[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.

Infrastructure, Innovation & Technology Committee

Agenda

Transcript