FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  Â»Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: The never ending Rizzo Trash deal
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

On August 24, 2015, the Rizzo official was given the numbers to bid that were given to Freitas regarding the bid and details were given as to how long the contract should be and how many extensions would be appropriate.

The Rizzo official requested that the trash billings be placed on the municipal water bills as this would save them significant money by not having Rizzo bill the individual residents. Freitas began making contacts to change the billing. Freitas told the Rizzo contact that steps were being taken to get the billing on the water bills. Freitas wanted $35,000 to make this happen.

Because the initial $7,500 was converted to a loan, the FBI videotaped a $2,000 controlled buy with Feitas on May 6, 2016. The investigation ran from July 2015 until may 2016 and some documents were sealed.

The FBI agent who monitored the videotapes and other evidence is a 13 year veteran agent assigned to the Macomb Resident Agency of the FBI and the Detroit Area Corruption task Force, a multi-agency task force of FBI and other federal agencies.
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:24 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Wow and the Lansing politicians claim Genesee County is one of the very corrupt communities. Do we just have corrupt politicians that are more devious.




Lawsuit claims Macomb Twp. trustee tried to extort $76K from contractor
Christina Hall , Detroit Free Press 7:59 p.m. EDT October 21, 2016

In yet another allegation of political corruption in Macomb County, a contractor filed a lawsuit Friday accusing a Macomb Township trustee of trying to extort about $76,000 from the company when it tried to get a refund on water and sewer fees for a development that was not constructed.

Gianna Investments LLC filed the lawsuit in Macomb County Circuit Court against the township and Trustee Dino F. Bucci, who also serves as an operations manager for Macomb County Public Works,

The lawsuit claims the township has not returned more than $151,000 in construction and water and sewer permit fees to Gianna Investments and that Bucci has said he would refund the money if the company agreed to kick back half of the refund to him.

Neither Township Attorney Larry Scott nor Bucci could be immediately reached Friday afternoon by the Free Press for comment.

The lawsuit was filed eight days after the federal government revealed the FBI is conducting an investigation into alleged widespread political corruption in Macomb County. The announcement came as a Clinton Township trustee was charged in federal court with taking bribes from an unnamed contractor, which sources say is Rizzo Environmental Services and involved the township's trash-hauling contract.

The lawsuit filed Friday claims Gianna posted construction permit fees in the amount of $67,472 and water and sewer permit fees in the amount of $84,380 with the township in August 2008 related to the development of Wellington Center on Wellington Center Boulevard. The permits for the project on the property were not acted upon by Gianna because it did not develop or build the sewer and water main on the property or construct any buildings on the site for the project.

Gianna lost the property through a construction lien foreclosure on July 15, 2010, but no developer's rights were conveyed, according to the lawsuit. It states Hayes 18 Partners LLC, the new developer and property owner, paid its own construction permit and water and sewer permit fees and is now developing the property.

Gianna is owned by Michael A. Magnoli and Robert Silveri, who made written and verbal requests to the township on behalf of Gianna to refund the fees with three letters dated Jan. 21, 2014; March 6, 2014, and Sept. 1, 2014, which were filed with the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that on June 19, 2014, Magnoli received a phone call from Bucci, described as "an active member" of the board of trustees, asking Magnoli to personally meet with him. Bucci met Magnoli that day in the parking lot of Wesner Tuxedo in Sterling Heights, where Magnoli was picking up a tuxedo for a wedding.

"During this meeting, Mr. Bucci told Mr. Magnoli that Gianna was entitled to a refund of the permit fees, and that he would facilitate the refund on behalf of Macomb Township only if Mr. Magnoli agreed to kick back half of the refund to Mr. Bucci (which equates to approximately $75,926.44)," according to the complaint. "Mr. Magnoli was offended by such an offer, and emphatically refused to engage in such an illegal, secret, dishonest and improper arrangement."

Since then, Magnoli and Silveri — on behalf of Gianna — have continued to make verbal and written requests for a refund of the fees totaling $151,852.88 to the township, but the township "has not honored those requests," according to the complaint.

It states that Gianna, through its members and representatives, has met many times with the township's attorneys and has provided all of the information requested by the township in regard to the requested refund, and that the company has consistently demanded the refund in full.

