[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6698502,"mediaKeyId","5418395-d215b8d797add75246fa801195653b69","parentId",5418395,"title","Commission orders second actuarial review and schedules special session on employee health plan procurement","audioSeconds",12714,"startMs",2311000,"endMs",15025000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418395-d215b8d797add75246fa801195653b69&start=2311&end=15025","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418395-d215b8d797add75246fa801195653b69/thumbnail_2311000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6698502/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Commission-orders-second-actuarial-review-and-schedules-special-session-on-employee-health-plan-procurement","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6698502-d7514a27f11c998b24cdd39f7720ddcc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770422405&Signature=iLG855repEvEqQrfWkXkOuWF0WvxvlUGwJR8TWnP6UwifT2M58LeahZATMh5vVOFXb7hiNv9Nk5Cav2szjKLxRAZrpNBWUGo1oojoicTL-FVR38BUSjd6YJi1510Z03Tml1nKOyQsvYgeD-wYJDperZmHJNoZorLTqJRk-6FqxJjZBIZ-Eu3KmDsVMPqaqR~rHw0LxyZEyfgu-GyR9eLpBqSUdWVxxVkyG7nWhxozAb263nHNPZTQwwXOrhg5Z7ZWm3vRhdjUDhd~lqF~IOo6dIPJy2DN6jMrzl1Xk1p3eYbCrCWrknqH3m7YjaoZsXw78FxMXu25OU8QaKpLhW4yg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Miami-Dade County","date","2025-07-16T00:00:00Z","article","The Miami‑Dade County Commission instructed the county mayor to obtain an additional independent actuarial review of proposals to administer the county’s self‑funded employee health plan and to return findings to the board at a specially scheduled meeting. Commissioners said they needed the second opinion before taking a final vote.

The decision follows a lengthy public procurement process in which two bidders — AvMed and Aetna (CVS Health/Aetna) — submitted proposals based on a comprehensive set of county claims records. Aetna’s submission included an overall estimated first‑year savings number that the administration said would reduce county costs by roughly $47 million in year one of a proposed contract; AvMed also submitted pricing and capabilities. Gallagher, the county’s actuarial reviewer, analyzed claims and presented modeling to the county; several commissioners and board observers requested that a second reviewer be engaged to independently validate Gallagher’s conclusions.

Commissioners expressed concern about sudden announcements and the compressed timeline for an award; several members asked that an independent firm be asked to analyze the vendors’ submissions and the claims data, and to meet with both bidders prior to producing a report. The board directed the mayor’s office to contract for a second review as quickly as possible; staff indicated the county’s procurement and legal teams would pursue a firm on short notice and aimed to produce results within about two weeks if feasible. The board also asked the administration to circulate dates for a special meeting when a quorum of commissioners could be present so that the board could vote once the second review was complete.

Board members and several department and union representatives also noted the need to communicate clearly and in advance with employees, retirees and benefits‑impacted constituencies. Commissioners said they would prioritize a transparent process so employees understood any transition steps and so the board could weigh the actuarial outcomes alongside contract terms, provider networks and implementation plans.

No final contract award was made at the meeting. The commission also agreed to cancel the August 1 scheduled BCC meeting and to plan a special session to consider the health plan procurement after the second review is delivered.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Miami-Dade County - Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners - Regular - Jul 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","After a contentious round of budget and procurement discussion, commissioners asked administration to obtain an independent second actuarial review of competing proposals for county health benefits and scheduled a special closed‑loop timeline for a decision.","taxTitle","Miami-Dade County, Florida","taxId",2864,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6698506,"Commission keeps millage flat as board orders budget review workshops",487,4380000,4867000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418395-d215b8d797add75246fa801195653b69&start=4380&end=4867","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418395-d215b8d797add75246fa801195653b69/thumbnail_4380000.jpg","/articles/6698506/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/Commission-keeps-millage-flat-as-board-orders-budget-review-workshops","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6698506-69068340a09c74034438932dbadd721f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770422405&Signature=Q3~mRd00Lw~FfUxNoPMFFicVkr2lsd0cwRyehZwfBNr8MoogM8jS-ShN6ggcmzT8U2ks21KW7GK1wix29OWoWvakvy7aSGqCnJRf5ylXk~MQtQqfGKWiop1SPKdfEoaRSlbBARp3Q8Ap4fnAqFIo5pOZrRfKadsxjNjFvDoRrD1~BECaau3066bcWeFrYKbIoUTbhoWZrZMnfWZVpw1hxvH-a-fqGn4DCH6yQ5SA2Od88yCVuV5gymPaZ9oigG~MpkeHbTiLLwZ3j7pwyhs3yxCjWDSgHaqgXIKoUUzMM5iHtj0O1FkpFA0JW6ZjHXJNShO1Z0KTIbR5JtVS42bq8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Miami‑Dade County commissioners voted to keep the millage rate flat for the coming budget year after a lengthy debate about services and cuts needed to close an estimated $402 million gap. The board approved the administration’s proposal to adopt a flat millage for now while directing a series of budget review meetings and workshops to search for alternatives to proposed cuts.

Mayor Daniella Levine Cava summarized the administration’s approach and said the proposal preserved historically low tax rates while making difficult reductions across county departments. The mayor told the commission that the budget shortfall is driven in part by expenses related to newly independent constitutional offices, reductions in state and federal revenues, and increased operating costs.

Commissioner Raquel Regalado proposed lowering the millage but acknowledged that doing so would require concrete alternative cuts or revenue offsets; she asked colleagues to attend appropriations sessions to develop those alternatives. Commissioner Oliver Gilbert urged caution and supported keeping the millage flat now so the county could meet contractual and service obligations and avoid layoffs without a clear plan for where to cut.

