|
<br />
<br />R. E. SHORT CO. v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
<br />CJteUZfIN.W.2dSSI
<br />
<br />Minn. 98, 15 N.W.2d 201 (1944); Behrens v.
<br />City of Minneapolis, 199 Minn. 868, 271
<br />N.W. 814 (1997); Burns v. Essling, 156
<br />Minn. 171, 194 N.W. 404 (1928). ......_ _
<br />.'.'lIilllliLJa;;lIt.'UiI........ UII'lIIIiIIli",
<br />. ...".~, "v.-.'" ,.. ,~ 252 Minn. 184, 89
<br />N.W.2d 648, as follows: .
<br />"1. It is well settled in tbis state that
<br />the state or its municipal subdivisions or
<br />agencies may expend public money only
<br />for a public purpose. What is a 'public
<br />purpose' that will justify tbe expenditu....
<br />of public money is not C8pable of a pre-
<br />cise definition, but the courts generally
<br />construe it to mean sucb an- activity as
<br />will serve as a benefit to the community
<br />88 a body and which, at the same time, is
<br />directly related to the functions of
<br />government.
<br />u2. In determining whether an act of
<br />tbe state constitulell a performsnce of a
<br />governmental function or a public pur.
<br />pose wbich will justify the expenditu.... of
<br />public money, a legislative declaration of
<br />public purpose is not always controlling.
<br />The determination of what is and what is
<br />not a public purpose, or the performance
<br />of a governmental function, initially is
<br />for the lepatOl'll, but in the final analy.
<br />sis it must rest with the courts.
<br />"8. The mere fact that some private
<br />interest may derive an incidentai benefit
<br />from the activity does not deprive the
<br />activity of its public nature if its primary
<br />purpose is public. The rule is clearly
<br />stated in Burns v. Essling, 156 Minn. 171,
<br />174, 194 N.W. 404, 405, .. follows:
<br />" .. . . [I]f the primsry object of
<br />an expenditure of municipaJ funds is to
<br />suhoarve a public purpose, the expendi.
<br />tu.... is legal, although it may al,o involve
<br />as an incident an expenditure which,
<br />'tanding alone, would not be lawful. It
<br />i, equally well settled that, if the primary
<br />object is to promote some private end, the
<br />expenditure ia illegal, although it may
<br />incidentally serve some public purpose
<br />also.' "
<br />
<br />[3-6]I1 j ""jl ~Ii.:. . . """'.'"
<br />] 1._," cl,,-~;-""")<<U~Mlt.~ftor.
<br />]II ~" -._,.!,"'(f,tlIM~'fL~lIiJes
<br />Mil N.W.2d-8
<br />
<br />Minn. 337
<br />
<br />~~~Jjiaposition. We .have also rec-
<br />opizaQ .that "~plll'pose" should be
<br />bl'lla(Yl,,~to comport with tbe'
<br />,.h.l1w!.. r~nii+i"":~1ife. Cityof
<br />Pipestone v. Madsen, supra; Housin/! & Re-
<br />deveIopmellt ,j,uthority of S~ Paul v.
<br />Greenman, supra. Consistent with this ap-
<br />proach, --.,.,:tfMt<~.!JIUJv tD .,.trtiw
<br />.w" ~'I U _ 'llLl . "'R.iInIt'..~
<br />""',.......-..,~ J..<I~, Port
<br />,j,uthority of City of S~ Paul v. Fisher,
<br />supra,..... "_. L.___ U.,tllllb.rMalo
<br />...... ... l"f-&. ~I..o *hl-Jatllllt'Wlltn
<br />~ ." I ,.f 1>.1.._."""s the Ohio
<br />Supreme Court recently stated in State ex
<br />reI. Taft v. Campanella, 4 Ohio 0.3d 428,
<br />426, 50 Ohio St.2d 242, 246, 864 N.E.2d 21,
<br />24 (1977):
<br />U lIn the absence of evidence to 'the
<br />contrary, public orficials, administrative
<br />officers, and public autborities, within the
<br />limits or the jurisdiction conferred upon
<br />them by law, will be pl'llSumed to have
<br />properly performed their duties In a regu.
<br />lar and lawful manner and not to have
<br />acted Illegally or unlawfully, and, it will
<br />be p.....umed that public authorities, in
<br />determining the advisability of construct-
<br />ing a public project, have con,idered the
<br />nCCl!S88l'y facts and have 'ufficiently ,at-
<br />isfied themselves .. to the propriety and
<br />reasibility of the construction, as a predi.
<br />C8te for the issuance of bonds or notes to
<br />pay , the coat thereof.'"
<br />Thl, pi'e8umption necessarily makes the
<br />scope or review of ,uch governmental deci.
<br />sionmakmg extremely narrow I and a re~
<br />viewing court should overrule a legislative
<br />determination that a particular expenditure
<br />i, made for a public purpose only if that
<br />determination i, manifestly arbitrary and
<br />capricious. .
<br />
<br />[6, 7] Such a narrow scope of review
<br />also comports with the general rule govern.
<br />ing judieial rsview of muuicipal decision.
<br />making d"'11ared in Douglas v. City of Min.
<br />neapolis, 804 Minn. 259, 272, 230 N.W.2d
<br />577, 686 (1975):
<br />". . . Because of our belief that
<br />the legislaturs intended wide di.....tion
<br />to be vested in the gOverning body, we
<br />
<br />.,
<br />!
<br />L
<br />\
<br />~. :
<br />.
<br />"',
<br />
|