A fair water flow: Justice for Miami Gardens ratepayers
For as long as Miami Gardens has been a city, North Miami Beach has taken the water, treated it in Miami Gardens, imposed a 25% surcharge and sold it right back to the residents and businesses of Miami Gardens, which I represent on the Miami-Dade County Commission.
This water feud by the neighboring cities has been going on for a decade, with both sides having a different take on the reason for the surcharge. I have been fighting on the side of Miami Gardens since I was a council member in the city and then its mayor.
When first established in the late 1990s, the surcharge was intended to provide a way for cities to pay for infrastructure when they had to extend water service to another city. However, North Miami Beach never extended the infrastructure to Miami Gardens; the infrastructure was already there. The surcharge was not meant to help one city get rich off of another.
For years, we have heard from North Miami Beach that the funds generated from the 25% surcharge support the operations, maintenance and capital plan of the water utility.
As noted in North Miami Beach's bond documents, the surcharge is imposed by North Miami Beach and placed directly into the North Miami Beach general fund.
The surcharge, paid by ratepayers in Miami Gardens, Aventura, Sunny Isles Beach, Golden Beach and portions of unincorporated Miami-Dade, is then used by North Miami Beach to pay for services that only benefit the residents of North Miami Beach.
The North Miami Beach Commission is building out their city on the backs of residents who will never be able to vote for or against them. That is the literal definition of taxation without representation.
Florida Senate Bill 202 aims to end this practice by requiring North Miami Beach to charge the residents of Miami Gardens the same rates and fees they charge their own residents. The companion, House Bill 11, was already unanimously passed.
For years, opponents of this legislation have tried to delay the removal of the surcharge. This year's opposition is based around the notion that removing the surcharge may lead to increases in water rates to other customers. Implying that removing the surcharge from Miami Gardens customers would increase water rates is simply not true. We now know that eliminating the surcharge does not have to affect the water rate.
From North Miami Beach's public bond documents, we know that the funds generated from the 25% surcharge are not a part of the water utility's gross revenues. Those funds are a part of their general fund. The rates and fees currently imposed by North Miami Beach without the surcharge applied cover the costs of all related expenses for the water utility.
As a direct result, the $9 million settlement that North Miami Beach must pay Miami Gardens customers for illegally imposing the surcharge when the utility was privately operated is coming out of the North Miami Beach general fund and not the water utility service.
We have been fighting to right this wrong for a long time. Over the last month, I have met with Senate leadership, the speaker of the House and legislators from across the state to ask for their support.
State Sen. Shevrin Jones and Rep. Felicia Robinson have done an extraordinary job in advocating for their bills. SB 202 and HB 11 are closer than ever to becoming law and I trust that the Legislature and the governor will ensure that the North Miami Beach's water customers in Miami Gardens are no longer unjustly taxed for the right to clean drinking water that comes from their own backyard.
Oliver G. Gilbert, III is a Miami-Dade commissioner and a former mayor of Miami Gardens.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Judge issues ruling in case about legal access at Alligator Alcatraz
Saying circumstances had changed, a federal judge in Miami dismissed a key claim in a lawsuit over Alligator Alcatraz detainees' access to courts and legal services on Monday and moved the case to a different district. U.S. District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II wrote in a 47-page ruling that the lawsuit by lawyers and detainees at the Everglades immigration detention camp belonged in the Middle District of Florida because that court oversees legal disputes in Collier County, where the facility is largely located. He ordered the case transferred. But first, he said an allegation that Alligator Alcatraz detainees had no access to immigration courts was rendered moot when the Trump administration in recent days designated Krome North Processing Center in west Miami-Dade County as the venue for detainees' cases to be heard. The designation came more than a month after the first detainees were brought to Alligator Alcatraz. But Ruiz wrote that there was nothing more to be done and tossed a claim alleging violations of detainees' Fifth Amendment rights. That left one claim — alleging a lack of confidential and swift access to attorneys in violation of the First Amendment — alive. 'Prudence in this matter has revealed changed circumstances, a moot claim, and improper venue warranting transfer,' Ruiz wrote. Ruiz's ruling came hours after he gathered attorneys on the case in his courtroom to debate a request by the American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs to force the state and federal governments to identify an immigration court for the facility and a confidential channel for detainees to talk with their attorneys. The lack of an official immigration court designated to handle cases for detainees held at the makeshift detention camp has been a chief sticking point for lawyers, who said the issue was a violation of detainees' Fifth Amendment rights. Immigration attorneys said their clients initially began receiving hearings at Krome after Alligator Alcatraz opened in early July, but that quickly ended, leaving detainees unable to petition the courts for bond. Attorneys for the plaintiffs noted Monday that the government had shifted its position three times when pressed on which court had jurisdiction over Alligator Alcatraz, and said they were concerned the government might switch its position again. But Ruiz dismissed that concern after pressing attorneys for the federal government to affirm that Krome was now hearing cases for detainees. 