The board agreed to hold an intercommittee or “sunshine” budget meeting in August to pursue line‑by‑line review; commissioners signaled August 13 or August 20 as possible dates and asked administration staff to circulate availability. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that changes to the millage should be accompanied by detailed, explicit proposals that identify which services or staffing the board would reduce.

Sheriff’s Office leadership and other constitutional officers also addressed the board during the millage discussion, warning of operational impacts from deep cuts and urging protection of public‑safety funding. Commissioners asked the mayor’s office to provide updated timelines for change memos and to ensure the board receives sufficient time to review any proposed adjustments before final adoption at the September hearings.

The board also approved separate housekeeping votes to set the budget hearing schedule and to bifurcate a small number of aviation items; these procedural actions came as the board set the framework for moving from proposal to final adoption.","Facing a multi‑hundred‑million dollar shortfall, the board voted to hold the millage flat pending a series of appropriations and budget workshops; commissioners set parameters for meetings to review departmental cuts and possible alternatives.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6698511,"County board directs administration to pursue waste-to-energy options, sets limits on site locations",0,9368000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418395-d215b8d797add75246fa801195653b69&start=9368&end=9368","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418395-d215b8d797add75246fa801195653b69/thumbnail_9368000.jpg","/articles/6698511/Miami-Dade-County/Florida/County-board-directs-administration-to-pursue-waste-to-energy-options-sets-limits-on-site-locations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6698511-430dce2ce7c9c46da3fa0460cd809173/orig.mp4?Expires=1770422405&Signature=K9sTP4EH-eWzuKXLKcpYcwGfGvs2cedfHWEvoeKr~hIbPaWk~PmFZoVAkdsA5vJpsdYy~XOB~ysy2cnnd6VHL4HWJfhW8QQ1aNV0rZVys7QZRQrnY-RyaCnbfXYkNK3DqcCM-XaWnL3namdQh8vwP2jea0Voh3BkBZ~iaKWq-ETDXf-6ifECWqI6ZMULZRkf4T5l2TD-aoT0JWmyv2ejb2SOmXU0gwdMEGsbs3Oh2d0SD3RqJ6JetUCXtmCfFIoDQdCPbdtA05nIbXa2YzhcJPrlNX7k7MsLsw3AI5DpQJg85cuacztArhEwa2fpKVOn-m5j1qbPy4ELWfbVgbEzEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Miami‑Dade County Commission directed the county mayor to pursue negotiated agreements with interested waste‑to‑energy and related technology vendors and to return recommendations to the board within a targeted timeline. The board adopted a policy that a WTE option should be included as part of a broader portfolio (recycling, composting, diversion and landfilling) while setting geographic limits for siting and asking the administration to explore multiple delivery modalities.

The move followed a briefing by county staff and market research consultant AtkinsRealis, which described responses from more than three dozen firms across several waste‑management categories. Ross Byers, project lead for AtkinsRealis, told the board the county had solicited information from the private sector and assembled a road map of “phase 1: siting and information; phase 2: implementation of advanced technologies; phase 3: future‑looking infrastructure.” Chief Utilities Officer Roy Coley told commissioners the county currently manages roughly 2,000,000 tons of solid waste a year and has been exploring public‑private partnerships, landfilling options, recycling, organics processing and advanced thermal conversion.

Commissioners debated whether to prioritize particular parcels. The board approved a motion directing the mayor to negotiate with market respondents (including major vendors that had previously submitted campus‑style proposals) but excluded certain locations from consideration and set a half‑mile residential setback specifically for large WTE facilities. The action also directed staff to continue examining rail and out‑of‑county disposal options, to study decentralized transfer‑station sorting and composting pilots that could be implemented in the near term, and to return to the board with negotiated terms (including proposed locations and draft agreements) for approval.

Public commenters and local advocacy groups urged the county to invest first in recycling and organics diversion and to avoid siting incinerators near residential areas or sensitive environmental resources. The board heard dozens of public speakers, including elected officials and city attorneys from Doral and Miramar, representatives of farming and composting firms, environmental organizations and residents from neighborhoods that previously hosted or were proposed as waste facilities.

The administration and several commissioners emphasized that the county will seek a portfolio approach — not a single, all‑or‑nothing solution — and that proposals could include a mix of facilities and decentralized operations (transfer‑station sorting, regional composting and advanced processing) rather than one large campus. The commission also asked staff to include transportation costs and other operational impacts in any analysis returned for board approval.

The board’s direction: (1) adopt a policy that includes WTE as one option within a broader waste‑management portfolio; (2) instruct the mayor to negotiate with qualified proposers and return negotiated agreements and site recommendations to the board for approval; (3) require a half‑mile residential setback for large WTE facilities and exclude certain sites specified on the record from consideration; and (4) direct immediate steps to reduce landfill tonnage through transfer‑station sorting and organics/composting pilots.

Implementation timelines and the full financial implications will depend on what proposers present during the negotiation phase and what additional pilot projects the administration can stand up while larger decisions proceed to the board.","After hours of public comment and expert presentations, the Miami‑Dade County Board voted to adopt policy favoring a waste‑to‑energy (WTE) component in a broader solid‑waste portfolio and directed the county mayor to negotiate with industry proposers under specific geographic limits and conditions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission orders second actuarial review and schedules special session on employee health plan procurement

Commission keeps millage flat as board orders budget review workshops

County board directs administration to pursue waste-to-energy options, sets limits on site locations