Comité Governmental Affairs de la Cámara de Representantes, 25 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:05:02

   Okay, we're gonna go ahead and, uh, uh, get ready and get started here. This is, uh, House Governmental Affairs, not in our typical location, so we do apologize for the, the compressed space. Appreciate everybody accommodating this. Our room was stolen from us. Uh, but that's okay. Everything got bunched up, and we're, uh ... I'm actually communicating with some folks who have bills in here who are in other committees, chairing those committees, and that's one of the things about this committee, is a lot of our members and a lot of the people who have bills coming through here are chair people, so, uh, we do have to accommodate that.

2. 0:05:36

   Uh, before we get started, I'd like to ask, uh, Chairman Lumsden if he would to, uh, open us up with a prayer.

3. 0:05:42

   If you would bow with me, please.

4. 0:05:43

   Yeah.

5. 0:05:43

   Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for your love and your goodness to us, and for watching over us and caring for us. We thank you, Lord, for the opportunity that you've given for us to be here today, the responsibility that has been given to us to serve the people of this state. We just ask for your wisdom and your guidance as we go through all of these bills, and as we try to understand them and make good decisions for the folks of our state. We just ask these things in Jesus' name and for his sake. Amen.

6. 0:06:11

   Thank you, sir. All right, we're gonna go a little bit out of order today for a couple reasons, part of what I just said. Uh, one is to make sure we have authors here for the bills. Uh, we will be having another committee meeting, full committee, on Monday, which is a committee day. So some of the, the things that are on our list today will get pushed to Monday, but we'll, we'll address what we can today. Uh, some people here have other obligations, too, outside of this. So we're gonna get started with House Bill 812. I'm gonna recognize, uh, Chairman Cheokas and, uh, Mr.

7. 0:06:41

   Hackney, if, uh, y'all will proceed. Uh, let me get your ... Is that-

8. 0:06:48

   Oh my goodness.

9. 0:06:48

   I think I ... See if that ... Yeah, that's got you right there. Okay, y'all can go ahead and proceed. Uh, well, I will... Let me, let me kind of, kind of introduce this bill a little bit. This is, this is a bill that has had a lot of work on it. We actually had a subcommittee meeting back in November. Uh, we have come a long way with this bill, and I think we've got a pretty good consensus among everybody who is interested. It may not give everybody exactly what they want, but it gave everybody something. So, uh, so y'all go ahead and present the bill, and we'll have discussion from there.

10. 0:07:19

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, uh, you're absolutely right. There's been a lot of work, and that work has been done by you, Mr. Chair, and I am grateful for all the work and time and attention that you've, uh, uh, uh, uh, put forth for this bill. And if I'm reading correctly, it's HB 812, and the LC number is 590384S. Is that correct?

11. 0:07:44

    Yeah.

12. 0:07:44

    Good. So, uh, just to give you a little history behind this, you know, we, in small business, I'm chairman of small business, and we had, um, uh, a presentation by the contractors and developers and so forth, um, in our meeting last year back in March. And we found out that there's been, um, a slow go as far as getting construction permitting done, uh, in local communities for various reasons. But, uh, this, um, st- startlingly, we found out that as much as 25% of the cost of, of a, a new home is because of, um, you know, government intrusion in, in, uh, in, in slowing, slowing the process down.

13. 0:08:32

    We have the, the laws and the regulations and the codes in place, but they're taking their time. And so that's why we, uh, uh, uh, address this. I have personal experience with it. Um, actually, on the 29th of December, I had another situation. I've developed real estate myself, and this was a mini storage facility. And, um, um, I've, I've had multiple expansions, and one of the building, uh, uh, inspectors, it was time for him to inspect the property, and so we coordinated everything.

14. 0:09:09

    There was no problem with the property passing all the inspections. Uh, but then he asked, he said, uh, "But the other buildings, we can't seem to find the certificate of occupancy for the other one, so we're gonna delay th- issuing the new certificate of occupancy because we can't find it." Well, needless to say, I hit the ceiling. I said, "If your bookkeeping is that bad, you know, I've got a copy of my certificate of occupancy, and, uh, I'll bring it to you so you can have it for your file, but I do want the certificate of occupancy now." And, um, he, he made arrangements for that to happen.

