Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Committee - Feb 04, 2026

and Economic Impact Committee, I'm Natalie Milian Orbis, Commissioner for District 6. I would like to welcome you today. Let's start with an invocation. I want to invite Commissioner Gonzales to do the invocation this morning, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Please bow your heads for a prayer. Dear Lord, thank you so much for this wonderful day. Thank you for allowing all of us to be here for your will, Lord. Let the decisions that we make today be guided by your will and by your compassion and your love. In your holy name we pray, amen. Thank you. Mr. Attorney, are there any changes today? Yes. Madam Chair, the items for this committee's consideration are those listed in the final printed agenda, as well as the official changes memo, which includes- Sorry, we have to do a roll call first. We hadn't done it yet. Can we please do a roll call? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Good morning, President. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gonzales. Vice Chairwoman Lopez. Chairwoman Melian Orbis. Present. Five members present, we have a quorum. Thank you, please go on. Madam Chair, the items for this committee's consideration are those listed in the final printed agenda, as well as the official changes memo, which includes the addition of items 1F2, the requested deferral of item 2A. In addition, the addition of item 3A substitute, which has been passed around the dais and added to this agenda. There's a scrivener's error item 3A substitute. The estimated operating cost should be 14,871,330, and total amount for the provision of services should be 36,536,461. And lastly, Madam Chair, I have an amendment on item 3C. I can read that now, if you'd like. Yes, please do. So, fridem 3C on page MDC010, it should be amended to remove the reservation of rights in favor of Suffolk Construction Company in the last two full paragraphs of the item. In addition, on MDC14, the PPI change order total should be reduced from $37,551,504 to $37,450,743.53 to match the amount set forth in the resolution and accompanying memorandum. With that, Madam Chair, reasonable opportunity is appropriate. Okay. And we have received several speaker cards. So, I will call you up one by one. We can open the reasonable opportunity at this time. The first speaker that we have is Commissioner Sally Heyman. And then after Commissioner Heyman, we have Judge Leifman. So, if we can set up in each podium, because we have quite a few speakers. Madam Chair, thank you. It's such an honor to see the commission start on time. Sally Heyman, come on, a little humor before we start. I used to be up there, right? Thank you. I believe this is my fourth time appearing before the commission. I keep saying I'm out, but it's such an important issue for me. That I wanted to be here and share my insight with you. I wish that Judge Leifman, he's out there getting everybody else signed in. If he could go first, Madam Chair, I'd like to be on his heels. Because we have worked together 19 of my 20 years on this issue. And he was on the forefront, local, state, and federal. So, if I could let him go first and then please let me come next. Thank you. Go ahead, yes. Judge Leifman, good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be heard. My name is Steve Leifman, for the record. It really shouldn't be so difficult to do something so good. We have been working on this project for many years. You know, when community mental health was designed in the United States, the most acutely ill population were still in state hospitals. So, community mental health was not designed for the most acutely ill. When we closed the hospitals and other things happened, this population got thrown into our streets in a system that was just not built for them. And as a result, the jails have become the primary place for people with serious mental illnesses. And ours is not an exception. Seventy to eighty percent of the jail population in Miami-Dade County has been diagnosed with a mental illness. We spent $3.9 billion over the last ten years to operate the Dade County Jail, of which $2.5 billion were spent for people with mental illnesses. We have been part of a project for 25 years to reduce the overrepresentation of people with mental illnesses in our criminal justice system, and it has worked. We are left with a small population that are the most expensive, the most ill, that keeps cycling between homelessness, jail, and hospitalization. This building was designed and developed with the best experts in the country to address this very complex problem. We will be the first county in the United States to actually have a solution to this problem. We are strongly urging this committee to support this project. Right now, we are spending, you are spending, $414 million a year to warehouse about 3,000 people in the Dade County Jail. The operating cost of the jail is about $570 million a year. We're not asking for any money. This project is supported by ARPA dollars, and it is supported by the opiate settlement dollars. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions? Not right now. I think we can proceed with the next speaker. Thank you. Thank you so much, Judge. I'll do my good morning again. Let me tell you, for my entire tenure up there, and before that, 36 years in public office, public safety has always been my priority, and I share that commitment with elected officials, including this body and new members up here today. The bottom line is the mental health building concept and facility has been a proven entity. It is legitimized. It is factual on saving people's lives, saving lots and lots of money, and most especially enhancing any of our efforts on public safety. The entire criminal justice system from the police up front, and they supported all departments and our new sheriff to the courts, state attorneys, public defender's office, corrections and rehabilitation departments. The entire system has been on board. It has been us. At the local level, at the state level with the Florida Association of Counties, because we run the jails, and the federal level with National Association of Counties. Most especially, we were one of four sites that came in on Stepping Up Initiative, recognized for the efforts of trying to work with people with mental health and mental illness for the first time. Lessons learned, we were under the federal court consent decree by DOJ to clean up our mess, or they took over, and we did. The ninth floor is not forgotten anymore. It is closed, and we made changes, thanks to Judge Leifman, all the stakeholders. I am asking you to listen to the public. It was a line item in our GOB bond that many of us campaigned for to start addressing mental health. That was the state building we took over. And the concept that Judge Leifman, all the stakeholders I have named, lots of organizations, and lots of the community support it. Please, please, please quit stalling and paying for an empty building at millions of dollars. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay, we have Paul Steven Sinderman and Geneva Gloss. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and fellow commissioners. I'm Paul Singerman, and for several years, I have served as the chair of the board of the Miami Foundation. Name and address for the record, sorry. I apologize. My name is Paul Singerman. My address is 4901 Lakeview Drive in Miami Beach, Florida. For several years, I've had the privilege of serving as the chair of the Miami Foundation for Mental Health. The Miami Foundation for Mental Health is a 501c3 not-for-profit organization. It has no political orientation or connection. There are two primary missions of the Miami Foundation for Mental Health. The first is to raise the visibility of the consequences on people and on our community of serious mental illness and to make an effort to contribute to the change in the way those afflicted by the combination of serious mental illness and substance use disorders are treated or mistreated in a cycle that has not been broken of homelessness, incarceration, and hospitalization, all of which result in great financial costs to the county and huge loss to these afflicted with these diseases and their family, friends, and loved ones. The second of the two primary missions is to raise money for the operation of the Miami Center for Mental Health and Recovery once you all allow us to open it. We have asked for years questions about what it is that we all, the stakeholders advancing this project, could do that we haven't done to answer your questions, any questions, financial or operational, about the operation of this facility, and we've not failed to provide the best and most truthful answers that we can. And it's not only us. As long ago as 2021, one of the most premier worldwide financial advisory and consulting firms contributed $750,000 of time in preparing a study about the viability of this project and attempted to address and answer any questions. We would appreciate your support today. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you, Geneva. And then we have Tim Gomez and Rex Radloff after that, if you can come up. Thank you. Go ahead. Hi, my name is Geneva Claus, and my address is 1233 Marseille Drive. I'm here today to ask you to support the Mental Health Center, item 3A on the agenda. This Mental Health Center is very obviously needed in our community. We spend a lot, a lot of money each year with folks cycling in and out of the jail. Every year, I'm with PACT. We conduct listening sessions across our 40 congregations across the county, and we listen to what people are struggling with. And every single year, mental health comes up as a concern for people in our community. I myself helped a friend of mine who struggles with schizophrenia and has cycled in and out of the jail for many, many years now. He struggles with going between the jail and homelessness that not only costs us tax dollars, but also we should have resources. I've tried to help him navigate the resources we currently have in the community to find him help. He wants help. And I found myself struggling to find access to resources for him. And so it's very, very clear that this is very needed for our community. Not only would it save us money on the jail, but it's also the right thing to do to support our community members. So again, I ask that you support item 3A today and vote in favor and recommend the Mental Health Center to move on to the full commission. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Tim Gomez and then Rex Radloff. And if we can have you all come up already as I call you and be prepared to come to the podium so that we can move along. Go ahead, Tim. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioner, Senator. I'm here today on behalf of Suffolk Construction, Tim Gomez with Capital City Consulting, address 235 Catalonia Avenue. I have Rex Radloff with Suffolk Construction with me here today, and we're just here to provide any answers you might need from the contractor as we discuss that item. Thank you. So is Rex not speaking? Not unless you need him to answer a question later. Thank you so much. We have Dr. David Newman and Philip Cardella, and then after that is Bernard Clark and Eldis Diaz. Good morning. I'm Dr. David Newman, and I'm a member of PACT, people acting for community together. I'm representing over 40 religious organizations throughout Miami-Dade County. We need your address for the record. We need your address for the record. Ah, okay. This Miami Center for Mental Health and Recovery is a winner on so many levels. It helps those with the greatest health needs. The savings is estimated to be over $32 million a year. When at the same time we're desperate to find ways to reduce our budget, you have an answer right here. The county is currently spending approximately $7.2 million each year simply to maintain this fully constructed facility that remains closed, delivering no services and generating no return of investment. It reduces thousands of hours of jail time, replacing those hours with a comprehensive program of care. It will cover its own costs by the third year. All the work has been done. It's waiting to serve the community, and all we need to do is turn the key. Not only may some be healed and start a new life, but it will definitely prevent the eventual suicide for some. How much is that worth? To those who vote against this facility somehow, that's not enough. This model of care is being recognized by other cities in this country, as well as internationally. They all want this model, but Miami-Dade County has a history of shooting itself in the foot. I found out about this hearing on very short notice, but I'll be sure to report your positions to the over 40,000 members that our congregations represent. You all have an obligation to this community to do the right thing. You need to be accountable, and what possible reasons could you have for not opening this facility? All we've got to do is turn the key. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Cordella. And then we have Bernard after and Eldis. Thank you. Go ahead. Good morning. My name is Philip Cordella. I live at 3230 Southwest 94th Court in District 10. I am also with people acting for community together, and again, we represent about 50,000 of your constituents. And as I was doing research a couple of years ago for PACT on our civil citations program, which is being implemented by the Miami Police Department, I believe this week, based on yeses that we got at our Nehemiah Assembly in April of 2024, I was doing research for that on one of the people that we were hoping would help us out with that, and that was Judge Leifman. And the research that I did, and I'm a historian, so I like the research, right? The research I did, the first thing that came up was this very project. And I can tell you, I was extraordinarily impressed with everything that I learned about this proposed project and Judge Leifman's commitment to it over the last 20 years. There was another person whose research I did on it, and I will just say that my kid goes to Terra Environmental Research Academy in District 10. That building is next to the new mental health facility for affordable housing for people living with mental disabilities, and I get to drive past that every day that this commission helped put together and tell my kid how important that aspect is, helping out our community for people who need help with mental health, right? And so that's affordable housing for people living with those issues, and it was championed by my commissioner. And so I ask, I beg you, to continue this legacy in this county of doing the right thing when it comes to mental health over the last 20 years and to vote yes on 3A and move it to the main committee floor or commission floor. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Bernard Clark. I live at 912 Escobar Avenue in Coral Gables. And I'm here also as a member of PACT. And as a career educator, I've worked most of my life helping young people make good decisions. And a lot of that comes down to the heart and common sense. So again, speaking to the issue of 3A, opening the mental health facility, this seems to me like a no-brainer that we all need to get behind for the benefit of not just those few that are immediately going to be treated but those who will be treated in the future as well, making our community safer and more productive. Thank you. Thank you. We have Pedro A. Vera and Officer J. Perrona. Is that you? Sorry? Okay, go ahead. Yes. Can we have the next two as well, Pedro Vera and Officer J. Perrona? Good morning. Thank you for having me. I'm Commander Eldis Diaz. I'm the downtown commander for the Miami Police Department. And thank you for getting my name right on the first try. That is the seventh time in my entire life that that has happened. So well done. Kudos to you. I imagine I'm here to speak on the Mental Health Center. So I imagine that you'll all be hearing from a number of mental health advocates, advocates for the unhoused community. But I'm a law enforcement officer. So my primary function is not outreach. It's enforcement. To summarize, we put people in jail. So since I'm in charge of police services for the downtown neighborhood and we are the epicenter of homelessness in Miami, we see more calls which are related to mental health adjacent issues than anybody else. And I want to just give you the officer's perspective on what that means. So anytime that we have a response to one of these kinds of calls, that pulls two officers out of service. Those are two officers who could be responding to something else. And what we find is that the individuals who are making that draw on police services, well, they're the same people over and over and over again. We take them to jail. They're released shortly thereafter because they tend to be what we call minor quality of life offenses. You know, we're looking at camping violations, trespass violations. But the draw on the police resources is significant. Or we have a disturbance call that we're responding to. And all of these are two officer calls. That means that we have fewer officers available to address other issues. That means that we're talking over the course of a year, thousands of labor hours, which could be going to addressing other safety concerns for the community, which are really being focused around the same individuals. And, you know, it is our job to continue enforcing the law. But we think there's probably a better way of handling this. And we think that the center offers us a pathway to having a longer-term solution that winds up helping not just the affected individuals who are getting the treatment they need, but the community that needs them to be removed as an issue. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we had Pedro. Not here. Pedro A. Vera. Okay. Officer J. Pereña. He's not here. He's not speaking. Oh, he spoke for everybody. Okay, thank you. Then we have, I don't know if this is the same situation, but Sergeant Winfred. Same thing. Okay. Adrian Del Collado. Adrian Del Collado. Same. Okay. Thank you. Zolt. I don't know how to say your name. Horniel is in support. Okay, thank you so much. Rachel Prestipino. Good morning, commissioners. I'm Rachel Prestipino. I'm at 1818 Southwest First Avenue. This community has needed this mental health center for a very long time, and I've personally needed it. Almost 10 years ago, I had a friend who made a suicide attempt, and I had to navigate that process of Baker acting and finding residential treatment afterwards, and gosh, I really, really needed this. And the best time to do this would have been a long time ago when Judge Leifman first proposed it, but the second best time to do it would be right now. Thank you so much. Thank you, Rachel. We have Teolinda. I'm hoping I'm saying it right. Christian. Last name Christian. Thank you. Okay. Mary Berry. Ella Fias. And last one is Stephen Dutton. Hi. Ella Fias. 7700 Tatum Waterway Drive, Miami Beach. I am here in support of Resolution 3A as a social worker, a mental health practitioner, and someone who has worked in both TGK and HCI, so both prisons and jails across the county. I have seen the dire need for a center of this kind. There are no programs in the county that serve as effective diversion and wraparound care for those impacted by our justice system. The mental health programs that do exist have impossibly long wait lists and rarely provide true wraparound care. Many of my clients have spent months after their release trying to gain access to their basic needs, only to fail and end up back incarcerated. This failure is not due to a lack of trying, but rather a lack of programs that can help provide all that this center will. I can't think of a better way to save money, decrease crime, and genuinely support county residents. Both residents who need the center, as well as those outside of it. If you care about county residents, you have an obligation to open the center as soon as possible. Thank you for your support on 3A. Thank you, Ella. Mary? I am Mary Barry, and I am a member of PAC. My address is 9401 Biscayne Boulevard. I am here in favor of 3A, the Mental Health Center. I am asking, please, please, vote in favor of the much-needed resource. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. And Stephen Dutton? Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. My name is Stephen Dutton. My address is 244 Biscayne Boulevard, apartment 3906. My friend and neighbor, Christina Palomo, wanted to be here today. She wrote a letter to each of you, I believe, in the last day. She gave me a copy and said, Steve, would you read it for the record? And so, with your permission, I'll do that right now as part of my comments. She says, This facility will help fill a gaping hole in services for those struggling with chronic mental illness within our community, and ultimately save the taxpayers money by providing services at a lesser cost than what it would cost to cycle many of these individuals in and out of the prison system, which, as Eldest Diaz says, is happening today. It will also provide a more robust continuum of care and increased probability of rehabilitation for the population it will serve. I urge you to consider the significant financial resources already invested in this much-needed facility, and more importantly, the transformative impact it will have on so many lives. Please ensure it advances to fruition. This was the letter that she sent to you recently, and I thank you for allowing me to read it. But I want to close with my comments. Yesterday, I attended the History Museum's Icon Awards Ceremony and met with Mayor Cava and several of the leaders in our community. The museum's board were there, and the chair made welcoming comments that struck me as very relevant to this issue. In the welcoming comments, he said, we all must remember the history. It's important to recall the history of our community. But let's not be, then he added, but it's certainly not past history that's the most important, for history is made every day and into the future of Miami-Dade, and we should celebrate efforts to make our community history as bright and as successful as we can. Committee members, please realize that the future history of the Miami Center for Mental Health and Recovery begins today with your unanimous vote and a strong recommendation to the full commission for passage of the Resolution 3A sponsored by Commissioner Regalado to open the center as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dutton. Okay, I don't have any more speaker cards, but before we close the reasonable opportunity, is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak? Please do so at this time. Okay, seeing none, we can close the reasonable opportunity we heard at this time. Madam Chair, would you like to see if any members of the committee would like to pull any items? Yes. Before voting on the agenda? Do we have any items that you'd like to pull or bifurcate? Yeah, I guess we'll pull the 3A, the mental health one. Madam Chair, 3A and 2J, please. Oh, Madam Chair, I also have another one. Just, you know, we have a couple of different lease extensions from, I'm sorry, 2Cs, 2Cs, 2Cs, 2Es. Can I just pull one of them? I'll pull 2Cs just to ask a question and make sure we put something on the record. Okay, so I have 2J, I have 2C, 2J, and 3A. Just one of them will be fine. Oh, I think just one of those extensions. Okay, so with that, do I have a motion to? Madam Chair, with the motion to set the agenda, this board will defer items 2A, pass the balance of the agenda including 3C with the exception of 1F1, 1F2, which are your discussion items, item 2C, item 2J, and items 3A and 3A substitute. Motion to set the agenda is in order at this time. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, so can we go ahead and take the UM leases at this time so that we can dispense of those? So, Senator Garcia. Thank you. You're recognized on your poll. On 2C. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate that. I recently had a meeting with the folks at the University of Miami in Jackson, and I think what we're trying to accomplish is a good thing. I think what we're trying to do with the collaboration between Jackson and the hospital is extremely important. We've had a rich relationship up until now. It hasn't always been the best, but right now we're in a good place, and I think what we're trying to accomplish in having this hospital district, a health care district, is extremely important, not only for both institutions, but for the delivery of health care in our community. I do want to ask a question, and I asked this question privately, but I want to make sure we put this on the record. If I can have someone from either the University of Miami or Jackson, I'll both come up. And the question was in particular in reference to the community benefits. You know, we understand the University of Miami is a private institution, and we're looking for extension of these leases, which, again, I'm in favor of, but I want to make sure that the community understands what we as a community are getting for the extension of these leases as it relates to either community benefits or the delivery of health care, and how is this partnership going to be more solidified to ensure that we continue to develop excellent health care to the residents, especially the uninsured and the underinsured. Carlos Migoya, CEO of Jackson Health, for the time being. The partnership between Jackson and the University of Miami go back 74 years, to 1952 when the medical school was first formed. Throughout that entire time, there's been always a relationship between both institutions to support the mission of Jackson, which is to provide the best quality of health care for all Miami-Dade residents, regardless of their ability to pay. That has never been in question in 74 years. Even on the darkest times of the relationship between UM and Jackson, that's always been at the forefront of making sure that all Miami-Dade residents get the best health care from both Jackson and the University of Miami. As we look at the next 15 to 25 years, which is what the whole purpose of the investments that we're talking about here and the billions and billions of dollars, is to make sure that we continue to not only continue to serve the mission, but to expand and provide the best quality of health care available in the United States and probably the world, but at least the United States, for all residents, including those that are underinsured or uninsured. Yes, go ahead. Can we hear from the University of Miami? Good morning. And if we can, just try to... Nice to see you, Commissioner. Same here, my friend. God bless you. So, Manny Cadre, I'm here in my role as chair of the University of Miami, 2020 Salzito Street in Coral Gables. It's a great question. The University of Miami and Jackson are one. I know that that has not always been the case, and you're right about that. I think since Carlos took the job now almost 15 years ago, that relationship has been solidified. We are ready to invest in excess of $5 billion into the health district. At the core of that mission is taking care of the most unfortunate people in our community. We would not be doing it. Miami, and in particular the health district, is critical to the development of the county as a whole, to the city as a whole. We have been extremely supportive of Jackson's mission. That mission cannot be accomplished by either one of us separately. It's a mission that can only be accomplished with the two institutions together. I never, ever think of the University of Miami and Jackson as two separate entities. We are one, and this investment is really designed. You've heard of what Carlos and David and the team are doing towards their emergency room that is being built, a world-class emergency room to serve the least fortunate in our community. The University of Miami is not only behind that with philanthropy from our board, but with the support of the university as a whole. It's a great question, but one that you should not be concerned about. When I think about the most transformational things that you will see in this community, when you look back on your tenure in this job, this creation of this health district, with a $5 billion-plus investment, will be at the core of what you'll be proud of. Madam Chair, it's safe to say that the relationship will continue to exist as it relates to our underserved population, our underinsured and uninsured population, to be able to access specialty and health care providers, both at Jackson and at the University of Miami. The relationship will continue to be a symbiotic relationship, not only where we share in medical, graduate medical education and so forth, in residencies through Jackson, but that relationship also comes back in where we can also deliver health care to the individuals who are underinsured and uninsured in our community. It'll be symbiotic and thriving, I can assure you. I move the item, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. And Carlos, thank you so much. Madam Chair, if I can. Yes. Mr. Magoya, thank you very much for your service to this community. I think hopefully you'll still be here when this gets to the full board. You have done a transformative job at Jackson Memorial Hospital. I was one that questioned it early on, but I really thank you, my friend, for the work that you have done and for changing my mind about you and your involvement with health care. You have done a phenomenal job, and because of you, Jackson is where it is today. So God bless you, my friend. Godspeed. Thank you. Thanks for seeing us today. Thank you. So we had a motion and a second on 2C. All in favor? Thank you. And with that, if my colleagues don't have any issues, can we have a motion to send 2C through 2I and 3C to the February 18 BCC meeting so that we can move those along? Okay. Do we have a motion on that? Okay. All in favor? Perfect. So show those items the desire of this committee to move it to the next BCC meeting. Okay. So with that, we are going to take a moment now, and because I know that some folks need to leave, we are going to go ahead into the discussion item 1F2 with the update on the FIFA economic and fiscal impact presentation, which was brought to us by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. So I will turn it over to you, Commissioner. Thank you, Madam Chair. And if I can take a moment to congratulate you and our colleague, Commissioner Lopez, I look forward to working with both of you as co-chairs on this very important committee, and congratulations to you both in your new roles. And thank you both for allowing this agenda item to come before us today. Okay. Uh, FIFA, as you know, is fastly approaching, and I know there are a lot of good people doing a lot of great work towards making sure that our community is not only prepared, um, but to make sure that our community is very safe during, uh, FIFA. Um, it's also no secret that the funding that was approved by this board, um, some time ago drew, um, some level of questions and controversy. And so I thought it would be beneficial to both the FIFA host committee as well as this body to allow you the opportunity to share your progress, share where you are financially, share what you have done with those public dollars and do it as transparently and as much in the light as possible so that everybody can be on the same page regarding where that funding is being earmarked and directed. So thank you for being here. And I did receive your report that was on our desk, I think, a couple of days before we asked for this presentation. So you've essentially prepared for it because a lot of it is in your report. But I would be very interested if you would share the status of the funding coming from Miami-Dade County, whether it's been spent and if so, how and if it hasn't been spent yet, what are the plans for those dollars as we get very, very close to FIFA joining our community? Thank you, Commissioner. And thank you, Madam Co-Chairs and Honorable Commission. Senator, I'm Alina Hudak. I'm the president and CEO of the Miami Host Committee. And I stand here before you again as part of your family. I am honored to represent a private nonprofit created by the leadership in this community of 24 plus volunteers that are dedicated to implementing the bid requirements that were made. And for the purpose of bringing the World Cup here. And I'm joined this morning by our chief operating officer, Ray Martinez, and also by a member of our executive committee, David Whitaker, who is a true partner in this endeavor. I bring you nothing but good news, and I think that we should all be extraordinarily proud. And it's very opportune that we are having this conversation today, most especially on the heels of the CFP National Championship and Miami being the host. Because I think all of us can understand the value and the importance of hosting, excuse me, national sporting events and, you know, preparing to host a global sporting event of this magnitude. Probably the most significant global sporting event in this country this year in preparation, obviously, for the United States hosting the Olympics as well. So I bring you really good news from the perspective of our total funding picture. Most of our public funding has been wrapped up, and Miami-Dade County is our greatest partner, and we appreciate that. Not only the support that we receive financially, but the support that we're receiving in kind. And I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the leadership provided by the mayor's team and the mayor's office. We meet on a biweekly basis with members of your staff and of your department leadership in preparation. We discuss everything from public transportation to public safety issues, your fire department, your emergency management department, the sheriff's office. We work collaboratively. Again, I've been on board now a year, and we meet on a regular basis in preparation for all the things that have to be done. For those that are not following the World Cup, it's important that everyone understand that in June, July, a time of year that in our community we know that tourism is not what we want it to be, we will have a significant economic impact to our community, 30-plus days of activations, seven matches. Specific to the matches, we know now, we didn't know this until December, who will be here for the first four matches, the group stages. And then after the group stages, we will have a match that is a round of 32. We will have a quarterfinal, and we will also host a bronze match. I can tell you that very significantly in speaking about economic impact and fiscal impact to our community, one of our matches is the single most requested match in the world. On June 27th, in our community, we will host Colombia and Portugal, and that match, in and of itself, is the single most popular match in the world. There are 16 host cities in the North American continent, 11 in the United States, and in Miami, we are hosting the single most popular match. The second match that we will be hosting here that's in the top five is Brazil and Scotland. So I think that clearly illustrates the significance of the economic impact during that time period, and I can tell you that we're busy preparing for that. In our contractual relationship, we are required. There is a schedule that was negotiated as part of our discussions that speaks very specifically to what we can use our county funding for, and that schedule outlines the different functions that we're responsible for and what you are expecting us to deliver. And we are very busy delivering that, and the schedule is referred to affectionately as Attachment F, and it outlines not only specifically a description of what you are funding, and they include the fan festival and viewing parties, volunteer program, transportation, media promotion, marketing, and community relations, and a portion of our administrative support and overhead. And I can tell you, and there are specific allocations to each of those categories. And in the report that you received, which you will receive on a quarterly basis, we provide you with documentation and a report on how those activities have, in fact, been addressed. To date, we have spent approximately $3.8 million of the $21 million. And in the report that you received, you will see not only a description of how that was spent, but you will also see proof of payment and all the requirements that are, in fact, in the contract. And, again, I'm happy to spend any amount of quality time with each of you to walk you through that report. We will be providing you with those reports on a quarterly basis through the end of the tournament. Multiple things that we're working on. A transportation mobility plan. And Lisa Comaneros happens to be here from your staff. And I can tell you that in the United States and in the work that we're doing with other host cities, Miami-Dade County's leadership is shining bright. And Lisa and the team, Stacy's team, and the team, Jimmy Morales is here as well, have really worked incredibly well with us to supplement and to prepare and to provide to FIFA the required deliverables that we are required to deliver as a community for purposes of meeting the needs of the transportation planning. Public safety, same thing. Our sheriff's office is front and center. Ray has been instrumental in providing leadership. We are one of the host cities that will be receiving significant federal funding to support our public safety mission. We, as a host committee, are working diligently with the White House Task Force in preparation for that and what that will look like. We will probably have more information before the delivery of our next quarterly report as to what that number looks like. And we are working very closely with all the departments that are supporting officially sanctioned World Cup events to be able to reimburse those agencies for the work that they will be doing on behalf of the World Cup. So there are a whole host of activities that are being planned. Our fan festival will be held at Bayfront Park. The city of Miami has been a true partner and has also come to the table with significant financial and in-kind resources. The fan festival at Bayfront Park will be held for 23-plus days. We were very intentional about how those decisions were made, and we made a very conscious decision to do the fan festival on the front end of the World Cup because that's when you have the greatest number of opportunity for viewing. It will be an opportunity for our community, our residents, our visitors, and really people who are traveling, people who don't have a ticket to the World Cup, to be able to view the matches, to participate in the energy and in the passion of the game. And we hope to be able to host, again, the world at our fan fest. Over and above the fan fest, once we close the fan fest after July 5th, we intend and we are in the process of looking at regional opportunities to have viewing parties and viewing fan experiences throughout our region. Obviously, we're very interested in partnering with all of you in the unincorporated parts of Dade County to be able to make sure that everyone in our community feels a part of fan fest. We have been working not only with FIFA on a local business directory, excuse me, I'm fighting a cold, but also with actually the Miami-Dade County small business operation. Excuse me. And we actually hosted a workshop thanks to the Port of Miami for hosting us. We had over 300-plus local businesses participate in that workshop during this quarter. We worked with Verizon, a commercial partner of FIFA's, and another opportunity that was also hosted in Wynwood. And so at every opportunity that we've had, we've spread the message of what a World Cup means to our community, not only from the perspective of RFP opportunities, but also from the perspective of being ready for what the private sector is going to be doing in preparation for parties. We know that the hospitality industry needs to be ready, but it's very important that those small businesses in our community understand, thank you so much, understand what opportunities there might be for them that are outside of the scope of what the host committee is actually responsible for. I think I've said a lot. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have, but again, I welcome the opportunity to meet with you privately or in public to talk about the work that we're doing. Very important, yesterday we announced our partnership with Royal Caribbean. We're thrilled to have Royal Caribbean as our partner. Our announcement is all over our social media pages, so I certainly hope that you like it and share it. And we look forward to future partnerships. We're in the process of negotiating four additional supporters that we hope to announce very soon and look forward to, again, continuing to work with all of you as we prepare for this legacy moment in our community. Thank you. Yes, go ahead, Commissioner. Madam Chair, thank you. And thank you for that comprehensive report. Two things. As I look at your attachment A on the dollars pledged and the dollars received by your host committee, to date, it only lists public dollars. And it was my understanding when we passed the funding from the county that you all needed that funding in order to support, right, being able to fundraise from the private sector. So are you all active? I know it's a 24-member board, but how much and are you actively soliciting from the private sector, and when do you anticipate those dollars coming in? We have been actively soliciting in the private sector. I would guess, off the top of my head, probably 60-plus active contacts that have been made in my tenure. We most recently hired a new chief commercial officer. Our previous commercial officer actually accepted a position in Houston with an MLS team. We, again, as I mentioned, announced the partnership with Royal yesterday. That negotiation took almost a year, and we're about to hopefully announce four additional negotiations. And then outside of the category that FIFA defines as a supporter, there are categories known as donors. And in that category, we also have partnerships and relationships that are being finalized. Those are all very important to us and complete the picture of our total funding. I will tell you that the commercial partnership is extraordinarily challenging. As I've briefed most of you individually, FIFA has commercial partnerships that they value and that have tremendous value. And because of that, they block host cities across the North American continent, not just Miami, from pursuing industries that are part of their commercial program. And so what that has done for a community like Miami, it really limits our ability to be able to pursue those commercial relationships. And the number of industries that we're able to tap are significantly diminished. But all that being said, we have been successful. And hopefully within the next month and a half, we will be able to announce some additional private sector partners. Thank you for that. And final thought, as you all build out your activations, I'm grateful to hear that Bayfront Park will be central and that we'll be present for 23 days. I hope that you will work with the commissioners to make sure that those activations are spread out countywide so that each of our districts are benefiting from those dollars and making sure that as many residents as possible throughout Miami-Dade County, North, South, West, and East are all able to participate in these activations and be able to spread those dollars out countywide as much as possible. But I look forward to working with you on that. I know there is some efforts towards that end. But thank you for being here, particularly that you're under the weather. Your report is very comprehensive and you have much more in writing, and I greatly appreciate you providing that. Thank you, Commissioner. Sure, my pleasure. I look forward to working with you, all of you. Thank you, Alina. Is there any further discussion from my colleagues? No? Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, for being proactive and bringing this to the board early in the year. Thank you, Alina. Anything else? Okay. Okay. So, well, first of all, I'd like to acknowledge that South Miami Mayor Javier Fernandez is here, so welcome and thank you for being here with us. And with that, we can jump to 2J, which was pulled by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I pulled to Jay just to – I did see the mayor, and I welcomed him here. I know that this is the potential creation of a new CRA, and it's going through the process of creating the CRA. And I'm pulling the item simply on the heels of our administration's report regarding the fiscal impact of these CRAs. But I am particularly interested in the makeup of the body of this potential CRA. Can either a representative of the potential CRA or someone that is here to speak on the item speak to who will make the actual body of the CRA that's instructive for me on my particular vote? I know that we have my colleague, Commissioner Regalado, present. I appreciate the mayor approaching the podium. It is completely indifferent to me who answers the question, but I do want an articulation on the record of who will make up the body of this CRA. Thank you, Madam Chair. Go ahead, Mayor, please. Madam Chair, good morning. Members of the committee. Excuse me. Pleasure to be here. Javier Fernandez, Mayor of South Miami, for the record. I think we are proposed to follow the standard protocol under your, I think it's your administrative order, which would have the municipal electeds serve as the body along with a county representative. So I believe that was the last posture of our discussion or local. Does that suffice? Yes. Okay. Do we have any further discussion? So with that, I'll entertain a motion on this. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. We can make the motion to approve. I'm fine with it. Did you have something? Yes, ma'am. I didn't see you. Go ahead. Yes. We had a big, long discussion about the CRAs, and we remember we had that amendment and so forth. I just want to make sure. Mayor, by the way, it's a great proposal. I'm going to vote for it. Something about tech freaking him out, so I'm not going to vote for this. Anyway, so, Mr. Mayor, when we look at the funds and how they're going to be utilized, are we going to keep in line with making sure that these dollars are going to be used for infrastructure and to stay in line with what the county's priorities will look like will be as well? To the chair, commissioner, or senator, excuse me. Yes, the very narrowly focused CRA, we've been working very hard with our county commissioner to keep it narrowly focused on infrastructure enhancements. A significant portion will benefit county assets, since what we're trying to do is adhere to the county's direction, which is to help our town center near the transit station grow. So we will be investing in water and sewer upgrades, transit, and other items, and, again, infrastructure is the sole focus. Commissioner Regalado, yes. Thank you. You're recognized. Just to echo what the mayor was saying, this CRA, like I mentioned when we had the conversation about the CRAs, is very different from the CRAs that the county has. This is modeled after the Midtown CRA. This CRA is going to be funding infrastructure that the county is responsible for funding and does not fund. It is also going to add residential to an area that is purely commercial. So there's a tremendous amount of residential that is part of this rezoning, and that cannot be sustained with the current infrastructure. So the county is responsible for the roads, for the water and sewer, and the CRA will be taking that on. And as the mayor mentioned, it will also be redoing the metro rail station. For those of you who recall, we were talking about the metro rail stations. I have gone along my corridor redoing all of those stations outside the half penny without any cost to transit, with the exception of the Dadeland Intermobile. The only one that's left is South Miami, and that one will be covered and reoriented by this CRA. So I think we've been very thoughtful in going through and ensuring that it is a very reduced purpose CRA, and that it also has very low administrative costs, because we don't want this entity to exist forever, similar to the Midtown one. It's just going to collect funding, bond, do the infrastructure, and be done. Thank you for that, Commissioner. Go ahead. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Regalado, and thank you, Mayor, for your comments. I appreciate the narrow scope, and I appreciate the investment focus on infrastructure. I'm fully going to support this item. Commissioner Regalado, you mentioned something that you've mentioned before, and I'm wondering if it's included in the item regarding the administrative costs. And when we talk about CRAs generally, I know that you've previously proposed an idea of capping administrative costs. So is administrative costs capped in this particular item? Yes. To the Chair, if I just may add, for the record, I think today's item is just the FON. So it's not reflected in today's analysis, and I know that there's a pretty significant fiscal attached to it. I do want to say two things. One, on the administrative side, yes, there is a cap. It's 1.5% beyond, I think, year 5. In the years, we have a fixed number just because there are initially some startup costs. I also want to note that this is our only growth area in South Miami. This is where our focus is all of our new development. And so for us, also, the fiscal impact is very real. So while it's modeled at 95%, the interlocal that we have transmitted to the county, essentially we have the district operate as a 50% tax income in district, since we will be returning dollars to your general fund for the vast majority, if not almost all of the parcels in the district. And I'll add to that. Thank you. Commissioner, did you want to answer? Yeah. Yeah. So in our negotiations, we've already capped it. It's not in this item. It's in the interlocal that's moving that will come back. It can't be in this item. But we're also adding a significant amount of property value. So we're going from commercial to commercial, mixed-use, and residential. So we've all done the math on that. The county actually gains a lot more than it's losing. So we're happy to bring that when we bring the next item. We have all the projections in the next item that show the county's investment, what we're focusing on, and the long-term implications in terms of the money that's going to come back to the county as a result of this redevelopment. We've been negotiating this for a long time, and the reality is given the infrastructure need, we couldn't do this level of redevelopment without the CRA. That's just the bottom line, because we need so much infrastructure, and the county does not have the ability to do either the water and sewer or the road work that we need in order for this development to happen. So that's why the CRA is really essential in that. But long-term, it's a very good investment for the county and for South Miami. Thank you. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for answering those questions. And I'll close by saying this. As you know, Mayor, because I'm sure you watch our meetings, there's a lot of discussion about CRAs. There's a lot of memos circulating, talking about fiscal impact, et cetera. I think you have an opportunity, along with your sponsoring commissioner, to use this CRA, frankly, as a model moving forward. That is how valuable I see this CRA. And it's distinguishing features, right? You're capping administrative costs. You're only dealing with elected officials in the area, so on and so forth, dealing with infrastructure improvements that are absolute and absolutely necessary. So I just wanted to comment on that because, again, when we are doing things in a way that gives us consternation, we're very vocal about it. It's not often that we do the opposite and say, wait a minute. This may be a standard of how we move forward in this space in the future, particularly because it's a topic of conversation that is so frequently being had by this board. So I thank you for your work. I thank the district commissioner for her work. And I'm happy to – I think it's been moved, happy to second it, and hopefully it will move forward with sailing success. Madam Chair, I'll just say thank you for your consideration of the item. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we have a motion and a second on 2J. All in favor? Aye. Okay. And then we have 3A that was pulled, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, and I think Commissioner Gonzalez as well. You pulled it, yeah. Commissioner Gonzalez. I did pull it. I think all of my colleagues and I think everybody knows how I feel about this project. I think that this project is not only a good one, but I think that it's a possible standard for the future. I want to start by acknowledging the good work that has been done in Miami-Dade County because oftentimes we don't talk about progress. We only talk about what we need to do to move forward, but it's important to acknowledge how we got here and all the great things that have been done. And so I want to specifically thank the Homeless Trust because the Homeless Trust, along with a lot of our community-based organizations, and we just talked about this in the Appropriations Committee, they do a phenomenal job at assisting our homeless population right here in Miami-Dade County. And just to notate that, and I promise, colleagues, I'm not trying to be long-winded, but there is a point. In order to notate that, I want to point out the numbers. See, Miami-Dade County is the major metropolitan area in the United States. Thus, we would compare it with other major metropolitan areas. Los Angeles, for example, with billions of dollars in funding, Los Angeles County's homeless population rose 72,200 people in 2025, with 46,000 still unsheltered. There's no funding issue there. They have billions in funding, yet these are the numbers. In San Francisco, they've reported 8,323 homeless in 2024. These are people, real people, with 3,400 of those individuals being unsheltered. In Miami-Dade County, by contrast, it's still sad to see this number, but we have to acknowledge the good efforts that are being done by our tremendous CBOs and by the Homeless Trust. Because in Miami-Dade, it's been reported 1,068 unsheltered out of a total of 3,570 total homeless in 2025. The question before us is, how do we tackle that number? We've done a tremendous job in getting to where we are and in helping as many people as possible. But since January of 2015, the number of unsheltered homeless has fluctuated only slightly, remaining with 800 to 1,000 within that range year to year, reflecting a persistent, chronically unsheltered population and a pattern of population hardening seen nationwide. So, this leads me to think about the Housing First policy that we've implemented in Miami-Dade County. Now, this is not a knock on the Housing First policy. We have to acknowledge the tremendous work that has been done to get here. I'm actually very happy to see in the amendment, and I haven't had a chance to read the entire thing, but I'm going through it. I am going to ask some questions about the funding source because I don't think any of my colleagues are in the spirit of putting up a project and just leaving it up there with the hopes that it won't fail but not identifying a funding source. I don't think that that is a good approach. I think that the best approach, in my humble opinion, is, in my opinion, something like this is necessary, and we need to figure out where that funding is going to come from. So, I'm happy to see that the Homeless Trust is going to be contributing because, again, we need to look at how we're approaching the homeless issue in Miami-Dade. And so, over the Christmas break, many of you may have seen the video of Tyler Chase. And if I can have the video played to our wonderful comms team, if we can please play the video. Cue the video. So, for those who did not, he's a former child actor whose situation went viral over the Christmas break on Twitter. I remember watching this young man being a phenomenal actor on Nickelodeon when I was growing up. And it was a very unfortunate sight to see this young man now on the streets. And so, you would think, how does somebody like that, who comes from Hollywood, comes from Nickelodeon, who knows plenty of people with hearts to help, how does somebody like that end up on the streets? And so, one of his former co-stars, who also appeared in Nickelodeon with him, stepped in to try to help. If we can play the video of the co-star and if we can have audio on this video, please. Folks, if we can have the audio, please. Hotel situation. We got Tyler's shelter. Hooray. Everyone's happy. Tyler's happy. Not the case. Guys, we got him into the hotel, and just that night, I receive a call from management. They're upset. The door is left open. Why is there a microwave in the tub? The refrigerator's turned open. I just feel so devastated. I'm at a loss. And his family told me that they had tried the hotel thing before and it didn't work. And, of course, Dan, why did you assume that you were going to be able to, you know, just fix this situation? I don't even think we should be at this point, guys. Three nights ago, when we tried to get him to the hospital, the authorities should have – I don't understand how a system could be in place, right? We have all these social systems where help should be provided for these people facing mental health issues, drug abuse issues, right? Taxpayers vote on this stuff all the time. 5150 exists. A third party should be able to get someone into treatment, get them a psychological evaluation to figure out what is going on and allow them to detox. I'm just crushed that these systems are not working effectively. They're not quality systems. And so the reason I bring this up is because this young man fell into mental health issues and drug issues. This young man was provided a hotel room and a bed to go to. Unfortunately, because of the mental health issue, because of the illness, the hotel room didn't work. The room was trashed. And unfortunately, within 48 hours, he's back on the streets. That poses an even more concerning issue of what happens if this young man is incarcerated. How does that help anybody? And I have been in communication with our corrections department who has explained to me that there is a partnership with a major hospital in order to get some of this mental health treatment to our inmates, which I think is extremely necessary. But the reason I bring all of this up is because in our appropriations committee, we're trying to figure out a metrics in order to fund the many, many, because there are many, the many needs in Miami-Dade County. And so when we look at individuals like Tyler and we look at the number of folks that we have on the streets, we can decipher that there is a small population that's not being taken care of. And so let's look at the statistics in 2024, 44% of those in the homeless trust continuum of care self-reported a serious mental health illness. A report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reported that 38% of homeless individuals in Florida are alcoholic dependent and 26% misuse drugs. From 2007 to 2022, homelessness decreased nationally by about 10%. However, in California, where politicians have been imposing the housing first model primarily, primarily, most of the funding has gone to the housing first model for years, homelessness increased by 31.6%. And so I'm happy to see that the homeless trust is helping, and that just shows you the heart of the homeless trust. They really want to solve the problem. And I think that that's what we're all looking for. We're all looking for CBOs, organizations, folks with good hearts that really want to solve the problem, not just put up an organization and put it up. I'm not going to be bold enough to say that I know Judge Leifman's heart, but I've seen his work. And I can attest that, in my opinion, this is a man that really wants to make a difference. And God knows I want to help you make that difference, brother. I really do. Now, this leads me to the elephant in the room. I love the fact that this new amendment, and again, I haven't had the time to go through the entirety of it, but I love the fact that this amendment points to a partial funding source. Right? So we have two years, and we have the homeless trust kicking in, and we have the opioids kicking in. What happens after those two years? And that's the real conversation we need to have today, because I think that not only is this a noble cause, it could be a standard for the entire nation. I think this is something that is necessary, but, and I can anticipate where some of my colleagues are going to be at, because we're all in the spirit of fiscal responsibility, especially with the hard decisions that will be made during this budget cycle. And we're just made in the last budget cycle. So we need to figure out how this is going to continue after those two years and where that funding source is going to come from. One suggestion that I'd like to make is looking at that food and beverage tax. And obviously, I'm not the only one looking at this, because the homeless trust themselves are saying, hey, let's take some of our funding, and let's try to see if we can help with the project. But I'm happy to hear from my colleagues. I'd like to figure out where we can find the fiscal contribution for this, because I don't see this passing without an economic funding source. And this is the time for us to find that economic funding source for something that I think that is very needed. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Senator, did you want to – I think you pulled it as well. Yeah, I did, and I have an amendment to kind of address that. I think we saw the late-filed amendment last night's amendment from Commissioner Regaloli may have some synergies. And I, too, you know, look, we have to understand and recognize the reality of this building. And the reason it's taken so long is because a lot of it has been the financial implication to the county. While I hear constantly that we're saving the county money, I think a little bit that might be a misnomer. I think we have to invest money. I get it's going to cost us money, but to say that it's savings, it costs savings, I don't necessarily think that's an accurate statement. However, we do have to invest in our community, and it's okay to invest. And we do recognize that we are using the opioid dollars for the first two-and-a-half years of funding for this building. Again, we could have used those dollars to invest in other areas in our community, but I do recognize the importance of helping the severely mentally ill population, the SMI population, through a jail diversion program. We have to be careful when we hear individuals in our community say that this is going to help everyone in our community. No, it's helping us target a population, a small population that is costing us a significant amount of dollars and resources, both at the police and in the court system and jail system. This is why the amendment that we have before you, members, is something that I think I would like to see added to this bill. And also, one of the things, the heartburn that people have when we look at community involvement and people are saying, oh, you guys have to do this, we have to do something that it takes a balanced approach. We have to look at the needs of a community plus the resources that we have on the financial side. We can't put an undue burden on our community, on the taxpayers, especially when we see what's happening. This is why, when I started off, I said it's okay to invest in this population. It's okay to do that. It's no – because we have – we invest in other things. We invested in FIFA, for God's sakes. So I think it's important to understand it's okay to do this investment, but let's just be 100 percent transparent with this. The one thing, members, that we have to look to is the sustainability long range of this building. This is, I think, where the consternation and concern comes from most of us. So the only way I see this working is to make sure to be – have a true public-private partnership, bring some private providers to try to fill some of the other beds that we have, the other floors that can treat not only