| |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Chester Rodriguez, Commission Reporter
(305) 375-3819
|
|
|
1A
|
INVOCATION AS PROVIDED IN RULE 5.05 (H)
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Commissioner Gonzalez led the prayer.
|
|
|
1B
|
ROLL CALL
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Chairwoman Milian Orbis convened the Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Committee (IEIC/Committee) at 10:43 a.m.
Prior to the roll call, Deputy Clerk Israel Alonso announced that the Clerk of the Board had received notice that Senator Garcia would be absent from today�s meeting.
In addition to the Committee members, the following staff members were present:
- Assistant County Attorneys (ACA) Michael Mastrucci, Bruce Libhaber, James Edwin Kirtley;
- Dr. Carladenise Edwards, Chief Administrative Officer, Office of the Mayor;
- Ms. Stacy Miller, Director, Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW);
- Ms. Lourdes Gomez, Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER); and
- Deputy Clerks Israel Alonso and Chester Rodriguez.
MOTION TO SET THE AGENDA
ACA Mastrucci reported that, per the Changes Memorandum, Agenda Items 2C and 2E had been added to the agenda. He further advised that, as a change not reflected on the memorandum, the administration, as prime sponsor, had requested the withdrawal of Agenda Item 3B.
Following discussion of the withdrawal, ACA Mastrucci clarified that, because the administration had withdrawn the item as prime sponsor, no vote was required under Rule 5.05(E) of the Board's Rules of Procedure, and the item would be withdrawn unless a commissioner or the Committee assumed sponsorship. No member assumed sponsorship, and Agenda Item 3B was withdrawn.
Chairwoman Milian Orbis then requested any pulls or bifurcations from the members.
Commissioner Lopez pulled Agenda Item 2C.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins moved to approve the agenda with the aforementioned changes. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and upon being put to a vote, passed 4-0 (Senator Garcia was absent).
Later in the meeting, Commissioner Cohen Higgins moved to simultaneously consider Agenda Items 2A, 2B, 3A, 3C, 3D, 3E, and 6A. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and upon being put to a vote, passed 4-0 (Senator Garcia was absent).
NOTE: Agenda Items 2A, 2B, 3A, 3C, 3D were forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) with a favorable recommendation and 6A was approved.
|
|
|
1C
|
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Vice Chairwoman Lopez led the Pledge of Allegiance.
|
|
|
1D
|
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE HEARD AS PROVIDED IN RULE 6.06
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Chairwoman Milian opened the reasonable opportunity to be heard and the following individuals appeared before the committee:
Ms. Diana Mendez, 1450 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, appeared on behalf of Masabi and stated that Masabi had been the top-ranked proposer both before and after the oral presentations in the RFP process for Agenda Item 3B. She noted that some committee members had expressed a preference for completing the process rather than starting anew, and she argued that the fair and legally compliant way to do so was to negotiate with Masabi, consistent with the RFP's scoring criteria and with the FTA funding requirements. She stated that the county had determined Masabi to be the top-ranked proposer in March and selected it for negotiations, but that the process had been derailed by objection letters from unsuccessful proposers.
Mr. Juan Carbonell, 14640 Southwest 82nd Court, Palmetto Bay, Florida, appeared as Senior Vice President of Sales for Masabi. He stated that the selection committee had correctly ranked Masabi first out of nine proposers on two occasions under the rules of the RFP. He described Masabi as a firm of roughly 350 employees with more than 20 years of experience, and he requested that the Committee follow the existing RFP process and enter into negotiations with Masabi, cautioning that a delay could push the rollout to 2029 and jeopardize the available FTA funding.
Mr. Saj Popat, 44645 Guilford Drive, Ashburn, Virginia, appeared as Assistant General Manager for the Southeast region of Cubic Transportation Systems, the current fare collection provider. He offered to answer any questions the Committee might have and yielded the remainder of his time.
Ms. Danielle Sanabria, 3800 Northeast First Avenue, Miami, Florida, appeared on behalf of Cubic. She stated that the procurement had lacked transparency and framed the central question as whether the committee had been permitted to expand oral presentations beyond three firms, asserting that the RFP contained no limiting language. She stated that the evaluation committee had heard from all five firms and ranked Cubic first, had reaffirmed that ranking upon reconvening, and that the administration was now seeking to discard the result. She argued that, under a materiality standard, hearing from five firms had not changed the price or scope or prevented any firm from competing, and she characterized the committee's action as diligence rather than a defect.
