Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Burley city attorney trains council on land‑use hearings and conflict‑of‑interest rules
Summary
City Attorney Dave Shirley led a training for the Burley City Council on land‑use and quasi‑judicial hearing procedures, emphasizing reliance on the administrative record, when councilors must recuse themselves, and that intentional failure to disclose conflicts can be a misdemeanor.
Burley — City Attorney Dave Shirley presented a training on land‑use procedure and the council’s role as a quasi‑judicial body at a special Burley City Council meeting on May 28, 2026, stressing disclosure and recusal rules for members who have economic interests in matters before the city.
Shirley walked through the public‑hearing process and the stages of a quasi‑judicial hearing, telling councilors that they should consider only the evidence in the record and rely on experts rather than trying to become code specialists. "Disclosure of conflict is mandated. Knowing violation is a misdemeanor crime," he said.
The training defined conflict of interest broadly, noting it can include vested economic interests up to the second degree of consanguinity and can apply to businesses (employees or contractors). Shirley explained when recusals are appropriate and discussed how to handle communications or materials proffered to council outside the formal hearing process.
Councilors and staff discussed practical steps: transcribable records and the evidentiary steps of hearings, and staff said they are "working on a better process to present transcription of P&Z Meetings for Council consideration." Council members commended the Planning & Zoning Commission’s efforts, and Shirley reiterated that there is no expectation for the council to be code experts but that they must follow the process and the record.
No formal action or ordinance was taken during the training; the session was instructional. The meeting later moved to other agenda items and adjourned without additional votes on land‑use policy.
