Miscellaneous�ttr�h hitP
BRANCH OFFICE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH OFFICE
3117 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY 16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT P.O. BOX 379
MARATHON, FLORIDA 33050 MONROE COUNTY PLANTATION KEY, FLORIDA 33070
TEL. (305) 743 -9036 500 WHITEHEAD STREET TEL. (305) 852 -9253
KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040
RECORDER TEL. (305) 294 -4641 COUNTY CLERK
COLLECTOR OF DELINQUENT TAXES COUNTY AUDITOR
February 28, 1979
t
Florida Disposal Co.
1904 Flagler Avenue
Key West, Florida 33040 -
Attention: Mr. Joe LaBounty
Dear Sir:
.W
Enclosed please find two (2) original copies of an Agreement.by
and between Monroe County, Florida, acting as the-Monroe County
Municipal Service District and Waste Management, Tnc., a Deldware
Corporation for Solid Waste Disposal System, design, finance and
construction that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners
at a regular meeting in formal session on February 27, 1979.
After you have secured the signatures of Waste Management, Inc.,
please return one (1) original fully executed copy to the at-
tention of the undersigned.
Very t yours,
L-�a p . itte
Cler of Circuit Court
and ex officio Clerk
Board of County Commissioners
RWW /vp
cc: County Attorney Michael Cates
cc: File
Enclosures /
w
�UIO X. x4itt --
BRANCH OFFICE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH OFFICE
3117 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY 16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT P.O. BOX 379
MARATHON, FLORIDA 33050 MONROE COUNTY PLANTATION KEY, FLORIDA 33070
TEL. (305) 743 -9036 500 WHITEHEAD STREET TEL. (305) 852 -9253
KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040
RECORDER TEL. (305) 294 -4641 COUNTY CLERK
COLLECTOR OF DELINQUENT TAXES COUNTY AUDITOR
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Richard Payne, Assistant County Attorney
From: Danny L. Kolhage, Deputy Clerk `
Subject: Contract - Waste Management, Inc.
Date: March 5, 1979
V
Enclosed please find the Waste Management Inc. Contract dated ,
March 1, 1979 executed by both parties. Included in and made.
part of this Contract are three Lease Agreements between Monrpe
County and Waste Management, Inc., for the incinerator sites.
I am also enclosing their check for advance payment of the
full 20 years and 10 months Lease Agreement at $1.00 per year
for each site; said check totalling $63.00.
I am returning these documents as the Lease Agreement referred
to above are not acknowledged as to the signatures of the
President and Secretary of Waste Management, Inc.
Further, we are hereby requesting a statement from you as to the
legal sufficiency of the Construction Performance Bond.
Please forward these documents to us as soon as the above items
have been completed.
Danny L. Kolhage
Deputy Clerk
DLK /vp
cc: File
Enclosures
MEMORANDUM
TO Mr. Danny Kohlage
FROM Assistant County Attorney
DATE March 19, 1979
SUBJECT Solid Waste Contract
with Waste Management, Inc.
Enclosed herein please find page 24 of the original contract
with Waste Management - being the acknowledgment before a Notary
which you belatedly requested.
I also return the original contract and the check for $63.
being the advance payment of the rent called for under the three
(3) leases.
I have reviewed EXHIBIT D and EXHIBIT F attached thereto,
the same being the Construction Performance Bond and the Operational
Performance Bond - and both are legally sufficient and in accordance
with the standards required by the contract.
Enclosure: as above.
RGP:au
1
''SPY
.�uguot 29, 1979
Mr. Jeffrey R. Diver
Counsel for Environmeural Affairs
Waste Management, Inc.
900 Jorie Boule=vard
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Dear Mr. Diver:
This is a response to your letter of July 16 ant our subsequent con-
versations in Jacksonville and in Marathon ri:garding the proposed
incinerator and landfill facilities on Key Larv.
Your letter indicates that you believe that Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act would not be applicable to the project because no Federal
funding is Involved, but Section 7(a) extends beyond just funding - it
includes .... "any action authorised, funded or carried out...."
Apparently B.P.A. feels that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
conveys "authorization" in the context of the Endangered Species Act -
as evidenced by the wording of their proposed "sanitary landfill" criteria.
