Mississippi Advisory Opinions December 12, 1997: AGO 000012358 (December 12, 1997)

AGO 000012358.

Dear Mr. Keyes:

Attorney General Mike Moore has received your request for an opinion on behalf of the Mayor of the Town of Fayette and has assigned it to me for research and reply. Your letter recites that on March 4, 1997, the town's board of aldermen adopted a resolution authorizing the mayor to apply for a HOME grant from the Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development (MDECD), and approved other action connected with the grant. HOME grants are made available to town and cities to loan to private developers for the purpose of constructing affordable housing for low income citizens through a federally funded program administered by the MDECD. You state that the mayor forwarded the grant application and related documents to the MDECD. While the application was pending, municipal elections were held and three new municipal board members were elected. Thereafter, the grant application was approved by MDECD and $400,000 was awarded to Fayette, which the Mayor accepted on behalf of the town by executing the grant agreement. The grant consultant has asked that the new board of aldermen "reaffirm" the prior board's action of March 4, 1997 prior to proceeding further under the grant program. However, a majority of the new aldermen do not wish to do so. You then ask:

Is there any legal requirement that the newly constituted board reaffirm the March 4, 1997 board's action in order for the Town to accept and administer the $400,000 HOME grant that has been awarded?

In response, there is no legal requirement that a newly constituted municipal board of aldermen reaffirm or ratify any action of a prior board. However, it is also the case that boards may ordinarily reconsider any action taken by them so long as the reconsideration does not impair contractual obligations already entered into by the board or work to the harm or detriment of those legally entitled to rely on and actually relying on the board's previous action. See, MS AG Op., Spraggins (March 1, 1994). It would appear that the board basically has three options with respect to the grant: The board may take no action and administration of the grant may proceed; the board may ratify the action of the prior board and begin administration of the grant; or the board may reconsider the matter and determine whether it will administer the grant or terminate the process.

As you are certainly aware, awards of HOME grants are based on a competitive application process. In this case, where it does not appear that the board has begun construction under the HOME grant program, the board may, but is certainly not required to, revisit the issue. In the event that the board takes affirmative action to terminate the grant, reference to the applicable federal regulations should be made.

Sincerely,

MIKE MOORE,

ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: Patricia F. Aston

Special Assistant Attorney General

PFA:sm Enclosure