Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 09-22 CHCA MEETING OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 Brooklyn Center City Hall Council /Commission Conference Room AGENDA 1. Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Consideration of the Minutes of April 28, 2011, Meeting a. Commissioners not at that Meeting will be shown as abstaining 4. Old Business a. Consideration of Proposed Changes to the By -laws b. Any Consent Agenda? 5. New Business a. Update on eminent domain in Minnesota b. Any other new business? 6. Future Meeting dates a. Appointment of Nominating Committee 7. Adjournment i i (Draft) MINUTES OF April 28, 2011 BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING Called to order by Chair Stan Leino at 7:00 PM. Roll Call: Secretary Gary Brown called roll: Gary Brown, Jill Dalton, Stan Leino, Ed Nelson, Harold Middleton, Eileen Oslund, Gail Ebert, Nathan Lackner, Robert Marvin, Mary O'Connor, and Mark Yelich were present. Absent: Bee Yang Consideration of Minutes: Motion by Brown, seconded by Marvin to approve minutes of January 28, 2011, Charter Commission meeting. Approved 5 -0, by members who had attended the meeting of January 18, 2011. New Commissioners and Introductions: Jill Dalton, Nathan Lackner, and Robert Marvin introduced themselves to the commission. Old Business: Consideration of proposed changes to the Bylaws. Secretary Brown handed out copies of the proposed changes to the by -laws with new verbiage underlined and removals crossed through. Discussion centered around the minimum number of members. Commissioner Middleton read from State Statutes and commissioners agreed that by -laws should comply with State Statute (minimum of 7 members). Motion by Nelson, seconded by Marvin to approve the proposed changes with minor changes to Charter Commission By -laws. Unanimously approved 11 -0. Retirement of Charter Commissioner Richard Phillips Chairman Leino explained past practice of showing appreciation for years of service to new members. Motion by Marvin, seconded by Ebert, to purchase an appreciation gift for the retiring Charter Commissioner Richard Phillips. Unanimously approved 11 -0. New Business: Report of Audit Chair Eileen Oslund was that $293.00 was spent by the Charter Commission in 2010 for printed materials, postage, and an appreciation award for Mary Nierengarten. Motion by Nelson, seconded by Marvin, to accept the audit as presented. Unanimously approved 11 -0. Commissioner Marvin brought up issue of correspondence between commissioners and the concern about open meeting law violations. It will be discussed at the meeting in August. Commissioner O'Connor asked to discuss Chapter 9 Eminent Domain at the next meeting as well. Future Meeting Dates: August 18 and October 20, 2011, to be held at 6:30 PM. Adjournment: Motion by Yelich, seconded by Marvin, to adjourn at 8:42. Unanimously approved 11 -0. Submitted for consideration, Gary E. Brown, Secretary BROOKLYN CENTER HOME RULE CHARTER COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE Revised April 28, 2011 L PURPOSE The continuing purpose of the Home Rule Charter Commission as provided for under M.S.A. 410: A. Periodically review the existing Charter. B. Consider proposed changes to the City Charter and make recommendations to the City Council or the electorate. C. Safeguard the concept of Home -Rule under the existing Charter and Home Rule provisions in the state statutes. II. MEMBERSHIP A. The Charter Commission shall not exceed fifteen (15) members - duly appointed and certified by the district court, but shall not have less than seven (7) members. B. The qualifications for membership require that the individual be a qualified voter in Brooklyn Center, C. The term of a commissioner shall be four years excluding filling an unexpired term. A commissioner may apply for additional terms. D. The duties and responsibilities of a commissioner shall continue, beyond the normal term if necessary, until a replacement is duly appointed and certified by the court. III. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointments to the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission are made in the following ways: 1. The chief judge shall appoint new commissioners. (M.S.A. 410.05 Subd. 2) 2. If the chief judge fails to appoint new commission members within 30 days, then thereafter the governing body of the city shall, appoint new commission members, unless within the 30 day period the chief judge indicates in writing to the governing body his /her intention to appoint new members, in which case he /she shall have an additional 60 days within which to make the appointment. (M.S.A. 410.05 Subd. 2) B. Application to the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission may be made directly to the Chief Judge of Hennepin County District Court or to the Chairperson of the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission. C. Notification of an existing or pending vacancy shall be made by the Public Relations Chairperson in (or through) the official city newspaper. Publication shall be made within a period of two weeks prior to or two weeks after the effective date of resignation or expiration of a term(s). D. The Chairperson shall, within two weeks after receiving a resignation, notify the Chief Judge of Hennepin County District Court in writing that a vacancy exists. E. The Chairperson shall, 30 days before the expiration date of a term(s), notify the Chief Judge of Hennepin County District Court in writing, of the affected commissioner(s) intentions. If the commissioner(s) chooses not to continue, the Chairperson shall direct the Public Relations Chairperson to effect public notice within the conditions established in Sec. III, C. F. Vacancies may occur by: 1. Resignation a. Resignations shall be delivered to the Chairperson in writing. In the absence of a written resignation, the Chairperson/Vice Chairperson shall present to the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission at it's next meeting, notification of an oral resignation. The Chairperson or Vice Chairperson shall, upon receipt of a resignation, submit written notification to the Chief Judge of Hennepin County District Court (with copies to the resignee and the City Council) within two weeks and to notify the commission members. b. An appointee who neglects to file with the clerk within 30 days a written acceptance and oath of office shall be deemed to have declined the appointment and his /her place shall be filled as though he /she had resigned. (M.S.A. 410.05 Subd. 2) 2. Expiration of term 3. Removal Any member may be removed at any time from office, by written order of the district court, the reason for such removal being stated in the order. When any member has failed to perform the duties of his office and has failed to attend four consecutive meetings without being excused by the commission, the secretary of the Charter Commission shall file a certificate with the court setting forth those facts and the district court shall thereupon make its order of removal and the chief judge shall fill the vacancy created thereby. (M.S.A. 410.05 Subd. 2) Brooklyn Center Home Rule Charter Commission Rules of Procedure Page 2 IV. MEETINGS A. The annual meeting of the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission shall be held in January. 1. The annual report, audit report, election of officers, and appointment of Audit and Public Relations Chairperson are agenda items for this meeting. B. Additional meetings may be called by the Chairperson; or any four commissioners may petition the Chairperson to call a special meeting; or as required in Minnesota Statutes 410.105, Subd. 2. C. A majority of the actual membership of the commission shall constitute a quorum to do business. D. A majority simple question shall rule. When final votes p Y of those voting on the q on the Charter are considered, a two - thirds affirmative vote of the actual membership with never less than eight (8) voting members present. E. Parliamentary authority shall be these rules of procedure or Roberts Rules of Order most recently revised. 1. These rules and procedures can be changed at any time by a majority vote of the commission, after a 20 day prior written notice to all commission members outlining the proposed changes. 2. These rules or any portion may be waived only by a 2/3 affirmative vote of the actual membership with never less than 8 affirmative votes. 3. Waiving or setting aside these rules of procedure may be done only with a proper motion and second. 