15. 0:09:49

    I picked it up that afternoon, and I took my old one, which was 10 or 15 years old, for the other property, and we got that. But that was some of the examples that's going on. There's an article, uh, written by John Stossel. It was published the 28th of January of this year. And it says, "The biggest reason for rising prices in, in homes is intrusive government. Regulations now account for almost a quarter of the cost of a new home." And I'm quoting, "The permitting process in most American city, cities is so convoluted that it takes months, sometimes even years, to get simple permits." Um, so that was the reason for it.

16. 0:10:31

    Um, and at this time, if it, uh, if it's okay with you, Mr. Chair, I'm gonna introduce Austin Hackney so that he can go down line by line and answer any questions with, uh, HB 812.

17. 0:10:47

    That's perfectly fine, and let's do it section by section rather than line by line. As I said earlier, this isn't your traditional judiciary meeting, so we don't want to be here at 8:00 tonight. Thank you. Understood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Cheokas, for taking this, uh, issue on and, and appreciate your, your passion to solving this problem. And, and, uh, Chairman Anderson, thank you for the work that you've done to refine this original bill into the committee sub that you see in front of you. So as Chairman Cheokas said, um, we had an opportunity to address this committee last year as an industry, and part of the message that was told there was about housing affordability and the fact that, uh, between six and 8% of the sales price of the house can be directly attributed to the carrying costs on the developer and the builder through the process, and a lot of that is due to the delays that happen.

18. 0:11:41

    After a zoning decision has been made and an application for the land disturbance permit has been entered, the, uh, the statute today requires that permit review to happen within 45 days. Uh, but due to, I don't want to say loopholes, maybe, uh, some inefficiencies in the current statute, um, that, that shot clock restarts every time new comments are made or, or, uh, n- new tran- um, just, uh, transac- not transactions, but communications between the local jurisdiction and the applicant.

19. 0:12:18

    So this bill is set up to provide transparency to the process and efficiencies in the review timeline. And I'd like to go just through section by section to describe what some of these changes do, and happy to be interrupted for questions at any time. But Section 1 is all about transparency. It requires the Department of Community Affairs to publish local amendments to the statewide building codes. Local governments already register these code amendments at the Department of Community Affairs. This provision requires the agency to publish that list online.

20. 0:12:52

    This is letting the public know what's going on statewide with building code requirements. We have a statewide book, but occasionally local governments, um, make adjustments for their communities. Another transparency, uh, provision is in Section 2, which is, uh, just new transparency for building permits, so that, uh, beginning January 1st, 2027, local governments that issued more than 250 permits in the prior year must maintain a page on their website that shows the real-time status information for permit applications.

21. 0:13:25

    So this is accountability for the applicants and the local government, and if a citizen sees, uh, a, a development under construction and is curious, you know, why nothing's changed in the last couple weeks or why there was a significant change just a week ago, uh, they can go online to the city's website and see the current status of that building permit.

22. 0:13:46

    Uh, the, uh, information displayed would include things like the application number, the address, the permit type, and current status, and any statutory basis for any denial, uh, of the permit itself. So then in Section 3, uh, we're getting into the efficiency, um, part of the bill, and I would say that, uh, part of the early feedback on the bill after that November subcommittee hearing was a concern a- about the workload on city and county staff. And so this committee sub addresses that concern by amending existing statute related to third-party inspections for building permits to apply that process to development permitting.

23. 0:14:27

    So we currently allow building permit applicants to work with private engineers and architects to certify the plan review and inspection requirements. Those affidavits are accepted by local jurisdictions. Um, this provision would apply that to, uh, land development permitting as well. Section 4 is a clarification that, that, uh, is related to private reviewers and land development permitting, and Section 5 is where we really start to talk about the, uh, the land development permit itself and, uh, what changes that we're talking about in there.

24. 0:15:04

    Start on line 188, uh, which requires local issuing authorities to publish their list of requirements for, uh, land disturbance permit applications. So that's gonna be a checklist of everything from stormwater requirements to arborist review, transportation studies, down to the stylistic requirements for the maps that are submitted. Line 195 is the existing 45-day turnaround requirement, and line 198 requires local jurisdictions to confirm to an applicant that their application is complete within five days, which starts this shot clock.