The township Board of Trustees met with its attorneys in closed session on July 22 to discuss the refund and additional information was provided to the township's counsel on Sept. 30 at the township's request, but the township has not refunded the fees, according to the lawsuit.

It states that Gianna, Magnoli and Silveri "have never been given a legitimate reason" why the fees should not be refunded, "only excuses and delays." The complaint also states that Bucci, in his official capacity as a trustee, "has taken actions in bad-faith to stall and/or blockade the refund because Mr. Magnoli and Gianna refused to pay Mr. Bucci a kickback of the refund upon receipt."

Gianna is claiming five counts in the complaint, including extortion by Bucci.

"Mr. Bucci's statements in this regard constitute unlawful and malicious threats of injury to Gianna's property with the intent to extort money or a pecuniary advantage with the intent to compel Gianna to kickback the funds to him against its will," according to the complaint.

Gianna is asking for judgments against Bucci for an amount greater than $25,000 and the amount of the fees to be returned and that the court order the township to immediately return the fees, adding it is "unconscionable" for the township to continue to retain the company's fees.

Bucci, a longtime county resident, is a Republican who is running for re-election as a trustee in the Nov. 8 election. He is one of six people vying for four, four-year seats on the board.

Bucci in his biographical information on the township website lists his job as deputy public works commissioner for Macomb County and operations manager, engineering, for the Public Works Office. But the Public Works Office website lists him as operational services manager, and not as a deputy.

He was one of three aides that Macomb County Public Works Commissioner Anthony Marrocco unsuccessfully tried to get $14,000 pay raises for in 2012, along with a pay hike for himself.

According to a 2012 article in the Macomb Daily, Bucci was manager of engineering and was paid $75,000, though he was not an engineer and had no college degree. That article stated Bucci was hired by Marrocco just after Marrocco was first elected in 1992 and his previous experience consisted of working for another family business that rented tuxedos.

Contact Christina Hall: chall99@freepress.com. Follow her on Twitter


Last edited by untanglingwebs on Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:35 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Wow and the Lansing politicians claim Genesee County is one of the very corrupt communities. Do we just have have corrupt politicians that are moe devious.




Lawsuit claims Macomb Twp. trustee tried to extort $76K from contractor
Christina Hall , Detroit Free Press 7:59 p.m. EDT October 21, 2016

In yet another allegation of political corruption in Macomb County, a contractor filed a lawsuit Friday accusing a Macomb Township trustee of trying to extort about $76,000 from the company when it tried to get a refund on water and sewer fees for a development that was not constructed.

Gianna Investments LLC filed the lawsuit in Macomb County Circuit Court against the township and Trustee Dino F. Bucci, who also serves as an operations manager for Macomb County Public Works,

The lawsuit claims the township has not returned more than $151,000 in construction and water and sewer permit fees to Gianna Investments and that Bucci has said he would refund the money if the company agreed to kick back half of the refund to him.

Neither Township Attorney Larry Scott nor Bucci could be immediately reached Friday afternoon by the Free Press for comment.

The lawsuit was filed eight days after the federal government revealed the FBI is conducting an investigation into alleged widespread political corruption in Macomb County. The announcement came as a Clinton Township trustee was charged in federal court with taking bribes from an unnamed contractor, which sources say is Rizzo Environmental Services and involved the township's trash-hauling contract.

The lawsuit filed Friday claims Gianna posted construction permit fees in the amount of $67,472 and water and sewer permit fees in the amount of $84,380 with the township in August 2008 related to the development of Wellington Center on Wellington Center Boulevard. The permits for the project on the property were not acted upon by Gianna because it did not develop or build the sewer and water main on the property or construct any buildings on the site for the project.

Gianna lost the property through a construction lien foreclosure on July 15, 2010, but no developer's rights were conveyed, according to the lawsuit. It states Hayes 18 Partners LLC, the new developer and property owner, paid its own construction permit and water and sewer permit fees and is now developing the property.

Gianna is owned by Michael A. Magnoli and Robert Silveri, who made written and verbal requests to the township on behalf of Gianna to refund the fees with three letters dated Jan. 21, 2014; March 6, 2014, and Sept. 1, 2014, which were filed with the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that on June 19, 2014, Magnoli received a phone call from Bucci, described as "an active member" of the board of trustees, asking Magnoli to personally meet with him. Bucci met Magnoli that day in the parking lot of Wesner Tuxedo in Sterling Heights, where Magnoli was picking up a tuxedo for a wedding.

