[0:12] .
[0:14] >>chair: we will get our
[0:15] meeting of the infrastructure
[0:17] and technology committee.
[0:23] Today is the 15th and I will
[0:25] welcome all of you here today.
[0:27] Were going to start with a
[0:28] quick moment of silence, a
[0:30] moment of reflection followed
[0:32] by the pledge led by
[0:55] commissioner cohen higgins.
[0:57] >> I pledge allegiance to the
[0:59] flag of the united states of
[1:00] america and to the republic for
[1:02] which it stands, one nation
[1:04] under GOD indivisible with
[1:06] liberty and justice for all.
[1:09] >> thank you so much.
[1:09] Oday we
[1:11] have one of our young students
[1:13] who are part of the youth
[1:14] engagement program up here with
[1:16] us so we welcome allegra.
[1:16] Ll
[1:16] right.
[1:18] With that, do we have any
[1:19] additions, any changes before
[1:21] we set the agenda.
[1:29] >> the agenda before you is the
[1:31] official agenda which includes
[1:33] the changes in the changes
[1:34] memo, also item 3d was added to
[1:43] the agenda.
[1:45] I'll read the title for the
[1:45] record.
[1:47] Resolution authorizing the
[1:48] county mayor or designee to
[1:50] execute supplemental agreement
[1:52] number one between bcc
[1:53] engineering llc and miami-dade
[1:55] for construction engineering
[1:57] and inspection services isd
[2:11] project number e 20 d pdf w cip
[2:12] 207 20 cei bringing the total
[2:14] contract amount to $5,467,817
[2:17] to support the dade land south
[2:18] intermodal station project
[2:20] authorizing the county mayor or
[2:21] designee to execute the same
[2:23] exercise provisions contained
[2:25] therein authorizing the use of
[2:27] peoples transportation plan
[2:28] bond program funds for this
[2:30] project added to the five year
[2:31] implementation plan FEBRUARY
[2:33] 2020 that is 3d.
[2:34] >>chair: we will going to
[2:36] reasonable opportunity to be
[2:38] heard, is there anyone from the
[2:39] public wishes to speak on any
[2:40] item?
[2:41] I do not have any cards but
[2:43] this is the opportunity, seeing
[2:45] none reasonable opportunity is
[2:47] now closed do I have a motion
[2:48] to set the agenda.
[2:50] Show that done by acclamation.
[2:52] And now, we have a few items on
[2:54] this agenda but before we get
[2:56] to the discussion
[2:57] presentations, does anybody
[2:59] have any questions, would like
[3:00] to bifurcate any items.
[3:01] Or ask any questions.
[3:03] No, yes please commissioner.
[3:06] >> the item just added to our
[3:15] agenda 3d I looking at it for
[3:16] the first time.
[3:16] O I have a
[3:18] few questions, it's asking for
[3:24] an increase in the professional
[3:25] services agreement.
[3:25] Y almost
[3:42] $2 million for a total contract
[3:43] aggregate of 5.4.
[3:44] Can you just what this contract
[3:45] is for?
[3:47] I know it's for engineering
[3:49] construction and inspection
[3:49] services.
[3:52] Is this particular professional
[3:54] service provider getting $5.4
[3:56] million for their professional
[3:57] services or 5.4 million
[3:59] inclusive of the actual
[4:00] construction costs of this
[4:01] project.
[4:03] >> deputy director dtp w. This
[4:05] says as you mentioned for
[4:07] construction agreement
[4:08] inspection services tied to
[4:10] dade land south intermodal.
[4:11] The actual design build
[4:13] received supplemental services
[4:15] earlier this year, this is to
[4:17] match that for additional scope
[4:18] added to this project
[4:21] consisting of charging
[4:23] infrastructure, modifications
[4:31] to the bart area and general
[4:33] modifications around the scope
[4:33] of the area.
[4:35] Specific to your question this
[4:36] is not tied to the
[4:38] construction, but specific to
[4:41] the inspection.
[4:43] This is basically our inspector
[4:45] in the area, the ones that we
[4:46] view, all the construction
[4:47] specs, make sure the
[4:49] constructors stays on budget
[4:51] and making sure they review all
[4:53] the paperwork that comes in.
[4:55] The allocation, this is for an
[4:56] additional allocation with a
[4:59] total allocation for this
[5:00] supplemental for this project,
[5:01] I'm sorry.
[5:03] It's $5.4 million in total for
[5:04] this vendor.
[5:06] >>chair: that's what I thought
[5:13] you were going to say.
[5:15] I know we do these psa's a lot.
[5:17] We have a lot of professional
[5:19] services agreement and without
[5:20] the conversation on this dais a
[5:22] number of times when we have
[5:24] former commissioner higgins who
[5:26] is professionally an engineer,
[5:28] she said we need to keep all
[5:30] these contracted outside expert
[5:31] engineers on these contracts to
[5:33] make sure these projects are
[5:35] built in compliance with our
[5:36] laws and under the highest
[5:38] level of safety but when I see
[5:39] a professional services
[5:41] agreement for one project
[5:42] nearing $6 million with an
[5:44] additional ask of $2 million,
[5:51] what is if they are doing?
[5:54] And why do they need an
[5:55] additional $2 million for the
[5:57] initial allocation and before
[5:58] you answer that as far as what
[6:00] it is they are doing, what is
[6:02] the term of this psa?
[6:04] Over what duration of time are
[6:06] they getting paid 5 and a half
[6:07] million dollars?
[6:08] >> over the duration of the
[6:10] contract, this was for a finite
[6:11] amount and because of
[6:13] additional scope added to the
[6:16] project there are 264 days
[6:18] added to the overall
[6:19] construction contract.
[6:21] This typically matches the
[6:25] construction contract because
[6:27] they are and inspection team so
[6:28] they review all the material
[6:30] testing, make sure the job is
[6:38] in accordance to the latest of
[6:39] safety.
[6:40] And in addition they review all
[6:41] the paperwork.
[6:43] They do the past related to
[6:43] invoicing.
[6:49] Those types of management work
[6:50] that they do for us.
[6:54] This is work that we don't do
[6:56] in-house construction
[6:58] engineering for products of
[6:59] this magnitude as we typically
[7:03] contract out.
[7:05] >>chair: so the term of this
[7:06] contract with this psa is one,
[7:08] two years, you said 300
[7:10] something days there was an
[7:11] additional scope so roughly two
[7:12] years of work?
[7:14] >> total is close to two years
[7:19] of work.
[7:21] >>chair: this one service
[7:22] provider is getting paid 5 and
[7:24] a half million dollars by
[7:30] miami-dade county over a 2 year
[7:31] period under one contract, what
[7:33] does that work out two, 5 and a
[7:35] half million over 22 months,
[7:36] what is the math?
[7:37] >> 200,000 in change.
[7:39] >> we are paying one provider
[7:41] $200,000 a month on one
[7:41] project.
[7:43] What's the aggregate value of
[7:44] this one project.
[7:47] >> the difference establishes
[7:51] typically these services when
[7:54] they are tied to a particular
[7:56] construction project they fall
[7:57] within a range of present of
[8:17] the entire project cost.
[8:19] >>chair: that's what I thought
[8:21] you were going to say so that's
[8:22] kind of my point.
[8:24] It has been the practice of
[8:25] miami-dade county to accept
[8:27] these professional service
[8:29] agreements based on that
[8:30] general formula.
[8:31] If you have a $100 million
[8:33] project the percentage they
[8:34] will charge is once the
[8:36] standard present, once the
[8:37] average percent.
[8:38] >> depending on the type of
[8:40] project and magnitude of the
[8:41] project for smaller projects
[8:43] the present is typically
[8:45] higher, for larger projects is
[8:46] higher, in this case it's 5%
[8:48] but this is a time and
[8:49] materials contract under which
[8:51] is not a percent based.
