Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs administration to study all solid-waste options, sets 120-day deadline and July follow-up
Summary
After extended debate, commissioners unanimously directed the mayor’s office to return within 120 days with a comprehensive analysis of solid-waste options — including landfilling, waste-to-energy, public–private partnerships and other measures — and scheduled a follow-up session in July to aim for a decision.
Miami-Dade commissioners voted to direct the county mayor’s office to prepare a comprehensive report on solid-waste management (item 11A19), including an analysis of landfilling, waste-to-energy facilities, public–private partnership (P3) structures, off‑county transport and recycling/composting options. The board set a 120-day deadline for the administration’s deliverable and indicated it will hold a follow-up meeting in July for a decision.
The motion by Commissioner Oliver Gilbert (mover) and seconded by Commissioner Daisy Regalado added specific instructions to include all related recent items and options. Regalado’s amendment required the report to incorporate “all the other waste items” recently considered by the commission; commissioners also amended the timeline from 90 to 120 days at the administration’s request. The motion passed as amended.
Commissioners and members of the public debated technical trade-offs: cost, permitting timelines, emissions, long-term contracts, and an insurance deadline tied to the county’s existing waste-construction insurance (February 2026) that several commissioners cited as a factor. Commissioner Cohen Higgins questioned whether 120 days was realistic; administration staff said a partial report could be supplied within the timeframe and that Arcadis (the county’s consultant) could use subcontractors to supplement expertise. Chief Roy Coley (county staff) said Arcadis and its subcontractors could be used to deliver many of the analyses quickly but that some private-sector financial proposals will require corporate approvals and additional time.
The board also signaled it may solicit proposals and negotiate with private partners; commissioners urged the administration to brief interested private firms and to circulate deliverables to commissioners as they become available rather than waiting for a single meeting packet. The chair said he will schedule a meeting in July to consider the package once the administration circulates its materials. Commissioners stressed that if the administration or private parties cannot deliver sufficient data, the board would prepare motions to act on the options available at that time.
The motion does not itself select a site or commit the county to any one technology; it requires comparative financial and permitting analyses and recommends outside expert participation where needed.
