Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
03/19/2013 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR11 | |
| HB164 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 164-PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION/MILITARY WIDOW(ER)
1:22:15 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 164, "An Act authorizing municipalities to
exempt from taxation, by ordinance approved by the voters in the
municipality, the real property that is the primary residence of
a resident who is at least 60 years of age and the widow or
widower of a person who was killed while in the military service
of the United States; and providing for an effective date."
1:22:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLETT, Alaska State Legislature,
speaking as the sponsor, related that one of her constituents
who lost her husband in action worked hard to pass an ordinance
in the Municipality of Anchorage that would allow a property tax
exemption for the first $150,000 of the assessed value of a
primary residence for a widow(er) of a person who was killed
while in military service. The ordinance, known as Proposition
7, passed in 2012, but will not take effect until the
legislature amends AS 29.45.030(e). This bill will amend the
statute and allow the exemption to take effect. Unfortunately,
the bill as drafted only allows widows(ers) over the age of 60
to receive the exemption, but the intent was to help younger
families also. An amendment will be offered to change the age
requirement so the exemption will apply to any widow(er) whose
spouse was killed during military service. Representative
Millett advised that about three years after a military spouse
is killed, there is a significant reduction in death benefits
and the military pension is not available until the age of 62.
This bill will encourage military families who have invested in
a home to stay in Alaska.
1:26:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she is glad for this assistance to
military families.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES expressed her appreciation to the sponsor
and said she supported the change in the age requirement.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER stated his support for HB 164, and asked for the
range of income that is paid to a survivor after a spouse has
died in military service.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT was unsure. In the aforementioned
situation, her constituent received survivor status pay for
three years and is now in retired status and must carry the
burden of continuing insurance and other benefits. She will not
receive survivor's benefits until the age of 62. Representative
Millett offered to find out the exact death benefits for
survivors.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX opened the meeting to public testimony.
1:29:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked about the bill's fiscal impact on
Anchorage.
1:29:57 PM
MARTY MCGEE, Assessor, Municipality of Anchorage, stated that
approximately 250 widows(ers) are enrolled in the entire program
and estimated the legislation would add less than 10 additional
people to those eligible to receive benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether Mr. McGee found
subsection (e) confusing.
MR. MCGEE agreed, although he said he has a working knowledge
and understanding of [subsection (e)].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested using the bill to clarify the
section.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined the abovementioned amendment will
make the section more clear.
1:32:37 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX said she was unsure whether the amendment is the
place to do so.
1:33:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked for clarification on the change in
the number of people who qualified for the exemption.
MR. MCGEE explained that the Municipality of Anchorage may add
10 more exemptions to the current number as the result of this
legislation. This is primarily due to the change in age
determination, and that the interpretation of existing law is
that the deceased was a disabled veteran prior to death. House
Bill 164 clarifies that the deceased does not have to be
disabled prior to death, and that the exemption applies to the
widow(er) of those who died in service. Mr. McGee saw no
problem with the interpretation of HB 164 and supported the
removal of the age requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked on what the estimate was based.
MR. MCGEE responded the estimate of 10 is based on the number of
those who have inquired about the exemption but who were
ineligible due to age.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG called attention to page 2, line 3,
which read:
... a person who was killed while in the military ...
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said "killed" means death by an
accident, intentional homicide, or in combat. He asked whether
the survivor would be excluded from the exemption if a person
simply died while on active duty.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said yes. In further response to
Representative Gruenberg, she surmised expanding the exemption
to those who died would include a large group of people, and the
intent of the legislation is to assist young families during the
beginning of their military service. She said this is a policy
call, but preferred to retain the present language because it
matches Anchorage's municipal policy.
1:37:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised it is important to determine
whether a death is natural, accidental, a suicide, or a homicide
to avoid possible controversy on determining whether a widow(er)
is eligible for the exemption. He pointed out that the survivor
and family are just as needy regardless of how the spouse passed
away.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said her answer is unchanged.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX urged the sponsor to consider whether other
service-related deaths could be applicable without expanding the
exemption to all deaths.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered to clarify the bill by using the
military's definition of "killed while during military service."
This definition will address service-related death benefits -
her understanding is that suicide is not included - and she will
provide the definition to the next committee of referral or at
the next meeting.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX suggested the sponsor work on the bill prior to
its hearing at the next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES agreed that there would be instances in
which a service member may suffer a service-related death.
