The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-12-25
County Commissioners Said to Have
Violated a Statute. - 2 :
A $4,000 Limit FOR CONTRACTS.
When Larger Amount Is Needed
Consent of Taxpayers Must
Be Obtained. ,,

amounts IN excess Oh SlV,VVV nave been
expended. .saas
The statute requires that the county
commissioners shall not levy a tax or
appropriate any money for the purpose
of building any public building, pnr-
chasing sites therefor, or for lands for
infirmary purposes, the expense of
which will exceed $4,000, without first
submitting the question to a vote of the
people of the county for their approval.
The question has frequently come be-
fore the courts as to whether the com
missioners could let such contracts in
sections, or piecemeal, keeping under
$4,000 each time they let contract for
a part of the work, and in every In.
stance the courts have held that
such an effort to evade the plain pro-
visions of the law Is unlawful and in
violation of the statute.
1t is claimed that in the building of
the brush factory at the workhouse
this law was violated. 1t has been
claimed and has gone uncontradicted,
the the brush factory cost from $4,000
to $22, 900. The only explanation made
of this immense sum paid out for such
a small building is that there was some
bad bookkeeping some where, and that
money expended for a stable and power
house was credited to that factory. II
is a noticeable fact, however, that
neither Auditor Reed nor any OF the
others who should be interested in
clearing up such a matter have been
able to separate these accounts. 1t has
never been claimd that the contractors
for the stable and power house have
mo- of ha Of siIr
of money paid out for the brush fac
tory. Their names do not appear on
the vouchers. But, the assertion is
made that some things have crept into
the brush factory bills, matters of
small moment, that have swelled the
total beyond what it should be.
1t Is not claimed by any one that
with all these deductions made, the
amount would fall below $4,000, or any
where near that figure.
The courts have also held, in pass
ing upon cases that have come up under
this section, that county commissioners
cannot let contracts under $4,000 and
then by adding extras or by changing
the plans or specifications, run that to-
tai cost up beyond the $4,000 mark,
without violating the law. "
1t is claimed that in the letting of the
contract for the Canal Fulton bridge
that the first plans were made so that
at the ordinary cost per perch the total
would be less than $4,000. Then after
the contract was let the changes and
additions were made which run the
price up to nearly 10000. And the end
is not yet.
1t is said that in the building Of the
infirmary cottage the same subterfuge
Is being resorted to. The contract for
the foundation alone has been let for
$500, and that 1t Is the intention OF
the commissioners to let the balance of
the work in sections of less than $4,000
each.
The contractor for the foundation Is
hauling stone to the site and getting
ready to commence the work The man
ner of letting the contract Is said to
be in such direct violation of the law
that there Is talk of injunction pro-
ceedings to stop the carrying out OF
the contract or paying of money for
the work.
1t Is asserted that not only has the
law been violated relative to submitting
the question to a vote of the people, but
the commissioners are proceeding with
out complying with the law requiring
their plans for infirmary buildings to be
approved by the state board Of
charities.
The law relative to submitting the
question of all expenditures in excess OF
$4,000 to a vote of the people is as fol-
lows
Sec 1926. The county commissioners
..s.,..
any money, for the purpose Of building
public county buildings, purchasing
sitss therefor, or for lands for infirm-
airy purposes or for building any bridge,
exceI in case OF casualty, and ex-
cept as hereinafter provided, the exr
pense of which Will exceed ten Thousand
dollars, without first submitting to the
voters Of the connty, the question az
to the policy of building any public
county building, or buildings, or for the
purchasing of sites therefor, or for the
purchase of lands for infirmary pur-
poses by general tax, which said sub
mission shall be made at the annual
spring or fall election.
A MAssILLON OPINION.
The Massillon Independent, discuss
ing the present investigation has this
to say, editorially:
The county commissioners will have
no little difficulty In explaining to the
taxpayers Of the county their reasons
for building a large three-span stone
bridge, with two driveways and two
footpaths, In a little village like Canal
Fulton, at a cost of nearly $4,000
Their task will be rendered more diff
cult owing TO the fact that an iron
bridge of similar size, as originally
contemplated, could have been erected
for half the money. Three bide for
the erection of an iron bridge were sub
mitted by Stark county mapufacturers
the prices ranging from $4,000 to 80, 900.
Allowing fair. sum for the building OF
the approaches and abutments. and the
entire cost Of the bridge, at the highest
figure above named. would have fallen
considerably short of $4,000. When
Tsosscuting Attorney Day completes
Ne investigation SOW ~ progress. the