25. 0:15:39

    Line 202 says that if an application is denied, an applicant submits a modified application to address those deficiencies, then the local jurisdiction would have 14 days to review those changes. And if an application is deemed incomplete, a local jurisdiction would have five days to review the submission for completeness. Line 210 says that all application reviews which a local jurisdiction is responsible for would happen on that same 45-day timeline, uh, but any outside reviews by state agencies would stop the clock.

26. 0:16:12

    And line 218 references the, uh, previous section about the private professional, uh, providers and establishes who's qualified to do this land development work as a private provider. And Section 6 continues the same, uh, topic and clarifies that permit denials can only be based on the regulatory requirements published by the local jurisdiction that was required earlier. And then on line 242 says that if an application is denied, the deficiency letter must include citations of the regulations that were not complied with.

27. 0:16:45

    We ask our building officials to do this in, uh, vertical construction inspections, which they tell the home builder or the plumber or the electrician what provision of the building codes they missed, and so that citation helps them correct the issue. On line 251, uh, there's accountability for the applicant by saying that any material changes to the application by the applicant during a resubmittal will result in a restarting of the 45-day review period. And that's the end of my summary, Mr.

28. 0:17:16

    Chairman.

29. 0:17:19

    Okay, thank you. And, uh, let's see.

30. 0:17:24

    Representative Olaleye.

31. 0:17:27

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman, thank you for the bill. I'm definitely supportive of anything that, uh, introduces process improvements to help build homes faster and get families in those homes. Um, I was not in the, the subcommittee, but I am interested on GMA's position or stance on the bill.

32. 0:17:48

    Um, we will get to that in a little bit. Uh, we'll let GMA speak to that. I know GMA and ACCG both, uh, have, uh, have a position on the bill, either neutral or supportive. I'm sitting here looking at both of them, so.

33. 0:18:06

    Thank you, Chair.

34. 0:18:06

    Thank you. Representative Sanchez.

35. 0:18:12

    Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Chair, for bringing this bill. I know we've worked a lot on it. And so in regards to the substitute, the first question I have, is there, um... We're, we're talking mainly about housing, but this doesn't just apply to housing, correct? It applies to all forms of zoning, correct?

36. 0:18:28

    Yes, sir.

37. 0:18:28

    Okay. And would this legislation make it harder for residents to contest something being built that they may not want to be built in their community in general?

38. 0:18:43

    Oh, I don't really know how to answer that question, to be honest. Yeah.

39. 0:18:50

    Yeah, and, and actually, this, this is not a zoning issue.

40. 0:18:53

    Right.

41. 0:18:53

    This is a permitting issue.

42. 0:18:55

    Right.

43. 0:18:55

    So, uh, and th- these permits are based on standards.

44. 0:18:58

    Yeah.

45. 0:18:59

    So what you're referring to, I think, would fall more into the zoning issue-

46. 0:19:03

    Yeah

47. 0:19:03

    ... and what's allowed on that particular property, and this doesn't touch that.

48. 0:19:06

    Okay.

49. 0:19:06

    So.

50. 0:19:06

    Just making sure. Thank you. Because I hadn't finished reading the sub, so I wanted to make sure. But, uh, and then, uh, the last question. So it says here on, um, line 198 and 199, um, that if they-

51. 0:19:24

    What's the line again?

52. 0:19:26

    198 and 199. If no such determination has been made within five days of the filing, it shall be deemed complete and accepted. So it's basically default, complete and accepted if the municipality hasn't responded within five days, correct?

53. 0:19:40

    The application.

54. 0:19:41

    Yes.

55. 0:19:41

    Because now we're putting a re- uh, requirements for the application that needs to be filled out by the people applying, and if the, the, any time during that five-day period, they can say the application is incomplete, you need to add this or that, and they can do that, but after five days, if they haven't responded, then it's assumed that the application is complete.

56. 0:20:05

    Complete. And, uh-

57. 0:20:07

    Not the permit-

58. 0:20:08

    Accepted

59. 0:20:08

    ... the application.

60. 0:20:09

    Yeah, is, and accepted. Got it. Okay. Do, is that, would that be enough time for some of these applications? I know some of them can run very long or...

61. 0:20:19

    Thank you for the question. Uh, that five-day turnaround to, uh, to acknowledge a complete application is already in statute for that process for private plan review for the building permits, so that's why it shows up here.

62. 0:20:29

    Got it. Thank you.

63. 0:20:31

    Okay, thank you. And, uh, Mary Frances Williams.