"During this meeting, Mr. Bucci told Mr. Magnoli that Gianna was entitled to a refund of the permit fees, and that he would facilitate the refund on behalf of Macomb Township only if Mr. Magnoli agreed to kick back half of the refund to Mr. Bucci (which equates to approximately $75,926.44)," according to the complaint. "Mr. Magnoli was offended by such an offer, and emphatically refused to engage in such an illegal, secret, dishonest and improper arrangement."

Since then, Magnoli and Silveri — on behalf of Gianna — have continued to make verbal and written requests for a refund of the fees totaling $151,852.88 to the township, but the township "has not honored those requests," according to the complaint.

It states that Gianna, through its members and representatives, has met many times with the township's attorneys and has provided all of the information requested by the township in regard to the requested refund, and that the company has consistently demanded the refund in full.

The township Board of Trustees met with its attorneys in closed session on July 22 to discuss the refund and additional information was provided to the township's counsel on Sept. 30 at the township's request, but the township has not refunded the fees, according to the lawsuit.

It states that Gianna, Magnoli and Silveri "have never been given a legitimate reason" why the fees should not be refunded, "only excuses and delays." The complaint also states that Bucci, in his official capacity as a trustee, "has taken actions in bad-faith to stall and/or blockade the refund because Mr. Magnoli and Gianna refused to pay Mr. Bucci a kickback of the refund upon receipt."

Gianna is claiming five counts in the complaint, including extortion by Bucci.

"Mr. Bucci's statements in this regard constitute unlawful and malicious threats of injury to Gianna's property with the intent to extort money or a pecuniary advantage with the intent to compel Gianna to kickback the funds to him against its will," according to the complaint.

Gianna is asking for judgments against Bucci for an amount greater than $25,000 and the amount of the fees to be returned and that the court order the township to immediately return the fees, adding it is "unconscionable" for the township to continue to retain the company's fees.

Bucci, a longtime county resident, is a Republican who is running for re-election as a trustee in the Nov. 8 election. He is one of six people vying for four, four-year seats on the board.

Bucci in his biographical information on the township website lists his job as deputy public works commissioner for Macomb County and operations manager, engineering, for the Public Works Office. But the Public Works Office website lists him as operational services manager, and not as a deputy.

He was one of three aides that Macomb County Public Works Commissioner Anthony Marrocco unsuccessfully tried to get $14,000 pay raises for in 2012, along with a pay hike for himself.

According to a 2012 article in the Macomb Daily, Bucci was manager of engineering and was paid $75,000, though he was not an engineer and had no college degree. That article stated Bucci was hired by Marrocco just after Marrocco was first elected in 1992 and his previous experience consisted of working for another family business that rented tuxedos.

Contact Christina Hall: chall99@freepress.com. Follow her on Twitter
Post Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:35 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
BillPayer
F L I N T O I D

RTAB approved the deal with Republic as included in the meeting pack.

However the city attorney tried to postpone there resolution until Nov. 9th (the next RTAB meeting; 3 days before our current contract ends.) her reasoning was republic bad two other lawsuits against the city pending and they want to hear if republic is going to drop those suits before moving forward with this one. RTAB did not agree to this.
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 1:58 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
BillPayer
F L I N T O I D

RTAB board attempted to clarify previous statements saying he believes the person who spoke last week meant Rizzo and republic should both be paid. However, they should not both be paid in full. Instead, they should each be paid partial amounts depending on services actually rendered.
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:08 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

quote:
BillPayer schreef:
RTAB board attempted to clarify previous statements saying he believes the person who spoke last week meant Rizzo and republic should both be paid. However, they should not both be paid in full. Instead, they should each be paid partial amounts depending on services actually rendered.




Sounds reasonable and a lot of residents are worried about this.. After reviewing the Freitas case, I wonder if we will find that someone in the Flint DPW gave information to Rizzo to ensure Rizzo would be the low bidder. It would have to be someone in a position to communicate with Republic and know the essentials of the contract.
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:06 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
BillPayer
F L I N T O I D

For me it isn't reasonable. By allowing the court case to be dismissed the city is agreeing that republic so has a contract. They means they also agree republics contact was never invalidated... How can the city be say 'sorry we hired someone to do your job, so we aren't paying you for what they took from you'

That's not right.

