that have been given by the maker of the item, that this is really not 100% about safety and security, that it could be partially. And if I'm incorrect, please clarify. that this is not just about the safety issue related to the children, based on the comment that was made by Board Member Calucci. If I misunderstood that, please clarify. But this item was, as I understood it, supposedly based on comments that were made, was to deal with the 8,600 pending cases that we have. Is that accurate or inaccurate? Through the Chair.

Mr. Chair, just again, just to reiterate it. This is 100% about safety because it is about a program that has been halted as a result of not being able to adjudicate cases. The mechanism that provided by a statutory fix allows for the adjudication through DOA or other means, but in this case I'm proposing DOA, to adjudicate the backlog of violations, which is an enforcement mechanism. Essentially, it's the teeth in those violations because if not, they didn't get anything for having violated the law. And then secondly, providing a mechanism by which to look at how the program continues with the appropriate due process. So it's not mutually exclusive, it's and, or, both.

So if it's an and or thank you through the chair situation, maybe I'd like to see a little more clarity on that in the recommendation if possible because I read it very carefully and I really did not see that. So maybe that's something that you could consider. Obviously due process is essential for all people that are involved in this situation, the 8,600 pending cases. We want to find a way, a solution to address that issue. I think everybody from the comments have been made with some caveats that have been raised by some of my colleagues and consideration by the maker of the item to make some changes. I think we're all in agreement with that part. I was looking at very carefully the lessons learned. We've talked a lot today about lessons learned. So I wanted to go back to the lessons learned from the previous conversation that we just had earlier today. And in order to move forward with any recommendations here, we have to look real carefully about lessons learned. So I wanted to make sure that the issue of transparency is first and foremost, because there are a lot of questions in this community right now. I know I've been confronted with lots of questions. related to this. So transparency has to be number one priority to ensure that everybody understands exactly what we are voting for in this particular item. Number two, I want to make sure that we are doing things correctly and that we're not acting prematurely on any issues. So that is something that we talked about earlier today as well, if we have a pending audit, and this is what I want to get a little bit clarity on for me, the audit hasn't been fully completed. The audit was, the first portion was done, but we still have a pending area that has not been addressed. What kind of impact does that have if we proceed forward now with the recommendations that are in front of us and the pending audit hasn't been completed and hopefully it will come back with good results. But what occurs if the pending audit that we have has issues identified in any way, shape or form? if that would have an adverse impact on a vote that we would be taking now through the chair. Who would be able to respond to that? You, sir?

Through the chair. I wouldn't know... how the results of our audit would impact your decision, the board's decision on going forward or how the program would go forward. I wouldn't know, I just wouldn't know that.

I just want, for the sake of clarity, for everyone to understand where I'm asking questions that I know I'm going to be asked afterwards. And this is the only time I can talk to my colleagues right now. And so that's why I am asking that question, because that's an important question. Because when Board Member Alonzo brought that item that we all unanimously voted for, we voted for a complete audit. That complete audit has not been finalized. It's only partially been finalized. And that's why I asked the question. You've given your response to that. And so the other part was the superintendent was supposed to come back to us then with a recommendation. We don't have a recommendation from the superintendent yet. So my question is if we move forward at this point in time with the changes that have been proposed to the maker of the item issues that we have all talked about of concern if we move forward without the recommendation from the superintendent is that being premature or can we proceed at this point and time without the recommendation which was part of what was in the initial one through the chair

Superintendent, can you answer the question? Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Ms. Rojas, I guess this is part of, I guess, our dilemma. When the audit came to the floor and it was discussed, questions were asked that we do not have responses. Typically, as a practice, when there is an audit requested, we await the responses of the audit, and then we take action for full recommendation. That's the way we typically have operated. I mean, the last time we had an issue, I don't wanna even mention the issue, but Driver's Ed, remember? The huge issue with Driver's Ed? We awaited for the complete audit to take place, and then we took action. So I was kind of surprised, and again, you know, The audit was the audit, I just wanted that to be discussed, but typically, we await for the audit, the full disclosure, we learn from it what we have to do, and then based on what the board decides, right, we bring a recommendation. That's typically the way we operate and discuss, but ultimately the board makes the recommendation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, so through the chair. So therefore, typically that's what you do, but in this case, the urgency, the matter of urgency has to deal with the 8,600 pending cases of people that have something hanging over them right now that they would like to see some closure. So if we move forward with this recommendation that we have, understanding that this is not typically the way that we do it, there is a very viable reason for consideration to move forward without your recommendation. as I understand it, through the chair.

Mr. Chair, yes, as I see it, we're dealing with a backlog that has not been addressed. They took place, and it's pending to be resolved. But just that backlog is what I'm hearing the conversation to be about.

Yes, through the chair. Thank you for that. And by the way, I've never gotten a response because I've never asked the question. But just to know, how many cases do we have where there have been accidents with children here in Miami-Dade County? Just if someone had an idea, more or less, that could give me a response to that. Through the chair?

Through the chair, we would have to go back to the municipalities and our own police department to gather those reports to give you an accurate number. I wouldn't be able to give you that number, Madam Chair. Thank you. Through the chair.

yes thank you very much um it's okay you don't have to give it to me now but it's something i would like i would like to know so anyway um as as i look at everything and seeing the scenario that i have and asking the questions that i know that members of the community are asking i think that people could see that with full transparency taking place here we have done our due diligence as board members to ask the questions that we feel we needed to ask and get responses for so that we can fully understand if we give support or not to this particular board item. And seeing the due process portion that is imperative here for 8,600 individuals. and given again the recommendations that have been given including Board Member Santos on number one with a caveat that you put to the existing cases, then I can understand why it would be feasible to support the item as we move forward. But I did have a lot of questions and a lot of concerns and I hope that as we move on, if this does pass, that we keep in mind from the previous scenario what we learned of what we should and should not do. We learned that we need to deal with all of the entities that are involved. We need to make sure that everything we do is fully vetted, not just to meet the criteria, but to go over and beyond. And that as we proceed, we keep in mind also the comparison of our district to other districts, because it's my understanding, and I'm not quite sure that I have it correctly, but I believe, Mr. General Counsel, sir, that we get, I believe, 30%, and Bus Patrol currently, from Bus Patrol and Hillsboro was getting, I believe, 40%. Is that accurate, sir, through the chair? Yeah.

Yes, that's correct. OK.

So again, another area that if as we proceed, we got to make sure that our I's are dotted, our T's are crossed. We go over and beyond in every sense of the word because we represent this community. And we have to fulfill our fiduciary responsibility in a very responsible manner and make sure that all steps are taken to get the very best deal for those that we represent, particularly for our children. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all I have for now.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I think I'll take the record today for all time. I do see that the auditor and there was some questions came up. Were there any clarifications that you all want to offer? No? Okay. Dr. Gallin, you had your hand up.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to just try to be brief. I want to first of all thank you, Mr. Chair, for this conversation and something you did clarify. I thought that it was important as it relates to the issue of safety. I respectfully have had people to reference the issue of safety, and it's almost a rhetorical question. Every board member is for safety and security for children, full stop. I think that that needs to be very, very clear. I also want to thank Board Member Ospino, because up until this point, I think he has been very, very receptive to every friendly amendment that has been proposed. And for the record, I think I heard him be very, very clear with respect to my inquiry. And I think Madam Chair was navigating through that particular question as well. This item is not about the restoration of the program, full stop. Through the chair, Mr. Superintendent, is that your understanding at this particular point based on what the maker of the item said with respect to the question I asked and the conversations that we've had restricted to the 8,600 plus outstanding citations? I want to be very, very clear.

Through the chair, Dr. Gallin, we're here to kind of listen in response to the board item. And so the more I listen, I mean, several of you have mentioned about the backlog, resolving the backlog.

Absolutely, absolutely. So through the chair and the maker of the item just flat out answered the question that this is circumscribed to the outstanding 8,600 citations. And I hope it's not lost that 8,600 outstanding citations is still a lot. So I think that's an issue. So as it relates to the issue of safety, I have to be clear that I see this item around three particular issues. You know, safety is a foregone conclusion. We all for safety. And I don't want anybody to suggest, you know, that there's a direct correlation to a certain program in the safety of our children. There's no nexus that's been established. So I just wanna be clear about that. I understood the spirit of some of the questions, but I don't like to have an issue frame that if you don't do this, then this is going to happen and that's going to be on you. It's also about number two, due process check this country should be grounded in the spirit of due process. And I think we have an obligation to do that and to address the outstanding citations will facilitate the due process. And thirdly, for me, coming back to the audit and coming back to some of the findings, it's about the board's due diligence. So I wanna just raise those three issues. Yes, safety, okay, we'll put safety at the top. Due process and due diligence. And due diligence for me, is in the balance with respect to the third finding. Because an audit is not simply about I got you. An audit is to inform, to educate, to help improve, give information about how an organization can strengthen its procedures, its protocols, and its processes. And one point in the third finding is just about that. That's the fulcrum of the third finding. So as a part of that due diligence, I could not support the restoration at this point because I think there's still information out there that will inform me. about what direction we could move. So I don't see this as a binary choice as it relates to safety due process or due diligence. It's all of the above. And as I understand the item and as the maker of the item has graciously been very open and very transparent about what the intent is, I can support it with the amendments. It's clear that it's not about the restoration of the program. at this particular time. There's a lot of game to be played, and I appreciate Vice Chair Colucci. She asked the question, but then she said, I don't want anybody to answer it right now. And the question was, do we want to continue or not? My answer would be, I need more information. And I have something that the board employed auditor has waiting to provide for me to make some additional determinations as it relates to a decision moving forward. As this has unfolded, my late father is saying, you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. We cannot ignore where we are as it relates to a district with the issues of costs that are associated. So we have to keep that in the back of our mind or at the front of our mind that we have costs associated with some of the decisions that we're going to make. So with that, anticipating the changes, understanding that this is not about the restoration. It's about due process. It's about an opportunity still for us to do diligence, because the DOA process is a form of due diligence. We may establish or prove a great mechanism to resolve the issue so that you don't have 8,600. We're saying 8,600 like it's casual? That's a lot. And one would ask, you know, that's a lot. And lastly, any additional costs of board member Spino, I just want to point out on recommend to second bullet, the establishment of a dedicated fund. And that says to me, where's the, you know, we have to look at the money. I kind of took it out altogether, but Somebody's going to have to pay that, and I think that's something we can explore when the administration does their feasibility. If it's $5, if it's $1,000, if it's $300,000, I've done my calculation, which I'll let the experts do theirs, but if there's a cost associated with something that initially, through a turnkey program, the district was not to incur, then that's possibly... a need for a continued conversation and I'll leave it at that. And again, thank you for being so gracious and for clarifying that. And with the changes, uh, reflected accordingly that you have agreed to, and I'm sure you'll summarize it at the appropriate time. Maybe not today. I'll wait to see the changes, but I do trust you and trust you. So if you cite, if you cite them, trust, but verify, uh, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Before I go to close it off with Board Member Spino, I wanted to kind of share some comments. And I think the superintendent wants to share some comments. But we mentioned our late fathers. And I'm going to mention my late father. He tells me life is not fair. And it's unfortunate the position this board has been put in because it's not fair. We voted for the safety of our children and for a bus program system that we were going to have no liability or responsibility of. And today, we're sitting here saying, We are the responsible ones. And that's not what we agreed to as a board. We did not agree to own this. We agreed to provide our buses as a mechanism to enforce traffic citations that the sheriff and our clerk of courts was gonna then implement and enforce, not this board. But today we're faced with the fact that we have 8,600 tickets that now we're being told we're responsible of. But guess what? The reason why this system was stopped was because there was questions about those 8,600 citations. And before we even go to due process, we need our sheriff to come out and tell us if those are appropriate citations. She stopped this system for a reason, and this board has not gotten an answer as to why she stopped it. Point blank. We still do not have an answer as to why the system was stopped. And it was referenced that the safety of our children is our responsibility, and it is. But according to all the changes we've made here, this is not about the safety of our children right now. It's about 8,600 pending citations. that equate to $300 times 8,600 or whatever, $225, whatever the number may be, that now the district is being held responsible for finding a way to clear out. My question to our attorney is, does our current agreement even allow us to contract DOA?

