Closed and abandoned town roads maintenance provision eliminated.
Summary
HF2156 repeals Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 365.10, subdivision 11, which is the provision governing “abandoned town roads.” Under current law, town electors may authorize the town board by resolution to decide whether to open or maintain town roads or cartways that have had no maintenance or construction for 25 years or more. The repealed subdivision also states that a separate road-opening statute does not apply to those roads and preserves the right of voters or landowners to petition for a cartway.
By eliminating this subdivision, the bill removes the specific statutory framework that allows towns to address long-unused roads through that special process. The bill does not create a new replacement procedure in the text provided; instead, it simply deletes the existing rule from state law. As a result, towns, electors, and affected landowners would no longer have this particular statutory authority and guidance for abandoned town roads, though other cartway or road-related laws may still apply.
Impact
The bill would amend Minnesota local government and transportation-related law by repealing a town-road provision in chapter 365. This would remove the express authority for town electors to let town boards decide whether to open or maintain certain long-abandoned town roads or cartways, and it would eliminate the statutory exemption from section 163.16 for those roads. Towns and landowners dealing with unused road corridors would need to rely on other applicable statutes, including the separate cartway petition process preserved by section 164.08, if available.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill is administrative and narrow in scope, with no recorded committee testimony or vote history indicating strong public controversy. The caption and text indicate a technical cleanup measure aimed at removing an outdated or unnecessary provision rather than making a substantive policy expansion. Because there are no transcripts or votes provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured directly, but the bill appears to have been introduced as a straightforward statutory repeal.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the loss of a special local mechanism for handling roads that have not been maintained or constructed for 25 years or more. Supporters of the repeal may view the subdivision as redundant, outdated, or confusing, while opponents could argue that removing it reduces local flexibility for towns and landowners dealing with abandoned roadways. The preserved right to petition for a cartway under section 164.08 may mitigate some concerns, but the bill still removes a distinct town-board/elector process that some parties may have relied on.