Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate substitutes eminent-domain language to add ombudsman advisory role, raises landowner concerns
Summary
Senate debate on the second substitute to SB 86 focused on eminent domain and agricultural-protection protections; the substitute adds a mechanism for the property ombudsman to issue an advisory opinion and involves the Ag Protection Board, but some senators worried the change does not give landowners the right to request ombudsman review.
Senators debated and adopted a second substitute to Senate Bill 86 on Feb. 28, 2012, a measure tied to eminent-domain procedures and agricultural-protection review that would expand advisory review options before condemnation decisions.
Sponsor Sen. Bramble described the substitute as adding an additional review step: the state property ombudsman may be asked to issue an advisory opinion on whether a proposed condemnation meets statutory criteria and to provide a balancing test that weighs agricultural protection interests against public purpose. The substitute restores some pre‑2009 practices by emphasizing elected bodies’ role in decisions while creating an avenue for nonbinding advisory opinions from both the Ag Protection Board and the ombudsman.
Sen. Valentine asked what criteria the ombudsman would use when reviewing a referral; the sponsor said the ombudsman would review competing interests, including protection of ag zones and public purpose, and would issue a nonbinding advisory opinion. Sen. Dayton and others expressed concern that the substitute appears to allow only the legislative body or political subdivision to request ombudsman review, leaving private landowners without a clear right to initiate that review and potentially adding process for landowners without clear benefit.
Sen. Bramble said the substitute’s intent was to present the actual language the Senate would debate, and that further debate on property-rights implications would occur when the bill was presented for final passage. The body adopted the substitute by voice vote and then circled the bill for later consideration.
The substitute adds a nonbinding advisory role for the ombudsman and contemplates coordination with the Ag Protection Board; it does not create a binding veto over condemnation but sponsors said two negative advisory opinions would make it difficult for a commission to proceed. The substitution passed on the floor and the bill was circled for a later third-reading debate.
