Comité Governmental Affairs de la Cámara de Representantes, 4 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

268 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:19:35

   Okay.

2. 0:19:40

   Okay.

3. 0:19:41

   One of them does. It may be this one.

4. 0:19:44

   Yeah. I was good. How are you?

5. 0:19:46

   I'm here. I know.

6. 0:19:49

   Hold on a minute. I put it about...

7. 0:20:00

   Okay, if I can have everybody's attention, we'll get started. This, I'm gonna call the meeting to order. This is the, uh, House Governmental Affairs Committee full committee meeting. Uh, before we get started, I'd like to ask, uh, our Vice Chair, Chairman Brad Thomas, uh, what number are you there?

8. 0:20:15

   I'm, uh, 22.

9. 0:20:16

   22. If he would, uh, go to the Lord in prayer with us, please. Thank you.

10. 0:20:21

    Baby Jesus. Um, we all gather here. Thank you, Lord. We appreciate you and all your guidance as this committee weighs the important work of our people and the people of the state of Georgia. We just ask that, that you pr- grant us your wisdom and, uh, uh, all of the, all of the heart that we need to make sure that the people are truly taken care of. Uh, we say this in Jesus' name. Amen.

11. 0:20:47

    Thank you. All right. Today, we're gonna be hearing two bills. The first bill we're gonna consider is House Bill 166. I'll ask, uh, Floor Leader Wade if he would like to come to the podium or the table. Which one would you like?

12. 0:20:59

    Wherever the chairman would prefer.

13. 0:21:00

    It's, it's up to you.

14. 0:21:01

    I'm, I'm a Baptist, I'll sit down.

15. 0:21:03

    Okay. All right. I have a s- I have a button for either, so you go right ahead and proceed when you're ready, sir.

16. 0:21:10

    And since I'm not a preacher, I won't stand at the podium. How about that? All right. Thank you, uh, Chairman and, uh, colleagues, uh, for this. I appreciate many of you, uh, heard this bill yesterday, um, so I will kind of shorten my remarks to an extent. But for those that didn't hear, um, we're working off of House Bill 1066, which is, uh, LC number 620282, and this is to amend Chapter 1 of Title 41. And we are just updating the definition of an area of a racing facility to mean within a five-mile radius around the perimeter of a racing facility.

17. 0:21:47

    Um, we are also noting that the change of this, um, opportunity for a nuisance claim to be brought would reference and acknowledge the historical operating schedule of the typical days of the week, uh, or hours of operation for regular scheduled racing events, uh, which the local governing authority has already agreed to and provided, and that would include any and all ordinances. Um, there would be requirements. This does not change the local authority to dictate what those sound ordinances are.

18. 0:22:17

    Other local buffers, also any statewide or federal buffers for EPA or EPD purposes. So we're not touching that. We're being very nar- narrowly focused. Uh, line 19, we're, um, racing facility means a designated area or facility where competitive vehicle and motorsport r- races are conducted. And so it acknowledges that such terms shall include the track, spectator areas, garages, any associated grounds, buildings, or appurtenances used to operate such races. Uh, so no property owner within that five-mile radius shall bring a nuisance claim, either public or private, against a racing facility that was built before such property owner purchased real property or built new construction with the area of the racing facility.

19. 0:23:00

    M- Line 26, no racing facility shall become a nuisance, either public or private, solely, I think that's key here, as a result of changed conditions in or around the area of the racing facility if the racing facility has been in operation for at least one year since the date on which it commenced operations as a racing facility. This immunity provided in this code shall not apply to claims based solely on material change of historical operating schedule of a racing facility that results in a substantial increase in late night or early morning operations. So the things that I wanna ensure, I had some questions from the committee, and so I wanna, uh, give this.

20. 0:23:35

    Um, we, we took a different approach than Iowa and many of the other states who are considering this. Um, Iowa, for example, did not even put a s- set definition on what the radius would be. It is not even in their state law. So I felt like for Georgia, we're not gonna do things the same way another state does. So I felt like after talking with many folks, depending on the size and type of track, that a five-mile radius would be, as a r- Rotarian, and in my view, many members may not agree with this, but is a fair to all concern in meeting the meat of what I'm trying to help, uh, resolve, which are nuisance claims based on the fact that somebody has moved new into town, and whether they did or did not realize they bought within a five-mile radius of a racing facility, that they are just using the fact that there's loud noises to file a claim when that racing facility is obviously already in compliance with all local, state, and any federal re- regulations other, other than that.

21. 0:24:32

    This does not change, uh, the fact that people, if y- you are using the facility and there is negligence on the part, this is not touching any of that. Uh, this is only about the s- the sound and, and cl- claiming that there's a nuisance because of the existence of something that is there before that next property owner. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. And I did bring, um, a couple of folks here that are just if there's a specific question that I need assistance in answering. Uh, there was also, uh, one member of the committee, I respect them greatly, they had concerns about the constitutionality of that five-mile radius and that, um, uh, Mr.

22. 0:25:09

    Morrell is here. He can attest to this and give the exact language. I shared it with the chairman because it was as we were getting ready for this meeting. Uh, but there is no prohibition on the legislature defining radiuses or barriers or buffers, and that is very much protected by our constitution and would not be open for challenge. Now, somebody might disagree with it, and that's a policy change. Also, to the folks that are concerned with what if, you know, this person comes into, uh, let's say they buy a house five miles right there at the borderline of this radius, and they didn't realize it.