This, of course, is a legal point which cannot be determined in our
office.
If this assunption is correct then Section 7 of the Bn4angered Species
Act will be applicable to the Enviro mental Protection Agency and they
will have to initiate a request for consultation in accordance with the
provisions of Section 7(a). Previously finalized, and presently proposed
(following the 1978 amendments) Federal guidelines require the Federal
agency to request consultation from the appropriate Regional Director of
the Fish and Wildlife Service. Following consultation the Regional
Director will issue the "Secretary's Opinion" as outlinad in Section
7(L ~). I point this out bcceuses I want to stress that wy coments in
this latter do not constitute a biological opinion and are not a sub-
stitute for the "Secretary's Opinion" in t.:arma of the law.
They might, however, satisfy the rs�quiramanto of E.P.A.'s proposed
"sanitary landfill" criteria - particularly if E.P.A. does not consider
itself as "authorizing" the project in the context of the E'ndsagered
Species Act.
Y
I
1
1
f
I 6
1.
I ( _
F
1
ti' .
a.
Although your latter only addresses the American crocodile, you should
be award of the potential Presence of a second Federally listed species
that may, or may not, be in the area - the threatened Schaus swollowtail
butterfly. While no Critical Habitat has been established for this
species it is known to occupy tropical hard^esoodt hamocks such as the
site proposed for the facility. The infatuation in our files is In-
sufficient to confirm or refute the presence of the butterfly in the
immediate area. Although the Endangered Species Act affords the some
degree of protection to the butterfly we are legs concerned about this
speciea because of its appirent preference for disturbed hammocks, its
nobility, and the presence of Federally ouneed and protected habitat
elsewhere in the general area of the proposed sanitary landfill. Never-
theless it shcald be considered in the decisiomaaking process becausat
the potential does exist that it could occupy the site.
With regard to the crocodile, I have personally visited the area, as
.,eve ambers of my staff. We have discussed the situation with
John Ogden, member of the Crocodile Recovery Team, and Paul Moler,
herpetologist with the State of Florida. These biologists are more
familiar with the Rey Largo crocodile population than anyor►e else.
our conclusion is that construction. of the facility will not jeopardize
the continued exiatence of the Americaa crocodile nor adversely modify
its Critical Habitat, .for will it Constitute "taking ", either by haress-
ment or harm, pursuant to Section 9 of the Endanpered Species Act.
Although our Washington Office is presently considering the establish.:ent
of the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge, we do not foreess:e taking
any action to either halt the construction of this facility or have it
designated as an "open dump."
While we feel that the construction doss not violate the Endangnread
species Act, the tropical hardwood hammocks of the Keys are a unique
plant cownuuity found nowhere else in the United States, considered to
be the most endnngerred ecosystem in the State of Florida, and therefore
we regret that it might be necessary to destroy them to accommodate a
Waste disposal plant.
Sincerely,
/
Donald J. }iank.l.a
Area Manager
DWPETERSON: jg 8/29/79
- 2 -
O�f� ',. i
I
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Rii HA'RDrA. KERR, District 1
CURT BLAIR, District 2
JERRY HERNANDEZ, JR., District 3
GEORGE E. DOLEZAL, District 4
DON SCHLOESSER, District 5
OFFICE OF:
Michael H. Cates, Esq.
Legal Advisor
505 Whitehead Street
XRRNXX
wk � e ; c: 1
" OUNTY J�FILOMDA33040
MOI�ROE
KEY WEST,
(305) 2944641
September 12, 1979
Mr. Harold Gershowitz
Senior Vice President
Waste Management, Inc.
900 Jorie Boulevard
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
Re: Waste Management Agreement
Dear Mr. Gershowitz:
E�f
As of this date I have not received the status report in
regards to the subject agreement. The last report received in
this office was in the early part of July, 1979.
Pursuant to Clause 14 of the above referenced agreement, you
are placed on thirty (30) days written notice that you have failed
to perform or observe the obligations under the subject agreement
and have failed to comply with material provisions thereof as
follows:
(a) You have failed to complete the final design.
(b) You have failed to obtain the approvals as required
by the agreement.
(c) You have failed to complete the sub - contractor bid
period package.
(d) You have failed to complete the site preparation
package.
