11-03-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Rick Jopke October 19, 1999 • Page 3 The deed for a portion of The Bridges Golf Course property states that the property must be used for a public purpose. The question arises as to whether placing a billboard or other advertising structure on the involved property would contravene the express deed restriction that it be used for a public purpose. Opinions of the Minnesota attorney general have touched on the issue as to what constitutes a "public purpose" in a municipal golf course setting. The attorney general has stated that a city cannot outright lease a municipal golf course to a private entity "as long as there still exists a municipal need for the course." Op. Att'y Gen. 469a-9 (September 9, 1957). However, the attorney general has suggested that a public purpose might be found to exist in situations where such use is incidental to the primary public use. Op. Att'y Gen. 59-B-11 (April 23, 1957). In order to be certain on this issue, the City could request an opinion of the Minnesota attorney general as to the ability of the City to place billboards at The Bridges to ensure that the City is operating within the previous opinions of the attorney general, as well as the "public purpose" provision mandated by the authorizing statute and the deed from the State. In addition, whether an action of a local government serves a valid public purpose has received considerable attention in the context of condemnation law. "Perhaps the most complete and often cited statement of the factors to be considered in determining whether a valid public • purpose is present is . . ." [W]hat is a 'public purpose' . . . is not capable of a precise definition, but the courts generally construe it to mean such an activity as will serve as a benefit to the community as a body and which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of government." Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority v. Printy, 351 N.W.2d 319, 338 (Minn. 1984) (citing Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184-85, 89 N.W.2d 635, 643 (1958)). A local government's decision that an action serves the public purpose is given great deference. See Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facility Commission, 270 N.W.2d 749, 754-55 (Minn. 1978). A legislative determination of public purpose will only be overruled if it is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. See R.E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d 331, 337 (1978). Placing a billboard on the golf course property would serve the purpose of promoting the business and attracting customers. That generally leads to an increase in customers who use the golf course or buy goods sold thereon, which in turn leads to increased profits. Assuming the golf course itself constitutes a public purpose, allowing a.billboard for the purpose of advertising or promoting the golf course would be considered a supporting element of the public purpose use. The same would hold true for advertising another government function. The end result in either case would be a benefit to the community. If the billboard were utilized to advertise or promote businesses other than the golf course, then one could argue the billboard has less of a supporting element to the golf course and the only public purpose would be to raise revenues. If the raising of revenue was determined to not be a • public purpose, the deed restriction may require transfer of the property back to the state of Minnesota. My office has found no case involving the same or similar situation. SJR-168870 MU210-1