Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Perry Letter

Perry Letter

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7,505|Likes:
Published by jfranco17410
Perry
Perry

More info:

Published by: jfranco17410 on Mar 26, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/25/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 ucH
WHITE
540
BroadwayJames
 
B
iere
 OUNSELORS
 ND
 TTORNEYS
 T
 W
P 
Box
22222
Partner
Albany NewYork12201 2222
 518)426-4600
email:
jbarriere@couchwhite.com
March
26,
2014
VIA
E-MAILand
U.S.
MAIL
Hon.
Rodney
Wiltshire,
Jr.
President
Troy
City
CounselTroy
CityNail
433
RiverStreet
Troy 
New
York12180
Re:
City
of
Troy
ProposedOrdinance
 7
Sale
of”Scolite
Site”
to
R.J.
ValenteCom paniesMonroe
Street
Ventures,
LLC
Dear
Mr.
Wiltshire:
We
representAdams
Street
Properties,
LLC,
Troy
ProductsCompany,
Inc.andCD
Perry’ 
Sons.
Inc.
 collectivelyreferred
to
herein
as
the
PerryCompanies”).
We
are
co-counselwithWilliam
Doyle
of
the
firm
Fowler Do yle
Spain,Spiess
 
Florsch 
PLLC.
We
havereviewed
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
City’s
proposed
sale
with
license
 as
set
forth
in
ProposedOrdinance
 7)
of
the
Scolite
Siteto
Monroe
Street
Ventures,
LLC.
We
have
seriousconcernswith
the
circumstancessurrounding
this
transaction
andwe
believe
that
the
adoption
of
Ordinance
 7
will
violate
several
StatelawsandCity
of
Troy
Charterprovisions.
Forthe
reasons
set
forth
below,
we
strongly
urge
the
City
Council
to
rejectOrdinance
 7
and
advertise
a
newRequest
for
Proposal
that
accurately
and
completelyreflects
the
true
scope
of
the
Citys
plan
forthe
redevelopment
of
the
ScoliteProperty.
In
our
view 
the
basic
defect
of
Ordinance
 7
is
that
it
proposes
to
transfer
City
assetswithoutcomplying
with
welt-settled
public
biddingrequirements.
We
believe
that
an
objectivereview
or
the
transaction
would
leadoneto
conclude
that
the
City’s
Request
for
Proposaldescribed
a
very
differentprojectscope
from
what
theCity
proposes
to
move
forward
with
now 
Tous,
it
lookslike
a
classicbait
and
switchwhere
the
originalbidders,includingour
client,
wereasked
to
consider
a
proposal
scope
that
hasnow
been
substantiallyenhanced
forthe
benefit
of
one
bidder.
We
do
notneed
to
explore
the
reasonwhy
this
occurred
at
this
tim ,
but
it
is
clear
that
it
UnlessArticle
43
of
the
City
Charter
is
implicated
Offices
in:
Albany.New
York
CityandSaratogaSprings New
York;
Washington
D.C.
and
Fannington
Connecticut
 
 arch
26,
2 4
Page
2
did
occur.The
only
proper
cure
for
this
defect
is
to
rebid
the
project
in
compliance
with
 on 
standingpublicbiddingrequirements.The
manner
in
which
the
originalterms
of
the
proposalhavebeen
modified
to
benefit
the
winning
bidderinclude,
but
may
not
be
limited
to,(1)
the
acquisition
of
additionalpropertyviaeminentdomain
and
construction
of
a
newaccessroad
at
a
tremendous
cost
tothe
City
for
the
benefit
of
the
bidder
to
traverseadjoininglands
not
currentlyownedbyeither
the
bidder
orthe
City;
(2)
allowingthe
winningbidder
to
make
a
mere
10
downpayment,
rather
than
the
purchase
pricedelineated
inits
proposal,
to
begin
itsuseand
occupancy
of
the
property
(a
benefit
thatwe
assure
youany
commercial
developer
wouldgreatlyenjoy
and
covet);
and
(3)
a
license
for
the
bidder
to
beginwork
onthesite
with
the
apparentability
to
abandonthe
siteat
any
timebefore
it
obtains
title.
These
post-awardconcessions
representmaterial
and
improperchanges
tothe
basicterms
of
theRFP.
Theyviolatepublicpolicy
and
destroy
the
fairness
of
the
bidding
process.
The
City
is
no
doubtaware
of
the
requirement
that
a
procuring
agencyshould
be
guided
bythe
underlying
policy
of
treating
all
biddersalike
‘soas
to
avoid
the
possibility
of
fraud,
corruption
or
favoritism ”
Enibee
Corp.
vRingler,
194
Misc.2d
400,410
(Sup.
Ct.
AlbanyCounty
2002).
Ordinance
 7’s
post-bid
modifications
of
materialRFP
specifications
is
improper
andunlawful.Moreover,because
the
substance
of
the
awardconveyed
by
Ordinance
 7
materially
differs
fromthat
which
was
advertised,numerous
Stateand
local
substantive
andprocedural
laws
and
regulations
will
be
violated
byits
passage.
At
a
minimum,
the
publicwas
not
given
appropriate
or
adequatenotice
of
the
actual
materialterms
of
the
City’sproposal
and
wasthereby
precluded
from
offering
any
meaningful
input.Lawsand
ordinancesadopted
in
violation
of
notice
and
other
proceduralrequirements
will
be
deemed
voidand
of
no
forceor
effect.
Rather
than
any
further
consideration
of
Ordinance
 7,
the
City’stime
and
taxpayerdollarswould
be
betterspent
startingwith
a
fairandfully
disclosed
RFP
package,
let
in
accordancewithpublicbidding
requirements.
A
fair
processcould
save
the
City
a
great
deal
in
costs,
and
will
spare
the
City
the
time
and
expense
of
responding
to
legal
challenges
that
its
currentcourse
will
surelyengender.
To
be
clear,
if
theCity
proceedswithadoption
of
Ordinance
 7,
it
is
all
but
certain
to
facelegal
challenges.Again,
the
City’stime
and
taxpayerdollarswould
be
betterspent
rebidding
this
projectrather
than
attempting
to
defend
an
inherently
and
ftindamentallyflawedprocess.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->