Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landfill Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coconut Creek commission agrees to exploratory talks over landfill settlement amid active litigation
Summary
After months of litigation and an intergovernmental dispute process, the Coconut Creek City Commission authorized staff and counsel to meet with Deerfield Beach and Waste Management to discuss potential settlement options — a move some commissioners opposed and others supported as a pragmatic step.
The Coconut Creek City Commission on June 12 authorized city staff and legal counsel to meet with representatives from Deerfield Beach and Waste Management to discuss possible settlement talks related to the regional landfill, while emphasizing any outcome would require formal public approval.
The action follows an invitation from Broward County leadership and comes amid active legal challenges and a mandatory Chapter 164 intergovernmental dispute-resolution process. City Manager Rose told the commission the invitation requested an early discussion “to have some kind of settlement conversation” and confirmed Deerfield is considering the matter at its own meeting in July.
The matter drew sharp debate at the dais. Commissioner Brody opposed moving forward before the scheduled joint meeting on Aug. 28, saying, “They had two years … and now that they’re against the wall in a lawsuit, they want to sit down with us. I think this is them trying to bully the city.” Commissioner Brody said he preferred continuing the litigation path.
Other commissioners urged caution but supported a preliminary meeting. Commissioner Riedell, who argued that “conversations are what solve problems,” noted the city has previously settled with Waste Management and said entering talks does not require accepting terms. Vice Mayor Wasserman requested that the city attorney and outside counsel attend any meeting and asked that Coconut Creek coordinate closely with Deerfield Beach so the two cities remain aligned.
City Attorney Pieburn and staff explained the legal framework: the city is engaged in the Chapter 164 process that requires local governments to attempt intergovernmental dispute resolution before some lawsuits proceed, and the commission has an active comprehensive-plan challenge pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Pieburn said any settlement or compromise discussed would have to be returned to the commission for a public vote.
After discussion, the commission gave direction to schedule a nonbinding conversation attended by a commission designee, the city manager, the city attorney (and outside counsel as appropriate), and Deerfield representatives; Commissioner Riedell was identified as the commission’s representative for the exploratory talks. Commissioners emphasized the meeting would be informational only and any proposed settlement would require a public vote.
Mayor Railey and multiple commissioners stressed the city would continue litigation steps as needed. City Attorney Pieburn also said the city would file an amended petition regarding the comprehensive-plan challenge with the Division of Administrative Hearings the following day.
The commission’s direction does not itself change ongoing lawsuits or the city’s legal posture; staff said they would report back with a summary of the conversation and any options for formal action.
