Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Veterans Property Tax Exemption topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee hears substitute to align statutes with voter-approved veterans property tax amendments

2167353 · January 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Madam Chair and members of the House Taxation Committee heard testimony Oct. 12 on a committee substitute for House Bill 47 intended to make state law conform to two voter-approved constitutional amendments expanding veterans' property tax relief.

Madam Chair and members of the House Taxation Committee heard testimony Oct. 12 on a committee substitute for House Bill 47 intended to make state law conform to two voter-approved constitutional amendments expanding veterans' property tax relief.

"The constitution has been amended, and now we just need to make the state statutes conform with the new language," said Chardon Clark, Secretary of Tax and Revenue, introducing the committee substitute identified as CS 229957Dot1.

The substitute implements two changes approved by voters in November 2024. First, it increases the existing veterans property tax exemption from $4,000 to $10,000 and provides for future inflation adjustments to preserve purchasing power. Second, it replaces the previous all-or-nothing provision for disabled veterans with a prorated exemption tied to the percentage of disability (for example, a 10% disability would yield a 10% exemption), language the secretary said requires statutory change to match the new constitutional text.

Nut graf: Committee members and stakeholders said prompt statutory action is needed so county assessors can issue timely notices to property owners and so implementing rules can be drafted. Witnesses representing assessors and veterans’ organizations supported the substitute but flagged unanswered implementation details, including offsets to local revenue and overlapping provisions from earlier proposals.

Representatives of veterans organizations told the committee they strongly support the measure. Gary Donato, speaking as a representative of the VFW, American Legion, Military Officers Association, the Veterans Center and Vietnam Veterans of America, said, "we stand in strong support of this bill," while noting concerns about how the exemption offsets will be calculated and asking that Tax and Revenue prepare those calculations.

"We stand in overwhelming support of this," said James Anadero, Secretary of Veteran Services, referencing the electorate's approval of the constitutional amendments.

Damian Lara, chair of the Assessors' Affiliate Legislative Committee, speaking with fellow assessors in the audience, said the affiliate supports the committee substitute but emphasized it "leaves many questions unanswered," including requests for a clear implementation date for both the $10,000 exemption and the percentage-based disabled veteran exemption so that timely notices of value can be mailed.

Lara and other assessors asked the committee to move the substitute forward and to address remaining technical questions in follow-up legislation or rulemaking.

Witnesses also raised a possible conflict or overlap with earlier proposals (referred to in testimony as "HDR 5 and HDR 6"). Donato urged clarity on how the substitute interacts with those prior measures and said veteran groups expect that to be resolved in subsequent committee work.

Alan Martinez, identified as a cosponsor and former deputy secretary of veteran services, framed the change as a recognition of service, saying the bill "can say thank you for those that stood in the gap and protected us." Sherman McCorkle of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce said the substitute "brings to life 2 voter approved constitutional amendments" and noted broad bipartisan support among stakeholders who have been at the table to work through implementation.

Procedural note: a committee member moved to consider the committee substitute for House Bill 47 for discussion; the motion was presented to the chair, but no roll-call vote or formal committee action on final passage was recorded in the hearing transcript excerpt.

Ending: Committee members and witnesses indicated the Legislature must complete statutory language and administrative rules to allow county assessors to send required notices and to clarify technical implementation details. The substitute carries the internal identifier CS 229957Dot1; specific effective dates, offset calculations and rule provisions were not specified in the hearing record.