Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/17/2000 09:23 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 17, 2000
9:23 AM
TAPES
SFC-00 # 30, Side A & B
SFC-00 # 31, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair John Torgerson convened the meeting at
approximately 9:23 AM
PRESENT Co-Chair John Torgerson, Co-Chair Sean Parnell,
Senator Al Adams, Senator Dave Donley, Senator Pete Kelly,
Senator Loren Leman, Senator Randy Phillips, Senator Gary
Wilken, Senator Green
Also Attending: SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR; DARWIN PETERSON,
Finance Committee Aide, Co-Chair Torgerson; LAUREE HUGONIN,
Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault; PAM LABOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce;
Attending via Teleconference: From Anchorage: BOB DICKSON,
Attorney, Atkinson, Conway and Gagnon. From Wrangell:
David Sneed.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 123-ATTY FEES:APPORTIONMT/PUBLIC INT.LITIGANT
The Committee heard testimony from the sponsor and members
of the public. The bill was held in Committee.
SB 6-DISPOSALS OF STATE LAND
The Committee heard testimony from the sponsor and members
of the public. The bill was held in Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 123
"An Act relating to public interest litigants and to
attorney fees; and amending Rule 82, Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure."
DARWIN PETERSON, Finance Committee Aide, Co-Chair
Torgerson, stated that currently, the court treats public
interest litigants differently than civil litigants. He
then referred to a handout, which explained the difference
between the various proposed committee substitutes before
the Committee regarding this issue. He continued that
Version "I" of SB 123 amends Rule 82, which allows for the
award of attorney's fees to and against public interest
litigants in the same manner as civil litigants under Rule
82. He stated that the prevailing public interest litigant
receives 30 percent of attorney's fees for a case, which
goes to trial and 20 percent attorney's fees for a case
that does not go to trial. He noted that a loosing public
interest litigant would be required to pay the prevailing
party 30 percent for a trial case, and 20 percent for a
non-trial case. Mr. Peterson stated that the exceptions to
varying attorney's fees found under Rule 82, would apply to
public interest litigants under Version "I" before the
Committee. He affirmed that under this same Version
apportionment would not be required for attorney's fee. He
noted that this change took place in reaction to the case
of Dansereau v. Ulmer and he went on to outline the
particulars of this decision. He added that essentially
the court found that apportionment does not have to be
applied by issue. Mr. Peterson noted that under current
statute, a public interest litigant could be awarded
attorney's fees for all of their issues even if they
prevailed on just one. In response to a question posed by
Co-Chair Parnell, he stated that it was up to the judge's
discretion to pay attorney's fees for regular civil
litigants, under Rule 82, by issue.
Mr. Peterson continued that Version "I" does not address
the issue of cost as is noted in Version "K." He referred
to this latter Version and stated that it amends Rule 79
and Rule 82. He noted that Rule 79 deals with costs and
Rule 82 deals with attorney's fees. Mr. Peterson asserted
the under Version "K," a prevailing public interest
litigant would receive 50 percent of attorney's fees for a
case that goes to trial and 25 percent for those that do
not. He remarked that under this Version, a judge would
award attorney's fees against a losing public interest
litigant if the court finds that an issue is frivolous. He
continued that this same Version allows the court to
apportion attorney's fees by issue. He added that another
difference with Version "K" is that it touches on cost, an
issue which had not been addressed before. He continued
that this was also allowed for a prevailing public interest
litigant in regards to cost apportioned by issue. Mr.
Peterson noted that a losing public interest litigant would
pay costs for frivolous issues only.
Mr. Peterson continued with a summary of Version "M," which
is a compromise Version. He noted that it only amended
Rule 82, so that a public interest litigant would receive
attorney's fees in the same manner as civil litigant, which
is 30 percent if a case goes to trial and 20 percent if it
does not, only if the court found the issue frivolous. He
added that the fees should be apportioned by issue. He
affirmed that a losing public litigant would not have to
pay attorney's fees to a prevailing party unless the court
finds that the issue is frivolous. He continued that the
exceptions under Rule 82 (b) (3) would apply, adding that
the court may vary attorney's fees above the 30 percent/20
percent limit for exceptional circumstances. He explained
that the court would be required to apportion by issue
unless the court could find exceptional circumstances.
