Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Township presses staff to create procurement controls after disputed $4,400 plumbing bill
Summary
Trustees directed fiscal and administration staff to draft an emergency purchase order policy, a hold‑check procedure and a bid/quote threshold after a $4,400 J & J Plumbing invoice for a hot‑water tank prompted concern that the charge was inflated compared with local estimates.
Trustees on June 15 directed staff to develop clearer procurement controls after board members questioned a $4,400 invoice from J & J Plumbing for a hot‑water tank that several trustees and a neighboring resident said appeared substantially higher than local estimates.
Trustee Kevin raised the invoice during fiscal review and said a neighbor estimated the same job would cost about $2,200. The dispute drew discussion of three governance gaps: how the township defines an emergency purchase order (PO), how a check is secured when the board votes to hold payment, and what threshold should trigger competitive quotes or price checks.
Fiscal Officer Jasmine said she had instructed staff to hold the check but later learned the payment went out; she called for more stringent controls on emergency POs and clearer procedures for securing held warrants. Jasmine also recommended requiring at least a phone price‑check when an invoice appears to be an outlier.
Board members debated a numeric threshold for obtaining multiple quotes, suggesting figures between $2,000 and $2,500 but declining to set a final number at the meeting. Several trustees emphasized the need to favor local vendors where reasonable. Chair asked administration and fiscal staff to bring a proposed policy and process to the next meeting covering: (1) a written definition of emergency PO circumstances; (2) a secured process for held checks (suggested custody at fiscal office); and (3) a pragmatic quote/estimate process (phone quotes acceptable) and local‑vendor preference guidance.
No formal sanction or repayment was recorded in the meeting transcript; trustees placed the procurement‑controls work on the July meeting agenda for formal consideration.
