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 Senator Adams MOVED that his amendment to amendment #1 be WITHDRAWN and WITHOUT OBJECTION was removed.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 WITHOUT OBJECTION it was WITHDRAWN.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