Amendment 9

Title on Ballot: Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of Military Veteran or First Responder

Sponsor/Originator: The Florida Legislature

What it would do:

This would grant a full property tax exemption to the surviving spouses of military veterans who die while on active duty and to the surviving spouses of first responders who die in the line of duty.

If You Vote Yes:

A “yes” vote means you want the state to grant the full homestead exemption to the surviving spouses.

If You Vote No:

A “no” vote means you do not want the state to grant the full homestead exemption.



Click here to visit the Florida Division of Elections Background on Amendment 9 (including full text of the amendment) 

Summary of Amendment (from Division of Elections site):

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature to provide by general law ad valorem homestead property tax relief to the surviving spouse of a military veteran who died from service- connected causes while on active duty or to the surviving spouse of a first responder who died in the line of duty. The amendment authorizes the Legislature to totally exempt or partially exempt such surviving spouse’s homestead property from ad valorem taxation. The amendment defines a first responder as a law enforcement officer, a correctional officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic. This amendment shall take effect January 1, 2013.

Arguments for:

It helps the families left behind when a veteran or first responder dies in service to his country or community.

Arguments against:

It takes a bite out of the tax revenues schools and local governments need to provide services.



Should the spouses of military veterans and first responders killed in the line of duty be exempt from paying property taxes?

Amendment 9 grants full homestead property tax relief to the surviving spouses of military veterans who die from service-connected causes while on active duty, and to the surviving spouses of police, firefighters and other first responders who die in the line of duty.  In short, the surviving spouses will not pay property taxes.

For a spouse to be eligible, the deceased veteran or first responder must have been a permanent resident of Florida as of Jan. 1 of the year they died. First responders are defined as law enforcement officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and paramedics. The proposed amendment covers full-time, part-time and volunteer first responders.

Surviving spouses of veterans or first responders who died years ago can apply for eligibility retroactively if Amendment 9 passes, although the tax relief is for future taxes only; they will not receive refunds for any past taxes paid.

The state estimates that this amendment, if passed, would reduce local school and government tax revenues by about $600,000 statewide in the first year it is in effect. The measure won unanimous approval in the House and Senate. There is no organized opposition. Like all amendments, passage requires the approval of 60 percent or more of the voters. If approved, the measure becomes effective Jan. 1, 2013.

History

State law has granted this property tax exemption to eligible military spouses since 1997. However, the exemption was never enshrined in the state Constitution. If passed, this proposed amendment enshrines that exemption in the state Constitution.

Over a two-year span in 2010 and 2011, two dozen Florida law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty. This amendment is meant to recognize the sacrifice of first responders by extending the same tax relief to their surviving spouses that is currently offered to the surviving spouses of military veterans who died while on active duty.

A joint resolution authorizing the Legislature to grant a total or partial exemption to the surviving spouses passed in February 2012. A subsequent bill passed by the Legislature requires the full exemption be granted, which is what eligible spouses will receive if Amendment 9 passes.

‘In The Line of Duty’

For the spouse of a first responder to be eligible, the first responder must have died while “in the line of duty,” which is defined under this proposed Amendment as:

- While engaging in law enforcement;
- While performing an activity relating to fire suppression and prevention;
- While responding to a hazardous material emergency;
- While performing rescue activity;
- While providing emergency medical services;
- While performing disaster relief activity;
- While otherwise engaging in emergency response activity;
- While engaging in a training exercise related to any of the above events or activities if the training has been authorized by the employer.

Under the proposed amendment, “a heart attack or stroke that causes death or causes an injury resulting in death must occur within 24 hours after an event or activity…and must be directly and proximately caused by the event or activity in order to be considered as having occurred in the line of duty.”  The bill requires surviving spouses to obtain a letter from the state or appropriate government entity certifying the death occurred while in the line of duty.

Portability

The exemption applies for as long as the spouse holds the title to the homestead, is a permanent resident of the homestead, and does not remarry. If the property is sold, the surviving spouse can transfer the exemption to a new primary residence.