23. 0:25:40

    And only certain times of the year they can hear the sound. They don't like it. Nothing in this legislation would prohibit that property owner Their First Amendment right to go and speak to their local elected officials and petition to have those sound ordinances changed based on the changing conditions of a community over a long-term period, right? That's their free right, just like this property owner that's already been here. That business pays property taxes. This new homeowner, hopefully we can get rid of their property taxes on their home, but if they also want to petition their county commissioner or city council to make changes to that sound ordinance, uh, to increase maybe the decibel or times, they can continue to do that, and that can be handled on a case-by-case situation.

24. 0:26:22

    This just removes one very annoying process when people, I think, are doing it for not really the reasons that they do. They're using that as a way to try to get, gain access to, uh, just make a complaint that they don't like the sound, and they knew it when they were buying the property and they wanted to fight it. So they can fight that in a different way, not through a nuisance claim. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

25. 0:26:44

    Okay. I'll recognize, uh, Representative Roberts.

26. 0:26:48

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you know how many racetracks, based on your definition, there are in Georgia?

27. 0:26:54

    I- I've been given s- uh, a number of 41 to 44.

28. 0:26:57

    Oh, it's more than I thought. Okay. So I-

29. 0:27:00

    'Cause it also-

30. 0:27:00

    ... made a map of an, of 30 of them today.

31. 0:27:04

    Okay.

32. 0:27:04

    Um, and like I wanted to do a little math on it, 'cause five-mile radius is-

33. 0:27:09

    Understand

34. 0:27:09

    ... pretty... So that's 78.5 square miles. That's 50,000 acres per racetrack. So we're going to, on my 30, it was 1.5 million acres. We are going to impact any property within that in the State of Georgia. We're limiting their access to the courts on a nuisance claim.

35. 0:27:32

    Okay.

36. 0:27:32

    So five miles, you said you didn't wanna do what other states did, but I looked up North Carolina's that just passed, and it was three miles.

37. 0:27:39

    I understand.

38. 0:27:39

    So can you explain, because I can't imagine if I'm four miles away, I'm a zoning attorney, I'm a realtor.

39. 0:27:47

    Right.

40. 0:27:49

    If the races aren't going right then, how am I... Like, and I do, I'm good at due diligence, but four miles away from a racetrack, am I gonna know that my, uh, right to access the courts is, is limited if I try to do that due dilige- diligence at a non-race time? So are we gonna provide property disclosures that say you are in this zone? And it's a private business. Airports have to put in noise-rated windows within a certain range, and that's a public purpose.

41. 0:28:20

    Right.

42. 0:28:20

    So we're, we're imposing this on, well, more than 1.5 million because you just told me there's 41, um, acres in the State of Georgia. I just am curious, do you have a scientific reason for this, for the one point, or the five-mile radius?

43. 0:28:39

    Well, there's, and actually in certain situations, depending on what's going on with the weather and pattern of that day, the time of year, and what the topography is, in some cases and in some states, they've introduced based on their conditions that 10 miles is actually more preferred because they can, that, that sound can travel further if it's in, let's say, a flat landed area. So our South Georgia folks honestly probably would prefer 10 ac- 10-mile radius versus what I've suggested at five. The reason I picked five is because I think that it, it brings a balance between, you know, Iowa being completely and totally 100% of the state, so nobody in Iowa can sue, no matter where they are in the state based on a nuisance claim, and I felt like the five-mile radius made more sense.

44. 0:29:22

    But I mean, there are people that are, that have been advocating for me to do the Iowa model as well, and I've told them that I was not comfortable doing that. I also don't think it makes sense for us to do the three-mile radius because that really would dampen the, and I think open up our South Georgia folks to more opportunity for nuisance claims because of the fact that they're in flat land. My specific constituent probably would not be opposed to a three-mile radius. That would probably meet for the m- vast majority of the year because we're in the mountains.

45. 0:29:53

    But I think for, for the South Georgia folks, um, I didn't want us to have a statute that said, you know, all right, below the NAT line it's t- 10 miles, and above the NAT line it's five, and in the mountains it's three. Like, I don't think we need to have different, differing at this point unless there is a scientifical reason to prove that we're really hurting people. Again, I wanna make this point to, to your fair concern. If there are people that have bought property after the fact, knowingly or not knowingly, that there's a racetrack, and they, through whatever atmospheric changes or certain season of the year or weather and patterns don't like the noise, nothing prohibits them from going to their local county and letting that county decide, "Hey, you know what?

46. 0:30:36

    This racetrack, we like it. We're gonna go to the owner and we need them to increase their decibel detection, and we wanna raise that local limit from whatever decibel, maybe increase it by 20% or 30%, whatever that needs to be." Nothing in this bro- prohibits realtor associations, homeowner associations, any groups to assemble and petition their local government to make that change, and that's why I think that this five-mile radius will work for the vast majority of people and will not be an impairment for individuals.

47. 0:31:04

    Can I ask one more question?

48. 0:31:06

    Chair, yes.

49. 0:31:07

    Thank you.

