By Ashley M. Casey
Staff Writer
The owner of Last Chance Recycling filed an Article 78 petition against the town of Cicero last week, disputing the town’s extension of Onsite Development’s brush removal contract. An Article 78 proceeding “seeks to challenge actions of administrative agencies and other government bodies,” according to the New York State Unified Court System.
Through his attorney Barry Schreibman, Ian Hunter filed the petition in Onondaga County Supreme Court on March 18. Hunter’s petition lists the town of Cicero, the Cicero Town Board and Onsite Development as respondents.
Hunter contends that the town should have selected Last Chance Recycling for its brush removal contractor, as his bid was the lowest.
Hunter said he also takes issue with the lack of public discussion on the matter, so his petition also holds that the town violated Open Meetings Law. The minutes of the Dec. 14, 2016, meeting show no board discussion before the vote, but Councilor Mike Becallo and Supervisor Mark Venesky discussed it directly after the vote.
The town board voted 4-1 Dec. 14, 2016, to extend the contract with Onsite, citing “a problem with the bid specs” of the other bids. Out of five bidders, Onsite’s $564,000 bid was the second-lowest. Last Chance Recycling’s bid was $476,600.
Becallo voted against awarding Onsite the brush contract.
“When you put a bid out and you get a bidder that comes in that will save us $87,000 a year, I just find it very difficult to say no with that much savings,” Becallo said Dec. 14, “but I understand where the town board is coming from, so in that, I have to say no.”
At the same meeting, Venesky said he discussed the bidding issues with Onondaga County.
“I don’t think the town is fully protected in that contract, so we are going to put it back out to bid. Everyone who bid on it can bid on it again, but we are going to tighten up the bid specs. The county is working with us on that. Our job is to protect you and your taxpayer dollars,” Venesky said.
Hunter’s petition says the town is in violation of New York State General Municipal Law Article 5-A, Section 103, which states that “all contracts for public work involving an expenditure of more than $35,000 and all purchase contracts involving an expenditure of more than $20,000, shall be awarded … to the lowest responsible bidder furnishing the required security after advertisement for sealed bids.”
However, Section 103 also states that contracts “may be awarded on the basis of best value.” State Finance Law says “best value” may take into account “quality, cost and efficiency” as well as small businesses, women-owned or minority owned businesses.
Venesky called Hunter’s Article 78 proceeding a “frivolous lawsuit.”
“Our legal counsel says they have no legal standing, and they don’t,” Venesky told the Star-Review.
Hunter said he did not understand why the town board would vote for a more expensive brush removal contract and criticized the town for what he called a top-down approach to deciding what is best for constituents.
“If I lose, they’re going to have to defend spending $87,000 more,” he said. “The power doesn’t come from the top. It comes from the bottom and works its way up.”
Last Chance Recycling’s Article 78 petition can be viewed online at nycourts.gov. Click on “e-Filing” and navigate to “Court of Claims” under “Login.” Select “Search as a guest” and enter 2017EF1141 as the case number.
