02-25-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: Continental Property Group. Inc. v. City of Minneapolis. No. A10-1072 (Minn. 0. App. May 3, 2011) (unpublished opinion). LMC information memo, Special Assessment Guide. Petition of✓ocobson, 234 Minn. 296, 48 N.W.2d 441 (1951). Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. I, 153 N.W.2d 209 (1967). A.G. Op. 59a-32 (Sept. 11, 1978). (2) Bias Personal bias can also be a concern. In one case, a biased councilmember voting on a land use matter made the council's decision arbitrary. As a result, the court determined that the property buyer's due process rights were violated and returned the matter for a new hearing—one where the biased councilmember would not participate. (3) Local improvements and special assessments A councilmember owning land to be benefited by a local improvement is probably not prohibited from petitioning for the improvement, voting to undertake it, or voting to adopt the resulting special assessment. Although one Minnesota decision found an interested county board member's participation on a county ditch proceeding inappropriate, a subsequent case found otherwise. These two cases can also be distinguished on their facts. The first concerned a proposed county ditch that bypassed a county board member's property. Although the board member participated in preliminary proceedings, he did not attend the final hearing. The court vacated the county board's order establishing the proposed ditch since the preliminary proceedings may have had a substantial effect on later actions taken at the final hearing. The court said the board member should not have participated in any of the proceedings regarding the project. The court in the second case found there was no disqualifying conflict of interest when four of the five managers of a watershed district owned land that would be benefited by a proposed watershed district improvement project. The court recognized the situation was similar to those where members of a city council assess lands owned by them for local improvements. As a result, the court found this potential conflict of interest did not disqualify the district board members from participating in the improvement proceedings. It is possible a councilmember's property ownership might result in a more favorable treatment of that property in an assessment project. If that happened, the assessment might be challenged for arbitrariness and set aside—whether or not the councilmember participated in the proceedings. (4) Zoning The attorney general has advised that a council is not prevented from rezoning property owned by a councilmember (or property owned by his or her client). However, the councilmember may not participate in those proceedings. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 20