50. 0:31:08

    Sorry. Yes.

51. 0:31:08

    Um, so do racetracks have to put up any sort of sound barriers around them? And so again, wouldn't that mitigate needing five mi- a five-mile radius? Because Georgia DOT has to put up sound barriers for decibel levels, and it seems like-

52. 0:31:25

    Yes

53. 0:31:25

    ... this is again a private company.

54. 0:31:28

    So we do have some folks here that are from Echo Park, and they have decibel detections that they're required to do based on their local ordinance to conduct business. The gentleman that was here yesterday, they also have those same detections, and they were by our local ordinance required to put, um, because he built condos, that, that structure became a way to help reduce the amount of noise that would travel specifically in a downward pattern, uh, down the holler I think is how I described it the other day, yet those nuisance claims are still happening even though he's met all of those local ordinances.

55. 0:31:59

    And it's questionable as to actually can those people really hear and complain. It's, they just wanted to be a burr in the saddle of that local business because they just decided that they didn't like the racetrack being that close to their home after the fact that they bought it.

56. 0:32:15

    Well, but in common law, there's a, a factor that courts consider-

57. 0:32:19

    I'm sorry

58. 0:32:20

    ... that you can't move to a nuisance. But four miles away, to me, I wouldn't necessarily know I was moving-

59. 0:32:26

    I-

60. 0:32:26

    ... to a nuisance

61. 0:32:27

    ... I-

62. 0:32:27

    So I would want some notice of that because I think it could impact property values.

63. 0:32:31

    I, I, I can tell you the impact of property values in my direct district as it relates to this specific project has only seen all property values rise, both residential, agriculture. Every piece of parcel that is in proximity of this has risen in value over the last 10 years, especially over the last five years. Some of that has nothing to do with the racetrack, but it's not impeded property values. And I would like to say it this way. I've got a daughter and a son, and my son and daughter at that age of 12 and almost 10, they don't agree on, on a lot of things.

64. 0:33:05

    And my son has finally realized he cannot debate his older sister, and I will only-

65. 0:33:10

    On racing?

66. 0:33:11

    I, I will only... On, what's that?

67. 0:33:13

    On racing or what, what-

68. 0:33:14

    It d-

69. 0:33:15

    Oh, they just can't debate

70. 0:33:16

    ... it doesn't matter. Any-

71. 0:33:16

    Oh, okay

72. 0:33:16

    ... he cannot win an argument with his sister.

73. 0:33:18

    Okay.

74. 0:33:19

    So he has learned this very valuable tool that I think most men that have a decent sense would learn from, and that is, "Okay, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree." That is what he tells my daugh- my, my daughter all the time, and I'm gonna tell you I just disagree. I think five miles is a very fair and conscious way to address this issue. But I respect your, uh, decision to disagree with that.

75. 0:33:40

    Well, you're drawing distinctions between local governments creating regulations, but then you're wanting to put a statewide, um, immunity ban on a five-mile radius on over two million acres in the state of Georgia.

76. 0:33:54

    Yes, ma'am.

77. 0:33:54

    So that... Okay.

78. 0:33:55

    I, I don't think that those people need to file a nuisance claim because there's a racetrack s- that's there in business and exists and has been in existence and in operation. That's my policy position.

79. 0:34:05

    I appreciate it.

80. 0:34:06

    Thank you.

81. 0:34:07

    Okay, thank you. Uh, Representative Oliver.

82. 0:34:11

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking, and it may be here, but I haven't found it just in the last few minutes, that this nuisance is limited to noise nuisance.

83. 0:34:21

    Uh, well, that's, that is the nuisance claim that we have been facing and dealing with. I, I can talk to, uh, Mr., uh, the Le- Legislative Council. I think it... I would feel more comfortable with him a- a- specifically answering that question.

84. 0:34:35

    Okay.

85. 0:34:35

    That's how the nuisance claims have been filed.

86. 0:34:37

    I don't think that this statute, though, is limited to noise nu- nuisance. And so I'm asking myself, um, if one of the 44 racetracks wanted to put a strip club there, that's another form of nuisance. And I'm trying to think of other nuisances that are kinda common area, neighborhood aggravation. Neighborhood aggravation sometimes is defined as nuisance, and the strip clubs and the, um, are, uh-

87. 0:35:08

    W-

88. 0:35:08

    This has been a common kind of way, uh, that prosecutors or whatever-

89. 0:35:13

    Right

90. 0:35:13

    ... have had to, um-

91. 0:35:14

    I don't know of any of the racetracks and the businesses at Neco Park that would be doing that.

92. 0:35:18

    I'm not saying there is. What I'm saying is does... It's your intent, yes or no, is it your intent to limit the nuisance to a noise violation?

93. 0:35:28

    Uh, it is my intent to limit any nuisance claim that is predominantly, um, noise claims. I can't contemplate and don't know enough to know every potential nuisance that someone might attempt to do, but I think that my intent would be any and all nuisance claims in relationship to a specific racetrack as, as we've defined. And with that, I would like for Stuart, if he could provide any guidance on, you know, um... There are very w- you know, there's attorneys in here that may have an idea of other types of nuisance claims specific.