the severely mentally ill population, but also have access to individuals in our communities and work with other providers in our community. I recognize that what we've done here, we have two folks right now, two different entities that are going to be running the building. I'm not necessarily sure that they're the right fit for it, but I don't want to stop this moving forward. I think it's important that we try to – if we get my amendment on, I commit to continue to work to make sure that we have the right providers in place to ensure that we do have a building that can start addressing the issues with the jail-divergent population. I also want to be clear when we talk about that population. There is a percentage of that population that is in jail currently that will not qualify for this building. This is for moving forward, individuals moving forward that do get – have access or interaction with our law enforcement. My whole goal when we talk about mental health and when we talk about substance abuse and behavioral health should be have a system that is good for all. Judge Leifman, I recognize what you're doing in trying to address the SMI population, the homeless population. It's notable. I've been involved with you from the beginning, and everything that I've done in mental health, Judge Leifman, has begun because of you. I've been involved with this from the onset. It's sadly, Commissioner Heyman. You made that phone call in Tallahassee when we were having some issues with this, so I appreciate you. And this is why I know where we're trying to get to. I think it's just finding out some of the funding moving forward. So, Madam Chair, I do have an amendment that I would like to proffer at this time if it's okay with you so we can try to get this moving forward. Thank you, Senator. I'm going to – let's listen from the rest of our colleagues, and then we can take the amendment. Go ahead, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to those who are present speaking on item 3A. Similar to the previous committee hearing, I am going to refer to our previous committee hearing on this particular item. In our appropriations committee, there was an item that came before us a second time that did not have amendments despite the committee requesting some changes or some additional information, and I had some reservations during that committee hearing about procedurally how we were moving forward on that. And so, in similar tone on this, this item came before us originally on December 10th. There was a lot of urgency, if you recall. We would lose funding. There's a new state law regarding unhoused people on our streets, and, you know, we needed to do it. Then we would lose funding. This new law is going to kick in. We had to do it then. And this committee was very specific, or I think it was a separate committee, but a number of us are here, that sat on that other committee. So it's substantially similar. There was a lot of discussion about what we needed to see as a board in order to advance the item. And as a result, what was proposed and accepted during the December 10th committee hearing was advancing the item without a recommendation with an understanding that we would receive the information that we were requesting as a body in order to feel comfortable supporting the item. And then it is now before us today, and it is my understanding that there are amendments to the item. And I'm grateful to the sponsor and to our administration for making those amendments. But in all candor, I didn't receive those amendments until two minutes before this hearing commenced. And that is of great concern to me because, again, the item was advanced out of our December 10th committee. It's now February 4th. So I'm concerned regarding amendments dropping right before, and that's okay. But I don't know what the amendments say. So I need somebody to share with me what the amendments are that are before us because I have not had a chance to review them. I understand the most substantive amendment to be that the proposal now instead of a five-year proposal is a two-year proposal because that is what we have money for currently. So my first question to our administration is, is the substance or the most substantial amendment that is before us for a vote today is an amended item that reduces the time frame on this proposed facility from a five-year proposed plan, an understanding that we would fund it from the general fund at a deficit moving after year three because that was the financials that we received initially to now a proposal to only have this project advance for two years? I'm through the chair. I think if the county attorney could speak to the substitute and the amendment, that may help the commissioner understand what's been submitted. Yes. Thank you. Commissioner, the substitute reduces the term of the contracts to two years. There is also a floor amendment that is proposed by Commissioner Garcia, and if you'd like, Senator Garcia, I can read it. No, to my question, I have Commissioner Garcia's floor amendment. I'm asking about, and I appreciate those amendments. I definitely am interested in having a discussion about those. I'm asking about the item that is before us as a substitute that we received, you know, shortly before the hearing. The change is a reduction in the time frame, correct? Yes. With the reduction in the amounts of the contracts that are also lower because it's a shorter amount of time. Okay. And so there's another change. What is the? It is a pure pilot program. It does not have a renewal. Okay. And I think, Madam Chair, did you want to speak? I just don't want to lose the quorum here. Yeah. So I want to make sure that the conversations between the committee members and staff or attorneys, and then we'll acknowledge as needed. Thank you. Thank you. And to the attorneys, is that, I mean, I don't have any reason to disagree with it being accurate, but I'm asking for an articulation on the record of what the substantial changes are because I haven't had a chance to review them. So two years and a pilot program. Is that accurate? Two years, no options to renew. What do we do after year two? What is the plan? We have a proposal to fill 75 beds. We have funding for two years. And I asked this in December 10th. And the answer that was given was we'll just put them back in the jails. Is that the plan? That we are taking under this item to house 75 severely mentally ill residents of our community for a period of no more than two years, and then put them back in the jails? That's a sec. I have more questions, but I'm asking what is the plan after year two? Through the chair, I would like for Director Burgos to be a part of the conversation. Please do. Yes, Madam Director. Yes. Good afternoon, commissioners and chair. To answer your question, commissioner, thank you so much for that question. The plan is within this two-year period, we will have a partnership with University of Miami who will be collecting the data. So we will be able to, that two-year plan, we will be able to come back to this board with outcome data. So accurate data showing the success of the program. And what, with that data, what does it do regarding the financial bottom line of the projections that we received on December 10th showing a $9 million deficit at year three? So with that data, we'll be able to come back and give you the recommendation from University of Miami, and you will be able to see. Because let me go back a little bit, this two-year plan includes a menu of funding streams. So within that menu, you have the opiates funding, which is the majority of it, right? So when we come back two years from now, we would be able to show if the funding streams that we are applying to the services, if we're being successful as we're serving the population. So we'll be able to come back with a full plan, but most importantly, showing accurate data to show the success of the programming. Okay, and I appreciate an articulation a second time over that the metrics will show success. I'm still not clear on how we fund it beyond year two, and that's the crux of my question. How do we fund it after year two? Again, I'm relying on the data that I was given on December 10th that showed we couldn't afford it beyond year two. And so I'm not hearing any new information between December 10th and February 4th on how we're going to pay for it. I get that we'll have data and metrics. Maybe we'll open up more grant funding that will be accessible. I understand what you're saying. Okay. At our December 10th hearing, and this is to our chief, Denise, there was a lot of discussion, and I had articulated my concern regarding there being a lack of articulation of the savings that everyone is talking about on this item, including our members of the public and those that have been spearheading this project for many, many years. And I said during that hearing, I don't understand why, right, we don't have something more concrete articulating these savings that everyone is so heavily reliant upon. And to the sponsor's credit, she said, you know, I understand that we've gone through different iterations. And she said, you know, essentially, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, to the sponsor, she understood that concern. But it was to be amended to bring an item back to us reflecting these articulated savings. And then subsequent to that, Chief Denise, if you will recall the phone call that I had with you and our then Chief Reyes, and it was a very frank conversation that we had on the phone. And the conversation is one that I want to have a discussion about on the microphone because I was very clear during that conversation that took place shortly after the December 10th committee hearing because it wasn't you. And to his defense, he's not here. He's at our city of Miami now. God bless him. We do love Chief Reyes. He said on that call, and I want you to please correct me if I'm wrong, Chief Denise, you know, I was asking for an articulation on the record of please share with me how these perceived savings are going to be realized by our county and how we will then be able to afford it as a result of these savings. And Chief Reyes said, Commissioner, we can't afford it. We can't afford it. There are no savings. And he said there are no savings because he went on to explain that in corrections, if you remove 75 bodies that are severely mentally ill and affected and are moved into this center, that doesn't reduce the cost of the Department of Corrections unless you are closing an entire unit within the Department of Corrections. Whoever those officers are that were caring for those 75 individuals that are now being housed in this building, they're still employed. They're still working unless you close an entire unit. And so to our new director, to our new chief, and welcome. And again, Carla, Denise, is that the way the conversation went? Did Reyes say to me there are no savings? And then went through an explanation as to how corrections works and the fact that unless you are laying off employees or moving them to other departments, unless you close an entire unit, that there were no savings. Can you, again, I don't want to speak in here saying I certainly don't want to misrepresent anything that our chief said. So to our chief, is that an accurate? Go ahead. I think it's important to note that in the conversation, we were specifically talking about the impact on corrections. And so it was about whether or not money could be used from a savings that was accrued in corrections. Correct. As you know, we are pushed up to the limit in our ability to serve the population that's needed in corrections. And so we would not necessarily replace or move people from corrections to this particular facility. We do believe, as Senator Garcia said, that this is an important time for us to have an investment in the community. Because if we invest in this community, the folks who need this service, ultimately our community will benefit. And our community will not only save money, but save lives. But that particular conversation was very specific to how we fund corrections, the unmet needs of corrections, and how this opportunity would actually help us ensure people were in the right spot and getting the right treatment. But I do want to say, Commissioner, you're correct. We did speak about the impact of savings on corrections. And my colleague, Chief Reyes, and I were very clear that there would not be a replacement value. Okay. And thank you for that explanation. And, again, I'm not trying to do anything other than get to the bottom of the articulated savings. And I don't know if your colleague wanted to share something, because I know you're new. But it seems as though you want to share something, and I'm happy to. Again, I wasn't in the conversation with Chief Reyes, but reducing the population of corrections by 75 would not be a significant cost savings to corrections. Okay. And I want to put a pin in