64. 0:20:36

    I, I think I basically kind of have the same question. What... So, so if they don't respond, then the applica- application is deemed complete. Is there any other part in the process where if they meet, if the, the, uh, government m- misses their window that, that, like, something else is au- um, automatically approved?

65. 0:20:59

    I don't think so. No.

66. 0:21:02

    Okay. Thank you.

67. 0:21:05

    Okay. Thank you. And, uh, Chairman Gullett.

68. 0:21:10

    Thank you.

69. 0:21:19

    What do you got? 14? Hey.

70. 0:21:20

    Hey, there you go.

71. 0:21:20

    All right. There we go. Hold on a minute. Yeah.

72. 0:21:23

    Not our

73. 0:21:26

    Judiciary is crazy. So it doesn't matter what kind of house you're building here, right? So if you're building a house, a house is a house. If we're building build to rent house, this would also apply from the zoning, kind of any house that you're building.

74. 0:21:41

    This is a construction.

75. 0:21:41

    Doesn't matter if it's a rental.

76. 0:21:43

    Yeah.

77. 0:21:43

    Doesn't matter if it's for purchase. And so the, the, the build to rent that's infiltrating my area, um, where people can't... Institutionally owned investments are, are, are infiltrating my area, Baldwin County specifically. I think we're at the hot zone, uh, on the second worst, if you believe institutionally owned investments are bad. Second worst, uh, house district in the state as far as single family detached homes that are for rent that are owned institutionally.

78. 0:22:14

    Um, and that's a lot of what they're building, and I don't know that I, um, I don't know that I'm looking to build those things faster, to be honest with you. What happens in, in our area for my commissioners is that we get, we get... The engineers turn something over. There are some changes that need to be done. The, the, the... I'm not sure who changes it. The, the plans come back materially different, and I know there's some conversations in this bill, and I'm still trying to get through it, where if, if things materially change, it puts a pause on the timer.

79. 0:22:53

    But who decides what's materially changed? Because my county is saying something materially changed. I'm not sure if the engineers agree, "Yeah, we materially changed it," because I'm not sure they actually would ever say that. But who, who decides if something materially changed to put a pause on the time?

80. 0:23:06

    Well-

81. 0:23:09

    Um, I think those are two different issues as far as institutional ownership of homes. And I think that-

82. 0:23:15

    Yeah, I'm past, I'm past that. I was just saying this would apply to those. What I'm saying is-

83. 0:23:18

    Uh, what we're trying to do is address that issue separately.

84. 0:23:21

    I get that. But I'm saying if something materially ... If an engineer turns a plan in and the county has said, "No, you need to change whatever because, because of whatever," and they materially change the plans outside of what was asked that you need to change to get approval, who decides what's materially changed?

85. 0:23:39

    W- was the change initiated, the one that you're referring to, initiated by the person requesting the permit, or was the change done by the people, uh, giving the permit?

86. 0:23:53

    The, the ... So the, the ... My understanding is I have this, I have these plans. I turn them in to the county. The county says, "You need to change X, Y, and Z." They ch- the engineers will change X, Y, and Z, and ZZ, um, and ZZ may be a material change to what they're doing. At that point, who, who decides what's a material change? If the county says it's a material change, does the engineers ... Who decides what's a material change-

87. 0:24:20

    Well, I-

88. 0:24:20

    ... and whether the stop clock stops or not?

89. 0:24:23

    And, and, Austin, you're gonna have to help me on this one, but I'm under the impression that, that ZZZ or, that you're referring to means it starts over.

90. 0:24:31

    But who decides that?

91. 0:24:32

    Am I correct?

92. 0:24:33

    I think the, the jurisdiction's plan reviewer has the leverage in that scenario and, and makes that determination, today and under the bill.

93. 0:24:44

    So today, I agree. I think that they, they don't have to ... It could be through 15 iterations today to what you're trying to address. But what you're also trying to address is you're trying to speed these things up, so if there are iterations because there are material changes, I don't, I don't know. I mean, I think you'd probably argue, "Hey, we've, we made the changes they requested, and now they've make them ... They moved the goalposts. Now we gotta make these other changes. We gotta make these other..." And what the counties are saying is different. They're saying, "We made these changes. They, they did more than what we asked them to do. They materially changed things that now we gotta address." And sometimes they're saying it's because engineers aren't necessarily doing, um ...

