Village of Dennison v. Martin

210 N.E.2d 912, 4 Ohio Misc. 1, 33 Ohio Op. 2d 12, 1964 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 201
CourtTuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas
DecidedJune 11, 1964
DocketNo. 36754
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 N.E.2d 912 (Village of Dennison v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Village of Dennison v. Martin, 210 N.E.2d 912, 4 Ohio Misc. 1, 33 Ohio Op. 2d 12, 1964 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 201 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1964).

Opinion

Lamneck, J.

This is an action brought by the Village of Dennison, Ohio, against the Board of Trustees of Public Affairs of the Village of Dennison, Ohio, in which the village prays for a declaratory judgment in two respects:

First, as to the legality and composition of the board of trustees appointed to manage a waterworks system jointly owned by said village and the City of Uhrichsville, Ohio, authorized by former Section 3615-1, General Code, and Ordinance No. 1079 of said village and Ordinance No. 757 of said city under an agreement dated July 1, 1948; and,

Second, as to the management and operation of the sewerage system of both municipalities under an agreement dated March 2, 1950, entered into by said village and the City of Uhrichsville, Ohio, and approved by Ordinance No. 1123 of said village and Ordinance No. 785 of said city.

The Board of Trustees of Public Affairs of the Village of Dennison, Ohio, authorized to be appointed under Ordinance No. 1124 of the village effective March 2, 1950, claims that it [4]*4has duties to perforin in respect to the joint waterworks system, and also as to sewerage system of the village and sewage disposal matters.

Under authority conferred by former Section 3615-1, General Code, now Section 715.02, Revised Code, the council of the City of Uhrichsville, Ohio, on July 1, 1948, passed Ordinance No. 757 entitled, “An Ordinance setting forth the agreement between the City of Uhrichsville and the Village of Dennison, Ohio, for the joint management of the Waterworks System owned jointly by said municipalities, and approving said agreement. ’ ’

On July 2, 1948, the Council of the Village of Dennison, Ohio, passed Ordinance numbered 1079 with the same title. Both ordinances carry the same identical provisions.

The aforesaid ordinances were passed pursuant to the joint purchase by both municipalities of a privately owned waterworks system serving both municipalities. To enable such municipalities to make the purchase, bonds of each municipality were issued in the sum of $375,000, and under the purchase, each municipality thereby acquired an undivided one-half interest in the waterworks system.

Section B of both of said ordinances reads as follows:

“Section B. That said waterworks system shall be managed by a board of trustees of six members, composed of the mayors of each municipality, who shall be members ex officio, and four other members, two to be appointed by the council of each municipality to serve without compensation for a period of two years each, or until their successors are appointed and qualified. Each member of the board shall give bond in an amount satisfactory and payable to the parties hereto jointly, to secure the faithful performance of his duties. The premium upon such bond shall be paid out of the revenue of the waterworks system and shall be considered an expense of operation of the system. Said board of trustees shall have power to employ a waterworks superintendent who in turn shall have authority to hire such employees as he may deem necessary to operate the waterworks system properly and to fix the salaries of such employees subject to the approval of the board of trustees and the councils of both municipalities. Said board of trustees shall render a report to each council every six months [5]*5showing the gross revenues of the system for the preceding six months as well as the expenses of operation and maintenance for the same period.”

Section C of both of the ordinances reads as follows:

‘ ‘ Section O. The rates to be charged for services rendered by the waterworks system shall be fixed by ordinance adopted by the council of each municipality party hereto, and shall be the same in all respects for each municipality, and in any event shall be sufficient to produce gross revenues adequate (a) to pay the reasonable and proper expenses of operation and maintenance of the system, and (b) to pay, when due, the principal of and interest on the bonds issued by each municipality to pay for such improvement, including any excess funds required by the bond ordinances authorizing the same. After payment of all of the aforesaid charges, any excess may be used for any lawful purpose including the making of any necessary extensions or improvements to the waterworks system which the board of trustees may determine and payment into the bond retirement fund or sinking fund to be invested or used for calling bonds for redemption.”

Section D of both ordinances provides in part that the water system contract shall remain in effect until January 1, 1937, or until all the bonds and interest issued by either municipality to acquire the waterworks system shall have been paid in full.

A board of trustees composed of six members as provided by the ordinances took charge of the waterworks system. The first declaration prayed for raises the question as to whether the Board of Trustees of Public Affairs of the Village of Dennison, Ohio, has any duties to perform in the management of the waterworks system.

The defendants contend that the composition of the board of trustees of six members authorized to be appointed by the agreement entered into by both municipalities to manage the joint waterworks system is illegal. They submit that former Section 3973-1, General Code, now Section 743.19, Revised Code, relating specifically to the construction of a joint waterworks system of two or more municipalities prevails over former Section 3615-1, General Code, now Section 715.02, Revised Code, which relates to joint ownership and management of any public work, utility or improvement.

[6]*6Former Section 3973-1, General Code, now Section 743.19, Revised Code, was enacted in 1917, and former Section 3615-1, General Code, now Section 715.02, Revised Code, was enacted in 1925. Both sections were re-enacted with substantially the same provisions when the Revised Code went into effect on October 1, 1953, and under the bill adopting the Revised Code, are considered the same as of the date the General Code sections were originally enacted.

Section 743.19, Revised Code, now reads as follows:

“Two or more municipal corporations may unite in the construction of a waterworks plant for the purpose of supplying water to the municipal corporations and the inhabitants thereof for domestic, manufacturing, and other purposes. Such municipal corporations may, through their authorized officers, contract with each other for the construction and maintenance of such waterworks, and agree as to a division of the cost and maintenance of such plant and a division of the water produced thereby. ’ ’

The defendants contend that this section requires that the joint waterworks system in this case must be operated by the Board of Trustees of Public Affairs of the Village of Dennison, by virtue of Section 735.29, Revised Code, and the Director of Public Service of the City of Uhrichsville, by virtue of Section 735.02, Revised Code.

Former Section 3973-1, General Code, now Section 743.19, Revised Code, does provide “that such municipal corporation may, through their authorized officers contract with each other for the construction and maintenance of such waterworks.”

This does not mean that the board of public affairs of a village and the service director of a city could enter into such a contract without authority of their respective councils.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Columbus Ex Rel. Willits v. Cremean
273 N.E.2d 324 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
210 N.E.2d 912, 4 Ohio Misc. 1, 33 Ohio Op. 2d 12, 1964 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-dennison-v-martin-ohctcompltuscar-1964.