Yes, through the chair, it's not provided in our current agreement. Our current agreement was struck under the old statute that now the new statute allows for us to, actually obligates us to contract with DOA if we're gonna implement this program. So we, the school board would be responsible for the implementation of the program.

So as a follow up, is our contract null and void then right now at this moment? Or does it automatically carry a new statute by default?

Through the chair, the contract would have to be either substantially amended or a new contract would have to be entered into because this responsibility, which is a major responsibility, would have to be renegotiated. I mean, it has to be negotiated.

So we are not required by statute to have to hire dual right now under our current contractual agreement and implement the system.

Through the chair, yeah, there's other options as well, just not only DOA, but you could also contract directly with private attorneys to hear these disputes as well.

Okay, and it was asked already, and we always say we ask questions that we know the answers to, but I think it's important. If nothing happens between now and July 2027, right, what happens to these pending citations to the drivers who have them lingering over their head?

Yes, through the chair. So once a hearing date is scheduled, they would have- If we don't have hearings. If you don't have hearings, then it's just going to continue to stay out there.

So they don't go away to the drivers. There's still time to collect on that after with time.

Yeah, well, it has to be done within the year period, but yeah, if it's not collected during that time period, it'll go away. I mean, it can't be collected statutorily.

So the tickets will go away by July 2027 if they're not collected upon? Or 26, sorry. 26, I apologize, not 27. I'm giving them an extra year. I mean, look, I'm all in support of due process. I think it's part of our American judicial system, right? There's due process of everything. It's unfortunate now we're here at this position, now that we're having to deal with this, because I can tell you, board members, your phones will be ringing. Your phones will be ringing. Your phones will be ringing. And they'll be ringing because we have a sheriff who is not in agreement with this yet. And I honestly cannot comfortably vote in favor of this without having the sheriff on board. I really feel that she needs to be a part of this. So I appreciate all the amendments, and I'm in support of all of them, Board Member Spino. What I would recommend is obviously to run a feasibility, because I think it's important, and I'm in support of doing a feasibility. But I think in part there needs to be a sit down with the sheriff and with the current clerk of courts and a real meeting has to occur on the 8600 pending citations. We're still awaiting an audit on the restart of the system and I think we're all in agreement of that. But we need to get a report back from staff because I don't want to once again rush 30 days in after this to find out that we made another mistake. And I don't think we'll make a mistake because we all strongly believe in DOA and we've used them for other processes here in the district and to hear other cases. But I think we need to get a full analysis to come back to us before we start amending any contracts, because this will require the amending of the contract that we currently have in place if we want to use DOA. So before any contract is amended, because there could be legal ramifications to this, I think it needs to come back with a full picture to this board to review. And then we can move forward. And based on estimations, we still have some time if DOA can properly put the attorneys and the judges in place to do this. But I think we've waited this long. I think we should do it the right way. And maybe within 30 days, staff can come back to us, not in a full implementation, but at least with an overview of what your conversations have been with DOA, what your conversations have been with the sheriff, together with maybe even the clerk of courts who has now has a stable office. We understand that that office was going through a transition when the judicial system was changing. And now we do have a clerk of court that has been there over a year maybe that could maybe share some insight with us. But I'm in full support of exploring the feasibility of DOA or another system to clear out these 8,600 citations. But I'd like for it to come back to us before any contract is amended, just because this is the amending of a contract that could open up other discussion points even around the point of reimbursements of how we're gonna pay for these court cases, how are we gonna be reimbursed, and what is our fair share of these citations as they're given out. So I'm in support of a feasibility board member Spino and for this coming back. But I really feel that it's important that we also bring the sheriff into this because there might be some reviews required of this 8600 citations before it even goes to a judge based on what I have heard just in news coverage and in other meetings that we've had regarding this. So those are my comments, and I look forward to supporting a feasibility review of DOA to see if it could be an option that this board can use to be able to help out those drivers that have those 8600 pending violations.

Mr. Chair. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanna bring us back down to sort of center, focusing the chi, if you will, for a moment, woosah. There's a lot of questions, and that's why this item was specifically put on the agenda. Frankly, we could have put this item on the agenda as early as our July meeting, because it is simply a tool that the legislature gave us. I'm going to go down the item as modified. I just want to address a couple points. The statute addresses costs. there is up to a certain amount of money, $250, something like that, dollars that can go on top of a violation in the same way as regular traffic infractions are allowed to assess court costs when you speed, when you, you know, any kind of violations on it. That we are now responsible for it, there are buses. I mean, I don't know about you guys, but I always felt responsible for it because there are kids and there are buses. And frankly, what this does, as I mentioned, is start the conversation about how to reconcile the issues. I don't think the superintendent at this point is authorized to speak to a sheriff about a process that we haven't directed him to talk about. That is, how does he know whether it's to bring our own in-house magistrates, if you will, or administrative law judges? This sets him on a path, his team, on a path to approach the sheriff to address it. And I will just say, for the record, with due respect, I believe the sheriff was clear about why the program was stopped because she found that there was a lack of due process in the contestation of hearings. This addresses that. And so I'm certainly not in any position unilaterally to go to the sheriff individually and say, hey, I'm bringing an item up, love for you to support it because I don't know the disposition of this board. I think that's the responsibility of the administration going forward to address that. I will also share one concern And I totally understand where everyone's coming from, but I hope you guys can see also the concern I have, which is, of course, the audit is missing the third leg of the stool. As the superintendent correctly pointed out, it's not our information to provide. And when my conversation with Mr. Goodman came up, he says, and it was answered when he was gonna deliver that report, he can't give you an answer, because it relies on the performance of third parties not under our control. So it is possible that he may come back to us, or his team may come back to us with a report that says, incomplete, can only give you this much information. And so my concern is, leading to sort of my next point is, I don't want us to pause indefinitely on a technicality of an item that really is beyond our realm of control. I want this to be a tremendous inflection point for us. I think what Mayor Blanco brought up is learning lessons to be made. We have an item that this item can simultaneously create the path for the program to continue, but it also opens up the contract. Let's talk about the contract. It also creates a mechanism by which to address all the ones that were unadjudicated. And so just to sum this up, I'm going to go through the recommendations real quick. Number one, explore the feasibility of developing and implementing a local administrative hearing process consistent with 316.173 for the statute utilizing administrative law judges to adjudicate contested school bus infraction detection systems. Ensuring that that covers all violations through April 17, 2025 when the program was halted. I'm going to stop right there and say if it's good for those violations, then we should also take note that when we reconsider the full implementation when this thing comes back, that is obviously good for the program going forward. I'm gonna reconcile two and three because three essentially says come back with feasibility, implementation progress, and recommendations. Implementation progress for our purposes in our office we discussed was those conversations with the sheriff. It wasn't saying like, hey, go run with it. So number two will read, if deemed feasible and appropriate, following the conversations that have to be done with third parties, return to us an amendment to the existing agreement with Miami-Dade County Sheriff An agreement with DOA and an amendment with bus patrol that would provide for this new enforcement mechanism. I'm going to leave the bullets the same. I'm going to leave bullet three the same. And then I'm going to also add, as I mentioned, number four, create a procedural mechanism to confirm that the funds are correct based on the number of violations and the money owed to us. Period. They will have to approach bus patrol, they'll have to approach the sheriff, and they'll have to approach DOA. All that, it's my intention for it to come back to us before we authorize the execution of any agreements on prior violations or even on future violations. I hope that clarifies. I think that checked everybody's box, because it doesn't mean that it's gonna go forward right now. I think it addressed your comments, Board Member Gallardo's comments, Board Member Santos, your comments. What was missing?

Through the chair, I think when you referenced the amendment to the bus patrol contract, I didn't have that anticipated as coming back because it was never cited in the recommend two in the initial framework. I thought that the disposition of the process for adjudicating the outstanding citations was the priority. And then subsequent, there too, we can make some determinations as it relates to that. I'd never anticipated including an amendment to the bus patrol contract coming back at this particular time.

Mr. Chair, if I may. The reason I mention that is because, as our board attorney mentioned, our agreement with bus patrol doesn't currently contemplate that enforcement mechanism. And then there's going to be the idea of costs and all these things that have to be brought back to us that essentially, again, we're not operating this program in a vacuum. There's going to be some kind of representation from bus patrol that they are amenable to, not just in meetings with us, but that they are amenable in writing to the enforcement of these violations through this process. And so I think other concerns could be raised at that time by the administration with bus patrol. But I don't want to be in a position where we're doing one thing, sheriff agrees, and then as the superintendent correctly pointed out, it's a conversation with everybody at the table at the same time.

Follow up. I guess you're intimating that the need for mutual agreement as it relates to the enforcement mechanism by bus patrol outside of the scope of the existing agreement.

Correct.

If there is no mutual agreement, does the liability still rest with the board for the enforcement if we so choose to enforce through the chair?

Sorry, if I can just add a point of clarification. You're saying if we end up not having an agreement Because right now, insofar as I can see it, far away for me to speak on behalf of the board as an attorney, but there's a frustration of purpose occurring right now, meaning that there are multiple agreements. The agreement cannot be effectuated, and so essentially it's a reason to stop the agreement, terminate, cancel the agreement.

But through the chair, is the amendment to the agreement is going to be circumscribed to the outstanding or prospective agreement? restoration, because we've been clear that this is not intended for restoration.

The only thing I would say is...

I just want to be clear about that.

What I meant by this, this is not an authorization to restore the program, right? This is not a measure to go and go back because we don't yet know what Dole's going to say, what the sheriff's going to say, and what bus patrol's going to say. All I'm saying is that if this mechanism works for the 8,600 cases, then... That's one less impediment to the agreement being reauthorized, re-implemented going forward, right? Because it stopped as a result of this. We're saying we're fixing this. Therefore, let's look at how this could serve the agreement going forward. Now, if there's anything else that wants to be discussed by the administration with bus patrol at this inflection point, that'll come back to us too. What I'm saying is I don't know how we can say this works on the 8600. and yet it would not be a means by which we could continue the agreement.

Yeah, through the chair.

Gentlemen, point of order, please. Through the chair, please. I know we're having a great conversation, and I welcome it because I think it's important, but let's do it. But I do have one clarification. It's important because, Mr. Espino, you've mentioned it, and other board members have mentioned it, and I want to make sure we have confirmation from staff or if either of you have spoken, but I think you've mentioned you have not spoken to the sheriff. but you're saying that the reason why the system was paused was because of the lack of contestation. Can we confirm that that's why the sheriff stopped the system? Is there anybody that can confirm that in staff or on the board that that is the only reason why the system was paused?

