View Daily Data Tracking History
View Bill Text
View Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact
H0681......................................................by STATE AFFAIRS
EMINENT DOMAIN - Amends existing law relating to eminent domain proceedings
to revise the formula and procedure for assessment of damages when the
damages are to any established business of more than five years' standing;
and to provide that in eminent domain proceedings, the plaintiff's good
faith in failing to offer compensation for business damages shall not be
contested at hearing if the defendant has not given notice of its intent to
claim business damages prior to the date of filing the motion that
initiates the proceeding under this section.
02/24 House intro - 1st rdg - to printing
02/25 Rpt prt - to Transp
03/03 Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg
03/06 2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg
03/10 3rd rdg - PASSED - 51-17-2
AYES -- Alltus, Barraclough(Barraclough), Barrett, Bell, Black,
Bruneel, Callister, Crow, Cuddy, Deal, Denney, Ellsworth, Field(13),
Field(20), Geddes, Gould, Hadley, Hammond, Hansen(23), Hornbeck,
Jones, Judd, Kempton, Kendell, Kunz, Lake, Linford, Loertscher,
Mader, McKague, Meyer, Montgomery, Mortensen, Moss, Pearce, Pischner,
Pomeroy, Reynolds, Ridinger, Sali, Schaefer, Sellman, Shepherd,
Stevenson, Stone, Taylor, Tilman, Wheeler, Wood, Zimmermann, Mr
Speaker
NAYS -- Bieter, Boe, Chase, Cheirrett, Clark, Gagner, Henbest,
Jaquet, Kellogg, Marley, Moyle, Ringo, Robison, Smith, Smylie,
Stoicheff, Trail
Absent and excused -- Campbell, Hansen(29)
Floor Sponsor - Kempton
Title apvd - to Senate
03/13 Senate intro - 1st rdg - to Loc Gov
03/20 Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg
03/21 2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg
03/31 3rd rdg as amen - PASSED - 29-5-1
AYES--Andreason, Boatright, Branch, Bunderson, Burtenshaw, Cameron,
Darrington, Deide, Dunklin, Frasure, Geddes, Hawkins, Ingram, Ipsen,
Keough, King-Barrutia, Lee, McLaughlin, Noh, Parry, Richardson,
Riggs, Risch, Sandy, Schroeder, Stennett, Thorne, Wheeler, Williams
NAYS--Crow, Danielson, Davis, Stegner, Whitworth
Absent and excused--Sorensen
Floor Sponsor - Schroeder
Title apvd - to House
04/03 To enrol
04/04 Rpt enrol - Sp signed - Pres signed
04/05 To Governor
04/14 Governor signed
Session Law Chapter 346
Effective: 07/01/00
H0681
|||| LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO ||||
Fifty-fifth Legislature Second Regular Session - 2000
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSE BILL NO. 681
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
1 AN ACT
2 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS; AMENDING SEC-
3 TION 7-711, IDAHO CODE, TO REVISE THE FORMULA AND PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT
4 OF DAMAGES WHEN THE DAMAGES ARE TO ANY ESTABLISHED BUSINESS OF MORE THAN
5 FIVE YEARS' STANDING, TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CORRECTION AND TO PROVIDE THAT
6 PLAINTIFF'S GOOD FAITH IN FAILING TO OFFER COMPENSATION FOR BUSINESS DAM-
7 AGES SHALL NOT BE CONTESTED AT HEARING IF THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT GIVEN
8 NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO CLAIM BUSINESS DAMAGES PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FILING
9 THE MOTION THAT INITIATES THE PROCEEDING.
10 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
11 SECTION 1. That Section 7-711, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby
12 amended to read as follows:
13 7-711. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES. The court, jury or referee must hear such
14 legal testimony as may be offered by any of the parties to the proceedings,
15 and thereupon must ascertain and assess:
16 1. The value of the property sought to be condemned, and all improvements
17 thereon pertaining to the realty, and of each and every separate estate or
18 interest therein; if it consists of different parcels, the value of each par-
19 cel and each estate or interest therein shall be separately assessed. For pur-
20 poses of ascertaining the value of the property, the assessed value for prop-
21 erty tax purposes shall be used as the minimum amount for damages unless the
22 court, jury or referee finds the property has been altered substantially.
23 2. If the property sought to be condemned constitutes only a part of a
24 larger parcel,: (a) the damages which will accrue to the portion not sought to
25 be condemned, by reason of its severance from the portion sought to be con-
26 demned, and the construction of the improvement in the manner proposed by the
27 plaintiff; and (b) the damages to any business qualifying under this subsec-
28 tion having more than five (5) years' standing which the taking of a portion
29 of the property and the construction of the improvement in the manner proposed
30 by the plaintiff may reasonably cause. The business must be owned by the party
31 whose lands are being condemned or be located upon adjoining lands owned or
32 held by such party. Business damages under this subsection shall not be
33 awarded if the loss can reasonably be prevented by a relocation of the busi-
34 ness or by taking steps that a reasonably prudent person would take, or for
35 damages caused by temporary business interruption due to construction; and
36 provided further that compensation for business damages shall not be dupli-
37 cated in the compensation otherwise awarded to the property owner for damages
38 pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) (a) of section 7-711, Idaho Code.