94. 0:25:22

    They're, they're making the counties kind of vet these engineering plans. Engineers obviously say, "No, that's not ... You know, we're engineers. We would never do that. We put our stamp on it, and that's our, that's our stamp." But it's ... That is the process is a disagreement about what is a material, material change versus what's not a material change. And so you're saying in this bill if the, if the, the inspector who improves these, these designs believes it's a material change, they can just say it's a material change, even in the bill today, and put a stop on that 45-day time.

95. 0:25:54

    Y- yeah, and it's not a stop. It's a restarting back to zero. I mean, that's their purview as the local jurisdiction plan reviewer.

96. 0:26:04

    I'll keep reading. I don't know if I agree with that, but I'll keep reading.

97. 0:26:07

    Okay.

98. 0:26:07

    Any change is a material change.

99. 0:26:09

    Yeah, I think material change there is a legal term, correct me if I'm wrong, but the-

100. 0:26:13

     What'd you say? Sorry.

101. 0:26:15

     Any change.

102. 0:26:16

     Just anything that's on a red line.

103. 0:26:18

     Any change is a material change.

104. 0:26:20

     If it, if it creates a change order, it's a material change.

105. 0:26:24

     It's a material change.

106. 0:26:24

     And so if there's any change, it might have to do with one hour of extra engineering, it's a material change. Just so you know. If I ... I, I will, I will issue a change order in a heartbeat-

107. 0:26:34

     So you just-

108. 0:26:35

     ... and a material change.

109. 0:26:35

     If I'm an engineer, I turn this plan in. The county says, "Change these three things."

110. 0:26:41

     A map.

111. 0:26:42

     And if you change more than those three things-

112. 0:26:45

     Right

113. 0:26:46

     ... if all, if you change more than three things, and maybe you have to change more than three things because you, you moved something over. Now you gotta make a bigger, you know, uh, buffer or something. D- does that start it over? I mean, because you, you had to change a buffer that, to make those three things be implemented, you had to change it, and it starts over?

114. 0:27:03

     So when you start off in the process, then you'll create your preliminary set of drawings. Those are the ones that w- they'll work with the, the, whoever the builder or the constructor is on that project. At that point, we'll submit those drawings based off the specifications the engineer's provided by the builder. If there's anything that comes back that's outside of the scope ... And, you know, I, we're getting into contracts between builders and engineers here, but typically, if it comes into more, if we have to do more work, we're like everybody else. You want to get paid for it, so we consider it to be a material change therefore, to our scope, and therefore we'll issue a change order.

115. 0:27:36

     I'm just telling you how, how it works on the business side of it. Uh, when it comes to, uh, to the ... I would say that they're ultimately the ones ... And, and, and you, you know where I f- I've kind of fallen a lot of this in general. But ultimately, I think the, the authority is the one that, that decides if it's a material change based off of what I'm reading here. That's just the way that I read it.

116. 0:27:57

     Yeah. But you're an engineer, so you, you like engineers more than-

117. 0:28:00

     I do like engineers. I'm pretty fond of them. Well, I, you know, not always. I don't know. Some of them are pretty hard to deal with. But-

118. 0:28:06

     Let me, let me address the, the, the underlying reason is, uh, uh, the, the, the question of institutional ownership of homes for rent is something that I think we need to address. And so I would, I ... But this is not the way you address it. I would e- encourage you, and I'll even co-sign off on it, uh, uh, a bill that would limit ownership for in, uh, institutional investors that build something for, for n- not to rent.

119. 0:28:41

     I mean, not to own, but just to build, to rent.

120. 0:28:43

     I guess my point in just saying that, this is for any home that you're building. Doesn't matter if it's for rent, for sale-

121. 0:28:50

     Well-

122. 0:28:50

     ... for a model home or whatever. It's just a home being built and constructed. That's all. I was just trying to say that as a point, not so much what, you know.

123. 0:28:59

     Yes, sir.

124. 0:28:59

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, Representative Momtahan.

125. 0:29:04

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you to my friend for this bill. Sorry I was a little bit late. Uh, like you know, things are running together here. I'm trying to just put that there. How about that? Um, I know you presented this bill over the summer. We had a great time in here talking about it. Run me through, and maybe I was like, maybe I totally missed it. Run me through the board. I know that there was gonna be a, some decisions are gonna be made at the board. Is that language still in this bill?

