Colorado Springs City Council on Tuesday ruled Councilman Tom Strand did not violate the city’s code of ethics after he reversed his vote twice on a controversial housing development proposal in June, following conversations with a citizen and then-city staff about the project.

Strand’s votes were key both times. Early in the day in June, his vote blocked the housing project and on a second vote, which he called for, his vote allowed the proposal involving hundreds of homes on the city’s northeast side to move forward. Between the votes, he said he spoke with city staff members, triggering an ethics complaint filed by a resident. The complaint was not made public until Tuesday.

Council members on Tuesday voted 6-1 in Strand’s favor, determining that he had not violated the ethics code, going against the formal recommendation from the city’s Independent Ethics Commission.

The council determined there was “no evidence of personal interest or gain” playing a role in Strand’s actions.

There was some evidence Strand failed to abide by council rules, Councilman David Geislinger said. Those rules prohibit councilmembers from talking privately to people interested in a city land-use decision.

The ethics commission determined Strand had violated the code when he talked about the project with a resident and teacher living near the proposed development of about 250 homes, called Kettle Creek North, near the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Old Ranch Road.

Kettle Creek North was controversial among the public and split the council. Residents and some council members opposed the new homes because, they argued, the developer did not plan to provide sufficient roads for evacuation in an emergency.

Strand said the complaint stemmed from a mistake. He never meant to block the housing project after speaking with the private resident and switched his vote later in the day to correct his error, he said. The city staff members he spoke to in the interim, Chief of Staff Jeff Greene and Director of Planning and Development Peter Wysocki, did not influence his vote, Strand said.

“Within minutes I realized I made a mistake,” he said.

The conversation he had with the teacher, which the ethics commission ruled against, was a chance conversation he had while he was visiting the neighborhood.

“All I did was use my gas and time to go out and look at it,” Strand said.

However, when he asked to vote again on the proposal, he said that he was reversing his opinion following a “change of heart,” according to a recording of the meeting.

Before his first vote on the issue, he said he sided with other council members who had concerns about allowing the homes to go up without requiring additional major road connections that could allow residents to evacuate safely.

“I am very concerned about the safety,” he said, according to the recording.

Councilman Don Knight voted to clear Strand, but noted that the reopening of the vote hours later after the concerned neighbors thought they had successfully defeated the housing proposal was a mistake.

“They were aghast that happened,” Knight said.

Councilman Bill Murray opposed clearing Strand and said holding a second vote denied the public’s right to participate in the new issues that were revealed. Strand did not talk about his conversation with the teacher until he reopened the vote.

“The Council’s integrity is being challenged here,” Murray said. “Integrity is part conscience and part process. We violated both.”

After the complaint was filed, Strand emailed a statement to the ethics commission’s lawyer stating he never had prohibited conversations about the project, such as the one with the teacher, and he had not visited the site of the project. The email was proven false based on Strand’s statements during the June council meeting and split the commission on a 2-2 vote as to whether it was an ethics violation.

Ethics commission member William Schmidt is a friend of Strand’s from serving in the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Dept., according to the commission’s report. Schmidt said he was not close friends with Stand and could judge evidence against him fairly, according to the document.

Schmidt authored an opinion included in the commission’s report defending Strand, saying that he made mistakes in not disclosing his site visit and conversation with the teacher, but that those should not constitute an ethics violation.