Mr. Superintendent, do you have an answer for that? Mr. Chair, so I don't want to speak for the sheriff. However, we did have a meeting with her Her captains, I had staff there, and I don't want to speak for her, but I think there were multiple reasons, but I don't want to speak for her, right? I don't, but the crux of it is like Mr. Espino is saying, but I believe she came new into this piece. Correct. It was brand new to her, and I think... Putting it just on one particular piece, I don't think it's sufficient based on the conversation that we had that day with all of us at that conference. And again, I don't want to speak to her. And it all has to do, again, going back, right? Had we all sat at the table, right? Some of these issues would have not come up. but I don't want to speak for her. And there were multiple things that we discussed at the table that day. And that's satisfactory, sir.

I appreciate it, and thank you for the response. I just want to make sure that we have that. And I think that's why it's important. And I think what we're saying, Board Member Spino, is that you're requesting through this board item that staff go out now and meet with the sheriff and go over all these different options and then come back to us with a recommendation. And part of that recommendation could be to amend our contract with certain – reasons or purposes in order to clear this backlog of 8,600 tickets that are sitting there. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you.

Through the chair. So staff is not authorized to amend it. They would have to come back with us with a recommendation on subsequent action.

Correct. Correct. That was a friendly amendment from Board Member Santos.

OK. OK. We're clear on that. So whatever those issues are, and once you amend it, you can amend it across the board on whatever issues come up from further due diligence. Thank you.

Okay, I think we've reached a good point of, but the superintendent wants to share a comment, so we'll close with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Respino, you've been very accommodating. Can we ask you for one more amendment?

Well, it depends what the favor is. I feel like I'm talking to my kid, my son. I'm like, it depends what the favor is, son.

It's the time that we'll need to arrange for the conversation. I think 30 days is really, really tight. So ideally, 60 days would be the best if you could help us out with that.

No problem. I just hold the superintendent in such high regard that I thought 30 days was adequate. 60 days is fine.

All right, so we'll offer you some time to amend your item, Board Member Spino, but once again, as the superintendent said, every board member, thank you for being so open to the discussion and collegial across all of it. I think it's important that we all have these questions and it's important to talk through them and that the public know that we're asking the questions for them, but always putting the safety of our students at our number one priority, so. Thank you so much. With that, do we want to take a vote on the item or do we want to wait for it to be republished?

Through the chair, because this item was so comprehensive and board member Espino has a lot of, you know, not a lot. He has some things that he needs to contemplate. I want to support it in spirit based on what has been discussed. But as board member Espino said to me, I want to trust but verify. So maybe we can move it with no recommendations pending the final revision that's going to come out because it's been so many. That would be my support. That's my motion.

I second. Do we have a second? I do.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Excellent. We will now move to Board Member Spino on Board Item H6.

On a lighter note, colleagues, for many decades, the Doral Resort, now the Trump Doral Resort, was the center of a PGA tournament that ultimately became a championship tournament. I was actually city attorney at the time when it ended, unfortunately, because it was an amazing experience. I'm pleased to report that the PGA is returning to Doral in not a championship, but what they're calling, the Cadillac championship, but what they're calling the Miami championship from April 30th to May 3rd, 2026. And the idea is, as you've done with other sports franchise and with other sports teams, is develop a relationship with them that we can leverage with our students. They do a lot of stuff in the community that is obviously golf-centered, but also beyond golf-centered, and the idea is to see what we can develop in that partnership as we've done with other establishments. Simple item, that's it.

Okay, I now have Board Member Ms. Maritere-Rojas first, and then Dr. Gallin after.

So I want to, do you have a headache? Let me give you a Motrin, not a Tylenol. Anyway, let me just thank you for bringing this board item forth. I love this item. I think this one is gonna be absolutely wonderful for our students. And I happen to have two granddaughters that are major golfers. They're gonna love it. Yeah, exactly. But golfing is a sport that's really, you know, it's starting to get much more traction than it had in the past. It's not like football. It's not like basketball. But I'm telling you, a lot of children are now going in that direction. So thank you for bringing it forth. And I would like to definitely co-sponsor this item. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Move it.

Second.

Co-chairs? I'm getting a headache now. All in favor? Aye. All right, we now move to H7, also a much lighter item, as we had discussed in our past committee meeting. In an effort to save us all the agony of traffic through downtown Miami, as well as coming to meetings, we had our organizational meeting scheduled for the day before our regularly scheduled meeting. And the goal and the thought was to bring both meetings together, Specifically this year, we have no swearing-in ceremonies occurring for any new board members, so it should be a very quick process. So that is my item, and I hope to have everybody's support so that we save ourselves a trip in November.

Okay. Co-sponsor.

Okay. Move it?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right, we now move to H8.

Mr. Espino, this is your item. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Trump Doral is becoming quite the epicenter of activity in at least my district, and in addition, not only will it feature this championship golf, but also a very, I mean, I'm nerding out on it, to be honest with you, a very prestigious event, which is a G20 summit, which is one of the most significant gatherings of heads of state policymakers and global leaders that can be hosted, will be hosted at the Trump National Doral, and We have focused, at least in my office historically, on some of these partnerships with sporting events, sporting franchise, sporting venues, and this presents an opportunity to really go in a different direction with that kind of partnership and exploring options for everything from civics and model UN and economics and global policy. And so this item, unlike the one I had before, simply authorizes the superintendent to speak with the G20 organizers, which are primarily the Department of State at the federal government, to see what we can leverage when this is being hosted in our backyards.

For our students, I should add, of course. Thank you so much, Board Member Espino. I have Ms. Maridera Rojas who speaks first.

Thank you very much, sir. And I love this item. I fully support it. The only concern I have is that there are going to be 20 heads of states with the largest economies. A lot of security questions for me, referencing the students particularly. And so that is something that is the only part of this item that I worry about what are we going to do to take steps to ensure that we're doing everything in our power for our students that are involved in this process to be in a safe as possible environment. That is the only area of concern that I have. Is there any input on that that you have now or not yet? Okay, so through the chair, I think that is something that really needs to be looked at very, very closely. Thank you, sir.

All right, any further comments? I want to thank you, Board Member Espino, for bringing up this item. I think it's a great one. Miami is definitely at the national spotlight now with the G20 and a possible presidential library. so there's a lot going on around it, and I think it's a great opportunity for educational opportunities for our students in being able to be exposed to all these great things, but as Board Chair Maritere-Rojas mentioned, the safety and security will be important with all these different activities going on in Miami. We also have FIFA, and you've brought in all these great partnerships to us, Board Member Espino, to be a part of this district, and I think it's important for our students to be exposed on it, and I'm sure that all the safety precautions being put in place for any of these points. So thank you so much, and I will also co-sponsor. So do we have any co-sponsors in the board item?

Move it. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, we now move to H-11.

With the item as amended.

Voting for the item as amended?

Move it. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, next item is H11. This is also my item. Board members, this is the proposed 2026 legislative program of the Greater Florida Consortium of School Boards. As you all know, we are members. We are one of nine school boards that sit as part of this consortium. And every year go up to Tallahassee and lobby slash, you know, advocate on behalf of different priorities that are faced by district with the same unique needs that this district faces. I ask that staff provide you all with the program ahead of time so that you can review it. And I'm open to any questions that anybody on the board may have. If we don't have any questions, we would be voting on this. And then if we have a unanimous across all nine, this will be the program. But as school boards, we do have the option to amend it and remove any board items that we feel, any items or any priorities that are on here that should not move forward in this legislative platform, and they will be removed. So with that, I open up for comments from the board. And I think we have Dr. Gannon as our first one.

Through the chair, it wasn't just a comment. I just wanted to thank you for your representation on this committee. I had an opportunity in past years. The consortium is an outstanding body of school board members across the state that have continuous and related issues, and again, it's always a great opportunity for us to leverage insight, perspective, and relationships, and I want to commend the board chair for appointing you and your representation has been very, very positive. Thank you. And I'm ready to co-sponsor at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions or comments?

Thank you very much. Through the chair, I just want to also state exactly what was just addressed by Dr. Gallin. You've done an exemplary job. You don't miss the meetings. You represent us extremely well, and we are very grateful for your service. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, with no further questions, do we have any co-sponsors?

Move it.

Okay, all those in favor of co-sponsoring H8?

Aye.

I mean, sorry, H11. All right, we will now take a motion to recommend H11 to the board.

Move it.

Yes, that's what I just said. All right, the H items have now been discussed. We will now take a motion to recommend the H items to the board meeting of Wednesday, October.

Move it. Second.

Excellent, we now move to contract extensions report by Ms. Mumford. Do we have any questions for Ms. Mumford from the board? No questions, all right, great. We now move to our legislative update. Are there any board members with questions or comments? I know that committee weeks is about to start very soon, and then we'll start getting some updates, but I'll open it up now to the board if there's any questions or comments or concerns regarding our legislative priorities. Being none, That next item on the agenda is new business from board members. Do we have any new business from any board members? None? Great. We now have a staff follow-up that is gonna have a presentation, I believe, on the strategic redevelopment framework assessment, which I think was shared with the board ahead of time, and I believe that Mr. Raul Perez will be leading this group of experts in walking us through

these recommendations.

I apologize, I know you all have been waiting patiently. As a board, I don't wanna make them wait an hour though for a lunch. Are we okay with a 30 minute recess? Are you okay with a 30 minute? Yes, and we'd have to stay on it to have their presentation.

It will be not only the presentation, it will be probably a good discussion period of time.

30 minute recess? Okay.

I think we also need to ask Dr. Bendel's minute ago, because she has academics coming up.

30 minutes, that's all you need. I'm not gonna be sitting here listening to redundant statements, okay? Mr. Chair, let's just do 30 minutes, please.

Thank you so much.

And we'll be back at, what is this, 2.30? 2.30. 2.30.

We'll be back at 2.30. Thank you.

Oh, that would be nice.

All right, good afternoon. It is now 2.34 and we gave each other an extra four minutes in our 30-minute recess. We will now resume our regularly scheduled short committee meeting on fiscal accountability and government relations. We now open up to the presentation that I know our staff has been working on on the strategic redevelopment framework for some of our partials down here in downtown Miami. as well as IPREP, so with that, I hand it over to you, Mr. Superintendent, and your staff to present.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, the continuation of the Finance Committee. First of all, as you know, through board item F3, authorization for the superintendent to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the Omni Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency, to advance a multi-phase redevelopment partnership approved on May 14th, 2025. Providing context here is gonna be really important. The administration was directed to reassess prior redevelopment work, conduct further due diligence, and return with options for your considerations. Today's presentation should fulfill that directive. Now, I wanna make sure that you understand that the item that was presented clearly provides for a new vision, a new vision that this board owns. This is not an old vision. This is something that this new board has worked on for us to develop and present to you. Basically, charting a fresh and strategic redevelopment pathway forward. This work has been guided by the district's educational priorities that has been stated time and time again, delivering modern learning environments, particularly referencing I-PREP, reimagining the schools like Phyllis Wheatley, creating long-term value from our downtown assemblage, and supporting workforce housing with attainable and sustainable goals. Now, with the Omni CRA extended through 2047, the district now has a very unique opportunity to align our priorities with dedicated long-term redevelopment funding. Our priorities are always going to drive our conversations. Today's presentation outlines the critical areas for consideration. and frames three redevelopment approaches. Our purpose this morning is to provide you with a framework, with an analysis, and a clear recommendation so that we may move forward with your direction and support. I want to ask very kindly that you hold questions until the end. I know sometimes that's difficult, but it will be really important so you get the comprehensive picture. But again, I want to thank all of you for providing a new opportunity for us to come to you with this. I also want to provide, if I may, particular consideration or acknowledgement that in terms of the IPREP piece, Dr. Bendros-Mendingal has been very, very active. We actually... attended a commission meeting together. And the fact that we're here today is very, very significant. All of you have contributed in many different ways. Madam Chair also was very intentional about appraising what we own and being very deliberate with that as well. Dr. Gallin, don't forget our educational imperative. We can never lose that. So time and time again, Mr. Alonso wanting to make sure that we maximize taxpayers' land. They own it and we have to do what's right. So I believe you're going to see a presentation that delivers an approach, analyzes what we own very, very differently than if you would have seen this before. before it was a singular conversation, and it got lost in translation. And here we're dealing with different parcels, and it's broken down as much as we can in order to make decisions. With that said, I also want to recognize that being at this point in time is very significant. This has required a lot of work. both yes, politically, strategically, and I do want to recognize the work of Raul Perez and Lisa Martinez in helping us navigate so many, many different angles. I know that for both of them, the fact that they're here presenting is a big step, is a big step. So with that, I'll hand it over to our consultant, Lisa Martinez.