126. 0:29:33

     All that was in the original, yes sir.

127. 0:29:34

     And it's all been removed. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you.

128. 0:29:39

     Okay. Any other comments or questions on the part of the committee? I see none. We do have several people signed up to speak. Uh, and I will give anyone who would like to just say they support or oppose. If they wanna go into more detail, they can, but we'll also give an opportunity to just keep it that simple. Uh,

129. 0:30:02

     Cosby Johnson, Georgia Chamber.

130. 0:30:04

     Cosby Johnson, Georgia Chamber. We are in support of the bill and thank you for letting us say.

131. 0:30:08

     Okay. In support of the bill. I'll say that into the microphone. Thank you, sir. Uh, then we have, uh, Jeff Ledford with Georgia Realtors.

132. 0:30:17

     I would honestly love to just say we are in support of this bill and think it's fantastic, so.

133. 0:30:22

     Okay. Jeff Ledford, Georgia Realtors, in support of the bill. Thank you, sir. Uh, Mark Woodall, Associated General Contractors.

134. 0:30:30

     Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we absolutely support this bill.

135. 0:30:33

     Okay, support the bill. And if anyone wants to speak further, you're more than welcome to. We'll, we'll get you up to a mic here. Uh, not trying to rush through, but just everybody's kind of standing up in the corners here. Uh, Kaylyn Day, ACCG.

136. 0:30:48

     I'll speak further, Chairman.

137. 0:30:49

     Okay, sure.

138. 0:30:51

     GMA

139. 0:30:52

     ...

140. 0:30:52

     And, and we'll also recognize Noah Renets with GMA. Uh.

141. 0:30:57

     Sorry.

142. 0:30:57

     Okay. Wait, what, what's, what's your, what's your mic number there?

143. 0:31:00

     Four.

144. 0:31:00

     One? Okay.

145. 0:31:01

     Excuse me. Sorry to ruin the, the good streak there. Um, Kaylyn Day, ACCG. Thankfully, I'm joined by...

146. 0:31:10

     Uh, Noah Renets, Georgia Municipal Association.

147. 0:31:12

     I have to start out by saying thank you so much. When we testified over this last summer, we had, I felt, a laundry list of things that needed to see improvement, and we really are appreciation. We have a lot of appreciation for the clarity on complete applications, the toiling language that stops the clock whenever locals are waiting on state agencies to get back to them. I mean, 'cause honestly, one of the biggest things that at least I, in the county capacity, we kept hearing is that we don't have complete applications, and then we're waiting for state agencies to get back to us, and they're holding the bag on the 45-day clock.

148. 0:31:44

     So thankfully, really appreciate that. Um, also appreciate the unrelated material additions are gonna be handled in a new application. Um, so just wanted to move on to the new section of the bill that came out in the newest part of the sub that relates to Section 3 with the third-party reviews. It gives us pause, I've run this with our building officials, about how exactly this will work with the MOUs that are required from EPD and the Georgia Soil and Water Commission. Right now, the counties and cities have to have that understanding, and so for a third-party person to not only go above this , but they have a shorter timeline.

149. 0:32:23

     They have two business days to look at this and then get back. I just have questions as far as them being held to a different standard. I do appreciate how it can help with the bandwidth, but have some question of what this, how this will really play out.

150. 0:32:39

     If I could add some, some further clarifying points. Uh, the substitute of this bill expands the role of, uh, private professional providers and expands their authority over erosion and sediment control plans and issuances of those. Um, when a applicant chooses to go with a private provider on, you know, building permits, local government recognizes that, that's fine. We're comfortable with, that's been law for about six years now. Um, an expansion of this into the Erosion and Sediment Control Act, our question would be, in the newest version of the bill between lines 146 and 162, when a erosion and sediment control plan that has been prepared by a private provider has been returned back to a city, we have two days to review that to ensure the efficacy of it.

151. 0:33:23

     And that is a very, very short timeline for us to review that. And my question would be, if that is in the bill, what, what are the lia- are, are, are we exposed to the liability? Do those private providers have, uh, insurances to ensure that that work was done correctly if we approve that and there was a violation or there was something that wasn't captured? So...

152. 0:33:52

     But again, just wanted to make it short and sweet. Those are our thoughts on the bill. We appreciate the author and all the stakeholders for working with us on this one.

