City surveyor reviews how Springfield acquires, holds and disposes of streets

Springfield City Surveyor Jeremy gave City Council a 90-minute primer on the legal and historical mechanics of public streets, telling members that public rights of way are often easements rather than fee title and describing how the city acquires and can divest street property.

Jeremy opened the presentation by noting the scale: “1,108,800. That is a big number. That represents 120 centerline miles of streets we have here in Springfield,” and urged councilors to consider whether “a street [is] a liability, or is it an asset?”

The surveyor said public streets are generally “dedicated or granted to the city and usually held in trust by the city.” He reviewed common categories of land interest, said the city commonly uses both appurtenant easements (which benefit another parcel) and easements in gross (which benefit an entity such as the city), and contrasted those with fee title. He explained that an easement in gross tied to the city typically ends if the beneficiary disappears, while appurtenant easements run with the land.

Jeremy reviewed three main ways the city acquires road rights: open-market purchase, dedication (voluntary donation by a property owner, done by deed, map or plat), and condemnation. He cited Oregon condemnation law and said the statutory process requires a showing of necessity and just compensation. “In ORS 35…the property must be necessary, and the project must be planned and located in a manner which will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury,” he said, adding that the city must try to reach agreement with landowners before pursuing condemnation.

On divestment, he told councilors that state vacation law governs what happens when the city vacates a street. He summarized ORS 271.080 by explaining that, absent contrary evidence, title to vacated public area “shall attach to the lands bordering on such area in equal proportions.” He illustrated the point with historical plats and donation-land-claim maps to show how underlying fee ownership can be unclear when streets predate statehood.

Jeremy also discussed practical implications: when the city holds only an easement over underlying private fee, a vacation will commonly revert the surface title to adjoining owners; when the city holds the fee, the city would need to formally divest that fee interest before selling or transferring it. He said many dedications the city accepts are easements rather than fee transfers and pointed to recent local plats as examples.

Councilors asked procedural questions. Councilor Doyle asked about the difference between an easement in gross and an appurtenant easement; Jeremy used the city sewer easement example to explain that utility easements for the city are typically in gross. Another councilor asked whether the city must vacate a public right of way before selling underlying fee; Jeremy replied that if the city owns the fee it can sell subject to the encumbrance, but the easement’s restrictions make the value and permitted uses limited.

The surveyor flagged two legal touchpoints for council consideration: federal and state constitutional limits on takings and Oregon statutes and case law governing dedications and forced dedications (he referenced the Nollan and Dolan standards when discussing nexus and proportionality for forced dedications). He closed by offering to follow up with detailed examples on acquisition and divestiture processes.

The council did not take formal action on the presentation; the session ended with members thanking the surveyor and requesting follow-up materials.

Ending

Jeremy said he would provide additional details and examples if councilors wanted to follow up. Council members did not vote on any street acquisition or vacation action during the meeting.