94. 0:36:00

    I could even bring up the person that's, uh, been working about across the country on this issue, if they can provide any other types of nuisance claims, uh, that have been brought. But, um-

95. 0:36:10

    Your bill is a preemption bill, uh, if I'm understanding it. What you're f- the bill is a preemption bill. Are you telling Dawsonville that they cannot set any other noise limits within five miles?

96. 0:36:24

    This, no, this does not change the... They can change. They could go in tomorrow. If this becomes law, the city of Dawsonville, which is the governing entity over this entity, could say, "You know what, Mr. Porter, we love you, but we've got these three other projects that we wanna bring into the community. In order to make that work, we need to pass this new ordinance," and they can pass an ordinance, and they can say, "Hey, we need you to reduce your decibel by 30%."

97. 0:36:48

    So it's not a preemption bill.

98. 0:36:49

    So it does not prevent them from doing it.

99. 0:36:52

    It's really a nuisance claim.

100. 0:36:54

     That's it.

101. 0:36:58

     Thank you.

102. 0:36:59

     No, thank you.

103. 0:37:00

     Okay. Uh, do we wanna get-

104. 0:37:02

     Sorry.

105. 0:37:02

     Do you have any thing to comment on, anything other than noise nuisance? I don't know of any.

106. 0:37:08

     But is it specific to noise, or does it-

107. 0:37:09

     No. It includes all forms.

108. 0:37:11

     I'd like to just make-

109. 0:37:13

     Stuart, Stuart, if you, if you would step up to a microphone just so we can... I apologize, but...

110. 0:37:21

     I think I got something to add about the nuisance thing that might clear it up some.

111. 0:37:24

     Dust. Dust.

112. 0:37:26

     Light. I mean, if it, if it's an evening thing.

113. 0:37:29

     Yeah.

114. 0:37:29

     That's another-

115. 0:37:30

     Okay. Uh, we'll recognize Stuart Morelli from Legislative Council, please.

116. 0:37:34

     It's not limited to noise.

117. 0:37:35

     Okay. Yeah.

118. 0:37:38

     Thank you, sir.

119. 0:37:39

     Thank you. Thank you, sir.

120. 0:37:41

     Well, I've had a long time to think about it. Couldn't do it without your help.

121. 0:37:46

     Uh, I, I, I'm gonna, uh, d- d-... I, I... Hold on one second. You... Is it okay for her to f- ask a follow-up related to that?

122. 0:37:54

     No, the question-

123. 0:37:55

     Okay

124. 0:37:55

     ... I'm gonna ask.

125. 0:37:56

     Representative Oliver. Yes.

126. 0:37:57

     The, the question you probably know I'm gonna ask: Do you object if it were limited only to a nuisance violation?

127. 0:38:02

     I, I, I would object at this time.

128. 0:38:04

     Okay.

129. 0:38:04

     I, I'm not against the possibility of trying to come up with a more specific list. Personally, as a legislator, I, I'm, I'm open to that discussion. But at this stage, I think because there are... I mean, my community also has a certain light ordinance for nighttime events, so that is already a local ordinance that they're in compliance with. Um, um, I, I don't know of any other specific ordinances that would touch that. Um, they're already following any guideline as it relates to runoff or, or EPD. Like, on dirt tracks, they have requirements to have, you know, protect soil erosion from getting into the streams.

130. 0:38:39

     Um, that obviously we're not opening that up 'cause that's a different code section following environmental. But if the gentlelady wants to think about that, and I can work with some of the folks that I've been working with to come up with a more specific list, I'm not opposed to that as we go through this process.

131. 0:38:56

     Is the Sugar Creek race track on, uh, Shore Road in Fannin County one of your 44?

132. 0:39:02

     That would be the one that... That is one that is in the list, I believe. Yeah.

133. 0:39:06

     I'm trying to remember if it's five miles from my mountain house or not. I've never heard it, by the way. I've never heard it.

134. 0:39:13

     And it's by the crow flies, not the road miles.

135. 0:39:17

     Okay. Thank you. Now, uh, Chairman Thomas.

136. 0:39:20

     Oh, thank you. Um, I, I actually wanted to thank you. Outside of the f- five mile, uh, radius debate, I, I wanna thank you for bringing this bill. We have Dixie Speedway, and we talked about this a little bit in subcommittee. Um, uh, uh, definitely would, would, uh, like in subcommittee, maybe if we're gonna have a little bit more longer conversations so we don't have to do this so much in regular committee. But, um, I think this is a big protection, especially for something that's really considered to be a jewel of Cherokee County. Um, and that...

137. 0:39:50

     Uh, I actually looked it up. It looks like the, the Dixie Speedway's been there since 1969. At that time, I would be willing to bet it was nothing but cow farm pastures and at the time, and now it's... At, at, at my understanding is there's, uh, there's some property right next to it. It's got some apartments on it. Um, I think that we, people that live in Cherokee County really truly love that piece. I, I tell everybody, if you want to have the best time of your life, to go out there and, and just spend, spend one day and you'll see why it's w- such a part, im- part of our community.

138. 0:40:23

     Um, the only other question I have to ask you, is it not true that if you're not first, you can be other things than last?

139. 0:40:30

     The gentleman knows of what he speaks.

140. 0:40:33

     Thanks. Thank you.

141. 0:40:36

     Let me know about it.

