Laserfiche WebLink
/`7•~ <br />uv-G~' <br />} ~ <br />`o <br /> '~ LfrP <br /> LAW OFFICES (/ <br /> r ~1 ~:j.. <br />` <br /> LEFEVERE,LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN 6 DRAWZ ~ t ' ~ <br />t•,,i <br /> A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION <br />I <br />CLAYTON L. L[FEVERE <br />HERBERT P. LEFLER 2000 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST <br />J. DEN NIS O'B RIEN <br />MINNESOTA 55402 <br />MINNEAPOLIS <br />JOHN E.DRAwz , <br />DAVID J• KENNEDY <br />TELEPHONE <612) 333-0543 <br />JOHN B. DEAN <br />GLENN E. PURDUE <br />RIC HARD J. SCHIEFFER 7 A <br />July ~ <br />1+82 <br />CHARLES L. L[FEVERE • / <br />HERBERT P LEFLER !II <br />JEFFREY J. STRAND <br />JAMES P. O'M EARA <br />MARY J. BJORKLUND <br />JOHN G.KRESSEL <br />DAYLE HoLAN MEMORANDUM <br />CINDY L.LAVORATO <br />MICHAEL A.NASH <br />LUKE R.KOMAREK <br />JOAN N. ERIC KSEN ' <br />ELIZABETH D-MORAN <br />TO: James Fornell, City Manager, New Brighton <br />FROM: Charles L. LeFevere <br />The Long Lake Improvement Association, represented by <br />Charles Dayton, has threatened a suit against the City challeng- <br />ing the transfer to Ramsey County of land acquired for Long Lake <br />Community Park. Far the reasons outlined below, it is my opinion <br />that such a suit would be unsuccessful. <br />In his letter challenging the propriety of transferring the <br />land to the county, Mr. Dayton relies heavily on the fact that <br />the City acquired the site with bond proceeds. He contends that <br />the City, through a flyer it sent to its residents, told voters <br />that the bond revenue would be used to develop a community park <br />at Long Lake. He then cites a number of court decisions which <br />have held that bond proceeds must be used for the purpose auth- <br />orized by the voters. Since the voters of New Brighton authorizd <br />a community park, he argues, the sale of the property for use as <br />a regional park is an illegal misuse of the bond revenue. <br />The law does, in fact, require bond proceeds to be expended <br />for their authorized purpose. It is not, however, as strictly <br />inflexible in defining that purpose as Mr. Dayton would have us <br />believe. Courts have allowed deviation from the specific plans <br />authorized by voters where a shortfall of financing forced such a <br />change and where the essential purpose of the bond referendum was <br />still met. In such cases, they have also looked to the language <br />of the bond referendum itself, rather than to other statements <br />and representations made to the voters. The 1967 bond proposal <br />in question stated that the proceeds would be spent "for the <br />purpose of providing for the acquisition and betterments of parks <br />. ." The sake of this land for use as a regional park would <br />not appear to be inconsistent with that broad purpose. <br />More importantly, however, a critical element distinguishes. <br />our case from the decisions Mr. Dayton cites in support of his <br />argument. In all his cases, the municipality in question actually <br />