PRECA 08-04-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRtEN & DRAWZ diverted the bond proceeds for uses other than those authorized, at least to the extent that it revised the original plans. In our case, no such diversion took place. The park plans, as pre- sented in the flyer, called for the acquisition and development of four parks, one of them being Long Lake Park. The City expended the proceeds for the purposes authorized. Lands were acquired for all four parks, and three were developed. The funds were simply depleted before Long Lake Park could be developed. At no time did the City divert the bond proceeds to any other use, and there can be no argument that the voters of New Brighton were misled as to the use of the bond issue they authorized. Moreover, the legal remedy for a misuse of bond proceeds is mandamus at one of two points. If it is apparent after the bond referendum is approved, but prior to the issuance of bonds, that the proceeds will fall short of financing the approved project, a court can prevent issuance of the bonds. Obviously, it is too late for such a remedy in this case. Alternatively, if enough of the bond proceeds remain on hand to complete an approved project, a court can order that it be completed.. But where such funds have been expended, as in this case, it is highly improbable that a court would issue such an order. Since the City does not have the necessary funds to develop a community park, there is a good argument that the land at present serves no public use. Certainly the City Council has seen no present or future city need for the land, and it is that body which must determine whether such a need exists. Municipal- ities are authorized by statute to sell land they no longer need to other political subdivisions for nominal consideration. Both Mr. Dayton's argument that the land cannot be sold at all and his assertion that if it can be sold, it must be sold for the best possible price, are legally rebuttable. Finally, it seems likely that a court would be sympathetic to an argument that far from contradicting the will of the voters, the sale of this land for a regional park is the best vehicle the City has to create a park at Long Lake in accordance with the will expressed by the voters in 1967. For these reasons, it appears unlikely that a suit by the Long Lake Improvement Association on any of the grounds raised in Mr. Dayton's letter would succeed.