1:41:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said service-connected disabilities
have been greatly expanded to include type 2 diabetes for those
exposed to Agent Orange. He gave a personal example of service-
related disease and death that occurred many years after
military service. Because this legislation is broadly remedial,
he expressed his hope that the bill would "cast the net broadly"
to prevent litigation on behalf of a widow(er).
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD agreed to further discussion at the next
committee of referral, of which she is a member.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to help the sponsor. Also, he
asked to contact the Municipality of Anchorage on the
retroactivity authorized in Section 2.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT confirmed that the municipality approved
[retroactivity] in the legislation.
1:45:52 PM
JEFFREY MITTMAN, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties
Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska), expressed ACLU of Alaska's
support for HB 164, and asked the committee to address a
possible situation wherein a service member who is legally
married in another state to a person of the same sex is killed,
but the widow(er) is denied the benefit granted by HB 164 under
the terms of the Alaska State Constitution. He stated that this
is not only morally but legally wrong, because the Alaska
Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in Alaska Civil Liberties
Union v. State of Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage (AkCLU v.
State). Furthermore, the Alaska Trial Court has decided on the
property tax exemption issue which is currently under appeal to
the state supreme court. With minor amendments, the bill can be
brought in line with Alaska constitutional law and avoid
litigation. He recalled in the 26th Alaska State Legislature a
similar amendment was made to Senate Bill 278 thus there is
precedent to recognize current Alaska law. The important moral
issue is that it is essential for all states to recognize and
honor all service members and veterans, especially those who
give their lives. Mr. Mittman urged that amending this
legislation will not be seen as making a moral judgment on same-
sex marriage or homosexuality, but instead that all service
members deserve to be honored and their families should not be
discriminated against.
1:48:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked how many people in Alaska would be
affected by this change. She said she did not want to hinder
the bill's passage.
MR. MITTMAN said because of historic and ongoing discrimination
against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) families
in Alaska, no one has exact numbers. However, there is no need
to hold the bill because the amendments are very simple. Mr.
Mittman stressed that the amendments are important even if only
one family is affected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he feels strongly about both this
issue and the bill, and has a deep moral commitment to this
cause. He said he was prepared to offer an amendment to address
this issue; however, he said he does not want to jeopardize the
bill and asked for advice from other members of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT advised that the case of Schmidt et.al,
v. State of Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage (Schmidt v. State)
is on appeal and no decision has been made on the legality of
same-sex marriage benefits in the state. She urged the
committee to move the bill as it is and amend at a later date if
necessary. In further response to Representative Gruenberg, she
said the Alaska Supreme Court case in question has been briefed
and offered to provide copies.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he was interested in receiving
copies of the brief. He asked Mr. Mittman for further comments.
1:52:28 PM
MR. MITTMAN explained there are two related court cases. The
first case, AkCLU v. State was decided by the Alaska Supreme
Court and established that because of the prohibition of same-
sex marriage in the Alaska State Constitution, it was
unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples benefits that the
state provides to opposite-sex couples. On that basis, the
Alaska Trial Court ruled in favor of same-sex couples in regard
to the property tax exemption in Schmidt v. State, which was
appealed, and is now awaiting a decision. He said, "But with
respect to whether or not there's an open question of law, that
question of law has already been decided."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the name and cite of the
first case.
MR. MITTMAN responded it was AkCLU v. State, and further details
are provided in the committee packet.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he did not want to slow the bill's
progress but asked for assurance that the issue will be
addressed if the court decision is made known.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX preferred further discussion take place in the
next committee of referral which is the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee (HCRA).
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she is comfortable moving the bill
as it is and further discussion may be a political maneuver.
1:55:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he would not oppose moving the
bill with the abovementioned assurance from the sponsor and the
chair of the next committee of referral.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX restated her assurance there will be discussion,
but there is no assurance that anything will change.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she is also open to further
discussion, but believes no decision has been made on the
constitutionality of the tax exemption. Her intention is to
help widows(ers) whose spouses volunteered to serve in the
military stay in the state. There was no intention to make a
political statement.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he did not impugn anyone's
intentions.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:57 p.m. to 1:58 p.m.
1:58:40 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, after determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
1:58:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
which would eliminate the age requirement for a widow(er).
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:59:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to report HB 164, 28-LS0635\A, as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
164(MLV) was reported out of the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 164 Hearing Request 03142013.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 164 |
| HB 164 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 164 |
| HB0164A.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 164 |
| HB 164 News Release 03132013.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 164 |
| HB 164 Supporting Documents - Letter Theresa Dayton 3-14-2013.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 164 |
| HJR 11 House Military Veterans Affairs Hearing Request 03132013.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 11A.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB164-Fiscal Note.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 164 |