142. 0:40:40

     Okay. Any other questions on the part of the committee?

143. 0:40:48

     Chair Powell.

144. 0:40:50

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the bill that you're bringing forth, and it, it sort of bears to me, I've got race tracks up in my district.

145. 0:40:57

     Yes, sir.

146. 0:40:58

     But it brings to me to bear when we're talking about nuisance or, uh, nuisance suits and such. You know, I'm in a growing part of the country. People wanna come up, they wanna be on the lake. And I have a concern that if a business is an established business or if it's an agricultural, uh, process, uh, people move in and all of a sudden they're offended. And that's the concern I have because I hear it time and time again from folks who come up into Hart County, they buy a piece of property on the lake.

147. 0:41:34

     Then all of a sudden when they're going that eight, 10 mile stretch from town to the lake house, they'll call and they say, "This smell. We smell chicken manure," or, "We smell whatever's spread on the pastures and all. Can't there be something done? It's offensive." But, you know, they come up and they, and they locate, and it was there before. And the historical perspective is people that are doing business that's been there before, they have a right to continue their business.

148. 0:42:07

     Because in this particular case, it's a tourism value and entertainment va- uh, value, and that's one of the reasons I think we need to think about that. At some point, when people are locating, they need to know what they're getting into. If there's a racetrack within five miles, racing is a very specific enterprise. There's noise, uh, there's lights if they're running at night. So you know, that comes with the turf, and people, that's the b- the buyer needs to beware.

149. 0:42:45

     Okay. Thank you. And, uh-

150. 0:42:49

     Representative Sanchez

151. 0:42:50

     ... Representative Sanchez.

152. 0:42:52

     Thank you so much. I know we talked about this in subcommittee, so I appreciate it. Um, but the... Uh, just a quick question. Um, nevermind. I just answered my question 'cause I see it right here. The Hartwell Motor Speedway, I was gonna ask if that was included in this bill, but I see it on the list here. That's where my, um, wife's parents live around there. So they unfortunately have issues with that as well. So that's something that, um, I'm concerned about personally, but I, I answered my own question. Just I think it's important to also note that at the end of the day, um, we are elected by people, not by corporations.

153. 0:43:25

     So I think it's important to remember that. Thank you.

154. 0:43:27

     Well, well, and I can, I wanna at least comment on that one piece. Um, the individual that came here, you, many of you that are on subcommittee heard his story. He is employing people that honestly other businesses have not been willing to employ. He is a big believer in second chances. Um, maybe that's part of the racing mentality. You don't win the first race, you race again and you go for it. But I would say that the people that are in my district that have the ability to provide for their families and all of the ancillary companies that feed into this industry, it is an economic, um, balance that we're trying to, to, to do.

155. 0:44:03

     And I'm with Chairman Powell, where I think that we need to have conversations in the state about other types of property that could be protected and shielded from nuisance claims. Uh, maybe that's the start of a longer conversation, but I appreciate it and, uh, appreciate your favorable consideration.

156. 0:44:19

     Okay. Thank you. We got just a few more questions here. Uh, Chairman Lumsden.

157. 0:44:23

     Uh, you'd mentioned earlier that, uh, if the, um, local ordinances were to be changed, and my question is if you change the local ordinances, will that, um, will the, will the existing track be grandfathered?

158. 0:44:41

     So that's a fair question. Um, I'd need to get with legislative council to determine, but I think that if the local ordinance were to change, it would not change the nuisance claim com- ... component of the five-mile radius, but I, there, there's nothing in this legislation that would prevent a local municipality, um, or county governing authority to change any specific requirements, whether it's for noise, lights, you know, if there's, you know, preventing dust, I think was something was missed.

159. 0:45:11

     Like, I'm not attempting to try to tell locals not to work with their local business to provide a balanced, um, environment to conduct business. Um, I might disagree with their decision to do so, but this would not change it. But it would keep the five-mile radius from a nuisance claim no matter what happens with local ordinances, whether they become more restrictive or less restrictive.

160. 0:45:31

     Well, point being if they have become more restrictive and the, uh, facility has been there and been operating for a period of time, um, would they be, um, affected by the change in the ordinances?

161. 0:45:43

     Um, it, it, uh, this bill would not prevent, Stuart, if you can just verify, it would not prevent any local jurisdiction from changing local ordinances that could potentially impact how the racetrack conducts itself. Is that a fair statement?

162. 0:46:01

     Okay. Uh, Stuart?

163. 0:46:04

     That is correct.

164. 0:46:05

     Okay.

165. 0:46:08

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, Representative Williams.

166. 0:46:11

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my question is, um, actually to that point, if, if you, if you have this law, uh, this state law and then a local community adopts an ordinance, would... So what trumps? Does the state law already in place trump, or does the... 'Cause, y- you know, under other laws we've passed, uh, the ordinance can't... I mean, this, this seems like this would prevent any local community from doing an ordinance that would deal with it at all.

167. 0:46:43

     Am I wrong about that?

168. 0:46:44

     Um, I would say that, um, I, I don't like saying that you're wrong. I understand what you're trying to get at. I think the only change that a local entity could not put in a local ordinance would be something that would be less than five miles, right? That's the new standard. But as far as the, uh, sound level, the light, you know, illumination, um, measurement tools, this has nothing to do and will not impede the locals from being able to make changes, whether that's more restrictive or less restrictive.

