Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Malinen and Mr. '�rudge�n <br />June l l, Z{}09 <br />Page 3 <br />3. Can the City charge a pro�erty owner for the vacation of a right-of wa}�? <br />As a general rule, a city has no proprietary int�rest in a public rigllt-of way, but rather <br />holds the right-of-way in trust for the public, 5ee Cit,y of �t. Paul �, Chiea�o, M. & St. F. R�±. <br />Ca., 63 N,V�. 267 (Mini��. 1895). By sta�ute, ciiies a�•e aufhori�ed to vacate "any s�reet, alley, <br />public grounds, public way, or any part il�ereof." Minn, S�a�. § 412,851. No vacafiion �hall be <br />rnade unless it "appears in the inierest of the public to do so" after published notice and a <br />pu�lic hearing. Id. Pursuant ta the statute, the authority oia city to vacate a street arises only <br />by reasan of the council`s rnotion or a petition of a majorify ofthe ownezs of land abutting t��e <br />street. Id. <br />Upan vacation, t'itle to the property reverts io the ovvner of the fee undet�lying the street. <br />Steenerson v. Fontai�e, 119 N.W. 400 {Minn. 1908). Because title automatieally reverts, the <br />v�cating city possesses no interesc to coi�vey. The City daes not have authority to require <br />payrnent af con�idera�ion wh�n it acts to vacate a public right-of-way, See Minn. Op. Atty. <br />Gen. 396g-16 {Septcmber 9, 1965}. Ii1 additioti, the Mii�nesota Attarney General has also <br />opined �at a city cannot condition a vacation upon ihe payjment af special assessments fo be <br />subsequ�ntly levisd. Id. As a result, the CiYy cannot charge RasevilIe Acquis�tions for tlie <br />vacation oi'Mount Ridge Road. <br />If you have any �uestians or cancerns, ple�se do not hesitate to contact our off ce. <br />Very truly yours, <br />�` ' . _ <br />� <br />Eric 3, Quiring <br />RRM: f1l32028 <br />