4. The motion to waive or set aside these rules of procedure or any portion shall be specifically recorded in the minutes. F. Notice of all meetings shall be in writing to the members 7 days prior to the meeting and shall contain a written agenda. All meetings shall be held in compliance with the Open Meeting Statute set forth in M.S. 471.705. G. Commission members are expected to attend all meetings. Members shall give notice to the Chairperson or another member in the event of an absence. Failure to notify the commission of an absence results in an unexcused absence. H. Non - commission members wishing to address the commission will have an opportunity by registering with the Chairperson at the beginning of the meeting. No public testimony will be received by the commission after a formal motion has been made and is being discussed by the commission. Brooklyn Center Home Rule Charter Commission Rules of Procedure Page 3 V. OFFICERS At the annual meeting, the commission shall elect a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and Secretary. These officers shall serve for a term of one year. A majority vote by those commissioners present at the annual meeting is necessary to elect an officer. Vacancies occurring in elective offices shall be filled by an election at the next j regular meeting or at a special meeting, called by the ranking elected officer with 7 days prior written notice to the membership. A. Chairperson shall 1. Be the acting official and representative of the commission 2. Be the presiding officer at meetings 3. Appoint committees 4. Call all regular and special meetings 5. Direct correspondence with Chief Judge of Hennepin County District Court 6. Prepare annual report to district court, Chief Judge, and City Clerk 7. Appoint Audit Chairperson, Public Relations Chairperson, and Rules /Parliamentarian 8. Ascertain yearly through the City Manager (after the legislative session) as to any statute changes affecting the Charter Commission 9. Be a member of the Executive Committee [Note: in other places in these Rules of Procedure, it is said that the Chairperson may receive applications (or they may be sent to the Chief Judge), notify Chief Judge of vacancy, receive written resignation, receive notification of members impending absence from meeting, (notification can be given to any member).] B. Vice Chairperson shall 1. Preside over commission meetings and acts on behalf of the Chairperson in the Chairperson's absence 2. Be a member of Executive Committee [Note: in other places in these Rules of Procedure, it is said that the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson shall submit written notification to the Chief Judge of vacancy.] C. Secretary shall 1. Be responsible for commission records, minutes, and correspondence 2. Be a member of Executive Committee Brooklyn Center Home Rule Charter Commission Rules of Procedure Page 4 l VI. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The Executive Committee shall consist of the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary, Audit Chairperson, and Public Relations Chairperson. The Executive Committee shall approve the Annual Report and have the powers and functions as are authorized by the commission. A. Audit Chairperson 1. Reviews and approves all expenditures chargeable to the commission 2. Makes periodic reports on status of budget and calls for annual audit report from Finance Director for presentation at annual meeting 3. Member of Executive Committee B. Public Relations Chairperson 1. Has responsibility for all official public notices 2. Shall report all matters of public interest to the local press and shall handle all public relations matters including items of recognition as directed by the Chairperson 3. Has responsibility for publishing notice of pending commission vacancies in official city newspaper 4. Member of Executive Committee VII. OTHER COMMITTEES A. Rules /Parliamentarian 1. Has responsibility to inform Chairperson and other commissioners of the rules guiding Charter Commission actions. 2. Serves as Chairperson to any subcommittee named to review and /or revise rules. B. Nominating Committee A three member nominating committee shall be appointed by the Chairperson for the purpose of recommending candidates for election to office at the annual meeting. C. Study Committee The Chairperson shall appoint study committees as necessary. Specific goals and objectives shall be defined. [Note: Re: CITY STAFF: In a memorandum from the City Clerk, March 17, 1997, it said, to paraphrase, that the City Staff: Maintains permanent record of agenda /minutes; Maintains and updates City Charter; Maintains and updates member roster; Posts notice of vacancy on City bulletin board and Cable TV; Answers questions about Charter and Charter Commission.] Brooklyn Center Home Rule Charter Commission Rules of Procedure Page 5 VIII. ANNUAL REPORTS A. Amendments to the Charter may originate in any of the following sources: 1. The Charter Commission: a. M.S. 410.12, Subd. 1 - Amendment by Commission Resolution b. M.S. 410.12, Subd. 7 - Amendment by Commission Recommendation 2. The City Council: a. M.S. 410.12, Subd. 5 - Amendment by Council Ordinance to Commission b. M.S. 410.12, Subd. 6 - Amendment by Council Hearing to Voters (4th Class Cities only) 3. The People: a. M.S. 410.12, Subds. 