Council upholds rejection of Vinnie’s Tree Service bid after dispute over ownership and prior convictions

The Omaha City Council on a 7–0 vote upheld the public works director’s rejection of a bid appeal by Vinnie’s Tree Service for OPW55069, a contract for tree and stump removal services.

Thomas M. White, representing Vinnie’s Tree Service, told the council the company is a separate entity and that "we don't in the United States punish children for the sins of their parents," arguing the son is the sole membership owner and that his client should be allowed to compete for city contracts.

Deputy City Attorney Brian Leon and Public Works staff countered with documents the city had placed in the record. Leon said exhibits submitted by the appellant show Vincent J. Polarmo (referred to in testimony as "Vinnie Senior") is identified in corporate filings and agreements as licenseholder of intellectual property, lessor of equipment and, in some filings, as president—facts Leon said justified the department’s review and rejection. Leon summarized filings that the city marked as exhibits, including a federal criminal case (cited in the record) in which court documents reflected guilty pleas and subsequent supervision and probation matters. Leon said those court documents also referenced prior false statements about ownership in financial applications.

Public Works staff explained the operative procurement concern: the bid listed Vinnie Senior as the certified arborist in the lead role, and the contract requires an arborist who can certify compliance with laws such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act during protected months. A Public Works representative said the department’s bid review found that listing troubling for a contract that relies on the arborist’s certification, and that the municipal code authorizes a director to reject bids in the city’s interest.

White said the bid documents were structured with legal advice, the son is the sole owner, and the firm would welcome city guidance on meeting procurement requirements. He also said the company has another qualified arborist on staff, Joseph Waldron, who is willing to sign required certificates.

Council members deliberated about the balance between rehabilitative opportunities for justice-involved individuals and the city’s duty to protect taxpayer funds and ensure contract compliance. Council member Goodwin said the question is whether the department "abused their discretion," concluding she did not see proof of arbitrary action by Public Works. Council member Melton and others urged staff and the company to work together to identify steps that would allow the firm to bid successfully in the future if structural or documentation gaps are remedied.

After discussion, the council voted 7–0 to uphold the rejection of Vinnie’s Tree Service’s bid. Council members and city legal staff indicated they are open to meeting with the company to discuss steps to meet procurement requirements for future solicitations.

The council did not award the OPW55069 contract at this meeting; Public Works said other vendors remain in a holding pattern pending the appeal outcome.