Laserfiche WebLink
ALG <br />ANDERSON LAw GROUP PLLC <br />1010 DALE ST., ST. PAUL, MN 55117 <br />Joe Wozniak <br />Roseville Public Works Department <br />via email joesvillemn@hotmail.com <br />Mr. Wozniak, <br />Mark Gaughan <br />via email <br />I am writing to discuss opposition to the Tamarack Park Connection Proposed Pathway. I gave a <br />Power Point presentation at the April meeting, and will not rehash what I have already raised as <br />concerns. However, there are certain aspects I want to elaborate upon. <br />A. The area in question is designated as a sheet according to the Ramsey County Parcel Map <br />The area being proposed as a pathway is clearly Wagner Street. This is important for two <br />major reasons. First, it defines the City's authority to make improvements on it. Second, it <br />demonstrates the residents' reliance on the street. <br />1. A Municipality lacks authority to turn a Street into a Pathway. <br />In Minnesota, a municipality cannot act without express authority from the state. See Harstad <br />v. City of Woodbury, 916 N.W.2d 540, 545 (Minn. 2018). A municipality's authority regarding street <br />improvements and maintenance is limited by Minnesota Statutes. Specifically, Minn. Star. § 429.021, <br />subd. 1(1) permits a city to "acquire, open, and widen any street" or to improve a street by <br />"constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining sidewalks, [and] pavements...." The statute is clear: a <br />municipality can add a pathway to an existing street, but has no authority to replace an existing street <br />with a sidewalk. Thus, Roseville does not have the authority to what it is proposing to do regarding <br />the Tamarack Park Connection Proposed Pathway. <br />In fact, when a municipality acquires "land for a limited public purpose, the land reverts back <br />to the fee owner if the property is no longer used for the public purpose." Wolfson v. City of St. Paul, <br />