Economic Impact

Without knowing how many surviving spouses may be eligible in any given year, it is difficult to calculate the economic impact on property tax revenues with certainty. However, the state Revenue Estimating Conference estimates that this amendment, if passed, would reduce local school and government tax revenues by about $600,000 statewide in the first year it is in effect.



IF YOU VOTE YES:

A “yes” vote means you want the state to grant the full homestead exemption to the surviving spouses.

IF YOU VOTE NO:

A “no” vote means you do not want the state to grant the full homestead exemption.

 

___________________________________________

Any comments shown below are the express opinions of their individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Collins Center.

38 Responses to Amendment 9

  1. Ernest says:

    I am a veteran with a service-connected disability, so one would expect me to support this. But I don’t. Frankly, if you die doing your job, that’s just the way it is. What’s next — give special treatment to a teacher that has a heart attack in the classroom? For that matter, why not give this to the spouse of _anyone_ that dies on the job?

    • Robert says:

      Please understand the nature of the job that is covered is one in which death is a real part of your daily duty. Additional support of this type is to thank those who gave all.

      • Mike says:

        I am a Veteran and I think it would be great to help out any and all suvivors. But this amendment does not limit the reduction to just Florida residents who lived here before the enteired the military. What to other states do? You have to have been a resident before the soldier lost his/her life.

        • Chelsea says:

          It actually does limit the tax exemption to Florida residents, please read lines 24-27 of the bill.

          http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/pdf/10-87.pdf

          “Every person who has the legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner, or another legally or naturally dependent on the owner, shall be exempt from taxation thereon…”

          Please note where it says ‘maintains thereon permanent residence.’ Thank you for your service.

      • Richard says:

        While this seems like something generous to do, we are always talking about cutting the budget not growing it with special exemptions for everyone. 1st responders are not high on the list of dangerous jobs that is a myth.. trying working in a steel mill, driving a truck, fishing or construction jobs

    • Cathy says:

      Ernest: I admire you and your conviction as stated. Congratulations, well said. And thank you for your service. Unlike others, I do not say that often.

    • Sigrid says:

      I agree with Ernest, Our Veterans and their families already have special exemptions, Amendment 9 is full of fraudulent possibilities. Emergency Personnel are already paid very well including their Pensions, their families are protected by lots of benefits that the ordinary public does not have. AT this time it just is not feasible; at least not until we have more information the impact that will have on our tax base. At this time we have no idea.

    • David says:

      Ernest, you are an inspiration. My heartstrings immediately responded “yes” to this proposed amendment, but sound governance is not built on emotions. It was your courageous and honest comment that helped me realize this is not a place for government to be spending its limited finances. Thank you for your personal sacrifice in the service of our country, and thank you for your voice of reason.

  2. Robert says:

    I am a first responder and I would love very much to know that my family could be a little better off if I’m killed. I feel however if my spouse remarried that he/she would no longer should be eligible. That would seem fair that a single mom or dad with kids of a firefighter or police officer killed in the line of duty could still live in their home without fear of being kicked out.

    • Erika says:

      I totally agree. This is housing protection is a benefit that is not covered by the Veteran Administration or Social Security. Housing stability is a benifit to all involved; not just the family unit, but the community, city and state also.

    • Shaun says:

      I work for a company, I am not a first responder (was once and also a veteran) and I would also love to know that my family could be a little better off if I’m killed. I cannot support giving such preferable treatment to any individual. Soldiers, cops, paramedics, fire-fighters, do good work. Life Insurance and death benefits do not have a place in state property taxes. Perhaps a federal tax break for the spouse/ family of a soldier killed in combat, or a cop killed while on patrol in the line of duty.

    • Kathryn says:

      I’m sorry but I am tired of all the hype over fire fighters and police. They are not equivalent to a combat military service member. I appreciate what they do but honestly? A high voltage electrician is working a higher risk job. I am all for giving an exemption to a combat widow but this is getting a little ridiculous.

  3. voiceofreason says:

    That’s what life insurance is for Robert. Proper financial and estate planning …

    • Roddy says:

      Well said.

