HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-07 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321-2401
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTIONS/DISCUSSIONS
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council on
Tuesday, November 7, 1989 at 1:30 P.M. in Conference Room #1
of City Hall, 7525 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac, Florida.
The purpose of this meeting is recycling.
FINAL ACTION:
Discussion was held with the City Manager and Finance
Director of North Lauderdale regarding the proposed
contracts and Ordinance. No action was taken.
The City Council may consider and act upon such other
business as may come before it.
All meetings are open to the public.
CAE/pm
Carol A. Evans
City Clerk
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes
It a person decides to appeal any decision made by the city
Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
t"tl testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
CITY OF TAMARAC
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on
Tuesday, November 7, 1989 at 1:30 P.M. in Conference Room #1 (City
Clerk's Office).
PRESENT:
Mayor Norman Abramowitz
Vice Mayor Dr. H. Larry Bender
Councilman Bruce Hoffman
Councilman Henry Rohr
Councilman Jack Stelzer
ALSO PRESENT:
John P. Kelly, City Manager
Richard Doody, City Attorney
Patricia Marcurio, Office Manager
City Clerk's Office
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the proposed recycling
program.
Mayor Abramowitz said the purpose of the meeting was to
discuss the Interlocal, Grant and Waste Management, Inc.,
Agreements. He said during the meeting yesterday] these
documents were discussed by the City Council and there
were questions regarding the Agreements. He asked Eric
Soroka, City Manager of North Lauderdale, if the Cities
of Coconut Creek, Margate and North Lauderdale adopted
the agreements.
Mr. Soroka said on November 9, 1989, the North Lauderdale
City Council was scheduled to act on the Agreements, the
City of Coconut Creek would be acting on the Agreements
the same night and November 15, 1989'1 the City of Margate
would be acting on the Agreements. '
Mayor Abramowitz said the City Managers of the 5 Cities
worked very hard and diligently on this proposed program
and it was very hard to get 5 City Councils to agree.
C/M Stelzer suggested that the City Council review each
page of the documents.
Referring to the Interlocal Agreement, Page 2, Section
2(B), C/M Hoffman said this provision bound the Cities by
the Agreement to sign the contract with Waste Management,
Inc. He said the Cities would be giving the group
authorization to contract with and enter into an
agreement with private vendors. He said once this was
signed, the Cities lost their rights to accept or reject
the contract with Waste Management, Inc.
Mr. Soroka said he should explain the entire process and
C/M Hoffman said if the process was different than what
the agreement stated, the agreement should be changed.
Mr. Soroka said the language was stating that each of the
Governing Bodies would do three things, first, enter into
a Joint Interlocal Agreement. He said the purpose of the
Page 1
11/7/89-pw
Interlocal. Agreement was to specify the powers,
responsibilities and duties of the Joint Cities regarding
a joint recycling program.
Mr. Soroka said the second document was an Agreement with
Waste Management; however, there may be other agreements
in the future with other private vendor for glass,
aluminum, etc.
Mr. Soroka said the third document was an Ordinance which
stated that the residents in
would participate
the
program.
He said the Interlocal Agreement
indicated that
the joint
recycling Cities had the power to
enter into
Agreements
with private vendors to process
the recycling
program.
Mr. Soroka said the City Councils had to approve the
Interlocal Agreement by Ordinance and any separate
agreements with vendors by Ordinance. He said the
Interlocal. Agreement stated, "Resolution"; however, it
should be "Ordinance". He said the City Councils of the
5 Cities remained in control of approving the contracts.
Mayor Abramowitz asked what the position would be if the
City Council approved the Interlocal Agreement but not
the contract with Waste Management, Inc.
Mr. Soroka said if Tamarac approved the Interlocal
Agreement but did not want to enter into an agreement
with Waste Management, Inc., Tamarac would fall under the
termination clause of the Interlocal Agreement because
Tamarac would not be fulfilling their obligations as a
group City.
Referring to the last sentence of Section 2(B), C/M
Hoffman said this sentence stated, "to approve any user
fee or rate increases in accordance with applicable
services agreements". He said this meant that the City
Council must approve any increases in the future which
are accepted by the recycling group unless a City
terminated themselves as a group City.
