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

Honorable Elwood Thorpe Septe~oer 13, 1999 Page 3 to the city and its c~tlzens.~ Leidigh v. Nebraska Cit~ 292 N.W. 115, 117 (Neb. 1940). Your letter reters to an opinion issued by this office on Decenfoer 14, 1965, approving a mult~year lease for county office space. 196~66 N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 77. The 1965 opinion cannot be completely reuonciled with the 1987 opinion discussed earlier in this lehter. The 1965 opinion quotes at length from a prev~us edition of Corpus Juris Secundzun indicating that some courts have upheld contracts of a public entity extending beyond the current term of the enLity, without regard to the distinction between goverrunental and proprietary powers, if the contract is "fair, just, and rcasonable and is prompted by the necessities of the situation or in its nature is advantageous to the municipality." Id. at 80 (quot~tlon omihted) . The opinion concluded that the county was authorized to enter into a mult~year lease for its office space. The current edition of Co~p~ .JurJs Secund~ does not include the rule of ]aw quoted in the 1965 oplnlon. See 64 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 905 (1999). Instead, the ~fair, just, and reasonable" standard appears to be applied to mu]t~ymar conLracts involving the exercise of a public entlty's proprietary or business powers. See, e.g., Piedmont Public Service Dist., 459 S.E.2d at 880. For contracts involving legislative or governmental powers, the current edition of~j~.~u~_s Secundum and curr~nt case law are consistent in indicating that conLracts extending beyond the current term of the public entity are prohibited, notwithstanding the reasonableness or fairness of the contract terms. The 1965 opinion also is distinguishable from the question you present regarding the proposed lease of the YMCA's swiping pool. In applying the distinction between proprietary and governmental functions, there is a difference between a lease for necessary office space and a lease for the public's use of recreational facilities. Consequently, it is my opinion that determinations on what services to provide and whether those services will include a swimming pool are governmental functions for a park d~strJct, and the al]thority of an existi~]g park board to enter into contracts to provide those services is limited to the term of the men~oers of the board in existence at the time the contract is made. Sincerely, Neidi Heitkamp Attorney General rel/pg