[8:52] We've negotiated the time are
[8:54] going to spend and materials
[8:55] they are spending.
[8:57] Whatever was spent in terms of
[8:59] the hourly rates of staff
[9:01] participating and that's how
[9:03] the additional cost is
[9:04] developed.
[9:05] >>chair: so one is the
[9:06] aggregate cost of this self
[9:08] date intermodal project since
[9:10] it's not based on percentage
[9:12] what is the aggregate value
[9:13] from your capital improvement
[9:15] project for this one project.
[9:17] >> the design build project is
[9:18] $77 million.
[9:20] >> they're getting paid five
[9:22] and a half-million to oversee
[9:24] consult and make sure
[9:25] everything is in compliance
[9:27] that's not based on a
[9:28] percentage, that's based on
[9:30] something you negotiated
[9:31] independently.
[9:33] >> time and materials so based
[9:34] on the hours that are estimated
[9:36] by the vendor we negotiate
[9:38] those hours and what is said
[9:40] already precontract is the
[9:41] hourly rate so the negotiation
[9:43] between the county and the
[9:44] vendor is basically on the
[9:46] hours going to be spent in the
[9:48] management of the project.
[9:51] >> originally they said they
[9:52] would be paid three and a
[9:54] half-million and they're asking
[9:56] for now that's what this item
[9:58] is because they got three of
[10:00] the half-million, they're
[10:01] asking us to authorize $2
[10:03] million in time and materials
[10:05] which is an hourly calculation
[10:07] someone came up with that they
[10:08] said we need another $2 million
[10:10] to provide the consultation and
[10:12] services on this contract.
[10:13] What is the justification for
[10:14] the additional 1.9?
[10:16] >> it's an additional 264 days
[10:17] of work added to the
[10:30] construction project.
[10:32] Because of additional scope
[10:34] that has been added, that
[10:35] consists of several items
[10:37] related to electric charging of
[10:38] the buses, some work in the
[10:40] station itself and that gives
[10:42] them dry area, some work where
[10:44] the actual bus station itself
[10:45] so there was some additional
[10:48] scope added to the project.
[10:49] >>chair: who added to the
[10:49] scope.
[10:51] >> from amy's perspective so
[10:53] it's been added as we look at
[10:55] this from an operational
[11:03] perspective with the bart, for
[11:04] the audio issues.
[11:06] We've added an additional scope
[11:08] based on the design of the
[11:10] project and requests from
[11:11] operations and in addition we
[11:13] had coordination with the
[11:15] different permitting agencies
[11:16] and there's been new
[11:18] requirements added as well.
[11:19] >> the answer on who added to
[11:21] the scope I know it's the
[11:22] county but was it the board,
[11:24] did we authorize any additional
[11:26] scope or did the department
[11:28] internally authorized
[11:28] additional scope.
[11:30] > the board did authorize
[11:32] the scope on a supplemental
[11:34] approved on NOVEMBER 2, 2025,
[11:35] the additional design scope.
[11:37] >> but the cost of the
[11:38] engineering did not accompany
[11:40] that item, it was just an
[11:41] additional scope.
[11:43] >> the construction that
[11:44] accompanied that item, this is
[11:46] the supplemental at a company
[11:48] is whatever work was already
[11:49] approved for the contractor.
[11:51] This is our manager on our
[11:51] side.
[11:53] This is what accompanies that
[11:55] additional work approved in
[11:56] NOVEMBER.
[11:58] >>chair: I appreciate you
[12:00] answering my questions in the
[12:01] way you did and I'll get back
[12:03] to you, that's number one.
[12:05] I appreciate you knowing the
[12:06] answers to my questions.
[12:10] That is appreciated because we
[12:12] don't always get back so thank
[12:14] you for knowing the questions
[12:16] and being prepared on an item
[12:18] added the last minute on our
[12:18] agenda.
[12:20] The reason I'm asking is I know
[12:21] we've heard in presentations
[12:23] and we're going to get the
[12:25] budget in an hour and and a
[12:26] half. Regarding the financial
[12:31] situation of our transportation
[12:32] budget and how we have a
[12:34] situation on our hands we will
[12:35] have to deal with.
[12:36] When I see items like this
[12:38] asking for an additional $2
[12:40] million and I understand we
[12:42] needed these engineers but it's
[12:44] pursuant to an expansion and a
[12:45] scope of work we need to and
[12:47] I'm going to look forward to
[12:49] working with you and I know
[12:50] you're already doing this.
[12:52] When and why we are expanding
[12:54] the scope of these projects as
[12:56] we constantly get requests for
[12:57] what I like to call bentley
[12:58] style added extras.
[13:00] Whatever you want to call it,
[13:11] bentley style added additions
[13:13] to projects because this
[13:15] interest group or that interest
[13:16] group or this lobbyist.
[13:18] We can't continue expanding the
[13:20] scope of our projects in
[13:21] miami-dade county while the
[13:23] numbers continue to grow and we
[13:25] are looking at budget whatever
[13:27] you want to call it deficit,
[13:28] shortfalls, gaps.
[13:29] That we need to figure out a
[13:57] way to close.
[13:58] So if you represent to me that
[14:00] this is absolutely necessary in
[14:03] this professional services
[14:05] contracting company needs this
[14:07] additional $2 million I'm going
[14:09] to support it because I trust
[14:10] you and if you say you need if
[14:12] I'm going to support it but I
[14:13] will tell you that I plan to
[14:15] take a deep dive into our
[14:17] transportation budget which is
[14:17] at $2 billion.
[14:20] Look at these professional
[14:21] service agreements and whether
[14:23] or not the calculation we've
[14:25] always used I.E. A percentage
[14:26] of very large numbers or
[14:28] whether time and materials is
[14:30] the calculus that we need to
[14:32] present because we have to cut
[14:33] somewhere.
[14:34] Or maybe everywhere.
[14:36] Including affectional service
[14:37] agreements and including
[14:39] expanding the scope of projects
[14:42] because I'm just not sure we
[14:42] can continue to afford it
[14:44] anymore, thank you.
[14:46] >>chair: I appreciate you
[14:48] pulling this item because I was
[14:49] going to ask questions because
[14:51] of the late nature of the item
[14:53] and we didn't fully have a
[14:54] chance to debrief on it, yes
[14:55] commissioner lopez.
[14:56] >>.
[14:58] >>commissioner lopez: thank you
[15:00] for your line of questioning
[15:01] commissioner cohen higgins.
[15:03] How do we know when a project
[15:04] should look like from the
[15:06] get-go, this happens all the
[15:07] time here.
[15:09] You go out for a bid and say
[15:10] this is the project and all of
[15:11] a sudden the commission is
[15:13] asked to approve further scopes
[15:15] of services without money which
[15:16] I find even crazier.
[15:19] So back in NOVEMBER they did
[15:19] not, commission prior to my
[15:21] joining approved an additional
[15:23] scope of services without
[15:24] knowing what it would cost.
[15:26] I don't know anyone who would
[15:27] do that in their home.
[15:29] I certainly wouldn't increase
[15:31] the cost of a project and say I
[15:33] approve that without knowing
[15:34] what it was going to cost me
[15:36] and whether I could afford it
[15:38] or not and I keep seeing a
[15:40] pattern of this that I don't
[15:41] disagree with you commissioner
[15:46] that somehow we've just have to
[15:47] see how often we do this.
[15:49] What is the pattern that is
[15:50] seemingly we don't know what
[15:52] the project is because I will
[15:54] say this and of course you're
[15:55] going to hear me say this, in
[15:57] this state if you want to spend
[15:59] any more money you have to come
[16:01] before the commission and tell
[16:02] us not only why you didn't
[16:04] figure it out but tell us,
[16:06] because I don't think it's fair
[16:07] in the competitive bidding
[16:08] process either.
