2a. Jail--Citizens' group - Laserfiche WebLink

September 13, 1999 Honorable Elwood Thorpe State Representative 600 22nd Avenue NW Minor, ND 50V03 0986 Dear Representative Thorpe: ']'hank you for your letter asking whether the Minor City Park District may enter into a multiple ye~ lease arrangement with the Minor Family YMCA under which the ~inot Park District would lease the YMCA's swimming pool and, in turn, hire the YMCA as manager of the leased pool. The arrangement in question appears to constitute two agreements, one providing for the rsnta] by the park district of the YMCA's swimming pool and, contained as a part thereof, a management agreement whereby the park district hires the YMCA to be assigned ~ole management responsibility of the leased premises. The question reiat~q to such an agreement is whether a current municipal board, in this case the board of the park district, may enter into a contract which extends beyond the term of any of its members and thereby infringes on the governmental powers and discretion of ~uture boards. N.D.C.C. ch. 40-49 provide~ for municipal park distr~cts and the duties and responsibilities of such districts. N.D.C.C. §40-49-04(2) allows park districts to enter contracts. The concluding paragraph of N.D.C.C. ~ 40-49-04 defines the term ~park" as including ~public grounds used or acquired for use as airfields, parade grounds, public recreation areas, playgrounds and athletic fields, memor~] or cemetery grounds, and sites or areas devoted to use and accommodation of the public as distinguished from use for purposes of municipal administration." A lengthy list of powers of the board of park coi~nissioners is provided in N.D.C.C. § 40 49-12. Subsections 1 and 2 of N.D.C.C. § 40 49 12 deal with the acc~/isition o~ property and sites and the ~le and exclusive authority of th~ board t~ maintain, govern, and improve land, to provide structures thereon and construct, maintain, manage, and govern buildings, pavilions, play and pleasure grounds or fields and such other improvements as ih deems necessary. In those jurisdictions that have considered the binding effect of contracts entered into by public entities which extend beyond the terms of the officers then acting for the entity, the distinction made in court opinions has been between the contr~ting authority of those entities relating to their governmental and legislative powers as opposed to their business or proprietary powers. The courts have held that no action taken by a p~b]4c entitv in sxerclse of its goverrh~ental powers is binding on successors. Proprietary powers, on the other hand, are not subject to the same limitation. Letter from Attorney General Nicholas Spaeth to John Schneider (August 24, ]987) (citing 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 29.101 (3rd ed. 1981)). The u~derlying purpose of the rule distinguishing between a public entlty's legislative or goverD/nental powers and its business or proprietary powers is ~to protect the public by insuring that each governing body