Mr. Soroka said there were only two:ways that the rate
would increase. He said one way was Waste Management,
Inc., receiving an automatic cost of living increase. He
said the second way was if the group Cities did not meet
the goal of a specific tonnage in newspapers and had to
make up the deficit. He said there would be a 3 year
contract for the deficit situation and a 5 year contract
for the CFI increase.
Mr. Soroka said the City Managers felt that rather than
taking every single increase back to the City Councils,
it would be in the contract for the Group Administrator
to handle. He said each City Council would be informed
of the increases and there could be decreases if the
economy turned in the opposite direction. He said there
was an existing formula for deficits, which would inform
everyone well in advance.
Referring to Section 3(C), C/M Hoffman said the City
Councils were granting a single representative, which was
the City of North Lauderdale, the power to make
agreements for the 5 Cities which they must adhere to.
Mr. Soroka disagreed and said he did not volunteer to be
the representative of.this program. He said the
agreement stated that a point person had to be a
Rage 2
11/7/89-pw
representative with Waste Management, Inc., and it would
be difficult to have a representative from each City. He
said the City of North Lauderdale would be acting as a
representative and would not be negotiating on behalf of
the 5 Cities. He said he would be acting only as a
representative of the group Cities.
Mr. Soroka said if City Manager Kelly called him in three
months regarding a problem in an area in Tamarac with
Waste Management, Inc., he would be responsible for
contacting Waste Management, Inc., regarding these
concerns and to make sure that they were conforming with
the agreement. He said he was representing the group
Cities by administering the agreement and making sure the
agreement was being complied with. He said he would not
be speaking on the group Cities' behalf but making sure
that the agreement was being complied with.
City Manager Kelly said Mr. Soroka would only have the
authority to administer the agreements that were approved
by the group Cities.
Referring to Section 2(B), last sentence, C/M Hoffman
said this sentence indicated that each City would be
allowing the Group to approve user fees or rate
increases.
Mr. Soroka said the Interlocal Agreement provided that
the 5 Cities would be approving the original rate as
stipulated in Section 3(D) and the remainder of the
Agreement stipulated the handling of the CPI and deficit
increases. He said under the current arrangement there
was no other way for the 5 Managers of the 5 Cities or
their representatives to give any increases other than
what was stipulated in the Agreement.
Referring to Section 3(F), Mr. Soroka said "on an annual
basis" would be deleted because the payment of $750.00
and $500.00 would be paid only once by the Cities.
Referring to Page 3, Section 4(3), C/M Hoffman had
concerns with the Cities not being able to pay the
termination cost of $100,000.00 from`their Ad Valorem Tax
Revenue.
C/M Hoffman said this payment seemed to be a penalty and
it was no one's business where the Cities got the money.
Mr. Soroka said this language came from the City Attorney
of the City of Margate. He said the original language in
the agreement stated that if a City pulled out of the
contract, they would be obligated to any increased costs
that the other Cities would bear. He said the Margate
City Attorney stated that they could not enter into an
agreement that did not have a dollar amount in order to
know exactly what their residents or City was obligated
to.
Mr. Soroka said the City Attorney of Margate also
stated that for legal purposes, the fee should not be
used as a penalty but as cost recovery for the other
Cities. He said the City Attorney of Margate requested
Page 3
11/7/89-pw
this for bond purposes because in the City of Margate if
they obligated beyond one year it was presumed to be a
bond and the Ad Valorem Taxes could not be frozen.
Mayor Abramowitz asked where the monies were to come from
and Mr. Soroka said this was up to the Cities.
C/M Stelzer asked if this provision could be eliminated
and Mr. Soroka said he did not object to this.
Mayor Abramowitz asked where the City of North Lauderdale
would take the money and Mr. Soroka said from the General
Fund because the City of North Lauderdale had a Utility
Tax and other revenue sources in the General Fund.
Mayor Abramowitz asked how $100,000.00 was arrived at and
Mr. Soroka said there were 30,000 units multiplied by
$.76 per month and Waste Management, Inc., indicated that
if one City withdrew from the contract, the cost could
increase as much as $.07 per unit.
