Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrows eminent-domain compensation bill to units that give forgivable loans
Summary
Amendments to SB 216 limit expanded eminent-domain compensation for "ongoing concern" damages to units that issue forgivable loans; INDOT said it does not issue forgivable loans and described federal Uniform Act protections. AIM opposed the expansion, warning of higher project costs and delays. Committee advanced the amended bill 9–1.
Senate Bill 216 was amended in committee to narrow the scope of proposed eminent-domain compensation for ongoing concern losses. Chair and authors said the amendment aligns the bill with the author’s original intent by applying the new compensation category only to units that provide forgivable loans.
Senator Buck explained the change was made after legal review to ensure the bill affects only units that give forgivable loans (language tied to the code section referenced in the bill). Staff inserted qualifying language in multiple sections so that the statutory change only applies to units described in the specified unit definition.
Aaron Wainscott, legislative director for INDOT, told the committee INDOT does not issue forgivable loans and walked the committee through INDOT’s eminent-domain practices, noting that Indiana follows the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act), which provides business reestablishment and moving payments and can include payments in lieu up to amounts tied to prior net profits. INDOT emphasized the risk of losing federal funding if state practice conflicted with federal requirements.
Amy Krieg of AIM said the association opposes the bill even after the amendment, arguing that adding an ongoing-concern compensation category will increase project costs and litigation risk and could delay road and infrastructure projects; she warned taxpayers ultimately would cover any increased costs.
Committee members discussed appraisal procedures, the role of qualified appraisers for business-loss valuation, and whether adding a new compensation category would create litigation or procedural complexity. The committee moved the bill as amended with recommit to appropriations; roll call recorded a 9–1 result. Sponsors agreed to continue technical work on appraisal language in appropriations and on second reading.
The committee’s action keeps SB 216 alive for further amendment and budget/legal review in appropriations.
