2006_0724_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

House of Representatives DFT, Caucus Research Department Room 248-E State (lf�ce Building 651I196�319 Memo June 15,2006 I� To: Rep. Mindy Greiling i .r r �� V�� - From: Brad Kelly, Research Consultant, House DFL Caucus Research, 65 �129b-5319 . '��=—! Subject: Eminent Domain Reform Law Here is a slu�lmary of the new eminent domai�� efor�n law - 2006 Minnesota Session Laws Chapter 214 (SF 2750 conference report.) FISCAL 1"1�'.t'ACT• A fiscal note on an earlier version of the bill estimates $7 million annual cost to the Trun�C Highway Fund due to highway related proj ects by Mn DOT. However, MnI70T said this i s a conservat'rve estimate and if that more land needed for right-of-way goes through the'condemnationprocess, an additional $6 to $10 million impact could be felt. Also, per a Local Impact Note, the Departmerr#: of Finance concludes that the bill could result in increased acquisition costs ar litigation expenses to cities and counties. It is unclear to how the costs have changed as a result of the conference corrunittee's actions. Some chan�es (or items of nate} in the bill. as comvared with the bill was vassed bv the House • Evid�ntiarv standard - The �canference committee adopted the "preponderance of evidence" standard, which was the Senate position. The House bill had a stricter "clear and convincing" standard." This standard is one level below "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the standard in criminal cases. The typical civil case standard is a "preponderanceof evidence."' � Attorney fees - the conference committee created a two-tier mechanism. If the final judgment or award for damages is more than 40% greater than the last written offer- the court shall award attorney fees. If the final award is between 20- 40% greater- the court may award attorney fees. ff the fmal judgment or award of damages is under $25,000, then no attorney fees may be awarded. (Section 4) F TTE/effective date - A Rep. Ahrams amendmentwas adopted on this issue. (See Section 22.) i Blighted standard - The Senate position was adopted (section 1, subd. 6). • Removal of a non-conforming land use a.k.a. °re�tzlatarv takings" - This item is in the fmal conference report. The provision requires that when a local unit of govemment or local zoning authority requires the removal of a nonconforming use as a condition or prerequisite for the issuance o�. a permit or license for any "use, stru.c�iare, development,or activity" -this constitutes a taking and is prohibitedwithoutpayment o�'just w��a �r�r�s� l� �x�.' (Section l0} 1"'Preponderance of evidence' is the� burden of proof in a civil trial, in which the jury is instructed to find for the party that on the whole, has the stronger evidence, however, slight the edge may be." (Black's Law Dictionary, 7" Edition) 2 Here is the explanation from Deb Dyson (House Research counsel): The property has to be a nonconforming use first - a use that was proper under the zoninQ code when be�un or built, but the zoninq code for the area has Chanqed and the use is �randfathered in as "nonconformir�" (�.�., •^�xr-•r.lr. mixir�j pi8nl ifl a�i efee 418# ++�s r.:� 4: ind�.striai wMen ��r. �s��. starfcd t4'� �s now .:rxw<.I fcr. resider�sal arxl tartmserc2r. t{��a. F'exi Coyr (iobbyist urho ;ra�^ ��i rryi�• °e� rs►eant k� irtclude permits x�L ncer+sea for somelhinp =�ee Iraixr_ In the past �e 7�s foc.�se� o^ pem+lls lhas 9� � a�r_^�s =vr r�rJ ��nG UevelOpft�nL T-i�• �::,��r�-•��•-�� is rnearrl. iu require --rr+e�s�,�r ; � pg�-o-:4,; rar.,i i❑r :: lana ase �s oonhrr4ent =r_ removing a nonconforming land use. (Considerthe billboard controversiesin St. Paul that Rep. E'aymar has brought up each year for a few years. If billboards are nonconformina uses in St. Paul. then if the owner of the buiEding on which the billboard is perchee€ appiies for a perrnit to expand, does thc cify rc-c��: r. !!�� ox�ner io gei '��: :� Il� b17lb4DBiC� � i 3 COtldFliOfl �= approve!? IF �:�. ;w ain,..widrnent woui� requi e eompensetiort I�� 4he �i6bgard_} = �e�eve J•_ amsnament aaoptea n��Y� a�p��• I�� permifs ar a��rf<-� socght n} o• after 4� c:*Tc �i�� L� •. wo;:id <,��cl fixi�lw ��,;rr,�r��i�� �r'G GS95 7't'•' �iE2 �-: �i. ."7_�. 'r � CJLx fg�JIT�S RT1:�VJI p� J 17L;:: ='_I.�_I:I51 ]Cs' I�IId 'J�L', _'L'_'I �� a s�� -i::. f�•-�__ W� �uY•_ �_- u vr8ter sa�rze. or a grandfatheredfeedlotwaste ppal, the eity may have to pay for the removal as if it were a condemnation taking. If towns and cities are unable to afford such payments non-conforming uses will not be removed and land improvements may slow down.