Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/06/2007 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB48 | |
| HB35 | |
| HB67 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 67
An Act relating to an optional exemption from municipal
property taxes on certain residences of law enforcement
officers.
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, SPONSOR, noted that HB 67 is
the same as HB 52 offered in the previous legislative
session. The bill encourages municipalities to adopt an
ordinance that designates an area within their boundaries as
an area exempt from taxation, not to exceed $150,000 dollars
for residential property, owned and occupied by a law
enforcement officer. Not more than two exemptions could be
granted through the bill as an expense to a municipality -
no State funds would be used. The ordinance defines law
enforcement officer in accordance with specifics of State
law.
Representative Foster noted veteran's exemptions, which are
not funded by the State. Representative Gruenberg said it
would not be a mandate but rather "allows" passage of an
ordinance. Representative Foster referenced other bills of
this nature & worried about all other professions that would
want to be included. Representative Gruenberg stated it
does not include any other people and that none have
requested to be included. The purpose of the bill is only
to encourage law enforcement officers to buy & own homes in
higher crime areas.
Representative Foster referenced an on-going problem with
one of the University of Alaska regents. He added concerns
with a "bad cop" in Nome, responsible for killing someone.
Representative Gruenberg acknowledged there is no way to
make certain if there is a "bad cop" on the force.
2:09:33 PM
Representative Gara said the concern could be addressed by
adding a provision regarding someone convicted of a felony.
Representative Gruenberg advised that a person convicted of
a felony would have a difficult time getting hired as a
police officer.
Representative Gara appreciated the idea of having law
enforcement officers living in high crime neighborhoods. He
stated that in the current form of the bill, the definition
of eligible neighborhoods, Page 2, Line 9, is "any
neighborhood that has the slightest difference, more than
the community average for crime". He recommended it be more
narrowly defined. Representative Gruenberg indicated the
language had been recommended, reiterating the purpose is to
address areas that really do need police protection.
Representative Gara suggested that there are a few core
neighborhoods that need officers living there.
Representative Gruenberg thought it should be left up to the
municipality to make the determination. The bill attempts
to provide flexibility to the municipalities.
2:13:03 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze suggested that tying anything to federal
standards makes it difficult as the standards do not always
apply to Alaska. Co-Chair Chenault explained that the
eligibility requirements were put into the legislation to
define areas within cities needing police officers. Many
neighborhoods have police officers living there. Deferring
crime is the intent of the bill. He agreed it was not
preferable to tie it into federal programs and that the
effort is to include areas needing officers. Representative
Gruenberg added that ultimately, the decision will be left
to the municipal assemblies to determine what the crime area
should be.
2:18:03 PM
Representative Foster applauded the intention of the bill,
however, noted it is strictly an urban bill. There is no
incentive for the Bush areas. Representative Gruenberg
acknowledged that there are no taxes in some of the areas,
and that he would support any ideas to help police move into
those places. The bill was drafted for places that can
offer it as an incentive. It does apply in Kenai, which is
considered a rural area.
Co-Chair Chenault acknowledged that it does affect Kenai,
which has no city police but rather troopers circulating
through the area. He pointed out that Kenai is
approximately 25 miles from the Trooper Academy. Most of
the new recruits, live in the Soldotna area. Having the
troopers living 25-miles away, poses many problems. The
bill would provide Kenai the option, which would be
beneficial to his area. He did not know how it could help
other areas. There is nothing in the bill that prohibits
any other place in the State from assisting their police
officers.
2:22:58 PM
Representative Foster followed up, pointing out that in the
Bush, there are not many police or troopers but instead,
armed officers such as federal fish and game personal. He
st
noted that Nome is classified as a 1 class city. The
legislation will pass the expense on to city taxes &
property owners.
Representative Gruenberg clarified that the bill does not
apply to rentals, only home ownership. Home ownership
implies settling into an area for a longer period of time;
the intent is to encourage police to own their own homes.
He pointed out that brown shirts and Peace Officers are
defined in AS 01.10.10060; referenced on Page 2, Line 2 of
the bill.
2:26:25 PM
Co-Chair Chenault discussed the issues in Kenai, reiterating
that given the location of the training facility, the
trained personnel intend to relocate when training is
complete and that the training facility is 25 miles away.
Representative Gara noted that the bill provides the option
to the cities. He believed that discrimination should be
provided to renters also. Representative Gruenberg replied
that all property exemptions must be authorized in State
legislation. If it were extended to renters, it would
become an administrative headache. He preferred to keep it
to only home owners & that anything else should be a
separate bill.
2:29:39 PM
Representative Gara thought that the municipalities who do
not have a local property tax could take advantage of the
option, offering an allowance to allow the landlord to rent
to a peace officer, making it more applicable to different
areas.
Representative Gara reiterated his concern that the bill
accomplishes the intent of the sponsor. He pointed out that
the high petty crime rate exists in downtown Anchorage. He
inquired if the bill intends to address high petty or felony
type crimes. He recommended that a "high crime area" be
defined as an area with at least a 25% occurrence of higher
felony crimes.
Representative Gruenberg replied that for the statistically
higher occurrence of crime, the municipality would clarify a
percentage. The legislation is not limited to felonies and
can include misdemeanors, vandalism, and juvenile crimes not
falling into felonies.
