Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Bodette abstains as commission approves claims after disclosure of URA grant to his LLC
Summary
At a county commission meeting, a commissioner disclosed that ACDC LLC—owned by Commissioner Bodette—received a $12,983.25 URA grant; County Attorney Smith advised abstention and Bodette recused himself from the related vote, which passed with the ayes prevailing.
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Bodette announced he would abstain from a vote after commissioners raised concerns that a $12,983.25 Urban Renewal Agency (URA) grant to ACDC LLC is for property he owns.
A commissioner raised the issue during review of claims 148619–148731, telling the commission that “ACDC LLC, which is receiving a grant from the URA in the amount of $12,983.25, is a property that is owned by Commissioner Bodette.” County Attorney Smith said he had reviewed the charter and ordinance that created the URA and did not find a statutory conflict that would bar the payment, but recommended abstention for transparency. “I do not believe that he is barred as a citizen from receiving funding from the URA,” the county attorney said, while advising that Bodette abstain from voting on claims that include his property.
Commissioner Bodette acknowledged owning the property and said he had been transparent about it, adding that the URA investigated the application. “I have no problem” abstaining from that portion, he said, and confirmed his abstention before the vote.
The commission then moved to approve the full set of claims totaling $373,051.27. The motion passed with the ayes prevailing and at least one abstention recorded for the claim tied to ACDC LLC. No formal ethics complaint or court action was raised during the meeting; the county attorney said the matter fit within current municipal code but that disclosure and abstention were appropriate steps.
The commission took no additional immediate action such as referring the matter to an independent ethics body; members said the URA had reviewed the application and treated it like others.