C/M Stelzer asked if $100,000.00 was the flat rate
regardless of what year a City decided to withdraw from
the contract and Mr. Soroka said the way the agreement
was at this time the cost was not pro -rated.
C/M Stelzer said this was not appropriate because a City
may decide to withdraw 6 months before the contract
expires. He said the cost should be pro -rated.
C/M Rohr asked Mr. Soroka to explain how the negotiations
occurred with the Interlocal Agreement and Mr. Soroka
said the 5 City Managers began the negotiations by
dividing the responsibilities between each other.
Mr. Soroka said the City of Margate took the
responsibility to draft the Interlocal Agreement;
however, due to their workload, they could not complete
it; therefore, he and the City Attorney of North
Lauderdale drafted the Interlocal Agreement. He said the
agreement was taken back to the representatives and it
was modified; therefore, the results before the City
Council were the occurrences of that.meeting.
C/M Rohr asked how the contract with Waste Management,
Inc., was created and Mr. Soroka said the City Managers
met with Waste Management, Inc., for approximately 8
months; however, towards the end he dealt with Waste
Management, Inc., personally on certain items that were
not finalized.
C/M Rohr asked if Mr. Soroka reported to his City Council
on the meetings with the City Manager and Waste
Management, Inc.
Mr. Soroka said the City Councils received copies of the
agreements and information reports on the status of the
program. He said he updated his City Council on the
progress of the program. He said this was difficult
because the progress was being expedited and, at some
meetings, nothing occurred.
C/M Rohr asked Mr. Soroka if he thought there may be an
affect in Tamarac because of the joint program since
Tamarac presently had a contract with Waste Management,
Inc., for trash pickup.
Page 4
11/7/89-pw
Mr. Soroka said the reason the proposed rate was $.76 was
because the Group went out to bid for proposals for the 5
Cities. He said three proposals were submitted and Waste
Management, Inc., was the lowest bidder because the other
two vendors did not have a disposal site.
Mr. Soroka said the savings being reflected was because
Waste Management, Inc., could reduce the costs by not
charging the tipping fee. He said other vendors would be
charging approximately $1.30 per household for tipping.
He said there would be no affect on the individual
garbage contracts with Waste Management, Inc., because
the Interlocal Agreement was separate and apart from the
existing individual contracts.
C/M Rohr asked if compartment trucks would be used if the
only pickup would be paper and Mr. Soroka said the truck
gave future availability to expand to glass and aluminum.
He said cheaper trucks could be used at this time;
however, in the future it would cost more because the
trucks would be needed for glass and aluminum.
C/M Rohr asked if the collection of aluminum was
considered and Mr. Soroka said the reasoning for paper
pickup only was because the commodities were reviewed.
He said it was felt that it would be easier to get the
residents use to the recycling program by beginning with
newspapers.
Mr. Soroka said the recycling program would be created
through phases. He said the first year, only newspapers
would be collected, the second and third years glass and
aluminum would be phased in and; hopefully, by the fifth
year, the goal of reducing the waste stream by 30% would
be met in accordance with the Solid Waste Management Act.
He said newspapers were selected for promotional and
educational purposes to get the residents use to a
recycling program. He said past experience proved that
it was more difficult to get the residents to participate
in the program if they had to concentrate on newspaper,
glass and aluminum separation. He said a greater
participation rate would keep the costs lower.
Referring to Page 2, Section 3(E), C/M Stelzer said the
Interlocal Agreement did not define, "Administrative
Committee".
Mr. Soroka said Section 3(A), indicated that the
following individuals shall represent the various Cities
and act as the Administrative Committee.
C/M Stelzer said the total waste disposal was based on a
specific amount of tonnage and he asked if a new contract
would be made with Waste Management, Inc., to reduce the
rate because Tamarac would be paying them twice for the
disposal of newspaper.
Mr. Soroka said this reduction was already in the cost of
$.76. He said Waste Management, Inc., would be reducing
their overall cost with the Cities and the fee would not
be paid twice.
C/M Stelzer asked if all of the Cities would be paying
$.76 and Mr. Soroka replied, yes.
C/M Stelzer asked how many Cities had a provision in
their contract to receive a reduction of 50% from the
Page 5
11/7/89-pw
TAPE 2
tipping fee for tonnage of recycled newspapers. He said
Tamarac seemed to be the only City receiving this
reduction.