Senator P. Kelly referred to Version "M" and asked about
the requirement of frivolousness for the award of
attorney's fees. He asked about the latitude awarded to
the courts to make this determination.
Co-Chair Torgerson responded with a general discussion
about the intent of this legislation to encourage public
interest litigant efforts. He noted that his goal in
drafting the proposed language was to keep the public
interest litigant held harmless. He added that currently
under Rule 11, the court has this discretion.
Co-Chair Parnell noted under Version "I" that public
interest litigants should be treated the same as civil
litigants. He added that public interest litigants should
not be required to pay more attorney's fees than civil
litigants. He continued that Version "K," on page two in
awarding costs or attorney's fees, includes the following
language: "if the court finds that an issue presented by a
public interest litigant upon which litigant was not the
prevailing party, was not well grounded in fact or not
warranted by existing law or good faith argument then the
court may award attorney's fees." He noted that the same
type of language is included for costs, but added that this
language did not exist in Rule 82 in respect to civil
litigants. He added that if a party to a case thinks that
the other party's claims are frivolous, then a Rule 11
motion can be filed. He continued that this remedy already
exists for both civil litigants and public interest
litigants. Co-Chair Parnell summed up that he did not
think this type of language was necessary to include in any
Committee Substitute adopted by the Committee.
Senator Adams stated that he did not think this legislation
was necessary. He noted the companion measure, HB 176,
failed on the floor. He added that the Supreme Court ruled
that public interest litigant cases are to be encouraged.
He felt as though the rules in place were sufficient.
LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, stated that in 1996 after the
passage of the Domestic Violence Act, the court system in
trying to implement portions of this Act, refused to allow
individuals to apply for three separate protective orders,
something which had been granted as part of this Act. She
then went into specific detail regarding the agencies her
organization worked with to rectify this problem, as well
as those procedural steps they took to avoid litigation.
She noted that her agency was unsuccessful in these
efforts. She noted that the Network then took their case
to court as a public interest litigant against the court
system administration to compel them to comply to the
"three protective order" statute. The Network was
successful. She noted that the Network did everything
necessary to reduce their costs to pursue this action, as
well as trying to settle out of court, but the court system
was not willing to compromise. She remarked that although
they were awarded attorney's fees, they did not get the
full amount and were forced to fundraise to make up the
difference. She urged the Committee to consider those
small entities that are forced to bring forward valid
arguments, which can benefit many. She then shared her
feelings regarding the distinction between non-public
interest litigants and public ones.
Senator Green asked Ms. Hugonin why she felt her
organization should be exempt from the same standards that
apply to anyone else who choses to bring litigation. She
commented that it was hard to argue this issue because of
the political sensitivity involved.
Ms. Hugonin responded that the difference between being a
public interest litigant, and two citizens that may have a
disagreement, for example, is that a public interest
litigant has the potential to bring forth an issue that
could benefit the public at large.
BOB DICKSON, testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
He stated that he was a lawyer and a shareholder in the law
firm of Atkinson, Conway and Gagnon. He stated that he
supported Version "I" of this legislation because it
fundamentally treats all public interest litigants (PIL)
the same as all other civil litigants. He clarified that
the Alaska Supreme Court has held that it is the lower
court's discretion to determine who is the prevailing
party. He noted that the lower court is supposed to look
at all of the issues, determine which are core and those
that were litigated to determine who prevailed. He
continued that the Supreme Court did not necessarily give
the lower court the discretion to divide up issues, but to
determine whom the overall, prevailing party is when all of
the issues litigated are considered.
Mr. Dickson suggested that this discretion is very
difficult to implement. He noted that some of the CS
Versions include language that allows the award of
attorney's fees on an issue by issue basis, something which
would be especially hard to carry out. He continued in
regards to Version "K," before the Committee, which allows
attorney's fees to be awarded only against a PIL, when
their case is determined frivolous. He stressed that Rule
82 already allows for attorney's fees for frivolous
lawsuits or as sanctions against vexatious conduct, but
that this rarely happens
Mr. Dickson responded to comments made by Senator Adams
regarding the necessity of SB 123 in light of tort reform.
He offered that litigation involving public interest
litigants has nothing to do with torts, which is when a
party allegedly does something wrong, is negligent and
there is an incentive of monetary award to right a wrong.
