Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council hears update on Stout Street vacation affecting William Marsh property; no action taken

2532321 · March 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council received an update about an amended resolution to record a prior street vacation; Goodhue County initially denied recordation because the original resolution’s language did not match the actual parcel ownership. The council will consider an amended resolution at a future meeting; no vote was held.

City staff updated the council on the status of a previously approved vacation of a portion of Stout Street that was intended to allow property owner William Marsh to build on his lot.

Staff said Goodhue County denied recordation of the 1-year-old vacation because the resolution stated the land would go entirely to Marsh, while in reality the northern half of the vacated right-of-way would be county-owned and the southern half would be city-owned. Staff said an amended resolution will be prepared and brought to the next council meeting to correct the record.

The staff update explained that Marsh paid for the vacation process and that, if the amended resolution is approved, Marsh would then need to negotiate with the city or county to purchase the relevant parcel(s). Staff also noted a separate tax-forfeited parcel across the street may involve the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in any sale because DNR has a role with some tax-forfeited properties.

Council members asked clarifying questions about the street layout and whether Oak Street would connect through to Stout; staff said no construction action was planned to extend Oak Street through. One council member asked why the county would receive the northern half; staff replied that parcel ownership and an old resolution on file indicated county ownership along that portion.

Staff emphasized there was no action for the council to take at the meeting and that the matter would return if the amended resolution required council approval or if Marsh needed variances for a house. "There’s nothing to vote on tonight," staff said. The council did not take formal action on the vacation at the meeting.