Mayor Abramowitz said Waste Management, Inc., indicated
that $.76 reflected the fact that they figured in the
credit for the tipping fees.
C/M Stelzer said Tamarac had a contract with Waste
Management, Inc., which stated that a 50% reduction in
the tipping charge would be applied for any recycled
newspaper picked up in the City. He said the City would
be paying $9.65 per month for picking up newspaper as
garbage and an additional $.76 per month to pick up
recycled newspaper.
Mr. Soroka said the City would be receiving a 100% return
back on the disposal fee for newspaper. He said he was
not familiar with Tamarac's agreement.
C/M Stelzer said Tamarac was the only City receiving
refund on the tipping fee costs.
C/M Rohr said Waste Management, Inc., estimated that the
paper reduction was approximately 25% of the total
tonnage.
C/M Rohr said he lived in a condominium and he had to
take his trash to the bottom floor. He said 50% of the
trash in the dumpster was useless.
Mayor Abramowitz said this matter would pertain to the
contract with Waste Management, Inc., and C/M Rohr said
Mr. Soroka indicated that the rate was based on the
tonnage credit. C/M Rohr said the cost was figured on a
low percentage of 20%; however, the percentage could be
60%.
Mr. Soroka said the second and third bidders quoted the
cost to be $1.28 as opposed to the quote by Waste
Management, Inc., of $.76. He said the only reason there
was a difference was because Waste Management, Inc., had
the ability to provide a 100% credit,on the tipping fee
because they had a disposal site. He said the City -would
not be paying twice but receiving a reduction because
Waste Management, Inc., had the disposal facilities.
Mayor Abramowitz announced that Sam Goldsmith,
Councilmember of the City of Coconut Creek ENTERED the
meeting.
V/M Bender asked if the contract would cover the
collection of private homes and condominiums. Mr. Soroka
said the contract only pertained to single family homes.
V/M Bender asked why this was not indicated in the
Interlocal Agreement and Mr. Soroka said the Interlocal
Agreement was a general document allowing the Cities to
expand the recycling program in the future. He said the
Waste Management, Inc., contract was the only document
that specifically stated the program would be for single
family homes only.
C/M Hoffman asked if a City would be obligated to
participate with the other Cities in a program for
condominiums if it did not agree with the program and Mr.
Soroka replied, no.
Page 6
11/7/89-pw
Mayor Abramowitz said Tamarac recently received a faxed
letter from the City of North Lauderdale stating that the
Cities of Tamarac and Lauderhill were eliminated from the
Joint Cities recycling program. He said when he and City
Manager Kelly telephoned Mr. Soroka and discussed the
matter on a conference line, Mr. Soroka stated that the
letter was submitted because he was informed by Waste
Management, Inc., that four trucks were purchased;
however, because of the ratification delay, two trucks
were eliminated and the two trucks could only serve three
Cities.
Mayor Abramowitz said he discussed this matter with Waste
Management, Inc., and; unfortunately, the representatives
gave Mr. Soroka incorrect information.
Mayor Abramowitz said he was concerned with the contract
binding the Cities for 5 years and preventing future
government bodies from making decisions. He said if a
contract was good, binding rules were not improper;
however, he was not pleased with some of the requirements
regulated by other Cities, such as not using Ad Valorem
taxes for withdrawal costs.
Mayor Abramowitz said every City had specific problems
and, in order for the Interlocal Agreement to be
compatible to all of the Cities, it must address all of
the problems. He said he would never restrict another
City from using their monies unless there was a legal
reason.
Mr. Soroka said during a meeting, there were concerns
regarding this and, after discussing the matter with his
City Attorney, there was no legal concern in implementing
this provision in the Agreement. He said the other
Cities did not object to this provision as well.
C/M Hoffman said if "Ad Valorem" was eliminated from the
Agreement, this would lessen the restriction and Mr.
Soroka said he did not disagree with this.
Mayor Abramowitz said he informed the Mayor of Lauderhill
about this clause and, as an Attorney, the Mayor of
Lauderhill indicated that this provihibn could not be
enacted. He said if there were reasons why the provision
was needed, he would not object; however, there was no
logical reason for the provision.
