My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10.03 - Conflict of Interest Opinion
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2013
>
04-02-2013 Council Meeting
>
10.03 - Conflict of Interest Opinion
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/8/2014 8:37:07 AM
Creation date
12/3/2013 5:08:31 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Page 2 <br />March 13, 2013 <br />�J �._ 4���.__�Q:�_� �Ii �_ �T <br />-����r'_�+►+J��� � �iY'.� �i <br />FACTS <br />Public records indicate that Council Member Akerson owns property along the future <br />Highway 371 bypass route. A portion of the suhject property is in the right-of-way of the <br />highway project as indicated on the final MNDOT map and would be purchased by MNDOT. <br />Also this property is located at an intersection that would become the new north entrance, or <br />north gateway, into Pequot Lakes, based upon the updated Comprehensive Plan, which is a <br />guida��ce dacun�er,t lac�ing the f�r�e �f lav�. ��e updat�d Comprehensive �'lan was approved at <br />the February 5, 2013 City Council Meeting; the motion carried 4-1, with Council Member <br />Akerson casting the only nay vote. ' <br />OUESTION <br />Does Council Member Akerson have a disqualifying personal interest that would <br />preclude him from voting on the updated Comprehensive Plan? <br />OPINION <br />No. 5ince a City Council must deal with land matters within its jurisdiction, it is almost <br />inevitable that such decisions will affect properry owned or used by one of its members. <br />Whether or not property ownership disqualifies a councilmember from participating in a land use <br />decision will depend on the nature of the decision and the numbers of persons or properties <br />affected. <br />Given these facts, the nature of the decision is more general, akin to a broad re-zoning <br />ordinance rather than a specific variance or conditional use permit, and has application to all <br />property owners. Also, the personal or financial interest possibly advanced is not the direct <br />resuit of ihe updated Comprehensive Pian, but rather relates to the possible MNDO 1 purchase of <br />the right-of-way, which is not dictated by the Comprehensive Plan. The updated Comprehensive <br />Plan "creates a unified vision for the ... City as well as a framework for achieving that vision <br />over the next decade." It is a general reference document which contains the roadmap for the <br />City and does not contain specific zoning ordinanees. <br />Conflicts of interest are difficult to evaluate and are determined by the specific facts in <br />each situation. The Minnesota Supreme Court has utilized several factors when determining <br />whether a disqualifying interests exists: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.