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
SEP -02 -1992 1252 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES P.10/12 <br /> Lak. Y u uwif. The court refltsed to disqualify a town board supervisor for asking a <br /> 303 mina, 433 234 landowner to circulate a petition for a road. By its very nature, the <br /> 91,w,20 315 (t9rs) 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 /> A,C.Op.396t -1L, It is arguable y <br /> pe 1e.19s> guable that a street vacation is not essentially different from <br /> establishing the street, where abutting owners have been held not to have <br /> Also an <br /> Paton of a disqualifying interest. However, the attorney general ruled that a <br /> Mk 29 councilmember who had an inter m e a a <br /> Mks I3roP Y proposed street <br /> N.W.rU 441 (1931) vacation could not participate in the street vacation proceedings - -" <br /> In light of this ruling it is advisable that a couneilmember 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 o subject to an urban renewal decision may be Aig <br /> gt'otu for disqualification. However, when the property ii within the <br /> anger 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 eouncilmembers 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 /> v: . •' ..ecounc ere isallow, ofa. son. ii.;, interest c ele r <br /> a - mem.. s ould not take part in the decision on the application, <br /> A.G. op Hasa If a ene <br /> A9r.29, 1932 8 licensing ordinance is the subject of the action, even a <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 pan -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 couneilmember was personally <br /> 26 <br /> League of Minnesota Cities <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.