1999-01-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP -02 -1992 1252 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES P.10/12 Lak. Y u uwif. The court refltsed to disqualify a town board supervisor for asking a 303 mina, 433 234 landowner to circulate a petition for a road. By its very nature, the 91,w,20 315 (t9rs) decision to establish a town road is of interest to all local citizens, including town board members, who often may be in the best position to be aware of the need for a road. The court said that the ability of affected property owners to appeal to the district court would adequately protect them from any possible prejudice. ii. Street vacation A,C.Op.396t -1L, It is arguable y pe 1e.19s> guable that a street vacation is not essentially different from establishing the street, where abutting owners have been held not to have Also an Paton of a disqualifying interest. However, the attorney general ruled that a Mk 29 councilmember who had an inter m e a a Mks I3roP Y proposed street N.W.rU 441 (1931) vacation could not participate in the street vacation proceedings - -" In light of this ruling it is advisable that a couneilmember who owns property abutting a street proposed to be vacated refrain from participating in vacation proceedings before the council. 7. Urban renewal An interest in o subject to an urban renewal decision may be Aig gt'otu for disqualification. However, when the property ii within the anger renewal program but not in the project area subject to the decision, it is arguable that the councilmember would not be disqualified from voting. Since there have been no Minnesota cases addressing this issue eouncilmembers with these types of interests may wish to abstain from voting on these matters, or seek an attorney general opinion regarding the legality of their participation. 8. Licenses Although there have been no Minnesota cases directly on the subject, it seems obvious that when a councilmember is an applicant for a license to v: . •' ..ecounc ere isallow, ofa. son. ii.;, interest c ele r a - mem.. s ould not take part in the decision on the application, A.G. op Hasa If a ene A9r.29, 1932 8 licensing ordinance is the subject of the action, even a councilmember who does not hold a license may have a possible conflict of interest that could disqualify him or her from voting. The attorney general said that a councilmember who was a pan -time employee ofa liquor licensee could not vote on the question of reducing the liquor license fee if could be shown that the couneilmember was personally 26 League of Minnesota Cities