Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/04/1999 09:05 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 6
"An Act relating to the disposal of state land."
Co-chair Torgerson then took up amended amendment #1.
Senator Adams REMOVED his amendment to amendment #1. Co-
chair Torgerson explained the amendment. It was his
understanding that the appraiser in the specific case at
hand did the wrong piece of property and that this was the
source of all the misunderstandings. He felt the problem
was with certification of appraisers and that there was no
problem with the Department of Natural Resources. Perhaps
they should take a new look at how appraisers are being
certified.
Senator Green said the seller should have established a
basic price. She noted that this was her concern with
regards to the Department of Natural Resources. Co-chair
Torgerson agreed. However, the Administration does not
care if the Department of Natural Resources sells property.
Senator Adams MOVED that his amendment to amendment #1 be
WITHDRAWN and WITHOUT OBJECTION was removed. Senator
Donley MOVED to WITHDRAW amendment #1. WITHOUT OBJECTION
it was WITHDRAWN.
Senator Donley MOVED amendment #2. Senator Green OBJECTED.
Co-chair Torgerson explained amendment #2. The amendment
would allow them to add some flexibility. Senator Green
felt line eleven was redundant to the original bill, noting
the language was far too broad. Co-chair Torgerson
explained that the two years were added last year.
Otherwise, up until then, an appraisal could be given the
next day.
Senator Donley explained to Senator Green that the
amendment was consistent with her point. Senator Green
said she would rather move towards an actual setting of a
price. She asked if there could be an arbitrary reason
requiring anything from zero, unless the director said that
there was evidence that there was a different value? Could
it be said that each piece of property be reevaluated? She
felt there was a bit of conflict. There was a short
discussion between Senators Donley and Green. Senator
Donley suggested a "clear and convincing" standard so the
State could seek another appraisal. This would free up the
director.
(Tape change #21, Side A, log 000.
DICK MYLIUS, Resource Assessment and Development, Division
of Land, Department of natural Resources testified before
the committee via teleconference from Anchorage. He
explained the process used for appraising lands for sale.
It depended on parcels and also on the rules as set out by
statute. In response to Senator Phillips, he said the
situation in Kenai was a unique one. He referred
specifically to AS 38.05.067. There was a permit to
purchase land from the Forest Service. And he explained,
there was no lease with the State.
Senator Donley MOVED to amend amendment #2, adding ".by
clear and convincing evidence." to line eleven of the bill,
making it consistent. Senator Adams OBJECTED and asked
the Department to respond.
Senator Kelly asked a question regarding grammar. Senator
Donley said the drafters would conform the language.
Senator Leman said there should be a standard for the
appraisal, but it did not have to be this high.
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Support Services, Department of
Natural Resources was invited to join the committee. She
commented on the amendment. She felt the standards should
be used as the department uses them. The "clear and
convincing" standard may be too high. Perhaps Dick Mylius
or Judy Robinson in Anchorage could comment to this.
Mr. Mylius explained that they were concerned with the
language of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard.
The department noted that value of land changes over a
five-year period. Current wording on amendment #2 would
make it more difficult for the department. Changing the
two years to five years would also make it difficult for
the applicant. The bottom line for the existing statute is
that it works very well.
Senator Leman said he would like to hear what the standards
were.
JUDY ROBINSON, Land Appraisals, Department of Natural
Resources testified via teleconference from Anchorage that
the USPAC non-profit group was made up of members from the
United States and Canada, put together at the behest of the
US Congress. The problem has to do with appraisals. She
said they followed the Federal guidelines as used by all
certified appraisers. The Department of Natural Resources
also followed this same procedure.
Senator Leman recognized the document she was referring to
and then asked her what recommendation the director at the
Department of Natural Resources followed? Ms. Robinson
said she did not think the director should be required to
follow USPAC.
(pause on record)
Co-chair Torgerson asked about the two-year time frame. It
did not take an appraiser to tell whether the value of the
property went up. He referred to Healy and that the land
values have not gone up at all. He then asked for comments
regarding the change to five years.
Mr. Mylius referred to appraisals over the counter. Ms.
Robinson said once an appraisal was done and property
offered to the public there was no need to do another
appraisal unless they thought the value had changed.
Senator Green referred again to amendment #2. She asked
about value changing within two years. Senator Donley
engaged in further discussion. Senator Adams suggested the
two-year question be posed to Ms. Robinson.
Senator Donley asked if they went to a two year plan then
would there would be a standard of review after two years?
How would one deal with more recent changes in value during
the two years?
Ms. Robinson responded that if there was a reasonable
belief to do a re-appraisal then she would do it.
Senator Green read line thirteen of amendment #2. Senator
Donley explained they could request this of the buyer.
Co-chair Torgerson HELD the bill in committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-chair Torgerson recessed the meeting at approximately
11:00 a.m.
SFC-99 (1) 02/04/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|