(e) You have failed to complete the underground and
concrete foundation package.
(f) You have failed to complete the steel building
package.
(g) You have failed to obtain the complete approval for
the incinerator and the fabrication thereof and
to initiate installation.
Mr. Harold Gershowitz
September 12,"1979
Page 2
(h) You have failed to award thb electrical package
and obtain permit and initiate construction.
(i) You have failed to award the mechanical package,
obtain permit and initiate construction.
(j) You have failed to submit and /or obtain the approval
of the County in regards to the construction plans
and specifications for the facilities, site plan
showing the layout of the facility and all incidental
improvements including off - street parking, driveways,
walkways, exterior lighting, scales, fencing,
and landscaping. It is specifically noted as set
forth in paragraph 8 of the agreement that these
must be submitted to and /or subject to the final
approval of the County in advance of construction.
All of the above are material breaches of the existing agreement as
set forth in Exhibit E and your immediate attention to curing the
defects or defaults within thirty (30) days as set forth in the
agreement is required.
In addition, it is specifically noted that enclosed herewith
is copy of letter from Donald'J. Hankla, Area Manager, Department
of the Interior which clearly sets forth that their department
does notforesee taking any action to halt the construction of the
facility or having it designated as an open dump.
By copy of this letter we are placing the Construction Perfor-
mance Bond Company, Safeco Insurance Company of America, on notice
of the above for their appropriate review and /or action.
You immediate attention to this matter is required in accord-
ance with the agreement.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL H. CATES
Legal Advisor
Charles P. Aquero Director
Municipal Service' District
MHC /pr
Enclosure
CC: Mr. Joe LaBounty
Statement on southe m California Antitrust Cam
Two Southern California collection subsidiaries of waste Management
of North America, Inc. have reached an agreement with the
Department of Justice to settle an antitrust inquiry in Southern
California.
under the agreement, which is subject to approval by the court, the
Company said two local companies, Dewey•s Rubbish Services and
Daily Disposal Services, will plead guilty and pay a settlement of
$1.5 laillion for antitrust infractions which occurred six years
ago, in the 1983 -1984 time period.
One of the involved employees has been dismissed and the other
already had retired. The allegations related to Dewey's predated
the Company's ownership of the company.
Waste Management has agreed to cooperate fully with the Department
of Justice in any continuing federal antitrust investigation in
Southern California.
Waste Management has a strong and active program to educate
employees on antitrust laws and compliance. These activities,
which occurred a number of years ago, are totally contrary to
Company policy. Accordingly, the Company has decided to settle,
pay the fines and take additional remedial steps to ensure that
such conduct does not recur.
i
35 -6e
June 19, 1990
Randy Ludacer, Esq.
Cc-)unty Attorr.�.ey D `
500 Whitehead Street
Monroe County Courthouse
Key West, Florida 33040
JUN n
Mr. Charles Aguero
Assistant County Administrator COUNTY A
Municipal Service District
Public Service Building
5825 Jr. College Road
Ivey West, Florida 33040
Re: Monroe County /Waste Management
Solid Waste Disposal Contracts
Pear Messrs. Ludacer and Aguero:
At Judd Freeman's request, I am forwarding for your
review my June 13 letter to Mr. Brown commenting on the draft
Monroe County /Waste Management solid waste disposal contracts.
If you have any questions concerning the matters discussed in the
letter please feel free to call me.
incerely,
s M. Porter ;2,
JMP /bk
Enc.
7y, fle
C
J0/,- .�A�
June 13, 1990
Via Telecopy
Mr. Thomas W. Brown
Monroe County Administrator
Public Service Building, Wing #2
Stock Island
Key West, Florida 33040
Re: Monroe County /Waste Management Solid
Waste Disposal Contracts
Dear Mr. Brown:
�7 /30S/ 571 -d70D
I recently received copies of the Monroe County /Waste
Management, Inc. of Florida June 7 draft Operations and
Maintenance Agreement and June 5 draft Design and Construction
Agreement from Resource Development Group. These revised drafts
address many, but not all, of the comments outlined in my May 30
correspondence. Some of the issues raised in my earlier
correspondence which were not addressed in the revised drafts
merit further consideration. The purpose of this letter is to
identify these remaining issues. For your convenience, I have
included proposed alternative language for use in the contracts.
