My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-01-13
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
1999
>
1999-01-13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2009 9:36:41 AM
Creation date
12/21/2009 9:36:16 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
P.10/1.2 SEP -02 -1998 12 52 LEAG'LE OF MN CITIES <br /> Valley Lag Tam* The court refused to disqualify a town board supervisor for asking a <br /> 309 Mae. 438234 landowner to circulate a petition for a road. By its very nature, the <br /> xw.2a 3LS (1975) decision to establish a town road is of interest to all local citizens, <br /> including town board members, who often may be in the best position to <br /> be aware of the need for a road. The court said that the ability of affected <br /> property owners to appeal to the district court would adequately protect <br /> them from any possible prejudice. <br /> ii. Street vacation <br /> f <br /> oce ee. 6,199sae Lc It is arguable that a street vacation is not essentially different from <br /> establishing the street, where abutting owners have been held not to have <br /> Alio Map a disqualifying pawn of q fying interest. However, the attorney general ruled that a <br /> A SA= 234 councilmember who bad an interes tit a g a propased street k <br /> Mina. 296, 43 <br /> N.w.m at p9s1) vacation could not participate in the strce vacation proceedings. - - -- <br /> In light of this ruling it is advisable that a counci /member who owns <br /> property abutting a street proposed to be vacated refrain from <br /> participating in vacation proceedings before the council. <br /> 7. Urban renewal <br /> An interest in property subject to an urban renewal decision rnav be <br /> grounds for disqualification. However, when the property is within the <br /> arerufrlarger urban renewal program but not in the project area subject <br /> to the decision, it is arguable that the councilmember would not be <br /> disqualified from voting. Since there have been no Minnesota cases <br /> addressing this issue councilmembers with these types of interests may <br /> wish to abstain from voting on these matters, or seek an attorney general <br /> opinion regarding the legality of their participation. <br /> 8. Licenses <br /> Although there have been no Minnesota cases directly on the subject, it <br /> seems obvious that when a councilmember is an applicant for a license to <br /> a .. . +: - counc ere is enoul of a . e s i i S . ; . 1. interest d :.- <br /> mem.. s Quid not take part in the decision on the a plication. 4 <br /> A f HS-Rs licensing . o If a general licensin ordinance is the subject of the action, even a <br /> Apr. 29, 1952 <br /> councilmember who does not hold a license may have a possible conflict <br /> of interest that could disqualify him or her from voting. The attorney <br /> general said that a councilmember who was a part - time employee ofa <br /> liquor licensee could not vote on the question of reducing the liquor <br /> license fee if could be shown that the councilmember was personally <br /> 26 <br /> League or Minnesota Citib <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.