Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Property Tax Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects $15 million state reimbursement amendment to veterans property tax exemption; bill advances
Summary
A proposed $15 million appropriation to reimburse Connecticut towns for lost property tax revenue from a 100% disability and Gold Star spouse exemption failed on a 6-11 roll call; the underlying bill (SB 1276) was later advanced to the floor on the consent calendar.
The Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on Tuesday rejected an amendment that would have appropriated $15,000,000 to reimburse municipalities for revenue lost if certain veterans receive a full property tax exemption, then voted to advance the underlying bill, Senate Bill 1276, to the floor on the consent calendar.
Representative Jamie Foster, chair of the committee, told members they had received commentary from the Connecticut Department of Social Services that “there may be an unintended fiscal impact” larger than the committee initially expected. Foster said committee staff would meet with DSS to clarify the estimate.
Representative Lanou proposed the amendment, saying the $15 million appropriation — to be made by the Office of Policy and Management from the general fund for the fiscal year ending Jan. 30, 2026 — would allow the state to “pick up the cost” and prevent municipalities from bearing the burden. “This is telling our municipalities, our veterans, and our Gold Star families, we got you as a state of Connecticut,” Lanou said while summarizing the amendment.
Senator Gordon said he supported Representative Lanou’s effort to ease municipal burden, but urged parallel work on Senate Bill 381 (filed in Appropriations) that was intended to secure reimbursement. “I very much share his concern … and I do appreciate the growing bipartisan work,” Gordon said. He announced he would vote yes on Lanou’s amendment while continuing to pursue additional appropriations through SB 381.
Representative Vail and Representative Anderson also voiced support for funding the exemption at the state level; Anderson noted the fiscal note attached to last year’s enabling public act was “just under $5,000,000” and that recent estimates appear higher.
After a roll call on the amendment, the clerk reported the tally: six in favor, 11 opposed; the amendment failed. The committee then took a separate motion to add SB 1276 to the consent calendar; that motion carried and the bill was advanced to the floor.
The debate centered on two points: fixing an inadvertent omission from last year’s statute (the transcript records that the earlier law omitted the term “100%” in the intended exemption), and how to pay municipal reimbursement if the committee expands the exemption. Committee members repeatedly said they would continue coordination with the Appropriations Committee and the Office of Policy and Management about funding options.
The committee did not adopt the appropriation amendment; the underlying bill (SB 1276) was passed out of committee on the consent calendar and will proceed to the next stage in the legislative process.
