
    Schultz v. Erie County Metropolitan Park District Board et al.
    (No. 39203
    Decided February 5, 1971.)
    Common Pleas Court of Erie County.
    
      Messrs. Murray & Murray, for plaintiff.
    
      Mr. Dean 8. Lucal, for defendant Erie County Metropolitan Park District Board.
   Findings op Fact

McCrystal, J.

(1) Defendants, Starr Truscott, Leroy Wenger and Elmer Borchardt, are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting Commissioners of the Erie County Metropolitan Park District, and together constitute the Board of Park Commissioners of the Erie County Metropolitan Park District.

(2) Defendants entered into a written contract dated October 20,1970, with Scruggs & Hammond, Inc., a consulting firm, for the preparation of a master plan for development of a park system in Erie County, Ohio.

(3) Plaintiff is a taxpayer in Erie County, Ohio.

(4) Plaintiff, in a letter dated October 29, 1970, made a demand upon the Erie County Prosecuting Attorney to institute suit to enjoin the defendants from entering into, or acting upon, such contract with Scruggs & Hammond, Inc.

(5) The Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, in a letter dated November 5,1970, refused to institute such litigation.

(6) Plaintiff in the within action filed a complaint praying that the defendants he permanently enjoined from continuing with the Scruggs & Hammond, Inc., contract and for an order setting reasonable attorney fees.

(7) The parties have agreed to this case being heard and decided on the pleadings and briefs as a motion for a permanent injunction.

The question before the court is whether or not the Board of Park Commissioners of the Erie County Metropolitan Park District had the authority to enter into the contract with Scruggs & Hammond, Inc., for the preparation of the master plan for park development in Erie County, Ohio.

The general principle of law setting forth the powers of public officers and public boards is set forth in 44 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 546, Section 60, where it is stated:

“As a general rule, therefore, and apart from the powers which are delegated to public officers by the Constitution or a municipal charter, public officers have only such powers as are expressly delegated to them by statute and such as are necessarily implied from those so delegated. The rule in respect of implied powers is that, in addition to the powers expressly given by statute to an officer or board of officers, he or it has by implication of such additional powers as are necessary for the due and efficient exercise of the power expressly granted or as may be fairly implied from the statute granting the express powers.”

The Board of Park Commissioners, which is a body politic and corporate, as provided by R. C. 1545.07, has the power, among others granted, to acquire lands within or without the park district for conversion into forest reserves and for the conservation of the natural resources of the state, and, to these ends, may create parks, parkways, forest reservations and other reservations, and afforest, develop, improve, protect and promote the use of he same in the manner that the board deems conducive to the general welfare. No section in Chapter 1545 of the Code explicitly sets forth the powers of the metropolitan, park hoard to contract with planners for their services, nor do any snch sections provide for snch contracts with engineers, landscape architects, or attorneys. It is the opinion of this court, however, that the power to contract with planners or with engineers, landscape architects or attorneys is an implied power necessary to carry ont the statutorily imposed duties and obligations of the park board.

The Attorney General of the state of Ohio has reviewed a similar question in 1927 Ohio Attorney General Opinions 279 in which he ruled that, while the specific power was not granted to the park board to employ legal counsel, nonetheless such park board had the power to contract for such legal services. The Attorney General stated as follows:

“A legislature has given extensive power to such boards among which are the powers to sue and be sued, the power to appropriate lands, and the power to levy taxes and issue bonds. In the doing of any of these things many questions might and undoubtedly would arise which would require the advice and services of an attorney. It may be said, therefore, that it is a necessary incident to such powers and duties expressly granted that the boards in question be given power to employ attorneys.”

This court is in agreement with such opinion and feels that the logic set forth in that opinion is applicable to the case at bar. This court is of the opinion that there are many questions which will confront the Erie County Board of Park Commissioners which will require not only the services of attorneys but also the advice and services of a professional planner. Among these will be the evaluation of inventory sites within the district, the evaluation of the unique characteristics of each park site which may lend that site to development, and the recommendations of capital improvements for the park district. It is the opinion of this court that in this day and age for any public body to properly plan a steady, ordered growth of a subdivision, it is necessary to obtain competent planning advice, proper engineering advice, and proper legal advice. Without the aid of such professional opinions, park development will obviously come to a standstill, or in the alternative, will result in a waste of the taxpayers’ money. The members of a metropolitan park board, while being dedicated public servants, are nonprofessionals, and, as such, are incapable of developing such a professional master plan as was contracted for by the Erie County Metropolitan Park District.

This court believes that the procedure undertaken by the Erie County Metropolitan Park Board in hiring consultants for the purpose of a master plan was contemplated by the Legislature of the state of Ohio in 1967 when it enacted R. C. 307.281. This statutory section provides that the board of county commissioners of a county may make contributions to the metropolitan park district in that county for planning, acquisition, management, and improvement expenses of a park district. This is the statutory provision under which the Erie County Metropolitan Park District has been funded by the Erie County Board of County Commissioners as of the date of the filing of the complaint herein. It is not unreasonable to interpret that the state Legislature contemplated contributions by the county commissioners to the park boards for the very type of planning consultant contract that is before this court in this case.

CONCLUSIONS or Law

(1) The defendant, Erie County Metropolitan Park District Board, has such powers as are necessarily implied from those powers specifically delegated to it.

(2) The power to hire a consulting firm to prepare a master plan for development of a park system is necessarily implied from those powers specifically delegated by statute.

The court finds for the defendants and against the plaintiff on the issues provided by the pleading and the law applicable thereto. Plaintiff’s complaint is therefore dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.

Complaint dismissed.  