Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />548, 554 (Minn. 1977) (quoting the definition of "improvement" in Webster's Third New <br /> <br />Intemational Dictionary). Under this defmition, an improvement is "[ a] permanent addition <br /> <br />to or bettennent of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the <br /> <br />expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable <br /> <br />as distinguished from ordinary repairs." Lietz v. Northern States Power Co., 718 N.W.2d <br /> <br />865, 869 (Minn. 2006) (citation omitted). This definition contemplates that an <br /> <br />"improvement" to a capital asset -like the 1-694 sign - may increase its weight or physical <br /> <br />dimensions. And by distinguishing between improvements and repairs, the definition <br /> <br />clarifies that an improvement involves something more than merely maintaining the capital <br /> <br />asset in its prior condition. <br /> <br />During the committec hearing on the 2004 amendments, the bill's sponsor, <br /> <br />Representative Abrams, was queried about the distinction between an "improvement" and an <br /> <br />"expansion." He stated that "it's the common meaning of the word" that govems, and he <br /> <br />recited "the old adage, don't leave common sense outside the door." See Transcript of House <br /> <br />Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee Hearing at 27 (Feb. 17,2004) ("Feb. <br /> <br />12 Tr."), attached as Soules Aff, Ex. E. In promoting this "common sense" understanding of <br /> <br />improvement, Representativc Abrams echoed the "common-sense interpretation" of <br /> <br />"improvement" endorsed by the Minnesota courts. Pacific Indem., 260 N.W.2d at 554.3 The <br /> <br />3 Because the 2004 amendments were enacted against the backdrop of the judicial definition <br />of "improvement," the Minnesota Legislature presumptively incorporated that definition into <br />the statute. See State v. Fleming, 724 N.W.2d 537, 540 (Minn. App. 2006) ("By choosing <br />not to define 'firearm' for purposes of section 624.713, the legislature presumptively adopted <br />the Minnesota Supreme Court's definition."); Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, <br /> <br />(continued On next page) <br /> <br />12 <br />