Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Committee - Mar 11, 2026

Commissioner Cohen Higgins, Senator Garcia, Commissioner Gonzalez, Vice Chairwoman Amelia Norbis, Chairwoman Lopez. Here. Three members present, we have a quorum. Thank you. At this time, I'm going to ask my colleague, Senator Garcia, to do the invocation with, yes, you, yes, please. And I'm going to ask my Vice Chairman to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Dear Lord, I ask you to protect those, the family, the men and women that are overseas currently fighting for our country. I ask you to please keep their families, those that have lost their lives, please keep them and their families in your grace. And I ask you to please help this committee move forward in the people's work. And always be mindful that we're doing the people's work and not our job, not our work, but the work that you require us to do in your name. With that, we pray all this in your precious, dear Jesus' name. Amen. Good morning, Mr. Attorney. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you. At this time, would it be appropriate to extend the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard? Yes, Madam Chair. In accordance with Rule 6.06 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, this would be the appropriate time to allow the public to speak on any non-public hearing item. With the exception of item 3A and 3A substitute, as the reasonable opportunity for those items was extended at the previous committee meeting. Thank you. So I have two cards. I will call them. Please remember to come up to the mic, state your name, and address. Erin Hendry. Good morning. Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and fellow commissioners. Erin Hendricks with offices located at 3800 Northeast First Avenue, Miami. I'm here today to talk to you about item 3G on behalf of my client, Consolidated Parking Equipment, which is a locally headquartered small business. Consolidated was awarded the contract for Port Miami's parking access and revenue control system in 2022. And I think there's a misconception about the item before you today that this was not competitively bid. This, in fact, was competitively bid with the parking access control procurement at the port. And if you read the item in the resolution that was approved by this board in 2022, it clearly states that this was scalable to allow other departments to piggyback off of it. So I know we talk about efficiency and procurement, so much so this commission has established a task force to identify efficiencies. And I can't think of a better example of how to efficiently run a procurement for parking equipment. And, you know, my client is here if there's any questions. But I know you have a lot of things on your agenda that are important, so just let us know if there's something we can help you with. But we do ask for you to support item 3G. So I and everyone else does not get stuck in the parking garages anymore. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you very much, Erin. Our next speaker is Fred Gallant, speaking on item 3H. Yeah, good morning, Madam Chair and the rest of the commissioners. My name is Fred Gallant. I am the director for the southeast for L3 Harris, a long-term provider for Miami-Dade County. I am also a resident of Miami. I live in Coral Gables. And I'm here on this item because we're very concerned. If I take you back to 2022, when some of you were here, and Commissioner Pepe Diaz did a sole source of $138 million to Morola, the vendor that has requested to be put on this agenda and procure the items from, we were never consulted on that particular meeting, which was perfectly fine. Ever since then, L3 Harris has not been able to sell one single radio. In addition to that, with regards to corrections department, in 2023, we were awarded a $2.3 million deal to replace all the old radios for corrections. However, it was abruptly canceled two months later, even though we had a kickoff meeting and everything. We're here because we're very concerned about the increasing cost of these radios. The radios that you are put here, each radio is $8,700, a totally ridiculous amount. Even worse than that, moving forward, you will become hostage of this particular vendor, Morola. So I am here because not only am I a resident of the county, but I've also represented L3 Harris. And I want to bring this to your attention because we feel confident that we can provide the same solution at a much, much attractive price if the procurement is done in a way that we can compete. I want to thank you very much. If there's any questions, I am available. Mr. Gallant, can you just put your address on the record for me, please? Uh, 13-621 Deering Bay Drive, Penthouse 1403, Coral Gables, Florida. Thank you. Thank you, sir. 3-3-1-5-8. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see any more cards. Is there anyone that wants to speak on any item other than 3A, excuse me, hold on, 3A and 3A substitute? Anyone else? Mr. Attorney, can we proceed to set the agenda? Yes, Madam Chair. In addition to the items on your final printed agenda, there are a number of changes to the agenda as reflected in the official changes memorandum. Those are the addition of item 3A substitute supplement, the addition of 3I, 3J, and 3K, the deferral of item 2A to no date certain, and the correction of Scrivener's errors in item 3A substitute and item 3G. In addition, Madam Chair, item 3A substitute number 2 has been distributed on the dais for inclusion on today's agenda. That is not in the changes memorandum. As well, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is assuming sponsorship of item 3H. I have a question, Mr. Attorney. You just said that there was something that was distributed. I don't have it. Does everyone have it? Do you have it? Do you have it? Okay. Can you repeat what you said because we were all looking for something that had been distributed? Yes, Madam Chair. So in addition to the items on your final printed agenda and the changes noted in your official changes memorandum, item 3A substitute number 2 will be distributed on the dais for inclusion on today's agenda, and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is assuming sponsorship of item 3H. And before we set the agenda, Madam Chair, would you like to have a pull list? Yes, I would. Madam Chair, I'd like to pull 3A substitute and the other item that is being distributed that we don't have yet. Okay. Do I have any other items pulled? Senator Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to pull 3H. And then I would also like to put on the record that the reason we're deferring item 2A is because we're waiting to see what the legislature, if the legislature has any new amendments or policy changes to the way that the county must invest its, for its investments. So we're just waiting to mirror those as well. So we're just waiting for the legislature to adjourn to get that done. Thank you. Any others? Madam Chair. Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez. For 3H, would like to assume co-sponsorship, if the sponsor will have me, and would like to pull for comments at the appropriate time, Madam Chair. Thank you. Happy to accept co-sponsorship. Thank you. Any other items that need to be pulled? 3B. You want to pull 3B? Yes. Okay. And 3G. And 3G? I believe 3E has to be pulled for a minor amendment. Madam Chair, I can pull it for the amendment. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other items needing to be pulled, do we have a motion to set the agenda? Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Vice Chairwoman Mian Orbis. All in favor, indicate by saying yay. Aye. Sorry. All right. So we're going to, are there any preliminary matters before us that we, before we proceed? I'm going to, I am going to say that the discussion item that falls for me to, to give a report on the legislative agenda, I'm going to take up at the end of the meeting. So if there are none others, Mr. Attorney, what's next? Madam Chair. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I would like to request that 3J and 3K, both sponsored by me, if they can be waived to the next BCC meeting. If that is, is that, if that is okay with my comments? Absolutely. We'll do so. Do we need a motion for that? To waive? No. Okay. Do we have any other items that, that need to be waived to the next meeting? Okay. So we just have these. All right. Very good. Madam Chair. Yes. Mr. I have a list of items that the administration, I believe one for yourself, has been requested to be advanced. Would you like me to read those now? Please. So the items that have been requested to be advanced to the March 17th BCC agenda are 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3I, 3J, and 3K. Perfect. Madam Chair. Yes. In that case, can we just move the whole agenda? Because there's two of mine that are on there. Give me the whole agenda to the next commission meeting. Yes. Madam Chair, excuse me. I'm being told that 3D cannot be advanced because there's a notice issue with that item. Thank you, Terrence. Thank you. So everything but 3D. Okay, we'll be advanced. Very good. All right. So we're back now. So let's go to the first item. So we've set the agenda. Yeah, 3H. Okay. So let's do the cleanup on 3E, Mr. Attorney. 3E as in echo, Madam Chair? Yes. That item is before you. I believe there was an amendment. Is that correct? Yeah. I thought there was a slight amendment on 3E. If not, we can come back to 3E. So we can take up the, I believe we can take the pull list now. Yes. So let's start with, yes, with 3H. Senator Garcia, 3H. Thank you, Madam Chair. We've been dealing with this item for quite some time and don't necessarily have a problem with it. I'm just curious to make sure that the total new amount of $121 million, that is expenditure authority and not an increase in the contract. And then I would like for someone to give us an update on some of the statements that were made as it relates to interoperability with other systems and the cost per radio. So I would like to have that on the record as well. Thank you. Carla, Denise, did you hear the question that Senator Garcia posed? I'm sorry. Could you repeat? No, that's quite all right. Senator Garcia? I'm seeing that the new total is $121 million. I'm assuming that this is expenditure authority, that this has already been budgeted for. So I want to make sure that we're clear on that and put that on the record, as well as the issue of interoperability between our radio systems, one. Two, some of the issues that were brought up about the cost of per radio. So I would like to make sure that we clarify that on the record before we move forward with this. Carla, Denise, you're recognized. Thank you. Yes, you are absolutely correct. That's the amount that we're requesting. We're adding allocation to an existing contract. And this is a system that's already in place. So the interoperability issues, there's no new issue. We've been working in this manner and fashion. It's the preferred way of working, particularly for our sheriff's office and others. So there should not be any changes to the system that would impact our process of being able to communicate. Mr. Fire Chief, if I may, Madam Chair? Yes, you may. Is the system working? Where are we with the system and its longevity? And do we perceive any issues in the future about being tied or married to this one company? Will there be the future, if we need to change, will there be an ability to change and so forth? Good morning, Chief. You're recognized. So good morning, Madam Chairwoman, to the commission, through the chair. Senator, in regards to the interoperability, in regards to being tied down, I can speak on behalf of Fire Rescue. We've had our Motorola for over 20 years. What you see in regards to the allocation for MDFR also includes the Department of Emergency Management because emergency management was under MDFR back when this started. So everything is moving forward for the Lightspeed Building, building it up. In regards to being tied down, I don't have any information that really guides us in one way or another. All I can tell you is, you know, for MDFR's side, we've conducted market research back in the day. We've had the Motorola radios now for, you know, again, over 20 years. But I don't know anything about being tied down specifically to one entity versus another. I didn't mean about the technology. But we'll talk about that as we move forward, so I think you appreciate it. That's what I wanted to hear before I move this. Thank you, Senator. I'll move the item, Madam Chair. We have a motion to move the item. Second, we have a motion by Senator Garcia, seconded by Vice Chairwoman Miliano Orbis. Questions, Commissioner Gonzalez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to start by thanking the administration for putting this forward. Because I think that this item, for one, is something that has been necessary for a very, very long time. I think we can all agree public safety is one of the most important aspects of any society, and that law and order is a three-way street. You need good police officers, you need good public defenders and state attorneys, and you need good corrections officers. But corrections officers in specific, if I could just have somebody from