As a preliminary matter, as you know, the Design and
Construction ( "D &C ") Agreement and the Operations and Maintenance
( "0 0 Agreement contain a number of identical or overlapping
terms and conditions. Many of the changes made to the D &C
Agreement, however, do not appear in the 0 &M Agreement. For
example, the Recitals, Definitions, and Indemnification
provisions of the D &C contract have been revised, incorporating
the revisions suggested in my May 30 letter. Corresponding or
identical provisions in the 0 &M contract, however, have not been
revised. The language of the contracts should be reconciled so
that to the extent they overlap the definitions, terms, and
conditions are the same.
t .G
Mr. Thomas W. Brown
June 13, 1990
page 2
Biohazardous Waste The contractual definitions in the
0 &M and the DO contracts should be consistent with the
definitions adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation ( "DER ") and the Broward County Environmental Quality
Control-Board ("BCEQCB"). I suggest the first sentence of the
definition of Biohazardous Waste be revised as follows:
"Biohazardous Waste" means any solid waste or
liquid waste defined as biohazardous or
infectious under Chapter 17 -712, Florida
Administrative Code, or Chapter 27 of the
Broward County Code of Regulations.
The final clause of the existing definition should also be
revised as follows:
and other materials which, from time to time,
the Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation, or the
Broward County Environmental Quality Control
Board define by rule or regulation as
biohazardous or infectious.
These changes will bring the contractual definition of
Biohazardous Waste in line with existing biohazardous waste
disposal restrictions and will help insure consistency with those
restrictions in the future.
Change in Law This definition, appearing in both the
0 &M and D &C contracts, remains difficult to understand. I
suggest the following:
"Change in Law" means (a) the enactment,
adoption, promulgation, modification, or
effectiveness of any federal, state, county,
or local law, ordinance, code, rule, or
regulation within or following the ten (10)
day period preceding the contract date which
materially affects the performance of the
Contract. Notwithstanding any provisions of
this Contract to the contrary, laws,
ordinances, codes, rules or regulations
r
Mr. Thomas W. Brown
June 13, 1990
page 3
enacted, adopted, promulgated, or modified
within or after the ten (10) day period
preceding the Contract date, or which become
effective within or after that period, shall
not be considered a Change in Law if the law,
ordinance, code, rule, or regulation was
officially proposed and the comment period, if
any, has expired and the required hearings, if
any, were concluded more than ten (10) days
before the Contract date.
Change in Law also means (b) the imposition of
any new material condition on the issuance or
renewal of any official permit or license.
To qualify as a Change in Law, the law,
ordinance, code, rule, or regulation under (a)
above, or the permit or license condition
under (b) above, must materially affect the
cost of construction, start -up, testing, or
operation of the Facility and be more
burdensome than the most stringent
requirements (1) in effect on the Contract
date, with respect to the Facility and
Facility operations, (2) agreed to in any
applications for official permits, licenses or
approvals pending as of the Contract date, or
(3) contained in any official permits,
licenses, or approvals with respect to the
Facility obtained as of the Contract date.
Provided, however, compliance with a permit or
license obtained or applied for as of the
Contract date which requires compliance with
future laws, ordinances, codes, rules, or
regulations shall not be deemed a Change in
Law.
Change in Law also means (c) a change in any
fee or tax, other than taxes levied on wages,
salaries, or the Contractor's income, imposed
by a governmental taxing authority, which has
material adverse financial effect on the
design, construction, start -up, performance
testing, or operation of the Facility.
Mr. Thomas W. Brown
June 13, 1990
page 4
This definition substantially tracks the existing definition.
Only those changes in the law or changes in permit conditions
which materially affect performance or the cost of compliance
with the contracts will be deemed a "Change in Law." Once
defined as a Change in Law, the event is subject to Section 6.04
of the D &C contract and Section 5.08 of the 0 &M Agreement.
pursuant to those provisions if, for example, Broward County
taxes or regulates the disposal of solid waste generated outside
of the County, and such tax or regulation causes a material
adverse impact on the cost of disposal, either Waste Management
or Monroe County can terminate the contract if the parties are
unable to agree on a means of resolving the issue.
