Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/1922 Board of Public Works Minutes177 Board met in regular session at 10:00 A. M. All members present. City Engineer F. J. Anderson.present. Committeee 9PRiver Park Citizens as follows: Frank E. Wolfe, I. H. Wilson, B. E. Beyers and Councilman Sid. Thornton appeared before the Board and tobk:�W-p matter of building a sewer in River Park and stated the conditions. The Board order'the City Engineer to make plans and.specificatins for a sewage system -and file same with the Board. City Engineer F. J. Anderson took up the matter of request of the County Commissioners for the City to change the grade on Division Street from Olive Street to City Limits. After due consideration of this matter it was agreed by the Board that the gradeeon Division Street should remain as it is at the p resent time. Also -quest . ion of layin water mains on Division Street before the County put in concrete pavement was Uscussed and J. W. Toyne puperintendent d the Water Department was requested to make report on same. Petition filed December 13th:9 1921 for are light on Wenger Street and Fellows Street at South west.eorner'taken up and referred to T. H. Beaning Pole and Wire Inspector for reportl, also petition for light on South Bend Avenue. and Turnock Street. Clerk instructed to get a list of approved Bonding Companies for bonds to be written in for City Contracts from the City Attorney. Property owner residing on.Clover Street appeared before the Board in regard to water main on Clover Street. Samd referred to Water Department for Ftiday January 20th., 1922. Board instructed Clerk to send eaarlds .fear an informal heaving on the advisablity of paving south Michigan Street from present pavement,to City.Lim.its and set said hearing for Wednesday January 25th.9 1922 at 7:15 P.M. J P. Reed Cemetery Sexton filed financial report for year 1921. • Petition -received read and placed an file for asphalt pavement on South Rush Street from E. Haney Avenue to E. Indiana Avenue. The following communications were received read andplaced on file. January 14th., 1922. The Board of Public Works, South Bend., Indiana. Gentlemen: - We have examined the records of St. Joseph County, Indiana with reference to the financial responsibility of C-harles'Suabedissen and J. A. Barnes as shown by said records. We find that Charles E. Suabedissen and Mary Suabedissen are the owners of Lot 90 in Mayr's Michigan Avenue Addition, the valuation of which is as follows: lot $500.00 Improvements 3100.00 Personal property, 1 0.00 Total a 390.00 We also find'that Charles Suabedissen is the owner of Lot 14 in Huey Heights Addition to the City of South Bend. valuation $300.00 We find that Jesse A. BArnes'and Ida R. Barnes, husband and -wife, are the owners of 45 acres in sections l and 29 Twnship 36 North, Range 2 East, valuation as Pillows: Land $4020.00 Improvements 1250.00 Personal property 100©IOO 270.00 Inasmuch as both of the above properties are joint titles we are of the opinion that their responsibility on personal bonds would amount to.nothing. FILED Yours truly, JAN.1791922. BUSBEE SCHOCK & JACKSON, Abstrators, BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS. BY HARRY G. SCHOCK L. ,B. SLAUGHTER President.. - Clerk instructed to notify H. N. Barnes that personal sureties would not be accepted, and to give indemnity bond on Robinson Street and Leer Street sidewalk bonds. 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. '79 Tuesday January 17th.9 1922. Continued. The City Engineer submitted the list of property owners in the matter of the appropriation of e1ttain property under Condemnation Resolution No. 18 for the Opening of a Highway along the North and South Center Line of W. 2 of Section 15 T. 37 N. R. 2 E. known as KALEY STREET FROM NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD.COMPANY TO ;WING AVENUE,Uwhich list includes the names of the owners and holders 'ofmprop erty and on interests therein sought to be taken or beneficially or injuriously effected, and the description of the several -pieces of property which is affected by the said appropriation proceedings. Thereupon the Board proceeddd to award the damages sustained and to assess the benefits accruing to.each piece of property upon said list. It was thereupon upon motion duly'hnade and seconded and unanimously adojUtdd, resolved that said list, together with the amounts of benefits -and damages and net benefits and net'tc-benefits.therein set forth as to the several parcels of land -be ado adopted and thgti-the respective amount of benefits contained in said list be and are here hereby assessed against the several tracts of land as specifically set forth in said list, and that the respective amount of damages contained in the said list be and are hereby awarded to the several tracts of land as specifically setforth in said list, and that the net benefits or net damages, as the case may be as the respective tracts of land contained in said list are hereby awarded or assessed, as the case may be as -to the said several tracts of land. The Board hereby further sets off the benefits and damages each against the other where both benefits and damages are assessed against the sabre place of property,.tract of land or interest, and hereby fixes said respective.net benefits as the amount that shall be -paid by the respective owners as benefits, and furthi further hereby fixes the respective net damages as to the several tracts as the amount that shall be paid to the owners ,otf th respective tracts as damages. Thereu"sn ""or motion duly made §,nd speonded and unanimously adopted,. the 1st. day of March 1922 was fixed as the day on which this Board *11l,receive or hear remonstrances from persons with regard tothe amount of their respective awards of assessments, and then Clerk of this Board was instructed to prepare and cause to be duly and legally given notice to the°owners of each parcel of property, shoing the amount of the assessments or award, with a description of the property adfacted, and the date of said hearing. , The following claims were approved by the Board:_ Cemetery Dept. payroll Central Elec. Co. Whitcomb & Keller Howard Cranfill Co. Indiana & Miah. gloci Co Gee, A. -�; alle X. A. Henry Selamberg Iran,C. Garbage Dept., Street Repair Dept., Street & Alley Dept,, Engineering Ttept., City Hall ° Miscellaneous Dept., Miscellaneous Building Dept., Salaries °Dept., Cler of boara. $70.60 3.13 4.9968 17.16 30,00 30,00 '5.00 55a.65 i 7.70 641 10 249.511) 130.00 40.00 12.50 437.50 62.50 ° o Presid nt.