Legislature(1993 - 1994)
1993-04-26 Senate Journal
Full Journal pdf1993-04-26 Senate Journal Page 1775 HB 66 SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 66(FIN) am S "An Act relating to an exemption from and deferral of municipal property taxes for certain primary residences, to property tax equivalency payments for certain residents, to the determination of full and true value of taxable property in a municipality; and providing for an effective date" which had been placed at the bottom of today's calendar (page 1766) was before the Senate in second reading. Senator Duncan renewed his motion that SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 66(FIN) am S be held to the April 27 calendar in second reading. Senator Taylor objected. The question being: "Shall SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 66(FIN) am S be held to the April 27 calendar in second reading?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 66(FIN) am S Second Reading Hold in Second Reading to 4/27 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor Rieger changed from "Yea" to "Nay". and so, the bill was not held. 1993-04-26 Senate Journal Page 1776 HB 66 Senator Salo moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 1 offered on page 1766. Senator Sharp objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 66(FIN) am S Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor and so, Amendment No. 1 failed. Senator Taylor offered Amendment No. 2 : Page 4, line 10: after "homes," Insert "and marine vessels" Page 4, line 30: after "homes," Insert "and marine vessels" Senator Taylor moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 2. Senator Duncan objected. Senator Little moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 2 be amended as follows: Delete "and" in both places Insert "or" in both places Senator Duncan objected. 1993-04-26 Senate Journal Page 1777 HB 66 Senator Little moved and asked unanimous consent that her motion to amend Amendment No. 2 be withdrawn. Without objection, it was so ordered. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 2 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 66(FIN) am S Second Reading Amendment No. 2 YEAS: 5 NAYS: 15 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Jacko, Miller, Pearce, Rieger, Taylor Nays: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Frank, Halford, Kelly, Kerttula, Leman, Lincoln, Little, Phillips, Salo, Sharp, Zharoff and so, Amendment No. 2 failed. Amendment No. 3 was not offered. Senator Salo offered Amendment No. 4 : Page 3, following sec. 4: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 5. AS 29.45 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 29.45.042. MANDATORY DEFERRAL FOR CERTAIN RESIDENCES. (a) Payment of taxes on the first $150,000 of the assessed value of real property is deferred if the property is owned and occupied as the primary residence and permanent place of abode by a resident of the state who is eligible under (b) of this section and is (1) 65 years of age or older; or (2) at least 60 years old and the widow or widower of an individual who qualified for an exemption under former AS29.45.030(e)(1) 1993-04-26 Senate Journal Page 1778 HB 66 or for a deferral under (1) of this subsection. The taxes become due when the property ceases to be owned by the resident who qualified for the deferral or the spouse if the spouse also qualified for a deferral. Only one deferral may be granted for the same property and, if two or more persons are eligible for a deferral for the same property, the parties shall decide between or among themselves who is to receive the benefit of the deferral. Payment of taxes may not be deferred under this section if the assessor determines, after notice and hearing to the parties, that the property was conveyed to the applicant primarily for the purpose of obtaining the deferral. The determination of the assessor may be appealed under AS44.62.560 - 44.62.570. (b) To qualify for a deferral for a year, the adjusted gross income of an individual for the prior year may not exceed $24,000 if the individual filed a single return, or $36,000 if the individual files jointly with another. The determination of adjusted gross income is based upon the federal income tax return filed by the individual. (c) In this section, "real property" includes mobile homes, whether classified as real or personal property for municipal tax purposes." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Senator Salo moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 4. Senator Miller objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 4 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: 1993-04-26 Senate Journal Page 1779 HB 66 SCS CSHB 66(FIN) am S Second Reading Amendment No. 4 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor and so, Amendment No. 4 failed. Senator Duncan offered Amendment No. 5 : Page 3, lines 24 and 25: Delete "at least 60 years old" Page 4, line 16: Delete "at least 60 years old" Senator Duncan moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 5. Senator Miller objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 5 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 66(FIN) am S Second Reading Amendment No. 5 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor 1993-04-26 Senate Journal Page 1780 HB 66 and so, Amendment No. 5 failed. Senator Little offered Amendment No. 6 : Page 5, line 1: Delete "1994" Insert "1995" Senator Little moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 6. Senator Sharp objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 6 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 66(FIN) am S Second Reading Amendment No. 6 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor and so, Amendment No. 6 failed. Senator Little offered Amendment No. 7 : Page 3, in AS29.45.052 added by sec. 6: Insert a new subsection to read: "(c) The state shall reimburse a municipality for one-half of the real property tax revenue lost to it as a result of an exemption granted under (a) or (b) of this section. However, reimbursement may be made only to the extent that the loss exceeds an exemption that was granted 1993-04-26 Senate Journal Page 1781 HB 66 by the municipality, or that on proper application by an individual would have been granted, under AS 29.45.050(a), and no reimbursement may be made for revenue lost as a result of an exemption granted for that portion of the assessed value of real property that exceeds $100,000. If appropriations are not sufficient to fully fund reimbursements under this subsection, the amount available shall be distributed pro rata among eligible municipalities." Reletter the following subsections accordingly. Senator Little moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 7. Senator Pearce objected. Senator Duncan called the Senate. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 7 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 66(FIN) am S Second Reading Amendment No. 7 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor and so, Amendment No. 7 failed. Senator Taylor moved and asked unanimous consent that SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 66(FIN) am S be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading and placed on final passage. Senator Adams objected. 1993-04-26 Senate Journal Page 1782 HB 66 The question being: "Shall SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 66(FIN) am S be advanced to third reading?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 66(FIN) am S Advance from Second to Third Reading? YEAS: 11 NAYS: 9 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Frank, Halford, Jacko, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor Nays: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Kerttula, Lincoln, Little, Salo, Zharoff and so, the bill failed to advance to third reading.