Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Elderly topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects constitutional amendment to allow property-tax relief for elderly
Summary
After extended debate and competing amendments over whether to allow abatement, remittance, deferral, or limitation of property taxes for elderly homeowners, the House voted 30–42 to reject House Joint Resolution 1, which would have permitted the Legislature to authorize tax deferral for the elderly.
Representative Tyler introduced House Joint Resolution 1 (HJR1), a constitutional resolution intended to let the Legislature provide for deferral of property taxes for elderly homeowners, saying the change would enable statutory relief for seniors who are asset rich but cash poor. "We've all heard constituents say 'I'm being taxed out of my home,'" he said, arguing a constitutional amendment was necessary so the Legislature could enact a uniform statutory deferral.
The House debated competing approaches. Representative Tyler proposed language modeled on HJR11 to allow taxes of the elderly to be "abated, remitted, deferred, or limited," prompting sustained objection from colleagues who said abatement would shift the tax burden to other taxpayers. Representative Valentine argued that a blanket abatement based on age would be unfair: "Abatement is the wrong policy," he said, adding that deferral is more defensible because it delays payment but does not forgive it.
Members differed on whether the constitution should be amended to give the public a ballot choice. Supporters said a constitutional change would permit future legislatures to craft targeted statutory relief, while opponents warned that the amendment could lock in policy that would shift taxes or preclude means-testing. Several representatives pressed the sponsor on whether the change would include a means test; Tyler said that such details would be decided later in statute.
The House considered a sponsor-substitute amendment that would have inserted the words "abated, remitted, deferred, or limited"; that substitute amendment failed in recorded procedural motions, and the main amendment inserting the narrower phrase "as provided by statute" was ultimately before the body. After debate and a recorded vote, the Clerk announced that HJR1 had received 30 yes votes and 42 no votes; the resolution failed and will be filed.
The outcome leaves the current constitutional language unchanged; several members noted counties retain discretion under existing law to grant deferrals on a case-by-case basis, but sponsors said statutory authority at the state level would remain unavailable without the constitutional amendment.