Thank you, Superintendent, Mr. Chair, members of the board, good afternoon. To carry out the direction you gave us, the district engaged three independent firms to ensure that this work was not only thorough, but also validated by outside expertise. Redevelopment decisions of this scale require more than internal strategy and action. They require independent perspectives that bring credibility, depth of experience, and assurance that our priorities are being tested against real market, legal, and financial conditions. Each firm brings unique expertise. Together, they provide us with a holistic view of the opportunities and risks. We'll begin today with EY, a global firm with national reach and a strong presence here in Miami, which allows them to bring both broad perspective and local insight. We asked EY to review the district's work, analyze Miami's real estate conditions, and provide their independent assessment. Mr. Edwards will now introduce the EY team and share their perspective on Miami's market conditions, the backdrop for why timing matters in this decision.

Thank you, Lisa. Thank you to the board for having us, Mr. Chair, members. So my name is Daniel Edwards. I'm a senior director with Ernst & Young. We're here to essentially provide an update on what the market conditions are that may be informing the decision that this board has to make with these very, very valuable sites. I'm here with Michael Berenstein. He's an associate here in Miami in our office. And Robbie Carver is the partner and the leader of our real estate practice in Miami. He's unable to be here today. So I'm looking forward to getting into this with you all and hearing any questions you might have at the end. When you look at the broader market here in Miami, The main word that we've seen and the theme is resilience right now. Key gateway cities in the United States are facing significant headwinds across all sectors of the market, primarily due to flux in capital markets activity as well as some trepidation in the investment community on really moving large projects forward. That hasn't really hit this market right now. The multifamily vacancy is still very low comparatively to other key gateway markets in the United States. Anything sub 5% is usually a very, very healthy and robust multifamily market. In retail, the theme stays the same. Vacancy is well below the United States average. The pipeline is strong. It's healthy. This is always going to be a very, very attractive retail market for all sorts of tenants and developers moving forward. Office has been a story in the commercial real estate sector for some years now, really since the pandemic. has suffered quite a bit. But comparatively speaking, Miami has actually performed pretty well in the five years since 2020. While vacancy has increased slightly year over year, you are seeing some of that resilience that I mentioned maintained with new tenants moving in and projects continuing to include office as part of their development plans. So what does that mean for this? That market uncertainty will always be there. I think that The interest rate environment is still something that no one can predict. I think that the capital flows may continue to come in. Miami leads the nation in foreign investment activity. It's a market that is always going to be in the top three markets as far as gateways for either new tenants, establishment of a base, especially in the Sunbelt, but also on the East Coast in general. And this location we're speaking about is a very prime location, not just within the Omni District, but also in the broader downtown area. Walking around here, surface level parking lots are becoming rarer and rarer, as I'm sure you all can attest to. And that represents opportunity here. I think that the rest of the presentation will sort of highlight where that opportunity is and what might be the right path forward. you know, this is a significant value proposition, not just for a developer, but also for the school district in general. Having been easily one of the hottest real estate markets in the United States over the past five to 10 years, there's no reason that a school district should not be taking part in that activity and benefiting from it as well. So look forward to kind of going through this with you all and getting into more detail.

Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, and board members. Understanding the property that we have and that we own here is important, but just as important is knowing where and what actually is allowed to be built on these properties. Zoning pretty much is what determines. It sets the rules, the limits, and the opportunities. That's why we engaged Greenberg-Trorig GT is one of the nation's leading law firms with a strong Miami presence and deep expertise in land use. They've been helping us look at what rights the district already has on these properties and how those rules affect the value and timing of redevelopment. Presenting for GT today is Iris Escara, who will walk us through those considerations and explain why zoning is such a critical piece of this puzzle.

Good afternoon, Chairman. My name is Iris Iscarron. I'm joined by my colleague, Devon Vickers, and we're very proud to be here and be your outside counsel on this. So these assets are actually sitting in an area of the city that has so many different benefits. Downtown is expanding north, right? That sort of traditional line of where the downtown line was is being blurred as more and more development goes northerly because it's just doesn't fit in downtown anymore. You're in the urban central business district. You're in a CRA. You're in an increased density area. I mean, from a developer perspective, it's got all the beautiful bells and whistles. Then I'm going to be talking a little bit about the Live Local Act that the state passed and the benefits of that. The county also is doing rapid transit zoning. This area is sitting with the school board stop, an existing transit stop. There are parts of this county that are begging, pleading, screaming to have transit. And here you have an amazing stop that is way underutilized. In the past few years, as you drive through this neighborhood, you see about eight brand new buildings, each with about 300 plus units in each. So just to give you a volumetric of what this area is evolving in and where your assets are compared to that. There is also a historic city cemetery. So from a center perspective, you have all around it this development coming up, but you also have a historic open space in the center. Most of the assets, if you look at about the approximate 10.5 acres and the darker maroon color is T636, that allows 60 stories and 649 feet by aviation standards. So that is a very lucrative zoning designation to have in the city there's only one higher than that and that is the core right in front of bayside that is t6 that is higher so from that perspective that's a very nice zoning to have your parcels seven four and five have lower zoning it's t6 24 that only allows 48 stories and less square feet What we tried to do was break it down into the one asset that already has the RTZ zoning. As you may recall, this is the asset that half the block is owned by the school board and half the block is owned by the Galbert family. And there is an RTZ approval that they obtained some time ago and it is still active. So this particular site has not only the underlying Miami 21 zoning, but it also has the overlay of the RTZ, which is rapid transit zoning, which provides for a lot more flexibility in the design standards, allows for the same number of units, but more square footage and less limitation on floor plates. So from a development perspective, the RTZ is better than the traditional Miami 21 because of those incentives in the floor area and the greater flexibility on the volume that can be built. This, you may recall, was a building that's being proposed that's 648 feet in height, provides 1,400 residential units, 140,000 square feet of office, 600 parking spaces which are to be utilized by the school board and the Arsht Center. Next slide.

Thank you.

Sure, let me walk you through that. So we have the Miami 21 zoning, which is your inherent zoning that every property has within the city of Miami. Miami-Dade County, through its transportation authority, has zoned some properties within the city to be rapid transit zoning, RTZ. What that means is that in order for them to accomplish some of the goals for their transportation program, they have upzoned some properties. So the property owner is able to either advance with the City of Miami project or advance with an RTZ zoning project. Now the city and the county are currently in litigation or discussions as to how those two are gonna work out. There's certain questions that they have as to who pays the impact fees, where does fire go when something happens. However, this particular site vested before that litigation occurred, so this one is able to advance. as the current standards with the program that was previously approved. So you kind of have one foot in the city and one foot in the county, although the county from a design perspective is more flexible and allows for more square footage. Then the balance of the site, which are about nine and a half acres, you all have a couple different options of what you could do. You could rezone lots four and five, which have less zoning than the others. You can pursue a Live Local Act, which maybe I'll give you just a two second on that one. The Live Local Act is a state-created program that allows for, in the event that a developer builds a building, and it has 65% residential, 40% affordable, you're able to take the highest density in that jurisdiction and go to the highest height within a mile. So in this particular case, it's 1,000 units an acre, where the area is 500 units an acre, so you get a lot more density, a lot more units that you can build. From a height perspective, you get more height. However, the height is capped here at 649 feet because of FAA, so it chops you no matter what. But then you also get unlimited floor area. So as long as you're able to meet 65% of the building is residential and 40% is affordable, you're able to pass jail and go straight, keep going and be able to get a permit quickly. And that is to spur development and to spur really affordable housing. It was an initiative that started three years ago and every year they've kind of tweaked it and made it better and better. So that is the Live Local Act option. So you have your Miami 21 option, you have the county designating these sites, RTZ, and then you have the Live Local also, which is a buy right, very attractive. We have a bunch of clients that are currently looking at their assets under Live Local because of the flexibility that it provides. So we kind of did a little chart. for you comparing the three of what your current is, what the live local, and what the RTZ would provide. And we also are available for any questions you may have at the end of the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Iris. As you've made clear, zoning isn't just technical. It defines what can be built, how quickly, and the certainty of value we can achieve. The timing and predictability directly shape the value for the district that the district can realize from these properties, and those factors were central in considering the options you'll review today. At the same time, this board, with the chair's leadership, has consistently advocated for hard data and clear understanding of real value so that decisions could be made on a fully informed basis. That's why the next step was commissioning an independent appraisal. For this work, we engaged Joseph J. Blake and Associates, one of the nation's most respected appraisal firms. Presenting on behalf of Blake today is Mr. Allen, who will share the valuations that not only establish the baseline of what these properties are worth today, but also illustrate how those values shift under different redevelopment scenarios. These findings are what anchored the options you'll be reviewing.

Thank you. Chairperson, sorry. Thank you, Chairperson and committee members. The presentation here basically, I'm sorry. The presentation here on the first page, there's an overview, I'm sorry.

Can you back up one page?

Okay, thank you. Gives each one of the parcels there which are referenced in the zoning. So you can see each one there. Our scope was to go through and do a valuation of each parcel there. Next page, please. The first parcel is 1535 Northeast 2nd. You'll see on each one of these slides that there is a current use of parcel number and address and the map. It's a little bit difficult with the map in seeing only this one parcel, so you may want to reference back to the prior page, and that way you'll get the overview of where it is. What is done here is we analyze these parcels on the density and gave a value range as well as what we believe is the final market value or the most probable price. So you get several items on here. And all of this is referenced back with regards to the zoning that was just spoken about. So second slide, please. This is the 1500 Biscayne Boulevard property. And again, same data on prior. I'll just go through each one of these slides. I'm not so sure that you need me to read what's there, but each one references what's there and what I mentioned before. Parking lot parcel, which is, yes. Okay. No, 140 Northeast 16th. Then after that, 1610 Northeast First Court. 1410 Northeast Second Avenue. 1367 Northeast First Court. 1370 Northeast Second Avenue. And then 1801 Northwest First Place. Then there are two parcels that were asked to be focused in on. And what we did here is 1367 Northeast First Court. We have a valuation summary on that and 1370 Northeast Second Avenue, the valuation summary on that. The compilation of those two properties is $27,500,000 on the point. value on the range. You can see what that is above for each one of the properties. Next slide. And then the next thing that was asked was to present a benchmark with regards to what an office structure would be worth on a price per square foot and what an office structure would be worth that had potentially 100,000 square feet. Also, a parking benchmark in there with this. Now, bear in mind that these benchmarks are just benchmarks. They're not exact amounts, because in order to have an exact amount, you would need the plans, the specifications, and a lot of information about a detailed building. But this is a benchmark for you to get an idea of how things compare making a decision. The final numbers would have to be, let's say, vetted very well with a set of plans and specifications and everything else, and also agreements. There are 600 parking spaces. We added the 300 parking spaces at the $45,000 a space number because Typically, you would find an office building of this size of 100,000 square feet would have the 300, so that's why there's a little bit of a difference there with regards to the number of spaces that was talked about being provided and the number that we included here. In other words, you'd be double dipping, potentially, if you did that and added 600 spaces. The benchmark that was come up with at that point was $78,500,000. And then in comparing that, well, the next slide, I'm sorry. The value associated with the remaining sites is $307,300,000, which is an extraordinarily large number. The district is, I would think, one of the largest landowners down there. And that basically gives you the overview of what's there. So I think I'm...