39 (i) If the business owner intends to claim business damages under this
40 subsection, the owner, as defendant, must submit a written business damage
41 claim to the plaintiff within ninety (90) days after service of the sum-
42 mons and complaint for condemnation. The plaintiff's initial offer letter
43 or accompanying information must expressly inform the defendant of its
2
1 rights under this subsection, and must further inform the defendant of its
2 right to consult with an attorney.
3 (ii) The defendant's written claim must be sent to the plaintiff by cer-
4 tified mail, return receipt requested. Absent a showing of a good faith
5 justification for the failure to submit a business damage claim within
6 ninety (90) days, or an agreed extension by the parties, the court shall
7 strike the defendant's claim for business damages in any condemnation pro-
8 ceeding.
9 (iii) The business damage claim must include an explanation of the nature,
10 extent, and monetary amount of such claimed damages and must be prepared
11 by the owner, a certified public accountant, or a business damage expert
12 familiar with the nature of the operations of the defendant's business.
13 The defendant shall also provide the plaintiff with copies of the
14 defendant's business records that substantiate the good faith offer to
15 settle the business damage claim. The business damage claim must be
16 clearly segregated from the claim for property damages pursuant to subsec-
17 tions (1) and (2)(a) of section 7-711, Idaho Code.
18 (iv) As used in this subsection, the term "business records" includes,
19 but is not limited to, copies of federal and state income tax returns,
20 state sales tax returns, balance sheets, and profit and loss statements
21 for the five (5) years preceding which are attributable to the business
22 operation on the property to be acquired, and other records relied upon by
23 the business owner that substantiate the business damage claim.
24 (v) The plaintiff's good faith in failing to offer compensation for
25 business damages shall not be contested at a possession hearing held pur-
26 suant to section 7-721, Idaho Code, if the defendant has not given notice
27 of its intent to claim business damages prior to the date of filing of the
28 motion that initiates the proceeding under that section.
29 3. Separately, how much the portion not sought to be condemned, and each
30 estate or interest therein, will be specially and directly benefited, if at
31 all, by the construction of the improvement proposed by the plaintiff; and if
32 the benefit shall be equal to the damages assessed, under paragraph subsection
33 2. of this section, the owner of the parcel shall be allowed no compensation
34 except the value of the portion taken; but if the benefit shall be less than
35 the damages so assessed, the former shall be deducted from the latter, and the
36 remainder shall be the only damages allowed in addition to the value.
37 4. If the property sought to be condemned be for a railroad, the cost of
38 good and sufficient fences along the line of such railroad, and the cost of
39 cattle guards where fences may cross the line of such railroad.
40 5. As far as practicable, compensation must be assessed for each source
41 of damages separately.
42 6. If the property sought to be condemned is private real property activ-
43 ely devoted to agriculture, the damages which will accrue because of the
44 costs, if any, of farming around electrical transmission line structure(s) for
45 a transmission line with a capacity in excess of two hundred thirty (230) KV
46 (kilovolts). If the property sought to be condemned has been the subject of a
47 previous condemnation proceeding or proceedings for electrical transmission
48 line structure(s) and at the time of condemnation the field holds other elec-
49 trical transmission line structure(s), such evidence of costs referred to
50 above may also include the cumulative effects, if any, of conducting farming
51 operations around other electrical transmission line structure(s) in the same
52 field, whether such structure(s) are of the condemner or not.
REPRINT REPRINT REPRINT REPRINT REPRINT
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
RS 10153C1
"Just compensation" is a constitutional requirement in the event of a taking under
eminent domain condemnation law. The question of how "just" the compensation may be
is established, in part, through statute.
This proposed legislation would expand consideration of "just compensation" in
eminent domain condemnations to damages to businesses of more than five years'
standing which are located upon, or adjoined to, a property being taken.
FISCAL IMPACT
An expansion of eminent domain condemnation damage consideration to both
property and a business attached to that property, or adjoining property, will result in
additional costs to state and local governmental entities that exercise eminent domain
powers. The amount of this impact cannot be quantified but may be in the order of ten
million dollars.
Eight other states allow business damages in conjunction with eminent domain
condemnation actions. Ultimately, the question is not one of dollars but of rights. In the
case of highway construction/development where eminent domain condemnations are
most prevalent, is it the intent of the Idaho legislature that the costs of highway
construction/development continue to be borne by select property owners above, and
separate from, the costs all other transportation users share under the existing
transportation tax structure?
Contact
Name: Rep. Jim Kempton
Phone: 208/332-1000
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE/FISCAL NOTE Bill No. 681