UPDATE: Daviess County Associate Judge Daren Adkins heard arguments in the case on Friday afternoon and took the matter under advisement. He indicated he may rule on the motion as early as Friday evening.
This website brought to you in part by the following sponsor:
The city of Trenton is fighting back against a lawsuit filed in connection with bids for trash pickup.
Waste Corporation of Missouri, Inc. filed the lawsuit last week, seeking a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction in an effort to stop the city from entering into a contract with Rapid Removal for trash pickup. WCM is the current trash hauler for the city, but the contract with Rapid Removal is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2014. WCM submitted an overall total lower bid that Rapid Removal, however the current amount charged to residents by WCM is higher than the bid submitted by Rapid Removal. In addition, WCM alleges that the city took factors into account that are not allowed by city code and that the decision was made arbitrarily and capriciously.
The city is seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed and a hearing was scheduled to be held at 1 p.m. today at the Grundy County Courthouse. Third Circuit Court Judge Jack Peace has recused himself in the case and Daviess County Associate Judge Daren Adkins has been assigned to hear it.
In the city’s motion for dismissal, city attorney Tara Walker pointed out that in the bid specifications provided to all bidders, the city “expressly reserves the right to reject any and all bids in whole or in part, to waive any irregularities and to accept the bid deemed to be in the best interest of the city.” She also states that bidders were asked to supply information regarding the type and size of the trucks to be used and to provide information regarding the company’s “local presence.” The bidders were also asked to provide a bid on a per-household, per-month basis. WMC, she said, currently charges $10.28 per month per household and submitted a bid of $9.25 per household, per month. The second-lowest bid, submitted by Rapid Removal, came in at $10.15 per month per household, a 13-cent reduction in the rates customers are currently paying WCM.
When bids were opened on Nov. 25, 2013 those voting in favor of Rapid Removal cited location of the business in Trenton as well as the amount of tax revenue the company pays into the city and the number of local residents the company employs. Mrs. Walker, however, said other reasons were also discussed in the meeting, such as the drastic reduction in price from $10.28 per month to $9.25 per month from WCM, with councilmen indicating they felt like WCM had been overcharging the citizens of Trenton during the current term of the current contract. Other councilmen also expressed concern about the effect of the WCM trucks on city streets.
Mrs. Walker said the plaintiff is not entitled to relief from the court as they would be required to make some showing of probability of success on the merits before a preliminary injunction could be issued. The council was not required to discuss and consider only the seven factors enumerated in City Code Section 155.040 in making its decision as to which bid to accept. However, Mrs. Walker said, even if the city was bound by those factors, discussion was held at the meeting regarding WCM’s performance under previous contracts and the results of that discussion were used to make the decision to accept the bid from Rapid Removal. Section 155.040 does not prohibit the council from considering other relevant factors, such as the company’s investment in the city. The bid request, in fact, included a questionnaire about each company’s investment in the city and Section 155.030(9) states “The City of Trenton encourages bidders to employ qualified Trenton residents”
Mrs. Walker rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that city code prohibits the council from accepting the higher bid, indicating that the section provides “In the event a local supplier can meet the need for a cost that is within 5 percent to any other known supplier, the item shall be purchased from a local vendor.” The text, she wrote, simply states conditions when a local company shall prevail. It does not prohibit the council from using a company’s investment in the community as a factor in determining the lowest responsible bidder.
Mrs. Walker also rejects the petitioner’s allegation that the bid was awarded arbitrarily and capriciously. She writes that it was made after careful consideration and based on factors important to the citizens of Trenton as determined by councilmembers. She states that the court may not overturn a city’s decision unless evidence is presented that the city exercised its discretion arbitrarily or fraudulently based on favoritism or gross abuse.
“While each councilman has his own reasons for his vote, discussion was had at the Nov. 25 council meeting about Rapid Removal’s investment in the city of Trenton, as well as about petitioner’s drastic drop in price and the feeling that the city had been overcharged in years past,” wrote Mrs. Walker. “The council had a bid that resulted in a savings of $.13 per month per household, and they did so with a company that had a greater investment in the community, that would have less of an impact on city streets and that they felt provided them with a fair price. For those reasons stated above, plaintiff has very little likelihood of prevailing on the merits and therefore, granting plaintiff’s motion for temporary restaining order and/or for preliminary injunction would be inappropriate in this case.”