      Unfortunately, buying into the ‘American Dream’ means buying things we can’t afford to pay for. There are many ways available to us to help out those in professions we deem worthier of respect than others. These already include help with housing and healthcare, albeit if they manage to abide by any restrictions to that help. Unnecessary amendment.

  4. George says:

    The amendment leaves too many openings, 1. If the surviving spouse just lives with another person in on that property are they still exempt? 2. If they rent a room to someone at that property are they still covered? 3. If employeed family moves back home is the surviving spouse still covered? I think that it is a good amendment,but needs to have a time limit of X numbers of years, and further limitations. I am a retired State Trooper and served in the USMC-R for 8 years, and 4 yrs. in the air national guard,so I’m not without compassion. { Forever is a LONG time.}

  5. Gail says:

    Question? If at the time of death the survivor does not own a home- will the survivor be able to use the exemption if they purchase a home in the future?

  6. Rob says:

    Great comments by all. I concur that the benifit should be to help a family adjust to their new reality. If it were possible, I would recommend full benefit for the first five years and then have them taper off by 20% per year for the next five.

  7. Stan says:

    I’m 100% service connected and I feel this is little to offer the spouses of our heroes. Furthermore I consider all veterans and especially those whom are service connected heroes. Most, if not all chose to put themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe and free. In this environment there are a lot of Vets and their families struggling so when the head of the household passes the exception should pass to the spouse to ease the financial burden.

  8. Kenn says:

    If state law already provides this exemption to the military, why can’t the legislature simply pass a law extending it to first responders? Once again the legislature shows their inability to act on their own. This does not need to be in the Constitution.

    • Clay says:

      Agreed! If vets are already covered by the state law, the inclusion of them in this ammendment is simply to get another bloc of votes… so, this ammendment needs to be shut down and the elected should get real with clear, appropriate propositions for our consideration! (We work full-time, and requiring us to spend hours researching the complicatedly-worded ballot to make good choices – or risk casting a bad vote – is NOT what our elected people are called to do for us.

    • Jason says:

      Interesting. You bring up a good point. I have been waffling on what I want to do, but I think I want to check NO now. What’s the point of having elected officials if they aren’t going to officiate anything? This amendment definitely seems to me something that has no business being in the constitution and should instead be made a debatable bill for law. If they pass a law no one likes, they’ll hear the outcry from it. Then they can do something about it or they’ll get canned. Of course, if they listen to their constituants, they’ll already know what they should be passing and won’t have much to fear. Then their job is making sure the bill, and eventual law, is sound.

  9. Cliff says:

    I have 21 years of active military service. Military members are “on duty” 24/7. A “line of duty” death means the member died while serving on active duty. It does not mean that they were actually working or in route to work at the time of death, and certainly does not mean they died in a combat relayed activity. I would agree with this amendment if the military death were tied to an actual combat related injury. However as it is written, it is a life long exemption to the spouse of a military member who simply fell of their roof on a day off. Military members have free life insurance for this already. This amendment needs rewrite to clarify the qualifying military deaths as having occurred during combat or hazardous-duty activities, as it does for the “First Responder”. I vote NO.

    • Mike says:

      Agree with you 100%! The points you bring up are at the root of my misgivings. If a “line of duty” investigation is done (in the Army), and Pvt Snuffy was in a lawful duty status, then he died “in line of duty”. That he was driving his Mustang at 105 miles per hour over the SkyWay bridge on Saturday night with a blood/alcohole level of 1.8 and went in to the bay seems to lead one to the conclusion that HE/SHE lacked consern for those he would leave behind. Now if Snuffy gets killed by an RPG in “The Stan”, then it’s a tad different. I would have to see a lot more “qualifiers” before I could support this. (I did 22 years in the Army and can understand the civilian “feel good” side, but those of us who spent a few extra years see some holes here.)

