Comité State and Local Governmental Operations del Senado, 9 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:09:11

   A prayer before we get started.

2. 0:09:18

   Uh, Lord,

3. 0:09:21

   uh, Lord, we come before you today to, um, um, act in wisdom and integrity. We ask that we are good stewards over, um, the authority that you have given us. We pray that you, uh, will guide us in all of not only our decision-making, um, but the questions that we ask, um, doing due diligence, um, using the, the thinking and the brain that you've given us to be thoughtful in everything that we do. Not doing anything out of, um, routine, but doing it out of an appreciation and honor which gives you glory.

4. 0:09:56

   In Jesus' name I pray, amen.

5. 0:09:58

   Amen.

6. 0:09:59

   Amen.

7. 0:10:06

   Welcome to the, uh, Senate State and Local Government Committee. Our first bill that we've got on our agenda is a House bill, House Bill 309.

8. 0:10:14

   Thanks.

9. 0:10:45

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, appreciate y'all seeing my bill, House Bill 309. Um, I will be quick. We passed this bill out of committee last year. Um, never made it through rules, so here we go. We'll try it again. Um, I'll be, again, short. It's on- it's a pretty three-page bill. Uh, in order to create a police department currently, um, the commissioners or the municipality, the, um, local, um-

10. 0:11:15

    Governing body

11. 0:11:15

    ... the, g- thank you, sir. Governing body has to vote and pass a resolution, and at that point, it goes to the citizens to vote. If it passes, you have a police department. Currently, in order to get rid of that same police department, the loca- local governing body votes and the police department is gone. So the point, uh, the, the, uh, purpose of this bill is in order to, um... The same way you would create it would be the same way that you would dissolve a police department. That's the short and sweet of it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

12. 0:11:49

    Go ahead, Senator Ginn.

13. 0:11:52

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Representative Clifton, tell me, since they, uh, uh, I got a little bit of background in local government, but, you know, there's difference between the taxpayers, and the reason that, that it's there is the taxpayers have to basically say, "Yes, we want this," because most police departments are not revenue generators. They're, there's an expense in, in doing that. The, uh, now the average citizen probably doesn't keep up with the city's budget and the things there, but their elected officials would, would, uh, know firsthand and, and, uh, should know a lot more about the city's budget.

14. 0:12:27

    What happens when a city doesn't have the finances and says, "You know, we can't afford this anymore"? How's that, how would that work? What would you expect to see happen in that, that scenario? Do you, you, uh, think that, that, okay, regardless of what happens, should it be left to, okay, they're gonna raise property taxes or how, how... What, what would be your answer in that, that situation?

15. 0:12:48

    So, um, sheriff's office, a sheriff's office is a constitutional position. Um, counties have sheriff's offices. When the municipalities are created, they have the ability to create a police department. My hope would be that that municipality is thinking forward enough to know that they do have the resources, the funding in order to support that police department. Um, if they don't, um, I believe that they should reach out to the citizens and advise accordingly if we don't have the budget, this, that, or the other. It's not gonna be a good scenario either way.

16. 0:13:18

    Okay.

17. 0:13:18

    What we're finding, and really the reason why this bill is, is we're having, um, these, uh, local government that essentially because they can vote and get rid of it, have complete control over this police, um, this police chief or the police department. So when something, when they won't do what they want them to do or are, just decide to do something different then with a very Tuesday night vote, um, that, that police department's completely gone, so.

18. 0:13:46

    If I might follow up. So who do you think the police department reports to?

19. 0:13:51

    Uh, the local government.

20. 0:13:53

    Okay.

21. 0:13:53

    The police department. It, the, based on the way this is, it's the council, uh, municipality.

22. 0:13:58

    Well, it's-

23. 0:13:59

    Whoever created it

24. 0:13:59

    ... depends on the, depends on the structure of the local government. Could be th- that the police chief reports to the, the, if they have a manager. Said they, uh, sometimes it is the, the elected officials dir- you know, indirectly or directly. The, uh... But I mean, I, I just look at it and I'm thinking, "Okay, it's a, it's a big obligation." And one of the things that unfortunately, uh, the, the, the law enforcement officers get caught in the pinch. You know, they may create a, a, uh, oh, local police department, and I get it, they're gonna put their careers the, uh, in the hands of those, uh, local governments.

25. 0:14:32

    But I'm also wary that what, what happened, because I've seen too many cities where a police department was created and they couldn't handle the finances and they wanted to eliminate it. I just, it's g- it's a concern.

26. 0:14:46

    Yes, sir. Thank you.

27. 0:14:54

    Go ahead, Mr. Wipf.

28. 0:14:55

    Thank you. Representative, I appreciate your legislation, and to, to kind of tag on to what Senator Ginn is saying, um,

29. 0:15:08

    if I, if I heard your answer correctly, you feel that if a city, a municipality can't, can no longer afford to keep a police department In any of the other things that are required under the Georgia Constitution to establish a city, do you know currently if those other things they're required to do, does it require a referendum to get rid of those things also?

30. 0:15:31

    I do not know that, sir.

31. 0:15:32

    But would you agree that the police department holds a unique place within, uh, that, that city government when it comes to the overall safety and security of the citizens that live there?

32. 0:15:43

    Absolutely.

33. 0:15:44

    So would you agree that it's kind of a unique animal that the citizens should be engaged in if they're gonna get rid of it?

34. 0:15:53

    Absolutely.

35. 0:15:54

    And while police departments are not intended to be revenue generators, would you agree that many local municipalities, not just here in the state of Georgia, but throughout our country, have leveraged the responsibility of law enforcement to the chagrin of the men and women that wear the badge to turn them into revenue producers? To encourage them to go out and write more s- citations and do some of these other things in order to, in order to, uh, somewhat become dependent on that, to the point that here in the state of Georgia, we've had to put in a percentage into law to prohibit speed traps and other things from being established by overaggressive, um, elected officials within cities here in Georgia.

36. 0:16:46

    Would that not be true?

37. 0:16:47

    Yes, sir.

38. 0:16:48

    Okay. And, um, I wanna ask you this, and 'cause I know we've had a couple of issues over the past year with cities not doing their job and the state being asked to step in and solve problems. Are you currently familiar with any city right now that has abolished or attempted to abolish a police department?

39. 0:17:08

    Uh, and I apologize, I should have brushed up on this. Um, I've got a baby that's gonna be due about tomorrow, so I'm not, I'm h- half here, half somewhere else. Um, but-

40. 0:17:15

    Then what in the hell are you doing here?

41. 0:17:18

    My wife told me to be up here, so I said, "Yes, ma'am."

42. 0:17:20

    You'll get us all in trouble with your wife.

43. 0:17:22

    So through, going through this bill, um, uh, j- this bill was brought to me as a, what I believe to be a good piece of legislation. When I started reaching out and asking around, I had, I believe it was two different representatives come to me and said in the past two years they've had three different police departments because they would create it, they didn't like the person that got put in charge. In six months they'd abolish it, they'd wait, I believe it was a six months minimum before you can bring it back again. They would bring it back again. They'd, I think they got nine months into the next one, and they were just using this as a way to kinda, to do what they wanted with the police department.

44. 0:17:53

    And so where they would get rid of it, and then they would convince the citizens they need it again to get them to vote on it. So this is, really the goal is to create some stability.

45. 0:18:00

    Yeah, and, and I don't mind helping you with this, but, but to Chairman Ginn's point, the police chief usually answers to the mayor or the city manager. And to get a chief approved, usually the mayor will pick a candidate, take it before the city council, present that candidate, and the mayor's required to get a majority of the vote of the city council to approve that hiring. And, um, theoretically, that could work in reverse if somebody chose to get rid of them.

46. 0:18:30

    But I would love to see the information you got. And have you spoken to the Georgia Chiefs Association concerning this legislation?

47. 0:18:36

    Yes, sir. I spoke to, um, I think-

48. 0:18:39

    The director?

49. 0:18:40

    PBA.

50. 0:18:41

    Okay.

51. 0:18:41

    Um, the Sheriff's Association. No one had an issue with this one, no.

52. 0:18:45

    Okay. And the Chiefs Association were comfortable with it, too?

53. 0:18:48

    Um, I did all of this last year.

54. 0:18:50

    Okay.

55. 0:18:50

    So at the time, no one, when I went through this, no one had any issues with this.

56. 0:18:54

    Have you had a chance to speak with the folks from the Georgia Municipal Association?

57. 0:18:58

    Um, not directly about this bill, no, sir.

58. 0:19:00

    Okay. Thank you.

59. 0:19:04

    Thank you.

60. 0:19:07

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, just a question. We keep referencing cities, um, but the legislation only talks about, uh, county police, uh, and it talks about any county governing authority. And cities are treated as municipal corporations and not county governing authorities. Can I get a clarification from legislative council, does this impact cities? Because it would have to reference municipal corporations for it to bind a city, and this legislation does not mention that.

61. 0:19:44

    Look into that a little bit more. I will get back to you.

62. 0:19:49

    We've got another, uh, question. Uh, go ahead, Senator Setzler.

63. 0:19:54

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this is a little more of a housekeeping question, but I did notice on line 32 of your sub, I'm looking at, uh, S- LC 620350S that we're working from. Um, it said, "The county governing authority shall establish the date of the election, which shall be not less than 30 days after the call of the election." 30 days seems a little bit quick to the draw to me. I mean, i- if you, we call an election, don't we wanna have 90 days or something other than 30?

64. 0:20:27

    May- maybe there's something I'm missing here, but I mean, a- and I, and perhaps you're mirroring something that's in code somewhere else. But I mean, even now with early voting and things like this, it's just, 30 days seems quick. I mean, I don't know if I'm even gonna offer an amendment, but I would, m- my mind goes to should we say something like 90 days so that people have time to think about this? 30 days just seems like a pretty quick draw. So...

65. 0:20:48

    Yes, sir. I, I have no tie to the 30 days. That's what legislative council put in here, but I'd be open to adjusting that timeframe.

66. 0:20:57

    Thank you. LC?

67. 0:20:59

    Uh, 394463.

68. 0:21:02

    It-

69. 0:21:02

    Nope, nope.

70. 0:21:04

    I may have the wrong one. This is what I'm, this is the one I've been carrying around since last year, so I don't think we had any amendments to it.

71. 0:21:10

    LC 62... Uh, 0350S. Yeah, I don't know. Here's the 62.

72. 0:21:14

    I don't know who-

73. 0:21:14

    Maybe they got a sub in here for us.

74. 0:21:16

    Who's LC 62?

75. 0:21:21

    Is the sub in here? Is that... Oh, that's what's-

76. 0:21:24

    Yeah.

77. 0:21:24

    Oh, gotcha. That's what it was.

78. 0:21:26

    It's the other statute

79. 0:21:52

    Mr. Chairman, I ask the question in the context of, you know, if we're gonna go and, and fix this code section, it just seems like 30 days to announce a referendum to create a police force, or 30 days to, to announce a referendum to eliminate a police force ought to be more than 30. So I'll just throw that out at the committee. I, you know, depending on the w- the will of the committee, it ought to be something more than 30, we'd say, so.

80. 0:22:15

    I know you've got a, a baby on the way and was hoping to get this out of committee, or back out of committee uh, before that, uh, before the baby came. But my board is lit up, you know, with questions. I think there may be some more, uh, vetting we need to do or, or, or things of that nature. And the reason... It, it was not your fault. There was a sub that was offered that I was gonna talk to you about. If it was friendly, we would add it. If not... But that's what got put in the book, so-

81. 0:22:41

    Okay

82. 0:22:41

    ... it was not your error.

83. 0:22:42

    Okay.

84. 0:22:43

    But with the questions on the, the underlying bill, I think it, it would be best if this be a hearing only. We can finish out with the questions, but-

85. 0:22:49

    Sure

86. 0:22:50

    ... uh, definitely we'll make sure we get this right before we send it back out.

87. 0:22:52

    Yes, sir.

88. 0:22:53

    Yeah.

