2002-08-14 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I Public purpose The Minnesota Supreme Court has emphasized that public purpose is an evolving concept that should be interpreted liberally to effectively deal with the wide-ranging changes transforming society. The coUrt has also stated "We have also recognized that public purpose should be broadly construed to comport with the changing conditions of modem life." R.E. Short Co. v. Citv of Minneapolis. 269 N.W.2d at 337 (citing City of Pipestone v. Madsen, 287 Minn. 155,210 N.W.2d 298 (1973)). It is significant that the court has accorded great deference to a local governing body's determination that an expenditure is for a public purpose. The Court has said that a strong presumption exists that public officials are acting appropriately when making spending decisions. In fact, the CoUrt has made clear that "this presumption necessarily makes the scope of review of such governmental decision-making extremely narrow and a reviewing court should overrule a legislative determination that a particular expenditure is made for a public purpose only if that determination is manifestly arbitrary and capricious." Accordingly, as discussed above, the question of what constitutes a public purpose is largely a matter of city council discretion. City authority With regard to the "authority test," a Minnesota municipal corporation has only such powers as are expressly conferred upon it by statute or its charter, or necessarily implied there from. In looking at the question of city authority, a distinction exists between charter cities and statutory cities. Many home rule charter cities have an "all powers" provision, which reads something like "A city shall have all powers which may now or hereafter be possible for a municipal corporation in this state to exercise in harmony with the constitution of this state and of the United States." This broad grant of power under city charters has been interpreted as including "all those powers which are generally recognized as powers which may properly be given to and be exercised by, municipal corporations." State ex rei Zien v. Citv of Duluth, 134 Minn. 355, 159 N.W. 792 (1916). In construing municipal charter authority, the Minnesota Supreme Court in Citv of St. Paul v. Whidbv. 295 Minn. 129, 136203 N.W.2d 823, 827 (1972) (citing Park v. City of Duluth 134 Minn. 296, 298, 159 N.W. 627, 628 (1916)), enunciated the parameters of such authority: "Municipal corporations are created by state law. . . their legislative authority is conferred upon them by the constitution and the laws of the state and, as to matters of municipal concern, they have all the legislative power possessed by the Legislature of the state, save as such power is expressly or implicitly withheld. . ." Accordingly, for a charter city with an "all powers" clause, the scope of municipal authority is probably greater than that allowed for statutory cities. With regard to statutory cities, municipal authority has to be found in the statutes or be necessarily implied from that statutory authority. The question of what constitutes a valid 3