C/M Stelzer said the other Cities had Utility Taxes and
they were able to use their funds from the Utility Taxes.
Mayor Abramowitz said Tamarac did not have a Utility Tax
and he envied these Cities for having this revenue.
Mayor Abramowitz said he would like the Interlocal
Agreement to provide a pro -rated cost for the Cities if
they wanted to withdraw from the Agreement in three to
four years. He asked how the figure of $100,000.00 was
established. He said a formula may be more appropriate
for a withdrawal cost.
Mr. Soroka said the concerns pertained to Section 4(b),
eliminating "Ad Valorem Taxes" and providing a pro -rated
allocation of $100,000.00. He said a formula could be
implemented as follows:
First Year - 100%
Second Year - 80%, etc.
Page 7
11/7/89-pw
Mayor Abramowitz said this seemed appropriate and Mr.
Soroka said he would submit this information to the other
Cities.
C/M Hoffman asked City Attorney Doody if he felt that the
Cities would be bound to things in the contract.
City Attorney Doody said Mr. Soroka indicated that if the
Cities entered into the Interlocal Agreement and did not
agree with the contract with Waste Management, Inc., the
Cities who did not agree would be bound to the penalty
clause.
City Attorney Doody asked why the Cities would enter into
an Interlocal Agreement unless they intended to continue
with the entire program.
C/M Hoffman asked City Attorney Doody if he felt that the
user fees could not be increased other than by the
formula indicated in the Agreement.
City Attorney Doody said he could not insure the City
Council that this could not be done.
C/M Rohr said the City of Coconut Creek was recently in a
Pilot Recycling Program. He asked how long the Pilot
program was going to proceed and Sam Goldsmith,
Councilmember of Coconut Creek, said the existing Pilot
program was only in one development in Coconut Creek;
however, it would be expanded into the Township.
C/M Rohr asked if there was a specific date to renew the
program and Councilman Goldsmith said this matter would
have to be addressed to the City Manager of Coconut
Creek.
Councilman Goldsmith said there was a Pilot Program
funded by Broward County funds for multi -family
developments.
C/M Rohr asked what company was providing the service and
Councilman Goldsmith said Waste Management, Inc.
C/M Rohr said the Joint Cities Recycling Program was
actually a Pilot Recycling Program because there was no
experience as to costs, participation, etc. He suggested
that the program be set up for 2 years since the Cities
were providing trucks to Waste Management, Inc.
Mr. Soroka said the Cities would only be purchasing 2
trucks; however, 4 trucks were needed. He said the
program was being created for 5 years because Waste
Management, Inc., needed this many years to recoup their
capital investments.
City Attorney Doody said he did not know why the City of
Margate suggested that the penalty funds not be taken
from Ad Valorem Taxes; however, by not having this
provision, it was conceivable that the Cities would be
pledging Ad Valorem Taxes; therefore, a Referendum may be
needed.
Mr. Soroka said this was exactly what was stated by the
City of Margate and Mayor Abramowitz asked if it would
not be appropriate to have language directing the method
in which the withdrawal costs were to be paid.
11/7/89-pw
City Attorney Doody said he was not in the position at
this time to discuss this matter with the City Council.
He said he would have to review the Statutes before
giving his opinion.
Councilman Goldsmith asked if Tamarac had franchise fees
for garbage and trash and C/M Stelzer said not with Waste
Management, Inc.
Mayor Abramowitz said on commercial trash pickup, Tamarac
did have franchise fees and Councilman Goldsmith asked if
the revenue from the franchise fees went into Tamarac's
General Fund. Mayor Abramowitz agreed.
Councilman Goldsmith asked if the fees exceeded
$100,000.00 per year and Mayor Abramowitz said in total,
Yes.
C/M Stelzer said the franchise taxes collected from the
industrial businesses affected the City's Ad Valorem Tax.
Mr. Soroka said if the Cities remained in the Joint
Cities Recycling Program, there should not be concerns.
Mr. Soroka said he hoped that the contract with Waste
Management, Inc., would be expanded to include the Cities
of Tamarac and Lauderhill and Mayor Abramowitz said the
City of Lauderhill would be meeting with Waste
Management, Inc., this afternoon.