89. 0:22:56

    Go ahead.

90. 0:22:57

    I think Senator Setzler, uh, brought up what one of the things I was w- That 30 days, I, I too, uh, maybe there's a friendly amendment to make that 90 days because you wanna give people enough time to educate the public as to what they're actually voting on and what they're, what, what the issue is. Uh, that's just one thing. But number two, uh, the only so- uh, the only p- place that I saw municipalities being, and I think legislative council said he's gonna come back and talk to us about it, but on line 75 is the only place that I saw dealing with municipalities.

91. 0:23:36

    Uh, the bill starts out talking about county police force. And y- you give an example, I was trying to understand why 'cause was this from the woke movement? But you just told me that there were people firing people and then coming back and rehiring somebody else and firing people. Uh, uh, and, and I guess you're saying how big of a issue is this? Who is asking? I think that question already been asked. But more importantly, number 75, if I can...

92. 0:24:10

    I guess I'm talking to legislative council to find out how in the world does urban residential finance authorities get into this? Because we start talking about county police, and then all of a sudden, the only place I see about municipalities is that one place. So, and if it, if it is your intent to include municipalities, I think, of course, talk to muni- the, the Georgia Municipal Association. But w- insofar as it's counties, I, uh, I think the people should have a say-so.

93. 0:24:41

    If it, it brought into being one way, take it out that way and I, and, and, and, uh, we'll talk otherwise. But if you have some information about why urban residential finance authority is here, great. But otherwise, I'll talk uh, we just... Legislative council, can you update us, uh, when you do get back to us about the application of municipalities?

94. 0:25:06

    I do have an update for that. The chapter in general, uh, chapter 8 of title 36 applies to county police only, so. Yeah, and I... As you were saying that, it dawned on me. I again apologize. I, I didn't, should have prepped a little bit better for this. This is just for county police departments, and one of the... As of last year, there was six of them in the state. Um, I could not tell you where all six of those exist, but I was-

95. 0:25:31

    Yeah. One at, um-

96. 0:25:34

    Chatham

97. 0:25:35

    ... Chatham.

98. 0:25:36

    There's another one too. There's Dean Buck.

99. 0:25:41

    Yep.

100. 0:25:41

     And, uh, Louisa. That's it.

101. 0:25:44

     But, but why are they doing... Is it only because they're getting upset with the police chief that they're getting rid of them, or what-

102. 0:25:52

     Well-

103. 0:25:52

     ... the reason they're getting rid of the forces?

104. 0:25:54

     It also allows them to make the sheriff a jailer. Basically, they take the sheriff and put him into his constitutional duties, and they take the police chief and override a lot of the duties of, that the county police department would have, um, been supporting. So it's a dual mechanism of if they are, don't like the police, uh, the, um, the sheriff, then they can use this to put their person in place, and then they can re- put in and remove, um, as needed.

105. 0:26:27

     Go on. You go ahead.

106. 0:26:29

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Robertson and I sit on the ethics committee, and we've just discussed these special elections. We don't like 'em. What it costs municipalities, what it costs the county election board, they man and they have to open all precincts, and they may have one person come by one day. They may not have anybody come by. The elections that we have, uh, been discussing is they would only be during a general election. You would not be calling for a special election.

107. 0:27:02

     So that is the problem that I have with the bill, that, uh, right now the T-SPLOST and the E-SPLOST and all these special, uh, elections are held only to generate revenue, and we were trying to cut back on the number of that. So that would be, uh, something that we would need to take into consideration that addresses what y'all mentioned on the 30 days. In one of my counties alone, it'll cost $60,000 to put on an election.

108. 0:27:35

     And then for a municipal or a county just to put it on for that one thing, it costs just as much to do it for one thing as it does for a presidential election and all of the other people on the ballot. So that's the issue that I have with it.

109. 0:27:52

     So your concern would be the s- special election we would need in order for the county to abolish the police department, essentially?

110. 0:27:59

     Yeah, it would just have to be held in conjunction with a general election in November.

111. 0:28:08

     Uh, okay. Uh, that wouldn't bother me if we-

112. 0:28:10

     No

113. 0:28:10

     ... forced county or counties to tie it to a election that was already happening because-

114. 0:28:14

     Yeah, that's, that's what we discussed in ethics in changing some of the election rules and some of that stuff.

115. 0:28:23

     Yes, sir.

116. 0:28:31

     Brandon, do you remember that?

117. 0:28:34

     Hmm?

118. 0:28:35

     That what I was just talking about.

119. 0:28:48

     Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also sit on ethics, and I agree with the gentleman from the 25th that if we could tie it to the next closest called election to make it more, more, uh, cost advantageous for taxpayers, that would be prudent of us.

120. 0:29:07

     Thank you, Senator. Any further comments or questions?

121. 0:29:15

     Seeing none. Thank you so much. Good luck, uh, with the new baby coming in this week. But, um, yeah, we'll work on some of these and get back with you soon.

122. 0:29:22

     Sounds good.

123. 0:29:23

     Yeah.

124. 0:29:23

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

125. 0:29:24

     Thank you very much.

126. 0:29:24

     Thank you.

127. 0:29:24

     We'll bring pictures next time you come back.

128. 0:29:26

     I will. I gotta prove to somebody.

129. 0:29:29

     There you go.

130. 0:29:29

     There you go.

131. 0:29:30

     We'll get some more involved.

132. 0:29:31

     I don't. We have a boy and a girl already, so we're gonna be surprised on this one.

133. 0:29:34

     Congratulations.

134. 0:29:34

     Thank you. Thank you very much.

135. 0:29:36

     Yeah, congratulations.

136. 0:29:37

     Thank y'all.

137. 0:29:42

     Yep. Moving on to the next agenda item. It's, uh, Senate Bill 437. Um, y'all may or may not remember this bill. It's been debated in committee just a little bit. It's been a while ago. I'm just kidding. No, this one sh- should be fresh on everyone's minds. Um, dealing with permits, it's the one we debated last week. Uh, we did make two, uh, significant changes. We went from 10 days to 15 business days in the bill, and then also, uh, made the bill apply only to residential homes only, which could be attached or detached, but it would be residential structures only.

138. 0:30:30

     I don't believe there's any need to have another hearing, so, uh, entertain a motion from committee. Senator Ginn.

139. 0:30:38

     Uh, yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I know this is a highly controversial bill, bill and everything, but I wanna thank the sponsor for, uh, the great work he's done to, to, uh, meet some of the questions that, uh, folks have. And I move do pass on LC620366S.

140. 0:30:57

     Senator Howard.

141. 0:31:03

     My light wasn't going. Just had a, just a point of clarification. There's just a... You mentioned a couple of very important things. There was two main things that we discussed last week that-

142. 0:31:14

     Point of inquiry

143. 0:31:15

     ... Yes, that's, uh-

144. 0:31:16

     Motion on the table.

145. 0:31:16

     Thank you.

146. 0:31:18

     Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Whip. Yeah, we do have a motion. Looking for a, a second, and then we'll, we'll take questions-

147. 0:31:23

     Understood

148. 0:31:24

     ... before the vote.

149. 0:31:24

     I'll, I'll make that second

150. 0:31:26

     ... okay. We've got a motion and a second do pass. Um-

151. 0:31:33

     It's a-

152. 0:31:33

     Senator Howard, you got a question?

153. 0:31:34

     Yeah, a question just to make sure I'm seeing this right. The sub that was offered today, uh, it's about twice as long as the bill that we had last week, and so you- I see that we addressed a couple of the things that we had a really good discussion about. But also, this, this new sub is about twice as long as the one that we had last week.

154. 0:31:56

     Oh, on, uh, 437?

155. 0:31:59

     Yeah. Am I, am I looking at the-

156. 0:32:01

     Yeah. Yeah, and what, what they did, um, the cleanest way to, uh, for this bill to apply to residential homes only was, uh, legislative council. They said that it was the easiest way to do it was to create an entirely new code section.

157. 0:32:16

     Okay.

158. 0:32:16

     And so that's why it got much lengthier.

159. 0:32:18

     Yeah, just doesn't give a lot of time to review such a great conversation last week, and now we're going do pass. Just, you know.

160. 0:32:27

     Both changes were made at you-

161. 0:32:30

     Right

162. 0:32:30

     ... were warning. It was just, like I said, it was the cleanest way for legislative council-

163. 0:32:39

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman

164. 0:32:40

     ... to move forward to change. Yeah, just to encompass it being in residential.

165. 0:32:45

     I'll make the inquiry. Exactly what... I see the 15 days. What was the other change? Was it two changes from last week?

166. 0:32:52

     Yeah. If you'll remember, um, in the-

167. 0:32:55

     The virtual. I don't even see that.

168. 0:32:57

     Yeah, no, the virtual, that, that stays the same. There no, no change to that. What the two changes, like I discussed, were changing the, the review period from 10 days to 15, but then 15 business days, uh, giving ample time with holidays or, uh, you know, weekends, things, things of that nature. And then also, even at that point, if it, the 15th day falls on a weekend or a holiday, it moves to that following Monday, adding additional days, not subtracting from it. Um, and then it, like you said, uh, per legislative council, the cleanest way to, um, enforce this legislation was to create a new code section encompassing it where it only applies to residential homes so that it does not apply to any commercial structures

169. 0:33:46

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

170. 0:33:49

     Okay.

171. 0:33:51

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working, uh, to compromise on, uh, the business days and taking it to, uh, 15 days, and strengthening so that the supply is re- residential, uh, and adding some additional teeth, uh, bringing in some additional regulatory standards, uh, in, uh, this new section. Uh, as you know, I have not been a proponent of a virtual inspection, but, uh, in the spirit of, uh, bipartisanship with this substitute, um, I'm in favor to support it.

172. 0:34:20

     Okay. Thank you. Mr-...

173. 0:34:28

     Yeah, Senator Ginn.

174. 0:34:29

     Mr. Chairman, one of the things that... A- and I, I ask for a point of clarification. We talk about residential construction. The, the, uh... For me, uh, I, I might wanna put a, a, a limit of the number of floors. I, I think about, okay, if I'm building a high-rise, uh, structure, certainly it may be residential, but it's still a high-rise structure. And to me, the, uh... I, I, I won- uh, would you entertain the, the concept of saying, you know, three floors or something like that?

175. 0:34:59

     You know, single-family residence, I, you know, I don't think anybody's gonna build a six-story single-family residence. They might, but, you know, they, uh... I, I know some people think big, but, yeah, uh, but for me, I, I just, I look at it from a standpoint of the number of floors, if we got into a condominium setting that's a high-rise condominium, how that might, might, you know, come into play. If that's, if that's considered residential or, or, or not, 'cause I, I just... I, I can see, I know in Florida that I see a lot of high-rise condos that are residences, but, uh, I, I would...

176. 0:35:35

     I'm concerned about the size of the structure. And, and on that same point, I see what we'll hopefully do is we'll make sure we get any kinks worked out of this as, as the, uh, goes into practice. And then I'd like to see us move to commercial and, and other things be, uh, under a certain s- size so that, and as we move forward in, in the process maybe a year or two down the road. But I think it's a great idea, and I think what you've done with the bill is, is, uh, very good. I just wanna make sure we don't get too big on, on the size of the, the structure, the, uh, to do virtually.

177. 0:36:11

     I, I look at the building across the street that we're building over here and I think about size-wise, certainly I wouldn't wanna have all that virtually done. The, uh... And when you start talking about multi-floors, you know, it gets a little more complicated.

178. 0:36:25

     Yeah, that would be friendly, that addition.

179. 0:36:28

     Yeah.

180. 0:36:28

     You're gonna park the White House in your fucking garage?

181. 0:36:36

     Yeah.

182. 0:36:37

     I think it parks itself.

183. 0:36:42

     Senator Setzler.