the administration or from either department, but specifically, when we talk about corrections, I'm under the impression that the equipment that we're using at this time is approximately 17 years old. My first question is, is that correct? And my second question is, what is the typical life cycle for these types of radios? Like, is there an industry standard for these types of radios? Good morning, Director Green. I think we have Director Green from corrections. I'll allow her to answer the question. Good morning, everyone. Through the Chair, Commissioner, the life cycle is seven years, and we have been utilizing Harris for the last past 17 years. So we've had the same equipment for 17 years when the standard and the lifespan should be seven years. That's correct. Now, I've had extensive conversations with the PBA, I've had extensive conversations with the Sheriff's Office, and with MDFR, and also the fire union. From what I understand, and I don't know if Mr. Palmer would be able to respond, or if Carla Denise can respond, but from what I understand, when we're talking about a national standard, the technology that is utilized by these radios, one, is the latest technology, and two, allows for connectivity that otherwise would not be possible if you have different radios. And here's what I'm getting at, right? Like, I have an iPhone, and I have this one cousin who needs to have an Android. I'm not against Androids, but the green and the blue bubbles, they get to me. But that's not even it. I can't FaceTime him. I can't. And he insists on using WhatsApp, and I got nothing against WhatsApp. But there's a similar connectivity that exists when you have different equipment. And when we're talking about public safety, MDFR, MDSO, and corrections, they need to connect. So I don't know if Mr. Palmer or if Carla Denise have the answer to this, but how many municipalities right now are using Motorola as opposed to any other equipment? Chief, you're recognized. Through the chair, I do have a list here. Miami Dairy Sheriff's Office, City of Miami, Hialeah, Homestead, Coral Gables, Bay Harbor, Surfside, Miami Shores, North Miami Beach, FIU, Sweetwater, Doral, South Miami, West Miami, Miami Gardens, Hialeah Gardens, Miccosukee, Key Biscayne, Pinecrest. I wasn't counting, but I was reading, so Pinecrest. That is great, Chief. The point I'm trying to make here is, all of these municipalities make arrests. MDSO makes arrests. To the chief, would it be imperative that that communication has to be present with the same standard of technology? Yes, Chief. Through the chair. I am actually not a technologist, but I actually understand and appreciate your analogy. And so our team is doing the best to make sure we have a standard communications protocol that makes that seamless, right, and limits any challenges that could be foreseen when you're using different technologies. We have an existing contract with Motorola. We're asking for additional allocation so that we can continue to use that technology and extend it to other departments so they can upgrade the technology that they have been using. So I won't attempt to answer the technology question, but I will tell you that we believe at the administration that moving in this direction is in our better interest from a procurement standpoint, a financial standpoint, and an intercommunications standpoint. I appreciate that answer. As far as the Motorola equipment is concerned, are you aware of other municipalities or other counties that are using the Motorola technology? To answer your question, yes, there are several that are using Motorola. As I understand, this specific item is not just for corrections. Is that correct? Yeah, correct. Correct. So we're also talking, I believe, dispatch and, in essence, some framework that's going to be used by MDFR. Correct. So it would be imperative that everybody's on the same page. Correct. No further questions. Thank you. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few questions on this item, and primarily to, I believe, our administration and to Namida at Strategic Procurement, if she would please approach. I sat on the dais in 2022 when this contract came before us, and I remember it was quite the dust-up, as some of our friends like to say. But here we are now, and what we passed in 2022 was a contract in the amount of $165 million, and that was in 2022, and of that amount, 84, let's say, went to the sheriff's office. So my first question is, when we have corrections and MDFR coming to the microphone and saying that their radios are 17 years old and 20 years old, my first question is, why has it taken from 2022 to 2026 to get MDFR and corrections their radios? The contract passed in 2022, and I understand the original distribution went to our officers, check, amazing. But why has it taken corrections and MDFR four years to get the radios that are so, so outdated and so, so expired? Why has it taken this long? That's to Namida. Namida, you're recognized. Thank you. Namida, Poll Director, procurement. Commissioner, the fire already has the radios, so it's not like that they're buying the radios now. Under the contract that got approved by the board, fire started purchasing the radios. Corrections identified their need recently to change, and I think it has to be approved in the budget. I'm assuming that in the adopted budget, now they have the money to purchase the radios, so now they're coming into this contract. Okay, no, I don't understand that now, I'm confused, because fire just came to the podium and said that they need new radios. They already are using, unless I'm mistaken, they're already using the Motorola system and the radios. I think they're buying additional services. Do you want to clarify? Yeah, please clarify. Chief, please, you're recognized. Thank you. Through the chair. Commissioner, so the additional allocation that you're looking at is actually for the additional units that are going into service, replacing the apparatuses, so whenever we get a new fire truck, many times we have to upgrade the actual base radio, too, coupled with what you saw in the largest allocation for the infrastructure for light speed. But we continue to having to replace radios because they do tend to break, you know, on incidents and as such. But we actually have every firefighter right now outfitted with the new Motorola APX next. Okay, so then what was the representation regarding 20-year-old and 70-year-old radio? That's for the corrections, ma'am. I'm sorry, Chief, you didn't say that you had radios that were wrong. No, MDFR does not have 17-year radios. Got it. Okay, thank you for clarifying. Thank you. To corrections, that you're just now drawing new radios under this contract that was passed in 2022? Or do you already have new radios for your officers? Through the chair? No, we do not. We are in need of replacement radios. Okay, so then my question is the same, but it's more narrow. MDFR has had access. So have our Miami-Dade Sheriff's officers. But the question is the same now, but only pertaining to corrections. Why did you have to wait four years to get new radios when everybody else got new radios and we passed this contract in 2022? You're recognized. I'm not sure, ma'am. I've been the director since November of 2023, and since being appointed, this is one of the efficiency projects that I've worked on. Okay, thank you. Tanamada, any kind of greater explanation or to Chief Denise as to why corrections has had to wait so long to get the radios that they need since they're using 17-year-old radios? Chief Palmer will answer that question. It's simple. Yes, to the chair, the fire department got them first. Sheriff's service got them second. We were waiting in line. The director performed a 12-month pilot program with the units to ensure they worked inside our infrastructure the way we wanted them. And after the successful completion of that pilot, we decided to move forward with it. That might be an answer to the potential delay that you're asking. Okay, well, I just would have liked to see corrections. This is in support of you, director. I hope you recognize it as such that you should have received your radios for your officers much earlier than the four-year delay that I'm seeing before us now. So thank you for your extraordinary patience on the matter. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Regarding the fiscal impact of this, we had a representative of Harris approach during public comment and say that the radios are $8,000 a unit to the administration. Can we get some clarity on that claim? Yes, ma'am, through the chair. Our number is $6,400 per unit. Okay, and is that industry standard for a municipal government to pay $6,400 for a Motorola radio, or whether it's Motorola or whatever the brand is, but the device that we are purchasing as a government, that per radio cost of $6,400 is industry standard? I'm not sure of that number. We believe it's a fair number, but I'm not sure if that's an industry standard. Okay, to strategic procurement, Namada, if you can approach, please, did we discuss the cost per radio in this contract, and do you feel confident that the price we are paying, i.e. the $6,400 per radio, is either industry standard or a good rate to the taxpayers of Miami-Dade County? Because, again, when we are funding corrections, MDFR, these are all general fund dollars, right? So I am asking you a very specific question of do you feel confident, and can you represent to the board that you negotiated the price per radio so that, you know, that we're getting the best deal possible here? So, Commissioner, to answer that question, obviously, the functionality of the radio matters. So when you look at radio provided by company A and compared to company B, you have to look at what actually you are getting in that radio, and what are the functionality, and does the functionality match the needs? When it comes to Motorola radio, there was an extensive study done at the time when that big contract was brought to the board, and the functionalities available from different providers, including L3 Harris, was compared. And based on my understanding with FIRE at that time, corrections and MDSO, the Motorola radios offered meet the functionality, and they offer the latest and the greatest features that are needed to make sure when we have large events like FIFA and others, the security features are there. Having said that, the pricing that is represented, yes, I don't mind bringing between now and the board showing you a price comparison of what Motorola has offered to other entities. I can't compare Motorola's pricing to company B if the features are not matching, but I will definitely bring it to you if you want to see what Motorola's pricing is, and I do stand that it is fair at this point. However, I don't mind bringing it back to you, showing the pricing is reasonable. Okay, and thank you for offering, because I appreciate it means we've been working together long enough that you anticipated that I would ask that, and that's exactly what I was going to ask. I do want to see what other municipal governments of similar size are paying for similar equipment, so that I can see with my own eyes that we are getting a very good rate for these radios. And to address the concern regarding being held hostage, I think it's a concern that we need to heed. In Miami-Dade County, we see it when we're dealing with solid waste and different departments in different areas, so I take that concern to heart. This contract expires next year in 2027. Obviously, they have an OTR after that. I don't know what the administration plans on doing if you plan to put this out for competitive procurement next year when the initial five-year term expires, but I do want to ask to the administration, is there any concern from either corrections or our chiefs regarding using one provider for all departments when it comes to public safety on these devices? Is there any concern that you have regarding utilizing one provider as opposed to a number of different providers? No. Through the chair, we are confident that this is the best solution for the county. I think your colleague, Commissioner Gonzales, said it very well. We would like to have standardization. We would also like to have the best pricing, and we would like to be able to move fast, which is something that you have asked us to do many, many times. So we're asking for additional allocation on a contract that has already been approved so that we can continue to expand this technology and serve our community. Thank you so much for that. Nothing further, Madam Chair. Vice Chairwoman Mian Orbis, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. On that note, I mean, you just said standardization. I think standardization is great when it's needed, but I don't know that it's needed in this case. There's three departments that are in this contract, and, you know, I want to clarify something because yesterday, let me clarify, I'm not talking about FIRE. I do think FIRE, I understand the need for all the channel availabilities, and MDSO is also getting dragged into this. They're not in this contract. We're not talking about them, and they have since split from Miami-Dade County government. So let's not mix up the needs of the sheriff's office with this