Laserfiche WebLink
SEP -02 -1998 12251 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES P.08/12 <br /> lands owned by them for local improvements. As a result, the court found <br /> that this potential conflict of interest did not disqualify the district board <br /> members from participating in the improvement proceedings. <br /> It is possible that a councilmember's property ownership might result in a <br /> more favorable treatment of that property in the assessment. If that <br /> happened, the assessment might be challenged for arbitrariness and set <br /> aside, whether or not the councilmember participated in the assessment <br /> proceedings. <br /> b. Zoning <br /> Sept.O1 ,197s3r' The attorney general has held that a council is not .everted from <br /> rezoning property own -• • a councilmember or by his or her client. <br /> "owever. . e count - mber may not participate in . e courser <br /> prooeedings involving the zoning. Apparently, the law does not prohibit <br /> passing a zoning ordinance that will affect a councilmember's property. <br /> Huwever, substantial sel - mterest may disquali a member from . <br /> participating in council action on the matter. <br /> sit 0 19 .t In a prior opinion, the attorney general said that it was a question of fact <br /> whether a town board member had a disqualifying interest for having sold <br /> land that was the subject of rezoning. However, the attorney general <br /> appeared to assume that if the board member had a sufficient interest in <br /> the land, the member would be disqualified from voting on the rezoning. <br /> i. Property ownership <br /> Whether or not property ownership disqualifies a council or board <br /> member from participating in counci actzon will depend, to some extent, <br /> on the amount of that interest compared to all land affected b • the <br /> d IC s10} ,, one extr ertte is a dopti on of a new zoning or a corriesensive <br /> revision of an existing ordinance which may have an impact on all <br /> property in the city. In this situation, the interest is not personal and the <br /> councilmember should be able to participate. If this weren't allowed, no <br /> such ordinance could ever be adopted since all eounciimembers may be <br /> property owners. <br /> At the other eat ule is the application for a zoning variance or sp riat <br /> use permit pplying only to a councilmentber' a m. ]n ties instance, <br /> There is such a specific interest that it will probably disqualify the member <br /> 'from participating in the proceedings. However, the couneilmember_ <br /> should stilfbe able to submit the required application to the city. <br /> 24 <br /> League of Minnesota cities <br />