Loading...
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