169. 0:47:17

     So that doesn't, uh, impact that.

170. 0:47:19

     Follow-up, Mr. Chairman. So, um, when we were, I was in subcommittee, um, and I, I was under the distinct impression that we were talking about a narrow definition of nuisance. And, um, it seems like this is, um, well, it, it's clear this is a much broader, um, this is much broader than what I thought we were talking about. I thought you were mainly concerned with noise. So I, um, I'm just a little bit uncomfortable, um, given...

171. 0:47:51

     And, and you, you said a few minutes ago that you didn't mind amending the bill, but you don't wanna do it now. If you don't mind amending it, why can't we just do it now in committee?

172. 0:48:01

     Well, I'm not the only signer on this legislation, and I've worked with my colleagues as well as the folks that, some of them are in the room, some of them are not in the room. And I wanna have a deep dive to understand more specificity as to what are the pot- what's the potential ecosystem of what nuisances can be brought in court that would touch this industry that I'm trying to provide this immunity for. So that's the reason I'm not comfortable amending it. Me as an individual, I'm always willing to have conversations and listen to ideas. So I'm not against it just for the sake of being against it.

173. 0:48:35

     I'm, I'm not married to the specific language. I just think that I do, so for me, light nuisance would be something I would want to protect. You know, the sound nuisance would be one. I just can't, I don't know all of the nuis- potential nuisance claims that could be brought, so. But I, I respect your, your, your question.

174. 0:48:56

     Well, thank you. And I, I just, if you're, perhaps you need time to consult with your, um, your colleagues, and we could postpone a vote so that you would have time to have some of those conversations and get clear about it, about-

175. 0:49:11

     I appreciate the question. To the, to Chairman, I would only say that I, I would, I would like to have at least a vote on what we have today. Um, and then if there is a need and a willingness to make any additional changes, that I would work with the chairman, uh, and the folks on Rules Committee to make any adjustments at that time. We've got lots of stages that I guess as we make the sausage, that would be my request, Mr. Chairman, if that's amenable to you. Obviously, it's your committee. I will at the, at the pleasure of the chairman.

176. 0:49:39

     Okay. We will, we will work with the, the, the movement of the committee. Uh, right now I reckon that we got two more questions, and then we'll, we'll proceed from there with the will of the committee. Uh, Chairman Thomas.

177. 0:49:49

     Yeah. I just wanna m- make a one quick comment about corporations and, and, uh, uh, that corporate, you know, we vote for people. Well, yeah, there's something, Dixie Speedway is a family-owned business. Their family have put their livelihood in building that business, uh, and long before a lot of, even myself, even lived in Cherokee County. So they're voters, too. And when you, you stand up for stuff like this, where they're being run out, when they've put their heart and soul into, into building something that is just, like I said, a jewel of our community, to have someone else move in and then start filing nuisance claims on them to use law fare to run them off is wrong.

178. 0:50:31

     So I am 100% with you on this bill. I want to see this bill get to the governor's desk. Uh, and that, that's, that's all I have to say about that, Mr. Chairman.

179. 0:50:40

     Okay. Thank you. And, uh, yeah, Representative Adesanya.

180. 0:50:46

     Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you, um, for the bill. Um, I came in a little late, um, so I'm not sure if you already mentioned this. Um, I personally, I like to support measures that

181. 0:50:58

     helps with economic growth. Um, but I'm just, I'm curious, how many do you know, did you already mention this? How much jobs is this, um, going to create for that community? Um, let me, if I can bring up, she's got that specific data, and I don't wanna misquote it from, um, a memory of not having eight hours of sleep last night. So if I can ask, can she come on up? You have that, Brad? Is she gone, or... Hope she ain't gone. Come on up. It wouldn't have to be specific to when she begins to speaks, just an average of how much jobs.

182. 0:51:29

     That way we can weigh the, the pros and cons. Okay. Hello. If you, if you will introduce yourself. I know you presented in subcommittee, but just introduce yourself for the full committee, please. Of course. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, my name is Tiera Hubbard and I'm with the Specialty Equipment Market Association and Performance Racing Industry. In total in the state of Georgia, uh, the performance racing industry as a whole, uh, supports 9,087 jobs. And those are livable wage jobs? Yes, yes. All right. Thank you. Yes.

183. 0:51:59

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, recognize Chairman Powell. If it's the proper time, I'd like to be recognized for a motion. Yes, sir. Just a minute. I have no other lights blinking at this moment, so, uh, we will entertain. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Uh, Representative Roberts. Just real quick. I wanna first make a motion to amend, but I also wanted to make a statement. Um, I am not by any means saying that someone should get to move to a, a nuisance.

184. 0:52:32

     I'm a zoning lawyer. I understand that. It's in common law. We learn it in law school, but that is... My issue is that we're giving a blanket immunity for a very large amount of land, and I don't think that's a good precedent to set. I also wonder about those growing counties that are building homes, whether that's gonna be impacted. Um, I know probably not in the mountains. You've already probably been fairly built out around it. I don't know. But, um, it could increase construction costs to put in windows that even if you're moving to it, like you're gonna want some extra protection.