1, 2, and 3 - Amendment by Petition of Voters to Commission B. Amendments originating with the Charter Commission: 1. Shall be accepted by the Charter Commission by a 2/3 affirmative vote of the actual membership with never less than eight affirmative votes. 2. May be forwarded to legal counsel for opinion within 10 days after passage. Legal counsel shall be requested to return a written opinion in time for presentation at a meeting of the Charter Commission within 60 days of passage. A 30 day extension may be requested by legal counsel through the Chairperson. The Chairperson shall notify each member in writing, within a reasonable period of time, of a granted extension. a. The Charter Commission shall meet within 60 days subsequent to initial passage of an amendment. b. If an extension is granted, the Chairperson shall reschedule the meeting to be held within 90 days of initial passage. 3. Shall be forwarded to the City Council with a letter of transmittal stating specifically whether it is a Recommended Amendment or an Amendment Adopted by Commission Resolution. a. Recommended Amendment - Upon recommendation of the Charter Commission, the City Council may enact a Charter amendment by ordinance. Such an ordinance, if enacted shall be adopted by the Council by an affirmative vote of all its members after a public hearing with two weeks published notice. Such ordinance shall not become effective until 90 days after passage and publication. Within 60 days after passage and publication, a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed by the voters with the City Clerk. Such petition requires the signatures of two percent of the total number of votes cast in the City at the last state general election or 2,000, whichever is less. Only registered voters are eligible to sign. (M.S. 410.12, Subd. 7) Brooklyn Center Home Rule Charter Commission Rules of Procedure Page 6 b. Amendment Adopted by Commission Resolution - When a proposed amendment originating with the Charter Commission and adopted by resolution is transmitted to the City Clerk, it shall be presented by the City Clerk to the Council. The amendment shall be submitted to the voters at the next general election if within 6 months of the date of delivery and if no general election is to occur within 6 months, at a special election within 90 days. (M.S. 410.10, Subd. 1) the Council must cause the amendment to be published once per week for two successive weeks as a part of the notice of election. The Council determines the wording of the ballot. (M.S. 410.112, Subds. 1 and 4) C. Amendments originating with the City Council: (M.S. 410.12, Subd. 5) 1. The City Council may propose a Charter Amendment to the voters by ordinance. Any ordinance proposing such amendment shall be submitted to the Charter Commission. 2. Within 60 days, the Charter Commission shall review the proposed amendment but before the expiration of such period, the commission may extend the time for review for an additional 90 days by filing with the City Clerk its resolution determining that an additional time for review is needed. 3. After reviewing the proposed amendment, the Charter Commission shall approve or reject the proposed amendment or suggest a substitute amendment. The Commission shall promptly notify the Council of action taken. Note: The Council may submit its proposed amendment to the people or the substitute amendment proposed by the Charter Commission. 4. The amendment shall become effective only when approved by the voters as provided in M.S. 410.12, Subd. 4. D. Amendments proposed by the People (via petition): (M.S. 410.12, Subds. 1, 2, and 3) 1. The proposers of an amendment shall file all petition papers with the Charter Commission for its approval as to form and substance. The commission shall, within 10 days, return the same to the proposers the amendment with such modifications as it may deem necessary in order to comply with statutory requirements. 