My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 04-19-2004
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CCP 04-19-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:19:30 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 3:34:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />to the level ofc1ear violations of law. With regard to the effect of the report on other <br />communities, the report has no binding effect, although observations made in the report should <br />be given careful eonsideration. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It should also be mentioned that the findings in the report rely heavily on advisory opinions <br />issued by the Attorney General's office, Opinions of the State Attorney General are not binding <br />on cities, but are given careful consideration by the courts. Minn. Stat. S 8,07 and Village of <br />Blaine v. Independent Sehool District 12, 272 Minn. 343, 353 138 N.W.2d, 32,39-40 (1965), <br /> <br />Many of the "questionable" expenditures made by Brooklyn Park involved an evaluation of <br />whether the particular expenditure served a valid "publie purpose." The courts have recognized <br />that the determination of what is a valid public purpose is an evolving concept and that great <br />deference will be given to a local governing body's decision that a particular expenditure is for a <br />public purpose, R.E. Short Co, v, City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d, 331 (Minn. 1978). <br />Aeeordingly, the determination of publie purpose involves a subjective determination that may <br />vary from eommunity to community; and as such, the OSA's findings in Brooklyn Park, and <br />many of the Attorney General's Opinions upon which the report relies, are instructive but not <br />binding on Brooklyn Park or other cities. Nevertheless, the League is well aware that any <br />deeision to depart from recommendations made by the State Auditor or the Attorney General <br />ought not be taken lightly, given the potentially sensitive nature of the decision, Any such <br />deeision should be earefully considered and based on justifiable reasons. <br /> <br />In reviewing the OSA's findings in Brooklyn Park, we have identified the following general <br />areas to which this memo will address comments: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I, Spending on employee recognition events. <br />2. Spending on employee soeial events, such as summer picnies or holiday parties. <br />3. Spending for employee meals and/or foods as part of employee meetings, <br />4. Spending on Chamber of Commerce dues, <br /> <br />Before getting into any ofthese specifie expenditure types, it is useful to review the test for <br />evaluating the validity of any city expenditure. The test is two-fold: first, there must be a publie <br />purpose for the expenditure; and second, there must be specific or implied authority for the <br />expenditure found in statute or a city's charter. A comment about each of these two tests may be <br />helpful. <br /> <br />Public purpose <br /> <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court has emphasized that public purpose is an evolving eoneept that <br />should be interpreted liberally to effectively deal with the wide-ranging changes transforming <br />society. The eourt has also stated "We have also reeognized that public purpose should be <br />broadly construed to comport with the changing eonditions of modem life," R.E, Short Co, v, <br />City of Minneapolis. 269 N.W.2d at 337 (citing City of Pipestone v. Madsen, 287 Minn, 155, <br />210 N.W.2d 298 (1973)).lt is significant that the court has accorded great deference to a local <br />governing body's determination that an expenditure is for a publie purpose, The Court has said <br />that a strong presumption exists that publie officials are acting appropriately when making <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.