Senate Bill 490 would amend North Carolina General Statute 133-17, which governs administrative payments and agency decisions under the state’s relocation/condemnation-related article. The bill changes current law from making an agency’s determination conclusive and not subject to judicial review to expressly allowing an aggrieved person to seek judicial review in superior court after exhausting administrative remedies. It sets out the process for appeal, including a 30-day filing deadline, service requirements, and the agency’s duty to provide the record to the court.
The bill also provides that a person is not barred from appealing simply because they have already received funding assistance or other assistance under the article while the appeal is pending. The court would review the matter de novo, without a jury, and could affirm, reverse, or modify the agency decision if it violates the constitution, fails to comply with the statute, rules, or applicable federal law, or contains another legal error. The bill further allows either party to appeal the superior court’s final judgment to the appellate division and to seek a stay pending appeal.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would materially expand judicial review rights for people affected by agency determinations under G.S. 133-17, including claims involving funding assistance tied to displacement or eminent-domain-related administrative payments. It would override the current statutory language that makes agency decisions final and unreviewable, and it would create a new statutory appeal pathway in superior court and, potentially, the appellate courts. The measure would affect agencies administering these claims, displaced persons or property owners, and the courts that would hear these disputes.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the overall sentiment appears to be procedural and rights-expanding rather than controversial on its face. The title and structure suggest the sponsors intend to strengthen due process protections and provide a clearer avenue for challenging agency decisions. Because no transcripts or vote history are available, there is no documented public opposition or support in the provided materials.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the shift from final, nonreviewable agency determinations to full judicial review, which could increase litigation, delay finality, and add administrative burden for agencies. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness, accountability, and the ability to correct legal or constitutional errors. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on preserving agency discretion, avoiding duplicative proceedings, and limiting costs and delays in administering relocation or compensation-related assistance.
Drains: appeals; period to appeal apportionment or assessment costs on drain projects; modify. Amends secs. 72 & 72a of 1956 PA 40 (MCL 280.72 & 280.72a).