Deerfield Beach joins Coconut Creek in legal challenge to Monarch Hill expansion; commission names representative for county meeting

Mayor Todd Drozky and commission members discussed recent legal and intergovernmental steps after the city and Coconut Creek filed a Chapter 164 challenge to Broward County’s approval of Waste Management’s permit changes at the Monarch Hill landfill.

The city’s planning staff reported that the challenge seeks review of the county approval and that elected officials from the cities and the county are scheduled for a joint meeting on Aug. 28. Eric Bauer, director of plant development services, told the commission, “the city along with the city Coconut Creek, have filed what's called a chapter 164 process challenging Broward County's approval of the waste management, landfill height increase and expansion.”

The issue drew sustained comment from commissioners, who urged that Deerfield Beach attend the upcoming meetings and press for protections for local water and neighborhoods. Commissioner Shanetzky said the county’s recent actions undercut Broward County’s own zero‑waste policy and warned against being persuaded by financial concessions offered by Waste Management. “We need to stand firm when we go to this meeting,” he said.

Vice Mayor Preston moved and Commissioner Shanetzky seconded a motion to send Commissioner Alan Plaut to represent Deerfield Beach at the county meeting with Coconut Creek. The commission voted unanimously in favor. Mayor Drozky described attendance as a demonstration of good faith and an opportunity to hear county and company positions.

Commissioners and staff highlighted related local actions and programs in the discussion. Shanetzky noted the city’s expanding composting program and the potential to divert significant tonnage from landfills if widely adopted. Commissioners also pressed staff to coordinate with Coconut Creek and to continue pursuing data and technical analysis supporting the city’s challenge.

Broward County Mayor Beam Furr and Waste Management were discussed in remarks by staff and commissioners; the county’s letter to city leaders and proposals offered to Coconut Creek were referenced in the public discussion but no county or company official spoke at the meeting.

The commission did not approve additional binding legal steps at the meeting beyond confirming attendance at the joint meeting and designating Commissioner Plaut as the city’s representative. Staff said elected officials and staff from the three jurisdictions will meet on Aug. 28 and that earlier staff‑level meetings have already taken place. The commission asked staff to keep members informed about future meetings and legal developments.

For now, the legal challenge remains active and the city’s next formal step is participation in the joint county–city meeting and further coordination with Coconut Creek.