He continued that public interest litigant cases usually
center on an issue that affects the community at large such
as opposition of a timbering operation or when someone
attacks a zoning ordinance or an election result.
Mr. Dickson stated that public interest litigation is an
exception to Rule 82. He added that the related concepts
are not codified or set out in statute or even in Rule 82.
He asserted that as a result, the Alaska Supreme Court
essentially makes political decisions that ought to be made
by the legislature. He offered that out of over 100 cases
since 1968, those parties accorded public interest litigant
status, live a subsistence lifestyle. He used the example
of newspapers, even though they are commercial operations,
they have been awarded this status, along with
environmental protection and conservation groups, also
Native cultural interests, home owners who are opposing an
apartment house going up a few doors away, etceteras. He
noted that in contrast oil companies, miners, logging
companies, trucking companies, labor unions, and others
have always been consistently refused the status of public
interest litigants because the Supreme Court has said that
these parties have a sufficient economic interest in the
result of the litigation.
Mr. Dickson pointed out that the court has made
distinctions about who is considered a public interest
litigant for the good of the public. He referred to the
McCave case, which launched the concept of awarding full
attorney's fees to a party that prevails. He cited the
following language to bolster his point: "litigation on
behalf of the public interest should be encouraged. Few
aggrieved parties would be in the position to advance the
public interest by invoking the injunctive powers of the
courts." He summarized (in his opinion) that the Supreme
Court wishes to encourage these types of public issues that
have gone through the executive branch and have been found
in accordance with the laws passed by the legislature. He
felt as though the Supreme Court wants these issues to be
brought before them for their interpretation of the issues.
He added that the results of these decisions are basically
a matter of separation of powers, as to who should make the
political decision to determine which groups are going to
be preferred over others.
Mr. Dickson stressed that there was a very definite pattern
of those groups and interests out of the 100 or so cases
originally cited which could be considered "politically
correct," or politically influential such as newspapers and
others. He continued that these groups that receive this
status, do so over the interests of those groups aligned
with economic development, such as the mining or timber
industry. He submitted that these more political
designations of merit ought to be made by the legislature
and suggested the passage of Version "I" to effectuate this
change. He added that Version "I" treats all PIL litigants
the same as other civil litigants. He noted that Alaska is
the only state in the union that permits the recovery of
even a portion of attorney's fees as a matter of course in
all civil cases. He continued that Rule 82, in its normal
application, does have the affect of keeping frivolous
lawsuits at a minimum and awarding those people who have
prevailed, giving them an incentive because they will be
able to recover a portion of their attorney's fees. He
added that since all other civil litigants in the state
have to abide by Rule 82, in its normal application, all
other parties ought to be treated equally, without trying
to give a boost or a detriment to one political group over
another.
Senator Adam asked what the purpose of applying Civil Rule
82 was to public interest litigants. He thought that
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure helped to stop frivolous
lawsuits. He also wondered if this legislation would
stifle the right of individuals or Alaska organizations to
question the actions of the state, thus upsetting the
checks and balances presently in place.
Mr. Dickson responded that Rule 11 was a part of the Rules
of Civil Procedure and basically states that any lawyer who
signs a pleading, certifies that they have made some
reasonable inquiry into the facts of a case. He added that
this rule requires that arguments should be made,
reasonably based upon the facts and in accordance with the
law. He remarked that he has never seen a lawsuit thrown
out of court as frivolous. He continued that the Alaska
Supreme Court in interpreting Rule 82, created an
additional provision allowing for full attorney's fees
against a loosing party if the case is frivolous.
Mr. Dickson noted that this legislation would take the
financial incentive to bring suit as a result of a
disparity and it would put everybody on an equal standing
who have wrongs or interests, which need protection. He
added that presently, public interest litigants are not
required to pay attorney's fees if they lose, but stand to
gain attorney's fees if they prevail. He felt as though
this situation has been abused in the past.
Senator Adams asked why it was necessary to apply Civil
Rule 82 to public interest litigants.
Mr. Dickson responded that the Supreme Court awards fees
and costs by virtue of AS 09.60.10, which authorizes them
to determine costs including attorney's fees assigned to
the prevailing party in a civil action. He noted that Rule
82 automatically covers PIL litigation, but this
legislation attempts removal of an exception to it.
PAM LABOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
stated that her organization supports this legislation.