  10. Cliff says:

    I have 21 years of active military service. This amendment needs a complete rewrite and therefore I vote NO. It combines the hazardious-duty deaths of “First Responders” with military persons who simply died while in the military, at home or abroad. For the spouse of First Responder death to qualify for tax exemption, the death had to have happened as a direct result of hazardious duty activities. The military death has no clarifying detail, only that the death be “service-connected”, i.e. in a car accident on the way to work. This amendment will fund Florida courts and lawyers for decades, if passed as it is. The qualifying military death should be clearly stipulated as, in combat or as a direct result of combat injury. I vote NO.

  11. James L. says:

    Under the general law language prior to this amendment a military person must be 65 years old and have a ‘combat related’ disability in order to qualify. Under the proposed amendment you can be on active duty, 19 years old, fall down two flights of stairs while in a drunken stuppor in a non-combat environment, and the surviving spouse qualifies. What am I mising?

  12. vonnise says:

    Wow, I was all set to vote ‘yes’ on this one, but after reading and thinking about the previous posts. I am now not so sure. The posters comments do make sence.
    Maybe we could find other ways to honor our military and first responders. (?).
    I will have to think about this further.

  13. Katherine says:

    No. If your spouse dies in the line of fire then you’re pretty much covered by their life insurance and pensions. Those types of jobs pay well for death incurred on-the-job, as do insurance companies and often times there are funds set up for that.
    Let the military support itself with federal funding as allocated.

  14. Tonya says:

    I don’t believe I understand this?? IF a husband and wife LIVE HERE FULLL TIME and the house is homesteaded. When something happens to the spouse, the house automatically goes to the other surviving spouse so, why would the homestead change, as long as she remained a resident here in Florida?? Not making any sense??

    • Nathan says:

      I believe this is a little different from the homestead. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this would eliminate property tax for the surviving spouse FOR LIFE. This is not just the normal break for buying your first house.

    • Valerie says:

      Tonya,
      it says;
      “In short, the surviving spouses will not pay property taxes.”

      Yes, if both are FL residents, they receive the homestead exemption, but they likely still pay taxes on the assessed value (minus their exemption). The way I understand it is that the surviving spouse’s tax bill is completely eliminated in most cases (higher priced properties probably not).

  15. Nathan says:

    I’m surprised to see so much oposition to this given that it is already a law for those in the military and it passed both House and Senate.

    On one hand, I agree that this is what life insurance is for. Our service men and women do not sign up for these jobs blindly. The risk of death in the line of duty is part of the job.

    On the other hand, we are always looking for ways to honor those who have given their lives so that we may live in relative security. The loss of a spouse can be hard, especially when there are bills that still need paying and mouths that still need feeding.

    I think there are better ways to recognize those who’ve paid the ultimate price for our way of life. Ways that do not place more of a burden on our already-stretched budget.

  16. Geo says:

    Since when are correctional officers “first responders”?
    Since we privatized corrections?

  17. Q Tip says:

    However noble this amendment may be, I must give it a thumbs down as written. I have a real problem with the transferability aspect. Our surviving spouse may relocate to a high tax area (with the new honey) and enjoy the perks of said locale without paying property taxes. Hmm. I will support an amendment if it is reconsidered and rewritten.

  18. Elizabeth says:

    I’m the widow of a police officer killed on duty over 5years ago and yes there are life insurances, as well as survivior benefits that we are entitled to due to state and federal mandates. At the time of his death, I was overwhelmed by the beautiful compassionate people that extended their heartfelt condolescences. The kids and I continue to reside in our home, located in a working class neighborhood and we maintain a simple and modest life. The children have been brought up to work hard for the things that they want to achieve and obtain in life and not to expect things to be handed out to them because of what happened in our family. We proudly continue to maintain our home, pay our insurances and pay our taxes on a timely matter. Everyone above has valid points and are entitled to their opinions, but thank you in advance should this amendment pass……………..

  19. Lonnie says:

    How would the shortfall for schools and other services be covered?

  20. Esther says:

    Am I reading this right above: does it say the spouse can pass on the exemption if he/she sells, or is it a misprint?

  21. Renee says:

    Way too open ended. Needs to be more specific.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>