This appeal arises out of plaintiff-appellee Brantley County’s “county” suit to recover money had and received by defendants-appellants Southern Striping, Inc. and Neal Howard a/k/a Davis Neal Howard “Southern Striping” for paint striping applied to Brantley County roads. Southern Striping appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Brantley County, arguing: 1 that a jury question remains as to whether road striping is a “specialized service” under OCGA § 32-4-63 5, permitting it to negotiate for such service outside the competitive bidding process;1 and 2 that the provisions of OCGA § 36-10-1, requiring that “all contracts entered into by the county shall be in writing and entered on its minutes,” are here inapplicable under the voluntary payments doctrine, the county having paid the invoices and failed to timely assert the provisions of such Code section. Southern Striping’s challenges to the grant of summary judgment as without merit, we affirm. The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed. In February 2000, Harry Riggins, the Chairman of the Brantley County Board of Commissioners, entered into a negotiation with Southern Striping for the purpose of obtaining road striping on certain county roads. Southern Striping undertook the project incrementally, invoicing the county six times in the period March 6, 2000, through June 15, 2000, upon the completion of each segment of the job. The county, in turn, paid Southern Striping in full as to each invoice, cumulatively a sum of $190,600. The activities invoiced to the county were not approved by the Board of Commissioners following a competitive bidding process. Neither were they presented to, approved, consented to, or voted upon at any meeting of the Board of Commissioners. Moreover, there was no written contract for the road striping done, and no “contract” for the same was approved by the county and entered on the minutes. Rather, Chairman Riggins negotiated for the work upon the agreement of fellow commissioners, Robert Moore and Charles Harris. Chairman Riggins and Commissioners Moore and Harris were then candidates for re-election. On December 29, 2000, upon motion of Commissioner Moore and seconded by Commissioner Harris, the Board of Commissioners by a 3-2 vote2 amended its 2000 county budget, transferring $172,153.09 to the $20,000 line item in the budget which had been allocated for road striping —this to ensure payment upon the invoices which Southern Striping had submitted. The county filed the instant action for money had and received on May 17, 2001. Held :
1. Southern Striping contends that a jury question remains as to whether road striping is a specialized service under OCGA § 32-4-63 5,3 allowing the instant negotiation for its road striping services to proceed as an exception to the OCGA § 32-4-64 requirement that all county contracts be let by public bid. OCGA § 32-1-3 6 expressly defines road striping as a form of road construction.4 It follows that we are not at liberty to construe it otherwise, that is, as a special service within the meaning of OCGA § 32-4-63 5. “Where a . . . statute is plain and susceptible of but one natural and reasonable construction, the court has no authority to place a different construction upon it, but must construe it according to its terms.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Simpson v. Southwire Co. , 249 Ga. App. 406, 409 1 548 SE2d 660 2001.