Mayor Abramowitz said the City Council appreciated all of
the time and effort the City Managers spent in creating a
recycling contract with Waste Management, Inc. He said
he hoped that the contract would be improved after
further negotiations.
Mr. Soroka said the only concern the City Managers had
was that each City designated representatives to be on
the committee and deal with Waste Management, Inc.;
however, toward the end of the negotiations, the Cities
had problems with the documents and took it upon
themselves to work individually as opposed to as a group.
He said the concerns should have been brought to the
table during the negotiation process,as opposed to the
last minute.
Mayor Abramowitz said he believed that everyone should
work together; however, improved results may be
accomplished through one on one meetings.
C/M Hoffman said he was very pleased with the present
contract with Waste Management, Inc., because the
original contract was not appropriate. He said he would
like an explanation regarding the users fees and amounts.
He said from the beginning discussions about a recycling
program, containers were going to be provided to the
residents for the garbage. He said the contract did not
indicate that containers would be provided and he asked
how the residents would be required to get the newspapers
to the curb.
Mr. Soroka said from the beginning the proposal was that
the newspapers would be bundled or placed in paper bags.
Mayor Abramowitz said there were four presentations made
to Tamarac regarding the way the refuse would be
collected. He said he was very upset with Waste
Page 9
I
11/7/89-pw
Management, Inc., because they began their presentation
very impressively and now, the final result was not as
glamorous.
Mr. Soroka said containers could be used for the program;
however, there would be an additional cost and it was
decided to use the bundling or paper bag system as
opposed to having the single-family residents paying for
the containers. He said the County has used the
containers, which were used for other purposes than for
recycling products. He said it was felt that a simple
method such as bundling the newspapers would eliminate
the need to constantly replace the containers.
Referring to the residential curbside Recycling Agreement
with Waste Management, Inc., C/M Rohr asked Mr. Soroka to
explain Section I, Disposal Fee.
Mr. Soroka said the disposal fee was the charge that
Waste Management, Inc., was charged when they disposed of
the garbage at the landfill.
C/M Stelzer said there were two types of garbage pickups,
which were underground and curbside and Mayor Abramowitz
said the contract would require the residents to either
bundle the paper and place it next to the trash cans at
the curbside or placing the paper in a bag next to the
trash can at the curbside.
C/M Stelzer asked if Waste Management, Inc., charged the
City extra for pulling cans from the ground and City
Manager Kelly replied, no. C/M Stelzer said this matter
should be stipulated in the contract and Mayor Abramowitz
said there would be a different company picking up the
paper.
Mayor Abramowitz asked when the City Council had to make
their decisions regarding the enactment of the program
and Mr. Soroka said he would like the 5 Cities to approve
the documents within the next 2 weeks so that the program
could begin in December, 1989.
Mr. Soroka said Waste Management, Ip�-. would need time
to promote, notify and educate the residents; however, he
would like to see the program begin in December, 1989.
He said the grant funds had to be used for the trucks by
December 1, 1989 or the funds would have to be returned.
Mayor Abramowitz asked if the trucks were previously
purchased and Mr. Soroka said Waste Management, Inc.,
purchased the trucks; however, the Cities would have to
have executed agreements for the program before Waste
Management, Inc., could be reimbursed for the trucks.
Mayor Abramowitz said the grant funding for the first
year was $177,000.00 and he asked what the funding would
be for the second year. Mr. Soroka replied, $187,000.00
and Mayor Abramowitz said he thought the total grant
funding was to be over $400,000.00.
Mayor Abramowitz asked what occurred with the grant for
$234,000.00 and Mr. Soroka said the first year, the
program was cut by the State.
Mayor Abramowitz said the Cities had to make their
decisions within 2 weeks and now that this City Council
1
Page 10
11/7/89-pw
had the opportunity to review the program, they would be
able to discuss it logically and come to a decision.
C/M Rohr asked how much money was allocated to spend on
the Public Awareness Program and Mr. Soroka said the cost
would be approximately $1.39 per unit, which was
calculated to be approximately $50,000.00.