Hazardous Waste As noted in my May 30 comments, the
definitions of Hazardous Waste should conform with the federal
and Florida definitions. I also suggested the County
specifically exclude waste generated by small quantity generators
from the definition. I suggest the following:
"Hazardous Waste" means any solid waste
defined under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, ("RCRA") 42 U.S.C. §6901 et
sec., Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or
Chapter 27 of the Broward County Code of
Regulations as hazardous waste. "Household
Waste" and waste generated by "conditionally
exempt small quantity generators" as those
terms are defined under RCRA and Chapter 17-
730, Florida Administrative Code, shall not be
considered Hazardous Waste for purposes of
this Agreement for so long as such waste may
lawfully be disposed of in a sanitary
landfill. Changes in the federal, state or
local definitions of hazardous waste shall be
binding on the parties as of the effective
date of such determination.
As with the definition of Biohazardous Waste, this proposed
definition is designed to insure consistency with current and
future federal, Florida, and local hazardous waste
transportation, treatment, and disposal regulations.
Air. Thomas W. Brown
June 13, 1990
page 5
Unacceptable Waste As defined, Waste Management may
designate any waste which "may present a substantial
endangerment" or which may adversely affect the operation of the
Facility as Unacceptable Waste without the County's concurrence.
Other types of Solid t4aste may be designated as Unacceptable
Waste only upon the mutual agreement of the parties. I suggest
the County require its concurrence in any Unacceptable Waste
designation made by Waste Management.
Uncontrollable Circumstances Matters designated by
Waste Management as Uncontrollable Circumstances should also be
subject to County approval. As suggested in my May 30 letter, I
also recommend a provision stating that cost increases are not an
Uncontrollable Circumstance.
Subpart (d) of the definition in the 0 &M contract is not
consistent with subpart (d) in the D &C contract.
0 &M Section 2.05(c)(1) and (2) As suggested in my
earlier correspondence, the burden should be placed on Waste
Management to demonstrate compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and local requirements. I suggest the second sentence of
§2.05(c)(2) be revised as follows:
In a separate section of the report, the
Consulting Engineer shall give an independent
opinion relating to the overall performance of
the Operator, the Operator's compliance with
the Operating Plan and with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws, rules,
regulations, and permits, the general status
of the Facility with regard to Operator
maintenance over the past Fiscal Year, and any
recommendations to improve the operation and
maintenance of the Facility.
The point of this change is to avoid placing the County in the
position of being forced to take a position "on the record"
regarding Waste Management's compliance with applicable
environmental laws, regulations, and permits.
0 &M Section 2.06(c) Following submission of the May 30
letter we noticed that the contracts do not address the issue of
ownership of the waste once it leaves the transfer station. A
Mr. Thomas W. Brown
June 13, 1990
page 6
transfer of ownership will assist the County avoid liability
arising during the transportation and disposal of the waste. I
suggest this Section be revised as follows:
Title to any removed from the Facilities
by the Contractor shall immediately, upon such
removal, vest with the Contractor. Further,
any waste removed from the Facilities by the
Contractor shall be presumed to be Acceptable
Waste unless such waste has been previously
designated as Unacceptable, Hazardous,
Biohazardous, or Atomic Waste.
0 &M Section 2.07(c) The scope of the indemnification
should be limited to damages, delays, or costs incurred by the
Contractor with respect to the Facility This eliminates any
argument that the indemnification protection runs to the Disposal
Site. I suggest the County insert the language "with respect to
the Facility" following the word "Operator" in the third and
fifth lines.
0 &M Section 5.02 As with the previous draft, Section
5.02(a) provides that Waste Management's failure to achieve
compliance with the Performance Guarantees is not a default
unless the Guarantees are violated for six " consecutive " months.
As a consequence, if Waste Management achieves compliance only
once in the first six months of the Contract and only once every
six months thereafter, there is no default and no obligation to
take corrective action. I suggest the County define the failure
to meet the Performance Guarantees as a default or,
alternatively, define the failure to meet such Guarantees, for
example, twice in any six month period as a default.
0 &M Section 5.04(a) In my earlier letter I suggested
that the time periods in this Section were too long and the
prohibition on termination if Waste Management pursues a remedy
is not in the County's interest. These issues were not addressed
in the revised contract.