All right, thank you, Mr. Allen, for that important information and analysis. With zoning work from GT and valuations from Blake, the district had the critical inputs it needed to begin shaping redevelopment scenarios. We then shared with EY not only those inputs, but also the full body of work the district had developed over the years. the history, the analysis, and the framework for consideration. EY's role was to challenge that work, analyze it against market realities, and provide independent assessments of the options. Through that process, EY's analysis and the district's priorities came together, and we reached the same conclusions about the best path forward. With that, I'll turn it back to Mr. Edwards, who will walk you through the scenarios, explain the trade-offs, and conclude with recommendations now before you. Thank you.

So not to rehash the great information that was just presented, but this map kind of overlays what exactly we're talking about with this 10 and a half acre assemblage. I should note Phyllis Wheatley is not included in the 10 and a half acre figure. But as Mrs. Skara alluded to, development activity is pushing northward and the definition of what downtown really constitutes has changed significantly in the past several years, especially given the amount of market activity that's happened in Miami. I think the main thing is that the multiple priorities that Mr. Superintendent alluded to, workforce housing, operational sustainability, and, you know, modernization that impacts the outcomes that you all are striving for are all kind of included within this. You know, the ability to utilize these assets to push forward those goals is important, and I think that the assemblage, as Raul just mentioned, it represents a significant opportunity, and I think it should be taken advantage of in a way that that constitutes that. So our goal was really to take all these options, compare them against the realities of what's happening, and then ultimately show you all what the comparison looks like and where the risks are. So parcel seven is really the catalyst of all this. There is an existing agreement in place. It's much more of a right now opportunity, but it does represent sort of the linchpin that will unlock the value that we just discussed for the rest of the assemblage. oftentimes in real estate development, you'll see that it takes one development and one successful project to really jumpstart the possibilities that are available in the surrounding area. And this is what parcel seven sort of represents in this case. So currently it's a surface parking lot. It is not occupied by any school board facilities outside of parking. It's level, it's grade, it's perfect right now for vertical development. So it's very attractive to a developer. It's not surprising that there is this interest here. I think what's important here, too, is to understand what the highest and best use of the site would be and what would most likely be attractive as a development opportunity to third-party investors. Typically, in a downtown node like this, you're seeing mixed use. Mixed use is a broad definition, but what that really means is you're taking a dominant use that obviously is going to push most of the underwriting metrics forward in the project. Often, that's residential in this case. Retail residential. As I mentioned beforehand, those are the markets that are really maintaining their growth in Miami. And that's really what we focused on here. You'll see that the highest and best use should be predominantly residential with retail and some office. And obviously, the parking to support those uses is also important. So that's really what we would imagine that the highest and best use would be at this site if we were to do a full breakdown in the appraisal sense. And you can see, obviously, the definition of highest and best use. It is an appraisal metric in term, the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or improved property. So what's option one? Option one is essentially what's on the table here. It's the relocation of IPREP, the development to move forward on parcel seven, and then move into an ITN for the rest of the nine and a half acres that remain in this assemblage. but it also considers the fact that there could be an MOU with a CRA that allows some level of control that the district may maintain, and that's a very key piece here. What's being proposed here is essentially a new SBA office, 100,000 plus square feet. It will include an auditorium with 150 seats, lobby. It will be separate from the rest of the development, which I think is a key point here. This is not just the school district being a one of the other tenants in another property. It's truly your own facility that will maintain the level of separateness that you have within this current facility. Residential units, 1,400 residential units. It sounds like a lot. It's really a common number here, given some of the historical developments you've seen in the past five years. This may be a mix of condos, apartments, hotel, All of that encompasses the residential aspect of this, and that is maintained by the developer as a flexible assignment, depending on how the underwriting or the development modeling may turn out, essentially what's gonna make the most money, right? The office component, additional office would be included too, and this is important because it indicates that there is some appetite for office outside of what they're developing here for the school district. And then, obviously, 50,000 square feet of retail, 1,800 spaces in a parking garage. And there may be additional signage opportunities that might drive revenue at the site. So all this to say is that if you take a look at what the ideal highest and best use might be, this project is meeting that. And really, it mirrors it quite well if you look at what's possible. So moving forward, I prep. would relocate to Biscayne Park. That enables the construction of a new facility that obviously unlocks the value that we discussed earlier. You know, the remaining nine and a half acres are freed up for further development and capitalization on your behalf to maximize the value of the portfolio. And the CRA MOU actually is also a very important factor here because that that the maintaining of control of what may happen. So with the tax increment financing and bond funding that is certainly going to be happening shortly here, time is of the essence to a degree. And that's an important factor of this first option as well. As far as the cons, you know, there have not been any new bids for this site. So what's on the table is really at the top end of the value proposition right now. So that That really is the only perceived con with this. And I think that maintaining the control of the rest of the assemblage is first and foremost. I think that that represents significant value to the district and the market data certainly backs that up. And that's not even to include the operational continuity of having a brand new 100,000 square feet of office space that you can modernize your facilities and really increase the overall capacity value of the real estate that you're actually working in every day. Option two maintains the IPREP relocation. There would be an ITN for the full 10 and a half acres, taking off the table what's already on board here. And it also has the MOU of CRA considered as well. The major factor here is that, yes, it could be perceived upside in waiting for a better deal, waiting for a higher value. But nothing's guaranteed. So that just introduces more risk into the process. And I think that given the macro environment, and I promise you I'm not going to go into a macro discussion here, but there is trepidation, largely speaking, on the state of the economy. Nothing is forever. And I think that some of the timing here is actually advantageous to you to maybe not think ahead about what the possibility could be. And it just... the focus of what's on the table is probably less risk-inducive than hoping for a better offer at some point. And then, of course, the zoning considerations, the forfeiture of the RTZ approval on Parcel 7 obviously introduces significant risk. You may not get a deal as good as the one that's on the table now from Crescent Heights. And obviously, the more these parcels are put out to market, the greater risk there is of getting less well-capitalized developers and bidders, and really just you're sort of diluting the quality of what you have on the table. And then option three is very similar to option two, except there is future direct negotiating with the CRA from the developer, so you're really losing some of that control that's included in option two. I think that the cons here are not so different from what we just discussed, but I do think that the further, it's really just an addition of further competition into the process, which which does run additional risk. However, there is upside as well. And so finally, to wrap this up, what you're looking at is really how we've thought about comparing these options. You've got speed and time to market, control and oversight, developer quality, the leverage of the CRA, the value you receive, the proceeds, if you will, and ultimately what the risk factor is with each of these options. I think that the risk that you bring into the fold in introducing further bidding or solicitation of other offers can't be understated, but it also, as I mentioned before, there is upside to that as well. However, I think that the main thing is that the immediate execution of option one, the leverage of the CRA, the MIOU securing TIF financing, and ultimately that new property that allows for operational flexibility within the school district represents the best option on the table right now considering these three. And I think that we're open to questions and we welcome them. Sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to kind of wrap up. So over the past months, we've been carefully examining these options from every angle. We've engaged in direct discussions with our expert advisory team, legal, market specialists who have helped us really understand the risks and the opportunities. Based on the work and obviously the last slide that you saw, as you have set forth on board item F3, we as a collective are recommending option one. And it was just, you know, I believe you have them in front of you. This option, of course, one of the primary features of it is the immediate and certain path. It delivers tangible value, leverages CRA resources, preserves flexibility for the broader assemblage for the other pieces, and ensures that the redevelopment directly supports the district's education mission. We are confident in this recommendation because it reflects both the independent expertise we have sought out and the due diligence we have undertaken with our own partners. With that now, I turn it over to the board for discussion and really What we're seeking is direction for us as a next step. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, and thank you to all the experts here today providing us with this presentation. It was definitely a thorough one and one that I think this board has really been asking for, right? to bring in the experts to really analyze what are our options and really providing those to us today. So with that, I'm gonna open it up now to the board for any questions or comments and maybe starting off, if she's okay with it, with our representative for this area, who would be Dr. Dorothy Bendos-Mendigo. I think it's always appropriate that we start with the representative if she has any comments for the area in which it's being discussed.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And I've read more about this issue than I thought I would read in my life. I have a binder yay thick. And I've gone over it over and over and over and over again. And our staff and the individuals who have been working with me, I'm a teacher by trade. but someone who will remain nameless knows that I had to be tutored with this. I'm a reading specialist for seven years with Dade County Public Schools, but this took a lot out of me. But I learned, you know, forever a learner. So I just want to ask a few questions, not a lot, because I've looked at this and I looked at the options and I know what was recommended. And I thank you all for the presentation. So looking at option one, you know, this reminds me of one of my favorite shows is that one where they go house hunting. And they have, you know, one, two, you know, and I love that show. I can't afford the houses, but I like looking at them. And then this option one really checks all the boxes. But... What about option two? And then you got option three that is high. I'm not too sure if I'm reading this correctly. Let me do this. Let me go with a statement made by our very own Raul. It was said that rezoning uncertainties could affect the timing and values of option two and three. Can you explain that please?

I will attempt, but then I more than likely will defer to Iris next to me. That's fine. So absolutely, Dr. Bendres-Mendengol, Mr. Chair. These types of projects normally have to go through sometimes rezoning to try to, let's say, upgrade or increase the density that the developer is seeking for, and that is attached to the deal. And that particular process is a timely one. So I'm not a full expert on it, but I would defer to Iris who probably does this every day and can maybe add a little bit more to my answer.

Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. Under the current zoning that you have, two of the blocks are zoned T624 in the northeast corner of the assemblage. Those would be recommended to rezone to T636, which is the same as the other lots. That process in the city of Miami right now takes about a year to be able to go through a rezoning process. Another option that the school board has is let's say right now you wanted to have the assembly rezoned to RTZ, right, to ask the county partners

May I interrupt?

Yes, ma'am.

Explain, because we have individuals watching and listening through the chair. Assemblage, what is?

If we can go back to the slide that showed, my last slide. That one. Yeah, I can cover it with that one. So on this slide, it talks about the 10.5 acres, right? So the school board, this is what I refer to as the total assemblage. If you notice, the darker reddish-pinkish color is T636. That has a designation that allows for 60 stories, 12 times your net lot area, very attractive, lots of flexibility in what can be built there. However, the top two on the left, indicated as four and five, have a lower zoning. So if we were to go through the city of Miami to up zone those two, those two would take about a year. The other option that you have is rapid transit zoning, that is a county zoning designation as part of their transportation zoning package. That too would have a process that would take about six months to get RTZ zoning and then it requires a public hearing on the site plan and then an administrative site plan review on the actual plan. So that process in and of itself can take almost two years between all those pieces. When we refer to parcel seven, which is the option that there's already a partnership and a developer, that one already has the RTZ. So that site went and sought the RTZ some time ago. So that one has the benefit of the county overlay that gave it more flexibility in the design of what can be built there.