Mr. Alex Heckler, 3800 Northeast First Avenue, Miami, Florida, appeared on behalf of Cubic. He explained that a prior fix to the procurement process had allowed a minimum of three firms to be shortlisted, that nine firms had bid, that five had advanced with two tied at fourth, and that Cubic had finished first after the oral presentations and again after the committee reconvened on questions of exclusivity. He noted Cubic's 20-year partnership with the County, urged the County to work with the administration on immediate fixes such as credit card system compliance, and asked the Committee not to replace a functioning system.
Mr. Hugo Benitez, 600 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, appeared on behalf of Moovel. He stated that Moovel's proposal was $17 million cheaper than the highest-ranked proposal while differing only 1.4 percent in qualitative score, and he argued that the price difference should have offset that small qualitative gap. He contended that the RFP contained no approved pricing formula and that the selection committee had compressed the price scoring, and he emphasized that the Board held ultimate authority over the contracting decision so long as it adhered to the RFP criteria, including price.
Mr. Miguel Diaz De La Portilla, 600 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, an attorney with Gunster, appeared on behalf of Moovel. He stated that Masabi had proposed $43 million but had conditioned that price on ridership not increasing by more than five percent, making it the only proposer of nine to qualify its price when the RFP called for a fixed price. He asserted that the incumbent, Cubic, had not performed well over its 18 years, and that Moovel was in a virtual technical tie with Masabi while being at least $17 million cheaper than Masabi and $14 million cheaper than Cubic. He asked the Committee to select Moovel as the highest-ranked responsive and responsible proposer offering the best value.
Ms. Alice Bravo, 1026 Coral Way, Coral Gables, Florida, appeared on behalf of Moovel and noted that she had previously served as transit director. She stated that the County lost revenue and ridership when Metro vending machines could not process credit card transactions and when malfunctioning equipment required drivers to admit riders without payment. She described Moovel's system as reliable, highly rated by users, and lower in cost than the alternatives, and she urged that the price scoring be examined for a rational basis.
Mr. Ryan Mackem (Phonetically), 243 Pennsylvania Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, appeared as a business development manager with the INIT Group, noting that the firm had recently deployed similar fare collection projects in Houston and Atlanta. He stated that he would not address the irregularities in the procurement and appeared on behalf of the fare collection industry to thank the Mayor and the Board for their attention and potential intervention so that Miami's riders would receive the system they deserved.
Mr. Brad Price, 4530 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C., appeared on behalf of Indra. He stated that the other vendors' pricing had not included both baseline capabilities and options, whereas Indra had submitted pricing for both, which skewed the comparison, and that Indra's price was approximately $21 million lower than any other. He noted that Indra had outperformed the incumbent on larger projects in London and Ireland.
Seeing no one else come forward wishing to speak, Chairwoman Milian Orbis closed reasonable opportunity to be heard.
|
|
|
1E
|
SPECIAL PRESENTATION(S)
|
| |
|
1F
|
DISCUSSION ITEM(S)
|
| |
|
1G
|
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
|
| |
|
2
|
COUNTY COMMISSION
|
| |
|
2A
|
|
| |
260852
|
Resolution
|
Juan Carlos Bermudez
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. R-1026-23, AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. R-635-24, TO ADD FRIENDS OF THE MIAMI-DADE PUBLIC LIBRARY, INC., AND PARKS FOUNDATION OF MIAMI-DADE, INC., TO THE LIST OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS THAT SHALL BE ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS OF EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS THROUGH PAYROLL DEDUCTION
|
Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation
Mover: Danielle Cohen Higgins
Seconder: Roberto J. Gonzalez
Vote: 4 - 0
Excused: Garc�a
|
|
2B
|
|
| |
260958
|
Resolution
|
Natalie Milian Orbis
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR�S DESIGNEE TO ELIMINATE OBSOLETE TELEPHONE LINES AND RELATED EQUIPMENT; TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A PLAN TO PHASE OUT COUNTY-FUNDED LANDLINE SERVICES THAT ARE NO LONGER OPERATIONALLY NECESSARY; TO IDENTIFY AND SELL OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF UNUSED OR SURPLUS DESK TELEPHONES AND RELATED EQUIPMENT; AND TO PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE SAME
|
Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation
Mover: Danielle Cohen Higgins
Seconder: Roberto J. Gonzalez
Vote: 4 - 0
Excused: Garc�a
|
|
2C
|
|
| |
260967
|
Resolution
|
Raquel A. Regalado
Sen. Rene Garcia
Micky Steinberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR�S DESIGNEE TO FILE, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN TO ADDRESS THE USE OF TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT MAY FACILITATE URBAN LAND USES ON PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY (UDB)
|
Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation
Mover: Roberto J. Gonzalez
Seconder: Danielle Cohen Higgins
Vote: 4 - 0
Excused: Garc�a
|
| |
REPORT:
Vice Chairwoman Lopez asked ACA Kirtley, as the County Attorney working on the proposal, to explain the item for the record, referencing the Committee's prior discussions in the zoning and CDMP context regarding the use of text amendments to move development into urban growth areas or across the Urban Development Boundary (UDB).
