VIDALIA — The Louisiana state treasurer said Wednesday he has received an attorney general’s opinion stating that the City of Vidalia’s application to the bond commission for the Square on Carter project could have a legal impediment to moving forward.

Treasurer John Kennedy said the opinion, requested by members of the bond commission, says the project violates Article 6, section 23 on the Louisiana Constitution of 1974.

“That is the section of the constitution dealing with the definition of a public purpose,” Kennedy said. “A governmental entity like a city or town can only purchase property if it is for a valid public purpose, and according to the attorney general the purpose for which the property would be used is not a valid public purpose per the Louisiana Constitution.”

Because the project appears to have a legal impediment, it will not be placed on the agenda for the June 18 meeting.

“I am studying the opinion,” Kennedy said. “Once we are able to realize it and understand it a little better, we will make some kind of decision.”

Kennedy said he would make the opinion available today. Opinions are typically released to the public from the attorney general’s office on Tuesdays.

The opinion came a day after the Vidalia Board of Aldermen voted 4-1 to move forward with the project after the second public hearing on the matter, a hearing the bond commission said the city had to conduct before it would consider approving the $7 million project.

The proposal would have the city purchase two parcels making up 65 acres near Walmart and develop it with infrastructure in an effort to lure developers.

Mayor Hyram Copeland could not be reached for comment Wednesday evening. Concordia Economic Development Director Heather Malone, who has worked closely with the city on the project, was likewise unavailable at the end of the workday.

If the bond commission does ultimately pick up the project and approve it, the next step would be for consultants — Lawrence Leyens, who has publicly promoted the project, and Bob Barber who helped develop the initial plan —  to seek interest in the project and negotiate with property owners, Malone said earlier in the work day.

“After the bond commission meeting, the discussion will pick back up because at this point it has been lingering for so many months,” Malone said. “Discussions have halted between the property owners and developers because it is a wait and see what will happen situation because there is no point in moving forward if (the project) won’t be heard.”

Once those items are agreed upon or proposed and a consultants make a determination if the project is viable or not, they will make a full presentation of options to the board.

The second approval needed will come from the board of aldermen itself, which has twice voted to pursue the project.

“(The consultants) will recommend (to the board) they move forward or not recommend they move forward, so at that time the town would determine if, yes, we are going to purchase the property or, no, we are not going to purchase it and put in the infrastructure,” Malone said.

“At that time, we will begin the true process of how they truly want things to look.”