Thank you for that. I'm going to, Mr. Chair, I'm going to allow some of my colleagues to speak and I'll get back if you will. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and thank you for your answers. I will now go to Board Member Espino.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much for the presentation, certainly for the briefings and the conversation to our experts. For me, I love this stuff. This is what I do for a living. I'm a developer, I'm a zoning attorney, and there's a line in your presentation that I've always felt, and the fact that I saw it being echoed by other people means I'm not crazy, which is that disassemblage represents one of the most significant redevelopment opportunities in Miami, but certainly in Miami-Dade County. And for our purposes, I've always seen this as, and I've said this time and time again, I think most of us have said the line, we've got to figure out how to leverage our assets to develop value and unlock the value of that for the use of our families, for the use of our students, and I think we can do that. So I appreciate all the feedback, because again, for my purposes, just for my own thoughts about these things, it just reinforces what I felt like we should have been looking at. I'm glad we're here. I mean, it's taken some time, and we've done it with sort of market demands and outcry by our teachers needing housing, one of our colleagues needing support for one of our schools. When I read the memo by itself, I did recognize that it did provide a framework. I'll be honest with you. I was taken aback that we were going to be asked today to essentially choose. And I even asked a question from my briefing is this. I go, is this going to be like a Chinese buffet or is this going to be like a fast food combo menu where we pick combo one, combo two, combo three? And it's the latter. I mean, I do feel that those options are not exhaustive. And I've said this to the superintendent because, for example, while there's a confirmation in these materials based on an item that was previously approved for the relocation of I-PREP, we haven't had a conversation this board about what we feel about the presence of the SBAB in the downtown. More than on one occasion, I've heard my colleagues say, we may not need to be here. And when you're talking about highest and best use, a government function in an urban setting like this might not be the highest and best use. And so, for example, while I was a proponent of the prior deal, always with the caveat that said, I don't necessarily know that we need to be, that the SBAB needs to be in that parcel seven. And so one of the things that causes me some consternation is this board, you know, let me also say that on more than one occasion, I think at the behest of Board Member Gallin, it was confirmed that that deal had expired. And so when this sort of becomes the leading edge of this conversation, it's a little off-putting, not because I don't think that Russell Gallin can develop a site, and I also think that he's got the prime position to do it and getting the best value given the fact that he has that RTZ that was vested. And by the way, what the city and the county did when they entered into an agreement, essentially saying, All these projects, one south side, this RTZ, a bunch of other properties, we're going to make a shift and we're going to litigate this, but we'll vest those so that those don't become party to the litigation. And so, you know, good for Mr. Galbit. But again, this board, it's hard for me to sit here right now and say that we have to make a decision on that parcel when we haven't put our stamp on that deal. That's not to say that I'm not supportive of Mr. Gallabert redeveloping parcel seven. From my point, I'm telling you guys full out right now, I don't necessarily know the SPAB needs to be there and how much more value can we realize if we're not there and we go to a place where it's cheaper to develop somewhere else in the county. This is news to you guys, we haven't had an opportunity to talk about it, but this is nothing new that I haven't spoken to the administration about. And I do have a couple of questions. and I'm just gonna blurt them out just because I don't want to lose my thought or get lost in conversation is, one of the things that I thought was missing in the memorandum is, and I've said this time and time again, whether it's Board Member Alonso needing support for a redeveloped Hialeah High or Dorothy Bendross-Medigal needing support for I-PREP, I didn't see the nexus about how at least the redevelopment of Parcel 7 was gonna fund her school, right? I mean, because again, essentially if she's agreeing and the item has been proposed in her district to relocate I-PREP, then there has to be a mechanism by which we give her assurance that there's gonna be relatively immediate funding available for that school development. Because if she's willing to move it to really complete the assemblage, then there's gotta be an assurance for her. And I don't mean to speak for her, I'm just saying for my part. But for my part, I would support that assurance for her insofar as where those fundings are coming from. I understand how CRA works. I've represented CRAs and I've worked in CRAs. I don't fully understand how the CRA's efforts are diminished whether we're in the pole position of development or whether essentially we decide bidders come and take it and you guys bid on the property and you fund and you do the CRA. Because as far as I'm concerned, whether it's Brickell City Center or Miami World Center, they liaised with the CRAs and developed their programming irrespective of, say, City of Miami. And I know it wasn't City of Miami property. I'm putting that caveat on there. But I'm saying that this thing we're saying about the CRA maximizing its potential there's a bit of a disconnect how that CRA's potential won't be maximized if we're not in the driver's seat. Because one of the things that this presentation kind of alluded to that is, I'm not saying to sell or lease or anything like that, but it really puts us in the position of being the developers cultivating development projects. That's outside of our collective core competencies. With all due respect to you guys, I'm just saying as an organization, as a government, we're not developers. We develop schools. but now to be in a position to say we're gonna be, as opposed to just saying we wanna see what the world market can do. And I say world market because you put this much property in downtown Miami on the market and there will be bidders from all over the world, all over the world. Another issue that concerns me is we're stuck in a bit of a chicken and egg situation, right? That is, until some of these other issues are addressed, what happens to this building? Certainly we've got a confirmation of IPREP, but how you fund that IPREP and where it goes, you know, and then we're sort of stuck in a status quo where we've been. I want to see it move forward. I'm just not in a position today to say that, man, I've actually never even been briefed on the entirety of what Parcel 7 development looks like because it was done by a predecessor board. And so, for example, you came to me and said, oh, would you approve this? I would say, no, I think SPAB should be out and let Mr. Galba get a higher and best use out of the property because then he might return that value to us and we have to negotiate that component of it. Essentially saying, if we weren't on the table, if this assemblage was on the table without SPAB and without IPREP, because IPREP is relocating with funding, what does that mean? What does that mean to it? And that's not contemplated here. So when we talk about framework, The framework for me thought about these variables and not simply saying, here, you know, take it or leave it. The time's running out, and if you order now, we'll throw in a set of steak knives. That's sort of what it feels like, right? Because at the end of the day, we have a neighbor in Parcel 7. We've been in conversation with them. Fine. How does that deal look? Does it need to be reissued to us or resubmitted to us so that it reinvigorates life to it? Do we go through another process there? I understand the RTZ component for it, and I think that he benefits from having that RTZ use, and we benefit from him buying that parcel from us because it gives them the highest value. But I don't necessarily agree with the development program. That's just me. Because the county continues to grow west, and I think that we should potentially be somewhere west of here. But those are my preliminary concerns. I'd love to hear some of my colleagues' feedback. It'll frame some more questions for me.

Okay, I now have Board Member Santos.

I was gonna make a joke. Board Member Espino, let me guess, you're thinking Doral. Miami Springs, no? Jokes aside, thank you all for the presentation. I really appreciate that this is actually the most thorough briefing we've gotten. I appreciate all of the external counsel and expertise that was brought to the table. It certainly gives me a set of reassurances that I know our board chair and others have been sort of requesting that are really helpful to have and to see in this form. To be clear, and I wanna make sure, like obviously there's no action recommend here today. This is really an opportunity for us to have this discussion, touch on the topics like board member Espino just did that maybe we haven't had the chance to discuss together before. But to be clear, we might give some guidance and thoughts, but there's no board action item today. We're not voting to approve option A, B or C or to pick one of these. Let me start with parcel seven actually. There were certain terms that were previously negotiated for that parcel, which have a certain value and benefit. to us, how in this moment, let's say under option one, would we hold the line and make sure that every single one of those pre-negotiated benefits are going to stay there and be realized?

Through the chair. So the relationship in the nexus with the Omni CRA is critical to that question. The CRA has prioritized our unencumbering a variety of different parcels so that it could be able to be redeveloped. As you know, the Omni CRAs overall are focused on addressing the elimination of slum and blight and being able to ensure that there is development, housing, additional educational seats. These are in alignment with the Omni CRA's priorities. With that being said, being able to have the referenced 100,000 square feet of office space, the use of 600 spaces of parking spaces, as well as the auditorium, are not being fully invested by Crescent Heights or Russell Galbit. That is the Omni CRA that has wanted to be able to invest in that kind of public infrastructure from the parking perspective, as well as the office spaces, because of the fact that if we were to move, and if we move there or we own an asset that's 100,000 square feet in that parcel there, but if we move there and we are no longer on these properties, then there is an opportunity for the board to lead the strategy to redevelop the rest. That in and of itself prioritizes, our priorities are in alignment with the CRAs, but to your point, the points, the value propositions of the 100,000 square feet, the parking spaces, those are generated from the CRA prioritizing that. The CRA has conveyed their interest to be able to move forward with these priorities and wanting to codify it in a non-binding MOU that would ultimately emerge with contracts with each of the different developments that would unfold. But having an MOU with a CRA, we get to work with the CRA to define what the district needs for the district's priorities. If we don't have that agreement with the CRA, we would not be able to hold the line on what Mr. Galbutt would bring forward if he were to bring it forward. But he would have the latitude to determine what he would want to do and what he could negotiate with the CRA on his own. He may not prioritize office space. He may not prioritize parking. He may not prioritize the auditorium. He might prioritize infrastructure that he needs for a building. And that's what oftentimes happens with developers and CRAs. And so when we're thinking about the nexus of the value proposition for that particular project, we have leverage and interest if we're given direction to proceed with the work with the CRA because they have demonstrated those particular points to be priorities for them. And so that they're willing and prepared to invest in that and have shared that. It has not been officially codified yet because we don't have the authority to be able to formalize those conversations, but those are the priorities on that front. So as far as the office space goes, that's how we could be able to try and hold the line on that.

Thank you for that answer. I certainly see, well, you explained, there's tremendous value in even the time saved with the RTZ zoning that's secured already for this parcel. And certainly, sure, there might be other benefits, but that's a big one. Doesn't sound, sounds like it would add value. as was explained, so much time and effort to go secure that for any property or any assemblage of properties. To give my two cents on the question of where our school board administration could potentially be in the future, as much as I would love, for example, for this to be in Homestead, in my district, or anywhere closer, honestly. I'm just so tired of the drive. I do realize that when you are an institution that serves the entire county, I mean, there's a reason our courthouse, our government center, and when you visit any other large city in the U.S., that these administration buildings are central. This is, whether we like it or not, our downtown. This is where, as we were just shown, tremendous growth is happening. And it is, for all intents and purposes, central. I know Dr. Gallen has a long drive-in from the north. I have a long drive-in from the south. And board member Spino. Everybody's got a long drive-in from our corners. And so... But at the end of the day, it's central, right? And so I actually think it is extremely valuable that our administration building, although I think that the way we're evolving, not only enrollment-wise, but the way of work-wise, and I know we've tried different things, like a remote work pilot. We've tried a four-day summer week pilot. there is opportunity to create efficiencies. And I don't think we need to rebuild the nine floors that are at SBAB, and I don't think we are because it's 100,000 square feet of office space. And so we're finding efficiencies in our footprint as an administration building. I do think out of this get, And again, like Board Member Espino said, I would wanna dive deep into the details of what that would look like to understand and really be able to get behind it. But my gut sort of answer to that proposition is that I would prefer, as much as it hurts me in my commute, for our school board administration building to remain central and to be in the middle of what is happening in our city. Okay, shifting to the ITN that would have to be put together as part of the options, what would that process look like? And maybe also timeline-wise, what would that look like for the rest of the properties?