contract. Yesterday during the briefing, I asked for the price per radio, and when you divide the price for corrections department receiving 2,800 radios, $21,900,000 divided by the 2,800 radios is $7,800. And from what I understood from the briefing, you all told us the radios were about $8,000, and we were getting a good deal. Now you're telling me that the radios cost $6,400 per unit. So what is the correct number? You're recognized, Chief. Through the chair, ma'am, we have $18.1 million divided by 2,800 units. I'm not sure why. That's not what the item says, I'm sorry. The item says $2,900,000. Through the chair, I'd actually like for Nomada to explain the various aspects of this contract. It doesn't just include the hardware. I understand that. I'm sorry. One second. May I? Yes, you may. The contract says that corrections department is purchasing 2,800 radios for the amount of $21,900,000. Under the corrections explanation, it doesn't say that they're doing anything else. It says it under ITD and under FIRE, but not under corrections. So from my understanding and from the questions that we had during the briefing, it was to purchase 2,800 radios at the cost of $7,800 approximately per unit. Is that correct? To the chair. Commissioner, I can clarify or expand on it. So the corrections is buying two different kinds of radios. One is APX Next, and the other one is APX N50. So APX Next is a higher dollar value radio, which is $8,291, and APX N50 is $5,278. And we're buying most of the APX N50 for $5,278 times $2,450. That's the unit price. The other, the APX Next, the higher version, is we're buying 350 of those. But there are also other items, ancillary items like the desk charger, the travel charger, multi-unit charger, spare batteries, remote speaker, microphone. Those are other line items that are associated with buying the radio. Then there are other service, like the smart connect, smart mapping, smart location. Those are the features that go along with your radio. And then there is hardware and services cost. So the total comes out to be the amount. So it's different line items and the associated quantities that make up that amount for corrections. Okay, thank you. When it comes to the corrections department, what are the radios used for? I will have Director Green explain. Thank you. Director Green, you're recognized. Thank you, ma'am. Madam Commissioner, this is how we communicate throughout our facilities, our departments, and different bureaus, as well as for our transport, our external transports. Okay, so are there other radios that can accomplish this for a lower cost? Because from what I understand, the sheriff's office and the fire department need these radios because they can connect through different channels that are available at all times because they are doing life-saving procedures. They are responding to life-saving emergencies. Are there other radios that can accomplish this for the corrections department if you are just connecting from one person to the other inside the same building? No, ma'am, because we are also responding to emergencies as well in dire situations. So you're calling outside the building? Yes, we also have transports that are external as well. We have courts where we're out in the community. So it is important that we have the same type of equipment and communication. Okay, and then I wanted to ask, in the ITD, for the communications and ITD department, what are the radios used for? Good morning, George Olazbo, CITD director. Good morning, George, you're recognized. Thank you. Through the chair. You're referring to corrections radios or the rest of the county? What are you, so as far as your portion of this contract, what are the needs? Oh, so our portion of this contract is twofold. We have an allocation in there because we're responsible for purchasing radios for other entities across the county, including other municipalities. As the chief mentioned, we do the radio service for other municipalities. So the allocation for radios is a preparation for what we're seeing a transition of across the industry, right? In the same way that MDFR and MDSO have transitioned to other brand radios and corrections is transitioning now, we want to be prepared for when those municipalities do ask us that we can provide a high level of service which we provide to them rather than have to have an extensive process so we'll be ready for purchasing radios for them. The other part of our allocation on there is for the E911 system that is provided to the county. It's a Motorola-branded E911 system, and that is completely separate technology from the radio system. Okay, so along with my colleague, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, I would ask that I'd like to see if there are other radios that can accomplish this goal for ITD, for example, and for corrections before this comes to BCC. We do use other radios, which are L3 Harris radios across the county, and we are already providing that to the other departments across the county. And in your experience, those radios that you just said are sufficient for the needs of the municipalities and the other departments that you're referring to? Right, so we don't determine the need for the individual departments like correction and fire because they know better what their need for the radio is than we do, okay? The other radios that we're providing across the county, it's a completely different need than public safety. So therefore, those radios do meet the need for those customers. If they were to come to us, because we're basically brand agnostic, our responsibility is to ensure that whatever radio they choose works on the system and will not bring the system down, obviously. Right. Okay, and that's where we come in. As far as if they choose an L3 Harris radio and we test it and it works on the system, we're fine with it. If it's not, then obviously we let them know this radio is not compatible with our system, et cetera, or the issue. We can go back to the vendor and correct that issue, but we're brand agnostic. Thank you for saying that. I appreciate you referring to it as brand agnostic because I think that we need to be proactive as we're making these decisions and realizing where we need standardization and where it's not needed because we're spending more without needing to spend more necessarily. So thank you, Director. I appreciate it. Anyone else have any further questions? Commissioner Danielle Cohen-Higgins followed by Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to follow up on the comments of my colleague, Commissioner Milian Orbis. I understand where you're going, and I completely agree with you. And I think that the contract that was passed in 2022, and I know you've been briefed on how that came about, and it was discussed during public comment here today. I think when this contract is subject to an OTR and to the administration, I know it's premature. The contract expires in a year on August 2027. I think my colleague and I echo her sentiments regarding allowing a competitive process to take place to make sure that we're getting the best and lowest costs, especially considering that these are general fund dollars that we know are getting squeezed and squeezed and squeezed, right? And so is there any discussion or any consideration on whether or not the OTR is going to be exercised on this Motorola contract come expiration in August of 2027, or has that not yet been determined? Through the Chair. Thank you for the question, Commissioner. Really based on a lot of your urging and direction, the procurement teams in the departments have been told that they need to analyze each contract, even those that may not be up for renewal, to ensure that we have the right process to get the most competitive price. So when this came across my desk, I immediately asked the team to start the process of analyzing what would be in the county's best interest. As you know, it cost us money to go out and re-procure things and change things, but sometimes we can win when we have competition and healthy competition. Not only does the incumbent have to come to their A-game, but the competitor has to come with their A-game. And so we will be exploring that, but we have not determined whether or not it's in our better interest to stay and do a renewal or if we should go out on the street. That has not been determined yet. And thank you for clarifying that. And I know Motorola is in the audience. I look forward to meeting with you between now and final hearing so that you can make your case directly to me that the price point that we are being charged currently in Miami-Dade County per radio is, in fact, the best and the lowest price that you can do for the residents of our county. So I look forward to those conversations. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank both of my colleagues for the line of questioning. I also want to take a quick moment to thank staff today. This is what I'm talking about, being prepared and being able to answer questions. This is what I'm talking about. And I want to thank everybody that has come up here today and has been under fire answering these questions. Answering the questions the day of committee is necessary. And I want to thank all of you for being prepared today. My question specifically, Chief, if you don't mind, I don't know if you want to take this question or maybe Mr. Palmer wants to take this question. Mr. Palmer, I'm under the impression that you used to be the head of Homeland Security. Is that correct? You're recognized. Mr. Chair, yes. And so I think that we need some clarification here from the public safety standard. Um, why would it be necessary? Because I think that there's, there's various good points being made up here. Um, why would it be necessary for there to have to be a standardized system? We're not talking about branding here. We're talking about the technology. I mean, I don't get, I don't care what brand brings it out, but we're talking about the standard of technology. Why would it be necessary for all three realms of public safety to have that same standard and or connectivity of technology? Because, um, I think Commissioner Milana Orbis made a good point where she said, hey, is, does correction communicate, does corrections communicate at all with MDSO, with municipal, um, um, um, police, with MDFOs? With MDFR. So can you clarify just why that would be necessary? One, um, and two, what would happen if there, if that connectivity is not available? Sure. Through the chair, uh, any critical incident that we have in the county, any facility, interoperability of radials is paramount. So if the sheriff or Miami or any other agency were going to be assisting our corrections officers, imaginary world, one of our transports breaks down, there are prisoners escaping, you can fill in the rest. Being able to communicate with those agencies is paramount. If we can't, and if we have an inoperability problem, there's a delay. When there's a delay in public safety, oftentimes turns into injuries and whatnot. So having an operational system that goes across the board, absolutely. To Commissioner Orbis, if we have another brand radio for transit or for public works or for water and sewer, that's not important to us because it's not a public safety issue. But when it comes to public safety, we feel that our public safety agency should be on the same platform, in the same radios, so that we can have interoperability. I hope I answered it. Well, I think what I'm hearing, um, and tell me if this is correct, but what I'm hearing is that there's a difference in features and the, and those features are necessary for that connectivity. Um, if that is, if that is so, and I don't, I don't want to extend this any longer than it has to be extended, but if that is so, what, what features specifically are different from a Motorola, uh, um, radio that we're purchasing and a Gucci radio, for example? Okay, so over the top, really over, over the top of 3,000 feet, the Motorola radios allow us to see other Motorola radios with GPS. The Motorola radios allow us to transmit, let's say, a PDF file, for example. Would that not be possible with another? It's possible with a different model, but right now, comparing apples to apples, the Motorola radio does it right now. So let's say, um, the police, or we had a problem, and we wanted to communicate with the police, or all corrections officers, but we didn't want to do it on the radio. Because when you're inside of a jail, the inmates are listening to the radio, just like we are. We can talk to each other through the screens, with a document, alert everyone that we're going to be doing something, or we have an emergency, and no one else needs to know, so it increases officer safety. There are significant differences in the radio units. Thank you, and I don't want to keep extending this, but I would like to be fully briefed at some point, and I think I have other colleagues up here that also would like to be briefed, so that we can really understand and get to the crux of why this systemification is so important. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Madam Chair, I have just a quick follow-up. Yes, yes, you may, Commissioner. I just want to make sure that my statement is not muddied up. I was very clear that Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office and Fire Rescue, I understand they need these radios. So I wanted to ask another question. Do the Motorola radios, are they, do they have the capability to communicate with the L3 Harris radios? You're recognized. I think there might be a better CITD question, but yes, we can communicate from different radiosets, yes. Okay, so you don't need everybody to have the same radio in order for one agency to communicate with the other? Through the Chair, I'd like our Director of CITD to respond accordingly. Commissioner, through the Chair, yes, they all use a communications protocol called P25 to talk to each other. It's an industry standard communication protocol. Okay, okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just, you know, I want to be clear that, you know, I believe our colleagues, my colleagues up here, what we're doing is that last year we had a bad budget year, right? And we said that we were going to treat every single item and every single meeting like a budget meeting, and that's what we're doing, and we intend to prioritize the fiscal responsibility of this county. So thank you so much, Madam Chair. Any other questions? I have a quick question, Chief. Maybe you can answer this. So when I was budget chair in the legislature, it was my responsibility to appropriate funds for radios. And I would not appropriate funds if they were not connected to the statewide network. And I think for my colleagues here, it's important that, you know, that it's when there is an emergency outside of Miami-Dade County, the state feels very strongly that all law enforcement and fire should be able to communicate on that slurs network. And so my question is, are all of these radios now connected to the statewide network? I'll ask our director of CITD to answer that question, but it's an excellent question. She's asking if all of our communications are connected to the statewide network. So there is a statewide network mutual aid channels that are used across the state. Yes, but you have to have a subscription to it. There was always the issue of cost. One of the reasons why I wouldn't appropriate funds unless I knew that they were actually subscribing to the system. So my question, again, is because it's important to law enforcement and fire throughout the state, should there be a statewide emergency that every radio is connected to that network? So that's my question. Are they all connected to the network, and do you have the subscription? So we have the capability of connecting to it. In fact, we just had it two weeks ago. But wait, the question, is it yes or no? Do you, are they connected? Not, do you have the capability? Are they presently connected to the statewide network system? Yes, they are. All of them? The mutual aid, I'd have to get back to you if every single radio is connected and programmed for it. But I believe that they are. But I would have to get back to you with a 100% confirmation, ma'am. Please do, because I'm not inclined to move forward continuing to buy radios that are not. And there's a reason for that. And certainly I learned that at the statewide level, and I'd like to make sure that we, who is the largest county in the state, can communicate within that system, should there be a statewide emergency. Through the chair. Yes. I just heard from fire, and the answer is yes. Our law enforcement is connected, and it is required that our law enforcement be connected. Okay. Great. Thank you for that. So if there's no other questions, we have a motion on the floor. It was moved and seconded. Yes. So I'm just going to call the question. Yeah. All in favor, indicate by saying aye. All opposed, nay. The motion passes. So we'll go to the next item. Oh, yes. We're going to clean up 3E, and the administration is going to read into the record its amendment. 3E. Namada, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. There's a minor amendment on Miami-Dade County page 3 of the item. Can you push your mic? I'm sorry. Sorry. No, no, that's okay. I'm too short. No, that's okay. We couldn't hear you. Oh, no, Mr. Upal. Chair, we have a minor amendment. On Miami-Dade County page 3 of item 3E, under the last subsection of the mayor's memo, there is a statement that the contractor is currently not in compliance with the small business measures of the contract. This statement is incorrect, and we would like to amend the item to provide that the contractor is in compliance with the small business measures of the contract. So apologies for the incorrection. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Any questions on that amendment? No, I'll move it as amended. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Malian Orbis, seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The motion passes. So we will now go. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you had pulled two items. We'll start with 3B. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. There's anyone here from the Homeless Trust on 3B. Hi, good morning. Hi, good morning. Vicki Millett, Executive Director at the Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust. Thank you for being here, Vicki. It's always a pleasure to see you. My question on 3B is, I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the Homeless Trust as a whole has made an overarching effort to shift away from shelters and into housing and that that's the continuum of care, at least as I have understood it for years, and the direction that the Homeless Trust is aiming towards, which I've bought into, right? Not always easy for me at times, but I have, and eventually I did buy into that overarching theory. So when I see an item on the agenda for $10 million of, I guess, additional funding for shelters, right, and when I see the mock-up of what it looks like, it's like 80 beds in one room. It is like basic sheltering. Help me understand how this fits into the overarching goal and aim of the Homeless Trust and its often communicated continuum of care. How does this item and this shelter fit into that? Thank you for that question. Yes, our focus remains on permanent housing and finding permanent destinations for people to exit to from shelters. I would say that this particular project, which we're calling a navigation center, which is a bit different than a shelter, it's kind of a pilot, and an experiment was prompted by the state law. So as you know, about a year ago, a new state law passed prohibiting overnight camping and sleeping in public spaces. So while our eyes are on increasing permanent housing, in the immediate, while we work on those various acquisition and renovation opportunities, we need quick placement opportunities, particularly to assist law enforcement and our outreach teams who are responding to hot spots and encampments across Miami-Dade County, some of which were brought to our attention by constituents and businesses. And as you know, a clause within the new state law says if we don't cure those issues within five days, our municipalities and Miami-Dade County are potentially subject to civil action. So since that law went into effect, we also created a homeless reporting tool. That tool houses those concerns and complaints and requests for engagement, and we've had over 500 of those logged in excess of. So this is really going to provide a service to those outreach teams partnered with law enforcement on occasion who need quick placement opportunities in order to remedy a situation to keep the county and our municipalities within the county from being subject to civil action. And thank you for that explanation. So built into what you just explained is an assumption that we don't have sufficient beds currently, and so therefore you need $10 million of food and beverage tax to provide 80 additional beds. But the item doesn't speak to our current bed capacity. Are you representing that we don't have occupancy currently right now to meet the needs of the demands of the state law that you just referenced? Are you saying that every bed is taken up and we need to spend this $10 million to provide 80 more beds? On any given day we have 2,500 people in temporary settings. That includes families with minor children. I said that this was a pilot and somewhat unique and that it is a low barrier. We are going to try everything we can to not have prerequisites upon entry. That can include drug testing. That can include rejecting some of the people who need placement the most. Because in other shelters where we do have families co-located with singles, there's a safety concern for those minor children who are in those shelters. Additionally, the shelter can funnel people out to the other shelters within our continuum. Another nuance of this particular navigation center is that we'll be able to accept couples. In most of the shelters we have across Miami-Dade County right now, if you are a couple, you cannot sleep together in the same space. There will be a man on the man's side, a woman on the woman's side, and oftentimes that is a reason a couple might deny coming to shelter. Because they believe we are going to, quote, split them up. The same is true for individuals in encampments. They will not leave their friends that they've created within this encampment unless we can move them all together as a group. And that is what this facility is intended to do. Lastly, there is a kennel associated with this facility. And we want to be able to assist people who have pets to be able to enter shelter and not say that they will not because we don't have an accommodation for the pets. And that is a constant pull on us. So this is really trying to target some of the areas and the gaps we have in the shelter system to accommodate some of the people who are unsheltered in our community. Okay, and thank you for that explanation. It wasn't, however, represented that we are at bed capacity as far as you know it. I understand that there are accommodations for different groups and different needs. That I understand entirely. But, I mean, we certainly can't build a structure for every fact pattern that exists, correct? I mean, I'm trying to understand, like, if we're going to spend $10 million to create this new facility and we have 200 beds open every night, that makes no sense to me, right? And so I'm going to support the item now. The sponsor of the item is not present before us. But I do look forward to following up with you between now and final hearing on this. Because if the facts lay out that Camila's housed, you know, a number of our homeless trust facilities and all of the other amazing organizations that do this great work are reflecting numbers of available beds open every evening, it's going to be difficult for me to understand a justification for this item. But I will support it through committee, and I look forward to having subsequent conversations with you between now and then. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Gonzalez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank my colleague for her line of questioning because I happen to concur with a lot of the sentiments. I certainly do not want to punish the homeless trust for doing a great job. I mean, you guys have really set the mission to eradicate homelessness and to help people as much as possible. But the last time that we brought up, and I'm not trying to jump around, but we have another item here today regarding helping the homeless population. And it's a different approach from Housing First. It's an approach that deals with the mental health issue. And so the only reason I say that is because I certainly don't want to penalize the homeless trust for doing a great job. But the percentage of folks that are homeless right now is low because of the great work the homeless trust has done. But there are folks that need more than just housing. They need medical attention. They need job training. I'm not saying you guys don't do that. You do. But is there a world where perhaps if we have adequate amount of beds, couldn't we theoretically take some of these dollars to fund a project like the one that we're going to be taking up today? I certainly don't want to penalize the homeless trust. I hope you understand where I'm going with it. But it's the same mission. You guys have the same mission here. You guys have done a great job with the Housing First initiative. It seems like we're in a different phase right now. So I'm just posing the question. Would it be possible for this tax to maybe not go to beds, but go to a project like this, which in turn, correct me if I'm wrong, would alleviate some of the beds that you guys are currently giving or providing for folks that need a little bit more. Does that make sense, Vicki? I mean, Ms. Mallette? Yes, yes, yes. So if I could go back and answer Commissioner Cohen Higgins' question quickly too, yes, we are at capacity. Every day it's a juggling act between our outreach teams trying to place people directly from the street, fielding calls that come into the homeless helpline. There are thousands of them and juggling the people coming out of institutional settings such as crisis stabilization units, hospitals, et cetera. So we are at capacity. We contract beds and those beds are full all the time. And we are very mindful that those beds