Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
04/13/2013 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB73 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 73 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 73-PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION/MILITARY WIDOW(ER)
8:05:31 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 73(STA), "An Act relating to a
municipal property tax exemption for real property that is the
primary residence of certain widows and widowers; and providing
for an effective date."
8:06:02 AM
SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the
sponsor, explained that SB 73 supports military families who
have chosen to remain in Alaska, even though their spouse has
been killed during military service. The impetus for this
legislation was a constituent whose husband was killed during
military service. Senator Meyer related that while this
military widow was devastated financially and emotionally by the
loss of her husband, she approached the Anchorage Assembly
regarding possible relief of the property tax [for military
widow/widowers]. The Anchorage Assembly put the issue before
the voters and it was overwhelmingly approved, by almost 80
percent. Unfortunately, the Municipality of Anchorage
discovered that local municipalities couldn't offer such relief
without an enabling ordinance from the state. Therefore, this
legislation seeks to achieve that by allowing municipalities the
option, by ordinance approved by the voters, to exempt the first
$150,000 of assessed value for the home of any widow/widower of
a member of the armed service, including the National Guard, who
dies from a service-related cause. Senator Meyer opined that
this legislation will help military families when they need it
the most and seems to be the least that can be done for those
military families who are sacrificing on behalf of the nation.
8:08:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 29-LS063\P.2, Bullard, 4/12/13, [text provided at the
subsequent motion to adopt Amendment 1].
8:09:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD inquired as to why the exemption is only
for $150,000 as it doesn't buy much.
SENATOR MEYER pointed out that it's the same amount currently in
statute for disabled veterans.
8:09:51 AM
EDRA MORLEDGE, Staff, Senator Kevin Meyer, Alaska State
Legislature, clarified that the $150,000 is the current limit
for several other optional exemptions, including widows/widowers
of disabled veterans. However, in cases of hardship,
municipalities can offer a higher amount. In further response,
there was the indication that [the widow/widower] doesn't have
to reapply for the exemption each year.
8:10:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired as to what would occur if the
widow/widower receiving this exemption moves out of state after
a certain timeframe.
SENATOR MEYER answered that he didn't know, but pointed out that
the municipalities are already accustomed to administering such
exemptions as the senior and disabled veteran exemptions have
been on the books for some time.
8:11:22 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that this legislation is permissive
for municipalities.
SENATOR MEYER agreed that it's totally optional for
municipalities.
8:11:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND, regarding the value of the exemption to
the property owner, related that her home is valued at just over
$300,000 and the property tax is about $4,600 annually.
Therefore, in her case the $150,000 exemption would be worth
about $2,200. She echoed Senator Meyer's comment that the
$150,000 is no different from the senior and disabled veteran
property tax exemptions. She noted that Anchorage has discussed
increasing that deduction as the $150,000 value was established
many years ago when that amount was more in line with property
values at the time and often resulted in complete forgiveness of
the entire property tax. Now, the average price of a home is
over $300,000.
8:13:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON withdrew his motion to adopt Amendment 1.
8:14:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 28-
LS0631\P.2, Bullard, 4/12/13, which read:
Page 1, line 2, following "widowers;":
Insert "providing a definition of 'widow' and
'widower' for the purpose of applying the municipal
tax exemption;"
Page 2, line 11, following "spouse":
Insert "or committed financially interdependent
same-sex domestic partner"
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON objected for purposes of discussion.
8:14:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD informed the committee that [the
companion legislation to] CSSB 73(STA) came before [the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs] on which
she sits and the [same amendment] was discussed. However, no
data could be provided in terms of how many could be [included
with the adoption of Amendment 1], and thus the amendment was
rejected.
8:15:20 AM
SENATOR MEYER clarified that he isn't trying to exclude any
group of people, but rather is trying to conform to existing
statute. He related his understanding that there was an Alaska
Supreme Court case, Schmidt v. State of Alaska, which called
into the question the constitutionality of the existing senior
citizen and disabled veteran property tax exemption. The state
is currently appealing that decision and no decision has been
handed down at this point. Once there is a ruling, the state
will have to change all of its statutes accordingly.
8:16:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired as to how to define "or committed
financially interdependent same-sex domestic partners"
8:17:03 AM
JEFFERY MITTMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties
Union of Alaska, in response, stated that the definition of
"same-sex committed partner" has been established by the State
of Alaska in the underlying decision of AkCLU v. State of Alaska
[122 P.3d 788]. The Alaska Supreme Court allowed the State of
Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage, to come develop factors that
were sufficient to establish that the relationship was akin to
that of a marriage relationship. Mr. Mittman clarified that
there are two Supreme Court cases, one of which has been decided
and determined the principle, which is the basis for the trial
court's decision and the property tax exemption case. Because
the Alaska State Constitution forbids same-sex couples from ever
being married, it's unconstitutional to deny them the same
rights. With regard to the numbers of personnel, [AkCLU] has
provided that information from the Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network (SLDN) that has a census of the number of same-sex
committed couples, one of which at least is in military service.
He then offered to provide that information to any member of the
committee.
8:18:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked whether the Municipality of
Anchorage include the provision proposed in Amendment 1 into
their ordinance.
MS. MORELEDGE replied no.
8:18:53 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the senior property tax exemption
doesn't include anything similar to what's being proposed in
Amendment 1.
MS. MORELEDGE replied yes.
8:19:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether the Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA) would allow the proposal [embodied in Amendment 1].
MS. MORELEDGE characterized it as the crux of the issue. The
Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the way benefits are provided to
widows/widowers is unconstitutional as Mr. Mittman testified.
However, the Department of Law is appealing that decision, and
thus since no decision has been handed down yet the sponsor
feels it's premature to include the language embodied in
Amendment 1 in statute. If the court does, in fact, rule [that
the way benefits are provided to widows/widowers is
unconstitutional], then all such language will have to be
changed in statute. Ms. Moreledge said [CSSB 173(STA)] is
simply trying to conform to existing language already in
statute.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
8:21:36 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.
8:22:21 AM
SUSAN TOW, provided the following testimony:
I served 22 years of honorable service in the United
States Air Force, 12 of those years were served while
stationed here in the State of Alaska. During those
years, I deployed to support ongoing contingencies in
Iraq and Afghanistan. My last deployment before I
retired was as the Superintendent of Medical
Logistics. This tour lasted 12 months, 7 months out
of that year I traveled extensively throughout Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the UAE [United Arab
Emirates]. Most of these travels were on Black Hawk
helicopters or via ground support. I have been shot
at and I have pulled my weapon in self-defense. I was
always armed and my weapon was always locked and
loaded. I've carried wounded soldiers, marines, and
airmen from the heliport pad in Boulad into the ER for
treatment. I've spent nights in bunkers in Kabul and
Kandahar, praying that the incoming bullets and
missiles did not hit their intended target. I've
stood on many Patriot details as our fallen brothers
and sisters were loaded for final transport back to
their families. Through all of this my thoughts were
always with my family, my wife and our two young sons.
If I were to die, what would become of them? I knew
we didn't have the same rights or benefits expended to
our coworkers. As a retired senior [Non-commissioned
officer] NCO, I mentor many gay and lesbian active-
duty military members, most of them have families.
Many of them own property together here in Alaska.
Many of them are raising children and have been in a
committed relationship for years. These airmen and
soldiers are geared to deploy at any given time; they
are in combat-related jobs, infantry, security forces,
fighter pilots, crew chiefs, and combat medics. They
are set to deploy and defend our country whenever
asked. Their number one fear is that their families
will not be taken care of should they not return from
a mission. Senate Bill 73 is set to honor Alaska's
fallen warriors and support widows and widowers of
service members that are killed while on active duty.
This must include our gay and lesbian military
families who are prepared to give their all in the
hope that if they do, their families will be taken
care of.
8:25:04 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX thanked Ms. Tow for her service to the country.
8:25:37 AM
MR. MITTMAN, providing his testimony, opined that there are
several reasons to accept Amendment 1 and no reasons to reject
it. He then highlighted a situation that occurred this week in
Missouri in which one partner in a couple who had been in a
relationship for five years and had done all they could legally
to take care of each other, including medical powers of
attorney, was kicked out of the hospital room of the other
partner. The aforementioned occurred because Missouri had not
taken the legal action necessary to recognize that relationship,
which left the hospital unclear. The State of Alaska, he
opined, is a little behind the times in terms of the law.
Regardless of what the state does with its policies and laws,
there are committed families living together. He further opined
that anyone with a husband, wife, or a family member whom they
love understand that this isn't a matter of politics but rather
a matter of family. There are service members currently serving
in the military who are in long-term committed relationships who
have children. Those service members as well as same-sex
married couples and their families need the protections that
CSSB 73(STA) offers. Mr. Mittman opined that this is not
controversial or difficult. In fact, a very similar law was
considered by the 26th Alaska State Legislature in 2010 and the
amendment [similar to Amendment 1] was accepted. He
characterized Amendment 1 as a simple change that DOMA doesn't
forbid as DOMA simply states that the federal government
wouldn't necessarily recognize same-sex committed marriages.
The DOMA doesn't forbid any state or municipality from
recognizing the service of a gay or lesbian service member and
taking care of their families. The State of Alaska has the
right to do as it has always and historically done, that is to
honor service. If someone is willing to give his/her life for
their country, it's appropriate for the state to say it will
take care of that individual at the time of death. He
reiterated that the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled, whether or
not the Schmidt case is found on appeal to be a good law, there
is nothing that forbids this committee from doing the right
thing now. In closing, Mr. Mittman said, "For 70 years lesbian
and gay couples have been fighting, not for politics, not for
principle, but simply to take care of themselves. I would hope
that this committee would do the same."
8:28:57 AM
LYNN DAVIS, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT)
Community, provided the following testimony:
I'm a 20-year resident of Alaska and I'm a member of
the LGBT community. I knew in 1954 that I was gay,
but there was no word for it. I lived in Ohio; it's
been a long journey. I love this state; sadly, there
is an ongoing backwardness toward the LGBT community
that pierces my heart on a daily basis. Our nation's
military, gay and straight, simply want to serve their
country. The LGBT soldiers and vets, as we have been
learning through their powerful personal testimony
these last few years, have had to fight on more fronts
than their straight counterparts. Besides fighting in
all the wars, the LGBT military have had to fight
decades of deadly institutional discrimination. Based
on their testimony about how their work and lives have
been deeply harmed by anti-gay attitudes and
structures, our country moves strongly to strike down
Don't Ask, Don't Tell and our Alaska senators boldly
stood up against the injustice and harm of treating
LGBT military as second class citizens. Now, Alaska
faces a moment of forward, positive, inclusive,
respectful action toward my community, the Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community. I urge you
to include the widows and widowers of veteran same-
gender domestic partners in the property tax
exemptions. As the poet Terry Tempest Williams says,
"We are a nation at war with ourselves." Let's take
this opportunity to say Alaska stands for equality and
fairness for our military veterans. Let's take steps
to end harmful treatment of our LGBT vets.
8:31:46 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony.
8:32:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND realized that first three lines of
Amendment 1 are a title change.
8:32:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND pointed out that as testimony has
highlighted, there is a broad movement to provide a change in
the definition of widow and widower to recognize same-sex
partners across the nation. [Amendment 1] would place Alaska in
the forefront of recognizing all couples and recognize the
service of all military regardless of sexual orientation. She
expressed hope the committee would consider [adopting] Amendment
1.
8:33:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked whether there is ongoing litigation
[on the topic embodied in Amendment 1].
SENATOR MEYER replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON related that due to the ongoing litigation
he would maintain his objection.
SENATOR MEYER noted that the Department of Law is online.
8:34:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related her opposition to Amendment 1 as
she doesn't believe marriage can be redefined. She
characterized marriage as a basic fundamental, founding
principle upon which the state and the entire [nation] was
built. Representative Reinbold said she didn't appreciate this
legislation being hijacked with an amendment that she didn't
believe to be appropriate at all. Moreover, DOMA is the law of
the land and is being misinterpreted. She related her belief in
DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell, which she characterized as a
respectful way to address the issue.
8:35:57 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX concurred with Representative Olson regarding
not getting in the middle of a battle with the court and waiting
for its decision.
8:36:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND agreed with Representative Olson that it
isn't appropriate to get involved with something that is being
litigated. She then expressed her hope the court will come out
with a change. She also expressed her belief that it's healthy
for the committee to have this conversation because she believes
it will be the direction at some point.
8:37:08 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Foster and Drummond
voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1. Representatives
Olson, Reinbold, and LeDoux voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 2-3.
8:37:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that CSSB 73(STA) is the
direction [the legislature] should move in. She then related
her support for CSSB 73(STA) and the service that it provides to
the state's existing widows/widowers of military service
members.
8:38:12 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX characterized CSSB 73(STA) as great legislation.
However, each year there are requests for municipalities to
receive authority for various exemptions, which causes her to
question whether these exemptions should be completely left to
the municipalities to determine what they want to exempt.
8:39:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER agreed with Co-Chair LeDoux regarding
leaving the exemptions to the municipalities and noted his
support for CSSB 73(STA). He then requested a list of all the
existing exemptions.
8:40:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved to report CSSB 73(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 73(STA) was
reported from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSB 73 Request for Hearing HCRA - Doc 1.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 73 |
| SB 73 Sponsor Statement -Doc 2.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 73 |
| CSSB 73 STA - Doc 3.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 73 |
| CSSB 73 DCCED Fiscal Note - Doc 4.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 73 |
| CSSB 73 - ACLU Letter - Doc 5.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 73 |
| CSSB 73 HB 164 Brief - Doc 6.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2013 8:00:00 AM |
HB 164 SB 73 |
| SB 73 AG Answers - Doc 7.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 73 |
| CSSB 73 Dayton Letter - Doc 8.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 73 |
| SB 73 KTVA Article - Doc 9.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 73 |
| SB 73 2012ElectionResultsOFFICIAL - Doc 10.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 73 |
| SB 73 BR_Final_3-17-12 - Doc 11.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2013 8:00:00 AM |
SB 73 |