ACA Kirtley explained that the item addressed the use of text amendments to facilitate urban uses outside the UDB, rather than the UDB line-moving process specified in the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). He stated that the item directed the administration's professional planning staff to prepare an application to amend the CDMP, which would return to the Board through the CDMP process for transmission to the state for comments and then for full consideration. He described the item as a directive to develop a solution to the loophole while allowing some flexibility for the use of text amendments in urban expansion areas.
Vice Chairwoman Lopez asked how the item would intersect with Senate Bill 180.
ACA Kirtley explained that Senate Bill 180 prohibited more restrictive or burdensome comprehensive plan amendments and that, because the item would strengthen the CDMP process, the resulting application would likely be subject to Senate Bill 180. He stated that the administration would only be able to present the application once the Senate Bill 180 period ended in October 2027, subject to extension by additional declarations of emergency related to hurricanes.
Vice Chairwoman Lopez asked whether, because of Senate Bill 180, the administration would have to wait until October 2027 to submit the text amendment to the state.
ACA Kirtley responded that the answer was yes, because the item sought to close a loophole in a manner likely to be more burdensome or restrictive. He noted that the exception for privately filed applications would not apply, since this application would be filed by the County itself and would therefore be subject to the Senate Bill 180 restrictions.
Vice Chairwoman Lopez observed that the item would not take effect until the state's comments were received in 2027 and that applications currently in process would not be subject to the change.
ACA Kirtley confirmed that the item was not retroactive and would not apply to current applications.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins asked whether an analysis had been conducted of how many pending or anticipated text amendment applications the item might affect, should it pass. She explained that she was trying to understand the universe of such applications, since a party might file text amendments to avoid the item's enactment, which made the timing important.
Ms. Gomez, the Director, responded that the item would have no effect on pending applications and that, although she did not have the number of active applications in process, she could provide it.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins confirmed that the item would not affect applications already filed and stated that she would obtain the relevant figures from the Director before the final hearing.
Hearing no further questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution, as presented.
ACA Mastrucci advised that there was a request to advance the foregoing item to the June 16, 2026 Board meeting.
|
|
|
3
|
DEPARTMENT(S)
|
| |
|
3A
|
|
| |
260914
|
Resolution
|
Natalie Milian Orbis
Vicki L. Lopez
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A STANDARD FORM OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITIES FOR THE PROVISION OF DEBRIS REMOVAL, STAGING AND REDUCTION, LONG-RANGE HAULING, AND MONITORING SERVICES
|
Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation
Mover: Danielle Cohen Higgins
Seconder: Roberto J. Gonzalez
Vote: 4 - 0
Excused: Garc�a
|
|
3B
|
|
| |
260623
|
Resolution
|
|
Strategic Procurement |
| |
RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. EVN0001148, FARE COLLECTION APPLICATION, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS
|
Withdrawn
|
| |
REPORT:
ACA Mastrucci stated that the administration had requested to withdraw Agenda Item 3B and that the item would be withdrawn unless a commissioner or the Committee assumed sponsorship.
Chairwoman Milian Orbis stated that she and her colleagues had questions about the withdrawal for the administration and opened the floor for discussion.
Dr. Edwards explained that the administration had requested the withdrawal after considering the discussion at the prior meeting, agreeing that it was in the community's interest to move the procurement forward. She stated that the administration wished to withdraw its recommendation to reject all bids and instead return with a recommended vendor.