2. The petition must have a number of signatures equal to at least 5% of the total votes cast as of the last previous state general election in the City. Only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition. Brooklyn Center Home Rule Charter Commission Rules of Procedure Page 7 3. The Charter Commission may not alter the petitioned amendment but shall forward the petition to the City Clerk, with a letter of transmittal, recommending either: a. A recommendation for amendment by ordinance under M.S. 410.12, Subd. 7 b. An amendment adopted by commission resolution (requires submission to the voters) C. No recommendation Rules set forth in the State Statutes and used in these Rules of Procedure cannot be changed by the commission. Brooklyn Center Home Rule Charter Commission Rules of Procedure Page 8 City of Brooklyn Center CHARTER COMMISSION Court Appointed The Charter Commission reviews the existing charter, considers proposed changes and makes recommendations to the City Council, and safeguards the concept of Home -Rule under the existing charter and Home Rule provisions in the state statutes. Commissioners serve a four -year term. Chairperson and fourteen members. [Minn. Stat. 13.601, Subd. 3(b) states that once an individual is appointed to a public body the following data are public: (1) the residential address; (2) and either a telephone number or electronic mail address where the appointee can be reached, or both at the request of the appointee.] Stanley Leino Robert Marvin Eileen Oslund Chair 2011 4711 Twin Lake Ave (29) Audit Chair 2011 7118 France Ave N (29) 763 -535 -5498 6000 Ewing Ave N (29) 763 - 234 -6137 marvin.r@comcast.net 763 -537 -2858 flyfinn7 cr msn.com 1/19/11- 1/18/15 10/30/01 - 1/25/14 3/13/97- 7/20/11 Harold Middleton Bee Yang Gary Brown 5418 Oliver Ave N (30) 7224 Major Ave N (29) Secretary 2011 763 -549 -5594 phone: 7012 Willow Lane N (30) hjannifer@comcast.net 1/19/11 - 1/18/15 763 -560 -6338 11/30/98 - 8/13/11 gary-julie-brown@comcast.net Mark Yelich 6/25/04- 6/28/12 Edward Nelson 6018 Beard Ave N (29) Vice Chair 2011 763 - 486 -6001 Jill Dalton 5236 Great View Ave N (29) 1/19/11- 1/18/15 6417 Colfax Ave N (30) 763 -536 -8963 763 -566 -5410 1/6/05- 6/26/12 2/22/11 - 2/22/15 3 vacancies Mary O'Connor Gail Ebert 5429 Lyndale Ave N (30) Updated 4 112111 1613 Irving Lane N (30) 763 -561 -8038 763 -566 -6803 8/2/10 - 8/1/14 10/30/07- 10/9/11 Nathan Lackner 5300 Girard Ave N (30) 763 - 438 -0702 nathanlackner@gmail.com 1/19/11 - 1/18/15 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A09-1894 Court of Appeals Meyer, J. State of Minnesota, by its Commissioner of Transportation, Respondent, vs. Filed: August 10, 2011 Office of Appellate Courts Gary William Kettleson, et al., Respondents Below, Richard Lepak, Appellant. ________________________ Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Steven P. LaPierre, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota, for respondent. Charles N. Nauen, David J. Zoll, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant. ________________________ S Y L L A B U S 1. Nothing in the 2006 amendments to Minn. Stat. § 117.025, subd. 11 (2010), disturbs the long-standing principle of deference by the courts to the Commissioner of Tr-making in condemning private property to build highways. 2. The Commissioner of Transportation established a proper public purpose that was landlocked as a consequence of reconstructing Highway 61. Affirmed. O P I N I O N MEYER, Justice. The issue in this case is whether a taking by the Minnesota Department of highway access to a neighboring parcel constitutes a public use or purpose. The court of appeals affirmed a condemnation order requested by the Commissioner of Transportation for the improvement and widening of Highway 61 in Cook County. Lepak contends that the State does not have a valid public purpose for the taking because part of his land will be used to build a private road to mitigate damages to a neighboring parcel. Because the purpose of the taking in this case meets the 117.025, subd. 11 (2010), we affirm. The Commissioner of MnDOT proposed a $13.1 million transportation project to improve and widen a 3.5-mile portion of Highway 61 in Cook County, Minnesota. The project extends from approximately one mile south of the Onion River to approximately one-half mile north of County Road 34. The project includes through widening the shoulders and the addition of turn and bypass lanes, improvements to a wayside rest, and the addition of a bike trail on the Lake Superior side of Highway 61. Three parcels are involved in this disputeParcel 14, Parcel 15, and Parcel 16. Parcel 15, an unimproved parcel of land adjacent to Highway 61 in Cook County, is owned by Lepak. The portion of Parcel 15 involved in the proposed taking consists of a 110-foot deep swath of land north of and immediately adjacent to Highway 61 and totals 9,027 square feet. The total size before any taking, is 