As currently drafted, if, for example, Waste Management.
fails to achieve the Performance Guarantee level for six
consecutive months Waste Management is allowed to design a
corrective plan. There is no time limitation on the design phase
E
Mr. Thomas W. Brown
June 13, 1990
page 7
but for sake of argument assume it will take two months to
prepare a plan and for the County to review and approve the plan.
The "non - compliance" period is now eight months. Under the
Agreement, the plan must provide for compliance within three
months of implementation- -but must be extended for "good cause."
Waste Management is now eleven plus months out of compliance. At
this time, assuming Waste Management has failed to meet the
Performance Guarantee, the County can declare a default. Once an
Event of Default has been declared, however, the County is
prohibited from terminating the contract if Waste Management is
pursuing a remedy "with due diligence." There is no time
limitation on Waste Management's right to pursue a remedy. In
any event, even if Waste Management elects not to correct the
default, the County can terminate the contract only following an
additional 30 day period (30 days following written notice).
Under this scenario, Waste Management can operate in violation of
the Performance Guarantee for a year or longer. Similarly, other
defaults under Section 5.02(a) can continue for months before the
County can terminate the contract.
As suggested in my May 30 letter, I recommend the County
shorten the period of time between the occurrence of an Event of
Default and the County's right of termination.
D &C Section 2.02(b)(1) Delete the word "should" in the
last line and insert the word "shall".
D &C Section 2.04(a) The Agreement should specifically
require Waste Management to indemnify the County for any costs,
losses, damages, claims, penalties, suits, actions, and the like
in the event it fails to properly transfer and dispose of the
waste during the construction period.
D &C Section 4.04(d) The revised language of this
Section does not assist in allocating costs associated with a
cleanup of the Facilities. Ideally, the County should be
responsible for any cleanup or restoration required as the result
of its activities and Waste Management should assume
responsibility for the consequences of its conduct. It is often
difficult, however, to determine who caused the problem requiring
remediation. One alternative is to place the entire burden on
Waste Management. Or, the County may agree on some cost sharing
approach for damages (contamination or degradation) the cause of
C
Mr. Thomas W. Brown
June 13, 1990
page 8
which cannot be determined. I suggest the County add the
following language following the last sentence of the text: "All
environmental degradation, the cause of which cannot be
specifically determined, shall be presumed to have been caused by
the Contractor's actions or failure to act."
D &C Section 4.06(c) Insert the words "with respect to
the Facilities' following the word "Contractor" in the fourth
line.
D &C Section 5.01(a) To clarify that Waste Management's
indemnification obligation extends to all matters arising from
the improper disposal of Acceptable Waste I suggest the following
revision (beginning at line 9):
. or loss of or damage to property,
including the Disposal Site, or for any fines
or governmental penalties, arising out of the
performance or non - performance of the
Contractor's obligations under this Agreement,
the improper disposal of Acceptable Waste (or
any other waste as the parties may from time -
to -time agree is to be processed, transported,
or disposed of by the Contractor), or the
breach of Contractor of any representation or
condition of this Agreement. The Contractor
is not, however . . . .
I also suggest this indemnification state that it shall survive
termination of the contract.
DO Section 5.01(b) The indemnification should be
expanded to include actions brought under Chapter 403, Florida
Statutes. As a separate matter, I would add the words "the
County or" following the word "against" in the sixth line.
In summary, the revised contracts represent a
substantial improvement over the earlier drafts. Reconciling the
differences between the contracts and incorporating the changes
suggested in this letter, will, however, require some work. If.I
can be of assistance to you or to Resource Development Group in
completing the work, please feel free to call me.
��.. a&�
Mr. Thomas W. Brown
June 13, 1990
page 9
As a final matter, I understand I am to review a draft
inter - governmental agreement prepared on behalf of Broward County
by the Greenberg law firm. I have not yet received the draft
agreement. Please call me to discuss this matter.
Iely
M. Porter
JMP /bk
cc: Judson Freeman, Jr., Esq.
Jeffrey 0. Cerar, Esq.
