Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and council members press for answers after city used Rubicon Routeware software before contract approval
Summary
A resident and multiple council members questioned the city’s interim use of Rubicon/Routeware waste-management software, unpaid invoices and the legal basis for the administration’s actions. The city solicitor said the vendor likely assumed risk by allowing use before a signed agreement; council asked staff to investigate.
Bailey Simrill, a Scranton resident, told the council the city used Rubicon/Routeware software for more than 70 days before a signed renewal and that an unpaid invoice dated January through March had appeared in the city’s records.
Simrill said the administration permitted “interim use” of the software, that draft renewal documents were dated but not clearly enforceable, and that council members were not given complete pricing details (including planned year-over-year increases) before action was taken.
“The administration acted before approval,” Simrill said. “Rubicon operated for 70-plus days without a valid contract and accrued unpaid invoices. Who authorized this, under what budget and authority?”
Attorney Gilbride, the city solicitor, told council he could not speak for Rubicon but said it is not uncommon for a vendor to allow interim use while negotiations continue. “It could be a potential” basis for a legal claim if the contract were rejected, Gilbride said, adding that he did not know whether Rubicon would pursue litigation.
Council members asked staff to determine whether the January–March invoice reflected work performed during those months or a prior charge, and who authorized interim use. Council President Smearle and Councilman King asked the administration to report back with the invoice details and any budget lines used for the software.
Simrill and other speakers pressed for an accounting of the vendor’s claimed savings (Rubicon had promised $395,000 annual savings, according to public comment), and for evidence comparing pre- and post-implementation performance. Simrill said DPW workers she spoke with disputed some administration statements about product performance.
No formal vote or contract approval occurred during the public comment exchange. Council members directed staff to follow up on the outstanding invoice and the questions about authorization and budget authority.
Why it matters: Council exercises oversight of city contracts. Residents and some council members said a lack of transparency about interim use of technology and contract terms undermines the council’s ability to evaluate vendor claims and fiscal risk.
Next steps: The council requested that administration staff report back on (1) the invoice origin and whether work was done in January–March, (2) who authorized interim use and under what authority or budget line, and (3) documentation of claimed savings or performance metrics from Rubicon/Routeware.
Ending: Simrill urged the council to treat the matter as “a huge deal” and a test of legislative oversight; the solicitor reiterated that vendor risk-taking in negotiations is not unusual but acknowledged the council’s interest in written answers.