She noted that the Chamber has never been able to declare
themselves public interest litigants even though they are a
non-profit organization. Presently, the Chamber is
challenging three different claims and has had to raise
funds to defend themselves, she offered. The Chamber would
like the law to require the same percentage of cost and
fees paid to a public interest litigant as the percentage
of issues raised on which the litigants prevail.
Co-Chair Parnell made a motion to adopt CSSB 123, 1-
LS0636\M as a working draft. He noted that this Version
would make the civil and public interest litigants more
equal in standing. Hearing no objection it was ADOPTED.
Senator Donley noted that the draft Version "M" was a
reasonable compromise to the provision in Section 2, which
provides that unless exceptional circumstances are found,
public interest litigants are provided with larger than
Rule 82 awards. He added that Version "M" also includes
apportionment by issue, which does not presently exist. He
continued that there are present allowances for determining
whether a case is frivolous, but he thought it worthwhile
to reiterate this right through Version "M."
Amendment #1: Senator Donley made a motion to substitute
Section 2 of Version "M" for Section 2 of Version "I."
Co-Chair Parnell stated that the Committee had an amendment
before them. He reiterated that Senator Donley had moved
an amendment adding language from Version "M," page two,
subsection (g) that would require the court to apportion
fees by issue and stated, if the "court finds an issue
presented by public interest litigants to be frivolous,
then the court shall award attorney's fees under (b) of
this rule." He noted that this provision was more punitive
to public interest litigants than the civil litigants since
it requires the court to apportion fees by issue, which is
not required of non-public interest litigants.
Co-Chair Parnell objected. He disagreed with the court
apportioning fees by issue and noted how difficult this
would be. He continued that frivolous sanctions are
already granted under Rule 11, so he felt as though the
insertion of this clause was not necessary.
Tape: SFC - 99 #30, Side B, 10:10 AM
Co-Chair Torgerson commented on why the language regarding
frivolousness was included in Version "M," the first of
which is because the courts do not use this provision. He
continued that this Version would redirect the courts on
how they should apportion or set fees, while at the same
time not award them if frivolousness is determined by the
use of Rule 82. He understood that Rule 11 existed for
this purpose, but was doubtful that the court considers it
very seriously.
Co-Chair Parnell referred to Version "M," on page two, line
8 and read: "If the court finds an issue presented by a
public interest litigant to be frivolous." He thought
about dividing the question, to vote once on whether the
court could apportion fees and then vote on whether they
could award fees for bringing forward a frivolous issue.
Additional discussion followed regarding whether an
attorney could apportion their fees by issue if forced to
do so. It was determined that this could be conducted on
an approximation.
Senator Wilken asked for clarification under Version "I,"
that for non-monetary judgments the prevailing PIL would
receive 30 percent, no more, no less, and whether or not
Version "M" contained some other manner of calculation.
Co-Chair Parnell responded that under Version "I" a PIL
could receive more than 30 percent, but noted that under
Rule 82 enhanced attorney's fees over 30 percent are only
available if the parties prove certain factors. He added
that this is available to both civil and PIL litigants. It
was determined that apportionment by issue was the same
across both Versions "I" and "M" of this legislation.
There was some general discussion about the difference
between the two.
Senator Donley stated that Version "I" implies that
apportionment is available, afforded by Rule 82. He added
that Version "M" requires apportionment by incorporation of
specific language to this effect.
Co-Chair Torgerson called for a short at ease at 10:15 AM.
Co-Chair Parnell asked Mr. Dickson when the court awards
attorney's fees and whether or not they currently apportion
by issue.
Mr. Dickson responded that the Supreme Court has
discouraged awarding attorney's fees by issue. He added
that the lower courts have been instructed on numerous
occasions to look at all of the issues, decide which are
the ones primarily litigated and which ones are the core
points. He continued that the party, who prevails on these
core issues, is determined to be the prevailing party and
then recovers 30 percent of all attorney's fees if the case
goes to trial. He noted that this would be so, even if
some of those attorney's fees were spent on unsuccessful
motions for summary judgment or discovery issues that were
disregarded. He summed up that the issue of who prevails
is within the discretion of the trial court.
Co-Chair Parnell asked if Mr. Dickson had any experience
with attorney's fees being awarded based upon a particular
issue as versus, based on a prevailing party determination.