185. 0:53:09

     So I'm just trying to anticipate the things that may come up and the additional costs on other industries that could come up. But never did I say it was okay that you move to an obvious nuisance and complain about it. So I just wanna be clear with that. Sure. Yeah. Um, and then- I knew that- ... I would like to make a motion to amend. Huh? I knew that would be the case. I under- Oh, okay. Well, I just wanna make sure everyone knew I wasn't... Yeah, that wasn't my issue. Okay. Uh, please state your motion. Okay. Um, I would like to amend t- where is the, uh, I guess line 23, "No property owner shall bring a nuisance claim for noise." Let's see if there's another spot where that needs to go in there.

186. 0:53:59

     Um, I guess line 26, "No racing facility shall become a nuisance for noise."

187. 0:54:09

     And then on line 14, I would like to change it from five to three-mile radius.

188. 0:54:24

     Okay, we have a motion to amend. Uh, I think everyone heard the proposed amendment. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Okay, we have a second. Do we have discussion on the motion to amend? Do we want to have them in two- Hold on, hold on, hold on. Excuse me. Sorry. P- p- punch your button please, ma'am. Oh, apologize. Okay, Representative Oliver. May I ask the author, do you, are you making- Two. Two ... you, you're making two separate? Do you, is it wish to make two separate amendments or one together? I, that's probably a better idea.

189. 0:54:55

     Let's take them separately, the, the noise two sections. O- okay, let's do this. So the author wishes to resend the motion. I'll resend the motion and I'll restate my motion. Okay. You are recognized to restate your motion. Thank you so much. Um, I would like to make a motion to amend line 14, to change it from five-mile radius to three-mile radius. Okay. Second. O- okay, we have a motion, uh, to change five to three on line 14, and a second. Any discussion?

190. 0:55:29

     Okay, seeing none, is, uh, all in favor of the motion, say I. I. Any opposed? No. No. I don't know. Motion, I'm not sure if there's a motion. Well, okay, okay. No, no. There, there's one motion on the table at this time. There's one motion on the table. Five mile. To, to three to five mile. Okay. Okay. Uh, just to clarify that. And, and, uh- Five. What's that? Five. I'm sorry, five to three. Yes. Five. Pl- please restate your motion for the, for the record. For the record, I would like to change line 14 to read, "Means a three-mile radius around the perimeter of a racing facility." So the motion is to strike five and replace with three?

191. 0:56:11

     Correct. Okay. Uh, so that is the motion. It has been seconded. We're in, we, we, we were taking a vote. I'm gonna nullify that vote. We're gonna, uh... Any other additional comments or questions? I will, uh, defer to the author of the bill. Would you consider this a friendly motion? Um, at this time, I would not consider it a friend- friendly motion when, and during my testimony I did indicate, um, I think honestly this would be more negatively, uh, received with the folks that are in South Georgia and Middle Georgia because of the top topography difference.

192. 0:56:43

     Uh, so I think- Okay ... five mile is preferred by, by the author. So that's just my personal recollection. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We have the motion on the table that has been second- seconded, and, uh, any other comments, questions? All right. All in favor of the motion to change five to three on line 14, say I. I. All opposed?

193. 0:57:06

     Okay. In the-

194. 0:57:07

     I got it

195. 0:57:08

     ... in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. Would... Do you have a second motion?

196. 0:57:14

     I do have a second motion. Um, all right, I would like to change on line 23, "No property owner shall bring a nuisance claim for noise," to be inserted after claim. And then on line 26, um, insert after nuisance for noise.

197. 0:57:40

     Okay.

198. 0:57:41

     23, 26.

199. 0:57:43

     And, and that is the, that is the motion for the amendment.

200. 0:57:46

     Correct.

201. 0:57:47

     Is there a second?

202. 0:57:48

     Second.

203. 0:57:48

     Second.

204. 0:57:49

     We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor of this amendment say aye.

205. 0:57:55

     Aye.

206. 0:57:56

     Aye.

207. 0:57:56

     Aye.

208. 0:57:56

     All opposed, no.

209. 0:57:57

     No.

210. 0:57:58

     No.

211. 0:57:58

     No.

212. 0:57:59

     No.

213. 0:57:59

     The opinion of the chair knows when, so we'll move on to the-

214. 0:58:02

     Can we get a hand count on that?

215. 0:58:03

     Sure, sure, we can take a hand count. Okay. All who are in favor of this amendment, raise your right hand.

216. 0:58:14

     One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

217. 0:58:15

     Seven. Okay. All opposed, raise your hand.

218. 0:58:19

     One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Nine.

219. 0:58:23

     Nine. Okay, motion fails. Now we are back to the original motion on the, the, uh, bill as presented. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of the bill say aye.

220. 0:58:36

     Aye.

221. 0:58:36

     Aye.

222. 0:58:37

     Aye.

223. 0:58:37

     Any opposed say no.

224. 0:58:39

     No.

225. 0:58:39

     No.

226. 0:58:39

     No.

227. 0:58:39

     No.

228. 0:58:40

     Okay. In, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

229. 0:58:45

     All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Get a, uh, rules committee form to me. I will. We'll get it taken care of. Yes, sir. Thank you.