Vice Chairwoman Lopez asked who the recommended vendor would have been had the RFP been followed to the letter. She explained that she wished to build the business community's confidence in doing business with the County and that flawed processes discouraged firms that had invested time and money. She reiterated Commissioner Gonzalez's prior request for a report on how the process had reached this point and stated that, regardless of the action taken, she still wanted that report given the troubling testimony she had heard.
Dr. Edwards responded that this was the same question the administration was asking and that it wished to return with both the answer and a recommendation. She noted that Ms. Uppal was available to address questions about the process.
Chairwoman Milian Orbis expressed disappointment that, although the Committee had requested the complete background information on the procurement at the prior meeting, a month had elapsed and nothing had been provided, adding that the item had become thinner and that she had not been briefed until that morning.
Dr. Edwards acknowledged that a month had passed and that a briefing was owed. She explained that the administration's preference had been to withdraw its recommendation and then provide the information necessary for an informed decision, and she offered an apology.
Commissioner Gonzalez commended Dr. Edwards and Deputy Mayor Coley for withdrawing the item and returning with a recommendation, and he indicated that he had a line of questions regarding the RFP.
Ms. Uppal confirmed that five proposers had been advanced to oral presentations.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked why five had advanced when the RFP stated that the competitive selection committee would conduct oral presentations with the three highest-ranked proposers.
Ms. Uppal explained that this was the first RFP to include that language, based on a newly adopted resolution providing that three companies would advance in certain RFPs. She stated that the fourth and fifth proposers had been tied and that the differential between third and fourth had been minuscule, that a staff member had interpreted the language as not limiting advancement to only three, and that five had been advanced to encourage competition. She added that, after a complaint was received, she consulted the County Attorney's Office, which advised that if the RFP stated three, only three could advance.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked whether anyone in the department had thought to consult the County Attorney's Office before proceeding with five presentations.
Ms. Uppal acknowledged that no one had done so and that it had been an oversight.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked the County Attorney's Office for its interpretation of the language.
ACA Libhaber stated that the office interpreted the language as three, noting that the RFP did not use terms such as "at least three" or "no fewer than three" that would have permitted more.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked where the fourth- and fifth-ranked proposers had landed after the oral presentations.
Ms. Uppal responded that Cubic Transportation Systems, originally ranked fourth, had jumped to first after the oral presentations, and that INIT, originally ranked fifth, had also moved up in the ranking.
Commissioner Gonzalez commented that it was troubling that a vendor who, under the RFP language and the County Attorney's interpretation, should not have been invited to the oral presentations had jumped to first place. He noted the ambiguity in the RFP's treatment of pricing for optional components, reiterated his prior request for a report explaining how the pricing points were evaluated, and asked whether the administration still intended to advertise a revised RFP as its memorandum had indicated.
Dr. Edwards confirmed that the administration wished to withdraw the recommendation to reject all bids and return with a recommended vendor for the Committee's consideration, rather than pursue the revised RFP.
Chairwoman Milian Orbis asked the County Attorney's Office to explain the procedure, noting that the withdrawal had to be of the item itself rather than only the rejection recommendation.
ACA Libhaber explained that the item would be withdrawn and that a new written recommendation rescinding the prior recommendation, presumably with an award recommendation, would be presented to the Committee for its review. He added that the Committee could move to direct the administration to submit that recommendation in time for the next meeting.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked when the solicitation had first been issued.
Ms. Uppal stated that it had been advertised on May 16, 2025, that proposals had been received on August 29, 2025, and that there had been five evaluation meetings.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked why the administration had not considered continuing with the current vendor rather than issuing a solicitation.
Ms. Miller, Director of the Department of Transportation and Public Works, explained that the County had approximately two years remaining under the current vendor's contract for maintenance of the existing system, but that the administration's goal had been to replace the system with a best-in-class solution offering a better user experience and additional analytics, which was not part of the current contract.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked, more specifically, why the current vendor had not been approached to fix the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI) compliance issue.
Ms. Miller explained that the County was operating under a waiver for PCI compliance and had expected the procurement to conclude and new software to be in place before the waiver expired, adding that the administration had been in discussions with the current vendor regarding an interim solution.
Commissioner Gonzalez observed that, without PCI compliance, certain credit card companies might eventually stop accepting County payments, and he asked why the current vendor, after years of working with the County, had not resolved the issue.
Ms. Miller stated that resolving the issue had not been part of the vendor's current contract.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked when the County had known that the software upgrades were needed.
Ms. Miller stated that this had occurred before she began working for the County, during development of the RFP package, and that she did not have the specific date.