Mr. Dickson responded that he understood that the trial
court is supposed to determine whom prevailed overall and
not on an issue by issue basis. He noted that it is
difficult to determine how much attorney's fees are spent
on which issue. He offered that typically all issues move
forward at the same time and some are subject to a summary
judgment. He summed up that it is very difficult to
separate out fees that are attributable to a definitive
claim or point.
Senator Donley gave a scenario of professional litigators
who might enter 20 different pleas for any given lawsuit,
based on an hourly rate of $30 to $40. He noted that these
same attorneys could potentially file for attorney's fees
in relation to these 20 claims, but do so based upon a
higher hourly rate to make more money. He added that they
could potentially take this money and file more lawsuits
for the purposes of claiming attorney's fees. He noted
that this type of system could actually encourage frivolous
lawsuits if attorneys see the potential of pleading issues
they felt they could get attorneys fees, even if they only
prevail on one issue. He felt a good compromise would be
to apportion only the issues that they prevailed upon and
only if the court awards more than the standard Rule 82.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if this would be above the 30
percent.
Senator Donley responded affirmatively and added that if
the court went above the 30 percent, then they would be
required to apportion.
Co-Chair Torgerson noted that this would not be true in
regards to Rule 82, because Rule 82 allows excesses of 30
percent. He asked if Mr. Dickson had a comment regarding
this possibility.
Mr. Dickson responded that this might be a reasonable
compromise. He noted that it was true that Rule 82 permits
a trial court to go beyond the 30 percent or 20 percent,
but that there were are about six different factors that
affect this determination. He added that one of these
factors was that, to the extent to which a given fee award
may be so erroneous to the non-prevailing party, it would
deter similarly situated litigants from the voluntary use
of the courts. He used the example of keeping poor people
out of the courts as an issue that has troubled the Supreme
Court with Rule 82, and rightfully so. He pointed out with
this most recent amendment, if the Committee were to say
Rule 82 applies to everybody, including public interest
litigants, this would still give the lower court the
opportunity to prevent the losing public interest litigant
from being hit with a lot of attorney's fees. He noted
that if the court awarded more attorney's fees on an issue
by issue basis above the 25 to 30 percent, this would be
better than the current system.
Senator Parnell asked why the Committee would treat public
interest litigants differently than civil litigants in this
instance. He gave an example of someone that might file
eight different claims in a complaint, one or two of, which
is very strong, the other six of which they have a ten-
percent chance of winning. He pointed out that currently,
a civil litigant is allowed to ask for attorney's fees
related to these claims, but the proposed language before
the Committee would not allow the same for public interest
litigants.
Senator Donley responded that the court should apply this
to everyone under Rule 82, but if the court goes beyond
what is allowed under this rule the court could apportion
based on which issues were prevailed upon. He felt this
was necessary since the court uses the public interest
litigant label to abuse the process in order to award
excessive fees.
Mr. Dickson hesitated to suggest making a change beyond the
20 to 30 percent applied to all litigants. He noted that
there have been numerous challenges to Rule 82 and saw
potential changes to this rule as creating more of the
same. He stated that he would rather make all litigants
equal under the law.
Senator Adams added that the compromise language suggested
by Senator Donley was very good. He had hoped this was the
direction the Committee was leaning towards.
Co-Chair Parnell outlined once again his argument against
trying to apportion attorney's fees by issue.
Senator Donley reiterated his intent that if the court
awards an excess of the Rule 82 standard amount, then it
would apportion based on issue, unless it finds exceptional
circumstances. He added that the court should be required
to explain why they deemed exceptional circumstances if so
asserted.
Senator Green asked if actual costs of attorney's fees are
submitted for consideration in these circumstances.
Mr. Dickson responded that this is based upon actual
attorney's fees incurred and actual checks written by a
client. He added that the court then determines if these
costs are reasonable and if not, are reduced and then 30
percent of this amount is calculated. He noted an
exception to this scenario with a Trustees of Alaska case,
where they showed that similar lawyers charge $150 to $200
per hour for the same services they provide for $40 to $50
per hour and that their time should be valued at a higher
rate.
Senator Green asked if the Committee could address this
problem since she felt that this was the bigger issue.
Senator Donley stated that a court could find, after
passage of this law, that for all cases they would award
the value of an action versus actual costs. He noted that
the court would have to do this for all litigants and not
just the PIL.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked that Senator Donley remove his
motion and requested that compromise language be drafted.