153. 0:34:03

     We have a couple of comments here. Uh, Representative Oliver.

154. 0:34:08

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In relation to 158, where it says that within two business days, are you, uh, prepared to suggest to us what might be a more reasonable number of days?

155. 0:34:22

     In speaking-

156. 0:34:22

     Was that discussed in the, uh, negotiations?

157. 0:34:26

     It was... This is, to be quite frank, an, a very new portion. Um, so in speaking with a few building officials today, I've heard around five or more business days at least, at a minimum.

158. 0:34:36

     Two days doesn't explain to me Saturday and Sunday either.

159. 0:34:39

     It, I will give credence that it does say business days.

160. 0:34:42

     Okay. Sorry.

161. 0:34:43

     Business days.

162. 0:34:44

     So, um, and m- not required to ask a answer, of course, but I wonder if the, uh, primary sponsor would be open to five days instead of two days as an amendment. I'm, I'm thinking aloud, not asking for a r- required answer.

163. 0:35:04

     Um, just to provide some context rather than an answer. The two business days to review is what is currently existing in the statute for permits, which is the review is not an engineering review. It's that the boxes have been checked and the affidavit- says all the things it's supposed to say. That third-party engineer takes that liability on with their engineering stamp on those plans, so ...

164. 0:35:28

     The third-party engineer is a new development, a new alternative to soil and water-

165. 0:35:34

     Mm-hmm

166. 0:35:34

     ... conservation.

167. 0:35:35

     Right. It's a new concept here.

168. 0:35:36

     Right.

169. 0:35:36

     But that two-day review is existing.

170. 0:35:39

     I just wonder if there's any real damage that will be done by five days.

171. 0:35:44

     And if I just may add that, a- another thought from our building officials was just that the county is, or in my case, the county is signing off on something they haven't physically walked through, and so they're going to wanna do that, and that might not be able to be met within two business days.

172. 0:35:59

     So all they're signing off is that all the ... The only thing that they're signing off on is that they've received all the documents so they can start reviewing.

173. 0:36:13

     They being the county, they being the professional engineer. That's where I'm a little confused.

174. 0:36:19

     Local government. I think it's, it's not both, both of them. Yeah.

175. 0:36:25

     One.

176. 0:36:26

     It's the local. It's the local up here and it's

177. 0:36:32

     the...

178. 0:36:32

     Okay.

179. 0:36:32

     Okay. Do we have a further question? Okay, we're gonna move on. Uh, Chairman Gullett.

180. 0:36:37

     Yeah. M- mine was along the same lines. What was the right... How long did... And it sounded like you said five days or more. For line 152, the local governing authority shall have... And it says two business days after submission of the inspection report. Is that the right number there as well?

181. 0:36:53

     Well, the two days, as you can see, is not underlined. That's existing.

182. 0:36:56

     I understand. I'm asking the county and cities at the moment.

183. 0:37:00

     I'm sorry. You don't mind restating the question? I'm sorry.

184. 0:37:03

     Sure. Line 152 also-

185. 0:37:04

     I'm with you

186. 0:37:04

     ... has two business days, um-

187. 0:37:07

     152

188. 0:37:08

     ... for the local government. Line 152, the local governing authority shall have two business days after the submission of the inspection report-

189. 0:37:13

     Mm-hmm

190. 0:37:13

     ... to notify the private professional provider of, of any deficiencies in the inspection report.

191. 0:37:19

     Mm-hmm.

192. 0:37:19

     And then they have, you know, two business days or the private professional provider shall submit a corrected, you know, two days later. So it's two increments of two days.

193. 0:37:28

     Yes.

194. 0:37:28

     So I'm saying you were earlier talking about line 158, I believe, if, if I'm looking at, um, what Representative Oliver had.

195. 0:37:36

     Yes. Mm-hmm.

196. 0:37:37

     But are... Is there, is there a problem with 152? Is two business days there okay?

197. 0:37:41

     Uh, uh, falling back onto speaking with some of our building officials, they just feel flat out that the two business days provision in this across the board is, is not quite long enough.

198. 0:37:52

     And again, the, the concern here is that, that this is amending a code section that currently exists-

199. 0:37:58

     Mm-hmm

200. 0:37:58

     ... but provides that option for private professional providers for building, for building permits, right? A more simple process. Expanding this to the Erosion and Sediment Control Act and those plans that are issued in Title 12, that's just what's giving a little bit of the pause on the two days to review those types of permits and those types of plans.

