Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises conflict-of-interest concern over Rothman redevelopment
Summary
Resident Chris Polka submitted a written comment alleging a Plan Commission member presented a redevelopment plan for the Rothman site that appeared to conflict with an earlier recommendation; Polka asked why a new proposed use with no sales-tax component is being approved despite earlier claims that retail made later plans "substantially" different.
A written comment submitted to the Board of Aldermen and read into the record on June 24 raised an ethics concern about the Rothman site redevelopment.
Resident Chris Polka said that at an April 21, 2021 Plan Commission meeting he identified what he believed was an appearance of conflict of interest when a Plan Commission member recommended for a plan to be approved despite earlier opposing a prior proposal for the same site (the prior plan from U-Haul had been denied because it did not include a retail component). Polka wrote that the same commission member later presented a plan to the board that included retail and was approved, and he quoted an acting city administrator as having said the later plan was "substantially" different because it added a retail establishment.
Polka said the Commission has now recommended approval for an alternate use of the same lot that would not include a sales tax component. He stated he has "nothing against the proposed use" but asked why the city is approving a plan that lacks a sales-tax component after earlier officials said a retail component was the basis for denying the earlier U-Haul application. The transcript records Polka’s written concern but does not record a response or board discussion addressing the allegation during the June 24 work session.
City Attorney Mike Daming and the acting city administrator were cited in Polka’s submission as having previously told him there was no conflict because the commission member did not participate in deliberations; Polka’s comment asks the board to clarify what is now considered "substantially different."
