.
Feedback

Schaffer: I Never Signed Trash Contract

Town supervisor to recommend trash collection contract go elsewhere after criminal charges hit employees of Jody Enterprises.

A week after the Babylon Town Board passed a resolution awarding a 10-year trash collecting contract to Jody Enterprises of Babylon Inc., Town Supervisor Rich Schaffer got a call from the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office.

Jody's parent company was under investigation. Schaffer wasn't filled in on all the details at the time, but he knew one thing immediately following that call.

"There was no way I was signing that contract until I knew what was going on," Schaffer told Patch Thursday, hours after two managers at Jody Enterprises Inc. to grand larceny charges related to an alleged recycling scheme. 

With no contract signed, Schaffer said the Town Board, at a meeting after Labor Day, will discuss rescinding the June resolution that authorized the town supervisor to enter into a contract with Jody Enterprises. 

Schaffer, who in June the contract with Jody as providing long-term stability and the same level of service at a lower cost, said Jody had received "stellar reviews" from the four other towns--Smithtown, Huntington, Islip and Brookhaven--it currently works for. 

"What do we have to do?" Schaffer said Thursday. "Ask a question on the RFP [request for proposal] that says, you know, please check off what felonies you are currently committing."

The two men who formed Jody Enterprises of Babylon Inc., William A. Stegemann, 55, of Lindenhurst, and Michael Dalessandro, 43, of East Patchogue, are accused of hauling recyclables meant for the Town of Smithtown's recycling facility to a salvage business in West Babylon, where they are alleged to have sold it for personal profit. 

At a press conference Thursday, Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota said Schaffer provided documents used in the investigation. 

"I believe, in my opinion, Jody Enterprises hid pertinent information from the Town of Babylon and provided false information to the Town of Babylon in efforts to win the contract," Spota said.

Schaffer said he will ask the Town Board to declare an emergency, which would allow it to enter into a short-term emergency procurement with another residential trash collector. 

Babylon Source Separation Inc. (BSSI), the town's current trash service, will be offered the short-term contract first, Schaffer said. BSSI, whose contract expires on Oct. 1, would need to agree to match the second-lowest bid, behind Jody, of $13.40 per month for each of the town's 43,000 tax parcels, he said. 

Schaffer, in a phone call with Patch, spoke of his thoughts when he learned of the charges against the Jody employees on Wednesday. 

"I was very disappointed because we had been dealing with that company in good faith and they made a presentation to us...and now the DA himself is saying they falsified information and hid information from us," Schaffer said. 

"I'm very disappointed," he added, "but very gratified for the work of the DA's office in uncovering this as quickly as they did." 

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Babylon Village Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Adam Crowley May 15, 2013 at 06:53 pm
As I explained, my post was made on behalf of another village resident. However, I did take theRead More time to read the statute and do have an independent viewpoint on this subject. While I do not feel that all dogs require a muzzle at all times, if you have a dog that you know to be a threat to other dogs or humans, you would have a duty to take measures to eliminate that threat before bring that dog into public. If that measure is a muzzle, then that's what must be done. As my post indicated, I believe strict enforcement would be exceedingly difficult and, perhaps, unnecessary (at least with respect to the muzzle requirement). However, a total lack of enforcement is dangerous and unacceptable. I think a little common sense goes a long way and I have confidence that those charged with enforcing the Village code could do so selectively. I understand that selective enforcement may be a concept that many feel uncomfortable with. However, just because the law requires a muzzle, that is hardly a reason to disregard it in its entirety and allow dogs with vicious propensities to roam around unleashed. I will leave it up to Village lawmakers to remove the muzzle requirement (and suggest that they do so) if that is what it would take to make people comfortable with the leash requirement.
Concerned Citizen May 15, 2013 at 05:37 pm
Did you read the law? unless it be properly muzzled and effectively restrained by a chain or leashRead More I'll bet neither dog was muzzled Do you really want them to enforce this law