Opinion ID: 1578403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Determination of Public Purpose.

Text: It is axiomatic that public funds may only be used for public purposes. Article X, § 1 of the Minnesota Constitution expressly provides: taxes shall be . . . levied and collected for public purposes. This principle is also implicit in the language of article XI, § 2 and article XII, § 1 which provide: The credit of the state shall not be given or loaned in aid of any individual, association or corporation.... Minn. Const. art. XI, § 2. The Legislature shall pass no local or special law . . . authorizing public taxation for a private purpose. Minn. Const. art. XII, § 1. Numerous Minnesota cases have set forth the parameters for determining whether an expenditure of public funds is for a public purpose. It has long been recognized that the meaning of public purpose is not static, but instead is ever evolving in light of contemporary conditions. [2] Perhaps the most complete and often cited statement of the factors to be considered in determining whether a valid public purpose is present is found in Visina v. Freeman : What is a public purpose that will justify the expenditure of public money 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. Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184, 89 N.W.2d 635, 643 (1958). Recent decisions have established that while legislative determinations of public purpose are not binding upon the courts, they are entitled to great weight. Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, 270 N.W.2d at 754-55; Minnesota Housing Finance Agency v. Hatfield, 297 Minn. at 167, 210 N.W.2d at 305-06; City of Pipestone v. Madsen, 287 Minn. at 364-65, 178 N.W.2d at 599-600; Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Paul v. Greenman, 255 Minn. 396, 403-04, 96 N.W.2d 673, 679 (1959). As the Supreme Court has stated, This presumption necessarily makes the scope of review of such governmental decisionmaking extremely narrow, and a reviewing court should overrule a legislative determination that a particular expenditure is made for a public purpose only if that determination is manifestly arbitrary and capricious. R.E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d at 337. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that extraneous factors such as the mode of financing have no bearing on the issue of public purpose. Lifteau v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, 270 N.W.2d at 754 n. 6; R.E. Short Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d at 339 n. 6. The proper focus of inquiry for this Court is whether the expenditures will benefit the community as a whole and are related to the functions of government, Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 184-85, 89 N.W.2d at 643.