Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/12/2015 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): State Assessment Review Board | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 12, 2015
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cathy Tilton, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Dan Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Benjamin Nageak
Representative Lora Reinbold
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
State Assessment Review Board
William Roberts - Kodiak
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
WILLIAM ROBERTS, Appointee
State Assessment Review Board
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the confirmation hearing for the
State Assessment Review Board, provided his background and
answered questions.
STEVE VAN SANT, Appointee
State Assessment Review Board
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the confirmation hearing for the
State Assessment Review Board, provided his background and
answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:05:13 AM
CHAIR CATHY TILTON called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m.
Representatives Seaton, Hughes, Ortiz, and Tilton were present
at the call to order. Representative Drummond arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): State Assessment Review Board
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
State Assessment Review Board
8:05:39 AM
CHAIR TILTON announced that the only order of business would be
the consideration of the appointees to the State Assessment
Review Board, which is a five-member board of members
knowledgeable in assessment procedures for pipeline
transportation of gas or unrefined oil. The members of the
board are appointed by the governor. She highlighted that the
board conducts oil and gas property assessment appeal hearings
on values set by the Department of Revenue. Chair Tilton then
reminded the committee that its job is only to review the
histories and qualifications of the appointees and [that signing
the reports regarding appointments to boards and commissions in
no way reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of
the appointees, and that the nominations are merely forwarded to
the full legislature for confirmation or rejection.]
8:06:55 AM
WILLIAM ROBERTS, Appointee, State Assessment Review Board,
informed the committee that he is a 39-year resident of Alaska
and Kodiak and is currently the assessor for the Kodiak Island
Borough and has been in the appraising and assessing field for
about 32 years. He related that he began as an appraiser in the
Kodiak Island Assessing Office and then became a fee appraiser.
He said he has appraised around the state as a general appraiser
for both residential and commercial [property]. In his present
job, Mr. Roberts explained that he was hired to take over an
assessment office that needed to be reorganized. Through the
reorganization, he said he has stressed fair and equitable
assessments across the board. As a member of the State
Assessment Review Board, he acknowledged that he would hear
appraisals for the pipeline and other oil and gas properties and
determine whether those appraisals, the methodologies used to
reach those appraisals, and the conclusions reached were
reasonable.
8:08:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired as to the differences and
similarities between reviewing the assessment for oil and gas
facilities and pipelines versus commercial and industrial
buildings, such as a processing plants.
MR. ROBERTS specified that appraisals and assessments on
industrial properties, whether they are oil and gas pipelines or
fish processing plants or manufacturing plants, are all the
same. Although there are three methodologies that are used, the
methodology typically used for oil and gas and the pipeline is a
cost approach. The cost approach is the cost to replace it less
the depreciation, which is based on both physical and economic
depreciation in terms of its ability to generate income. The
aforementioned is the case for industrial properties as well.
He acknowledged that there is an income approach, but pointed
out that most typically, a cost approach is used for complex
properties, factoring into that economic conditions that
surround the property.
8:09:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised then that Mr. Roberts has
participated in the cost approach assessments and reviews. He
asked if the cost approach is the current approach utilized for
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). He further asked if
there has been a problem with TAPS and whether he had any
problems with how it has been achieved.
MR. ROBERTS said he has reviewed some of the past State
Assessment Review Board (SARB) findings, which have typically
been the cost approach. He related that he has no problem with
using the cost approach.
8:11:15 AM
STEVE VAN SANT, Appointee, State Assessment Review Board,
informed the committee that he has been in the
assessment/appraisal field for over 40 years in Alaska. He
noted that he has been an assessor in the Fairbanks North Star
Borough, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and the Municipality of
Anchorage. He pointed out that for the past 22 years, he has
been the state assessor for the State of Alaska. Mr. Van Sant
also pointed out that he served on the State Assessment Review
Board for 25 years 15 years of which he served as the chair. He
mentioned that he has owned his own appraisal business as well
as several other businesses in the state. He told the committee
that he understands the dealings of the SARB as he has been on
the SARB for 25 years until he took a break in 2009. In fact,
he related that he was a member of SARB when the first appeal of
TAPS was before the Board in 2006. Mr. Van Sant said his
application is before the committee as he was asked to return to
SARB.
8:12:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES inquired as to why Mr. Van Sant agreed to
serve again.
MR. VAN SANT explained that he resigned in 2009, but briefly
returned in 2010 because the SARB couldn't achieve a quorum. He
further explained that now that he is retired, he believes he
can serve as it doesn't consume a lot of time since it usually
only meets once a year for about a week.
8:13:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES then inquired as to the years in which Mr.
Van Sant was the president of the Palmer Chamber of Commerce.
MR. VAN SANT recalled that it was 1985.
8:14:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested clarification as to why Mr. Van
Sant's general information says he or any member of his family
could be affected financially by decisions by SARB but doesn't
explain the potential financial benefit.
MR. VAN SANT explained that typically any tax dollars gained
through any of the appeals of oil and gas properties would be
reflected in the permanent fund dividend (PFD) that Alaskans
receive. Therefore, decisions could impact the PFD and benefit
him or members of his family, but no more than for any other
resident of the state.
8:15:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she was glad [for the state] to
have Mr. Van Sant's experience. She then questioned whether
existing legislation regarding the right-of-way of the gasline
traveling through the Matanuska-Susitna Borough could result in
a potential financial impact on Mr. Van Sant's family via
property taxes.
MR. VAN SANT replied that conceivably it could. However, SARB
listens to appeals from both sides of the oil and gas
properties, including the property owner and the assessing
entity. Mr. Van Sant clarified that SARB doesn't do the
assessments, rather it merely makes a decision on the final
value conclusion based on the evidence presented.
8:17:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled from Mr. Roberts' testimony that
of the three methodologies, the cost approach methodology is
most typically used. He then asked if the cost approach
methodology would be the methodology Mr. Van Sant would support
using for oil and gas properties in his review.
MR. VAN SANT concurred that typically the value on the TAPS
project has been concluded on the cost approach. Although the
other two approaches are available during the review, Mr. Van
Sant pointed out that TAPS presents a unique structure as there
is nothing like it in the entire world. Furthermore, statute
places limitation on oil and gas properties in terms of what the
department can use to set the value. Therefore, the other
approaches, the income and market approaches, are somewhat
limited. Mr. Van Sant concluded by relating that he has had
years of experience with the cost approach.
8:19:21 AM
CHAIR TILTON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
8:19:45 AM
CHAIR TILTON reminded the committee that it is merely reviewing
the qualifications of the appointees and [that signing the
reports regarding appointments to boards and commissions in no
way reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of the
appointees, and that the nominations are merely forwarded to the
full legislature for confirmation or rejection.]
8:20:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to forward the names of William
Roberts and Steve Van Sant to the State Assessment Review Board
for consideration in joint session by the House and Senate.
There being no objection, the names were forwarded.
8:21:09 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 8:21 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|