bring this community value and they are competed. So we can talk more about that. I'm happy to answer any question to Commissioner Gonzalez's question. Yes, there's more than one way to approach ending homelessness. We do have a commitment as I'm sure you'll hear when item 3A is taken up into the mental health facility of $1.4 million. I want to point out that the mental health center is not exclusively for people experiencing homelessness. And our mission and our food and beverage tax dollars can only go to people exclusively experiencing homelessness. But we do believe that there is more than one way to address homelessness. And we are looking for a myriad and menu of solutions, particularly for people who we found to be hard to serve. Thank you. Madam Chair, may I? Of course, continue. And I appreciate that answer, Vicki, and you're always on your toes and I really appreciate that. And I appreciate all the work the Homeless Trust is doing. I would kind of like to explore how maybe some of those funds could be allocated because I do have the numbers and I'm sure that you have the numbers as well. But, you know, from 3 million residents right now we have about 3,600 homeless folks that are in shelters thanks to the Homeless Trust, right? And there's about 858 that are unsheltered. This is because of the great work that you, Mr. Book, and the entire board has done. I'm looking at that 858 number and in the past couple of years it hasn't fluctuated. You know, it goes up and down a little bit, but it stays kind of so I'm just wondering perhaps this particular population may need something different. It's just something that I'm throwing out there. I'm sure that you guys are probably already exploring this. But to Commissioner Cohen Higgins' point, when we're talking about allocating these funds, we want to make sure that they're used in the best way possible. Highest and best use, you know? I agree. Thank you. Commissioner Cohen Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague for the questions. I just was informed that this item was requested to be advanced to our next BCC, which is next week as opposed to taking the regular course that items that come before the committee take. What is the need for the expediency? So the capital work is underway. We believe this facility will be positioned to open in the month of April and we have the service provider in place and the capital work has been ongoing. So we're ready to go and we would like to be able to start right away without having a facility that's positioned to accept people, but without the proper funding in place to enter into an agreement. Oh, so you've already constructed the building. You're ready to open the doors. Absent the $10 million here, you've advanced the money for it. You're ready to open in April. It's now March 11th. That is our plan, yes. Okay. Okay. Well, again, I look forward to meeting with you between now, I guess, now and next week, Tuesday, to go over the questions that I have. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome. Are there any other questions? I have one. I want to make a, I want to make you aware of an encampment, which I was shocked to see. I went to tour the new emergency room at Jackson and in front of, and on this would be Northwest 7th Avenue and Northwest 17th Street. It's a full on encampment, not one, not two, both sides of the street. I was shocked. And so I, I too know that law very well since I voted in favor of it when I was in the legislature. And so I was trying to figure out how is this possible? And I'm told it's been there for a while. So it's, it's exceeded the three days. So can you explain, is this the first you're hearing about the encampment one and two, if it isn't, what is the process and how are these people on the street? Uh, and, and more importantly, um, I don't think they were, these people are safe. Uh, I could see, I could tell. Um, but it's also, for me, it's a public health issue. They're defecating on the street. They're right around the, the behavioral health hospital that Jackson has. And I, I was so, um, taken by the fact that it wasn't new. It's chronically our encampment area. So if you could just answer my questions, please. Thank you for that question. Yes, this is, this is not a new hotspot. I would call it the, we have remediated this area on multiple occasions. As you point out is directly across the street from Jackson's crisis stabilization unit. There are many people in this area that are seriously mentally ill. We know them by name. Um, many of them at don't at the moment we approach meet the criteria of a Baker act. So involuntary commitment is difficult. This is also directly across the street from mother Teresa. It is a, the sisters of charity who feed every day of the week. We believe that feeding program, um, is attractive to the people and they feel a sense of safety sleeping in that area. Despite I share your concerns that it is a public health issue. Um, I don't want to posit that we do not have hotspots in Miami Dade County. I can rattle off a half a dozen for you. It is not as though we have not been in those areas and we have worked collaboratively and in a trauma informed way to improve those areas. But these hotspots do return. So, um, I don't want to sugarcoat it. I think that the navigation center together with law enforcement together with the commitment we have to the mental health center could be a new way of addressing this particular area and others that we find as concerning as you do. So I also took a walk through downtown this week and, uh, I met a woman by the name of Linda, who's been living on the streets for 20 years. The police know her really well. Uh, they move her around, uh, every day. Um, and she is shelter adverse. Um, she will not go to a shelter. They threatened to arrest her, um, her, her situation. And she also defecates on the street. Um, and you know, it kind of adding to the situation that I have in downtown because that is my district and it is highly blighted, uh, in many areas. But I was concerned for Linda because she's been living on the streets for 20 years and she is not going to go to a mental health center. She's not going to, in my opinion, she's suffering from schizophrenia, so says the police. But here's the situation. She really belongs in a locked down facility where she can get the help she needs. Neither the mental health center is a lockdown facility. The only lockdown facility that I am aware of in the state is our mental health, our mental institution. No, listen, I'm, I'm, I'm speaking. I would appreciate that everyone understand the protocol here. I am telling a story about Linda because it's important. 20 years living on the street. She wants to continue to live on the streets. I asked her, do you want to go and get help? I do not. So that is another situation in and of itself that I, we need to start considering because she's not alone at downtown the police. And I felt really badly for the city of Miami police officers that have to deal with this day in and day out because they say they don't want help. We can arrest them. We can take them to, to Camillus. We can take them everywhere. And they are not interested. And yet they're on the street and they're creating a public health hazard. They are a nuisance, unfortunately, and they don't even realize it. And I, I don't know what the homeless trust is thinking of doing because in the last two weeks I have dealt with homelessness in my district. And then currently right outside of my district at Jackson where many people go to, to receive help. So maybe you could explain to me what we're doing about Linda. So I personally don't know about that case, but the story you tell is a common one. Somebody who doesn't meet criteria app is not threatening to kill themselves or others. There are limitations within how we commit that type of person. If that person were to get arrested, and I don't know if she has been, and we're not encouraging that. They are oftentimes sent to a crisis stabilization unit, given some medication, and then they're discharged. We are trying to catch those discharges, but as you point out, this client does not want the crisis housing that we have to offer. Perhaps the navigation center would be able to address that. It's a new place with a new type of approach. Perhaps the mental health facility, which is a lockdown facility, a temporary lockdown facility. But that could provide the stabilization services that that individual needs. There are a lot of moving parts, but I share your concern. And this is stuff that keeps us up at night. Of approximately 1,000 people on the streets of Miami-Dade County, about 600 or 650 are in your district, or i.e. in the city of Miami. We understand that. We work very closely with the city. We work with their heat team, which is the team that works with individuals who are experiencing homelessness. And we have communications with the officers who are not specific to the homeless heat team. So it is a concern of ours, and this navigation center is specifically designed to help partner with officers. I will also tell you that when we do have occupancy in the late afternoon, we put new procedures in place together with the city of Miami. So that if a person delivered to a shelter during the day walks away or decides they do not want that shelter bed and that shelter bed becomes open, the afternoon shift that partners with city of Miami police and other law enforcement has the opportunity to place into that bed. For people like Linda who refuse the options on the menu, it's a different story. I don't have a great answer for you other than I believe that the mental health facility combined with our navigation center are new attempts to approach that particular population in a new and different way. I'll also point out we have one other pilot underway. We have created a data sharing agreement with Jackson. We have flagged chronically homeless people who are high utilizers of the hospital system, be it Jackson correctional, Jackson behavioral, Jackson ER. And when those individuals on our shared list enter a Jackson property, our outreach teams who are discharge planners report to those properties and we have set aside a portion of the supportive housing we have available specifically to house those individuals. If Linda is not entering jail regularly enough or crisis or ER regularly enough, she's not being captured there. And we have had success in moving people straight from the street into housing first permanent supportive housing. Is it for everyone? Is there more than one way to regain self sufficiency? Yes, we're doing all of these things and we are trying to dream up new ways to get to the hard to serve population. And I'm happy to meet Linda with you. I'm happy to meet with you. I'm happy to walk the streets together with you and hear the stories alongside of you, because we spend every day thinking of new ways to approach these challenges in our community. Well, I'll just end this conversation with I may be approaching the state legislature because something has to be done. Linda can't stay on the streets. It's not good for Linda. It's not good for those that live in the community. And there has to be a solution to those that reject assistance. And clearly, you know, the police and I had a conversation. It's certainly not upping the charge to a felony charge where she would be retained, you know, for a longer period of time. We're not looking. I'm looking to help Linda. That's who I want to help. Linda and her counterparts. The city of Miami police says that there are over 100 that are chronically ill like her that, you know, of all of all the homeless that may be there's they've identified 100. They know by name. They see them. They move them. It is the drag on our resources. Our law enforcement resources is what is also troubling, because instead of the police ensuring that my constituents downtown are safe, they are busy dealing with Linda and all the others. And that is a huge problem as well. So I look forward to working with you to try to find a solution. Madam Chair. Madam Chair as well. Senator Garcia, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate the attention that we're giving to mental health and homelessness in our community. I do want to have had my differences with the homeless trust in the past, but I do want to commend the work that you've been able to accomplish in trying to limit the chronic homeless problem in our community. A big problem that we have when it comes to behavioral health and mental health with some of the clients that you serve is unfortunately laws of the state law prevents us from involuntarily. Keeping people that are not Baker acted. And even with the Baker Act or the Marchman Act, it's limited to the time that they can be kept. So that makes it that much more difficult. You know, when I see when I see these individuals on the street, you know, I have stopped and I do talk to them because I don't see them as a nuisance. I see them as a human being and I see as someone that I try to help. And while others may, I think it's important that we all try to do a part to try to help them. And some of them, unfortunately, they just don't want to help. There's a homeless, a homeless lady in my community that she, I help her all