Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
02/15/2005 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB121 | |
| HB27 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 27-MUNI PROP TAX EXEMPTION FOR POLICE HOMES 8:57:04 AM CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 27, "An Act relating to an optional exemption from municipal property taxes on certain residences of law enforcement officers." The committee took a brief at-ease from 8:57:14 to 9:04:10. 9:04:29 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt CSHB 27, Version 24-LS0182\F, Cook, 2/14/05, as the working document. [No objection was stated, and therefore Version F was treated as adopted and before the committee.] 9:04:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, co-prime sponsor, explained that the purpose of HB 27 is to encourage law enforcement officers to live in [high crime areas]. If [law enforcement officers] live in the area, law enforcement is better, he opined. Very few law enforcement officials live in areas where additional police protection is most necessary. This legislation allows municipalities to pass an ordinance to exempt a small amount of assessed valuation from the primary physical residence of the law enforcement officer. He specified that a $10,000 exemption will equate to about $150 a year, which is a modest amount. Because of the hold harmless language there will be no cost to the state. 9:07:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to the difference between HB 27 and Version F. He pointed out that the language "occupy as permanent place of abode" on page 1, line 8, of the original legislation [was changed in Version F to refer to "primary permanent place of abode"]. He explained that the intent was to be sure that the exemption wasn't sought on a vacation home that wasn't the primary place of abode. He noted that some of the language was taken from AS 29.45.050(r) that deals with volunteer firemen and emergency medical services. 9:08:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE KOTT opined that there seems to be confusion with the use of the language "primary permanent". He questioned whether there is a nonprimary permanent [place of abode]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that one could have a place of abode at say, Big Lake. Although it's permanent, it's not the primary place of abode. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if one can have two permanent residences. Representative Kott said that "primary place of abode" seems to make sense while "primary permanent place of abode" seems confusing. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that it makes no difference if the language "permanent" is eliminated. He explained that the terms "resident" and "domicile" are legal terms. However, in this statute someone may interpret it as "residence" in the ordinary sense rather than the legal sense. He specified that the intent is to only allow an individual one physical place for which the exemption could be claimed. He noted that later Version F ratchets down the exemption further by specifying that one may only receive a maximum of two exemptions if [two law enforcement officers were married]. 9:12:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN suggested that on page 1, line 8, the word "two" should be deleted. He inquired as to who decides these exemptions. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that sentence: "If two or more individuals are eligible for an exemption ...." is taken from AS 29.45.050(r). If a third person moved in [to a property where two law enforcement officers live], there would already be two exemptions. In that case [the individuals] first in time would receive the exemption. If three people move in at the same time, then it would be up to the municipality to determine who receives the exemption. 9:14:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN then turned to page 2, line 1, which refers to eligibility requirements under federal programs, and inquired as to what programs those are. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that these are well-recognized federal programs such as "Renaissance zones," "weed and seed programs," and neighborhood revitalization programs. He noted that a number of areas in Anchorage qualify for these programs. The local municipality determines how its ordinance will be crafted, he added. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN questioned whether the law enforcement exemption offsets the higher insurance rates [the residents in the area] would experience. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied no, which is why there is no desire for the ordinance to refer to a "high crime rate" [area]. He informed the committee that the areas of interest in Anchorage have already been publicly designated as "weed and seed areas." Representative Gruenberg turned attention to the third paragraph of Mayor Begich's letter, which relates that the incentive may need to be increased. Representative Gruenberg said he would consider an increase a friendly amendment. 9:19:18 AM CO-CHAIR OLSON inquired as to the Anchorage Police Department's view of this. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that anecdotally the Anchorage Police Department likes this legislation. In further response to Co-Chair Olson, Representative Gruenberg said he didn't know the rough numbers of those law enforcement willing to move. 9:20:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her understanding that HB 27 allows municipalities to decide whether they want to implement this program that provides a local government incentive to encourage law enforcement officers to live where they might not choose to live. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed with that understanding. 9:21:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE KOTT turned to the Muldoon area in Anchorage. He said he knew of very few properties that would qualify to receive the $150 exemption. Representative Kott expressed the need to reevaluate the exemption amount in order to attract law enforcement officers to these [high crime] areas. He then turned attention to page 1, lines 8-9, regarding two or more law enforcement officers being eligible for the exemption at the same property. He posed a situation in which two female law enforcement officers purchased a four-plex and both lived in one of the [units], although one law enforcement officer was married to another male officer. He inquired as to who would qualify for the exemption in the aforementioned situation. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that a duplex would be considered one parcel, one assessment. However, if the property was a zero lot line, each owner would be entitled to an exemption. The maximum allowed for the exemption of those living in a duplex is two exemptions. In regard to Representative Kott's first comment, Representative Gruenberg reiterated that he would consider an increase in the exemption amount as a friendly amendment. 9:27:07 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS referred to AS 29.45.050(i) and asked if municipalities could add law enforcement to the list receiving the [exemption in current statute]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended to use the format of the legislation because it requires a certain geographic area. The substantial subsections [AS 29.45.050(i) and (a)] require votes of the people, which wasn't included in HB 27 because the amount was smaller. 9:29:42 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted his agreement with Representative Kott regarding the size of the incentive necessary to encourage relocation [to a high crime area]. He suggested making the incentive worthwhile for someone to take a risk. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that he would consider [an increase in the amount of the exemption] a friendly amendment. 9:30:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN suggested adding the language "with a vote of the people through local ordinances" because the other exemptions do so. Therefore, the communities would decide. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized such a change as a policy call. Although a smaller incentive might not attract law enforcement to move, he indicated that the [residents in the area] may have concern with a larger incentive amount. In further response to Representative Neuman, Representative Gruenberg agreed that if the exemption is increased by a large quantity such as $150,000, then [the locals should decide whether to offer it]. However, a more modest increase in the range of $30-$50,000 wouldn't necessarily require a vote of the people. 9:32:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in further response to Representative Neuman, advised that if [the incentive] was [increased] to $40- $50,000, it wouldn't need a vote of the people. An amount higher than that would require a vote of the people, he opined. 9:33:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if Representative Kott agrees with the $50,000 level. She then stated that she would be willing to propose an amendment to consider the aforementioned. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that he didn't have a problem with $50,000. He related that he was trying to determine what amount would entice him to move from his safe neighborhood to a potentially less safe neighborhood. "Personally, if we're going to do it, I would go to the max ..., $150,000, that we give to the seniors and the disabled veterans," he opined. He acknowledged that such a change would have to be approved by the voters. He expressed interest in hearing from law enforcement officers on this matter. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to obtain comments from law enforcement. 9:37:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether the law enforcement already in these locations benefit from this legislation as well. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that it's unlikely that a senior officer will move into one of these neighborhoods. He expressed his desire to attract new police officers to these areas and keep them in these areas. Therefore, he said he wanted to provide an incentive to stay in these areas. 9:39:14 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted his agreement with Representative Kott [and suggested the following language] "up to $150,000". He said this is definitely worth it. He inquired as to the possibility of attracting Village Public Safety Officer (VPSOs) and Alaska Department of Fish & Game officers. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said those folks would qualify. CO-CHAIR THOMAS related that some young police officers in rural Alaska are looking at joining federal [law enforcement] because of the lower retirement years. However, he surmised that this exemption may entice some of these young police officers in rural Alaska to stay in their area. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that HB 27 may not be drafted to accommodate the areas in the Bush that are unorganized boroughs because these areas wouldn't qualify for weed and seed and urban development programs. He said he would consider an amendment to include small communities under this legislation as a friendly amendment. 9:42:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that the "law enforcement officers" language could be problematic if there is a desire to include VPSOs and rural areas. She related her understanding that VPSOs are considered peace officers and there is a legal distinction made between a peace officer and a law enforcement officer. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to page 1, lines 12- 13, which specifies that the ordinance can define "law enforcement officer" in the manner desired. Therefore, he opined that Representative LeDoux's concern is addressed. 9:43:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN turned attention the language "that meets the eligibility requirements under a federal program" on page 2, and questioned whether the VPSO programs would satisfy such requirements. Therefore, he suggested rewriting the legislation to include VPSOs. Representative Neuman also suggested that the committee should hear from the municipalities regarding the higher amount that has been discussed. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to obtain the information requested. 9:44:27 AM CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that HB 27 would be held over. 9:44:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired as to why paragraph (3) on page 2 was added to the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that [paragraph (3)] provides a municipality more flexibility in that it allows the [exemption] for a weed and seed area and/or a specified high crime area. [HB 27 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|