[16:10] Who wouldn't want to bid on a
[16:11] job that has one scope of
[16:13] services and once you get it
[16:15] you get to keep it despite the
[16:16] fact we made a mistake.
[16:18] I am I guess I'm still on my
[16:19] bandwagon from our first
[16:21] committee meeting where I
[16:23] continue to see money being
[16:24] spent without any kind of
[16:26] consideration for what would be
[16:28] what I consider a good practice
[16:28] business.
[16:30] No business would run their
[16:32] business like this, they would
[16:33] be out of business but
[16:35] apparently we have money to
[16:37] move around and make decisions
[16:38] I don't think are very
[16:39] thoughtful.
[16:40] So I am putting that on the
[16:42] record because as we move into
[16:43] the budget cycle here, I'm
[16:45] going to really start to look
[16:46] at these items.
[16:48] And say I am not ready to
[16:49] approve things we haven't
[16:51] thought through carefully from
[17:02] the very beginning because I
[17:03] don't think it's a fair
[17:04] process.
[17:05] i will bid all day long if I
[17:07] where a betting vendor and said
[17:09] I will bid on this and I'm sure
[17:10] the vendor knows they will need
[17:12] to expand this because they
[17:13] know more than we do.
[17:15] Because they have the
[17:16] experience.
[17:17] I wanted to put my comments on
[17:19] the record as we begin this
[17:21] budget process because this is
[17:25] another item that reflects we
[17:27] are not thoughtful about the
[17:29] fact we have one pot of money
[17:30] and we have to be careful how
[17:32] we spend that money.
[17:33] This was when I saw the item I
[17:34] thought here we go again.
[17:37] >chair: yes commissioner.
[17:38] >>commissioner gonzalez: I want
[17:40] to start on a positive note.
[17:42] As commissioner cohen higgins
[17:44] said, very impressed sir, thank
[17:45] you for being serious.
[17:48] Thank you for being prepared.
[17:49] It is probably the most
[17:52] prepared I've ever seen any
[17:53] director.
[17:55] And I very much appreciate how
[17:56] prepared you are.
[17:58] But now.
[18:02] >>chair: that was good.
[18:04] >>commissioner gonzalez: to
[18:06] echo some of the sentiments of
[18:08] my colleagues, I have to agree
[18:10] that for example the original
[18:11] bid or the scope of work that
[18:13] was originally approved, what
[18:24] was that original bid and I
[18:25] believe it was $3 million but
[18:27] what was the scope of that work
[18:29] in this new additional work,
[18:31] when did it come about that the
[18:33] bentley style was necessary?
[18:35] >> let me add a couple points
[18:37] of clarification which will
[18:39] help, dave qualification was
[18:41] done through a planning effort,
[18:42] there was a scoping completed
[18:45] and the actual vendor, I want
[18:47] to make a distinction between
[18:49] the two contracts, there is a
[19:04] design builder and this
[19:05] contract in front of you today.
[19:07] The design builder bid on a
[19:09] planning effort and put forward
[19:10] a cost.
[19:11] The design builder and has to
[19:13] design and based on that design
[19:15] there were certain changes that
[19:16] were proposed and accepted by
[19:18] the agency, by the county and 2
[19:20] as a result of permitting and
[19:22] new requirements from electric
[19:28] vehicle charging, additional
[19:30] scope items added for fire
[19:32] suppression, those types of
[19:34] items added from a permitting
[19:36] perspective from the permitting
[19:37] agencies we needed to grow the
[19:39] scope which was not
[19:40] contemplated in the planning
[19:43] done for this project several
[19:45] years ago.
[19:46] >>commissioner gonzalez: I
[19:48] don't want to put words in your
[19:50] mouth but this is where
[19:51] commissioner lopez is going
[19:53] because the permitting is put
[19:54] forward by the county.
[19:56] I know they are separate
[19:57] departments, I understand they
[20:00] are separate departments but it
[20:02] would only be logical if we are
[20:03] the ones giving the permitting,
[20:05] why didn't we factor this in to
[20:07] the original scope in the first
[20:08] place?
[20:09] We are the ones that are
[20:11] getting the permanent rehab so
[20:11] that leaves me to how did this
[20:13] old electric vehicle charging
[20:14] station come about.
[20:16] Why exactly didn't we consider
[20:23] that the first time.
[20:25] >> the national fire protection
[20:27] agency codes, we are in the
[20:29] process of being written at
[20:31] that point so the new standards
[20:34] when this project was bid out
[20:35] the new standards at the
[20:37] federal level had not been
[20:38] considered and we are seeing
[20:40] that through several projects,
[20:42] not just this project read the
[20:44] new standards are a little more
[20:46] rigorous therefore we had to
[20:49] adjust in several projects in
[20:50] either electric vehicle
[20:52] charging is included and the
[20:54] actual fire suppression related
[20:55] to the electric vehicle
[20:56] charging as well.
[20:59] >> those new federal standards
[21:01] are amounting to a $2 million
[21:06] increase.
[21:08] >> we have other items tied to
[21:09] the design build accepted by
[21:10] the agency, we did
[21:12] modifications from the
[21:14] standpoint of how we were
[21:26] aligning the buses or pickup.
[21:28] Initially there was supposed to
[21:29] be parallel, we changed to a
[21:31] seesaw infrastructure there to
[21:33] a seesaw design, made changes
[21:35] in terms of the escalator and
[21:36] elevator, added some
[21:38] infrastructure as well as a
[21:40] requirement for purposes of
[21:41] evacuation so we had to modify
[21:43] the design accordingly.
[21:44] >> and why work those
[21:46] requirements taken into
[21:47] consideration in the first
[21:48] place.
[21:50] >> the initial planning report
[21:51] done have been reviewed under
[21:54] the comic that was several
[21:55] years old and have been
[21:56] reviewed under the standards
[21:58] that were available at the
[21:58] time.
[22:00] And had been vetted at that
[22:01] point when this one actually
[22:03] when forbidding those standards
[22:05] have been modified and we
[22:15] needed to add some scope.
[22:17] >>chair: we appreciate the
[22:18] information thank you for
[22:19] calling the item again.
[22:21] I will say generally speaking
[22:23] is not just for your
[22:25] department, generally speaking
[22:26] when we look at scope having to
[22:28] do change orders and things of
[22:30] that nature especially the
[22:32] scope that's changed by us, you
[22:33] kind of have to take a final
[22:35] look but we appreciate the
[22:36] information you provided so
[22:38] with that, do we have any other
[22:39] items, thank you.
[22:42] I don't think we have anymore,
[22:43] commissioner.
[22:45] >>commissioner cohen higgins: I
[22:46] have questions on 3c.
[22:47] It has a similar tone.
[22:50] It's a request for additional
[22:51] allocated funds.
[22:52] >>chair: anybody here to speak
[22:55] on 3c?
[22:57] For the garbage collection and
[23:01] disposal services.
[23:03] Commissioner, your recognized
[23:07] for a conversation.
[23:21] >> is the requested allocation
[23:23] above and beyond what we
[23:25] previously authorized simply
[23:27] due to the extension of the
[23:28] term of this pool?
[23:29] Is that the root of the request
[23:31] for the extension?
[23:33] >> yes commissioner, we are
[23:34] extending the time for the
[23:36] contract to allow solid waste
[23:38] for transitional services
[23:40] in-house so for that additional
[23:42] time, the vendors have agree
[23:43] the same rates that we pay
[23:44] today to extend.
[23:47] >> that's what I gathered.
[23:48] And I understand both of the
[23:50] vendors are waste management or
[24:00] waste connections and waste
[24:01] management does the bulk if not
[24:04] the entire relief of our waste
[24:06] management in miami-dade county
[24:07] but are there no other
[24:09] companies that can offer these
[24:11] services to us and I understand
[24:12] you're making this decision to
[24:14] extend existing contract rates,
[24:16] in order to presumably provide
[24:17] some savings but are there no
[24:19] other companies that can offer
[24:21] these services to us?