the time, but because of a pet, she doesn't want to go into a facility. You know, she has a pet and she doesn't want to give up the pet. And I've told her a whole bunch of times I can help you, but she refuses the help. So I think to your point, and I appreciate that you say going to legislature, I think that is something that we need to start looking at the, what binds us from being able to do more for our mentally, behavioral health system. You know, it's a system that's fragmented, it's broken. It's like everything else in healthcare it is. But this is one area that we need to start putting more attention to make sure that we do not become a San Francisco or Los Angeles and we do try to break these services. So I think we have another piece of legislation before us that we can start to try and address some of those questions. But I think, again, I don't think it addresses your point because what's coming before us is a jail diversion program that's going to capture a segment of the population. I'm not saying I'm not against it, but I think we need to be honest with our communities as to what the next steps are. And the biggest problem that we have is housing. Housing is always going to be the biggest problem that we have across the board. We have it in all of our districts, but it's having supportive housing to get these individuals in and stabilize. Until we address that issue of housing and stabilization long term, that becomes a problem because when it comes to the public health trust, if I'm not mistaken, a lot of it is temporary housing and try to get them, move them in and out. And you work with different shelters across the community and so forth. So I appreciate that. And I would like to see more work with Camilla's house. That's a whole other story, but thank you for that. But anyway, those are the complexities that we are dealing with in Miami-Dade County that other communities, other counties across the state don't really face. And this is with your connections at the state, more recent connections, because mines are dwindling away. We need to start dealing with this issue because it's going to get worse before it gets better. Thank you, Senator. Vice Chairwoman Milian Orbis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I also agree with my colleagues on everything that they've said about this. And I don't think this is a topic that we talk about enough. I think it's something that we put a Band-Aid on and then we kind of move on and we revisit when it's an emergency. But I also would love to meet with you on this. In my district, I have a huge encampment on Northwest 7th Street and 72nd near the airport area. I went in there by myself with my husband freaking out and saying, don't do that. And they are along the airport hotels. You know what I saw? A bunch of purses of people that they robbed that were staying in those hotels. And those are tourists that then that is the impression that they get of our community and that they take back. So it's a ripple effect. And I saw these people living there and there's no way to get them out. It's a full-blown encampment. So I would love to work with you as well to see how we can relocate these folks in the proper way and get them the help that they need. I'd love to meet with you on that when you have a chance. I would love to do that. Commissioner Lopez, I would just like to add that we have supported legislation at the Homeless Trust Board level and as a legislative priority to amend the Mental Health Act at the state level. There is a clause, you know, while we're always mindful of civil liberties, there is a clause that says self-neglect is Baker Actable. But what we find the practice to be is that if someone is threatening themselves or others, they're holding the bar very, very high. But we too are concerned about the Lindas who don't present as Baker Acts and don't want the menu of options, but we see them withering away and languishing on the streets. And we want to be able to do something. So that is, there is legislation, it needs a champion, involves the Department of Children and Families. So I'd love to talk to you about that. And Judge Leifman is quite familiar with that legislation as well. He helps support the writing of that. We will work together. I also would like a list of the hotspots, the encampment hotspots. I'm not, I was shocked to hear that now I, my colleague has one in her district. So, and I know, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you wanted to say something about the hotspots. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleagues for all being so thoughtful and engaging in this conversation. And what is kind of standing out to me is, you know, we have an item here to approve another $10.5 million to outfit another structure for 80 beds. And that's what we get approached with all the time, you know, approve these dollars so that we can build this. But we have two commissioners on a committee of five that have encampments in their districts. And there's just five of us here. Two of them are saying they have encampments that are a problem for their constituents in their districts. And they haven't been there for three days. They've been there perpetually. So, so what I'm saying and what I'm laying down is, I need the homeless trust to give us an actual tangible solution regarding the encampments in our districts. We're going to continue to approve items of hundreds of millions of dollars to allow you all to build the temporary navigation centers or housing that you need to. But we are responding to constituents. We are getting calls from constituents. And when they see budgets of the homeless trust at $165 million and, oh, you just approved an item of $10.5 million, the question is always, but what about the encampment that is still remaining right outside my backyard? And so we have to be able to provide a real solution to these problems. And I always appreciate the answer of we're working on it, but I'd like for us to do a little bit more. So I invite you to meet with the commissioners that have these encampments report to us on these hotspots and let us know the tools that you need from us outside of just building concrete brick and mortar cement. There has to be a solution to these issues, health, public safety, it runs the gamut, but we cannot allow the status quo to simply stay the same considering the dollars the hundreds of millions of dollars that we manage as a county to address this issue. It is completely unacceptable for us to report back to our constituents two, three, six, 12 months later that the encampment simply remains. And so it's not just I look forward to working with you. I absolutely do, but we really need some sort of a tangible solution to this issue. If I may. Yes, you may. If I said we're working on it to make it seem as though we are turning a blind eye and slowly working on it, that is not what I meant. In the last year, many complaints or concerns have been expressed to us through this homeless reporting tool. I can give you a list of the 600 homeless reports that we've had. In every one of those cases, a report into that system, which oftentimes comes from your offices, triggers an outreach team to be first on the scene. We have charged those outreach teams with coordinating with solid waste, with coordinating with law enforcement, with coordinating with code and compliance. We have teams stationed at Miami International Airport. The bus rail ends at MIA, but we have open channels with the police at the airport. We are constantly putting out fires in this community. It would be wrong to say that we're working on it. We have remediated these locations repeatedly. And I just want to go back to the point that Commissioner, Senator Garcia made with regard to housing. We have an enormous number of people. Yes, we're trying to approach the navigation center in a new way. 2,500 people are languishing in shelter, desperate to find a place to live that they can afford. Not all of those people are seriously mentally ill or suffering from substance use disorder, which is why we are fighting every day from our offices to try to get preferences and set-asides for the clients we serve. Because if they had options, they wouldn't be spending the night at Chapman Partnership, at Lotus House, at Miami Rescue Mission, at Riverside House, at Salvation Army. They are out of resources and supports. They are out of options. And their incomes, despite us working with them on employment, do not allow them and enable them to afford. We're pushing on shared housing. That's another approach we're taking. So I don't want to suggest we're working on it. And lastly, I just want to make a clarification. Yes, this item does request $10 million, and that is an enormous amount of money. That is a seven-year commitment from this provider, together with a $1.4 million capital investment, that locks us in to having this unique capacity for the near future to actually protect the investment of the county at what is a rate of $50 per person per day. From a provider who's been with the Continuum for 20 years, has proven to be a recovery-oriented provider, working also with the managing entity for substance use and mental health to help people with severe mental illness, substance use disorders, and co-occurring conditions. So we're not simply passing the buck and saying we're working on it. I'm saying every day is a new challenge. And I can tell you our teams, together with police and solid waste, are at locations this morning. We are partnered with FDOT. We're under bridges all the time. In every one of your districts, we are getting referrals from yours. If you feel as though there's an encampment in your district that hasn't been addressed and is allowed to languish, bring it to our attention. There's nothing we'd rather do than coordinate services around it to try to remediate. But we need to be able to have options for placement, various options for placement for people who refuse services, don't want to enter treatment, have tried the shelters, been there, done that. The navigation center gets toward that, the mental health center gets toward that. Those are new options on the menu for this community to further reduce unsheltered homelessness. Thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Vicki, I have to say, look, I appreciate so much and I admire so much your passion. Not only your passion, but the passion of each and every person that's on your board. And I certainly don't want you to feel like the comments and the questions that are coming from this board are in any way diminishing the great work that the Homeless Trust is doing. On the contrary, I think everybody up here is very appreciative and very, very aware of the great work that the Homeless Trust has done. I think what you're seeing is, right now, I mean, you have Commissioner Natalie Milan Orbis, you have Commissioner Lopez, you have Daniel Cohen Higgins. This is like the four horsemen of fiscal responsibility, right? So we want to solve all the issues and make sure that the residents have everything that they need, but at the same time we want to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible. And so I think that the only thing you're getting from up here is perhaps there are other ways that we can solve the problem. Because you've already done such a great job at, and I'm going to go ahead and say this, but I think you've done a great job at solving, solving literally. And I can show you numbers, difference between Miami-Dade County, major metropolitan area, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, Colorado. I can show you numbers, the difference between what is seen here and what is seen in other major metropolitan areas. I think Commissioner Lopez made a great point, and I'm curious if the Chair would allow it. I would like to ask Judge Leifman, because I think you made a great point as to what do we do with somebody like Miss Linda, who doesn't want to go to a housing facility. So Judge Leifman, would that be different in the model that you are projecting or planning? Is there a difference there? Like what happens if you encounter, because it's not just one commissioner, there's three commissioners up here that have said the same thing. There are people that they don't want to go into a facility because they have a pet, like Senator Garcia said. Or they just simply don't want to, or they have a mental health issue that is impeding them from actually wanting to get help. Would there be a difference with what you're proposing? Yes, and thank you very much. Judge, good morning. Good morning. You're recognized. Madam Chair, I apologize. Through the Chair, and I don't mean to intertwine both, Madam Chair, so I can wait if you would prefer. No, no, not at all. I think it's a great question, and I have extraordinary respect for Judge Leifman and the work that he's done. So I think he's the appropriate person to answer that question. Thank you, and thank you very much. And I'm also the Finance Chair of the Homeless Trust. So we work very, very closely, and we have been working on brilliant strategies. And you are 100% correct. For the most part, Dade County has eliminated economic homelessness. It is miraculous. I go around the country helping other communities. I was just in