01/17/1922 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

770 Tuesday January lath., 1922. Continued. The following communication received from City Attorney L. W. Hammond read and placed on file. , a January 11,1922. Board of Public Works, City Hall South Beni., .Indiana.. Gentlemen:. IpL reply to your request for an opinion upon the validity of the claim for $16,3A8. 8 presented by the Citizens Homes Company to the Controller and refer- red by him to you. I beg,to advise: I have conferred with Mr. Strickland and Mr. George Witwer, representin claimant and they admit that the'expense re resen ed b this claim s incurr d wi h-� " out any improvement resolution having been adopts , wi hoot any publication or notice as required by law without an aftertisement or bids and without any con�- tract on'the part of'the 6ity either dopted or natif ed and that the so called Street intersections paved,for which claimant seeks tobe paid were not, in fact, street ihtersecti.ons at the time this work was done as no plat of this Addition was filed and recorded until July 27, 1921. Clause 5 of Section 8690 Hurns Rev. St. read as follows: If an warrant presented to the Controller contains an item for which no appropriation has been made, or there shall not be a sufficient balance of the proper fund for the payment*thereof or whichor any other cause should not be approved, he shall not approve the same, and sll any notes t e .proper department or the facts. And if the controller shall approve any warrant contrary tothe'Provisions hereof, he shall be individually liable four the amount of the same to the holder -thereof, and, to the extend of his bond, his sureties shall also be liable. Whenever, a warrant shall be presented to him., he shall have power.to require evidence that the amount claimed is justly due, and for that purpose may summon before him any officer, agent or employe of any department of the City, or any other person and exart'ine him upon oath relative to such warrant or claim.. Section 89587 Burns Rev. St. reads as follows: No executive Department, officer or employe thereof -shall have power to bind such City to any contract or agreement, a in any other wsy, to any extend beyond the amount of money at the time all ready appropriated by Ordinance for the purpose of such department; -and all contract and agreements, express or implied, and all obligations of any and every sort, beyond such existing appropriations) are declared to be absolutely void; It has been held that all contracts made in violation of this Section are not valid and a subsequent appropriation will not validate the same. City of Indianapolis Vs Wann. 144 Ind. 175. The claimant concedes that they never had any contract with the City., for the cost of paving such street intersections but are relying on the statement of some one or more members of the Board of Works.that.the City would re-imburse them for such expense. Contracts cannot be made in that way. " No member cf such Board shall have any authority to act on behalf of the same except pursuant to an order oftheBoard regularly made at a meeting of the same at which meeting a majority of -such Board shall have been present. " Section 8694 Burns Rev. St. q The pdowers and duties of the Board of Works in making contracts generally are de- fine by Section 8698 Burns Rev. St. and with respect to Street, improvements in -particular by Section 8710 Burns Rev. St. Where a municiapl corporation attempts some method other than that provided by Statute for theimprovement of Streets or goes beyond the authority given to that extend it is without jurisdiction and its Acts are void. City of Bluffton Vs. hiller 23 App. 521. In mac gpinion the claim filed should not have been allowed and should not be held by the Controller for the follvn.g reasons: There was no preliminary resolution adopted, no notice by advertisement, no competitive bidding for the work, no contract executed and none of the le al formalities necessary to a -valid contract by the City or its Beard of Works. . There is no legal or moral obligation res6ing upon the City since every -person dealing with an officer or Board is bound to tAke notice of the limitation upon their power to contract. 3. There is no such thing as a moral obligation of a City unless there is also a legal obligation. 4. The appropriation of the City Council on December 28,1921 being for an illegal purpose was void. 5. The allowance of this claim by the Board of Works on December i0,1921 in the absence of a legal appropriation was void and in>violation of 8688 urus'SRev. St. Respectfully submitted,, LWH--TRS. FILED *L. W..HAMMOND JAN. 177 1 22. City Attorney. BOARD b PUBLIC WORKS. BY L. B. SLAUGHTER. President. Board refused to take any action on claim of the.Citizens Homes Company. for payment of intersections and extensions in Studebaker Place Addition.