that, because, again, and I said to Chief Reyes and Chief Denise, had that articulation been made very clearly on the record at our December 10th hearing, I feel like it would have made a difference. And so, again, when we have representations that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars in corrections and the creation of this facility will yield substantial savings to the county, my job is simply to get to the bottom of that and see those savings in reality, not in speculation or in conjecture. And from December 10th until now, I still have not been able to see those savings of value to our community, of course. An ethically applaudable thing to do, absolutely. I am honing in on whether or not we can afford it. And, again, going to our December 10th hearing, because, again, I say it time and time again, the things that we say on this microphone, not only are they public record, but I rely on them, our residents rely on them, the administration relies on them. And during that December 10th hearing, to the sponsor, the item advanced out of committee without a recommendation at that time with a representation that we would not be the only ones funding this effort, that there would be written commitments and pledges from the City of Miami and the City of Miami Beach. Those pledges would be obtained, brought back to us, and it would help shoulder the financial burden of this facility. So my question is a simple one. Do we have written commitments from the City of Miami and or the City of Miami Beach to help shoulder the financial burden of this extraordinary, noble effort that I certainly would like to see advanced, but I need to know how we are going to pay for? Do we have those written commitments? Madam Chair, I can answer that. Was that a question to the administration? Whomever is capable. I don't have written commitments before me. It's not in my materials. I would assume that if we had them, we would be provided with copies. But do we have written commitments? Through the Chair. Yes, please. For the budget that has been produced for the proposed two-year pilot, we have identified the appropriate funding sources. One of the reasons that we amended the item to make it two years is so that we could run that pilot through and continue the work, right, of ensuring that we get the appropriate investment and financial commitments. I can answer the question. To Chief, and I will, because frankly, to my colleague, you're the one who made the representation. But to our administration, the question that was answered is completely separate from the question that was asked. And this seems to be happening more often than it should. And I don't think that the question was rather complicated or difficult in any way. From the administration's perspective, do we have written pledges or commitments of financial support from the City of Miami Beach and or the City of Miami for this facility? The answer, Madam Chair, through the Chair, is at this point, no, just the commitments that are reflected in the budget. Okay, thank you. Okay. And to the sponsor, I'm certainly interested in your perspective. So first of all, I mean, I made the amendments to the item based on what was said at committee. I did speak to Miami Beach and to the City of Miami, and they said that they would be willing to commit to year three and four if we approve the two-year pilot. So they said that three and four, because the two years are paid for. So they're saying that they would commit to fund three and four. And that's why even the City of Miami Police is here. So we had those conversations with them. We did not ask them for money for year one and two. And the idea is a pilot. And at the end of that pilot, if the proof is in the pudding, then the cities are going to give money, and we continue. And if not, we put out an RFP on the building. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Do you still have the floor? I do. Thank you. And I'll wrap it up. And I appreciate that representation from my colleague. Again, I don't have any reason to question it. It does give me pause, however, because on an item of this significance and this magnitude with such community input and stakeholders that come to our microphone time and time again that share stories, and I appreciate my colleague, Commissioner Gonzalez, for giving that really beautiful presentation. I don't know that there is not a member on this dais that doesn't have a very personal experience with mental health. I don't know that this is not an issue that doesn't touch every single one of our lives, in some of us, more personal and more difficult and more challenging than others. I do not want the rhetoric coming out of this committee to be anything other than a depth of care and concern that is accurate and reflective, which is why we are saying time and time again, we want this project to advance, but we do not want to create a trap for ourselves and for the residents that may be receiving care in this facility. We are trying to avoid not only a financial, but frankly, a potential medical disaster, because if I am being treated there for two years and I am getting better, God forbid that we don't have the funding come year three to continue the care that this resident so desperately deserves. So while the narrative is and has been, you don't care about mental health, it couldn't be farther from the truth. Those of us that are digging in and that are asking these tough questions are showing and are reflective of a level of care that is greater, that wants funding beyond only two years. I don't want to send this population back into the jail because you're standing before us saying to us that that's not the appropriate place for them. I don't want to vote in happenstance. I don't want to vote on a reckless manner. I do think that financials beyond two years is necessary for a vulnerable population like this. And I think it's incumbent on those that have been working on this so long to give us that information. And so, you know, when I'm told I will go get pledges and I don't have those pledges and months have gone by, there is a reason why. And I don't know what the reason is. I haven't spoken to the city of Miami Beach. I haven't spoken to the city of Miami. Why aren't they shouldering this? Where is a letter on their letterhead saying we will they gave five million dollars to FIFA. Why can't they give us money to help us pay for this? This is not just helping Miami-Dade County residents. This is helping our entire population and our entire community. And yet again, we are asked to bear the entire financial burden exactly that we do time and time again. And then the headlines when things go south fall on our shoulders. I am asking our community partners to step up. Where are those pledges? I thank the district commissioner and the sponsor for what she has done to get it to this point. I thank her for the amendment, but an oral representation on the record absent a written pledge from their leadership, from their board taking a vote, from them saying we're willing to put a skin in this game, carve out money from our fund because we believe in this project as much as you all do, tells me that something is missing here, that this is not ready to advance. And so I implore all of you to really get the dollars that you need. And I asked at our first meeting on December 10th to our administration, listen, if we're going to make a value proposition here and say we're going to fund this and we're going to find the money and we are not going to allow this to fail, I will accept that. But I want the articulation on the front end on what we are going to let go of in order to fund this, not two years down the road when we are in a bind and we're placed in the corner. So those are my comments and my thoughts. Thank you to our Madam Chair and thank you again to the sponsor for the work that's been done on the item to date. Thank you, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. I know that Commissioner Lopez has been waiting to speak, so I will recognize you now. And then I know Commissioner Gonzalez wanted to respond as well, so go ahead. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. So there isn't anyone that's been more involved in this work for the last 22 years. I have worked diligently on criminal justice reform with mental health services being the probably utmost importance, particularly in jails and prisons. I do want to respond first to where is the city of Miami and the city of Miami Beach. They could never encumber themselves on year 3 or 4 or 12 because they have no idea what their budgets are going to look like. Knowing full well what we're going to face when property tax reform hits not only the county, but the individual 34 municipalities, it is impossible for them to take a vote today and say, we will commit to a certain number of dollars for this project. I can tell you that because my conversations with those two cities that I represent as well is almost daunting. People are much more worried about what's going to happen with the decrease in revenues in homestead property taxes than they are about this project. They're trying to figure out how they will provide essential services to their cities when – and it's coming. It's not if property tax reform comes. It's when it hits. And that will hit, unfortunately, in years 3 and 4 and every year thereafter. So I, like Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, I'm going to challenge my two cities. I'm going to tell them, I expect you to put a resolution up right now with the cost that you are willing to provide for this center, and I want to see a vote. And that will be for two years from now when you have no idea what your own revenue source will be to provide for your own citizens in your cities. So that's the first thing I'm going to do is I'm going to call each of those commissioners that I represent, and I'm going to ask them to – one of them needs to proffer the item. Because until we have it in writing – and guess what? It won't matter if they commit to it. Because in years 3 and 4, they can turn around and say, guess what? We don't have any more money. And we have to provide water, sewer, septic, transportation to our own citizens. So that's one thing. I don't think you can predict the future. I think we can only operate on what we know presently. And I was reading – it's interesting because on 12-10 of 2026, when you all – when the budget committee reviewed this, I now have a copy. I had staff go through and tell me all of the issues that were brought up during that meeting. I have it by commissioner. I must say you all were very diligent. Then I asked, where are the answers? Because you would think that if the budget committee had – members of the budget committee had concerns then, that two months later, you would have had answers to those very concerns, which should then have helped us make decisions here on February 4th. But I'm told there's no answers, none, to all of these questions and concerns. So that's one problem. And then when I look at Senator Garcia's amendment, I found it really interesting. You know, I think all of you know I was a budget chair in the state of Florida with 12 executive agencies under my jurisdiction. The fact that I'd have to wait two years to find out what the annual cost of operating the center per client is, is questionable to me. Currently, we must know what it costs to maintain the building. If it's 75 clients – and I will say this, I've done enough work in this space to tell you that any crisis stabilization for a client takes at least four months. Multiply 75 by three, because that's going to be the annual number of clients you can serve, which is 225 clients. That information is nowhere in any of this. Nothing. The amount of money that the state has appropriated for mental health for this region goes through the managing entity. To date, I still don't know what the managing entity is going to give to this particular effort. And you ask why? Let me tell you why. Because they can't tell me that. You know why? Because at the state, we only budget annually for the appropriations. And so no way can they tell me how much they can appropriate because there's competing factors at the state. And there's mental health funding going on currently and some for jail diversion programs. So the question of funding is really just an estimate. No one can tell me for real who's going to step up in year three through eternity, because this is the question that we are now faced with. And I'm curious how anyone thinks anyone can make a decision to encumber taxpayers for years three through eternity without any knowledge of what is coming. And that is what's so disturbing to me. We all know that we're entering probably one of the darkest times budgetarily. I hate to tell you, you know, because I know what's coming. And for us to think that it's not coming is irresponsible. What is coming is a huge decrease in revenues. What we don't know is what the federal government will do, what the state government will do, and what local governments will do, because they, too, are facing the same budgetary concerns. And I, for one, want to see this center flourish. I want to see people diverted out of jail. But without the appropriate information, I'm telling you, I'm a fiscal conservative, but I'm also fiscally responsible. And there are a lot of needs in this community, and mental health is probably one of the most that is impacting every facet and every system of our community. But we deserve answers, and so do not the taxpayers, because that's who we represent here. It's their money. And so until I get answers, I tell you, I would highly encourage the deferral of this until we can get all of our answers done, because everyone deserves, not only this committee and its members, but every commissioner deserves to have the facts before we make decisions. In my very short tenure here, I often see us make decisions without the facts, and that's dangerous. And when it's financial, it's even more dangerous. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. I know that we had one more thing. I wanted to just put my comments on the record about this. We had a very sobering reality last year during our budget process, and I think we owe it to our residents and to those folks who would be in this mental health facility to treat this as fiscally responsible as we can. And we should not be intertwining our intentions with fiscal responsibility. And I know that we always bring up babies, but I'm going to bring it up. So this is reminiscent of a situation where you're trying to decide if you want to have a baby, if you want to have a child, but you've only planned for year two of that child's life. And then what? How do you support that child's life? And that is not something that, that's not a decision that we should be forced to make. I think we need more information. I think we need more financial information. So with that, I will, I know that Commissioner Gonzalez had some more comments. We do need to wrap up. We have about five minutes left in the committee, and we still have a discussion. So please, Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And here lie the issue. Everything Commissioner Cohen-Higgins stated are requests that were made at the previous discussion. And when we talk about commitments, this is a South Florida issue. This is not only a city of Miami issue. It's not only a Miami Beach issue. It's an issue that affects all of South Florida. And to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' point, and also to Commissioner Lopez's point, I don't, I don't see, I don't see the skin in the game. I mean, this reminds me, back in the 90s, we used to have blockbuster nights. And, you know, you'd have a blockbuster night, and everybody had five on the pizza until the delivery guy showed up. And then all of a sudden, nobody wants to put up anything. And so it's great to hear that the city of Miami and the city of Miami Beach and all these cities are so invested. But if we don't have this in writing, then what are we doing? What are we doing? We're literally setting up for failure. I'm curious to see what happened with the savings. I don't know if Judge Leifman can address this, but we did ask specifically, where are these savings going to lie? And if we're getting, if corrections is saying, hey, there's no savings to be had. And if those numbers aren't there, and we need a pilot program to figure out where those savings are going to be, I mean, we're putting the chicken before the egg. And time and time again, I see how, unfortunately, I don't know if it's the administration. I don't know if it's the staff. But there seems to be this lack of wanting to get to the crux of what the question is and a lack of wanting to give the facts. It's just like at our last committee, we're talking about opening a trust without a funding source. Okay, so let's just build a building and let's just pretend that we're going to service homeless individuals and help them, but we don't have a funding source. No, we'll figure it out two years deep. And don't worry, two years from now, the city of Miami is going to kick in. Miami Beach is going to kick in. We can't make decisions like that. I have to agree. On the fiscal side, we can't make decisions like that. So I don't know if Judge Leifman can speak to those commitments, can speak to those savings, can speak to the fiscal stewardship of those funds as to how we're going to fund this. Again, I want to see this happen. I think all of my colleagues here want to see this happen, but we can't just set up an institution for failure, especially when we're dealing with lives. So Judge Leifman, I don't know if you want to speak to some of these. Thank you. If I may, I'm going to defer to the chief first, and then I'll come back and respond specifically to some of the other questions. As a point of order, Madam Chair, am I going to be allowed to respond to some of the issues? We're done. Our committee is over. We need to finish this because the next committee- I'll motion to defer the item. Second. Second. Perhaps, and I want to hear from my colleagues, but perhaps with instructions to send it back to the administration, so that the administration can, again, take another whack at figuring out whether we can look at some of these funding sources. We can look at the food and beverage tax. We can look at other things. I don't know if the board would be accepting of that. Madam Chair. But for real this time? It's my item. Through the Chair. Through the Chair. I understand, ma'am, but we have to, the committee members have to deliberate first, and then I can recognize you, and we have a motion to defer on the table, which takes precedence. I understand, but do you have a second on the motion to defer? Yes, second. Okay, all in favor? Oh. Through the Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. There was a couple statements that were made about the funding, and I really did want to make sure Director Burgos ensured she, not corrected, but clarified about the continuous funding, if that's okay. I think it's important for the record. Thank you, Chief. Through the Chair, I just wanted to emphasize on the fact that this two-year plan does include the opiates plan, right? And that being applied towards the mental health facility, as you all know, the opiates plan includes $77 million over 18 years. So I wanted to answer, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, your concern of what happens afterwards. This plan does include our opiates funding. And then I know that Commissioner Lopez is not in the room, but she asked about the, oh, there you are. Hi, Commissioner. Sorry about that. I didn't see you. Commissioner, you had asked on the managing entity, and you'll see within this two-year plan, Thriving Mind is allocating more than a million dollars to the short-term beds that we understand that we have a shortage locally. I just want to say that I did not say the first two years. I said three, four, five, six. They cannot determine it. Yes. So with that, we had a motion on the deferral. We had a second. All in favor. It was, yes, the deferral to next meeting or? Okay. I'm happy to support the deferral to the next meeting through our Chair and to our sponsor. Again, I appreciate the changes that have been made. I think this committee has been resoundingly clear. I haven't been allowed to speak to why I made the changes and how some of the things you're saying are in direct conflict with the changes that you required at the last committee meeting. I was specifically told at the last committee meeting that you didn't want to go past three years. So now it's two years. And now you're contradicting yourself by saying that we don't know what the budgets are going to look like in year three and four, but you want commitments for year three and four. You haven't allowed us to explain what happens with Medicaid. You haven't allowed us to explain what happens with veterans funding. We haven't been able to answer your questions to through through our Chair. I appreciate those comments, but I take very serious issue with it. Our Chair has allowed you to speak a number of times on this. And again, it's not one or two members of this committee. It's literally every single member of this committee expressing concerns regarding the future funding of this project. And the fact is that those concerns have not been adequately addressed, which places us in the position that we're in right now. It's not an argumentative situation. Nobody's trying to do a back and forth. The consternation continues to exist. And so I'm simply articulating that if we're going to defer it to the next meeting, is it going to be in exactly the same form that is before us today? Or are we deferring it with instructions to bring us back something different? And if we are, what is the different thing that we are instructing to receive? Because I do not want to spin our wheels. I do not want the brilliant and honorable Judge Leifman to come back before us next month and sit through another replication of a conversation without any forward movement. May I be heard for one second? Just a suggestion. Because in all due respect, we've been trying to answer a lot of these questions, not just today, but to all of you. Would it be possible for you to call some type of briefing where we can bring in all the individuals that you're concerned about? We can answer all of your questions. We'll bring the city of Miami. We'll bring Miami Beach. We'll bring the people that did these suggestions. Commissioner, you're 100% right. 75 beds doesn't save money from the jail, but that's not the point. And I'd be happy to answer that question specifically, but we're out of time. Right now, when these individuals are in jail, there's no Medicaid, there's no insurance. The second they move in to the facility, we can start billing Medicaid. It takes a major part of the cost away from the county. The big cost of the population is not their mental illness. It's their primary health cost. You're not even discussing what it's costing Jackson to care for their cancer, their heart disease, and their diabetes, which most of them have. So there's a whole other set of savings that is going on. It's estimated that it's about a $32 million a year savings by moving these people out of the building. I want to help you. I want to give you all the information you want. Your questions are fair, but we don't get an adequate opportunity. They're complicated. If you could give us some real time with real experts, I'll bring everybody in the room. You can go back and forth and have a real conversation, and we'll answer all of your questions. It's hard to do something this complicated in an hour. But answers are there. This has been studied. We had to go through the same hoops 15, 20 years ago with Mayor Jimenez to show him that the proof was there. And all of our projections that we made back then are even worse today because we waited so long. Judge Leifman, thank you. We do need to end the committee, so I'm going to go to Commissioner Gonzalez for the final comment, and then we do need to take an action on this. Thank you, Madam Chair. And with that, I would like to defer it, and the deferral would be with specific instructions to come back with a lot of these – with all of these questions, the funding source, the Medicaid, the savings. Oftentimes – and, folks, this is not me. I mean you've heard it from countless of my colleagues. Oftentimes I've been warning about this since the budget. It seems like the administration starves the BCC of information. I don't think that they do it on purpose. But had we been prepared, had we had all of these discussions, to Judge Leifman's point, perhaps we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But yet here we are, out of time. So I'd like to defer, I don't know what the will of the board is, if to defer to the next BCC or to give it ample time. Maybe at the next BCC we have a presentation from all of the experts, it's up to the Chair. Would it be possible to do some more information? Sorry, Judge Leifman, I'm sorry. You're not recognized anymore. I'm so sorry. We do need to end the committee. We're over time right now, and the committee members for the next committee are already in chambers. So I think the recommendation to move it to the next – defer it to the next committee would be appropriate if everyone is in agreement. I agree as a second. And do the attorneys and administration have the instructions from my colleagues? Yes. Yes? Okay. Do we need – all in favor? Aye. Okay. And then we also need – perfect. So the item's been deferred to the next committee. And then the discussion item, Commissioner Lopez, also will be held at the next committee. It's being deferred. Okay. Motion to adjourn? We are adjourned. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.