Public Purpose Doctrine
Opinion
# 2003-074
Discussion providing that local government can only expend
public funds to improve private property if the governing body of the local government
first concludes that a public purpose will be met by the expenditure. Opinion
# 2003-081
Discussion providing that a city may contract to provide $2,000,000
in cash to a foreign corporation over a five-year period if the municipality determines
a public purpose is served and that the contract between the city and the foreign
corporation should specify the consideration and the public benefit to be received.
Opinion
# 2003-083
Discussion providing that a city may lease municipal property
to a for-profit or a nonprofit corporation at no charge only if a public purpose
is served and the city council must determine if a public purpose is to be served
by the for-profit or nonprofit corporation in leasing the municipal property.
Opinion
# 2003-187
Discussion providing that the city council may not disregard
its duty to determine whether certain events serve a public purpose by issuing
a blanket resolution declaring all events meeting a certain criteria serve a public
purpose. Opinion
# 2003-189
Discussion providing that a city can donate city-owned property
to the Veterans Association Foundation for the purpose of building a Veteran Museum
and Art Center, if it determines there is a public purpose and ensures that the
public purpose is served. Opinion
# 2004-012
Discussion providing that if the county commission determines
that a public purpose will be served, it may utilize its equipment and employees
to assist the County Soil and Water Conservation District in conducting a stream
and/or creek restoration and protection project. Opinion
# 2004-019
Discussion providing that if the county commission determines
that the publication of the testimony of a witness serves a public purpose, the
county may use county funds to pay for the cost of the publication. Opinion
# 2004-120
Discussion regarding proper uses for CDBG grants and the limitations
of Section 94 of the Constitution.
Opinion # 2004-191
Discussion providing that a municipality cannot purchase property and provide infrastructure for future development and sale to a developer for resale to the public, but may undertake redevelopment and urban renewal projects to clean up and prevent blighted areas or slums.
Opinion # 2004-223
Discussion providing that a city council may appropriate funds to a nonprofit organization for the renovation of a building for a community center if it determines that a public purpose is served.
Opinion # 2005-021
Discussion providing that a city council may expend funds for the acquisition of a monument if it determines that it serves a public purpose.
Opinion # 2005-029
Discussion providing that a municipality may expend public funds for debris and tree removal following Hurricane Ivan, even on private property, if the town council determines that the work served a legitimate public purpose, or absent such a finding, the town may assess property owners for cleanup on private lands where the debris constituted a health hazard and where the owners of the private property were unable to secure a private source to perform the service.
Opinion # 2005-041
Discussion providing that a county commission can provide materials and in-kind services to a municipality to assist with a roadway on private property to promote industry by preventing the loss of industry and jobs, if it determines that a public purpose will be served and that a public benefit is provided by furnishing the services and materials, but that a public purpose is not served if the sole reason for the expenditure is a potential increase in tax revenues.
Opinion # 2005-057
Discussion providing that a county or municipality can produce a history of the entity and distribute it to public, school, and university libraries, but cannot sell it directly or indirectly through a nonprofit organization.
Opinion # 2005-073
Discussion providing that the determination of whether a governmental body may expend funds to improve drainage on private property must be made by the governing body based on whether the improvement will serve a public purpose, and that it must have an easement on the land.
Opinion # 2005-073
Discussion providing that a public purpose is served if the expenditure confers a direct public benefit of a reasonably general character, which must be determined by the governing body on a case-by-case basis.
|