So through the chair, Mr. Chair, Ms. Santos, so Pretty much it would look like the ones that we've been putting out recently. If we go with option one, the ITN would be put out for the remaining 9.5 acres, and that would be put out either, again, allowing flexibility either altogether or individual parcels. We'll see what entities provide submittals from that. Again, and then as it relates to Parcel 7, more than likely there would have to be some type of unsolicited proposal from Crescent Heights at this point to revive that arrangement and start that process as well.

Thank you, and through the chair, touching on timeline of how long it would take us to, if we moved it forward with option one, we know there's sort of a fast track here because of the work that's been done, honestly, over years to get to this point with parcel seven, but for the others, how long would it take us, as was asked earlier, more or less, to assemble that, to put it out? How long do we expect it to be out? It doesn't have to be exact, but what kind of frame are we looking at?

I think it would be unclear to give a timeline at this point. I mean, we can put out the ITN. What I'm talking about is we would have to disencumber SBAB. We would have to disencumber IPREP and that timeline. And how does that look like so that the developers could know what they're actually going to be submitting a proposal for?

Through the chair? through the chair just to add on to that the idea that what Raul had shared was it's dependent upon the option that the board kind of guides us towards if it's linked to option one the from an from a order of operations we would have to determine the steps moving forward with IPREP and being able to move that parallels on the on the on the other hand moving at the same time linked to um parcel seven and moving that forward and doing the due diligence to determine how we move that forward because it will it has expired and so there's work to be able to address that and if those two pieces are going then we could and are moving forward productively then we could be able to be in a position where we can develop an itn that addresses the 9.5 acres that would be unencumbered And so then we, but looking at the experts here, they could be able to hopefully quickly ramp up the development of an ITN.

Thank you. And I think we all understand this is, I mean, it's such a complex and really like once in a lifetime kind of deal that you can assemble here. Thank you, previous board members and leadership and superintendent and our current tube for buying this land, having this option for us to even consider. I mean, the value is clear. It's over $300 million. there's another factor here that we've seen affect things in the past, and I'm curious if the team did any sort of discussion or thinking around this, but obviously the city of Miami has elections this November 4th. How does that affect, or does it not, or can you talk to us a little bit about what it could mean for whatever option we might have or not have?

So elections matter and impact the work. It has historically impacted this work. I do think that there is an interest with the CRA's leadership that's in place and that's not up for reelection to be able to move forward on this work. I do think that if there is a desire to proceed, acting soon will be important just to make sure that we solidify an executed MOU that everybody could be able to come come to terms with so that we can get that codified and that the, I know that there is a clarity from the Omni CRA's perspective to get moving on how they want to prioritize projects in the pipeline of their work for their issuance of bonds. And so timing is now in regards to as far as the Omni CRA goes because they are looking to get projects moving forward.

Thank you. I guess I'll close by saying that to me, I certainly feel there are timely opportunities. I feel a sense of urgency. It almost sounds a little bit like an oxymoron inside my head because I've felt this and it's a year five of my sitting on this board and discussing this project and so like is five years really a sense of urgency you know and I really feel like where I am personally is we have to begin to land the plane like yes it's complex yes there's a lot of things that could change over time but unless we start to take action and actually make that first piece fall into place so the second piece can fall into place so the third piece can be thought about and negotiated and we could be here for decades, like circling the drain. And there's incredible opportunity. It's important for our families and our students to have a board that's going to be decisive, take action. Yes, sometimes that involves some risk, but it's an incredible opportunity. I certainly want to see it move forward. I know they're complex, but I mean, five years, and that's just my time here. There's many people who've been talking about it for way longer. And I'm really, I think we'll continue to have these detailed conversations. I'm very excited and ready for our community to see us take decisive action to begin to make this complex project actually happen and just move past talking about it.

Thank you so much, Board Member Santos. And I think the superintendent had a comment he wanted to share before I go to Dr. Gallin.

Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. And Ms. Santos, all I want to say is the extension of the CRA, you know how difficult and how lengthy this has been. It hasn't been for lack of effort on our part, but all the different layers and the complications that you will know that we had to experience and move through that. So the ability... The fact that we have that under our belt is very, very significant as compared as to what we were dealing with. Thank you so much. Dr. Gallin, you're recognized.

Yes. What committee is this? Is this still fiscal?

Yes. Are you rubbing it in?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I just had to loosen us up a little bit. Through the chair. First of all, I want to thank the superintendent and his team for a very, very comprehensive presentation and giving us some things to contemplate. But I said under my breath, board member Santos didn't hear. She said, we'll be here. And I said, I won't. I won't be here because we know that some of these things to be five, seven, 10 years down the road. And Dr. Bendross-Mendingall can appreciate what I'm about to say relative to some of the decisions that we make and how they do or do not come into fruition with the plans that we've had for this district, for our students, and for this community. And I say two words. In Liberty City, it's called Hope Six, and she knows that very well. She was the principal at Lely C. Evans. There were promises made relative to the restoration of that community. Families were moved out, promises made that they will come back, and that has not happened. So, you know, we do have to contemplate decisions now that will reflect our legacy in the future. And my legacy, consistent with the policy that I initially proffered at the onset with the full support of this board, was to make sure that our policy decisions relative to our district-owned property keeps education as a priority. Full stop. Someone says, well, we're not developers. We're not. Taxpayers write checks to us to procure for educational purposes. And that has to be at the forefront of what we do. This board, Dr. Bindros-Meningal, Madam Chair was here at the time when we started to transition into this conversation. We didn't have a policy that framed this. We do now. We have a policy that frames this. And I want to thank the superintendent for appreciating that and navigating through that. But through the chair, it's important to understand how we got here. This particular process, Board Member Santos, you're correct, had been going on and on and on and on. But the initial project, and this is more of a question, and I do know the answer, the initial project that we're contemplating for my colleagues and others How was that procured through the chair, the initial project? How was that initially procured?

Through the chair? It was an ITN. It was a competitive bidding process that we had three entities initially submit. two narrowed down for negotiations, and then one last one was finalized as a recommendation.

Okay, great, through the chair. So it was an RFP process that it went through in which that process culminated circa December 2022.

Through the chair, the timeline expired in December 2022? Yes. Oh, yes, okay, that's what your point was.

Okay, yes. It closed out December, the clock ran out. okay so the initial impetus for it was through the competitive process do you recall through the chair what was the initial value proposition of that uh initial deal parcel seven specifically yeah so uh through the chair um parcel seven was appraised at 20 million at that time and the value of the deal was 60 million okay parcel seven was 20. 20. okay um That deal sunsetted in December 2022. I do have a good recollection. There was an item that came forth by Board Chair Rojas that talked about the appraisal of our particular properties. So had that deal been locked in at that particular time, we're talking about a 20 million value proposition at the time. So because the board kind of transitioned out of that particular scenario where we've netted approximately $7 million, according to the expert over there, I was listening. So we have been diligent about our assets. So had we not expired, had that not been amended to terminate that particular longstanding non-moving arrangement, we would have been locked in potentially to a $20 million value proposition. Now we have an asset valued at $7 million more through the chair, am I correct?

Through the chair, yes, you are, sir.

Okay, so now I'm going to pivot to the expert on evaluation of assessments. What is your best thinking? There's been some discussion around real estate values going up, going down, and I have some sense of it one way or the other, but not at this level. But with this being the epicenter of development, are we anticipating that there's a risk of the value depreciating versus appreciating? Is that what I'm hearing, or you're standing firm at the $27 million appreciation at this particular point?

Value is a very tricky thing. Tell me about it. Black Swan events can happen and things can go south very quickly. I've been in the business for a very long time, and I've seen it happen a number of times. We've had a... extraordinarily rapid increase in value over what in real real estate terms is kind of a very short period I mean obviously real estate doesn't move like the stock market every day but we've had a very rapid appreciation everybody in the room probably realizes that the housing prices have kind of started to slow down so to answer your question the best I can because it's... Yeah, you're the expert now. Well, I am, but I also have my limits. So I would probably suggest that the value is... in Miami has to take a breather at some point. We have to catch up.

So through the chair, we were somewhat fortunate in 2022. Uh, the chair did an item, the board voted on it for appraisal. And now within three years, we've netted approximately $7 million in value.

Yes. And, uh, the appreciation has been very big. The, the, um, as the ENY, uh, uh, Presentation said that yes, there has been a really you know, it's been a hot market for a lack of water better words, but There does have to be a time of catch-up because you know It's not a straight line and things don't always move up in a straight line. We've had a very very rapid appreciation do I think your Question was do I believe that there's a potential risk for a down, you know a down cycle there are always potential risks for a black swan event. We all know that. There could be. If I had to look at a past appreciation and run a timeline, it would be hard for me to continue to believe that it would go at the same rate it's going now.

Through the Chair, appreciation will have its limits. My concern is always the depreciation that happens in the market that we experienced around 2008, things of that nature, those kind of catastrophic black swan events, or white swan events, if you want to call it that, that you've described.

We have not seen, and we look at things every day on value, we have not seen a depreciation specifically across the broad markets. Certain specific segments we have seen a little bit. We have seen a considerable flattening of depreciation.

All the indices. Okay. Excuse me.

Sorry, Mr. Allen. I was instructed to jump in through the chair. I think it's also, just if I could add to that, I think it's important to note that real estate is certainly not disconnected from the broader economy, of course. If companies aren't hiring, people don't have jobs, they're not paying their rent.

Mm-hmm.

So it's very easy sometimes to look at land values, especially in a place like this, in a vacuum and say it's always going to go up. People are always going to pay more. In many ways, you know, this city has been the meme stock of real estate for the past five years, and it's hard to – I hope most people get that reference. It's hard just to put anything on that to continue at the rate – at the clip it has for the next – so I think – The framing of you've netted $7.5 million in value on paper by not acting sooner definitely makes sense right now, but it would be very risky to say that that would happen again in the next three to five years.

Again, through the chair, a lot of us won't be here when this thing comes into fruition, but our decisions have impact. I'm going to fast forward to the main thing being the main thing and I think Board Member Espino and Dr. Bendros-Menegal in those referenced specifically. How do we get to, on page four or five, and to recommend one last paragraph, walk us through how do we get to a new I-PREP, Phyllis Wheatley, I want to start there. In that order for me, you see I'm going education first. I think you all did too. So how do we get there from a funding standpoint in the framework of recommend one? IPREP, because the language says could be negotiated through and leverage district generated value for IPREP, Phillis Wheatley, Workforce Housing, et cetera. I want to start with the IPREP and the Phillis Wheatley. How do we get there for a fact? So let's just hypothetically say, you know, we do a $27 million deal. We net 27 million. Will $27 million be inclusive of funding for a new I-PREP and a Phyllis Wheatley through the chair? Walk us through how do we get to our legacy on that particular issue, specifically Dr. Bendross-Mendingall in this community, those two schools.

Through the chair? Yes. All right. So the 10 acres... the 10 and a half acre assemblage is important. It can't be considered like get $27 million and start a strategy for the educational components.

So if I may, Mr. Chair, if I may, Mr. Chair. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Martinez. I want to kind of stop there because what you're representing is we have three different options, but the representation of a new I-PREP and a new Phyllis Wheatley seems to be linked to the subsequent actions that the board may or may not take on the remaining

Assemblage is that what I'm hearing through the chair to be able to expedite the priority.

I'm not talking timeline I'm talking about complete fulfill promise not expedite a promise, but fulfill a promise or a commitment If we did nothing other than the initial recommendation which was option one and it represents generate value for IPREP Phillis Wheatley, and I haven't gotten to the other policy. Will an action on recommend one fulfill a promise for an IPREP or a Phillis Wheatley, full stop?