104,544 square feet. The 75 feet of land closest to the highway would be used as part of the reconstruction of the highway; the remaining 35 feet of land would be used to construct a new access road. Lepak is challenging the taking of the 35 feet of land. to Highway 61 and cause Parcel 14 to become landlocked. As a result, the Commissioner dedicated a 35-foot wide portion of the fee taking from Parcel 15 to build a new access road to the highway. According to the district court, the access 1 road needs to be built across all th cannot be built on any other parcel. Lepak, appearing through counsel at the condemnation hearing, objected to the portion of the proposed taking from Parcel 15 that would be used to build the access road, on the grounds that there was no public use or public purpose for the taking. Lepak asserted that the taking from Parcel 15 was improper because it 14. Lepak argued that despite the counsel claimed that Lepak and his neighbors would bear responsibility for maintaining the access road. Lepak introduced no evidence to support any of these claims. Roberta Dwyer, a MnDOT engineer with 26 years of experience, testified on behalf of the Commissioner that the taking from Parcel 15 was necessary to provide an access road to Highway 61 for Parcels 14, 15, and 16. Dwyer testified that the owners of Parcel 16 had already applied for a permit to connect to the proposed access road. Dwyer also tes steep grade, a curve in the road, and an obstructing turn lane into a wayside rest. Dwyer testified that the taking was not for a private purpose. Rather, the taking was reasonably necessary and convenient to serve the public purpose of widening Highway 61. Dwyer was never asked whether Lepak and his neighbors would be required to maintain the access road at their personal expense, whether the access The district court concluded that improving and widening Highway 61 is established that the access road is reasonably necessary to fulfill the public purpose of improving Highway 61. access road, in and of itself, has a public purpose. Instead, MnDOT need only establish that the proposed access road is reasonably necessary to fulfill the public established reasonable necessity, the district court rejected the challenge to the proposed taking. 2 A divided court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. State ex rel. , No. A09-1894, 2010 WL 2813456, at *1 (Minn. public purpose for the highway project and showed that the taking was reasonably Id. at *3. The dissent concluded that the Id. at *4 (Ross, J., dissenting). Lepak filed a petition for further review on the issues of whether the taking served a valid public use or public purpose in light of the statutory definitions of those terms, and whether the taking was necessary to accomplish that public use or public purpose. We granted review. Eminent Domain Standards Un damaged for public use Minn. Const. art. I, § 13. MnDOT is authorized by the Legislature to condemn property to carry out constitutionally mandated goals. See Minn. Stat. § 161.20, subd. 1 (2010). Article 14, section 2 trunk highway system which shall be constructed, improved and maintained as hall carry out the purchase, gift, or by eminent domain proceedings as provided by law, in fee or such lesser estate as the [C]ommissioner deems necessary, all lands and properties necessary . . . in laying out, constructing, maintaining, and improving the trunk he MnDOT acts on behalf of the Legislature, in which the sovereign power to condemn private property is vested, to conduct the essential legislative function at issue in this case. See State v. Voll, 155 Minn. 72, 76, 192 N.W. 188, 190 (1923). and properties necessary . . . in laying out, constructing, maintaining, and . Stat. § 161.20, subd. 2(a)(1) (2010). In addition, when the reconstruction of a trunk highway closes off any other highway or street, including a private road or entrance to the trunk highway, fety and convenient public travel, construct a road either within or outside the limits of the trunk highway, connecting the closed-off highway, street, private road, or entrance with o may acquire land by eminent domain for this purpose. Id. 3 road constitutes a public use or purpose. See City of Duluth v. State, 390 N.W.2d on definitions argue that the taking of his land is not for a public use or purpose. See Act of May 19, 2006, ch. 214, § 2, 2006 Minn. Laws 195, 195-97 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 117.025 (2010)). In eminent domain cases arising before the 2006 amendments Constitution. City