184. 0:36:44

     Thank you, Mr.... Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um,

185. 0:36:51

     I have great respect and affection for the author, uh, let me say that. Um, I, I do... The thing that I have the greatest concern with is the virtual inspection. I just don't believe, I don't believe a virtual inspection is a legitimate inspection. Um, I won't go into how many building inspections I've managed. I won't talk about that over the years, but I just, um, I think, uh, having a, a, a government-owned, a government employee code official or a professional private sector code official who walks through the building and does the walkthrough, you know, the idea of the, the video camera can be videoed whether the person's holding it or whether there's a construction person holding it, and the person is viewing online.

186. 0:37:31

     You know, one does not have to be remote to be able to capture in video things that are being seen. I just in- I do not agree that a virtual inspection as the, as the inspection for something to be occupied and get a CO is good policy. Just, I just don't agree with it. Um, I, I would n- have no problem if there were a punch list to say, "Hey, you're coming back. We're punching out these s- these six items," and you, you document that as i- in response to a specific, you know, something that's notif- that's been, you know, been cited perhaps in some context.

187. 0:38:08

     But, uh, you know, an inspection is more than just following someone's GoPro or someone's camera screen around, look at this, look at this. It is a, it is a looking at something in totality and thinking, "Wait a minute, this, this doesn't look right." There's just so much involved that professionals do. I just, I, I can't support a virtual inspection framework, period. So, I mean, I, I offer that to the author. That's just where I am. I may, may stand alone on this committee with that. But that's... I can't support something moving forward allowing virtual inspections being the inspection rubric for a, for a building.

188. 0:38:45

     And I, I know residential is, there's so many things that we rightly simplify in a residential building code, um, and that's why they're simplified. Code simplifies those things so that cost stays low for consumers, but the code that does exist is just as important as others. It's, it's, it's a life safety issue. It's, it's a pu- public health issue. And I think whether it's done through a government employee or a private sector entity, I think a professional being there is part and parcel to a legitimate inspection. That's just, just where I'm at, Mr. Chairman.

189. 0:39:15

     Thank you for the comments.

190. 0:39:18

     With, uh, great respect to the author also, I wanna say that I'm more in line with my distinguished colleague. However, if the author would, uh, consider on line 83 after the, "In person or virtually on any re-inspection," that would allow those punch lists to just be virtual, but that initial inspection to be- In person, and I know that's, that might be heartburn, but I'm concerned that certain mechanical, electrical, certain things just need to be seen, and I, I, I...

191. 0:39:59

     There's no better example that if I was build- if I was buying a house, I'm gonna do a walkthrough. And, uh, as a consumer, I have relied upon my government to do an inspection. And, uh,

192. 0:40:17

     and I, uh, uh, am I to understand we're not gonna hear from any other interests today? Is that correct? We're just gonna vote, I, I, I believe.

193. 0:40:26

     Yes, sir. That is correct.

194. 0:40:27

     Okay. All right. Well, uh, if, I would, with all due deference to our distinguished, uh, author of this bill, line 83, to consider, to at least consider adding the words, "Or any re-inspection," after the word "virtually." That way we could, uh, at least see how that works, and then if they, it works really well, we'd come back and make all of it virtually. Uh, but, uh, if we get one person out to look at certain mechanical or certain aspects of that inspection, I just got a little concerned about.

195. 0:41:08

     Uh, I'll leave it like that to the author of the bill. Thank you.

196. 0:41:12

     No, and tha- thank you for your comments, and just reminding the committee that, uh, this is just a, another tool in local government's tool chest. It's not a mandate. Um, it's a, they can use it if they've got the technology and the funds, uh, to move forward with it, and then they also can determine whether, you know, it's in person or virtually. It doesn't mandate if you're gonna go virtual, you gotta do it all virtual. It's left up to the local municipality. They could pick and choose, um, you know, that it only be done with re-inspections or, um, you know, of the, no mechanical devices or anything of that nature.

197. 0:41:49

     Senator Ginn?

198. 0:41:51

     And following through on what I was talking about earlier, I want to move on line 25 where it says, "Townhomes," comma, and "condominiums," period. Uh, I'd like to change the period after "condominiums" to a comma and add the words, "Three stories or less."

199. 0:42:07

     One moment, Mr. Chairman. This committee is not in a posture to accept amendments. There's a motion made for due pass for the second. Unless the author, the gentleman who made the motion would like to withdraw that motion, this bill cannot be amended.

200. 0:42:26

     So-

201. 0:42:26

     The only option is to call a vote, yea or nay, as is.

202. 0:42:30

     Uh-

203. 0:42:30

     No, that's, the, the posture to receive amendments is being addressed to the committee with due pass recommendation. Then it's, th- then amendments are in order.

204. 0:42:39

     I think it's-

205. 0:42:40

     I think we have to amend it first and then move due pass.

206. 0:42:44

     Other way around.

207. 0:42:52

     What he said. My understanding of that-

208. 0:42:56

     I'm hitting the easy button up here for the lawyer.

209. 0:42:59

     Is the rest of the committee is right.

210. 0:43:02

     'Cause then if you need to amend that or something, you, you know, you can do it.

211. 0:43:05

     Yeah. My understanding of that is motion to pass is what then allows for local amendment.

212. 0:43:11

     Thank you.

213. 0:43:17

     So the, uh, Mr. Chairman, the, on line 25, as I stated, I move that after the period and condominiums, we, we remove that period and say, "Three stories or less," period. Change that, that period after condominiums to, to a comma.

214. 0:43:37

     Okay.

215. 0:43:41

     Second.

216. 0:43:43

     We've got a, we've got a motion and a second for the amendment.

217. 0:43:51

     Any discussion?

218. 0:43:56

     All in favor?

219. 0:44:01

     Passes unanimous. Now we'll take up,

220. 0:44:08

     now we'll take up the underlying bill. Any comments or questions? Go ahead, Senator Setzler.

221. 0:44:13

     I do have one amendment, Mr. Chairman. Um, on line 83,

222. 0:44:20

     um, "conducted in person or, or virtually," I would propose in the amendment to add the words, "On any punch list re-inspection

223. 0:44:36

     consisting of 10 or less items."

224. 0:44:44

     Second.

225. 0:44:47

     Or any punch list re-inspection consisting of 10 or less items. I mean, if you come in, I mean, the process is supposed to be if you come in and there's, it's just a disaster, there's 20 things, they're all, you're supposed to fail them and come back. I, I don't want that to be you come back and have your virtual saying. It should be a punch list that's, that's defined of a couple little items. That's what a punch list is. Um, to a follow-up that's, uh, uh, defined and, and, um, sort of circumscribed scope. I think that's, I can live with that.

226. 0:45:19

     I think just a flat out virtual, I just, as a matter of public policy, I have a fundamental problem with it, so.

227. 0:45:37

     And I, and I phrased it that way, Mr. Chairman, because one could do a conceivably a kind of a f- a courtesy walk through that's not a final inspection

228. 0:45:47

     Uh, and then the final inspection is done by, by, by the... The fundamental inspection will be done by, by virtual means. That's not what I mean. That's why I mean a, a punch list re-inspection consisting of 10 or less items. And, uh, if you get into 11, 12, 13... And I know big buildings, a large building might have, a good punch list inspection might have 15 or 20 or 30 items. If it's a large building or school, you might have 50 that are relatively small. But for a residential structure, we're talking about 10 or less. Uh, that is to me in keeping with they've made an effort to have a completely ready building that they think is complete.

229. 0:46:25

     Um, and if you have 10 or less items, that's a pretty doggone good job. And it's, I think it al- allows the thing to, to, to progress and move forward. That's the thinking behind the proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman.

230. 0:47:42

     Sorry for the pause. We're back now from break. Uh, Senator Setzler, uh, just a question. So the way I understand it, this would deal with the, the final inspection at the end, and only if it's a mess, if there's 10, 10 items or, which there are probably more than that typically. But it would cause for a, basically a final in-person inspection is what you're looking for?

231. 0:48:00

     Yes, sir. I mean, just, just if people are watching online, just in plain English terms, if you're, if you're walking through a building to do a final inspection, the contractor thinks they've got a complete building that's ready to be occupied and be finished. Um, you have an inspector come out, could be a publicly employed person or a private sector person. They do the walkthrough in person. Um, and if it doesn't pass, they cite things that get, gotta get fixed. Um, if you've done a good job on a relatively small building like we're talking about, I drew the line at 10, it's just a, a number.

232. 0:48:35

     If you got a couple things to, to punch out and fix, then if it's 10 or less items, um, the final inspection, the actual sign-off inspection, they wouldn't have to come back again. They could do it virtually. Contractor representative could walk along and say, "All right, you said you want, we, we needed to solder this, this connection point in the hot water heater. See, solder's done." They could show it, vi- you know, bam, okay, that's approved. Okay, this, this little threshold condition, see that? Yep, approved. They can go point by point. 10 or less, you can do that virtually.

233. 0:49:05

     But if it's a big mess, you go in, you walk in, they have 38 items you gotta come back and fix, then it's like, "Dude, you, we, we have to come back in person and see these again." It doesn't match the threshold of... And again, it's a, we're, we're trying to weigh this out and give some guidance. I'm not married to any one number. I just felt like it's a, you've gotta be in a place where the substantive final inspection's still done by s- a human being, a qualified human being in person. That's it. But punch list items that are, that are piece by piece, specific, limited finite scope could be signed off remotely.

234. 0:49:38

     That, that's all.

235. 0:49:42

     Yeah. Mr. Witt.

236. 0:49:42

     For discussion. I just want some clarification from the good senator. Um, so you're, you're talking about, and I know you keep saying buildings and, and this right here is applicable to residential. So I just want to be clear. If we're talking about townhomes, that punch list would, would be applicable to each individual townhome. Like, if there's a soldering issue like you talked about or something with a hot water heater at each one of them, then you could still come in and do a virtual inspection on each one.

237. 0:50:14

     The punch list isn't the overall property. It's each individual residence, if you will. The same thing with, um, to, uh, Senator Ginn's amendment, the three stories. Then it would be if each floor is a different resident, then the punch list would be applicable to each individual resident and not the entire property?

238. 0:50:35

     This press is on...

239. 0:50:39

     Go ahead.

240. 0:50:42

     Um, the press is on track with a specific certificate of occupancy. So if you're se- seeking a certificate of occupancy for one unit, yes. If you're seeking them for four units in a block at one time, come through and inspect all four so that we can let this building be released, it would apply to all four of those at once. That's all. But w- whatever, whatever CO you're seeking to get, that would be the inspection.

241. 0:51:05

     A- a- and by the way, if there's one... I mean, the, they will get creative with this. If there's, "Hey, you gotta do some drywall refinishing touching up," and they find six or seven s- locations of that, that'll be one punch list item. That's not gonna be six separate items.

242. 0:51:20

     Sure.

243. 0:51:21

     They'll, they'll be very creative with it, mi- mind you. But I think the i- the idea that specific punch list items, that's a... We're trying to give s- some flexibility here with still making sure the fundamental inspection's in person.

244. 0:51:39

     Thank you, Senator. Any further comments or questions?

245. 0:51:49

     Um, thank you again. Uh, just a little clarification. At the page two, um, just looking at lines 20 and 21, are there, um, any other codes that we should, um, consider? Sometimes, um, local jurisdictions have special codes that may not be considered under state building, plumbing, or electrical. Um, is- would this be, um, the totality of what we need to consider?

246. 0:52:20

     We have a lot of unique, uh, local codes, and so I just want some clarification on that.

247. 0:52:30

     Where?

248. 0:52:31

     Uh, just lines 20 and 21. At the very beginning, just making sure that, uh, this is inclusive of all the codes that I... My point of the question is, uh, not I don't want anybody to be able to just bypass some significant, um, kind of special codes that may not be typical, but we're looking at state law here.

249. 0:52:54

     Oh, for 20... That's just the header there. That's not, that's not actually in the, in the statute.

250. 0:52:59

     Right. Right.

251. 0:53:01

     Yeah. That- that's, that's not gonna affect the way this works, I don't think.

252. 0:53:04

     Okay.