Yes, if you move forward with that option.

That one option?

That one particular bullet that you just read regarding the two educational facilities and locations. If you only proceed with the educational facilities alone to be able to fulfill and move forward with option one, you would be unable to proceed with that one bullet for option one.

So through the chair, that's important. So if we only did option one, if I took... and just scratched out option two and three and don't want to talk about that. And the board at some point reached consensus on option one through whatever process is determined subsequent to discussions. Will option one yield enough revenue for a new I-PREP and a new Phyllis Wheatley?

Holistically, yes.

Without any other actions taking place?

For the holistic, all the different bullet points?

Option one. I'm not talking about the other.

But he's talking about the first bullet. No, he's talking about option one.

I got it. Yeah, I meant parcel 7. Oh, okay. That's what I'm saying. Oh, okay. Yeah, because, you know, you have option 1. You embedded option 1, parcel 7, but you also have, you're correct, Board Member Spino, thank you, comma ITN for 9.5. So without the 9.5, there's no delivery of IPREP and Phyllis Wheatley.

Without the MOU as well. Because the money will be coming from, in that option, it's contemplating the investments from the CRA.

So the 9.5 additional assemblage is requisite for a new I-PREP and a new Phyllis Wheatley?

Yes.

Correct. Yes. I'll hold the remaining questions because the way it, read, you follow me, option one, you're talking specifically parcel seven. Just because you do an ITN, you may not, let's just say hypothetically, you don't get anybody to respond to the invitation to negotiate. So you don't get any respondents. So failure to get any respondents, reach an agreement, that does not assure the provision of an IPREP or a Phyllis Wheatley. Just because I offer the solicitation doesn't mean I'm going to engage in a contract, an agreement. That's all I'm saying. because I don't think the Omni CRA is going to fund something outside of an agreement from an outside developer to fund two new buildings, two new schools.

So they would be investing in what would emerge within those projects. In Phyllis Wheatley, there will be housing, so then that one could proceed already because that's already in the pipeline, and so that would just be expediting that because it's moving forward.

I promise you I'm going to be quiet. Am I the only one understanding the question that I'm asking?

Maybe I can add some context. Please. So I'm going to bring Hialeah into the picture. Because our world leads back to Hialeah. But no, I don't want to get. No, but look, for example, we're talking about Hialeah High. It's a historic high school that for years has needed a very large investment. We have had several community meetings now. We're looking at multiple partials that could possibly fund Hialeah High. I think what we're seeing here in option one is that these partials could possibly fund the remodeling and the building of a brand new IPREP. But like in Hialeah, like in downtown Miami, we still have to go through the process. But if we don't start the process, we're never going to get there, which is what we are doing right now in Hialeah, and I assume is where we'll eventually get here in downtown Miami, is to go out and have these ITNs done. And look, it might come back. I don't think... and obviously we're not voting on anything here today, but I don't think we're giving away our board offices in its current state, nor telling Crescent House that we're giving them a contract. I think this is going to all have to kind of come in together, and the planes have to land at the same time with air traffic control guiding them, because we don't want to give away our offices without knowing where we're going to go. But we can't evaluate... our office building without saying we're going to go here if we can get this value for this property. So I think everything kind of has to happen simultaneously. But we have to start somewhere. And I think having options on where we can start could be helpful to this board. And I think if we said option one was one that we can explore, what would be those steps? Because I mean, we can go around it and talk about it like board member Santos and Dr. Dorothy Bendos-Mendigo, who I was sitting in between of, I can hear them with the breathing of let's move forward, let's do something for the community. We've been talking about this for so long. What could we do if the board went to option one? Then I guess we can continue asking questions, but what would be the options? So how would this go down?

And thank you. Just before the answer, just that you answered the question. Thank you, Board Member Alonzo. I just wanted to affirm that the extension of an ITN is no guarantee that the deals will come through, because we've had some ITNs. We've actually awarded some deals that actually were withdrawn from the developer, one recently this year. They went through the process for a few years. They got to the gate. They did everything, and then they withdraw. I just want to make sure that finding us a pathway that will ensure these two buildings outside of what may or may not happen with 9.5. And I'll be quiet at this point, thank you.

Okay, so did staff want to offer any feedback on Dr. Gallant's comments or my comments?

Absolutely, Dr. Gallen is correct. There are no assurances and markets change, but the way that we've structured these deals previously, the ones that we have on the pipeline, like Mr. Chair just mentioned, that Hialeah, they're all contingent upon a development component. If that, for some reason, doesn't take place, then we would have to reevaluate and assess in what we do with the capital needs for the schools.

Okay. We now have Ms. Meditator Ross with her comments.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. A lot has been said, so I'm not going to be redundant on several things that have been addressed. I will say that this seems like a dream come true because Dr. Gallant and Dr. Bendros-Menengal and I have been living this for I'm not even gonna go into all those years, right? Yes. And to go to the question that was just posed by my colleague, Dr. Gallin, it was at the 11th hour. At the 11th hour, at that meeting, when things were going one way and all of a sudden, they did not. Because our fiduciary responsibility is critical to those that we represent. So I'm going to say there is a sense of urgency, and we do have to land this plane. However, if you're not with me on the takeoff, don't expect me there in the landing. And that is why I appreciate what you're all doing, the team here now. You're including us in the takeoff. This is the initial state where conversations are taking place, questions are being asked. We're not voting on anything today, but it is also time for action to take place, and the time is now. Because if not, when? Ten more years are going to elapse before we get there. And so it is imperative that we look at what we have in front of us right now. And I looked at the different options. And I, Dr. Galen alluded to the fact that, you know, in 2022, we made, the offer was $20 million. And then of course, for parcel seven, now at $27 million is significant. Also though, the value, of Crescent Heights at parcel seven was approximately $60 million in 2022. And it is now estimated at $78.5 million. This is representing a massive gain, a massive gain. So you have over $18.5 million gain. Here, 18.5 million in added value to the district. And the market does shift, as it's been alluded to. We need to start making decisions now. Not just talking, but walking that walk and taking the action that needs to be taken. So I know today we are not going to vote on anything, but in my opinion, option one appears to me to be the best option, and I agree with Board Member Santos. All of us have areas that we represent that are pretty far from this district, all of us. Some even further, because I have to say that I used to work where Board Member Santos is at now, and I know that they're really the ones that are making that drive every day, which is quite long. But the downtown area is without a doubt, in my opinion, the area that represents this entire district the best. So I am one of those that believes that this is the area where it needs to be. And that option one, based on what you're giving us, we still have lots of, you know, other questions that we can follow up with you and everything else. But if we don't start giving you all direction to move, we're going to spend another 10 years or whatever making decisions. And like Dr. Gallant said, several of us are not going to be here. Some of us might, but We won't be here, for sure. But we have to make the decisions for those that are coming behind us. And so you see that looking at all the different options and making the priority that Dr. Gallin always has, which all of us agree, education is the key, the critical component for us, more important than anything else. And that's supposedly, God willing, will be positive. of option one so I'm just going to wrap it up by saying yes the plane has to be landed but again if you're not with me on that takeoff don't expect me there on the landing you have included us on the takeoff now it's up to all of us to work cohesively together to get to that landing but let's start taking action now because the time is now That's all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Any other further questions or comments from the board? So I think I had asked the question to staff, like, what now? Where do we go from here? Obviously, this is Dr. Dorothy Bendels-Vindigal's district. And I think as a board, we've always worked together with them, even though we represent the district at large in many ways. It's always important that the member be involved, but also I think it's important that staff provides us. There is nothing to vote on today, but I think providing some sort of direction to come back to us with something that would be useful, especially after this conversation. So I'd like to let Dr. Dorothy Bendelsman to go kind of wrap it up, and then maybe staff can provide us guidance from there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I opened this with just two questions, and they were really not questions, more like comments. And I listened to everyone speak, and it was just the chronology. Just to go all the way back, as some of my colleagues who have been here for a minute, we know the story. We know the story. I am pleased and I'm thankful for having had the opportunity to speak with staff and then for others to come in and let us know what we know. It's probably the most lucrative district that we have in the school system, other than maybe Homestead because we all have to go down there and get our bun buns. They know the place. So just thank you. And when you went out there and you included all the stakeholders, but most importantly, you included the parents. They have been on this with us. And as I always say, when I go out and speak, I work for the people with short legs. And we call them children. That was part of what I presented to the city of Miami, along with Raul and Lisa and the superintendent, and we were effective. They told us we didn't have a chance to get the city of Miami to look at what we were talking about. Went to meet with some of the commissioners, I would say, and they told me, well, board member, you don't have the votes. So I said, well, I'll see you on Tuesday. And before we could go and get some toast and tea, the phones were blowing up. We had the five votes. Because we are about educating children. There's not a job that's better in the whole wide world. So I want you to know that we have our boots on the ground. Lisa, Raul, all of you, we're looking at you. And there are times when I'm out and about, I hear... Or remember, they're not giving you the true story. They're not giving you all of the information. Well, I've been doing this thing called education for a minute, and I can read people. I can read you. I can tell when you're telling me the truth. And I might get up and walk out when I don't believe you, but I'll come back. I know we're not voting, but all of the statements that were made, I believe they're all relative. So I'm pleased that we got this far through the chair, allowing us to not just be here for a photo op. See, that's what happens a lot in District 2, because you just laid out District 2. It is probably the most profitable, as I said earlier, of all the districts. When I was a state representative, I represented every island in Dade County. I don't know if you knew that, Mr. Superintendent. Every island. Star Island. Fisher Island. Yes, name them. Name them. Watson Island. I represented that area through We won't call names, but I had great friends on both sides of the aisle. So I know a little bit about a lot. I want to thank everyone who's working on this issue. We're going to get it to where it needs to be. And we will, I Who said that? I think it was Madam Chair. Yes. You don't start out with us. Don't try to be there when we land. Just don't do it. We will remember you. Thank you all again for all of the hard work, because it is hard work, and my staff, Tony, and then LaQuisha. Where are you? There you are. I know they're a little bit sick of me because it's like drop this off to the house, drop that off. I got a situation in my life that I won't talk about. But it creates a lot of work out of me. But I do have them to help me through it. We guarantee so much when we put our hands on the Bible and say that we're going to do it. And we will. We will. Someone said, I promise you we will. We will. We'll get this right. But don't get caught out there being concerned more about $1.50. $1.50. than you are about children. I always say to the superintendent, smiles are free, love is free. And those of us who sit up here, we love children. So let's just get this right and get it done. And when it's time to vote, we will vote in the right fashion. God bless you all. See you on the journey.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Dr. Benders-Mendingall for the journey. So our journey now, our journey now, which is what's important, is first of all, with option A, you're giving us, you're providing us the ability to number one, engage with a CRA for an MOU. And what's more important that I've heard here today is do more due diligence on parcel seven. So those are the two things that we'll be doing with the option one, okay?

Thank you so much, Mr. Superintendent, and I think that now concludes our committee meeting for the record. Five hours. We had a 30 minute break, okay? Thank you.

If I may just briefly, Mr. Superintendent, we're still in a meeting. I just wanted to say thank you for the beautiful chairs. They're very comfortable. Everything looks very nice here. And so I did not want to forget to give kudos to whomever was in charge. I believe it was under your leadership. And Mr. Perez, thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Oh, well.

At about 10 p.m.? Right. All right, well, that concludes our meeting. If we don't have any further comments, our next committee meeting, I assume, will start shortly right after.