Chairwoman Milian Orbis noted that, although the matter predated Ms. Miller's tenure, there was a track record of the County's actions and that others who had been present, such as Dr. Edwards and Ms. Uppal, could speak to it.
Ms. Miller explained that the existing hardware was failing and at end of life, that the County had always intended to procure new software along with new hardware, and that the change involved more than PCI compliance, as it also meant moving from a fare-card-based system to an account-based system.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked how long the current vendor had been under contract with the County and when the latest PCI data security standard had been released.
Ms. Uppal stated that the fare collection contract had been awarded in 2008.
Ms. Miller stated that she did not have the release date of the latest PCI standard.
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that the correct date was June 2024 and that the current vendor was not PCI compliant.
Ms. Miller confirmed that the current software did not allow the County to be PCI compliant.
Commissioner Gonzalez explained that PCI compliance was the industry standard regulating how credit card payments were accepted, and he asked the current vendor, Cubic, why it had not achieved compliance if it was an industry standard.
Chairwoman Milian Orbis allowed the vendor to respond but cautioned against an extended back-and-forth.
Mr. Popat stated that PCI compliance was required but depended on specific hardware and software, that Cubic maintained PCI compliance on its other projects, and that Cubic had been working with the County toward compliance. He stated that the County had not engaged Cubic for the necessary hardware and software upgrades, but that Cubic had been speaking with the payment brands to defer penalties for non-compliance.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked how long those conversations had been ongoing and what would occur if compliance was not achieved.
Mr. Popat stated that the conversations with the payment brands had been ongoing since May, and that if compliance was not achieved within the permitted deferral period, the County would face assessed fees and lose access to the open payment system. He recommended that the County work with Cubic to resolve the issue quickly.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked why PCI compliance had not been included in the original contract and whether it would be required in the new one.
Dr. Edwards stated that the County was striving for PCI compliance across all of its applications, that any contract executed would require it, and that she did not know when the current vendor had informed the County of its capacity to comply.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins stated that, while Commissioner Gonzalez's questioning made the matter appear to be a straightforward case in which only three proposers should have advanced, she was not convinced it was that simple. She asked what the administration would do differently, noting that any recommendation would likely continue to draw objections from the competing firms, and she asked whether the administration intended to reconvene the selection committee, rescore, or otherwise change the facts before returning with a single recommendation.
Dr. Edwards responded that she needed time to consult with the County Attorney's Office and Strategic Procurement to develop a process that was legally viable and ethically responsible, and she committed to returning with a recommendation for a vendor that legitimately deserved the award under the criteria, along with the requested report. She reiterated that rejecting all bids and starting over would waste time and money and jeopardize timely completion, which was why the administration was withdrawing that recommendation.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins characterized the response as authentic but noted that it did not specify what would change, which she found fair given the need to consult the attorneys. She then asked the term of the contract on which the five companies had bid.
Ms. Uppal stated that the anticipated term was six years with one four-year option to renew, for a total of ten years.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins confirmed with Ms. Uppal that the numbers the proposers had submitted represented the six-year aggregate, read the submitted figures into the record, and confirmed that they were accurate.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins then addressed the RFP language requiring the three highest-ranked proposers to advance for contracts in excess of $25 million, noting that the threshold was $25 million annually and that none of the proposers had submitted contracts of that magnitude on an annual basis.
ACA Libhaber confirmed that the resolution was not mandated to apply to this solicitation but that the RFP itself expressly included language stating that three proposers would be invited to oral presentations.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins explained that the resolution had been intended to mandate oral presentations so that additional information could be gathered on lengthy, high-value proposals. She asked why, when the attorneys reconvened the committee on February 9, 2026, no opinion had been given that only three proposers should have advanced.
ACA Libhaber explained that the February 9 reconvening had concerned whether one vendor had an exclusive arrangement with GenFare, that he had not been aware of the three-versus-five issue at that time, and that the issue had been raised in correspondence directed to him after the oral presentations had occurred. He stated that, after reviewing the correspondence and the RFP and consulting other attorneys, the office concluded that the plain language required three, which gave rise to the subsequent recommendation.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins asked for the title of the procurement officer who had decided to advance five proposers.
Ms. Uppal explained that, during the selection committee meeting, a committee member had asked the procurement officer whether advancement was limited to three, that the officer had read the RFP and interpreted it as not limited to three, and that this interpretation was later determined to be incorrect. She stated that the officer was one of the negotiators in her department.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins asked whether it was common practice to advance additional proposers when two scores were very close.