of Duluth, 390 N.W.2d at 763. The 2006 amendments provide a 1.the possession, occupation, ownership, and enjoyment of the land by the general public, or by public agencies; (2) the creation or functioning of a public service corporation; or (3) mitigation of a blighted area, remediation of an environmentally contaminated area, reduction of abandoned property, or removal of a public nuisance. Minn. Stat. § 117.025, subd. 11(a). With limited exceptions not relevant here, all inent domain in accordance with the provisions of [chapter 117], including all procedures, law, including other statutes. Minn. Stat. § 117.012, subd. 1 (2010). The first step in condemnation cases is to determine whether a project has a valid public purpose or public use. See, e.g., Itasca Cnty. v. Carpenter, 602 N.W.2d 887, 889 (Minn. App. 1999). The next step in the analysis is whether the taking is reasonably necessary to further that public purpose. Lundell v. Coop. , 707 N.W.2d 376, 380-81 (Minn. 2006). The details involved in road construction are details relating to necessity that are subject to limited judicial review. See Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. v. Minneapolis Metro. Co., 259 Minn. 1, 15-16, 104 N.W.2d 864, 874 (1960). This traditional two-step public purpose and necessity analysis was left undisturbed by the 2006 statutory amendments. Importantly, the Legislature did not create a new definition for necessity under the definitional provisions of section 117.025. Therefore, we conclude that the 2006 amendments left intact the public purpose and necessity analysis and the definition of necessity. land to build the access road was authorized by the new, exclusive definitions of public purpose under Minn. Stat. § 117.025, subd. 11, and whether the taking is necessary to support the public purpose of improving and widening Highway 61. 4 Lepak asserts that (1) the 2006 amendments have reduced the amount of deference this court gives to a condemning authority, (2) the access road in this case does not district court erred in concluding that the taking was necessary to support a public purpose. I. urt gives deference to the legislative determination of public purpose and necessity of the condemning Lundell, 707 N.W.2d at 381. The scope of judicial review of a determination of public purpose by a condemning authority is very narrow. Id. at 380- Id. at 381 (quoting Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 259 Minn. at 15, 104 N.W.2d at 874). Decisions are manifestly arbitrary or in law or under conditions which do not authorize or permit the exercise of the City of Pipestone v. Halbersma, 294 N.W.2d 271, 273-74 (Minn. 1980) (quoting Hous. & Redevelopment Auth., 259 Minn. at 15, 104 N.W.2d at 874). In this appeal, Lepak argued that case law relating to eminent domain, such as Lundell and City of Duluth, no longer applies because those cases were decided under the prior, broader definitions of public use and public purpose. The court of Kettleson, 2010 WL required to apply the statutory definition of public use and public purpose in the s not shown that these earlier cases are not good law that instruct our analysis and Id. at *2. We agree with the court of appeals that the 2006 changes have not affected the broad deference we give to the condemning authority. Id. at *1. MnDOT has been specifically authorized by the Legislature to condemn property directly on its behalf under Minn. Stat. § 161.20, subd. 1. The amendments do not change the nature of the governmental action, which remains legislative. When we read section 161.20, subdivision 1, and section 117.025, subdivision 11, together, we conclude that MnDOT has authority to condemn property directly, and that authority must be exercised for the public use or public purpose set out in section 117.025. Nothing in Minn. Stat. § 117.025, subd. 11, disturbs the long-standing - making in condemning private property to build highways. The judiciary maintains its traditional role to ens discretionary power rather than an arbitrary or discriminatory exercise of the legislative prerogatives, particularly where such enactments destroy valuable property rights of citizens guaranteed protection under the due process and equal Pearce v. Village of Edina, 263 Minn. 553, 571, 118 N.W.2d 659, 671 (1962). II. condemning the land fits within any of the statutory definitions of public use or purpose. Lepak claims that the purpose of the taking of the specific property at eparated from the public purpose of the highway that MnDOT must establish a public purpose