2:33:22 PM
Representative Gara supported the legislative intent but
suggested that current wording might encourage people to
move into downtown in order to get a property tax exemption,
th
because 4 Avenue is a high crime area. The way the bill is
written, a city would not be allowed to define an area.
Representative Gruenberg said that was not the intent and
that he did not want to define high crime areas as an area
in the top 75%. The intent is to give the municipality the
authority to define it more narrowly.
2:35:09 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if a husband and wife, both police
officers, would qualify for a $300,000 dollars property tax
allowance. Representative Gruenberg replied correct; it
would be $150,000 dollars for each officer, limited to two
living in the same household. They do not have to be
married.
Representative Foster pointed out that in Nome, nearly 59%
of the residents do not pay property tax. He worried about
a population minority responsible for paying all the taxes.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed.
2:37:46 PM
STEVE SMITH, DEPUTY CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION, ANCHORAGE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANCHORAGE, shared comments that the
Anchorage Police Departments agrees that HB 67 could be a
useful tool for incentives to officers to live in higher
crime areas. About ten years ago, there was a federal
program in which some of the officers did take advantage.
The thought is that the program would not be largely used
but would be a useful tool to some younger officers.
Vice Chair Stoltze asked the number of officers living in
areas that might qualify. Mr. Smith did not know,
indicating that the bill does not define areas. He did not
know of any police officers living in Mountain View.
Vice Chair Stoltze worried about the public outrage at the
incentive being offered. Mr. Smith agreed with those
observations noting that a high level of police officers now
live in the Chugiak - Eagle River areas. He reiterated that
most likely, it will be the younger officers taking
advantage of the opportunity.
2:43:30 PM
STEVE VAN SANT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STATE
ASSESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, ANCHORAGE, addressed concerns on Page 1, Lines
8 & 9. He advised that all property exemptions in the State
turn on the ownership & eligibility requirements. He
indicated that Representative Gruenberg's support to delete
"in whole or part", removing concerns of the Department.
2:46:52 PM
Co-Chair Meyer understood that in Anchorage, if a senior
couple owns property, they are limited to $150,000 dollars
per property, while HB 67 proposes that a police officer
couple be eligible for $300,000 dollars. Mr. Van Sant said
yes that was true under the proposed bill.
2:47:41 PM
Representative Gruenberg asked if Mr. Van Sant was
recommending deletion of "in whole or part" on Page 1, Line
8 and Line 9. Mr. Van Sant said they both agree with
deleting it on Line 8; on Line 9, without deletion, the
officer could claim occupancy in more than one dwelling.
Representative Gruenberg argued against deletion of "in
whole or part" on Line 9, noting the language "primary place
of abode" would be the one primary property. Mr. Van Sant
agreed, retracting the original request.
2:50:59 PM
Representative Gara inquired if a whole condominium would be
exempt if a police officer owned the complex.
Representative Gruenberg explained that each unit is a
separately owned piece of property. Representative Gara
argued that the definition of parcel refers to the whole
building. Representative Gruenberg advised that the intent
is not to give an exemption to the entire complex.
2:52:53 PM
Mr. Van Sant clarified that the parcel refers to the
individual unit. He added that if a police officer occupied
one unit of a duplex, was it intended that the entire duplex
be exempted. Representative Gruenberg responded that the
$150,000 dollars would apply to the one tax unit or the
entire parcel if the officer lived there.
2:55:57 PM
Co-Chair Meyer expressed concern that police officers would
be given a greater exemption than seniors and disabled
veterans. He asked if the sponsor would support one
exemption per building. Representative Gruenberg responded
that he would support the Committee's decision.
2:57:26 PM
Representative Gruenberg pointed out that there has not been
a single officer living in Mountain View for the past 10
years; he thought the bill would encourage those
neighborhoods to have an officer presence.
2:59:32 PM
Representative Gara expressed concern that the legislation
would not give the discretion to the municipality to carve
out areas where they want officers to locate.
Representative Gruenberg agreed that additional language
could be added, clarifying that "the ordinance may exempt
all or part of any of the areas."
3:00:55 PM
Co-Chair Meyer requested that Representative Gruenberg, Co-
Chair Chenault, Representative Gara, Mr. Cohen & Ms.
Cunningham work together, to address crime levels & how that
relates to the bill. He supported the policy proposed by
the legislation.
3:01:51 PM
Representative Nelson expressed support for the legislation
and stressed that rural areas have a similar goal of
attracting Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO).
Representative Gruenberg noted that he would support
legislation toward that goal.
3:03:04 PM
Representative Joule noted that city councils could have
latitude to provide incentives for VPSO's in terms of a
sales tax waiver. Representative Gruenberg noted he would
support such an addition.
Representative Joule did not think statutory change was
necessary, stressing the need to provide information to the
communities.
3:07:51 PM
Representative Thomas spoke in support of rural incentives.
Representative Gruenberg noted that a tax exemption is not
considered income. Property taxes are deductible from
income for tax purposes.
Co-Chair Meyer acknowledged that the legislation provides a
local option opportunity.
HB 67 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|