Seattle last week. It's not even close. The problem is what we have left, and there are about 1,000 people, and the vast majority of them are people with mental health and or substance use disorders. Madam Chair, your compassion is compelling and moving, and I know Linda. She has come through my court when I was sitting several times. There are about 1,000 of them, and let me just explain. Over the last five years, including Linda, they have been arrested 7,898 times. They spent 317,681 days in the Dade County Jail at a cost of $117 million. Let's talk about fiscal responsibility. We just keep doing the same thing again and again, and we get the same outcome. We built this facility, which is now built and done for the Linda's of the world. And to Senator Garcia, who's been a great champion on mental health, it's not that they just don't want to come in. Part of the actual illness of psychosis is an inability to know you're ill. And so they deny they're sick, and you can't get them to come in if they deny they're sick. What makes the building unique, and it answers your question, and I probably should apologize, because listening to the conversation, it's clear to me I've done a terrible job explaining how the building will work. And I apologize for that, for real. Because what makes this so unique is that if you come in through the jail side, you will be sent to the building, but you have a criminal hold on you. They cannot leave. And that's why we have the opportunity to break the cycle. This is not a Miami problem. This is a national problem. It's a combination of several things that happen. We deinstitutionalized. Let me back up. When community mental health was designed in the United States, the most acutely ill, the Linda's, were in state hospitals. And so community mental health was actually designed for people with moderate mental illnesses, not acute. So what happened? We deinstitutionalized. We closed almost all the hospital beds. We went from 550,000 hospital beds in America to less than 30,000 today. We went to the war on drugs and crime. We did something called sentencing guidelines. And we massively cut housing in the 80s. This population got thrown into communities like ours without a system to take care of them. And so the only option has been to use the criminal justice system. And it doesn't work. And it's expensive. The data we have is from the county. 70% to 80% of every inmate in the Dade County Jail as we stand here today, or I stand here, you sit here, have been diagnosed with a mental illness. It is very expensive. And they just keep cycling. To Senator Garcia's point, there has been legislation for the last four years to amend the Baker Act. Florida is a minority state. We're only one of like five or six states that still use the same standard. It does need to be modernized. It doesn't match science, medicine. There's nothing civil or right allowing, she's 76 years old, Linda, to be eating cat food under a garbage dump. We can do better. We would never do this for someone with cancer or heart disease. You have the answer. You've already spent the money. It will cost you nothing for three years. And now, Judge Leifman, to that point, though, I think what you're hearing up here, and certainly this is what I'm hearing from my colleague, Commissioner Cohen Higgins, it's not that we don't want to okay whatever money is necessary to help these individuals. I think what everybody up here is saying is let's use the money efficiently, highest and best use. 100% agreement. But under that premise, I mean, I'm glad that you said that you're on the board of the Homeless Trust and you actually are the person who looks at the finances because Ms. Mallette made a good point. So if we cannot use, I mean, her statement, and correct me if I'm wrong, Vicki, Ms. Mallette, but your statement was we cannot use these funds from this grant because they have to be used specifically for folks that are homeless. But then I would pose this question to you, and I don't know, because it's interpretation, I'm a lawyer man, right? So if you are in jail, you don't have a home or no. Let's take the first shot. We're also looking at other grants. We're not just relying on the county. We get that. Well, but I'm saying particularly to this item, right? And this is just curiosity. I don't know if my colleagues are even on board with this. I'm just thinking out loud. So you're correct. But, well, not everyone in jail is homeless, but there are people in jail who are homeless. The facility, as it's envisioned, is not exclusively for homeless. We do have a financial commitment into the facility. Just the food and beverage dollars can only be used for those experiencing homelessness. So if prior to going to jail, you were on the street, in a car, in a park, in an abandoned building, you're meeting the definition of homelessness. If you come to jail following a doubled up situation, or you had a crisis that required Baker Act and you were living with your parents, that is not a homeless individual. Does that person need help, deserve help? Is that a need in our community? Absolutely. Absolutely. But that person was not in a street, car, park, abandoned building prior to jail or the CSU. But I will tell you, Commissioner, we keep a lot of- So just to piggyback off that, so it would preclude these specific dollars from going to a program like that? Not all of it. It's more complicated. 92% of the people, the county keeps great data. So 92% of these individuals, the 1,000 we just talked about, all meet the definition of homeless. So the vast, vast majority can use those dollars for the services. And we're working with the trust for the building that we will make sure that the dollars they give us go to people that meet the definition so we don't have auditing issues. But since the vast, vast majority, 92% upwards, meet it, I'm not concerned that it's going to be an issue for us to meet that criteria. So you're saying that because part of your item is asking for money, right? No. We're not asking for a penny. Well, in the sense that, in the sense I think the uneasiness is what happens after a certain amount of years, right? And we're going to get to that item later. But what I'm saying is there's 10.5 million here, right? I'm just- But that's allocated for a program that's already built. Am I not making sense? You are making sense. So I would just say the mental health center has a specific population. The navigation center has a specific population, not necessarily the same. And a traditional shelter has a separate population. These are items on the menu, as is treatment through the managing entity for substance use, as is a request for detox, and we have and try to provide access. These are all options on the menu. We would not go at the homeless trust level to the nuclear option of criminalizing homelessness in order to facilitate placement into the center. Our preference would be that we can get to Linda through the Mental Health Act and that legislation so that we could facilitate access to the center, not necessarily only through arrest. But we do have people experiencing homelessness who do get arrested, go to jail. Not everybody in jail is experiencing homelessness. I understand. And look, I think we're saying, we're kind of saying the same thing in the sense that, you know, you had three commissioners that spoke about folks that don't want to go particularly to a housing facility. And we're talking about, there's under a thousand unsheltered folks right now. Commissioner Lopez specifically alluded to one particular case where the person has been homeless. I'm sorry, Chair, but I think you said 20 years. Correct. Linda. So it just, it seems to me like perhaps funds should be allocated to that particular nuance or maybe nuance isn't the right word, but that particular demographic of the homeless population. This is all I'm saying. This is all I'm saying. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, yes, and I think just to piggyback here now because I think we now have confusion. This item is about your center, not about the mental health center. Correct. So I think everyone now got confused because I want, I don't disagree at all with Commissioner Gonzalez that I want to take care of the Lindas first. Okay. The police officers have told me there's a hundred of Lindas. There's a thousand actually. No, no, but in my district. Yes, that's. In my district, they know of a hundred chronically ill and chronically homeless. Vicki, is your center going to pick up all hundred of my people? If I give you $10 million, will you pledge to pick up that population first? So yes, we will work with police. There's 80 beds in this facility and those beds are available to the law enforcement team. I want you to hear the question. The navigation center, I'm told that I have a hundred Lindas in my district. So I'm saying if I give you $10 million, will you pick up, she says they have 80 beds in that center. Will you pick up the 80 Lindas in my district and put them right now in there so that I will see an improvement in my district? That's a yes or no question. That's it. Yes or no? I want to speak to the words pick up. No, no. House, house. We are homeless outreach teams. House, house. We do not have law enforcement backgrounds. We can offer, cajole, continue to engage. We have 80 beds. We have low barrier entry. We're not looking for reasons not to take people, but this whole effort of the navigation center is, yes, designed to do exactly what you want. Engage the hardest to serve together with law enforcement and the outreach teams in a trauma informed way and see if they are open to this new and different option. Okay. That is another intervention. I'm not talking about, the item before us, let's just be clear where we are, let's put ourselves in proper posture. Yes. The item before us is your item, $10 million. I am saying that I have 100 Lindas. You're not law enforcement. Will you work with every single partner that has authority to bring, not pick up, bring 80 Lindas in my district to that center? Yes, we work with law enforcement today. No, no. There's no department we would not work with. Okay, so here's where we're going to start. I'm going to call a meeting of all of the stakeholders, City of Miami Police, in my district, you, and anyone else. And we're going to discuss how we're going to get 80 Lindas off the street in downtown Miami into your center. Madam Chair, but, and I appreciate if I may. You may, Senator. What about the Matidas that I have in my district? I'm getting there. Oh, Senator. Oh, Senator. I was getting there. Okay, okay. I appreciate that. Senator, I was actually getting there because I hadn't even gotten to my encampment and the encampment here at my vice chair. Chairman's a district. Because we've been confusing lots of issues in lots of centers. The item before us is to give $10 million. So let's be, let's be clear which, which population we need. Now it starts to sound to me that the mental health center should only focus on this population too. Because if I have 100, I have no idea how many Matildas are in Senator Garcia's district. And I don't know if you know the names of some of the people in your district. Alfredos. Alfredos. Alfredos. Alfredos. So we have tons of Alfredos over here. God knows what else I've got across the 13 districts. So maybe we focus on those that are on the street. Because those are the ones that worry me for their sakes and for the sakes of my constituents that live in the areas where they are obviously living on the street. So, do we see where we're all headed? We're all headed to, there's one population that needs to be addressed immediately. And unfortunately, we don't have enough space for everybody. We don't have space for the ones that are in jail right now that will be subject to release, right? We know that the jail provides mental health services, but it's not what these people need. So, here's the problem we have. Now we have too few beds and too many that are homeless because Judge Leifman has just told us there are a thousand Lindas. Okay? So, in my district, it's a hundred. So, I'm assuming if I do the math, pretty much everybody has approximately the same amount of Lindas, right? So, if we're going to fund anything, it's the people like Linda. And I'll tell you why. I have a business in downtown Miami that is known as the 7-Eleven. Do you know how they're moving all of the Lindas? They are now blasting music every ten seconds at a very high volume. So, they think that's the only thing that has helped. You know what that does to the rest of the people that are living upstairs on the building? You got my drift, right? The Lindas are the ones we have to worry about immediately because they are impacting residents throughout my district and probably, as we've heard now, throughout everyone's district. So, to, and I believe this was Commissioner Cohen Higgins' pull. So, I have already said what I'm going to do to make sure my 100 Lindas get into that one of those beds. We're going to get everyone together in my office and we're going to ensure because if I, if out of the 13 districts, you can't fill your center, then I will have spent $10 million for what? Okay? Because we keep building the beds without really understanding what needs to be