SENATE BILL NO. 204 "An Act relating to an optional exemption from municipal property taxes for residences of widows and widowers of certain members of the armed forces of the United States; and providing for an effective date." SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, SPONSOR, explained that SB 204 proposes optional property tax allowance for widows or widowers of military personel who were killed in the line of duty. In deference to the geographic differences around the state and wanting to protect local control, the bill provides an option rather than a mandate for property tax exemption. He explained that the companion legislation, HB 285, removed the 90 day requirement. Co-Chair Stedman asked Senator Therriault to define "permanent place of abode". Senator Therriault explained that the permanent place of abode is where a person lives. He added that, with the latitude in the bill, the definition would be created through local ordinances. He further explained that, if a person owns multiple properties, the state law suggests that the exemption be granted for the property on which the person lives. Senator Dyson asked if any consideration had been given to extending the exemption to handicapped veterans who are unable to earn income. 10:21:21 AM Senator Therriault responded that in current law the senior property tax exemption includes disabled veterans. Senator Elton asked if the municipality has the option to provide the exemption to someone who is not a resident. Senator Therriault responded that SB 204 would allow for a person to move to the State to qualify for the exemption. He said thought had been given to whether to differentiate between a spouse that gave their life in the line of duty based on residency. He further noted that he didn't expect people to move to Alaska to take advantage of the property tax exemption. He provided an example of a soldier stationed overseas who was an Alaska resident; he was stationed overseas, but had property in Alaska. 10:23:46 AM Senator Elton asked if the provision mandates that the municipality offer the exemption to an individual who was not a resident, or could the municipality determine criteria. Senator Therriault clarified that the current wording is a mandate. He said that, if that was not the desired result, language would need to be added to clarify. Senator Elton restated for clarification that the program is optional, but some of the options may be precluded. Senator Therriault said the level and length were optional; the prospective pool is mandated. Senator Huggins suggested the 90 day language is irrelevant. He also clarified that Alaska is considered an overseas tour-of-duty. A permanent place of abode means different things to different people, particularly those who work for the military. He supported the bill, but wanted to be certain the language was correct. 10:26:39 AM Senator Thomas assumed that line 11, 12, and 13 are critical in indicating that the ordinance would allow a particular entity to manage some of the residency issues. He said he was troubled by the possibility of someone moving to the State to take advantage of the exemption. He also questioned the eligibility of someone who remarried. Senator Therriault said if a person remarries they are no longer a widower and would not be eligible for the property tax exemption. Co-Chair Stedman asked about those living in a commercial building and how they are considered for the exemption as opposed to those who own a home. 10:28:43 AM Senator Therriault reiterated that there is enough flexibility in the provision to allow municipalities to make determinations. He informed the Committee that the Alaska Municipal League supports SB 204. Co-Chair Stedman asked how many municipalities were anticipated to take advantage of the exemption. ERNEST PRAX, STAFF, SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, said that 80- 100 soldiers stationed in Alaska have been killed in combat duty. There is uncertainty with regard to how many soldiers had families, and how many of those families had chosen to stay in Alaska. 10:31:04 AM Senator Thomas referenced the wording on line 9, and asked if the language included a person who is killed under "friendly fire". He explained that in a previous committee there was a question regarding a suicide case and whether dependents would be the eligible for the exemption. Mr. Prax said that if a soldier intentionally took his own life, then the family would not be eligible for the exemption. He went on to say that if a soldier was killed in the line of fire while protecting another soldier, they would not only be eligible, but would be bumped up the priority list for receipt of benefits. With regard to being killed under "friendly fire" the answer is yes, they would be eligible. Senator Huggins asked the Sponsor if it was his intention to make a widower who had remarried ineligible. Senator Therriault responded yes. He further clarified that the eligibility for the exemption is based on "hostile" or "friendly" fire. Any individual receiving "imminent danger" pay is eligible for the exemption. 10:33:41 AM Co-Chair Stedman asked if the definition includes a soldier who is preparing to go to Iraq and dies before being deployed. Senator Therriault said that the soldier in that scenario would not be eligible as they would not yet be receiving "imminent danger" pay. 10:35:16 AM Senator Huggins clarified that an individual is considered eligible for imminent danger pay when in the combat zone circle, regardless of what capacity they serve. 10:36:52 AM SUSAN HERNANDEZ, FAIRBANKS (Testified via teleconference), testified in support of SB 204. Her husband was killed in Iraq in 2006. She reiterated the definition of "imminent danger pay". She further commented that she did not feel it appropriate for a soldier to receive benefits if their death was at their own hand. Mr. Van Sant provided definitions: -permanent place of abode: 185 days a year -Widow: benefits stop if remarry, municipalities could extend -"90 days" was taken out of house bill due to assessors seeing it as problematic. He suggested the 90 day language be removed from SB 204. Senator Therriault said he did not have a problem with omitting the 90 day provision and noted he would work with staff to draft a CS. SB 204 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration. 10:42:36 AM