Stoll v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

• Decision Date: 06 October 1932
• Docket Number: 66.
• Citation: 162 A. 267,163 Md. 282
• Parties: STOLL ET AL. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

162 A. 267

163 Md. 282

STOLL ET AL. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE ET AL.

No. 66.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

October 6, 1932

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Samuel K. Dennis Judge.

Bill by Herman C. Stoll and others against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and others. From a decree dismissing their complaint, complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, and PARKE, JJ.

Emory H. Niles, of Baltimore (H. Warren Buckler, Jr., and Niles Barton, Morrow & Yost, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

R. E. Lee Marshall, City Sol., and Paul F. Due, Deputy City Sol., both of Baltimore, for appellees.

DIGGES J.

On July 13, 1932, a decree was passed by the circuit court of Baltimore City dismissing the appellants' bill of complaint in this case. Owing to the fact that there is here presented a case of large magnitude and of great interest and importance to the citizens of Baltimore City, as well as to the municipal authorities, and to the further fact that a delay in hearing the case on appeal until the regular October term might, and probably would, have occasioned inconvenience and large loss to the city, upon application of the parties, this court met in special session on September 2d to hear and determine the questions involved. A few days thereafter, a decision was made and handed down affirming the decree of the chancellor. We will now proceed to give our reasons in support of that conclusion.

The proceeding was instituted by certain taxpayers of Baltimore City seeking to enjoin the mayor and city council of Baltimore, its officers, agents, servants, or employees, including the board of awards, from erecting or constructing a plant for the destruction of garbage by incineration or any other method upon Reed Bird Island, or at any other place within nine miles of Lazaretto Lighthouse on the Patapsco river; to enjoin the defendants from acting in any way in the reception, opening, or examination of bids received or to be received in accordance with the specifications and plans embodied in the proposals submitted for bid by the city, and from taking any action, awarding any contract, accepting any bond, or incurring any obligation under or in accordance with any contract made or to be made as a result of said proposals and specifications, until the final determination of these proceedings on appeal; and asking that all acts, measures, and things done or to be done pursuant to or in accordance with said specifications and proposals be declared illegal and void. The case was heard by the chancellor on bill, answer, exhibits, and testimony offered by the complainants. At the close of the complainants' testimony the chancellor indicated what his decision would be, and the defendants therefore offered no testimony, resulting in the decree dismissing the bill. Apparently for this reason the record does not contain as full a statement of the facts and conditions surrounding the making of the proposed contract as is desirable in such cases; and we are confined to the case as made by the record, including logical inferences deduced from the facts stated in the bill, answer, and testimony. It appears that at the time of the institution of the proceeding the city was disposing of its rubbish and garbage in the following manner: The rubbish was being collected either by the city, or someone under contract for that purpose with the city, and conveyed to two city-owned and operated incinerators, where it was disposed of by burning. The garbage was collected by the city and conveyed on scows to a privately owned reduction plant located at Bodkin Point in Anne Arundel county. This method of disposal of the garbage was in pursuance of a five-year contract ending January 1, 1932. When the time for the termination of this contract arrived, the city had made no different provision for the disposal of the garbage, and renewed or extended the contract for an additional term ending January 1, 1933, for an additional sum of about $80,000 over and above the previous yearly cost. Under these conditions the city authorities determined that the most approved and best method of garbage disposal was by incineration. It owned a small island in one of the tributaries of the Patapsco river, being within the city limits, known as Reed Bird Island, well adapted for the location of a garbage incineration plant. The determination was that it was to the best interests of the city, considering its present finances, to make a long-term contract for the disposal by incineration of the garbage and rubbish from the city; this service to be contracted and paid for on a unit basis of a 2,000-pound ton. In respect to the rubbish, the proposal required the collection and delivery over a period of five years of all rubbish of the city, estimated at 120,000 tons per year, and delivered partly at the garbage incineration plant to be erected, and partly at the rubbish incineration plants now owned and operated by the city; the part to be delivered at the garbage incinerator to be mixed with garbage in certain proportions of about 35-65 per cent. for the purpose of aiding in the burning of the garbage. As to the garbage, the proposal required the destruction by incineration of all the garbage of the city during a period of ten years, and the establishment and operation of a garbage incineration plant at Reed Bird Island for that period. This also was to be a bid on units of garbage of 2,000-pound tons. The proposed contract was to be an entire one, and obligate the successful bidder to collect and deliver the rubbish as and for the period stated, and to dispose of the garbage by incineration, together with such rubbish as was required to be mixed therewith, for the period stated, which necessitated the building of a garbage incineration plant at the location named, at the first expense of the successful bidder, the cost ultimately to be paid by the city by inclusion in the unit prices for the collection of the rubbish, and the disposition of the rubbish and garbage. The garbage incineration plant was to be built on city property, and owned by the city, and possession thereof to be turned over to the city at the expiration of ten years from January 1, 1933. In other words, the proposal was for the collection and hauling of rubbish; the construction, maintenance, and operation of an incineration plant; and the incineration of garbage and rubbish. The price for performing the complete contract was the total of the following unit prices: (1) For collecting and hauling rubbish, estimated at 120,000 tons per year, the sum of $_______ per ton; (2) for evaporating and incinerating rubbish, estimated at 44,000 tons per year, the sum of $_______ per ton; (3) for evaporating and incinerating garbage estimated at 80,000 tons per year, the sum of $_______ per ton. The specifications required that the successful bidder give a bond in the amount of the estimated cost of the erection and equipment of the incineration plant, plus $100,000, conditioned on the faithful and exact performance of the entire contract and each of its provisions.

The appellants contend that the plan and proposed contract of the city is illegal for two reasons: First, because the plans and specifications, as prepared by the city for the proposed incinerator, the collection vehicles, and the means of incinerating garbage and rubbish, are not sufficiently complete and definite to comply with sections 14 and 15 of the Baltimore City Charter, but, on the contrary, are so incomplete and indefinite that it is not possible to determine from bids submitted in accordance with them which is the lowest bid or who is the lowest bidder; second, because the construction of the proposed incineration plant at Reed Bird Island, which is within nine miles of Lazaretto Lighthouse, constitutes a violation of chapter 205 of the Acts of 1908, now codified as section 294 of article 2 of the Code of Public Local Laws. These are the two questions presented for our determination and will be disposed of in the order presented.

The plans and specifications upon which bids were solicited are filed as an exhibit in the case, embracing 104 typewritten pages, and setting forth in much detail the service and work to be rendered and the materials to be furnished. The evidence shows that these plans and specifications are those generally and commonly used for proposals to erect, maintain and operate garbage incineration plants wherever the main purpose of the municipality is an operation contract which will secure a definite desired result, guaranteed by the contractor by the giving of a bond for the faithful performance of the contract and the complete attainment of the result specified and contracted for; and this without regard to whether or not the collection of rubbish or garbage is included in the contract. This operating contract continues over a comparatively long period, and while the record does not disclose the estimated cost of the plant, it is stated in argument that its cost is only about 10 per cent. of the total contract price. The particular omissions in the plans and specifications complained of are that the plan of the building is not specific, and the machinery and appurtenances are not specifically mentioned. An examination of the specifications discloses a general description of the building to be erected, specifically such items as the foundation, piling, brick, masonry, roof, floors, windows, ceilings, electrical work, plumbing, drainage, ventilation, and heating. The only thing not set forth specifically, of which the appellants...