253. 0:53:05

     That- that's just describing what, um, Chapter-

254. 0:53:11

     Yeah

255. 0:53:11

     ... uh, 82-

256. 0:53:11

     I know it's more of an intro, but just for clarification-

257. 0:53:14

     82

258. 0:53:14

     ... wanted to make sure we're not leaving any holes there.

259. 0:53:19

     Yeah. That's where, you know, this bill is basically the code section-

260. 0:53:22

     Okay

261. 0:53:22

     ... where it's changing that portion of it.

262. 0:53:25

     Thank you.

263. 0:53:25

     Want to vote on the amendment?

264. 0:53:27

     That'd be good, yeah.

265. 0:53:29

     Okay.

266. 0:53:29

     Yeah, and the second amendment would be a friendly amendment to the author.

267. 0:53:37

     We have a motion and a second, I believe.

268. 0:53:39

     Yeah.

269. 0:53:40

     So you can vote.

270. 0:53:40

     We've got a motion and a second on the second amendment. All in favor, raise your hand.

271. 0:53:50

     Any opposed?

272. 0:53:57

     Okay.

273. 0:54:00

     We just had a little bit of debate on a few different issues on this one, haven't we? Uh, yeah, motion carries, uh, three to two.

274. 0:54:10

     Somebody didn't vote.

275. 0:54:10

     Hmm?

276. 0:54:10

     Somebody didn't vote.

277. 0:54:11

     Yeah.

278. 0:54:11

     Somebody didn't vote.

279. 0:54:13

     Or did I miss someone?

280. 0:54:14

     It was six. Now it's seven.

281. 0:54:16

     Excuse me, four to two.

282. 0:54:19

     Call the question?

283. 0:54:20

     Mm-hmm.

284. 0:54:21

     Call the question.

285. 0:54:22

     Yeah. I'm good.

286. 0:54:23

     Okay.

287. 0:54:23

     Yeah. And then now we'll, uh, we've got a motion and a second, uh, for the underlying bill. Uh, all in favor?

288. 0:54:31

     Do pass as amended.

289. 0:54:32

     Move do pass as amended. Thank you for that.

290. 0:54:35

     No problem.

291. 0:54:36

     All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed?

292. 0:54:42

     You didn't vote yet.

293. 0:54:43

     I shift, uh, I-

294. 0:54:46

     Any question?

295. 0:54:47

     I- I did have a question, Mr. Chairman. I- I- I- I don't want to get this wrong as we're acting. I'm just, I'm looking at this as we're making this, um, change. I don't want to mess with the viability of this. Um-

296. 0:54:57

     Steve thinks you're on the clock.

297. 0:54:59

     Yeah.

298. 0:55:00

     Support it. Yeah.

299. 0:55:01

     He's unanimous. It passed unanimously.

300. 0:55:04

     Thank you all so much for all the spirited debate on this bill. And you won't believe what the subject matter is on our, uh, final bill this evening. I'm sure it won't take as long.

301. 0:55:19

     Senator want to just have everybody give up on this?

302. 0:55:19

     But no, s- seriously thank, thank the audience, thank the committee members for the spirited debate. Thank you for the testimony. Uh, the House has been working on this issue for, for quite a while, and it's been new to us, so I appreciate all the discussion and debate.

303. 0:55:33

     Yes.

304. 0:55:34

     Moving on to our last bill, uh, SB, uh, 447.

305. 0:56:16

     So I'll be presenting, um, SB 447. Uh, it has to do with, um, land development permits, um, and so- uh, soil erosion control. Uh, the changes, uh, dealing with this bill, uh, it just clarifies, uh, some of the existing law, uh, that permits must be issued or denied within 45 days of a completed application that's submitted.

306. 0:56:47

     Uh, if a application is denied or resubmitted, uh, it must outline, you know, a new deadline date for a resubmittal when you're in the comment period of a shot clock or whatever you'd like to call it, of 14 days.

307. 0:57:06

     It also, uh, in section two, uh, it lays out a clear process of when a project is denied or if it has revisions that need to be, uh, submitted. Uh, they must be in writing, uh, and they must be clearly stated. Originally in the bill it had it, you know, stating, uh, uh, state code, but this, w- in the amendment we've got, uh, it relaxes that, uh, to deal also, uh, with local municipalities codes and things of that nature as well as far as stating the reason for a denial or the, the need for a resubmittal.

308. 0:57:47

     Uh, section three, uh- Again, covers, uh, clear t- criteria for development related permits. Um, you know, all applications must be completed in accordance with law. Permits processed, as I stated earlier, uh, within 45 days. Resubmittals would be within 14 days. And then also a clear scope and expectations, uh, you know, of federal, state, and local law, uh, in dealing with the criteria of applying for permits.

309. 0:58:26

     And then working, uh, with these two bills, been working with, uh, ACCG and GMA, and they've been great, uh, on bringing forth comments and, and you know, also, uh, potential unintended consequences. Uh, as y'all saw in the other bill, in 437, the changes we made were working closely with them. Uh, there's some changes with the committee sub that I'll present, uh, that has come from changes that, uh, have been working with them as well on, uh, 447. I'll read those, uh, now as well.

310. 0:59:01

     So it omits the reference to zoning and land use. Um, I spoke to several people, spoke to one person outside the, the, uh, chamber today. I believe he may be here to testify, but, uh, was concerned about if it was a, you know, PUD, a planned use, residential development, uh, where it's very flexible on lot sizes and, you know, dealing with setbacks and things of that nature, where there could be changes during that, uh, process. Um, so omitting this would, or remitting this out would, uh, would clear that up.

311. 0:59:40

     And then it also, um, in lines 69 through 74, uh, there were concerns about if there was, like, a messy or incomplete application that the time period would not start, that it would only start that if it's a completed application that is deemed completed and submitted by the local municipality. So the time period wouldn't start until that, uh, occurrence happened.

312. 1:00:08

     Um, it also, uh, requires, uh, real-time updates on LAI websites, uh, which outlines information such as submitted applications, permits, um, current status of the permit, statuto- statutory basis for denials and et cetera. Uh, the original bill would require LIAs to appoint a specific law or denial, which is what I spoke about earlier, uh, in each reason, uh...

313. 1:00:45

     In this section where, yeah, where we go into documented that would support that from either that or a local code section.

314. 1:00:56

     And that would be the, the changes to the sub. And with that, um, any questions or comments from the committee?

315. 1:01:06

     Go ahead, Senator Setzler.

316. 1:01:24

     I'd like to thank the chair for this bill. Um, my, my question is in, in, in this just applicability. Um, am I reading this language to say that if a, a, a government doing a permit review cites a, a specific list of items to be fixed, and those items are fixed, they can't then come back with new items that were not addressed the first time? Is that part of this?

317. 1:01:58

     Yeah, yeah. I, I mean, I, I think you're trying to be clear in this that says, you know, if, if you, if you submit for a permit and they, they cite you for, you know, 12 things, and you fix those 12 things, and you satisfy that, they can't come back and come back with item 13 and 14 and just kind of keep dragging this out. Is it, is it...

318. 1:02:18

     No, this just, this just states the time period. And, and I get what you're saying and-

319. 1:02:21

     Okay

320. 1:02:22

     ... and I understand, you know, you hear from people in the industry, they have multiple rounds of comments and then-

321. 1:02:26

     Yeah

322. 1:02:26

     ... new things come up, but, um-

323. 1:02:28

     Still do that.

324. 1:02:29

     Yeah. The only, the problem with that is that we're only as good as we are, and if they, they may have missed something that they catch later, and we don't wanna prohibit something getting fixed that needs to be fixed. So that would be the point for that. Senator Ginn?

325. 1:02:45

     Yeah. I, I would just wanted to address, you know, when it comes to land disturbing activities, the, uh, you would want somebody to, you know, if they see something else that needs to be addressed, you'd want that to be done. If they needed to, uh, you know, get silt fence down or whatever's happened, 'cause you never know what the weather's gonna bring into the situation. So, uh, when you're addressing comments, it's, it's what it is that day, and that's why, uh, there are inspections that are done daily and weekly and whatever when it comes to erosion control methods.

326. 1:03:16

     Yeah. And, and I understand, but ultimately we're, we're trying to create a pro- we're trying, we're trying to create a process where the development community has some, some certainty about the timeline. And if they can keep coming back, I, I'm not talking about a silt fence is down and they're, they're, they're citing you for problems. I'm talking about in the, in the, in the permit process, if, if you submit and they hurry back and give you some, some things to address, you address those and they come up with new ones, you could, you could just sort of daisy chain these day, these, these submissions together again and again and again and drag the process out.

327. 1:03:50

     It's, it's, that's, that's a concern of mine, but I appreciate the author and appreciate the effort.

328. 1:03:57

     Thank you for those comments, Senator.

329. 1:04:02

     Mr. Whip?

330. 1:04:03

     Yes, and to Senator Setzler's point, we've also seen that in other places. We've had them where individuals would put in permits for construction. They would be denied for certain reasons. The individual would come back, solve those problems, resubmit, and then it's sent back for page numbers and font size, things that had absolutely nothing to do with it but would just drag on the development. And so to his point, I think while this bill doesn't necessarily address that, it is something that the vast majority of the complaints we get when it comes to the permitting process, individuals highlight those types of things, um, in ways of...

331. 1:04:42

     And whether intentional or unintentional, it slows the development process, especially at a time when we're talking about shortage of housing and, and other things. I think it's something we need to focus on.

332. 1:04:56

     Chairman, perfect. I'd like a new motion.

333. 1:04:58

     We've got some people that would like to, to speak. Uh, we've got, uh, some folks that would like to testify. Uh, first one on deck is, uh, the Chattahoochee, uh, River Conservancy.

334. 1:05:15

     How are you?

335. 1:05:16

     Good. How are you doing?

336. 1:05:17

     Good, thank you.

337. 1:05:21

     All right. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak to y'all, uh, this afternoon. I've had a chance to talk to some of you already today. Uh, my name is Dr. Chris Magnello. I'm Chattahoochee Riverkeeper's water policy director. Uh, Chattahoochee Riverkeeper's job is to make sure there's enough clean water in Chattahoochee River for everybody that needs it and all the communities that depend on it, uh, not just Atlanta, but cities like Columbus, second-largest city in the state. I'm also here representing, you know, uh, CRK's thousands of members. Um, and um, I understand there's been a sub, but without having a chance to really look at it, uh, you know, we were, um, op- opposed to the underlying, uh, bill, SB 447.

338. 1:05:57

     We're concerned that the im- implementation of the Erosion and Sediment Control Act at the local level will be compromised, which is a- addressing what's going on in Sections 1 and 2. S- specifically, we're concerned that the land disturbance permits will be issued without proper review, uh, specific- specifically in smaller communities that are facing staffing and resource challenges. So, like, that compressed 14-day timeline is problematic. Uh, additionally, we're concerned about the, that timeline and, um, some of the shall language that was included in the original, uh, bill.

339. 1:06:28

     So specifically, like Sections 1 and 2, uh, with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, these are pr- proposed changes do not specifically account for or address the kind of memor- memoranda of agreements between local issuing authorities, the local governments, and the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission for technical assistance and review of land disturbance permits. The commission staff and the popularly elected district supervis- visors could face real challenges in meeting the proposed 14-day timeline for resubmission review. Um, on the underlying bill of, you know, the 14-day time period, you know, I heard you talking about 15 business days, uh, in a previous bill, so the question there would be whether or not you could make it 14 business days or 20 business days just to make it, uh, you know, uh, you know, a, a solid, you know, 15 business days, 20 business days, solid three to four business weeks.

340. 1:07:18

     Um, appreciate the, uh, intent to strike zoning and land use from line 44 of the underlying bill. Uh, and um, there was another issue, uh, on line 68. Uh, there was a shall there that made it appear that, um, an applicant could kind of slip some new material in on that resubmission, and, um, there was, um, was, that was problematic, and if that's been completely removed, that's great. Otherwise, may language would make more sense on that line 68. Uh, line, the kind of beginning on lines 81, that whole Section 3 is just really, uh, seemingly complicated and could be setting up, uh, a situation where there could be some unintended consequences.