230. 0:59:02

     Thank you. Okay, we're gonna move on to the next and last bill. It happens to be a bill that I am the author of, so I'm gonna relinquish the microphone and the tablet- Representative Mary Margaret, I will, I will co-sponsor a bill- ... to Vice Chair Thomas ... to ban strip clubs in all of Georgia forever, in perpetuity. I'm 100% with you. So.

231. 0:59:24

     Oh, boy. Hey, everybody. Mic's on. Here we go. All right, Mr. Chairman. We'll give you just a second to get settled here. You know, uh, Victor, can I just mention that, that this is obviously set for your height 'cause I'm, like, barely looking over the, uh, this. All right.

232. 0:59:43

     I hope when we get in the new offices we'll have better chairs.

233. 0:59:45

     Yeah. Where's the bill? Yeah. Thank you. All r- all right, Mr. Chairman, you're here to present House Bill 1027. I'm gonna turn on the table mic. It's all yours, sir.

234. 0:59:59

     Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The, uh, House Bill 1027, LC473866, this is a bill designed to protect MEAG customers, the rate payers, uh, by allowing, uh, the cities and county that participate in MEAG to enter into longer term retail electrical contracts. Uh, currently they're restricted to 10 years. This would allow that to be extended to 20-year contracts, and this is not for purchasing power.

235. 1:00:31

     This is not for anything other than serving customers, and it allows, uh, those cities that service those customers to lock that customer in for a longer period of time under their base rate structure to protect their existing customers for infrastructure improvements that may have to be made related to that. Uh, this does require that the, uh, the, the sale of electric power, which is validated by a superior court pur- pursuant to code section 46-3-131 as to its reasonableness and enforceability.

236. 1:01:05

     So there is a protective measure built into this. Quite simply, we're just extending their ability to enter into contracts from 10 years to 20 years.

237. 1:01:18

     All right. With that, uh, any questions? Mr. Chairman, you did a great job explaining your... Oh, wait. Nope. Yes. Okay. 15. Adesanya. Representative Adesanya.

238. 1:01:31

     Yeah. Th- Adesanya. No, thank you.

239. 1:01:33

     It's Adesanya. I apologize.

240. 1:01:34

     Yeah. Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, um, uh, I think the bill, um, serves us right. It makes sense in a lot of ways. Um, I just have a thought that I want you to consider. Um, so if we lock in for 20 years and, um, say, the market changes, have you considered that they might be stuck with the, with the, with the rate if they lock in for 20 years?

241. 1:02:06

     Am I asking correctly?

242. 1:02:08

     No. No, th- this does not lock a rate. Uh, it, it basically, uh, the, the rate, the, these contracts are-

243. 1:02:16

     I mean contracts

244. 1:02:17

     ... right. Right. The contract is so that if, if you come, if you come to the city, the MEAG city or the MEAG county-

245. 1:02:24

     Mm-hmm

246. 1:02:24

     ... and you say that I want to build a, a large load industry in this community, and I'd like for you to serve power to me, then it's gonna cost, th- there's probably gonna have to be infrastructure upgrades made and that sort of thing. Uh, currently I can only tell you yes, as long as you'll sign a 10-year agreement that you're gonna stay here or at least pay the base portion of that rate for 10 years. But that may not be enough time to recoup the investment. Okay? So we're, we're saying that can be extended out to 20 years.

247. 1:02:57

     It doesn't automatically go to 20 years, but it can go up to 20 years.

248. 1:03:01

     Uh, gotcha. So they can opt out at 10 years?

249. 1:03:05

     O- opt out?

250. 1:03:07

     Like they can opt for 10 years.

251. 1:03:09

     No, I'm saying, so you're saying that it can, um, be locked in for 10 years and then extended further to 20 years, right?

252. 1:03:15

     No, I'm saying if you build a, if you build a, a high demand facility in the city, and you're on a 20-year contract, and you decide at year 10 you gotta pack it up and leave, that contract is still enforceable for 20 years.

253. 1:03:32

     Gotcha. Thank you.

254. 1:03:34

     Thank you.

255. 1:03:35

     All right. Representative Sanchez.

256. 1:03:39

     Don't be so excited, Mr. Chair, for,

257. 1:03:43

     Uh, well, thank you. And I know we talked about this in subcommittee, but just to confirm again, this, uh, the sale of electric power does include data centers, correct?

258. 1:03:50

     Th- this, this, these contracts could include data centers or any high use load or any load that requires substantial infrastructure improvements.

259. 1:03:58

     Right. Thank you.

260. 1:04:00

     All right. Well, I, I, I would just mention there is another House bill that's different from this one. It's House Bill 1063 that we h- heard in the special resource management specific to data centers on Friday at 9:00 AM if you're interested, 'cause you seem to be very interested. Um, with that being said, I don't have any more questions. I'll be open for motion.

261. 1:04:21

     Move to pass.

262. 1:04:22

     Pass. Second. And with that, all those in favor, aye.

263. 1:04:25

     Aye.

264. 1:04:26

     All those opposed. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, your bill passes.

265. 1:04:30

     Thank you.

266. 1:04:30

     Uh, Mr. Chairman, did you want me to close this out, or did you-

267. 1:04:32

     Yes, please.

268. 1:04:33

     All right. With that, we're adjourned.