02-25-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: A.G. Op 471 -((Sept. 13, 1963). LMC information memo, Dangerous Properties. Webster v. Ed. of County Conun'rs of Washington County, 26 Minn. 220,2 N.W. 697 (1897). Section VII -C -2-d, FFRAs and ED,4s. Rowell v. Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. 0. App. 1989), abrogated on other grounds by Krmmnenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. 2010). Webster v. 13d. of County Conn's of Washington County, 26 Minn. 220, 2 N.W. 697 (1897). In an earlier opinion, the attorney general said it was a question of fact whether a town board member had a disqualifying interest for having sold land that was the subject of rezoning. However, the attorney general appeared to assume that if the board member had a sufficient interest in the land, the member would be disqualified from voting on the rezoning. (5) Condemnation While a councilmember's ownership interest in land subject to condemnation seems to preclude participation in any council actions regarding the property, Minnesota courts have not ruled directly on this question. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court did not disqualify a county board member from participating in condemnation proceedings to establish a highway when the board member owned land adjoining the proposed highway. The court suggested the decision might have been different if the owner had been entitled to damages if the highway had gone through his property. (6) Renewal and redevelopment An interest in property subject to urban renewal may be grounds for disqualification. However, when the property is within a larger urban renewal program, but not in the project area subject to the decision, it is arguable the councilmember would not be disqualified from voting. Since there have been no Minnesota cases addressing this issue, councilmembers with these types of interests may wish to abstain from voting or seek an opinion from the city attorney regarding the appropriateness of their participation. (7) Church affiliation The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a zoning board member was not disqualified from voting on a zoning variance requested by that member's church. The court found the nature of the financial interest could not have influenced the voting board member. The person's membership in the church, without evidence of a closer connection, was not a sufficiently direct interest in the outcome to justify setting aside the board's zoning action. g. Streets (1) Acquisition As previously noted, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a county board member who owned land adjoining a proposed county highway did not have a disqualifying interest preventing him from voting on the establishment of the highway. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 21