341. 1:07:59

     There's a lot going on, uh, in terms of, uh, how, uh, there could be, you could be opening conflict between agencies and existing statues, statutes, excuse me, that could again result in unintended consequences. Um, and, and again, at a high level, the consequences that we're most concerned about with the Erosion Sedimentation Control Act changes is that, you know, getting more dirt in streams is a problem. And so, like, rushing a land disturbance permit through a process could end up putting more dirt in streams.

342. 1:08:29

     If you end up with more dirt in streams, it makes drinking water treatment a lot more expensive. Um, it can contribute to thing like nutrients and algae in Lake Lanier for folks that have been understanding the taste and odor issues that we've been having in the last year. Uh, to fix that, um, you know, um, Cobb County Marietta Water Authority was spending over $700,000 over the last couple months just to change the, the taste and, to, to address the taste and odor, uh, this past fall. Restaurants on the square in Gainesville, they had to shut down, or they had to curtail service, uh, because of the taste and odor issues as well.

343. 1:09:04

     So, you know, getting more dirt in streams causes all sorts of problems. It can bring more nutrients into the water system and create problems. And finally, uh, more dirt in streams can also impact downstream property values and, you know, infringe on people's downstream property rights. So again, like, messing with the Erosion Sedimentation Control Act can open up a whole host of other issues that can be problematic. Um, so, you know, with that, you know, again, as the o- original underlying bill, uh, we recommend that, uh, SB 447 be held for a vote to perfect the bill, uh, because we can't support it as originally written.

344. 1:09:40

     Thank you.

345. 1:09:42

     Go ahead, Mr. Whip.

346. 1:09:43

     Yes. Thank you for coming.

347. 1:09:45

     Yes.

348. 1:09:45

     Y- you discussed the taste and odor issues with Lake Lanier-

349. 1:09:48

     Mm-hmm

350. 1:09:49

     ... and then another, um, were these reported and investigated?

351. 1:09:54

     Oh, yeah. There's been lots of investigation on this.

352. 1:09:56

     Okay

353. 1:09:56

     ... uh, trying to, trying to figure out what's the cause and what's going on.

354. 1:09:59

     Well, you may have answered my question. What was figured out to be the cause?

355. 1:10:02

     It's unknown. There are a lot of contributing factors. Uh, there's, um, in Lake Lanier, there's concern about the lake turnover. That's the kind of the physical movement of lake water and the cycling during the seasons, and that could be stirring up nutrients and other, uh, elements that are in the sediments, um, on the bottom of the lake.

356. 1:10:19

     So do we, do we not know that the cause is more dirt in the streams?

357. 1:10:24

     What we have a good sense of is that, that when you bring more dirt in, you're also bringing nutrients. And when you start combining all that stuff in a water column, then you can be opening yourself up to challenges.

358. 1:10:38

     And, and I don't dispute-

359. 1:10:38

     And I should also say that the taste and odor issues, there's, there's no, like, fundamental health problem with it. There's not a public-

360. 1:10:44

     Right

361. 1:10:44

     ... health issue-

362. 1:10:44

     Yeah. Um-

363. 1:10:45

     ... that we know of.

364. 1:10:46

     But your reference to more dirt in the streams and then the taste and the odor-

365. 1:10:50

     Mm-hmm

366. 1:10:50

     ... you were just saying that that could impact it. We don't know for sure if that's what impacting there, and-

367. 1:10:55

     Certainly

368. 1:10:56

     ... and there's an ongoing investigation to look at that to try to determine that.

369. 1:10:59

     Certainly.

370. 1:10:59

     And who's conducting those investigations?

371. 1:11:01

     Uh, the local water utilities that are, um, that are withdrawing the water. They're all trying to figure out what to do so that they, um, can minimize their costs on, um, response.

372. 1:11:12

     Thank you very much. I appreciate that clean water's important.

373. 1:11:14

     Yeah. We actually just discovered a pretty, uh, interesting plume of water entering the Chattahoochee River at Flat Shoals Creek down in Harris County on Friday. We're trying to figure out what's going on.

374. 1:11:22

     And I'm sure it's got something to do with Metro Atlanta, but I really do appreciate that.

375. 1:11:26

     Flat Shoals Creek starts in Troup County.

376. 1:11:31

     Well, thank you for your testimony.

377. 1:11:32

     You're welcome.

378. 1:11:32

     We've got several folks, uh, but yeah, I, I am a resident of Gwinnett, and that's where my drinking water comes from, and we got 200,000 constituents. I mean, my district does go to Winder, but have not heard of any complaints, at least from the Gwinnett folks, of any issues with the smell or taste of drinking water.

379. 1:11:47

     Yeah, they've, they've got a different treatment system than City of Gainesville, but anyway, yeah, happy to talk about that.

380. 1:11:51

     Thank you very much.

381. 1:11:52

     Sure thing. Thank you.

382. 1:11:58

     Got Hannah with, uh, One Hundred Miles is up next.

383. 1:12:05

     Yeah. Yeah. Mm-hmm.

384. 1:12:07

     Less than 100 miles from coast to coast.

385. 1:12:09

     That's how I wish it was.

386. 1:12:16

     Good afternoon. My name is Hannah Mendillo Selvaggio, and I've traveled here from Brunswick, Georgia today to speak to you about Senate Bill 447. I represent One Hundred Miles. We're a coastal conservation organization with the mission to protect Georgia's coast through advocacy, education, and community engagement. And I'm here to ask you not to pass Senate Bill 447 because it reaches well beyond the intended scope for the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act and creates unintended consequences for local governments and communities across Georgia.

387. 1:12:52

     Senate Bill 447 dramatically expands the definition of the word permit. Um, it defines permit, and I understand you have a sub now, so this may be slightly different, but, you know, please bear with me. Any license permit or other official governmental approval for a development of real property issued by a county or municipality, including approvals related to subdivision regulations, environmental ordinances, the state building code, the Georgia State Fire Code, and other ordinances regulating development.

388. 1:13:23

     The definition is extraordinarily broad. As further referenced, it clearly encompasses zoning approvals, utility connectivity, and stormwater management. All of these are complex, technical, and essential components of responsible development. They require a careful review, coordination across departments, and compliance with multiple state and local laws. By redefining permit this way, Senate Bill 447 effectively shortens review timelines for nearly all local land use approvals, even though the bill is framed as an amendment to the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act alone.

389. 1:13:58

     I'm a certified urban and rural planner. I've worked in local government. I've worked for local government. I've worked in, uh, regional planning for Georgia. Um, in, in that capacity, we assisted local governments across multiple counties with growth management and development planning. The coastal region has had some communities that are growing at an extremely rapid rate. Today on our coast, major residential developments are being proposed with hundreds and sometimes thousands of homes.

390. 1:14:29

     We're experiencing an explosion of warehouse growth, and the entire state is seeing the boom of data centers. All of these developments put demands on our water resources, our power grid, our transportation systems, our schools, and other public services. Equally important, these developments will house families and employ workers who expect and deserve safe buildings and reliable infrastructure. That safety depends on allowing officials and technical reviewers adequate time to evalement, evaluate development plans before permits are issued.

391. 1:15:01

     Senate Bill 447 is an amendment to the Erosion and Sedimentation Act, not the fire code, not the building code, not the Planning and Zoning Act. Yet this expanded definition of permit effectively alters the review timelines for all local land development approvals. This bill will be used as a workaround to accelerate permitting to, for developers, but the trade-off is real. Local issuing authorities may be forced to approve permits before all necessary reviews are complete. Senate Bill 447 is not good for local government, it's not good for public safety, and it's not good for Georgia's long-term growth and resilience.

392. 1:15:36

     For these reasons, I urge you not to approve Senate Bill 447. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to the state of Georgia.

393. 1:15:45

     Thank you, Senator Setzler.

394. 1:15:48

     Thank you for being here. Mm-hmm.

395. 1:15:56

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today.

396. 1:15:58

     Thank you.

397. 1:15:58

     Um, there was some discussion earlier about, you know, timelines and 14 days. That was said earlier. What do you think in, in your experience at the, at the local level, this, this is... There is some breadth to this.

398. 1:16:11

     Mm-hmm.

399. 1:16:12

     Um, if the legislature was trying to put a shot clock in place, walk me through, in your view, um, what timeline you think makes sense that, that, that could get you to yes.

400. 1:16:28

     I've been involved with timelines that have taken months, and I think what's really important to understand is that those, those long periods of waiting for an approved application is not because of local staff or local government trying to, um, drag their feet 9.9 times out of 10, right? It's because there are concerns or questions or clarifications that come from staff to make sure that things are properly handled, um, that may be concerns from community members who have to live by, um, some of these developments.

401. 1:17:04

     I really hesitate to put a timeline on it. Um, I think there are maybe other standards that could m- uh, prove that the application is moving in good faith. Um, I, I very much hesitate to put an actual date on it. I apologize, Senator.

402. 1:17:21

     Um, a- appreciate that. I just think, uh, if you're, if you're gonna paint a picture for the committee members, uh, I know you're limited somewhat in your, in your presentation time.

403. 1:17:30

     Mm-hmm.

404. 1:17:31

     What specifically... I, I know this is framed in terms of, you know, erosion, sedimentation control. Um,

405. 1:17:40

     those can be relatively straightforward in terms of-

406. 1:17:43

     Mm-hmm

407. 1:17:43

     ... there, there's, a lot of those plans are, are relatively pro forma. There's some pro- some procedures and practices that are, that are put in place. What is your concern about this bill outside of, of sedimentation, erosion control? What, what, what specific parts are you hearkening to that this, this invokes that maybe committee members don't understand?

408. 1:17:59

     Mm-hmm. Um, I think that anything that would limit the local issuing authority's ability to take the time and the, uh, care to ensure the safety of residents is something to really, um, take a second look at.

409. 1:18:27

     Thank you.

410. 1:18:27

     Thank you.

411. 1:18:28

     Thank you.

412. 1:18:29

     Go ahead, Senator.

413. 1:18:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanna, um, get, um, some clarification. Uh, we have the, uh, in Chatham County, the Army Corps of Engineers, um, and I just want to... I, I'm not certain of their timelines. For example, when we dealt with the Hyundai plant, it was in Bryan County, but that water was supplied by the Effingham County and the City of Savannah in a joint effort, and the application called for a drawdown of so many permitted gallons of water, for example, but that went to the Army Corps of Engineers first and then back to the counties.

414. 1:19:06

     And just on line, uh, 48 and 49, it says, "All such requirements sh- shall be subject to the review timeframes imposed in subsection, uh, C of this bill," and I just wanted to find out if we could just maybe gather what those, uh... And we got some experts here who could help us. I just wanna make sure that the timeline doesn't mess up large scale development projects that may be joint development authorities unintended as I was reading this, and I was thinking back in my mind when that happened.

415. 1:19:39

     Exactly.

416. 1:19:46

     They do own the water, um, the water they're in now, but then it goes back to who could supply the water.

417. 1:19:52

     Next up, Austin Hackney.

418. 1:19:59

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, my name's Austin Hackney here representing the Home Builders Association of Georgia, and I've got the committee sub on my phone, so I apologize for looking down at this screen while I address you. But, um, I did wanna start with a word of thanks to the Senate and all of the signers that are on this bill. Uh, the Home Builders Association of Georgia has, uh, many different types of builder members, but, uh, among those include land developers a- and subdivision developers, and, and as...

419. 1:20:32

     Thank you. As a part of that, um, we're very interested in, in the, um, land development permitting that's captured in the first couple sections of this bill. So if it's okay with you, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to take a couple minutes to describe, um, some of the issues that led to, uh, at least our interest i, in this concept. And, um, when I talk to developers around the state, you know, their projects, which in, in, uh, the context of this bill are post local zoning decision, and that's the last time you'll hear me use the Z word in this committee.

