02-25-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: Township Bd. of Lake Valley Township v. Lewis, 305 Minn. 488, 234 N. W.2d 815 (1975). LMC information memo, Acquisition and Maintenance of City Streets. A.G. Op. 396g-16(Oct. 15, 1957). Petition of Jacobson, 234 Minn. 296, 48 N.W.2d 441 (1951). LMC information memo, (Vacation of City Streets. A.G. Op. 218-R (Apr. 29, 1952). E.T.O., Inc. v. Town of :Marion, 375 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 1985). MinnR. 7515.0430, subp. 5. The board member's interest was similar to that of the rest of the public and differed only in degree. A different decision may have been reached, however, had the highway gone through the commissioner's land. The Minnesota Supreme Court also refused to disqualify a town board supervisor that asked a landowner to circulate a petition for a road. The court reasoned that the decision to establish a town road is, by its very nature, of interest to all local citizens, including board members who may be in the best position to know the need for a road. The court also stated that the ability of affected property owners to appeal to the district court would adequately protect them from any possible prejudice. (2) Vacation It is arguable that a street vacation is not essentially different from the establishment of a street, where abutting owners have been held not to have a disqualifying interest. However, the attorney general advised that a councilmember who had an interest in property abutting a street proposed for vacation could not participate in the vacation proceedings. h. Licenses and permits When a councilmember is an applicant for a license or a permit that requires council approval, the member's personal (often financial) interest should prevent his or her participation in the decision-making process. In some situations, a councilmember may have a possible conflict of interest even if he or she is not the licensee. The attorney general said that a councilmember who was a part-time employee of a licensee could not vote on reducing the liquor license fee if it could be shown that the councilmember was personally interested. For example, if the fee reduction would affect the councilmember's compensation or continued employment, he or she would obviously have a personal financial interest in the decision. However, whether an individual's personal interest is sufficient to disqualify him or her from voting on the decision is a question involving specific facts that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. In a similar case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a town board member who owned property across from a bar was disqualified from voting on the license renewal. The town board member stated his property had been devalued by $100,000 since the bar opened, and he was elected to the board based largely on his opposition to the bar. The court stated, "A more direct, admitted, financial interest is hard to imagine." A state rule prohibits a councilmember from voting on a liquor license for a spouse or relative. The rule does not define who is included as a "relative," so cities may need to consult with their city attorney for guidance in specific situations. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 22