for each individual aspect of the missioner asserts, this court asks whether a project taken as a whole has a valid public purpose or public use. 5.16 (2010). A statute Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, this court may consider, among other things, the object to be obtained by the law, Minn. Stat. § 645.16; In re 2010 Gubernatorial Election, 793 N.W.2d 256, 261 (Minn. 2010). Under the new statutory definition for taking, public use and public purpose means that the access road at issue in this case falls squarely within the meaning of subdivision 11(a)(1), and thus we need not decide whether the project must be viewed as a whole or whether each individual aspect of the project must be examined for a public purpose. First, MnDOT is a public agency charged with the development, implementation, administration, consolidation, and coordination of state transportation policies, plans, and programs. Minn. Stat. § 174.01 (2010). The improvement of Highway 61 is without question a transportation plan with the over-arching purpose of providing a public benefit. Second, the petition seeks an order from the district court transferring title occupation, ownership, and enjoyment of the land by the general public, or by Third, the evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the enjoyment of the access road is established to be for the general public. The access road unquestionably lies within the limits of the public right-of-way. The road provides abutting owners of three separate parcels with a means of access to Highway 61. The record contains no evidence to suggest that members of the public are not free to drive upon the access road. No evidence establishes that the owners of the three separate parcels have any obligation to maintain the access road. While no single fact is controlling, we conclude, on the record before us, that MnDOT has demonstrated a proper public purpose for the taking. Our decision is limited to the facts of this case. We do not decide whether the new definition of public purpose has invalidated the statutory provisions that allow the closed off by the highway project. See Minn. Stat. § 160.18, subd. 2 (2010) (requiring road authorities reconstructing approaches thereto within the limits of the right-of-way where the approaches are reasonably necessary and practicable, so as to provide abutting owners a 161.24, subd. 4 (providing that when the reconstruction of a highway closes off a private road, -off private road to the highway). Additionally, we do not decide whether land may be taken to build a pri III. Having determined that MnDOT has demonstrated a proper public purpose for the taking under Minn. Stat. § 117.025, subd. 11, we next consider whether MnDOT has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that the proposed taking is necessary to accomplish that public use or purpose. More narrowly, we consider whether the taking was reasonably necessary or convenient for the furtherance of its purpose. Lundell, 707 N.W.2d at 381. In cases arising before the 2006 amendments, we posed taking is reasonably necessary or convenient for the furtherance of a City of Duluth, 390 N.W.2d at 764-65 (quoting Halbersma, 294 N.W.2d at 274); accord Lundell, 707 N.W.2d at 381. The court of appeals correctly applied this standard. Kettleson, 2010 WL 2813456, at *3. On appeal, court of appeals concluded that there was no evidentiary support for the alternative routes. Id. at *4. Further, the court concluded that Lepak had not shown that and capricious. Id. at *3. We agree with the court of appeals. On the record before us, we cannot conclude that the district court erred in concluding that the taking was reasonably necessary to further a valid public purpose. Affirmed. 1The State also initiated a taking of a temporary easement north of and immediately adjacent to the permanent fee taking. The taking of this temporary easement, as well as the portion of the permanent fee taking not designated for the access road, are not challenged here. 2 objection to the taking. The court of appeals remanded the case with instructions to The district we discourage. See C.O. v. Doe, 757 N.W.2d 343, 347 n.4 (Minn. 2008). 3 connect the closed-off private road with the remaining portion of the private road or with anoth necessary for connecting a highway, street, private road, or entrance to another public highway or for connecting a closed-off private road to the remaining portion of a private road or to anot 4 definition of Minnesota Constitution and whether that would make a difference. 14