Council's tie vote stops bill from being approved
Jackson officials object to fact that company has not paid fines
BY DAVE BENJAMIN Staff Writer

JACKSON - The question of whether township officials should use taxpayers' money to pay a vendor who owes fines to Jackson came up at the July 8 meeting of the Township Council.

A discussion among the council members eventually led to a 2-2 vote which denied payment of a $7,400 bill which had been submitted by New Jersey Lawn and Irrigation.

According to township records, New Jersey Lawn and Irrigation owes Jackson $3.5 million in fines. The $7,400 bill recently submitted by the company was for the installation of adapter connections for a water cannon at John F. Johnson Jr. Memorial Park. The water cannon shoots water 50 to 75 feet and rolls along the fields.

"I have a question on this bill," council Vice President Mike Reina said. "I don't understand why [we have to] award contracts to someone who has outstanding debts to the town."

Reina said the company, which was not named during the discussion, is allowed to bid for public contracts.

"Can't we take into account the fact that these people are in arrears?" he asked.

According to township records, New Jersey Lawn and Irrigation owes Jackson a variety of fines, including disregarding stop work orders, illegal changes, work done without permits, altered construction and failing to get work inspected. Several of the fines date back to April 16, 2004 and are still accumulating penalties for nonpayment.

Township Attorney George Gilmore said any bids over a specified amount, the public bidding threshold, have to be accepted.

Reina asked why taxpayer money should be used to pay a firm that does not pay its own bills.

Council President Mike Kafton said, "I think what Mr. Reina is saying to us is that there are outstanding fines with this particular one and he is requesting that we put it on hold."

"Are you saying that if a vendor goes over the limit for the year then he should not be bidding on an individual project?" Councilman Scott Martin asked.

"That's not the issue here," Kafton responded. "It isn't whether the vendor has the right to bid or not. It's whether the vendor should be paid by Jackson when there are outstanding fines."

Kafton said any firm or individual can submit a bid for public work, but the question is whether the taxpayers' money should be used when a fine is owed by that company or individual.

Martin wanted to know if there was a legal basis to deny payment of the $7,400 bill that was submitted for the council's approval.

"I'm not asking if we should or should not," he said. "I'm just asking if there is a legal basis."

"It's not whether (the company) did or did not do the work correctly," Reina said. "If we are going to award people money from our taxpayers, these people should not be in debt to the town, whether it's fines or not paying taxes on their property or whatever. I don't see any reason why we should allow them to continue to bid when they owe this township money."

Gilmore said a contract is awarded to a party for work and if that party performs the work then payment is due.

Reina said the township has a legal obligation to pay for the work the party has done and a legal obligation to collect the fines that are owed.

"The other question is can you set up a requirement for those bidders, in your policies, that require that no individual who owes money to the town of Jackson can bid on a project," Gilmore said. "That I could agree on."

Councilwoman Bobbie Rivere said the town should not award a bid to a person or to a company which owes Jackson money.

Martin suggested researching the issue to determine if an individual or a company can be prohibited from bidding on a job if they have an outstanding fine.

"Let's do this the right way," he said.

Kafton said that going forward, any vendor who wants to deal with Jackson should be investigated in order to determine whether there are any outstanding fines.

"We need to look at that and possibly create an ordinance," he said.

When the vote on the $7,400 bill was called, Martin said he would like to look at how the township does business going forward. He said he wanted to avoid any lawsuits for not paying the bill and voted yes to pay the $7,400 bill that had been submitted by New Jersey Lawn and Irrigation.

Rivere said she was not happy with the situation and did not want to be put in this position, but saw no choice and voted to pay the bill.

Kafton and Reina voted not to pay the $7,400 bill.

Reina said the council is being asked to be fair and reasonable with a firm which has outstanding fines.

"My conscience tells me to vote no," he said.

Kafton also voted no and said the township needs to make a statement.

Gilmore said the 2-2 vote did not produce a majority to pay the $7,400 bill and so payment was denied.

Councilwoman Ann Updegrave was not present at the July 8 meeting.