Kansas City journal., 1897-05-26
SETTLES A MOOTED POINT.
CITY COUNSELLOR MIDDLEBROOK on
PAVING RESOLUTIONS.
The Engineer at Most Makes sug-
gestion, He Says, and Ii II the
Council which Passes on
the Resolutions.

City Counselor Middlebrook prepared an
opinion yesterday in regard to the legality
of the resolution to pave Broadway from
Fourteenth TO Sixteenth with asphalt on
a concrete foundation. The point was
raised that the resolution did not suffi-
ciently designate the materials 10 be used,
and that, in consequence of this failure
the city engineer was made the sole judge
of the materials to be used and the man
ner of doing the work.
The contention arose in this way: When
bids for doing the paving were advertised
for the Barber Asphalt Company alb
stained from bidding. After the thirty
days limit had expired, the Barber COM
pany secured a majority petition from
property owners, asking that the paving
be done by that company.
In order TO certify to the petition II was
necessary to repeal the original resolution
adopted by the board OF pubic Works.
This was done by the board in Difference
u the wishes of majority OF the prop
erty owners in the two blocks, althouE n
ii was claimed the majority petition was
filed out of time. Prior to this action the
resolution was referred to the city coun-
5 aiOr.
The Barber company claimed that the
tax bills would be invalid, owing TO the
alleged iEdetiniteness of the original reso-
luton. and asked that the materials to be
used be set forth in such a speclhe maAner
that there would be no mistaking the in
tent of the board. The company also want
ed all possibility of the city engineer eNSr-
cising legislative functions removed.
The city counselor held that the fact OF
the details being in the alternative does
not vest the city engineer with Legislative
direction. His opinion is as follows:
with reference to the paving resolution
to pave Broadway from Fourteenth to Six
teenth street with asphalt on a concrete
foundation, TO be laid according to details
T. or f. or g., on file in the office Of the
board of public works, referred to me, as
to the legality of such "A resolution, my
Ciently designates the material, to-wit: as
phalt on u concrete foundation; tb) my
opinion is that no Legislative power is del
egated to the city engineer, as to the man.
ner of doing the work. These details, 4.
Fl and g. describe with great partcu-
larity the manner of doing the work. and
are made part of the resolution by express
reference thereto, giving even the date OF
their adoption by the board OF pubic
works.
no choice between details T. F. and
g for the engineer or any one else TO eN-
ercise. Any one of these three will do. Not
only this but as sort of capsheaf the con-
tract after being let is confirmed by an or
dinance of the common council. .rectting that
the contractor is the lowest and best bid
der and approving of the material selected
and the manner Of doing the work. What
ever the engineer does or does not do Is
nothing more than a suggestion at most,
as the council, by ordinance duly approved
by the mayor, passes on the whole ques-
ton when it confirms the contract.
Next as to whether IN the event OF lhe
tax bills turning out TO be void the city
would be liable to the contractor for his
work my opinion is that the city would
not be SO liable. Parties doing business
with Kansas City know that the power 10
bind her is regulated by section 3, article
TX of the charter. which provides that in
case payment is TO be made in special tax
bills, the city shall in no event nor IN any
manner whatever be liable for or on ac-
count of said work The charter regulates
this matter in our city. In other cities.
IIorriqburO pa and Denver Col. where
the charters are silent on the subject, and
only the contracts eXonerated the city,
the cities were held liable, but their cases
are think. inapplicable to us.