Senate committee hears testimony on bill requiring signed owner notice before political subdivisions remove property

Senate Bill 2240 would require political subdivisions to take additional steps to notify a property owner before removing personal property from real property, including obtaining a signed acknowledgement or other verified contact, the bill’s sponsor said during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Mike Wabamaw, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure responds to constituent complaints that municipalities sometimes remove or dispose of items from properties after leaving a notice on a door. “What is in question is how they go about doing that,” Senator Wabamaw said, arguing the bill would ensure “positive contact and affirmation” that the owner received notice before the subdivision proceeds.

Supporters — including John Ertel of Arista — said the bill aims to preserve due process by ensuring property owners have notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Ertel told the committee that existing procedures for obtaining judicial orders or telephonic warrants under North Dakota law (cited during testimony as Rule 4.1 of the North Dakota Century Code) can accommodate law‑enforcement needs while allowing local governments to document notice and a hearing request.

Opponents included law enforcement and municipal groups that warned the bill as written could interfere with statutory law‑enforcement duties. Sergeant Matt Keesler of the Stark County Sheriff’s Office said sheriffs are sometimes directed by court writs to seize property before personal service is possible and that a mandatory signed‑acknowledgement requirement could frustrate those functions. Jonathan Byers, representing the North Dakota State’s Attorneys Association, and Kelvin Benson of the North Dakota Peace Officers Association expressed similar concerns about undermining criminal and civil seizure processes.

The North Dakota League of Cities also opposed the bill in its present form, saying many municipalities rely on posted notices and model ordinances that already include rights to hearings and appeals. Stephanie Ingebretson of the League noted model ordinances use ranges of corrective time — from 24 hours to 30 days depending on safety risk — and cautioned that inserting a criminal penalty for someone involved in a cleanup (for example, a public‑works employee or a contractor) could be inappropriate policy.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on specific scenarios — for example, what happens if an owner cannot be located, or if a cleanup contractor removes an item of significant value. Senator Wabamaw acknowledged those concerns and said the sponsor is open to amendments to clarify that the bill should not prevent law‑enforcement actions or interfere with court‑ordered seizures. Committee members suggested drafting language to limit the bill’s scope to nuisance/blight enforcement and exempt law enforcement performing statutory duties.

The committee did not vote on SB2240. The hearing was closed after multiple witnesses testified in support and opposition, and committee members asked stakeholders to draft clarifying amendments that would preserve law‑enforcement exemptions while addressing cases where property owners say they were not adequately notified.

The transcript records examples cited by the sponsor of owners returning from vacation to find posted notices and removed items, and testimony from municipal representatives that existing processes allow owners to request hearings and appeal to district court.