Comments Document

attached

RE: HB175 The City of Portsmouth is not opposed to this bill. However, a reimbursement mechanism is needed to help localities offset these unfunded mandates.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB175. Imagine two service members, both mortally injured in the same line-of-duty incident. What is the difference between the first service member, who lingers 15 days in the hospital before dying, and the second one, who lingers 15 months before also succumbing? The first will be categorized as "active duty deceased" while the second will be categorized as a "100% disabled veteran." Can anyone explain why full tax relief for the first surviving spouse is to be decided by the locality (via local ordinance) while full tax relief for the second surviving spouse is guaranteed by the Commonwealth? To make this inequity clearer, imagine the second service member recovers from the incident, is medically retired from active duty, receives their 100% veteran disability rating, and later dies as a result of their own gross negligence unrelated to their service-connected injuries. The veteran's spouse will still qualify for full tax relief. The first service member’s surviving spouse, however, remains subject to the whims of local government for full tax relief, not to mention the line-of-duty designation required to receive any tax relief. This difference in treatment is not a constitutional variance; it was created by the General Assembly with good intention, yet with insufficient consideration. If you’re going to continue offering tax relief to surviving spouses, please treat service members' survivors the same as disabled veterans' survivors and simply provide the same tax relief calculations for both. I respectfully request a re-write of this bill to make it so. Thank you for your civic service and thoughtful consideration of this request.