Repeated bad press has appeared about the folly of entering into a no-bid contract with Waste Management to operate the Trail Ridge landfill, yet the Mayor presses on.  This time, Folio has written a piece on this bad idea - wondering what's behind this controversial contract and raising some new issues.

Is it just about friends and money?  Folio seems to think so.  Well, so much for the Mayor's promise in August of 2007 to raise the bar after the Teagle and GreenBean mess that was the subject of a State Attorney investigation and even an FBI inquiry. But Folio raises new issues as well.

Republic Services would like the opportunity to bid on the landfill contract and has hired an attorney to represent them.  If you recall, Republic tried to hire the City's former general counsel, Dan Richardson, who had negotiated the original landfill contract with Waste Management.  But the General Counsel's Office pulled the  waiver they had given Mr. Richardson, just as soon as he was quoted saying that it was not the intent of the original contract with Waste Management to cover the entire Trail Ridge site, only the operating portion of the landfill.  Republic has now hired Tom Ingram, a well respected attorney at the law firm of Pappas Metcalf Jenks & Miller.

According to the Folio article, Mr. Ingram has raised new concerns surrounding the no-bid contract.  His concerns center around the Mayor's attempted use of an exemption clause found in the City's procurement code.  The exemption allows the city to waive bid requirements IF a piece of legislation authorizes the waiver AND sets aside money for the contract.  It seems that General Counsel's Office put together a two page list of contracts where the City has availed itself of the exemption provision of the procurement code.  Every single one of the contracts on this two-page list appropriated money, unlike the proposed no-bid contract for the Trail Ridge landfill. 

Mr. Ingram's position is that without appropriating money, the no bid contract doesn't qualify for the exemption in the procurement code.  It's entirely another matter as to whether or not the exemption is good public policy in the first place. I (and many others) would argue that it isn't.  Folio asserts that the city's use of the exemption is the sort of fact that Mr. Ingram is likely to bring up in his client's lawsuit against the city, should the City Council approve the no-bid contract. 

Mr. Ingram also questions whether the City can legally waive the purchasing code in order to award the contract to a specific contractor.  It seems that the First District Court of Appeals ruled in 1992 that the city can't waive code in order to help a particular recipient get a contract.  In that case, the court ruled such a waiver "would render the competitive bidding process a nullity."  Interestingly enough, the case in which this ruling was made stemmed from a lawsuit over the City's original contract with Waste Management, according to Folio.

As previously noted, Council President Fussell has scheduled a meeting on December 4th with city representatives to discuss the no-bid contract.   Unfortunately, the meeting is not public since apparently no other council members were invited. 

Business as usual for this administration.

A final question to ponder: 

How many of us would be okay with the City awarding a contract to a company to build the courthouse (a project half the price of the landfill agreement) without putting it out to bid?