Referring to Page 2, Section 3, last sentence, "shall be
expanded to include all newly constructed homes...", C/M
Stelzer said when a utility account was opened charges
began and, at this time, the residents paid for their
garbage disposal based on a certificate of occupancy
being issued.
Mr. Soroka said the contract was based on the utility
account being opened with notification to Waste
Management, Inc., to begin service.
C/M Stelzer said this was different than what was
presently being done in Tamarac. He said the garbage
costs were enacted as soon as a certificate of occupancy
was issued and he asked how this matter would be handled
in the future.
Mr. Soroka said the contract with Waste Management, Inc.,
would begin when the utility contract was opened.
C/M Rohr asked what tonnage was expected to be picked up.
He said he would like to arrive at a deficit number and
Mr. Soroka said Page 4, Section 12, indicated the rates
and fees.
Mr. Soroka said it was assumed an average of .0972
adjusted tons of paper per unit would be collected each
year. He said based on a 60% participation rate, 3,500
tons per year for 36,000 units was anticipated. He said
the formula indicated that there would be 36,000 units
serviced under the agreement and 3,500 tons of recyclable
paper per year would be produced. He said in the event
the anticipated tonnage was not collected the first year,
Waste Management, Inc., had to notify the Group that
there was a problem. He said the problem was reviewed
and the formula was used.
Mr. Soroka said the formula was the number of tons
(deficit) times the annual weighted average (disposal
fees) divided by the number of units and divided by 12
months. He said if the Cities were 500 tons less than
the goal, the cost would be increased to $.81 for the
second year.
C/M Rohr asked what happened if the situation reversed
and Mr. Soroka said the formula was based on growth
because the calculation included units.
Councilman Goldsmith said the figures in the agreement
equated to .53 pounds per day per household or 194 pounds
of paper per household per year. He said this type of
calculation produced a good outlook for the program.
C/M Rohr asked if the Group would be receiving a
reduction if the participation and paper costs increased
and Mr. Soroka replied, no.
Mr. Soroka said at this time, paper was $10.00 per ton
and was decreasing. He said after the first year, paper
Page 11
fW
11/7/89-pw
may be $2.00 per ton because everyone was getting into
the recycling business.
Mr. Soroka said some of the processing centers in the
Tri-Center area were not accepting newspaper. He said he
did not see the cost of paper increasing in the future.
He said the City Managers approached Waste Management,
Inc., regarding a benefit in receiving a higher
participation rate and Waste Management, Inc., would not
discuss this matter.
Mr. Soroka said based on the studies in Broward County,
an average of approximately 70% of the residents would
participate. He said he would be surprised if there was
a 90% or 100% participation rate.
C/M Stelzer said there may be residents who did not want
to pay and continued accumulating newspapers. He
suggested that the Code Enforcement Boards of the Cities
penalize these residents and Mr. Soroka said this would
be done.
Mr. Soroka said Waste Management, Inc., would be
responsible for leaving a notice of instruction for
compliance to the resident for the first violation. He
said if the resident did not comply after the notice,
Waste Management, Inc., would notify the City to take
action. He said the action taken was at the discretion
of the City.
C/M Hoffman asked if Waste Management, Inc., had a 5 year
contract with Durbin Paper to receive and reprocess the
paper they delivered. He said he did not want to have
the residents follow a program of bundling paper that
would be placed in a landfill with the other garbage.
Mr. Soroka said the agreement stipulated that Waste
Management, Inc. would not be allowed to dump paper in a
landfill.
C/M Hoffman asked what Waste Management, Inc., would do
with the paper if Durbin Paper refused to take it and Mr.
Soroka said he understood that Waste,Management, Inc.,
received a commitment from Durbin Paper for one year at
$10.00 per ton.
Mr. Soroka said there was a provision in the contract
which stated that in the event the paper company charged
Waste Management, Inc., to deliver the paper or refused
to accept the paper, Waste Management, Inc., had to
notify the Group within 15 days of this problem. He
said the 5 Cities could renegotiate the agreement with
Waste Management, Inc., and absorb the additional costs
or allow the 15 days to expire, at which time the
agreement would be terminated.
Mayor Abramowitz said the original agreement indicated
that Waste Management, Inc., could, at any time, cancel
the contract and he was glad to see that this was
changed.
