Commissioner Jeff Riedell asked the Coconut Creek City Commission on Dec. 11 to direct the city manager to terminate a $150,000 redevelopment contract with RMA, saying the city should tighten spending while the state considers sweeping changes to property‑tax law.

Riedell said he reviewed the contract and believes the study and vendor work are premature given uncertainty in Tallahassee, and asked for immediate consensus to cancel. "I stand by. I'm asking for consensus to terminate the agreement," he said. Riedell argued termination is allowed under the contract's at‑will 30‑day language and that pausing the work preserves fiscal flexibility while the city waits for clarity on potential impacts to tax revenue.

Vice Mayor Wasserman warned that unilaterally rescinding an approved contract could expose the city to legal risk and open a precedent for revisiting prior approvals. "People can sue over anything any day of the week," City Attorney Pibern told the commission when asked about legal exposure. Wasserman said he was "on the fence" and worried about unintended consequences of cancelling approved work.

Commissioner Welch and others urged a more cautious approach, saying they were uncomfortable making a major reversal at the close of a meeting without additional information. Welch suggested placing the issue on a future agenda so staff can present fuller detail about costs, progress, and termination exposure. Commissioner Brody and others countered that allowing the vendor to accelerate work while the issue is pending could increase the city's financial obligation.

City staff confirmed RMA's contract included standard at‑will termination language requiring 30 days' notice and payment only for services already performed. Staff also said there had been kickoff meetings and field visits; commissioners expressed concern that delay could allow the vendor to incur billable work. The city manager and attorney said staff would return with more specifics and that the council could formally consider termination through an agenda item if desired.

The commission did not reach a unanimous decision to direct immediate termination. Members reported mixed positions when the chair called for consensus; some said yes, others said no, and the matter will be revisited with fuller information. The discussion concluded with multiple commissioners calling for a formal agenda item and more detail before any final action.

The commission did not vote on termination that night; next procedural steps are to prepare an information item with contract history, expenditures to date, and legal analysis for a future meeting.