C UNTY o MON ROE
KEY WEST FLORIDA 33040
(305) 294 -4641
Please reply to :
County Attorney's Office
310 Fleming Street, Room 29
Key West, FL 33040
M E M O R A N D U M
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Pro Tern Wilhelmina Harvey, District 1
Gene Lytton, District 2
Douglas Jones, District 3
Mike Puto, District 4
MAYOR John Stormont, District 5
To: Danny Kohlage
Clerk of the Court
From: Rob Wolfe
Asst. County Attorne
Re: $6 Million performance bond in the Waste Management,
Inc., operations and maintenance agreement (Sec. 6.22).
Date: July 31, 1990
It is the opinion of this Office that the furnishing of the
bond is a condition precedent to performance under the contract
but not to the execution of the contract. Mr. Ludacer has been
consulted and concurs in the above.
RW /la
cc: John Bigler
.. �.r...._ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MAYOR Jack Lonft% DWO 2
4 Mayor Pro Tam, A Fart c t I
oaa .
O U NTY of M O N R O E
KEY WEST FLORIDA 33040 Shk1ly Freeman. Distrftt 3
(305) 294 -4641 Mary Kay Ruch, District 5
Environmental Management
5100 College Road
Room 506, Wing II - B ,$4s 3;=
Key West, Fla. 33040
February 24, 1994
James A. Waters, Vice President
Waste Management, Inc. -South
500 Cypress Creek Road, West, Suite 300
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 33309
RE: Request for Information Regarding Haul -Out Payments
Dear Jim:
In response to your letter of February 10, 1994, the issue is not
a disagreement over the tonnage reported and paid for covering
the months of January and February 1993.
As indicated on the copies of the invoices included with my
letter to George Villasana dated February 3, 1994, your company
billed us for $570,195.75 for January and $512,052.00 for
February of 1993. The County agrees with these numbers. In
fact, WMI was paid those exact dollar amounts. What is at issue
is the fact that your Operating Income Report does not reflect
those revenues actually paid per the invoices.
Therefore, we are simply requesting your written explanation with
appropriate documentation of this apparent discrepancy.
Sincerely,
Xj � /1' Barry M. Boldissar, Director
Environmental Management
BB /cc
cc: Danny Kolhage, Clerk of the Court
James L. Roberts, County Administrator
Guy McMahan, Director of Operations
wrhMrttina Harvay, Oktrlct
/6 -0
J % o
C e
TRT BRANCH OFFICE
88820 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY
PLANTATION KEY, FLORIDA 33070
VcJ
TEL (305) 852 -7145
FAX (305) 852 -7146
TO: Clark Lake, Director
Solid Waste Management Division
FROM: Isabel C. DeSantis, Deputy Clerk
DATE: st , 99 Ol` t Jam`
As you know, at the August 12, 1998 meeting, the Board granted
approval and authorized execution of a Recyclables Operation
Agreement, pending legal review, between Monroe County and Waste
Management, Inc., of Floridato process, transport, and market
recyclables.
Attached hereto is a duplicate original of the subject Agreement
for your handling.
Should you have any questions concerning the above, please do not
hesitate to contact this office.
cc: County Attorney
County Administrator w/o doc.
Finance Director
File
Ivy f��nr, S--
c, /q rr, . Lam, (�
wU./c. .- �.
C UNIFYMONROE
KEY WEST FLORIDA 33040
(305) 294 -4641
Office of Solid Waste Management
5100 College Road - Wing II -B
Public Service Building
Key West, FL 33040
(305) 292 -4432 Phone
(305) 292 -4555 Fax
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Clark Lake, Division Director
Solid Waste Management
DATE: August 11, 1998
SUBJ: Recycling Agreement
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MAYOR Jack London, District 2
Mayor Pro tem Wilhelmina Harvey, District 1
Shirley Freeman, District 3
Keith Douglass, District 4
Mary Kay Reich, District 5
On June 10, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Solid Waste Management Division
to negotiate an agreement with Waste Management of Florida, Inc. for the processing, transportation, and
marketing of recyclables.
A major concern of the Board was the impact of the outsourcing on the existing Recycling Operations
employees. The Division has been aggressively working to place the impacted employees in both County
and private sector positions. As of this date, eight of the original twenty -one employees have yet to be
placed. With the current vacancies in the County and the employment offer contained the agreement with
Waste Management, it is felt no employee will suffer an involuntary termination of employment.
The five -year agreement as negotiated will provide substantial savings to the citizens versus the present
county operated system. Conservatively, the citizens of Monroe County should realize an estimated
savings of $2,500,000 during the term of this agreement.
Pending legal review of attached revisions, the Solid Waste Management Division requests Board of
County Commissioners approval of contract agreement between Monroe County and Waste Management
of Florida, Inc. and authorization for the Mayor to execute same.
Recycling Agreement
August 11, 1998
Page 2
* REVISIONS*
Article I — Definitions
Insert — Definition for "Prohibited Wastes"
Insert — Prohibited Waste to list of "Unacceptable Waste"
Article II
2.07(a) — Insert; provided, however, that the Operator shall nay for the disposal of up to 1% (by weight)
per load of such contaminants other than prohibited waste (Prohibited waste shall be disposed of at the
County's expense).
3.04(a) — change glass (category (iv) to mixed glass )
Insert — Mixed glass shall only be accepted by operation if utilized for such mutually acceptable
alternative use.
5.04(b) — Insert: and have same in the condition in which it originally found then ordinary wear and tear
excepted.
Page 26 — Corrected signature page
Clark E. Lake
CL:tl
WARNING TO OWNER: UNDER FLORIDA LAW, YOUR FAILURE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PAID MAY RESULT IN A LIEN
AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY AND YOUR PAYING TWICE. TO AVOID A LIEN AND PAYING TWICE, YOU MUST OBTAIN A WRITTEN RELEASE.
FROM LOPEFRA CORPORATIO (305) 266 -38 EVERY TIME YOU PAY YO UR CONTRACTO
The undersigned hereby informs you that it has furnished or is furnishing services or materials as follows:
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
For improvement of the real property described as: WASTE MANAGEMENT
1180 SERVICE RD, KEY LARGO
POR OF LAND IN SEC 10/60/40 MONROE COUNTY FL
AKA MILE 905 JR)
Under an order given by: TURNKEY CONSTR #786 412 0446
Florida law prescribes the serving of this Notice and restricts your right to make payments under your contract in accordance with Section
713.06 Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Florida Statute 713.16(1) please furnish a copy of your direct contract with the contractor. Responsibility
for copy costs is acknowledged. Request for Sworn Sta of Account m be addressed to:
LOPEFRA CORPORATION 2601 SW 69 COURT MIAMI FLORIDA 33155 -2818
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR YOUR PROTECTION
Under Florida's law, those who work on your property or provide materials and are not paid have a right to enforce their claim for payment
against your property. This claim is known as a construction lien. If your contractor fails to pay subcontractors or material suppliers or
neglects to make other legally required payments, the people who are owed money may look to your property for payment, EVEN IF YOU
HAVE PAID YOUR CONTRACTOR IN FULL.
PROTECT YOURSELF
RECOGNIZE that this Notice to Owner may result in a lien against your property unless all those supplying a Notice to Owner have been
paid. LEARN more about the Construction Lien Law, Chapter 713, Part I, Florida Statutes, and the meaning of this notice by contacting an
attorney or the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
If this is a bonded job under sections 713.23, 713.245, 255.05 Florida Statutes, this will serve as a preliminary notice to contractor and
request is further made for a copy of any such bond.
FIRM LOPEFRA CORPORATION
2601 SW 69 COURT
MIAMI FLORIDA 33155 -2818
By
- - -- - James A. Carmel, Agent
/
r ha-4 C4-
co . 1 4- /--//- .
WO# 1151449 DATE: 07/05/02 BATCH: 009489 ID: LOP25
Certified: 7101 0412 3440 0707 6063
WASTE MGMT OF FL KEYS
(LESSEE)
125 TOPPINO INDUSTRIAL RD
ROCKLAND KEY FL 33040
** BOND WAIVED **
GC
TURNKEY CONSTRUCTION
14411 SW DIXIE HWY STE 215
MIAMI FL 33176
TURNKEY CONSTR #786 412 0446
To assemble manually, fold A to A then fold B to B.
TO: MONROE COUNTY (LESSOR) Certified Mail # 7101 0412 3440 0707 �ND TO CONTRACTOR
OWNER: 500 WHITEHEAD ST
KEY WEST FL 33040