Senator Donley made a motion to WITHDRAW Amendment #1
before the Committee.
Co-Chair Torgerson ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 6
"An Act relating to the disposal of state land."
DARWIN PETERSON, Finance Committee Aide, Co-Chair Torgerson
reviewed the adopted committee substitute, 1-LS0071\H and
the proposed committee substitute, Version "M." He noted
that everywhere in Version "H" where the state is required
to dispose of land, the word "offer" was included, and he
added that the new language would read, "the state shall
offer for disposal." He continued that the number of
acreage to be offered was changed from 250,000 acres to
100,00 acres. He offered that the "creation of the Land
Disposal Advisory Board," was deleted from Version "H" and
replaced by public nominations that are sent to the State
Land Commission. He continued that all the sections in the
bill that address lapse dates are changed to June 30, 2009,
which is the sunset date of the new Land Commission. He
noted that the previous sunset date was also deleted, so
the Land Commission would exist in perpetuity. He added
that Section 7, Section 9, Section 11, that address the
powers of the Commissioner, were given to the Commission in
order to submit reports to the Legislature for analysis and
assessment of market demand. Mr. Peterson concluded that
Version "M" of this bill was much shorter in length than
the previous. He noted that a fiscal note had not yet been
requested yet for Version "M."
Co-Chair Torgerson suspected that this legislation would
have a $10 million dollar fiscal note attached. He noted
that the state currently has 50,000 acres of land to be re-
offered that was included in this legislation. He
continued that 150,000 acres would be added to this
legislation and the fiscal note would reflect the necessary
zoning costs, mapping costs, etceteras.
Senator Adams referred to and asked for an explanation of
Section Two, which creates the Land Sale Commission, and
then to Section 10, which solves disputes between the
Commissioner and the State Land Commission when there are
problems deciding what lands should be offered in the first
place.
Co-Chair Torgerson explained how the land would be
considered for distribution.
Senator Phillips referred to page four and asked what the
difference was between permanent fund eligibility and
living in Alaska for a year.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded that the primary reason for
inserting this section was that a lot of public comment and
concern was expressed about how Alaska land-holdings were
being offered for sale. The Department of Natural
Resources was posting available land on the Internet. He
noted one example, where some groups of wealthy doctors
were outbidding local Juneau residents who had tried
obtaining these same offerings for years. He outlined the
legislation that was passed as a result of this situation,
with allowances for residents who qualify for the permanent
fund dividend.
Senator Phillips questioned the current law and its
residency requirements that allows for at least one year
prior to date of application and pointed out that this new
committee substitute proposes something else. He asked
what the differences were between the two. He generally
noted conflicts of using the Permanent Fund Dividend status
as a determinant for this program qualification.
Senator Taylor responded that they would work on this
aspect.
Senator Taylor added that included in the first "blush" of
this bill, was a requirement that the purchaser would pay
for the appraisal and land survey, which would help
diminish the attached fiscal note. He noted that this
clause had been taken out of the latest Version.
Co-Chair Torgerson responded that this issue would be
considered again, but pointed out that the state as
property owner is the only entity that can bring action
before local planning commissions. He noted that this did
not mean that the Committee could include some type of
stipulation to pay costs up front. He pointed out that if
the State were going to sell land, somehow, they would have
to come up with the necessary money and establish a solid
program to transfer this property.
DAVID SNEED, testified via teleconference from Wrangell.
He stated that he had been a resident of Alaska for eleven
years. He noted that he has tried saving money in order to
buy land, but added that the he was unable to keep up with
rising appraisals. He recommended that the Committee
encourage development of remote sites, while making these
areas less dependent upon publicly supplied services. He
added that the Department of Natural Resources makes too
much land available for recreation rather than for private
residential status. He outlined his ideas about making
land available for agricultural pursuits. He stated his
concern about two real estate members being placed on the
Commission.
Tape 31, Side A, 11:05 AM.
Senator Phillips asked Mr. Sneed if he thought applicants
under this legislation should pay for the land survey and
appraisal.
Mr. Sneed did not respond.
The bill was HELD in Committee.
ADJOURNED
Co-Chair Torgerson adjourned the meeting at 11:09 a.m.
SFC-00 SS1 (15) 02/17/00
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|