Laserfiche WebLink
continuous. See, Sampair v. Village of <br />Birchwood, 784 N.W. 2d 65 (Minn. 2010). <br />This creates issues for cities that have <br />conservation easements. It is difficult, if not <br />impossible, to show actual use of the <br />easement because conservation easements <br />are passive easements, not active ones. As a <br />result, cities will have to re-record the <br />easements every 40 years in order to <br />maintain them. This will result in a <br />significant administrative burden and <br />increase costs for local units of government <br />due to staff time, legal fees, and recording <br />fees. <br />Additionally, Minn. Stat. § 500.20, entitled <br />"Defeasible Estates," provides in subd. 2a <br />that private covenants, conditions, or <br />restrictions that affect the title or use of real <br />estate cease to be valid 30 years after the <br />date of the instrument creating them and <br />they may be disregarded. This provision <br />was initially enacted in 1988. <br />Minn. Stat. ch. 84C regarding conservation <br />easements was enacted in 1985, and Minn. <br />Stat. § 84.64 and § 84.65 regarding <br />conservation restrictions were originally <br />enacted in 1974. Because conservation <br />easements and conservation restrictions are <br />not listed among the restrictions that are not <br />subject to Minn. Stat. § 500.20, subd. 2a, it <br />is possible to conclude, by negative <br />implication, that subd. 2a does apply to the <br />conservation easements and conservation <br />restrictions created by earlier enacted <br />statues. This conclusion is inconsistent with <br />the language in Minn. Stat. § 84C.02(b) that <br />"a conservation easement is unlimited in <br />duration unless the instrument creating it <br />otherwise provides." <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities supports legislation that excepts <br />holders of conservation easements from <br />re-recording the easements under the <br />Minnesota Marketable Title Act and that <br />clarifies that Minn. Stat. § 500.20, subd. <br />2a, does not apply to conservation <br />easements and restrictions. <br />SD-7. Responsibility for Locating <br />Private Underground Facilities <br />Issue: Cities are responsible for complying <br />with state pipeline safety regulations that <br />hold cities responsible for locating and <br />marking private service laterals that connect <br />in public rights -of -way to city sanitary and <br />storm sewer, water, and district heating <br />systems. The Minnesota Office of Pipeline <br />Safety (MNOPS) is proposing amendments <br />to state pipeline and safety rules related to <br />the definition of excavation and changes to <br />mandatory damage reporting. <br />Cities are concerned that damage to private <br />service laterals within the public right-of- <br />way continues due, in part, to construction <br />methods during the replacement, repair <br />and/or installation of underground utilities <br />which cross city water and sewer services <br />that are in the public rights -of -way. <br />Trenchless excavation could potentially <br />cause damage to underground service <br />laterals and negatively impact the quality of <br />utility services. <br />Response: The League supports the <br />changes to the definition of excavation <br />presented by MNOPS at the 2012 Review <br />of ch. 216D. Cities support the <br />elimination of windbreaks, shelterbelts, <br />and tree plantations from the definition of <br />excavation, unless any of these activities <br />disturbs the soil to a depth of 18 inches or <br />more. <br />The League supports exempting normal <br />maintenance of roads and streets from the <br />definition of excavation if the <br />maintenance does not change the original <br />grade and does not involve the road ditch <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 4 <br />