* I will agree that they was a lack of clarity of whether republic did have a contract or not. But that does not change the contract they had in place now that we all agree it was valid.
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:29 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
BillPayer
F L I N T O I D

quote:
untanglingwebs schreef:

Sounds reasonable and a lot of residents are worried about this.. After reviewing the Freitas case, I wonder if we will find that someone in the Flint DPW gave information to Rizzo to ensure Rizzo would be the low bidder. It would have to be someone in a position to communicate with Republic and know the essentials of the contract.


So you have any idea what 'sealed bid' really means? I believe these were sealed bids, so I'm not sure dpw could have known anything republic didn't tell them directly. But I doubt republic has the practice of telling anyone their bid amount..?

I do find your line* of thought interesting though


Last edited by BillPayer on Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:39 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Somehow the source in the Freitas case knew the specifics of what was being bid prior to the sealed bids. Friendship, collusion or what? There had to be some kind of information exchange. Sealed bids have been manipulated in some instances. Nothing is perfect.

Republic had a partnership arrangement within the DPW and several council members discussed personal loyalty to Republic and bragged about their special treatment..

Remember Muhammad's comments to the RTAB board? She did not prepare or expect to have the contract bid out. She fully expected that the extension would be automatic.
There was a great deal of discussion about Muhammad's insertion of the "blight" aspect into the RFP. Council raved about blight. To me there was an obvious collusion between the department and council because they seemed to be "singing the same song". Nelson's responses made me believe he and Muhammad were communicating. Poplar knew the details of staff defecting from Republic to Rizzo.

Allegations of bid collusion in City hall have been rampant for over twenty years. In the department's apparent eagerness to keep Republic it is possible there were discussions that bordered on "contract steering". Nothing stays secret in any Flint department for long.

Maybe I am rigid, but asking companies to offer freebies borders on extortion or a City for sale. Somebody has to pay for these freebies and that translates into higher cost contracts and possible change orders in the future. However, Republic owns their own landfill and can adjust their costs for dumping.

I still believe this was a BS process.
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:32 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

quote:
BillPayer schreef:
So my understanding is that the court case is being settled out of court by extending the original Republic contract by one year. However, they are going to use Rizzo prices for that year, and the services they are to be provided are only those Rizzo offered??

So this isn't a new bid, it's an extension of the original contract republic already has. But they are gutting the extention and putting Rizzo services and pricing????!

Ok, my mind is just blown over this. So you know how mad I would be to find out the proposal I created was stolen from me and given to someone else? That can't be legal, they must own the proposal still? I wonder if Rizzo agreed to this?


There has been a lot of negotiating. Yes it appears that the extension is being used, however this may be a compromise. Rizzo was not in a good bargaining position. Does this mean Rizzo was the low bidder? Why else would they use their prices.

There are strong rules in place in most communities even for RFP's to keep an equal playing field. Council must have agreed to this or they would not have voted to accept. How was it written and was t flawed?
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:48 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
BillPayer
F L I N T O I D

Well by using the extension they are side stepping the rfp completely. This means they can use what ever criteria they feel fit for creating the new bid so long as they ask agree to it. So no, this doesn't mean Rizzo was the lowest bidder. It's just the result of the compromise.

The rfp could have been flawed, but any rfp is going to be flawed in the same way. My question would be do other cities use bids or rfps for trash?


Last edited by BillPayer on Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:12 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Good Question. In the communities I reviewed some time ago I believe most were RFPS but they were looking for solutions in recycling.The size of containers, etc. But no blight control. Probably too small a sample.

Blogging is different. Some people expect everything to be like a research paper. Citations from news sources and some other sources are unavailable after a period of time. That is why I like to copy the original. I find it upsetting to find a citation and the link doesn't work. 404 error messages are not nice and searching is time consuming and sometimes not very successful. Gong to newspaper archives can be costly and finding the correct search criteria is frustrating.

Too many years watching City hall corruption makes me very untrusting of much of what happens with contracts.