[24:23] >> these two are the largest
[24:24] providers but for anyone to
[24:26] come in to provide service they
[24:28] would have to invest a lot of
[24:31] money upfront in the trucks and
[24:33] if you do a short-term contract
[24:35] people generally don't like to
[24:36] invest in the loaders and
[24:46] trucks and whatever they need.
[24:48] >> understand about servicing a
[24:50] county this size would require
[24:52] a county that is of substantial
[24:54] size but the question was are
[24:56] there no other competitors
[24:57] other than waste connections.
[24:59] >> if there are they are
[25:01] smaller companies out there.
[25:02] Very small.
[25:03] >>chair: one was the last time
[25:06] we done any competitive
[25:08] procurement in this space?
[25:13] >> we just did another one a
[25:14] couple of years that these two
[25:16] are the largest ones that got
[25:17] awarded.
[25:18] I think three or four years
[25:20] back, I don't member the exact
[25:22] number we did that another
[25:38] procurement for services.
[25:40] >> I'm going to look more
[25:42] closely at this item because it
[25:43] has a large dollar amount
[25:45] associated with it, 62 million
[25:46] through 2028.
[25:47] We are currently in 2026, this
[25:49] item is asking to extend
[25:50] through 2031.
[25:51] I guess like I said previously
[25:53] to maintain existing rates,
[25:55] what are the rates we are
[25:56] maintaining?
[25:57] >> the rates vary by facility
[25:59] and I have that for example if
[26:00] and the size of the container
[26:02] so 30 yd.B3 capacity container
[26:05] for pickup let's say one day
[26:06] per week.
[26:07] The prices are $2366.
[26:10] So every facility, every
[26:21] department had stipulated the
[26:23] locations and a container size
[26:24] and the frequency so the rate
[26:25] varies for that.
[26:27] I have 50, 60 different rates
[26:29] for facility as well as the
[26:31] container size and location.
[26:33] >>chair: where in the item does
[26:34] it state the current rates are
[26:38] going to be honored through
[26:38] 2031?
[26:40] >> I thought we said it
[26:41] somewhere in the existing terms
[26:54] and conditions.
[26:56] >> to clarify if I MAY keeping
[26:58] it at the same can terms and
[27:00] conditions versus keeping it
[27:02] flat do they have an increase
[27:03] built in the year after year
[27:04] versus a flat rate?
[27:06] >> there is a cpi built into
[27:07] the contract but that would be
[27:09] based on the rates we have.
[27:11] Nobody's going to agree to a
[27:12] five-year contract in today's
[27:14] market without a cpi.
[27:15] >>.
[27:33] >>chair: I appreciate that but
[27:35] I also think the contract of
[27:36] this size currently at 62
[27:38] million and you're asking for
[27:39] another 20 million, you're
[27:41] talking about $80 million to
[27:43] the same exact people without a
[27:45] competitive procurement process
[27:47] with a representation on the
[27:48] microphone that the rates will
[27:50] be the same but it's not
[27:51] articulated in the item at
[27:53] least not that I can see.
[27:53] 'm
[27:55] wondering why we are not giving
[27:56] this opportunity to other nies,
[27:57] that's the question.
[27:59] i've said before many times on
[28:01] this microphone regarding our
[28:03] waste management albums in
[28:05] miami-dade county and my
[28:07] extreme concern regarding what
[28:09] amounts to a monopoly by one
[28:10] company for the hauling of
[28:12] waste in miami-dade county
[28:13] which are these two companies.
[28:15] It concerns me greatly and
[28:41] that's just, this is just
[28:42] departmental work, not the
[28:44] massive amount of trash they
[28:46] haul out of this county as a
[28:47] result of us no longer having
[28:48] our incinerator.
[28:50] So my question is why aren't we
[28:52] trying to I diverse about who
[28:53] we are using for essential
[28:55] services even if it's an
[28:56] amalgamation of smaller
[28:58] companies that MAY offer us
[29:00] better prices because currently
[29:01] we are completely at the mercy
[29:03] of these two companies for all
[29:05] our waste management services
[29:07] in miami dade county and that
[29:08] gives me great discomfort.
[29:11] Is there any discussion
[29:13] happening within the department
[29:14] about potentially putting this
[29:15] out to bid?
[29:17] >> the plan is for solid waste
[29:19] to bring the services in-house
[29:20] so they are working on a plan
[29:22] and equipment testing phase.
[29:24] >>chair: you are recognized.
[29:26] >> through the chair I can
[29:26] that.
[29:27] The department purchased front
[29:29] end loaders, loaders allow us
[29:31] to provide a different service
[29:32] so we've been doing a pilot for
[29:34] the last six months account by
[29:36] account so we can do a full
[29:36] assessment.
[29:38] To what namita mentions, the
[29:40] title container, the type of
[29:41] service required by each
[29:43] account varies so we have to do
[29:44] a full assessment.
[29:46] When I first got here we had
[29:47] received those front end
[29:49] loaders and in the industry it
[29:51] takes about a year to you and
[29:52] your and and a half to get
[29:54] those type of equipment so we
[29:55] had just received the equipment
[29:57] and it was sitting so I put the
[29:59] equipment to use throw a pilot,
[30:01] we have data so I can evaluate
[30:02] the productivity of the data,
[30:04] look at cost of pickup to
[30:05] determine how we can bring
[30:07] those services in-house but
[30:08] it's going to take time because
[30:11] I have to purchase additional
[30:13] containers and equipment but I
[30:15] need to do it by retiring some
[30:17] equipment and purchasing this
[30:19] equipment, not purchasing
[30:21] additional equipment but
[30:26] retiring one and purchasing
[30:27] another.
[30:29] >>commissioner cohen higgins: I
[30:31] appreciate the question but my
[30:32] concerns remain on the item,
[30:34] when I see pools that are
[30:36] asking to be extended years
[30:38] before they expire without a
[30:40] competitive procurement process
[30:41] with dollar amounts as high as
[30:43] this it gives me great pause.
[30:45] Under this item we are
[30:46] extending was originally
[30:48] procured in SEPTEMBER 2013.
[30:49] That's what the item says.
[30:51] This contract holder has had
[30:53] the same contract since 2013.
[31:05] I mean, we have not, I don't
[31:07] want to advance this item.
[31:08] I don't want to advance it.
[31:10] Your two years before the x
[31:12] expiration of your contract,
[31:13] the dollar amount is
[31:15] astronomical, it's an 11 page
[31:17] item asking for $20 million,
[31:19] one department is asking for an
[31:21] allocation of 8 million,
[31:22] another hcd is asking for
[31:24] additional allocation of 6
[31:25] million.
[31:26] I don't know why we need to do
[31:28] this right now and I'm not sure
[31:30] that it's the most financially
[31:32] responsible thing to do to not
[31:34] potentially look at other
[31:35] service providers in this ea.
[31:37] If you look and find there is
[31:39] nobody else out there that can
[31:41] provide this service and give
[31:43] us alternate pricing I will
[31:44] accept that but the fact we
[31:46] haven't looked since 2013 is, I
[31:57] don't understand.
[31:59] >> we did that three years ago,
[32:00] we did do the analysis of
[32:02] anybody coming in and switching
[32:03] to the new providers.
[32:04] If we wanted to do that
[32:06] analysis again we would be
[32:07] happy to do it in between now
[32:09] and if you advance the item in
[32:11] septembers board we would be
[32:12] happy to bring that or we can
[32:14] bring back the item.
[32:16] >>chair: what's the emergency?
[32:18] The contract doesn't expire
[32:19] until 2028, it is 2026, what is
[32:20] the urgency?
[32:21] >> we were trying to be
[32:22] proactive.
[32:24] >>chair: I appreciate that, I
[32:28] always want the proactive step
[32:30] to be taken but I'm not sure if
[32:32] that's the proposition that
[32:33] supports this item at this
[32:33] time.
[32:35] I would like to defer it, I
[32:37] want to know why each
[32:38] department needs the
[32:38] allocation.
[32:40] You're representing the rates
[32:41] are going to be the same,
[32:50] that's not articulated in the
[32:50] item.
[32:52] I think this needs a lot of
[32:53] review.
[32:54] If it where a much smaller
[32:56] dollar amount I would feel more
[32:58] comfortable but this is a lot
[32:59] of money going to a company
[33:01] that has a monopoly over
[33:02] miami-dade county and I'd like
[33:04] us to consider alternatives.
[33:06] If you said it's an emergency,
[33:08] my departments will suffer I
[33:10] would advance it but if it
[33:12] doesn't make a difference to
[33:13] you I would defer the item.
[33:16] >> when we came for extension a
[33:17] few years back you said we
[33:18] didn't give you enough time.
[33:20] We are giving you enough time.
[33:22] If you don't want to advance it
[33:29] it's fine.
[33:31] >>chair: just to get these
[33:32] additional facts and details to
[33:34] give me greater comfort bus for
[33:36] spending this money so I moved
[33:38] to defer this item, thank you
[33:39] MADAM Chair.
[33:41] >>chair: yes commissioner
[33:42] gonzalez.
[33:43] >>commissioner gonzalez: I
[33:45] agree with the deferral and if
[33:47] I could get the director to
[33:47] come back up.
[33:49] >> yes, sir.
[33:51] >>commissioner gonzalez: both
[33:51] please.
[34:01] >>chair: you are recognizedr:
[34:03] you are recognized.
[34:04] >>commissioner gonzalez: first
[34:06] of all, namita thank you for
[34:08] bringing this over because I do
[34:09] appreciate the fact that now
[34:11] this has been positive because
[34:13] we are able to see that two
[34:14] years from now this could
[34:15] possibly be necessary.
[34:19] But the this could possibly be
[34:19] necessary.
[34:21] But the director of solid waste
[34:23] did bring up that you folks are
[34:25] trying to bring this in-house.
[34:27] So I understand what you're
[34:30] saying regarding that although
[34:37] this expires in 2028 it's
[34:39] possible we MAY only need 2
[34:40] more years to bring this
[34:40] in-house.
[34:42] But that's also an assumption
[34:44] because a lot of things can
[34:48] happen from now till then that
[34:51] could stop you from being able
[34:59] to purchase that eing able to
[35:01] purchase that equipment.
[35:03] Maybe the program doesn't go
[35:04] the way we want it to go so
[35:06] there's a lot of factors for
[35:11] that to happen.
[35:13] Right now we are looking at a
[35:19] three year from the two year
[35:21] because we're looking 2028
[35:21] through 2021.
[35:23] It's very possible, and I know
[35:28] you said you didn't, you did an
[35:29] analysis three years ago but
[35:31] it's possible if we procure
[35:38] this this year, perhaps, maybe
[35:39] we can find some cost savings
[35:41] and maybe even buy more time to
[35:43] roll out that pilot program
[35:44] properly.
[35:46] I do agree with the deferral
[35:49] but I don't want you to think
[35:51] you're doing anything that
[35:52] wasn't asked of you.
[35:54] I appreciate the fact you
[35:56] brought this forward and I
[35:57] think that's why commissioner
[35:59] cohen higgins said let's get
[36:00] these things upfront because
[36:02] now we can properly digest, we
[36:04] have time to go through the
[36:08] procurement process and see if
[36:10] this is the best course rather
[36:14] than guess.
[36:16] But I want to thank both of you
[36:21] for being prepared.
[36:22] >>chair: I assume we will defer
[36:25] this until SEPTEMBER committee
[36:27] and will that give you enough
[36:28] time to run the analysis and
[36:30] make sure it's back here with
[36:32] enough time so we can find a
[36:32] path forward.
[36:34] >> we can reach out to the
[36:36] companies we know and
[36:39] additionally any small
[36:40] providers and what ask what it
[36:43] will take to provide service to
[36:44] the county, same scope of work
[36:48] and have the price comparison
[36:48] ready.
[36:50] >>chair: if you could give us
[36:55] the analysis in-house and what
[36:56] that looks like and what a
[36:58] realistic timeline could look
[36:59] like because if we have to
[37:01] extend the current contract if
[37:05] that's what the best path
[37:09] forward looks like at that
[37:10] point then we also understand
[37:12] the trajectory of what the
[37:14] department is looking to do.
[37:15] >> want to add one more to your
[37:16] point.
[37:18] He contracts have
[37:22] termination provisions.
[37:24] So let's say solid waste is
[37:26] able to do it in six months we
[37:28] could give them termination
[37:30] notice and bring it in house.
[37:32] >>chair: termination without
[37:32] cost.
[37:35] >> yes.
[37:36] >>commissioner lopez: I have
[37:39] two questions, thank you MADAM
[37:41] Chair. Director, bringing in
[37:43] in-house would you be able to
[37:46] identify the savings?
[37:48] In other words we now currently
[37:50] have an external vendor doing
[37:50] it.
[37:55] Because I'm always looking to
[37:57] see whether we can achieve
[37:59] savings and sometimes it's the
[38:05] exact opposite, we privatized
[38:06] because we can get better
[38:07] costs.
[38:08] But if you feel like it's in
[38:10] the best interest of the county
[38:12] to move it internally could you
[38:41] identify savings.
[38:43] >> I don't have the answers but
[38:46] that's why I was doing the
[38:46] pilot.
[38:47] Staff have been evaluating
[38:48] numbers and had data but I
[38:50] wanted real data so that's why
[38:52] I told them to put a pilot in
[38:52] place.
[38:54] It's been six months so we have
[38:56] at least six months of data
[38:57] with 75 accounts so they can
[38:58] take a look at the
[38:59] productivity.
[39:01] The rear loader which we run
[39:02] takes three people and with a
[39:04] front end loader is one person
[39:06] so right there there's
[39:07] efficiencies I can say we can
[39:07] provide.
[39:09] >>commissioner lopez: that will
[39:11] be helpful when we bring it
[39:13] back and I made an investment
[39:14] in equipment factored in.
[39:16] We purchased equipment to do
[39:17] the services in-house so that
[39:19] 75 accounts you been running
[39:21] your pilot on should give us
[39:22] what were those 75 accounts
[39:24] costing us with the vendor king
[39:26] of the garbage and what you're
[39:27] proposing, that's one.
[39:29] >> 75 accounts on running that
[39:31] we were picking up ourselves.
[39:33] I'm not picking up any of the
[39:34] accounts from the county.
[39:36] Those that are in the contract
[39:38] but that 75 accounts we were
[39:39] picking up with a different
[39:41] piece of equipment and
[39:42] different personnel so I'm
[39:45] going to be able to evaluate it
[39:45] if I can pick it up but I'm
[39:47] also going to do that analysis
[39:47] as well.
[39:49] >> we would be happy to hear
[39:51] you made progress in saving
[39:52] money by bringing it in the
[39:53] house.
[39:54] And then the other thing is I
[39:55] am unclear.
[39:57] This analysis we've asked for
[39:59] and namita, do companies
[40:01] normally tell you what they
[40:02] would charge, is it the same as
[40:04] if we put out an rfp on the
[40:10] street?
[40:11] What because if you come to me
[40:13] and tell me what I can do the
[40:14] services for, but I don't see
[40:16] the full scope of services, I
[40:17] don't see an rfp.
[40:19] How is it you're going to tell
[40:21] me it's cheaper without putting
[40:29] it out to bid.
[40:31] >> we could do it two ways, by
[40:32] sharing the scope of work.
[40:34] Not so much putting it out
[40:35] formally, we could informally
[40:37] ask or if you want us to put it
[40:39] out formally we could do it
[40:39] fourth-place.
[40:41] I was going to do it formal
[40:43] because the ask is to I was
[40:44] going to ask go out to bid and
[40:44] mark it.
[40:47] >> that was going to be my
[40:47] recommendation.
[40:49] I don't trust that someone
[40:51] tells me this is the price
[40:53] because it never really is that
[40:53] price.
[40:55] I think a formal rfp is where
[40:56] you know one, who is willing to
[40:58] bid on the job, to is there
[41:00] anyone else other than these
[41:01] two vendors that are willing to
[41:03] do it and I have to believe
[41:05] there MAY be others that have
[41:10] come into the market in the
[41:11] last three years.
[41:13] Again we owe it to the taxpayer
[41:15] to do the more fiscally
[41:16] conservative thing which is to
[41:18] put everything to bid and see
[41:20] what comes back because if in
[41:22] fact it shows no one applies
[41:23] for that the services they are
[41:25] proposing in the bid is higher
[41:27] than we know the answer and its
[41:28] clear-cut, black and white.
[41:30] I can then defend my decision
[41:32] to move forward but I can never
[41:34] defend it when I'm thinking
[41:35] what I think versus what I know
[41:37] that I have in front of me.
[41:39] Thank you MADAM Chair.
[41:39] >>.
[41:41] >>chair: item 3c has been
[41:43] deferred to the SEPTEMBER
[41:43] committee.
[41:45] I'm asking anything else.
[41:47] >> there was a motion in the
[41:47] second.
[41:56] And then the rest.
[41:57] >>commissioner gonzalez: I want
[42:00] to make sure because I believe
[42:01] commissioner lopez also added
[42:08] that we should procure the
[42:08] item.
[42:10] >>chair: the only thing I would
[42:12] say on that is I think she said
[42:13] she's going to get us real
[42:15] numbers and namita if you
[42:16] explain how you get back and I
[42:18] don't know if we're going to go
[42:20] out on the street.
[42:21] >>commissioner gonzalez: I
[42:24] think she said we were going to
[42:38] procure, their line of
[42:39] questioning was on point, if
[42:41] we're bringing it in-house you
[42:43] want to make sure we are saving
[42:45] money and if were going to get
[42:46] that analysis and we procure it
[42:48] it's almost a perfect time to
[42:50] do a comparison this is what
[42:53] you were saying, is the perfect
[42:54] time to do the comparison as to
[42:56] whether we should bring it
[42:57] in-house because it's not only
[42:59] the equipment we purchased, if
[43:01] I'm not mistaken the director
[43:03] of solid waste said there is
[43:04] other equipment that needs to
[43:06] be purchased for this to happen
[43:08] so it's almost a perfect time
[43:11] now that we are deferring it to
[43:12] procure it and make that cost
[43:14] analysis and by the way it MAY
[43:15] be that this is the best
[43:16] option.
[43:17] But we won't be sure.
[43:19] >> if I can get clarity from
[43:20] the director how you are
[43:22] getting the real numbers so to
[43:24] do a full procurement for
[43:25] however many times we are going
[43:27] to look to do it could be
[43:29] potentially problematic because
[43:30] if we are looking at bring the
[43:32] immune in-house you're going to
[43:34] tell these people who bid
[43:36] sorry, and maybe there's an
[43:39] invitation to negotiate, maybe,
[43:40] how are you going to get her
[43:42] the real numbers by SEPTEMBER.
[43:44] >> we have to put out a formal
[43:46] solicitation and it's going to
[43:47] be an invitation to bid where
[43:49] they give us their prices so
[43:51] it's not too onerous that it's
[43:51] an rfp.
[43:52] >>chair: that's fine.
[43:54] Thank you so much, perfect.
[43:56] This is what happens when you
[43:58] come after a budget committee.
[43:59] Yes, apparently I do not.
[44:01] So through the lens of our
[44:02] infrastructure committee are
[44:04] there any other items that we
[44:06] need to be looking at and by
[44:08] the way I appreciate the
[44:09] discussion this morning.
[44:11] What other items are are we
[44:13] going to pass the balance of
[44:14] the agenda and get to the
[44:15] presentations.
[44:17] >> move the balance on the
[44:26] agenda.
[44:30] >>chair: second by commissioner
[44:30] gonzales, all in favor.
[44:32] Show that past and now we get
[44:35] to the presentations except for
[44:35] that.
[44:36] I have a request I will be
[44:38] making to the chairs office for
[44:40] item 3b for the award of the
[44:41] contract due to time
[44:43] stipulations and constraints,
[44:45] I'm going to be requesting to
[44:46] add that to the agenda next
[44:47] week.
[44:54] >> we will supply you the memo.
[44:56] >>chair: with that we will
[44:58] start with our presentations.
[45:00] I see some of the young people
[45:01] in the audience, I want to
[45:03] thank all of you for being
[45:03] here.
[45:05] They are part of the young
[45:06] youth engagement program.
[45:07] O
[45:07] welcome.
[45:09] So our first presentation is
[45:13] going to be with the
[45:15] communications information
[45:33] technology department, come on
[45:33] up.
[45:37] >> good afternoon everyone,
[45:39] george karl oswald, director
[45:41] for the communications
[45:53] information and technology
[45:54] department.
[45:56] >>commissioner cohen higgins:
[45:58] point of order MADAM Chair, MAY
[46:00] I be recognized briefly.
[46:01] I don't mean to interrupt at
[46:03] all even though I know that's
[46:04] what I'm doing.
[46:21] We just had a committee hearing
[46:23] where we had a number of
[46:25] presentations that visibly look
[46:26] identical to what you are
[46:27] putting up on our screen right
[46:29] now and I don't know if you
[46:31] watched the previous committee
[46:33] hearing but I don't have a copy
[46:34] on my desk of your presentation
[46:36] it is always helpful if I have
[46:38] a physical copy so you can
[46:39] distribute that to us and I'd
[46:40] appreciate it.
[46:42] I am going to assume that your
[46:44] presentation follows the same
[46:46] format followed at the last
[46:48] hearing of the other
[46:50] presentations.
[46:52] Does your presentation have any
[46:53] numbers in it?
[46:54] >> as you see it does not but I
[46:57] would be happy to discuss.
[46:59] >>commissioner cohen higgins: I
[47:01] want you to go through your
[47:02] presentation but tell me what
[47:04] your budget is, if you could
[47:06] share your budget and whether
[47:08] or not you have met the
[47:10] administration's charge of not
[47:12] exceeding 3% growth, that would
[47:13] be my question for you and
[47:15] every other director presenting
[47:16] for you this afternoon.
[47:17] >> give me one second.
[47:18] Ou
[47:20] want commissioner cohen higgins
[47:22] physical copies?
[47:24] >>commissioner gonzalez: MADAM
[47:24] Chair?
[47:26] Just to piggyback off what
[47:27] commissioner cohen higgins is
[47:29] saying, I'm a litigator by
[47:30] trade and when you go in front
[47:32] of a judge and you're arguing a
[47:34] motion you always bring copies
[47:39] of the motion for opposing
[47:40] counsel and bring a copy for
[47:40] the judge.
[47:42] O just for future
[47:43] reference, we are not trying to
[47:44] call you out.
[47:46] It was the same thing but for
[47:48] the directors that are going to
[47:49] present after, if you can have
[47:51] those copies given to us before
[47:53] you come up to present, that
[47:55] would be outstanding.
[47:57] >> I'm trying to make sure you
[47:59] get one for each scheduled
[48:00] during this meeting so we are
[48:02] passing them around as you
[48:03] speak.
[48:10] >> would you mind if I set the
[48:11] expectation for all the
[48:13] presentations so you know what
[48:14] the directors were authorized
[48:15] to do?
[48:17] When the budget process started
[48:21] the mayor told us she would be
[48:22] releasing her budget on the
[48:24] 15th and she asked each
[48:25] department director to submit
[48:27] their request to her.
[48:29] After those submissions were
[48:31] made she sent them back to the
[48:32] departments for revisions
[48:38] because there were more
[48:40] requests and proposals and
[48:41] there were resources.
[48:43] That has gone on multiple times
[48:45] so when these items got placed
[48:47] on the agenda to have a budget
[48:48] review all the department
[48:50] directors were given the same
[48:52] format to follow to describe
[48:53] what their challenges were,
[48:55] what their concerns were, what
[48:59] their budget drivers were about
[49:00] the exact numbers would be
[49:02] released by the mayor on the
[49:03] afternoon of the 15th so some
[49:05] of the numbers you MAY be
[49:06] looking for will not be in
[49:08] these presentations and after
[49:10] the mayor releases her budget
[49:12] today then all the department
[49:13] directors and mayor staff will
[49:15] make themselves available to
[49:22] review those exact numbers.
[49:23] >>commissioner lopez: MADAM
[49:25] Chair, I have a quick comment
[49:26] to make.
[49:27] The three of us that serve on
[49:29] this committee were also on the
[49:31] committee this morning where we
[49:33] had so many questions based on
[49:34] the presentations which really
[49:36] didn't help us drill down on
[49:36] anything.
[49:39] So although I appreciate very
[49:40] much deputy mayor your
[49:42] explanation which we were given
[49:52] this morning as well, it's kind
[49:54] of like a perfunctory exercise
[49:56] we are going through here.
[49:56] Ou
[49:58] will tell us about all of this
[49:59] which we could read ourselves
[50:01] but it's not going to help us
[50:02] determine which decisions we
[50:04] need to make or what the plan
[50:06] is so I'm not sure how fruitful
[50:07] this will be.
[50:09] Given the discussion we had
[50:10] this morning in the budget
[50:12] committee which really started
[50:14] to drill down and it turned out
[50:16] we spent a good hour asking
[50:18] questions that we didn't have
[50:19] anything in our hands that
[50:21] would help us have what I
[50:23] considered to be a thoughtful
[50:23] discussion.
[50:25] So we MAY repeat the same
[50:27] things in the same questions
[50:29] but we wanted you to be aware
[50:31] when for us it says budget
[50:32] presentation we are grateful
[50:34] you're here and thank you for
[50:36] all this information but none
[50:38] of it will assist me in making
[50:41] a decision as to your budget.
[50:43] Because I don't think any of
[50:44] them and we started by asking
[50:49] what's your total budget which
[50:51] wasn't even on these
[50:52] presentations.
[50:53] Everyone scrambled and got us
[50:55] what the budget was but so that
[50:56] you already we began to drill
[50:58] down what percentage of your
[51:00] budget is general fund.
[51:01] These were the questions we
[51:03] were posing and it's somewhat
[51:05] unfair I think because you're
[51:07] not really prepared to answer
[51:08] the questions we have so wanted
[51:20] to put that on the record.
[51:22] >> MADAM Chair MAY I respond?
[51:24] Some of that information is not
[51:26] available because it's the
[51:27] mayor's proposed budget that
[51:29] will give those final
[51:36] recommendations and what
[51:37] information they do have their
[51:39] not authorized to repeat until
[51:41] she unveils her budget in case
[51:43] she decides to change anything
[51:44] from the davies presentations
[51:46] were started till today so the
[51:48] directors are able to provide
[51:49] something they don't have.
[51:51] >> we understand that and
[51:53] commissioner cohen higgins.
[51:55] >>commissioner cohen higgins:
[51:56] deputy mayor, we already
[51:57] understand that clearly.
[52:00] And I think the CHAIRMAN Of the
[52:01] board was the one that asked
[52:03] all of us to do these budget
[52:05] reviews and these analysis in
[52:07] an effort to work collectively
[52:08] towards the same goal
[52:09] obviously.
[52:10] I'm not sure that going through
[52:14] these presentations is going to
[52:15] be particularly helpful because
[52:17] I'm not sure it accomplishes
[52:19] what the CHAIRMAN Named for us
[52:21] to accomplish and during the
[52:23] previous hearing we discussed
[52:25] having a workshop of sorts.
[52:26] Where after the 2:30 release of
[52:33] our mayor's budget we will then
[52:35] have the numbers, have a clear
[52:36] picture of, and I think having
[52:41] the presentations subsequent to
[52:43] that release is probably the
[52:44] most famous do because
[52:48] everybody's operating with
[52:49] transparency.
[52:51] Right now you've represented
[52:53] the CHAIRMAN's don't know what
[52:55] their budgets are until 2:30
[52:56] when the mayor releases it
[52:58] which is fine but I don't think
[52:59] that was the CHAIRMAN's
[53:01] understanding when he asked for
[53:03] these two be placed on our
[53:04] agenda so in the interest of
[53:06] time I don't know that going
[53:08] through the exercise unless my
[53:20] colleagues want to do this,
[53:21] without numbers and deputy
[53:23] mayor you are digging your
[53:25] heels in and saying the numbers
[53:26] will not be released until
[53:27] 2:30.
[53:28] I'm not sure the interest of
[53:30] our time is best served going
[53:31] through each departments aims
[53:33] aspirations and accomplishments
[53:35] as we have budget presentations
[53:37] on our agenda so I'm not sure
[53:39] is my colleagues want to waive
[53:41] the presentations or wait for
[53:43] our workshop we are planning to
[53:44] have I think going through
[53:46] these presentations without
[53:48] actual numbers is not the best
[53:49] utilization of our time, thank
[53:50] you MADAM Chair.
[53:53] >>chair: commissioner gonzales.
[53:55] >>commissioner gonzalez: I have
[53:57] to agree and I appreciate the
[53:59] chief's explanation because I
[54:02] agree with the deputy mayor's
[54:02] explanation.
[54:04] It's not fair to you, it's not
[54:05] personal to you but I agree
[54:07] with commissioner cohen higgins
[54:08] that going through a
[54:10] presentation talking about how
[54:13] great the technology department
[54:14] is and I have no doubt that
[54:16] it's great, we've met one on
[54:18] one before, we have no doubt
[54:19] that it's great and that you're
[54:22] doing a great job as a director
[54:23] but for purposes of going
[54:26] through your budget and
[54:27] analyzing what can and should
[54:31] not be cut this perhaps is
[54:32] premature.
[54:34] It might be a good idea to
[54:37] waive or ask commissioner cohen
[54:39] higgins is suggesting maybe we
[54:47] can defer this until after.
[54:50] >>commissioner cohen higgins:
[54:51] because I wasn't there were
[54:52] looking to have a workshop, is
[54:54] that what we are going to
[54:54] schedule?
[54:56] >> our committee decided we
[54:58] would not recess in AUGUST.
[55:00] Our committee will take as long
[55:01] as it takes to go through every
[55:02] budget because what we
[55:12] discovered was
[55:12] they were asked to grow
[55:18] the budgets by 3% and we
[55:18] said we're pretty sure if
[55:19] we work with the
[55:21] administration, we will
[55:22] find ways in which we walk
[55:23] away and say we actually
[55:23] saved money, we didn't
[55:24] grow government.
[55:31] So that was the decision
[55:32] in this morning's budget
[55:33] that we would not recess.
[55:33] We would come back in
[55:34] AUGUST and begin to drill
[55:35] down on every department
[55:35] budget.
[55:38] >> Chair Steinberg: well,
[55:39] I would like to be part of
[55:39] that.
