Kolovsky, Fritz and Crane.
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Kimmelman in his opinion, to which we add the following comments.
There is no merit to defendants' contention that the Legislature, by enacting the Local Public Contracts Law, L. 1971, c. 198; N.J.S.A. 40A:11-1 et seq., impliedly repealed N.J.S.A. 40:66-4 which provides in pertinent part that:
The governing body [of a municipality] may * * * contract with any person for * * * the collection, removal and disposal of ashes, garbage, refuse and waste matter or any portion thereof. Before making any such contract or contracts the governing body shall first adopt specifications for the doing of the work in a sanitary and inoffensive manner, and any such contract or contracts the amount of which exceeds $2,500.00 shall be entered into and made only after bids shall have been advertised therefor, and awarded in the manner provided in chapter 50 of this Title (§ 40:50-1 et seq.).
As the court said in Henninger v. Bergen Cty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 3 N.J. 68 (1949):
Further, the fact that Local Public Contracts Law, while expressly repealing in N.J.S.A. 40A:11-38 a number of pre-existing statutes relating to public contracts, did not include N.J.S.A. 40:66-4 among the sections so repealed is cogent evidence that there was no legislative intent to repeal it by implication. Swede v. Clifton, 22 N.J. 303, 317 (1956).
We find without substance defendants' contention that the fact that N.J.S.A. 40:50-1 to 40:50-5 and 40:50-7, which are referred to in N.J.S.A. 40:66-4, were expressly repealed by the Local Public Contracts Law, see N.J.S.A. 40A:11-38, somehow affects the continued viability of N.J.S.A. 40:66-4. The Local Public Contracts Law is a revision embodying and corresponding in substance with the provisions of the former law. It repeats in its pertinent aspects what had theretofore appeared in the repealed sections of Article 50 of Title 40, thus calling for application of N.J.S.A. 1:1-3.3 which provides:
Any reference in any statute to any other statute, which is revised by a revision law, shall, after the effective date of such revision law, be construed to be a reference to the section or sections, if any, of the revision law corresponding in substance to, or superseding, the section or sections of the statute so revised and so referred to.
In view of the last quoted statute, N.J.S.A. 40:66-4 is to be construed so that its provisions relating to the award of a contract in excess of $2500 for the collection of refuse will read as follows:
Finally, as Judge Kimmelman's opinion demonstrates, there is no validity to defendants' argument that the award
of the contract by Belleville to Pucillo without public bidding was authorized by the exception found in N.J.S.A. 40A:11-5(1)(h) which reads in pertinent part:
Any * * * contract * * * of the character described in [ N.J.S.A. 40A:11-4 relating to contracts over $2500] may be made, negotiated or awarded without public ...