I researched and produced a Comcast political show for nearly 10 years. When a host said some inappropriate comments, we both were sued. I spent over $1,000 to pull all of the Plaintiffs many county and federal law suits to prove he was slander proof, only to find out some one had already done it. I was dropped from the case, but the court awarded the host $20,000. Go figure. Tom Pabst is a great attorney and he really understands slander, hyperbole, and libel .
Post Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:41 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
BillPayer
F L I N T O I D

ALLEN PARK, MI -- In April 2016 Rizzo was lowest bidder on RFP. Contract was awarded to Advanced Disposal. Rizzo raised questions over Advanced Disposals bid / bid opening and cities decisions.

----

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/treasury/Allen_Park_RTAB_Minutes_4-6-16_522049_7.pdf

Mr. Kibby...

This resolution involves the awarding of the solid
waste collection and disposal. It was the recommendation
of the administration to award the bid to Advanced Disposal
for an amount not to exceed $9,189,012 for a term up to six
years. There's a five-year -- the proposal was for five
years with a one-year option and that would include those
total amounts.

The way we worked on that is there was a desire
from the mayor and the council for 96 gallon refuse
containers. We have a bit of a rodent problem and we felt
that this would be one way to cure that -- those ills. So
we went when we did the bids that's what we were looking
for. Advance came in, had the low bid.
I know you've been contacted by Rizzo Services.

When we did the bids, their bid if we just stuck
to everything we were currently doing which was a manual
load they were the low bid. When the containers were
rolled in then Advanced became the low bid at that point in
time. Through the bid process then we sat down, the mayor
and council had questions so they were able to talk to each
vendor. It came in there that we'd be able to get
containers for the recycling and so forth so those are all
included -- both vendors included that and we still came to
the conclusion that Advanced was the low bid on the
proposal. So the residents also get 6400 -- no, not 6400,
64 gallon recycling contalners . for the recycling program. We
feel that this was the best proposal and the recommendation
was still and has always been to stick with Advanced
Disposal for that recommendation.

...

Mr. Frank: Mr. Kibby, do you know one of the
bidders who did not receive the award and complained. I
wanted to know if you could address a complaint that
was made that they were not consulted about alternatives?

Mr. Kibby: I'm not to sure what they're going
with on the alternatives. I think the -- and I don't want
to speak for Rizzo but the point of their contention as we
understood it to be is that when the bids were opened the
Advanced Disposal had put down no bid for the trash after
it was going to Riverview Landfill which we have to do by
contract. ...

---

Its implied that Rizzo was the lowest base price bidder. However, their proposal did not include the price of the 96 gallon trash bins to rid Allen Park of their trash related rodent issues. When you factor the additional cost in to Rizzo's bid, Advanced Disposals bid was the lowest bid, and thats the bid they accepted.

Rizzo questioned the city when they weren't awarded the contract. This seems to be rightful, since there were issues with Advanced Disposals proposal during the tabulation phase.
Post Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:39 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

It is a convoluted conversation, however it appears that both companies offered the recycling bins. The concern I would have is that Advanced Disposal is not charging a tipping fee for the Riverview landfill. Rate are usually negotiated by companies and/or municipalities. In fact Allen Park has a separate site showing the rates they negotiated for the tipping fees. That is why Republic can negotiate a separate rate for the use of their landfill for Flint trash.

The issue of Genesee County trash has come up more than once one in recent years. When Patrick "Shorty" Gleason was a Genesee County commissioner he raised serious concerns about the Richfield Landfill, it's failing status, and its proximity to the Flint River.

Genesee County has the mandatory Solid Waste Management Program. That is why proposals for waste transfer stations failed. Also the State of Michigan has strict rules on waste collection and landfills.
Post Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:58 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Under Michigan law each landfill must make an annual report tat details how much solid waste by received by the landfill with some details as to what sources the trash came from. The report must also show the remaining capacity for future disposal.

Act 451 of 1994

Now if Republic really wanted to be a good community partner, they could negotiate a deal for donations for the county in what is called a "host community" agreement'

Pine Tree Acres, a landfill once owned by Tony Soave and City Management, has such an agreement in 2012 with Lenox Township. That agreement provided donations of up $2 million a year that went towrds infrastructure and safety equipment.


Last edited by untanglingwebs on Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:14 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 22, 23, 24  Next

Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >