Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/14/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB71 | |
| HB211 | |
| HB103 | |
| HB215 | |
| HB169 | |
| HB27 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 211 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| HB 215 | |||
| += | HB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 169 | ||
| = | HB 71 | ||
| = | HB 27 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 27
An Act relating to an optional exemption from municipal
property taxes on certain residences of law enforcement
officers.
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, SPONSOR, explained that the
purpose of the bill was to encourage law enforcement
officers to purchase homes and live in areas needing
additional police protection. It would allow municipalities
to pass an ordinance giving an exemption of up to $150,000
of assessed valuation on the primary permanent residence of
any law enforcement officer who lives in a high crime area.
The bill permits a municipality, by ordinance, to designate
areas in which the primary permanent residence owned and
occupied by a law enforcement officer would be exempted from
taxation up to $150,000 of the assessed valuation per
officer/owner-occupant (up to a maximum of $300,000 assessed
valuation per property.)
Representative Gruenberg pointed out that the ordinance must
define "law enforcement officer" and designate specific
areas, as either:
· (1) Areas eligible under governmental programs allowing
special assistance for urban development, neighborhood
revitalization, or law enforcement, or
· (2) Statistically high crime areas.
Representative Gruenberg advised that there would be no
cost to the State for the program.
JIM GASPER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), POLICE OFFICER,
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE, noted that
he represents over 200 municipal police officers throughout
the State. He thought that the bill was drafted to provide
discretion to the municipalities that want to participate in
the program. He stated that it is a good method of
advancing the concept of community policing. It could be
extended to State police for policing high crime areas. He
thought it would be good policy for the State and voiced
support for the bill.
3:44:17 PM
STEVE VAN SANT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STATE
ASSESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, ANCHORAGE, voiced appreciation to
Representative Gruenberg for addressing the concerns of the
State Assessor's office. He voiced support for the bill.
3:44:58 PM
Representative Gruenberg clarified the conceptual Amendment
#1, Subsection (s) on Page 1, Line 8 amended to read:
"(s) A municipality may be ordinance designate an area
within its boundaries that is an eligible area and exempt
from taxation an amount not to exceed $150,000 of the
assessed value of real property within the area [that is]
if the property is primarily residential and owned and
occupied as the primary permanent place of abode by a law
enforcement officer for the entire parcel."
In response to a query by Vice-Chair Stoltze, Representative
Gruenberg explained that if the parcel were a zero lot line,
then it would be able to occur. However, if there was a
triplex or duplex on the land and it was titled as a single
parcel, it could be divided. The most that can be received
is $150,000 dollars.
Representative Kelly asked why would the State want to
encourage two police in the same area. Representative
Gruenberg responded, they could be a social unit such as a
family or two people that were co-tenants.
Representative Kelly thought there could be potential for
abuse. Representative Gruenberg replied that at least in
the Mountain View area, it would be unlikely to find any
properties of that value.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment #1.
Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED.
After looking at the printed version of the conceptual
amendment, Co-Chair Chenault WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There
being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment #1 was
adopted.
3:53:37 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked about constitutional issues
regarding the police department and where they reside.
Representative Gruenberg was not aware of anything that
could prohibit it in the future. Co-Chair Chenault noted
that in his area, it is required that the troopers live
within the city limits. He thought that the legislation
would help police officers out.
3:55:39 PM
Representative Kelly suggested adding language: "No more
than one exemption for the same property be granted".
Representative Gruenberg suggested that if that language was
adopted, it would be important to strike the sentence from
Lines 8-10.
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment #2.
3:58:50 PM
Representative Hawker OBJECTED for discussion purposes. He
thought that the amendment could put the primary focus on
the residential location. He questioned if the exemption
should track the property or the people working as law
enforcement officers. He mentioned that he wanted to see
every law enforcement officer have the option of the
proposal.
Representative Croft suggested deleting language on Lines 8-
10. Co-Chair Chenault agreed, however, noted that on Line
6, the taxation may not exceed $150,000 assessed value. He
supported one exemption.
3:57:57 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze recommended inserting the language: "Only
one exemption".
4:00:46 PM
Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment
#2. Representative Gruenberg supported the verbiage
proposed by Vice Chair Stoltze.
4:01:25 PM
Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED to conceptual Amendment #2 as he
foresaw more problems related to marital status and spousal
issues.
Representative Croft thought that removal of that sentence
could allow the municipalities to decide. He did not think
it would do much harm.
Co-Chair Meyer thought that if it was modeled after the
senior exemption, it should be consistent. Representative
Gruenberg replied that it was modeled after a different
statute, AS 29.45.050, regarding the granting of exemptions
for same property.
Representative Kelly WITHDREW conceptual Amendment #2.
4:04:59 PM
Representative Gruenberg requested that the bill drafter
insert the language from conceptual Amendment #1 where it is
most appropriate.
4:05:56 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CS HB 27 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 27 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual recommendations" and with zero note #1 by the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|