420. 1:21:11

     Um, the, these projects have been approved by the community. The conditions have been agreed to by the developer, and then they get with their engineering firm to develop the stamped plans for the subdivision that are these, uh, land clearing plans that, that describe where these lots are gonna go in the topography. That is all happening, uh, post-decision. A- and so the community's concerns have been vetted, and everybody's agreed that this is a good project to move forward.

421. 1:21:41

     And now we're just reviewing how the engineers are going to agree that is the best way forward on this project. So the law as it reads today requires that plan review to happen in 45 days. And for a, a business to invest the amount of money that th- that these developers had to invest on the front end with no guarantee of success, um, to just pay the develop- the engineers to put these plans together, uh, you know, they're submitting that for compliance review, uh, more than anything.

422. 1:22:15

     And in that 45-day period, they'll be reviewed by multiple different local departments within the jurisdiction, um, i- including the stormwater folks, but also, uh, you know, the arborists, the, the zoning condition people wanna make sure that they've actually done what they agreed to. The, the, there are multiple local government departments that are gonna review this application within that 45-day period in the law. Now, what we see in practice is that sometimes there will be additional comments go into this application that would then restart that 45-day period.

423. 1:22:51

     So while the statute reads 45, our experience around the state in different communities can be one year or two years, up to three years of just waiting for these reviews to take place. And so one way that I think the bill fairly figures that out is by defining what a complete application is, because a lot of the feedback that we got early on in this discussion was, you know, what if the developer submits an application that is not worth the paper it was printed on, and, um, a- and how is a shot clock gonna help that?

424. 1:23:23

     So to know that, uh, both the, the jurisdiction and the applicant have to agree that this is a complete application before any shot clock starts, I think is a pretty fair way to look at it. And to include all the local reviews that have to take place on those engineered stamp plans in one round of comments, that 45-day period just gives, uh, some, uh, predictability to the business owner, the applicant, and to the local government about what the expectations are, the rules of the game going into it.

425. 1:23:55

     So, uh, I think that's a fair way to look at it. I also think the, um, the, the requirement that the, uh, the, the review happens, the comments come back to the applicant, and those comments, which are, uh, kinda known as red line comments, have to include a citation to the law that was violated that led to the deficiency letter in the first place, is something we already have in the law in, in this, uh, or near this code section. For a building permit inspection, you know, those local inspectors are required to cite the plumbing code or the electric code that the, the permit applicant has violated, which led to the stop work order.

426. 1:24:34

     So it's very similar in my view as what we already require for the vertical permitting. Uh, we're just putting it on the horizontal land permitting now. And then, um, finally, the, uh, the dashboard in part three, I think is another transparency, uh, solution that just gives those applicants more, uh, understanding of where their application is in process and, and helps them make plans, uh, with those investments in the community.

427. 1:25:04

     So, um, before I start rehashing what's already been said to the, uh, committee, I'll, I'll just stop and ask for questions.

428. 1:25:13

     Any comments or questions? Go ahead, Senator Howard.

429. 1:25:17

     Thank you. Appreciate you, uh, speaking with us today. Appreciate this bill. Um, did, did you have any, any concerns about this being business days instead of 45 days? 'Cause obviously we know, uh, time is money, but we are... Multiple things are happening, right? We're trying to make sure the community and all the different entities, and this is a, a backstop. So, um, would that significantly change your mind about this bill if it was 45 business days and, say, uh, 15 business days on the other matters instead of 14?

430. 1:25:52

     I think it'd be a significant step backwards. I think, uh, you know, when we talk to local governments around the state, you know, we'll talk to some that say if it takes more than two weeks, there's, uh, there's some kinda inefficiency issue going on. You know, I think there could be some recognition of the complexity of the project. You know, if there were a, a need for a more robust review for, you know, a, a 20,000 acre master plan community-

431. 1:26:17

     Mm-hmm

432. 1:26:17

     ... I think that makes a lot of sense. But for, you know, a modest new subdivision, um, you know, I, I think we can, we can go even faster than the 45 days that's currently in statute.

433. 1:26:28

     Yes. I appreciate that. It just seems similar to a conversation we had, and we went around and we found out maybe a good piece of m- m- good compromise was business days, but then we, uh, lowered the scope, and I didn't know if we're gonna end up going through that process again. I think we can keep the same scope, but maybe make some-

434. 1:26:45

     The 45 days is already currently in law.

435. 1:26:47

     Right. So, and-

436. 1:26:49

     The, the 14 days is what the initiative is.

437. 1:26:50

     Yeah. Thank you for the clarification. The 14 days, uh, being 15 business days to be consistent with our previous conversation, uh, just, just think it'd be good for us to consider. Um, yeah.

438. 1:27:01

     Thank you for your comment.

439. 1:27:02

     Just wanted to get your perspective. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

440. 1:27:06

     Any further comments or questions from the committee? Senator Setzler.

441. 1:27:12

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm trying to unpack this. Um, in section three, I, I get the section one with the s- sedimentation erosion control, I think. Um, and then the resub- you know, it's, it's, it's 45 days and it's, it's 14 days to consider a resubmission. That seems very balanced to me, um, even in actual calendar days. Um, in section three of the sub, um, again, this is the 4005S sub. Um, this is... I'm trying to understand the applicability of how these things all fit.

442. 1:27:45

     I was, I was just gonna pull the code up. This, this is where we're invoking things, you know, well beyond sedimentation erosion control, building code, state fire code, those kind of things. Um, could you just, could you walk the committee through what section three really applies to a- and the, the value out of it as, as you see it?

443. 1:28:02

     Sure. Well, um- Having just read Section 3 about three minutes ago, I would say that, uh, my initial perspective on, on the value there is that we've got a good idea in Section 1 and 2. And if there are other permitting situations review that's taking longer than 45 days, then we should at least, uh, take a close look at, at why that is. Uh, to me, we're getting a little outside the scope of what our home builder association members, um, are, uh, regulated with.

444. 1:28:35

     Uh, so line 131, uh, for subsection D that, that says that if there are other timeframes that are in the law already, like the plan review and, and inspection timeframes that you guys may have just discussed in a previous bill, that, that this bill wouldn't affect that. Uh, so, um, a- outside of that, that's kind of, we get past my scope of understanding.

445. 1:29:00

     So Mr. Chair, I guess, uh, may- maybe I'll address this to the chair. Is, is the intention of Section 3 to take the 45 days review and then the 14-day, uh, resubmission for really all, all building code permit, a- all permit-related things? Is that what this is?

446. 1:29:16

     No. Just

447. 1:29:18

     Turn my microphone on. This is, this one is towards land disturbance permit, towards development-

448. 1:29:24

     Okay

449. 1:29:24

     ... is what this is geared towards. And then when you're looking at that 45-day window, when you're dealing with a land disturbance permit or a final plat, you know, you've got your, your submittal, you know, and that would be your 45-day window. Then the county or municipality rather would come back and, you know, typically there's a number of comments. You address those comments with your engineer or your licensed professional. You resubmit it. Once it's resubmitted, then that's the 14 days just to address those comments. So it's a much smaller scope. So I think 14 days is plenty of a time for a municipality.

450. 1:29:57

     And there again, if the 14th day lands on a holiday or a weekend, then it falls to the following Monday, which gives additional time, not less time. Um, and there's several rounds of those. That's why I don't want to m- you know, harden that number because it, it, you know, when you're dealing with a, you know, building plan, I mean, there could be several rounds with that. But when you're dealing with a final plat, I mean, it could be... I had heard of one last year that was eight rounds of, of comments as you're perfecting that plat. Um, and like I said, with the resubmittal, you're looking at those issues that are addressed.

451. 1:30:28

     And then may, the municipality may look at the entire plat and miss something from, you know, the original submittal or something, but there's several of those that, that transpire.

452. 1:30:39

     Mr. Chairman, if I could-

453. 1:30:40

     Yeah

454. 1:30:40

     ... make one comment i- in conclusion here. I, I would say, you know, I, I read the article about the, the dirty water bill that, um, uh, you know, this is being alleged as, and I, I don't think that's true. I, you know, the way I, I have viewed this concept is that we've got a 45-day shot clock on the books already and, a- and lots of communities around the state that are doing these reviews, uh, well under that time limit. You know, if, if there are extenuating circumstances, you know, maybe we should address those in the bill.

455. 1:31:12

     But, um, the goal of this bill is not to put dirt in the waterways. It's to get more buildable lots into the marketplace faster than we are today by just complying with what's already in statute today, that 45-day clock. So, um-

456. 1:31:26

     In, in dealing with the development process, developers, I mean, they... I- as they're developing the site, they've got to retain the water on site, so they've got to build temporary ponds till they build the final ponds.

457. 1:31:39

     Sure.

458. 1:31:39

     They've got to contain that water at the same level that it's released before any development or better. Is that correct?

459. 1:31:46

     That is correct. And, and to my knowledge, there's nothing i- in this bill that affects any of the material requirements of the Green Book or a- any of those stormwater runoff requirements.

460. 1:31:58

     Okay. Any further comments or questions? Thank you.

461. 1:32:01

     Thank you.

462. 1:32:06

     Uh, next up is the Southern, uh, Environmental, uh, Law Center.

463. 1:32:24

     All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, my name is April Lipscomb. I'm an environmental lawyer. I work for the Southern Environmental Law Center, uh, here in Atlanta. And, uh, you know, I hate to oppose your bill, Mr. Chairman, but I do have some, just some concerns about it. Um, and I want to start by just making sure that all of you are aware that, that we have a pretty, um, huge dirt problem in the state of Georgia right now. Uh, we have really a massive compliance issue altogether with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act.

464. 1:32:57

     We get calls constantly, and our Riverkeeper friends get calls constantly from concerned citizens who see dirt getting into our local waterways from construction activities, from development activities. So, um, you know, that's one thing to consider. And I also, I need to verify this, so don't hold me to this, but I suspect that the majority of, uh, Clean Water Act citizen suits that are filed in this state are dirt cases as well. So where you have a private citizen or nonprofit suing a developer in federal court for violations of the Clean Water Act, where they're sending dirt, tons of dirt into local waterways.

465. 1:33:33

     So just setting that stage a little bit, we do have a serious and documented dirt problem in the state of Georgia. And, you know, my main concern with this bill is that there is, you know, a likelihood that the language could exacerbate some of those problems, um, which you heard from Dr. Megan Ello and from Hannah with 100 Miles. I don't want to get too in the weeds on that, but essentially if you compress deadlines and if you allow for a, uh, statutory scheme where permits are automatically getting approved, that could result in a situation where a shoddy erosion and sedimentation plan gets approved.

466. 1:34:11

     BMPs are not going to be implemented the way that they are supposed to be imple- implemented, and then we see additional dirt getting into our streams. So that's sort of just an overarching concern that I have with this bill. Uh, you know, another concern, you know, I think a lot of the, um, concerns that we've heard for de- from d- developers don't necessarily involve the Erosion and Sedimentation Act itself. It's a lot of these other permits and a lot of these other approvals that are slowing things down. Um, and so I think putting these very sweeping, you know, shot clocks and time limitations on local governments, um, may not be the right solution for addressing that problem, especially when you have different municipalities, different counties that have different sizes, different capacities, different staffing needs.

467. 1:34:57

     So, um, you know, that's another concern that I have. Uh, I do appreciate some of the changes that have been made on the substitute, um, especially taking away the, the zoning language, things like that. Appreciate that. Um, I do think making the requirement that the shot clock doesn't start until we have a completed application is a good one. Uh, I don't... A- and I'm not sure if it's defined in the substitute, but I'm not sure completed application is actually defined and who makes that determination, so that may be something to look at as well. Um, on the time- timing, I do think 14 days for a resubmittal is, is just insufficient.