Ms. Uppal responded that a procurement officer could not make that decision unilaterally and that it had to be made by the selection committee, which in this case had agreed to advance all five after the interpretation was offered.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins summarized the sequence of events and expressed concern that, unless the staff reconvened and rescored or changed something, the Committee would be in the same position at the next meeting. She then noted that Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding was tied to the RFP and asked whether there were any timing considerations that could jeopardize it.
Ms. Miller stated that the FTA funding was designated for this contract, that it had no specific sunset date, and that the County was not at risk of losing it.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins asked whether the administration's intent was to negotiate only with the top three ranked bidders.
Dr. Edwards responded that the administration would need to follow the RFP criteria of conducting oral presentations only with the top three.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins addressed the business community, stating that the County needed to improve its procurement process so that business partners were not discouraged, and she asked when the recommendation would return to the Committee.
Dr. Edwards stated that the administration would like the item placed on the next IEIC meeting agenda of July 15, 2026, subject to the discretion of the BCC Chairman.
ACA Mastrucci clarified that, because the administration had withdrawn the item, no vote was required under Rule 5.05(E) of the Board's Rules of Procedure.
Chairwoman Milian Orbis requested that the recommendation include an explanation of the rationale for the weight given to pricing and the formula used in the RFP, and she moved a directive that the item return at the next committee meeting.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins seconded the motion and raised a point of order that the Committee could not issue directives to the administration but could only request information or vote on items advancing to the Board, noting that if the item did not return in July, the next opportunity would be September.
ACA Libhaber clarified that, while the Committee could not direct the item itself, it could require a report to the Committee, including the requested explanation of the pricing calculation.
Commissioner Cohen Higgins noted that this was what the Committee had done at the prior meeting.
Commissioner Gonzalez stated that there needed to be transparency regarding the point system for both the public and the business community.
Chairwoman Milian Orbis agreed and reiterated the request for an explanation of the rationale for the application of pricing points and the RFP formula.
|
|
| |
5/13/2026
Deferred by the Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Committee
|
|
|
3C
|
|
| |
260037
|
Resolution
|
Appropriations Committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $280,997,692.00 FOR THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA
|
Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation
Mover: Danielle Cohen Higgins
Seconder: Roberto J. Gonzalez
Vote: 4 - 0
Excused: Garc�a
|
|
3D
|
|
| |
260510
|
Resolution
|
Appropriations Committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 AND AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 BUDGETS FOR THE OPA-LOCKA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE OPA-LOCKA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA TOTALING $7,013,081.00 AND $7,392,025.00, RESPECTIVELY
|
Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation
Mover: Danielle Cohen Higgins
Seconder: Roberto J. Gonzalez
Vote: 4 - 0
Excused: Garc�a
|
|
3E
|
|
| |
261051
|
Resolution
|
Sen. Rene Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
RESOLUTION RELATED TO IMPLEMENTING ORDER NOS. 4-42, 4-63, AND 4-111; AMENDING SAID IMPLEMENTING ORDERS TO MODIFY CERTAIN FEES ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATORY ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, IN RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN STATE LAW
|
Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation
Mover: Danielle Cohen Higgins
Seconder: Roberto J. Gonzalez
Vote: 4 - 0
Excused: Garc�a
|
| |
REPORT:
ACA Mastrucci advised that there was a request to advance the foregoing item to the June 16, 2026 Board meeting.
|
|
|
4
|
COUNTY MAYOR
|
| |
|
5
|
COUNTY ATTORNEY
|
| |
|
6
|
CLERK OF THE BOARD
|
| |
|
6A
|
|
| |
260956
|
Report
|
|
Clerk of the Board |
| |
APPROVAL OF THE CLERK�S SUMMARY OF MINUTES FOR THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT COMMITTEE MEETING(S) [AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DEPARTMENT]:
� FEBRUARY 4, 2026
� MARCH 11, 2026
|
Approved
Mover: Danielle Cohen Higgins
Seconder: Roberto J. Gonzalez
Vote: 4 - 0
Excused: Garc�a
|
|
7
|
REPORT(S)
|
| |
|
8
|
ADJOURNMENT
|
| |
|
| 8/21/2026 |
|
|
|
Agenda Key: 5527 |