C/M Hoffman said he was involved with a program in the
north where they could not get rid of the paper and the
program continued; however, the papers were being thrown
into the incinerator.
C/M Stelzer asked if there were any performance bonds
required and Mr. Soroka replied, no.
Page 12
11/7/89-pw
C/M Hoffman said this contract was better than the
original contract and Mr. Soroka said the 5 City Managers
worked on the agreement with Waste Management, Inc.
City Manager Kelly said Mr. Soroka did the majority of
the negotiations with Waste Management, Inc., which was a
very good job and he commended Mr. Soroka for his
contributions.
Referring to Page 5, Section 16(c), C/M Stelzer asked why
"24 hour" pick ups were being stipulated as opposed to
the next scheduled pick up day and Mayor Abramowitz said
this would prevent paper in the streets.
TAPE 3
Referring to the Breach of Contract, Mayor Abramowitz
said there was concern regarding the provision of 15 days
and he was informed that the provision applied to the
response time.
Mr. Soroka said within 15 days the Cities should not
respond, at which time the agreement would be determined,
or respond to commence into negotiations.
Mayor Abramowitz said if Waste Management, Inc., refused
to collect the paper, they were to notify the Group
Cities within 15 days and Mr. Soroka. Mayor Abramowitz
asked if the Group Cities decided to negotiated, they did
not have to make a decision within 15 days and Mr. Soroka
agreed.
Mayor Abramowitz thanked Mr. Soroka for his presentation
and the Ordinances submitted by Mr. Soroka would be
reviewed by City Attorney Doody.
Mr. Soroka said he understood that the City Council was
concerned with the termination provision and, if he could
get the other Cities to agree to change the provision,
this City Council would be more comfortable.
C/M Hoffman said he was not as concerned about the Ad
valorem Tax provision since other avenues were given. He
said it was important that the termination cost be
pro -rated over a 5 year period.
Mayor Abramowitz said the decisions made by the
administers could only proceed when the City Councils
were informed and acted upon the decisions.
Mr. Soroka said the only way the fees could increase in
the future was through cost of living and the formula
stipulated in the contract. He said the City Managers
could not change the formula and make final decisions
after negotiations with other approval from the 5 Cities.
He said the only decisions that the Administrative
Committee would be making was the actual implementation
of the proposed contract.
Mayor Abramowitz said all Cities were different and he
believed that the difficult decisions should be made by
the Governing Bodies so they could be held accountable
for their decisions.
C/M Stelzer asked if City Attorney Doody objected to
anything in the Ordinances and City Attorney Doody said
the Ordinances were standard and implemented the
agreements.
Page 13
11/7/89-pw
City Attorney Doody said the only issue in the Interlocal
Agreement was pro -rating the termination fee and Mr.
Soroka agreed to amend the agreement to include the City
of Tamarac. He said Tamarac would be drafting their own
Ordinances adopting the agreements and implementing the
program for recycling.
Mr. Soroka
said by the
end of the day he would fax the
copies with
the changes
implemented.
C/M Rohr said
he was not
happy with a 5 year contract and
he asked if
the Cities
would be protected if 3 Cities
decided not
to continue
with the program.
Mr. Soroka said there was a termination clause; however,
the 5 Cities had to be agreeable.
The City Council thanked Mr. Soroka for his presentation
and Mr. Soroka thanked the City Council for asking him to
attend.
Mayor Abramowitz said the City Council received a copy of
a proposed Ordinance from the City Attorney and he asked
if the Ordinance had to be advertised.
City Attorney Doody said two public hearings had to be
held on this Ordinance and the Ordinance could be heard
on first reading at tomorrow's City Council meeting. He
said advertising was required for the second reading.
With no
further
business,
Mayor
Abramowitz
ADJOURNED this
meeting
at 3:10
P.M.
n
NOP,MAN ABRAMOWITZ, MAYOR
CA OL A. E AN S, CITY CLERK
"This public document was promulgated at a cost of $127.00 or $15.88 per
copy to inform the general public, public officers and employees of
recent opinions and considerations of the City Council of the City of
Tamarac."
CITY 4F TAMARA.0
APPR VED AT MEETING OF G
City Clerk
1
Page 14