02-12-2018 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 5 If the council does not agree with sentiments expressed at the public hearing, the council can incorporate its position on the issues raised into its findings of fact in the formal resolution approving or denying the vacation. B. Standards for granting a vacation Schaller v. Town of Minnesota statutes establish that the city council may vacate a street only Florence, 259 N.W. 529 (Minn.1935). upon a finding that the vacation is "in the interest of the public." This Application ofBalawin, 15 means the public must benefit, in some manner, from the vacation. The N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1944). In re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity of the (Minn. 1925). A.G. op. vacation. A private benefit derived from the vacation does not bar the 396-G-16, (Sept. 18, 1958). vacation, so long as a concurrent benefit to the public can be substantiated. Mere long-term, non-use of a street ground does not necessarily equate with a finding that the vacation is in the interest of the public. In reviewing vacations, Minnesota courts have emphasized that the future benefit to Application ofBalawin, 15 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1944). maintaining the dedicated property should be given consideration. For Petition of Krebs, 6 N.W.2d example, the Minnesota Supreme Court once overturned a vacation 803 (Minn. 1942). because the potential future use of the public grounds as public lake access was not properly taken into account. In another example, the Court upheld a denial of a petition for a vacation, because preservation of the underutilized property would help lessen the effects of future population growth in the area. Kangas v. Blueberry Tp., The decision to grant or deny a vacation is legislative in character. As a 264 N.W.2d 389 (Minn. 1978). Rader v. East side result, a reviewing court will only set aside a vacation if it appears that the Twsp., C3-87-744 evidence is practically conclusive against the city, or that the council (unpublished opinion). proceeded on an erroneous theory of law, or that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously against the best interests of the public. 1. Adoption of a resolution granting or denying a vacation Vacating street on Vacations must be approved by city council resolution. A vacation Council Initiative., LMC Model Resolution. commenced solely on the initiative of the city council requires a four-fifths majority vote in favor of the resolution. A vacation commenced by petition Vacating a Street Upon of a majority of abutting land owners requires a simple majority of the Petition, LMC Model quorum present at the meeting to pass a favorable resolution. As previously Resolution. discussed, the resolution should include the city's reasons for granting the vacation and detailed, written findings of fact. When a city denies a petition for a vacation, the city should also adopt a resolution setting forth the city's reasons for the denial and written findings of fact. As previously discussed, detailed findings build a record necessary to support the city's decision and refute allegations that the decision was arbitrary or capricious. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 5