'If for whatever reason, the website changed or the determination disappeared, then the court would have grounds to reengage the parties and find out exactly what's going on when it comes to the Fifth Amendment claim,' Ruiz said. The plaintiffs also argued that, though the government has begun allowing in-person visitation by attorneys to meet their clients, the state has been slow in responding to requests for visits and records the phone calls and videoconferences detainees have with their attorneys. Lawyers say they have to send documents ahead of each in-person consultation. The ACLU attorneys claimed the state's violation of detainees' First Amendment rights has caused 'irreparable harm.' They said one was erroneously deported while he was still in his immigration proceedings and had no removal order. They said officers have been pressuring detainees to sign voluntary removal papers without them first speaking to counsel. One attorney said her client, an intellectually disabled detainee, was tricked into signing a voluntary removal order by being told he was signing a piece of paper to receive a blanket. 'This is why access to council is so paramount and such an important right to make sure is not violated at the facility,' said Eunice Cho, an attorney with the ACLU. Attorneys for the state, which oversees operations at Alligator Alcatraz, said attorneys can already meet with their clients without being overheard by guards. They said when videoconferencing began on July 15, it was in a boxed area separated by drapes. Now, detainees can use the same booths for in-person attorney visits for video conferencing, they said. Solve the daily Crossword
Bloomberg
16 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Doral to Host PGA Tour in 2026, Ending Decade of Distance
President Donald Trump's Miami area golf course will host the PGA Tour in 2026, the first time in about a decade that the league will hold an event at a Trump property. The Professional Golfers' Association 2026 Miami Championship will descend on Trump National Doral from April 30 to May 3, according to a statement Tuesday. It's a sign the league is again embracing Trump's golf courses after a relationship that strained after he moved into politics, and adds to a pattern of businesses that once distanced themselves but are doubling back and thawing relationships in his second term.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
PGA Tour ends decade-long absence from Trump-owned courses with Doral return in 2026
The PGA Tour will return to Donald Trump's Blue Monster course in Miami next spring, ending a decade-long absence from Trump-owned venues. The Miami Championship, a $20m Signature Event scheduled for the first weekend in May 2026, will mark the 56th time the Tour has played at Trump National Doral but the first since 2016, the year Trump won his first US presidential election. That year, the WGC-Cadillac Championship was pulled from the resort and relocated to Mexico City after Cadillac ended its sponsorship. At the time, then-commissioner Tim Finchem stressed that the decision was 'fundamentally a sponsorship issue' and not political, despite Trump's incendiary remarks on immigration and his insistence the Tour was punishing him for his first US presidential run. 'We value dollars for our players,' Finchem said in 2016. 'We were not able to secure sponsorship for Doral. From a golf standpoint, we have no issues with Donald Trump. From a political standpoint, we are neutral.' Trump, who had spent $250m redeveloping the Doral property, publicly lashed out at the Tour and quipped that he hoped officials had 'kidnapping insurance' for the event's new Mexican host city. For the next decade, the Blue Monster fell off the PGA calendar and instead became a regular site for the upstart LIV Golf series, serving as a centerpiece in the Saudi-backed league's schedule. Now the course returns at a moment of transition for the PGA Tour. The Miami Championship expands the roster of Signature Events to nine and sits at the heart of a crowded spring. Beginning with the Masters in April, players will face four Signature Events and two majors in a seven-week stretch, with only the Zurich Classic in New Orleans breaking the run. 'We're excited to showcase the game's greatest players competing at golf's most iconic venues,' said Brian Rolapp, the Tour's new chief executive. 'Inspired by our players and fans, we're accelerating the Tour's evolution and ushering in a new era of innovation on and off the course.' The Miami Championship is expected to secure a title sponsor before its debut. Its addition shifts the Mexico Open into the FedExCup Fall and removes the Barracuda Championship in California, which had been played opposite the British Open. Doral has been synonymous with PGA Tour golf since 1962, when it launched as the Doral Open. It became a World Golf Championship site in 2007 but struggled to sustain sponsorship after Trump's 2012 purchase of the property. The 2016 split was, in Finchem's words, pragmatic rather than political, though it coincided with Trump's polarizing rise.