[55:40] I guess hearing from three
[55:41] of the board members right
[55:42] now, I think it's clear
[55:44] they want to waive the
[55:44] presentations to an AUGUST
[55:49] meeting for I guess a more
[55:50] in-depth budget
[55:50] discussion.
[55:51] I know yesterday our
[55:51] committee, we had these
[55:53] great presentations, but
[55:57] they were really an
[55:57] abstract.
[55:58] So at the end it would've
[55:58] been nice to have some
[56:00] budget numbers with them.
[56:05] So while I do appreciate
[56:05] everybody's time and
[56:06] effort, I think this
[56:06] committee is now taking
[56:07] the direction that they
[56:10] would like to postpone.
[56:11] Any sort of presentation
[56:12] until after the budget is
[56:13] rolled out so that they
[56:16] can ook at it with that
[56:19] lens and make sure that --
[56:20] by the way, we support our
[56:27] department in their
[56:27] endeavors as well.
[56:29] >> just to piggyback, for
[56:33] those budget, for those
[56:35] presentations, since the I
[56:37] don't think any of us are
[56:38] expecting anybody to just
[56:42] read off a screen.
[56:42] For those presentations,
[56:52] you know, we had -- come
[56:53] up and I think that's the
[56:55] level of expectation
[56:57] everyone will have don't
[56:58] just come up and read.
[57:00] Know your numbers because
[57:02] you are a highly capable
[57:05] director, which is the
[57:10] equivalent of a C.E.O. Of
[57:11] a multimillion dollar
[57:11] organization.
[57:12] So when you do come, when
[57:15] you do come, come prepared
[57:19] to know your numbers, know
[57:20] your departments, and know
[57:21] exactly how to defend
[57:24] every penny that you're
[57:24] asking for.
[57:36] Am I correct?
[57:36] >> MADAM Chair, I also
[57:37] wanted to remind everyone
[57:38] that I've asked all the
[57:39] department directors, and
[57:39] I'll do it again here.
[57:40] I would like a schedule of
[57:41] your vacancies with the
[57:41] aging reports.
[57:42] And I would further like
[57:43] -- what occurred this
[57:44] morning was a discussion
[57:47] around telling me that you
[57:47] got rid of 50 staff
[57:52] members, but in fact, what
[57:53] happened was some left the
[57:53] county and some, because
[57:56] of their employment
[57:57] rights, were actually
[57:57] transferred into another
[57:58] department.
[57:58] O that's not
[58:02] a savings.
[58:03] We're gonna be really
[58:03] clear about every step
[58:04] we're taking.
[58:05] We want the public to
[58:06] understand exactly what
[58:06] we're doing to the other
[58:07] thing we also asked is if
[58:09] you're moving any of your
[58:13] people or services to a
[58:14] constitutional officer,
[58:15] that constitutional
[58:20] officer is gonna come back
[58:21] and asked me for that
[58:21] money.
[58:22] That's net zero savings.
[58:23] It's just going from us to
[58:23] them.
[58:24] I want everyone to
[58:25] understand that I expect
[58:25] truth in budgeting and
[58:27] I've been very clear about
[58:30] that from the beginning.
[58:31] We have to be able to say
[58:31] what is really going on
[58:34] without sort of skimming
[58:35] over it because most often
[58:41] I hear the complaint if
[58:42] they said they got rid of
[58:42] those jobs, but I know a
[58:44] person is working in
[58:45] another department in
[58:46] another role in another
[58:47] department.
[58:47] So we want to be sure we
[58:48] explain why we have had to
[58:50] move people to another
[58:53] department because they've
[58:54] had employment rights, and
[58:55] what does that mean?
[58:58] Because the general public
[58:58] has no idea what that
[58:59] means.
[58:59] Zero.
[59:00] So be prepared when you,
[59:09] and we have your numbers
[59:10] before you that we expect
[59:11] to be able to talk about
[59:12] every penny in your budget
[59:13] and for you to start
[59:13] thinking if I had to get
[59:22] rid of it, if I didn't
[59:23] grow, if I just stayed,
[59:24] you know, because we do
[59:24] zero-based budgeting in
[59:25] the state.
[59:26] You don't tell me you're
[59:26] going to grow anything.
[59:27] You're in a start with
[59:28] what you had and then tell
[59:45] me, be prepared to tell me
[59:46] if you get, if you reduce
[59:47] this, what would happen?
[59:47] Because that's the part
[59:48] nobody talks about either.
[59:49] So you know, because
[59:49] that's exactly the
[59:50] question I asked 12
[59:50] secretaries at the state.
[59:51] If I tell you to reduce
[59:52] this line item, what will
[59:52] happen.
[59:53] What services have to go?
[59:54] Where can you find
[59:54] savings?
[59:55] And let me tell you
[59:55] something.
[59:56] If you can find a 3%
[59:56] savings in the state that
[59:57] has, you know, 10 times
[1:00:06] the budget that we have
[1:00:07] here, I'm pretty sure we
[1:00:08] can find savings and we're
[1:00:08] committed, our budget
[1:00:09] committee is committed to
[1:00:10] working with the
[1:00:10] administration to help do
[1:00:11] that in partnership
[1:00:12] because that's what we
[1:00:12] think we can both do.
[1:00:13] So I just -- that's just a
[1:00:15] word to the wise of what
[1:00:16] we will be looking at.
[1:00:16] He kind of discussions
[1:00:17] that we had this morning.
[1:00:18] > Chair Steinberg: all
[1:00:19] right.
[1:00:26] Thank you.
[1:00:27] Any other comments or
[1:00:28] questions from the dais?
[1:00:28] Yes?
[1:00:29] >> MADAM Chair, just
[1:00:29] quickly to provide
[1:00:29] clarification.
[1:00:30] I think it's the
[1:00:31] intention, I hope it's the
[1:00:31] intention, I'm sure it's
[1:00:38] the intention that these
[1:00:39] budget hearings that we
[1:00:39] will have an AUGUST is
[1:00:40] open and welcome to all
[1:00:41] commissioners, more like a
[1:00:44] committee of the whole
[1:00:44] where we engage in that
[1:00:45] deep dive that we have
[1:00:50] been talking about.
[1:00:51] So I look forward to all
[1:00:52] of our colleagues
[1:00:53] participating in that, and
[1:00:54] I see our CHAIRWOMAN
[1:00:55] Nodding her head, so that
[1:00:55] is the confirmation I was
[1:01:03] looking for.
[1:01:04] Thank you, MADAM CHAIRMAN.
[1:01:04] >> Chair Steinberg:
[1:01:05] debbie numerically
[1:01:06] >> MADAM CHAIRMAN, we are
[1:01:06] thankful for the clear
[1:01:07] direction.
[1:01:07] Commissioner lopez, I'll
[1:01:08] warn you in advance, we
[1:01:09] have been plagiarizing
[1:01:15] your theme and I think
[1:01:15] I've heard the mayor say
[1:01:16] it three times yesterday,
[1:01:17] so I think it stuck.
[1:01:17] I would like to point out
[1:01:18] to you that the mayor did
[1:01:35] put out a memo on solid
[1:01:35] waste.
[1:01:36] I think exactly like what
[1:01:36] you want.
[1:01:37] If we don't do this,
[1:01:37] what's the consequent is?
[1:01:38] We gave it to you.
[1:01:39] We did the same thing on
[1:01:39] water and sewer rates,
[1:01:40] which we haven't even
[1:01:41] addressed yet, but is our
[1:01:41] intention to follow your
[1:01:42] mantra of truth in
[1:01:43] budgeting and whatever we
[1:01:44] do here's the consequences
[1:01:44] pro or con.
[1:01:45] >> Chair Steinberg: and
[1:01:46] on that note, our meeting
[1:01:46] is adjourned.
[1:01:50] Thank you.