At the meeting on Tuesday, October 20, Commissioner Raquel Regalado failed to get the Commission to reconsider and modify the resolution approved on October 6, which suspended certain expenses to close and demolish the old Doral incinerator. The motion obtained two votes in favor and seven against. Later, her proposal to override the mayor’s veto did not receive second support and was never voted on.
The dispute exposed a fundamental difference between the mayor and several commissioners: whether stopping certain expenses would increase the pressure to negotiate with Doral or, as Levine Cava maintains, would make mandatory work at the facilities more expensive and complicated.
What Levine Cava vetoed and why
Resolution R-793-26, presented by Regalado, ordered the halt of budgeted expenses for the closure and demolition of the waste recovery center, except for those necessary to protect public safety and the site. The pause would remain in place until negotiations with Doral are resolved over its contribution to the additional costs of moving and rebuilding the waste-to-energy plant outside the city limits.
The Commission approved the measure on October 6 by nine votes in favor and one against. Commissioner Juan Carlos Bermúdez, representative of the Doral district, voted against. Anthony Rodríguez, René García and Natalie Milian Orbis did not vote.
In his veto message, Levine Cava argued that the resolution too limited spending on the closure and demolition of the old incinerator. According to the mayor, the restriction could prevent the county from addressing site conditions and meeting regulatory requirements, in addition to prolonging maintenance of a decommissioned facility, which costs about $60,000 a month. For this reason, he defended that the administration could continue the process of closure, demolition and recovery of the place.
He also noted that the county must comply with demolition orders from the Unsafe Structures Board and oversight requirements from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The closure, demolition and environmental recovery of a former waste facility, he explained, require permits, approvals and work subject to regulatory deadlines. Those tasks require funds that were already included in the budget.
The mayor added that the County had not delayed negotiating because the original directive tied the deadline for reaching an agreement to the selection of a new site, a process that has not yet been completed. As he explained, a later guideline established a deadline of December 2026 and his administration had already contacted Doral to schedule a meeting.
Levine Cava stated that she exercises the veto cautiously and that she had only used it five times in her six years as mayor. On this occasion, he asked the Commission to uphold its decision.
Raquel Regalado’s frustration
Regalado responded that the mayor’s office had had several opportunities to report on the negotiations and raise objections to the resolution. He assured that the matter had been discussed in committees and budget meetings, but that the administration had not sent a letter to Doral to communicate the Commission’s instructions.
The District 7 commissioner defended her proposed measure by saying that it did not prevent the site from being kept safe or complying with regulatory requirements, as it contemplated an exception for expenses necessary for security reasons. He also cited the county’s own reports on permits and demolition timelines. In his opinion, stopping spending could preserve an advantage in the negotiation. Doral wants the plant gone, and if the County demolishes it before agreeing to a contribution, the City would get that result without paying.
“A deadline is a negotiation tool,” Regalado argued. She said that users who pay solid waste fees end up assuming the cost of the delay and criticized that the administration had spent more than $100,000 to send a notice about an issue that, according to her, was not even on the agenda, while it had not yet notified Doral about the plenary’s decisions.
The commissioner said she was willing to modify the resolution, specify what expenses could continue or appoint another commissioner to help in the negotiations. His frustration, he explained, was not limited to the veto, but he believed that the administration had also not acted quickly enough under previous instructions.
Regalado described the relationship between the mayor’s office and the Commission as using the decisions of the plenary session “as a sword and a shield.” He stated that, “when the administration does not act, it says it is waiting for instructions; but when the Commission gives them, it describes them as excessive intervention or a lack of clarity.”
He also pointed out a contradiction between the written message of the veto and what the mayor and her representatives said during the meeting. According to Regalado, the document expressed disagreement with the Commission’s guidelines on Doral, although in the session the administration assured that it would negotiate under the most recent instruction. The commissioner warned that, in her opinion, this disagreement could limit the mayor’s willingness to seek an agreement.
Cancellation does not occur
Before considering the veto, Regalado proposed reconsidering her proposed resolution to introduce changes. The motion failed by two votes in favor and seven against. He then asked to override the veto, but no one supported the proposal, which died without reaching a Commission vote.
Commissioner Bermúdez, who had voted against the original resolution, said he supported the mayor’s veto. He maintained that maintaining spending did not prevent the mayor and vice mayor from speaking with Doral. For him, both things could advance at the same time.
For her part, Commissioner Danielle Cohen Higgins asked to clarify what instruction the administration was following. Whether a 2023 resolution linking Doral’s contribution to the selection of a new site or the most recent budget guideline, with a December deadline. County Deputy Mayor Roy Coley responded that the county was working under the most recent instructions and cautioned that the cleanup of the site did not eliminate the possibility of reconsidering its use. He indicated that the mayor’s office hoped to meet with Doral representatives and attorneys and provide an update in January.
What did the Commission learn?
Commissioner Keon Hardemon asked what the Commission had learned after receiving the veto and what the mayor’s office could do to make members who supported the resolution feel they had been heard. Levine Cava responded that the lesson was “·consult with the administration before approving guidelines, to know their reasons.”
However, Oliver G. Gilbert III, who served as president of the Commission, offered another reading. He said that the plenary session was dissatisfied with the pace of the efforts and hoped that the administration would move forward before reaching the established deadline. He clarified that he did not support overturning the veto out of respect for the process, but insisted that the mayor’s office should take note of the discontent in the Commission.
The old Doral incinerator caught fire on February 12, 2023. As the County searches for a location for a new plant outside of Doral and Medley, waste is being transported by rail to landfills outside of Miami-Dade. Construction of the new facility is estimated at more than $3 billion. In the midst of this process, the disagreement over how much Doral should contribute and when the previous plant should be demolished will continue under scrutiny by the Commission.
(email protected)