done here. And I'm telling you this, Vicki, because I agree with Judge Leifman. There is an incredible representative who's known as, affectionately, General Maney, a one-star general who is a judge. He has been trying to amend the Baker Act now since I went to the legislature and before. That has to be done to be helpful. But, absent that reform, we have to figure out what to do with the Lindas. But we know. Because it is now a complete mess in downtown Miami. And remember that I have Miami-Dade College and I met with the president who says that's also a problem for my students. It is. So, maybe, and Judge, hold on for a second because honestly I want to stay on point with this item. So, is there any, yes, of course, Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to the Chair's point, I don't know about the rest of my colleagues, right? And so, I will go with the will of the board. But my uneasiness is specifically towards how we're going to use this money. And Vicki, please don't hate me. I think both of you guys are on the same team. And we're all trying to solve the same problem. So, to the county attorney's office, I've posed the question regarding the usage of this 10.5 million. Is it possible, because I have unreadiness to vote on this item and on the next item without getting to the crux of what the answer to this question is. Is it possible to use these 10.5 million for or a portion of this 10.5 million for a project such as what Judge Lifeman is doing to save the Lindas? The use of the food and beverage tax is, the answer is in part yes. For those persons that are homeless that enter the mental health facility, the food and beverage tax, which is exclusively for the use of homeless, can be used. But as Ms. Millett said, not all of the persons are homeless. So, it would have to be limited to those people that were experiencing homelessness prior to their entry into the facility. So, colleagues, what I'm trying to spark a conversation about is, and this is why I'm unready about this item. I don't know, I certainly don't want to defer, but I'm inclined to defer both items because I feel like we need to have a conversation. Or I don't know if we're ready to make that decision now, but I would even pose to reallocating either the 10.5 million or a portion of these funds in order to fund the Lifeman facility for the Lindas and the Alfredos and the Mareros. Right? I'm just going to throw that out there. I don't know where everybody else is at, but I'm just going to throw that out there. The county attorney themselves are saying that we can allocate all those funds as long as they're used for homeless. Judge Lifeman, would you agree with the analysis that the county attorney just made? Yes, but I would add this. We don't need a penny from the county for three years for the facility. This money needs to be spent now. Yes, but sir. I don't know if you can move those dollars around the way that you're thinking. Well, Judge, I do understand where your heart is, but I think the issue with deciding on your item is not the immediateness of whether you need money now. But we don't want to just open a facility and then close it later. So what we're trying to figure out is how is there a proper revenue stream that does not stop, that goes to this project, that does not stop so that this project can be not only a model for the nation, but it can continue on for years to come, much like was done with the homeless trust. Look, we are leading the homeless conversation nationwide, perhaps worldwide, thanks to what has been done with the homeless trust. And we've had plenty of funds that have been allocated towards the homeless trust to do that. This is a revenue stream that would solve the conversation of future revenues that would be needed for this to actually take place. And the trust is willing to allocate resources to the facility to help make that happen. Right, and I understand that, Judge, but I think what I am posing, and I don't know if my colleagues agree, so I will defer to my colleagues. But what I am posing is, if we can allocate these 10.5 million from this tax that goes directly to this project, then the uneasiness of anybody, of everybody up here, is the fiscal responsibility of allocating general funds. That would not be necessary anymore. I think this requires a much more thoughtful conversation. Agreed. That's why I think that we should, my uneasiness is, I think this might be a solution. I think, Commissioner Gonzalez, I think we hear you. And I think it's smart, because you have kind of hooked into something that we haven't really talked about before, to be honest with you. And that's only because these two items now, you know, are before us and it's two centers. And so I guess I would ask the will of the board, if anyone has any further comments on how to deal with not only this item, I guess what you're saying is to defer all of them so that we can have a chance to look and see funding resources. Hang on. Okay. Are there any other comments? No. Senator Garcia, do you have any further comments? Okay. May I have a point of clarification? Hold on. I'm just trying to get my, Vice Chairman, do you have any comments? No. I totally agree with my colleague, Commissioner Gonzalez. This is reminiscent of the waste-to-energy facility. We've put a lot of effort into that. We've hosted a lot of workshops. And I think when we're making decisions that bear this great of a deal on our community and on that population that will be impacted, which is obviously very important to all of us. I think that it merits something like that, perhaps a workshop to discuss how these funds can be used for this center, which I know that we all want to see it succeed and we don't want to see it fail. That's why we're not trying to make a quick and dirty decision here. I agree with my colleague. Yes. Do I have a motion? Actually, before I- Yeah, I'm sorry. Please. Yes, Senator. I just asked the county attorney's office to please revisit the numbers because the things that I saw on the substitute amendment, are we talking about- No, we're still actually on 3B? Sorry. No, no, that's all right. But somehow we got into 3A because the discussion required having Judge Leifman talk about his center and then Vicki Millett was talking about her center. And so then there was the suggestion that there's more to this that, you know, we've discovered that we might be able to move revenue streams that are helpful to help the population we've just described today. So that's where we were at. Commissioner Gonzalez was suggesting that we defer them both and then have like a workshop. Let's get in and let's figure out how we fund all this, right? So, no, okay. On that point then- Yes, Senator. I'm going to defer them both, Madam Chair. Just make sure that when we come back that the numbers right now on the substitute amendment that I was willing to vote for, except for the numbers not matching up. We have to be very careful that when we bring items to us, I think that when we see the division between a two-year or a three-year contract and then you try to add some of these numbers, they weren't adding up for me. But I understand that the county attorney's office has been working on trying to correct some of these numbers and make sure the contract comes before us. Okay, Madam Chair, as a point of order, we were going to change it. We were going to amend it when it came up, so. No, but even in the substitute one, I think there's- In the substitute, yes. Even in the substitute one. Okay, you guys, you guys? All right. Honestly, no, no, Senator, you're a member of the committee. You actually had the floor. So I want to just make sure, did you finish? Thank you, Madam Chair, yes, I too want to say that even in the substitute amendment, I'll get together with the county attorney's office, because even with the substitute amendment, I think our staff is going through some of these numbers while we were up here, and it's just some discrepancy. So I would appreciate those numbers to be correct before we move forward on this. Thank you for that, because I think that's helpful to all the committee members. All right, so I will entertain a motion on 3B. It's been moved, did you move it, to defer it? To defer, yes. Do I have a second? I have a second. So I have- Madam Chair, I'm sorry, is that on item 3B? It is, on 3B. So, Vicki, the will of the committee is to defer, and you've heard all the discussion. So, in the interest of time, because there's another committee that's coming on board here at 1 o'clock, and we must be done. It's at 1230. We're into there. We're already into the time of the other committee, and we have to be cognizant of it. Although, I must tell the committee members how impressed I am with the level of discussion, and why we have managed to really kind of start to unravel a lot of the things that we don't know. And, of course, Senator Garcia now has given us a new impression of, like, the numbers on 3A and 3A substitute, and then 3A substitute 2. So, let us, we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Vice Chairwoman Milian Orbis. Madam Chair? Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt. No, no, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, would it be to no date certain, or to the next committee meeting? To no date certain, until we can figure out what we've got to do here. So, yes, to no date certain. All right, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. to okay and and you have a second so I have a second by Commissioner me on Orbis all in favor say aye aye opposed say nay the motion passes and then I just have one more item that was pulled and that was 3g thank you madam chair very quickly on 3g I always value when people come from the community or our business community to speak at our hearings and we had a public speaker on 3g who made it a note that this was not a not competitively procured contract and so I just wanted to get clarification from the administration because 3g is titled a non-competitive contract so I just want to square the two obviously you know being thoughtful to the public comments that we receive but an explanation on 3g would be greatly appreciated through the chair I guess chief not hear the question the question I'm happy to repeat it madam chief we had public comment reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard and we had a speaker that came to the podium and represented on 3g that it was a competitively procured contract but 3g is titled non-competitive so I was just trying to understand why it's titled in that way through the chair of our director of procurement can answer your question thank you namada you're recognized thank you commissioner when the rfp when the original rfp was advertised of course we got several proposals and and the board approved the award to a competitive process in in that rfp award it was contemplated that the solution that the county is buying for the parking is going to be expanded to other locations as the budgets are approved so now this this fiscal year the board adopted the budget for for piod to to add those locations into the contract and that's what we're doing the original contract was competitively solicited and awarded and approved by the board and the addition of these locations is being presented to you as a non competitive based on the consultation with the county attorney's office okay and thank you so then the answer should be provided by the county attorney's office and the okay and thank you so then the answer should be provided by the county attorney's county attorney's why is it why is it titled non-competitive contract if it was competitively solicited my understanding is that the original solicitation was for identified parking locations for one department and this item is expanding beyond the original department which was solicited to the seaport to other departments and expanding the scope as far as the number of facilities beyond what was originally competitive. Yes. Okay, I'm happy to move 3G as is. I have a number of subsequent questions, but we are very, very tight on time, and so I will work with the attorneys to further have my questions answered between now and final hearing. Is 3G being advanced to the next BCC, or is it following regular track? Through the chair? Yes. If you need more time, we're happy. Oh, no, I'm not trying to slow it down. At the beginning of our hearing, there were a number of items that were advanced. This one was one that I think you all approved to be moved to the next. Okay, but I'm getting fingers shaking from the attorneys saying no. So was it advanced to the next BCC, or is it following regular track? It is not advanced to the next BCC. Oh, perfect. Okay, great. I'll move it, and I'll have answers. Thank you so much. Thank you. So we have a motion by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. I second it. Seconded by Vice Chairwoman Milian Orbis. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. All opposed? Nay. The motion passes, I need a motion to adjourn. So moved. I'm going to, by this time, at the next committee meeting, which is the legislative update, I will give a legislative update at the next meeting, and hopefully the session will be done. Now I need a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.