Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 124
02/06/2007 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB60 | |
| HB67 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 67-MUNI PROP TAX EXEMPTION FOR POLICE HOMES 8:41:19 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 67, "An Act relating to an optional exemption from municipal property taxes on certain residences of law enforcement officers." 8:41:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, a joint prime sponsor, explained that this legislation will assist neighborhoods that need additional police protection. He opined that merely having a police officer and a readily visible police vehicle in an area deters crime. This is recognized by the federal government and thus it provides loans to police officers in order to purchase homes in areas that need police protection. However, the aforementioned hasn't provided sufficient incentives in a number of areas [of the state]. Therefore, HB 67 allows a municipality to pass an ordinance that will allow the proposed tax credit against the [police officer's] municipal property taxes. The ordinance must designate the area meeting the eligibility requirements discussed on page 2 and must define the term "law enforcement officer." He further explained that the amount exempt from taxation may not exceed $150 million of the assessed value of the real property, not more than two exemptions can be granted at the same residence, and the parcel must be the primary place of abode. He pointed out that the committee packet includes letters of support. 8:46:03 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to how much an individual with a $300,000 house would save. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded approximately $2,200. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether HB 67 would also apply to plain clothes policeman without a marked car. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied yes, and explained that a police officer can go on and off detective status. Further, it's helpful to have police whether [visibly] known as such because that officer can be in the neighborhood to observe and prevent crime. Also, it would be administratively difficult to offer the incentive only when the uniform is worn. He related his personal experience that regardless of whether the police officer is plain clothes or has an unmarked car, the word gets out. 8:48:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to who would receive the exemption when multiple police officers reside in an area. He then turned to the situation in rural Alaska in which the Department of Public Safety often owns the houses for its law enforcement. In such a situation who would receive the exemption, he asked. He then referred to page 1, lines 10-11, and inquired as to the amount of exemption when two officers are eligible for an exemption at the same residence. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG specified that if more than one officer resides in an area, each would be eligible for the exemption unless the municipal ordinance specified otherwise. In further response to Representative Neuman, Representative Gruenberg said that the language takes into account couples who may both be police officers. He clarified that the legislation specifies that not more than two exemptions may be granted per parcel. With regard to the state-owned situation, this proposed exemption is irrelevant because the state provides the entire housing. This legislation was necessary because AS 29.45.050 requires that prior to a municipality granting a property tax exemption, the state must permit it. 8:56:17 AM ROB HEUN, Chief, Anchorage Police Department, related his support of HB 67, which would provide an incentive for law enforcement officers to move into neighborhoods where it would be beneficial to the overall public safety mission. He said he couldn't estimate how many officers would be willing to take advantage of such an exemption. 8:58:14 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH noted her appreciation of the local option that HB 67 provides. However, she expressed concern with regard to multiple exemptions on one parcel and at one household. She then inquired as to whether "law enforcement officer" is the appropriate language to utilize in statute. She also requested further discussion with regard to geographic location of this exemption and the use of the term "law enforcement officer" versus "peace officer." She then expressed interest in a fiscal note for HB 67 regarding the impact to municipalities. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG addressed the fiscal note, and pointed out that the legislature requires that impacted state agencies must provide fiscal notes. However, there is no such situation with municipalities, although he said he would be supportive of such. He recalled that the maximum number of officers in Anchorage would be 10-11, which he felt was very high. When HB 67 was drafted, the term "law enforcement officer" was utilized as it is broader and can be defined by the municipality. With regard to the geographic location, it's possible multiple officers could reside on the same street, he said. He acknowledged that the municipality could designate a geographic area, although it isn't possible to micromanage these people. 9:04:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to who decides who receives this proposed exemption. He then inquired as to a situation in which the police officer is in a lease-purchase or rental agreement. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the intent is for the ordinance to specify the geographic area and the definition of "law enforcement officer." Any law enforcement officer who meets the aforementioned criteria and owns his/her own home would be eligible. He pointed out that on page 1, line 8, the legislation refers to ownership of the property not a lease- purchase agreement. 9:08:39 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX expressed concern that the "eligible area" could be defined such that it's an area where [law enforcement personnel] are already living in a "nicer area." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the ordinance would specify, by street, the eligible area for the tax exemption. In further response to Co-Chair LeDoux, Representative Gruenberg opined that the language on page 2 includes terms of art that are specifically defined to include areas of high crime. 9:12:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if the Mat-Su Borough would have the ability to grant a tax waiver to state troopers who already own property throughout the state. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied no, unless those areas met the requirements on page 2. He specified that the legislation isn't intended to allow specific addresses as a high crime area. 9:13:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON inquired as to how the area of Spenard, which is a close mix of residential and commercial properties, would be handled. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the legislation provides a certain amount of discretion to the municipalities. He said that there may be small pockets that would meet the requirements, but this legislation is meant to be utilized in neighborhoods not just one block areas. Moreover, he said he wasn't sure whether pockets of poverty in a neighborhood would be eligible for the federal programs specified in the legislation. However, much of that detail is left up to the municipality. With respect to Spenard, Representative Gruenberg said that he didn't know how it would be handled. 9:15:58 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the legislation would apply to boroughs as well as municipalities. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that it would apply to any [governmental entity] with taxing authority. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to the situation when there is a city within a borough and the city has a sales tax and no property tax while the borough has a property tax. In such a situation, would the city be able to pass an ordinance that affects the borough's collection of the property tax, she asked. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied no, and specified that AS 29.45.050 deals with the taxing entity that imposes property taxes. 9:17:43 AM VERNON MARSHALL, Lobbyist for the Public Safety Employees Association, Inc. (PSEA), pointed out that the PSEA supports HB 67. This legislation provides municipalities the option by ordinance for a property tax exemption in order to encourage law enforcement officers to reside in areas of high crime. This legislation provides communities a tool. He highlighted the need to remember that [living in a high crime area] impacts the families of police officers. Mr. Marshall opined, "If the quid pro quo is a neighborhood that is safer, the incentive will have been worth that and much more." 9:21:01 AM KATHY WASSERMAN, Alaska Municipal League (AML), related AML's support of the intent of HB 67 and applauded the optional nature of this legislation. [HB 67 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|