468. 1:35:30

     I think preferably we ought to be giving our, uh, local issuing authorities at least like 15 business days, um, 'cause 14 d- calendar days is really 10 business days if we're looking at weekends. Um, I briefly looked at the substitute. I don't think that the requirement for a completed application is in section three, so I'm not sure the timeline actually starts then if for a completed application. That may be... I may have missed that, but I wanted to flag that as something if, um, you're looking at it. Um, and the, the last thing I'll just mention, it's, it's sort of unclear to me, you know, exactly all of the permits and licenses and approvals that this bill could a- uh, be applying to.

469. 1:36:10

     I mean, there are so differ- so many different types of things that could be happening at the local leve- local level that a local government could be requiring, and some of those may need longer than 45 days or may need greater scrutiny depending on their staffing levels or the, the complicated nature of the plan. So it may help this committee to know, like from a local government, and I don't- I'm not the right person to know this, but like what are all of the permits and licenses that could be impacted by this bill? So, um, just offering that for the committee's consideration. Uh, but for now, I would just urge y'all to, to pause the breaks a little bit.

470. 1:36:41

     Let's think through some of these issues and, um, come back. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.

471. 1:36:50

     The Council for Quality Growth is up next.

472. 1:36:55

     Yeah. And then... And we're gonna... They- We've got a few more presenters. I'm gonna put a shot clock on the-

473. 1:37:03

     Great

474. 1:37:03

     ... on the presenters at two minutes.

475. 1:37:05

     Yeah.

476. 1:37:05

     Here.

477. 1:37:05

     No worries. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my name's Matt Yarborough. I serve as the Director of Policy and Government Affairs with the Council for Quality Growth. Uh, we are a, a little over 40-year-old trade association here in Metro Atlanta of about 300 development companies, um, about 2,000-plus member, uh, individuals. Um, we're here to thank the chairman for the legislation that he's brought. Um, I just wanna emphasize a few things. A few are already emphasized by Austin- ... but I just wanna be clear on them. One, that the erosion and sediment control standards are not being changed in this bill.

478. 1:37:35

     Um, we view this as purely a transparency and consistency, uh, effort that provides a predictable project planning environment. Um, two is that, um, ultimately the, the, our experience in working with 87 local governments across the metro area is that a vast majority to the previous points that have been made are already well under 14 days. Um, we're trying to provide more predictable standards across the region, across the state, um, and we think the bill kind of addresses that, uh, to a core point without delving deeper into the actual, uh, permitting process.

479. 1:38:10

     Purely trying to set some defined standards for us to be able to consider. So, um, I will be brief since the hour is late, and we appreciate you bringing this bill and, and thank you.

480. 1:38:20

     Thank you.

481. 1:38:25

     We've got Jeff with the Realtors, and then Noah with GMAs on deck.

482. 1:38:39

     Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, um, Jeff Ledford with the Georgia Realtors. Uh, I am not someone who's here today to tell you the details of the bill, uh, because you have the experts that are telling you the need that they're facing in building homes. We don't build homes. We just recognize there is a grossly inadequate, uh, grossly inadequate supply of housing right now. Uh, I believe it's over 350,000, um, we would need to have to meet the, the demand in Georgia right now for, for housing.

483. 1:39:11

     So anything we can do to help address that housing supply, anything we can do to bring that, um, as we said earlier, time is money. Uh, not that we wanna see it, uh, go beyond what's reasonable, but, um, if this can be something that can address bringing that cost down by reducing that timeframe, that addresses the ability of many folks to attain housing. So that's primarily what I'm here to say. We need to have housing.

484. 1:39:41

     Thank you very much.

485. 1:39:42

     Sure.

486. 1:39:51

     Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Noah Raines with the Georgia Municipal Association. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I wanna start by sharing that ideologically, I believe that Georgia cities and this committee and the intent of this legislation are duly aligned. Um, land disturbance permits, expediting them and getting them in place is a win. Cities, when you pull an LDP, it means that you're building housing, you're expanding housing, you're building a business, or you're expanding business. Those are all things that we wanna champion at the local level, and I wanna really, uh, first off by saying I appreciate the extent at which the chairman and some of the council has worked with us on improvements to this bill thus far.

487. 1:40:24

     Um, I have about two hundred and forty of my cities that function in this process of issuing land disturbance permits. Um, I represent Georgia's five hundred and thirty-six cities. This is about forty percent of my membership that is working through this. Of those two hundred and forty cities that function as the LIAs, forty of them function as the LIA with an MOA, which is a memorandum of understanding with the state, um, EPD. Um, they are able to effectuate the entirety of this land disturbance issuance permit process themselves in-house. Those are your larger jurisdictions. Um, they incur training, education, and recertification on, I believe, an annual basis to keep that status.

488. 1:41:00

     My other two hundred members that don't have that MOA, they rely upon external partners to ef-effectuate key provisions of these LDP applications. And that's one thing that if I were to suggest one thing to the committee today, it's that this bill speak to the effects of external review when local governments have to rely upon it. I wanna draw your all atten-- I wanna draw your attention to section one of the bill, subsection D. It's lines forty-six through forty-nine. It was referenced earlier by a previous speaker.

489. 1:41:30

     Um, we were able to get removed from this references to zoning and land use. Now I appreciate that that was something we had asked for. Zoning and land use considerations and those kind of changes and amendments are really governed by zoning procedure law in the state of Georgia, and there's a whole nother adherence to public hearing and public notice that needs to take place, that it would just be unfair if it were to sit under the confines of this bill. But what I would like to see potentially added here in section six is, again, a r- a recognition of those local governments, the two hundred of my cities that are doing this process, that are relying upon a state agency for feedback.

490. 1:42:06

     At the end of the day, a land disturbance permit is the submittal of an erosion and soil control plan. But an erosion and soil control plan has to promulgate best practices that is gonna stop runoff into the waters, ensure that we're not gonna have those types of issues. But tho- that has to align with the plat map for the development. That has to align with the amount of trees that are being cut down. That has to align with the amount of trees that are being replaced. That has to agree with the ways in which the topography of the development is going to change when they clear this land.

491. 1:42:36

     All of these things being reviewed together, oftentimes local governments, especially city governments, will look to external partners. If a city is existing in a county where the county runs the water system and you're going to have to run new water lines and new sewer for a development, a city would be waiting on a referral back from the county on whether or not this water plan is going to counteract with that erosion and soil control plan. This legislation does not recognize that external relationship. It would not hold those external partners accountable to the same timelines as cities.

492. 1:43:09

     We would be beholden to the forty-five-day initial review and then a subsequent fourteen-day review, but we would not be able to point the finger at external agencies. And it's not just city/county, it could also be city/state. Oftentimes, for those jurisdictions without an MOA, they're relying upon state agencies such as State Soil and Water to effectuate and to review those portions of the erosion and soil control plan. Now, I believe there's a speaker that's gonna speak to this a little bit later, but the state can take a little bit of time with that. And again, if that's the burden in the process, we just want that to be recognized.

493. 1:43:40

     I'm not asking for an extension of the timeline. I'm not asking for a move from fifteen days to fifteen business days. What I would ask for is instead that we toll the shot clock. In those instances where a entity of local government is relying upon an external partner, whether that be their county, whether that be a private utility provider, or whether that be a- an agency of state government, that we simply toll the shot clock and keep it in place. Once those reviews have come back, let's start the shot clock right back, and we can still get these reviews turned around in a sensible time that's good for the city and that's good for the business entities.

494. 1:44:14

     Other than that, I really do appreciate the extent at which you've worked with us, Chairman, on this bill. I will say I received a copy of this substitute about two hours ago, and section three is foreign to me. I have read through it in the time that we've had during the committee meeting today, and I understand the intent, um, but I would levy here upon any deeper analysis that the reach of this is very, very deep.

495. 1:44:37

     Mm-hmm.

496. 1:44:38

     Generally capturing all permits that local governments issue and beholding them to those timelines, the forty-five days and the fourteen days. Section three itself is not limited to the land disturbance permit process. It's just a general permit issuance process that local governments work through, and it's a lot. I tried to pull up a comprehensive list on my phone, and it wouldn't stop. We do a lot. We do a lot of permits. So I understand beholding them to the same shot clock, and I also understand the second part of section three, which, uh, instructs us to make a website to kind of keep this process working in real time.

497. 1:45:11

     We're for transparency. We believe that that's an important part of the process, but I do not understand the staff implications that this would have, nor the financial implications at this point in time. My ask would be to be cognizant of that first thing I mentioned, the external review partners, and should the committee have the interest to move this bill forward today in this fashion, I would ask that we potentially hold off of that section three. We have now passed one permitting bill out of this committee. We're maybe yet soon to pass another permitting bill out of this committee. Chairman, I've worked with you in good faith.

498. 1:45:42

     If we want to move a third permitting bill, I promise you I will work on this language on-- in good faith. But at this point in time, uh- I don't have feedback from membership, and then we're not sure we understand the full scope of it. I fully understand sections one and two, but section three is just giving me a little bit of heartburn. So I will, uh ... With that, I'll conclude my time. I'll pause for any questions if the committee has any. But thank you.

499. 1:46:02

     Yeah, I've got some antacids up here if you wanna take them.

500. 1:46:04

     Tom's?

501. 1:46:04

     Take one of these pills.

502. 1:46:06

     There's Tom's.

503. 1:46:06

     No, thank you for your testimony, and you have been great to work with. I appreciate your insight.

504. 1:46:10

     Thank you, Chairman.

505. 1:46:10

     Yeah.

506. 1:46:18

     Got Allen.

507. 1:46:22

     And then Ellis is up last.

508. 1:46:31

     Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, my name is Allen Tony. I am the chair of the Fulton County Soil and Water Conservation District. That's an elected position. I've held that position for 30 years. I have seen pastures completely destroyed with mud. I've seen mud in the road, which is dangerous for cars. I have seen ponds completely destroyed by mud coming off a construction site. Um, the, the problem, you know, it, it's not just, you know, cl- clean water, you know, the cost of clean water.

509. 1:47:06

     It's that I get complaints all the time from citizens in tears because some, some developer upstream has not done what he's supposed to do. And as long as a plan is correct, we can get it fixed. But the reality of this is when a developer comes in for zoning, what he presents is sort of a pie in the sky to sort of placate the, the folks who are upset about, uh, zoning. Now, that's not the real plan. When he comes back to, to go to, to plan review, it's a totally different plan.

510. 1:47:39

     It could be this thick. It's got all kind of erosion sedimentation issues on it. It takes a lot of review. 45 days is close for some of these people don't have a lot of staff. And when they come back, often they'll change the plan all the way around. It's not ... They're, they didn't just solve the 12 things you wanted them to solve. They came back with all kind of different stuff added on to it. When that happens, you gotta have another 45 days, 'cause you're really starting over. So, you know, this is ... This thing's gotta be fair.

511. 1:48:10

     And you, you got the Soil and Water Commission does not have a big staff. They, they don't ... And they don't, they don't pay those kids very well. And to, to burden them with a 14-day deadline when this guy's changing his plan around ... And some- sometimes the original plan, I don't know who did this plan. It wasn't a design professional. Maybe some intern or maybe some kid out of college. But, but this, that's not the real plan. What the real plan is the second time it comes in. It could be totally different. So what I would recommend is put language in this saying you can't change the plan.

512. 1:48:42

     But wouldn't, wouldn't the plan that's submitted, isn't it submitted by a licensed engineer? It's not like on a piece of paper. And the submittal is done based on the language from the zoning.

513. 1:48:51

     The professional, but I would, but I would-

514. 1:48:51

     Right. And then all the developers I know, and I'm not saying there's not bad actors out there. There, like, there might be bad actors in local government. But they don't change the plans. When it's submitted, if there's a resubmittal, the changes they're making is what the local entity's asked them to make.

515. 1:49:06

     Often, often-

516. 1:49:06

     And then that's reviewed

517. 1:49:07

     ... the resubmittal has things in it that were not discussed at all in the original plan. They were not asked for by the plan reviewer that changed the plan. When you change the plan, you need really to start over. So, uh, that's ... I would say that. And I'd also say, I would say 14 days is really not enough with the staffing that a lot of these people have. Maybe 20 days, 20 business days for the second review. Um, everybody wants this thing to happen as quickly as possible. I, I, for one, always want these guys to get their plans back as soon as possible.

518. 1:49:39

     But it just ... The reality of it is that the plan, usually when there's a holdup, it's on the developer's side. He hasn't done his homework correctly, um, and, and-

519. 1:49:49

     I would have to disagree with you on that.

520. 1:49:51

     Oh.

521. 1:49:51

     I mean, I'm not saying that doesn't happen on both sides. But to point everything to the developers is, is unfair. And you mentioned, what agency did you say that was overwhelmed? The-

522. 1:50:01

     I'm-

523. 1:50:01

     ... Soil and Water. Was that-

524. 1:50:03

     Well, the, the, the State Soil and Water Commission.

525. 1:50:05

     They got an additional ... Or the House put in an additional, right at $150,000 for additional staffing for them this year.

526. 1:50:11

     Well, that, they sure need it.

527. 1:50:12

     Yeah.

528. 1:50:12

     That'd be good.

529. 1:50:12

     Just pointing out.

530. 1:50:14

     They're really gonna need it if this is held to 14 days. But the local issuing authority has to review these plans. And when they come back, if the plan comes back as the same plan, you can put that language in here that you have to resubmit the same plan. Just an- just, just, uh, address the, uh, i- items that the reviewer has requested.

531. 1:50:34

     Oh, if you would speak into the mic. They're having trouble hearing for the record.

532. 1:50:37

     I'm sorry. In other words, if, if you had a, if the second ... The plan comes back as, with a totally different plan. Really, sometimes it's quite a bit different.

533. 1:50:46

     But that doesn't happen every time. Any developer I've ever worked with, the only thing they're changing is what the municipality asks. And there's even a story of one developer, eight rounds of comments after seven months or so of give or take. The last round was to f- to bold the font on the plat that had been the same the whole process through. Engineer made comments-

534. 1:51:05

     Oh

535. 1:51:05

     ... that was the same font he'd used with many other municipalities.

536. 1:51:07

     I'm with you-

537. 1:51:08

     Do you know how much time and money that costs?

538. 1:51:10

     I'm totally with you as to that.

539. 1:51:11

     I mean, I could throw my readers at him for that.

540. 1:51:12

     No problem with that whatsoever.

541. 1:51:12

     But I'm saying you're making your statements very one-sided, so I'm just trying to balance the conversation.

542. 1:51:16

     Right. But, but, but what, what I'm saying is why not just put language in there that they can't change the plan?

543. 1:51:21

     Mm-hmm.

544. 1:51:22

     And, and, and give them like 20 business days for the second review. And at, at that point, you know, you probably got a realistic-

545. 1:51:29

     But that's on a re-review. That's not ... You know, they got the 45 days on reviewing your reference-

546. 1:51:34

     Have you seen these plans-

547. 1:51:34

     ... to the stack of plans

548. 1:51:35

     ... that are coming to this thing?

549. 1:51:36

     Yeah, but then you're, you're ... They already have referenced what needs to be changed, so they've already documented that, correct?

550. 1:51:41

     Right.

551. 1:51:41

     So then all they gotta do is take the resubmittal to their notes.

552. 1:51:46

     If, if the plan hasn't-

553. 1:51:47

     Wouldn't take me too long

554. 1:51:47

     ... if the plan hasn't changed-

555. 1:51:49

     Yeah, two weeks is quite a bit of time to do that

556. 1:51:50

     ... you, you could put that lang- you could put that language in this bill, you can't change the plan. And, and then give them, I would say 20 days would be more realistic in business days. But you got, um, you know, the...

557. 1:52:05

     Often what the, what the, what, what is submitted at zoning is not even possible. I mean, I've seen this happen more than once. It's not even possible. What's w- So when they come back with a real plan, it's totally different. And so the, the, the process of reviewing-

558. 1:52:22

     You're referring to the zoning plan versus-

559. 1:52:24

     Right

560. 1:52:24

     ... the plan that's submitted for-

561. 1:52:27

     Right

562. 1:52:27

     ... land disturbance permit, yeah.

563. 1:52:28

     Right. So-

564. 1:52:28

     Which the details on that are based off the zoning. Oh, Senator Ginn, you got a question? Go ahead.

565. 1:52:33

     Uh, Mr. Chairman, I don't have a question, but I, I do wanna let, uh, Paul know, on line 66, "Should the applicant make material, uh, additions to the resubmitted application," it goes on to basically say it starts over. And, and to me, you read line 66 through there, said they, uh, uh, it's, it's taken care of in, in the, uh, uh, substitute that we have in front of us. So it's there. The, uh... I know, uh, the, I don't know where everybody else's schedule is, but Mr. Chairman, I know I'm gonna have to be leaving here in a minute.

566. 1:53:04

     We've, we've usually schedule our committees for an hour, and we've been here for almost two hours, so.

567. 1:53:09

     This is a marathon meeting.

568. 1:53:10

     Okay.

569. 1:53:11

     You gotta stick it out.

570. 1:53:12

     I, I'm gonna tough it out. For, for at least another-

571. 1:53:13

     Good stuff, you gotta percolate it up

572. 1:53:14

     ... one more speaker, 'cause I know the next one pretty good. So, yeah.

573. 1:53:17

     No, I, I will go ahead and state that, yeah, we've got one more speaker. Definitely want to hear from him. Um, known him, I think, longer than I can probably remember. Um, but

574. 1:53:29

     I don't remember those years very well.

575. 1:53:30

     I remember him when he was a teenager, Ellis.

576. 1:53:31

     But, uh, but this will be a hearing only. Uh, the addition from GMA that we spoke about, that was a last-minute addition, so they've been working along with ACCG, have been working in good faith. Definitely wanna make sure they've got time to review that. The bill intent is for land disturbance permits. Definitely don't wanna overreach there, so definitely looking forward to working with y'all before we, or as we perfect the bill. And thank you so much for your testimony.

577. 1:53:56

     Thank you.

578. 1:53:56

     Yep. Ellis, your turn.

579. 1:53:59

     Thank you. First off, Linda, I didn't know you could write something.

580. 1:54:10

     He's got people.

581. 1:54:11

     Yeah, I do.

582. 1:54:12

     He's got, he's got people like that. I have people, too. My name's Ellis May. I live in Dacula, Georgia. Uh, I'm a soil and water conservation district supervisor for there. Been there about 28 years, give or take. Uh, I brought you all this little book y'all approved in 2014. The Senate, and the House, and the General Committee approved this here. And now what we're doing, we're in here changing it again.

583. 1:54:45

     And the thing about it is, I ain't, I ain't too bad about change, but I think you got your cart before the horse. I think your pre-submittal should be 20 days, and your resubmittal should be 45 days. And the reason being, the amount of, uh, plan reviews that are going on. I don't know if I'm speaking loud enough for you or not, but you let me know. Uh, in a land disturbance permit, they have a, about a 45-item checklist that all engineers get to develop a erosion and sediment control plan.

584. 1:55:24

     And when they go through there and develop their erosion and sediment control plan, they're supposed to, one, if they wanna leave something out, they make a comment to why they wanna leave it out or if it's not gonna be utilized on the plan. Two, um, they have a, uh, detention pond plan that they get, and sometimes they're about this thick, sometimes they're about this thick, and then they're sometimes about this thick.

585. 1:55:55

     And if you think you can do an erosion and sediment control this thick within a 45-day time period, you're, you're all backing up just a little bit. Um, now what I take out of this bill, it's actually 45 days in this book for a review, and this is what you're going for. Is that not true? The 45 days. Okay? Permitting.

586. 1:56:24

     The state commission has eight employees right now, and I don't know if they're gonna have that many next week or not, because what happens is, the cities, and counties, and things like that hire them out from, uh, underneath the commission. They make $40,000 a year. Cities pay anywhere between $50,000 and $60,000 for these reviewers. So the next thing they do, they jump up and they head to wherever they're going for that extra money.

587. 1:56:55

     I'm gonna tell you that right now. And I can't blame them for that, but I don't think the commission has enough funding to support these people. And at one time in this book, they had to be a graduate with a degree to do plan reviews. Now they don't have to be that. They follow that checklist, they look at it, they do the best they can, and they're usually a college student that's in review. I think the bill has good intentions.

588. 1:57:28

     But like I said, I think you got the cart behind the horse. Or in front of the horse, excuse me. I think they ought to have a 20-day pre-submittal on their plans. And if they, and if they're good, they're good. They get approved. If they're bad, they're bad. They don't get approved. This is one thing that I think that, uh- The Senate and the House and the General Assembly needs to take into consideration because what you're asking is not unfair.

589. 1:58:03

     But the thing is, when you think about the environmental impact that, uh, some of these people put on the, on our communities and things like that, it's not... I'm not saying they're all bad actors, but some of them do have a problem. And the thing about it is the, the best tool that the local communities uses is a stop work order if they're not complying with what they're supposed to be doing. Now, they could give them a citation and take them to jail, and the judge could sit up there and say, "Okay, I'm gonna give you a year in jail for not complying with this order." We've had one person in Gwinnett County go to jail for six months for doing a project without a permit on public pu- uh, utilities.

590. 1:58:52

     Um,

591. 1:58:55

     it's, it's, it's, it's a hard thing to face, but we need to start and think about our communities and things like this. I only have 1,000,000.2 people in Gwinnett County, and I'm elected by 160,000 of them to do what I do. And when I get a set of plans and I, uh, and I look at them and then when the state brings them down to me and the first thing I ask, I said, "Well, how come there's 50 comments on this set of plans?

592. 1:59:27

     Why didn't the engineer do a set of plans? Why did you even look at them?" And they said, "Well, we tried to do a good set of review and let them know what needs to be changed." I said, "If you got more than 10 comments on that set of plans, you need to send them back and tell them to send you another set of plans, period, paragraph." But that's not transparent. Uh, I don't want to take too much more of your time. I, I think a lot of these folks in here are tired, and y'all look like you're ready to go to sleep up there, so.

593. 2:00:03

     Uh, pardon? I'll, I'll, I'll take any questions that any of you gentlemen would like, and ladies if you want to. Uh, I'll take any questions that y'all like to ask. And, uh, like I said, I think you got the cart before the horse. I think we ought to do a 20-day submittal. And the engineers that do a bang-up job will get a permit, or be- get the sign-off from the commission. And if they have to resubmit, it goes back to 45 days

594. 2:00:37

     for a resubmittal. One, because if they go in there and change anything on the plans that they submitted first time, we can see that. And like I said, the hydrology's a very important part of how much water f- falls off that site. So with that, I'll close my mouth and let y'all ask questions if you got some. Clint and Frank, if you got anything?

595. 2:01:04

     Move to table.

596. 2:01:07

     Second.

597. 2:01:08

     We got a motion, uh, to table. We got a second. Any discussion?

598. 2:01:13

     Move to previous question.

599. 2:01:14

     All in favor? Raise your hand. Any opposed? Make note we've got one opposed. Lose our whip.

600. 2:01:22

     And I want to thank this committee very much. And if I can be of assistance in the future to any of your committee meetings or anything like that- One opposed ... I'd be willing to come and participate. And one of the two opposed.

601. 2:01:36

     Oh, excuse me. Uh, please correct. Uh, two opposed. They wanted to keep you here. They wanted to talk to you longer.

602. 2:01:43

     Okay, go ahead.

603. 2:01:44

     They're ready to finish this one out.

604. 2:01:46

     Okay.

605. 2:01:46

     No, thank you. Thank you so much. Uh, your insight's valuable. We'll take it under consideration. I appreciate it.

606. 2:01:51

     I definitely appreciate that. And like I said, gentlemen, y'all approve this book right here, and it's a good book. You just gotta read it. I'll take that for next year. 2014. Some of you wasn't even here. Some of them wasn't even here. I was not here.

607. 2:02:05

     I'll take that for next year.