201. 0:38:15

     You've expanded the scope, but haven't expanded the time.

202. 0:38:17

     Correct.

203. 0:38:17

     Yeah.

204. 0:38:17

     And, uh, to... I think more specifically to answer your question, I would maybe defer to ledge counsel to say if, if that needs to be, if you, if a change is to be made from two business days to five days or whatever. That may have to go, but I just would just defer to ledge counsel. So.

205. 0:38:31

     Well, they're not gonna give us a suggestion of how long it should take to, to make that happen. What I'm looking for from you is what suggestion. Sound like you said five days for the original one. You're not sure on the line 152. More time would be better, but you're not have a suggestion at the moment. So I'm-

206. 0:38:45

     I was able to receive a copy of this substitute this morning. I have not been able to get appropriate feedback from my membership at this point in time. I'm happy to offer that when it is available, but at now, I don't have it.

207. 0:38:55

     Okay. Thank you.

208. 0:38:56

     Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much.

209. 0:38:59

     Thank you all. We appreciate it.

210. 0:39:00

     Let's see. Next, we have, uh, Neil Herring.

211. 0:39:13

     Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Bazemore, did you have a question you'd like to ask of the-

212. 0:39:17

     Yes. A quick question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can we, can we hear from ledge counsel now so that, you know, at the time we can make a decision on whether we're gonna change it from two to five?

213. 0:39:28

     Okay. Well, uh, just for clarity, what, what, uh, what question would we be asking ledge counsel? I think the, uh, the question of the timeframe, uh, the, the question for ledge counsel as I understood it would be, would it have to be amended in both areas of the code-

214. 0:39:46

     Mm-hmm

215. 0:39:46

     ... uh, if we change that timeframe? And, um-

216. 0:39:49

     I think that's a policy call.

217. 0:39:50

     That's a, that's a... Okay. That's, that would be a policy call that we would-

218. 0:39:53

     Okay

219. 0:39:54

     ... need to make at the time if, if, if we got to appropriate time and the, and, and that posture and a, a, a, uh, amendment was-

220. 0:40:01

     Okay. Thanks

221. 0:40:02

     ... suggested. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead, sir.

222. 0:40:05

     My name, my name is Neil Herring. I'm a lobbyist for the Georgia chapter of the Sierra Club, the Flint RiverKeeper, and the Chattahoochee RiverKeeper. We are disturbed by what Representative Gullett refers to as the expansion of scope of the soil and, uh, water erosion and sedimentation law. Uh, I testified at an earlier meeting in November, I believe. I read, uh, the Flint RiverKeeper's, uh, statement. Dirt does not need to be regulated in Georgia.

223. 0:40:36

     That continues to be our position. We've got enough dirt in Georgia. E&S applies to all earth-moving activity, land-disturbing activity. Most of the land-disturbing activity by acreage in Georgia right now is connected to data centers. There's a hell of a lot of dirt going into streams because they're grading, leveling in the Piedmont Plateau, and water runs downhill. It takes dirt with it. The Senate has a pair of bills that, that, that, uh, embrace the same subjects as this bill.

224. 0:41:06

     One of those talks about the third-party people doing building permits and the like, and imposes significant liability requirements. They have to have insurance to, uh, perform these duties. The Senate bill does, that bill does not take up dirt E&S at all. There is a Senate E&S bill, but it does not provide for third-party Pre-preparation of, uh, plans and inspections. So, uh, basically, our, uh, our objection to this bill is for the third parties to be involved in ENS inspections and perm- uh, applications, permits and inspections.

225. 0:41:46

     Uh, and the liability issue is the uppermost in our minds there. Plus, you flood somebody's property with a lot of mud, what are you gonna... What, what, what's their remedy? Uh, y- you know, and who's liable and what are they gonna do about it? Y- you need to set forth provisions to cover disasters. Thank you.

226. 0:42:08

     Thank you, sir. All right. Uh, next on the list.

227. 0:42:22

     Chris with the Chattahoochee Riverkeepers. Please ... And I apologize. I, I didn't want to butcher-

228. 0:42:26

     That's okay

229. 0:42:27

     ... your last name. I'll let you, let you introduce yourself.

230. 0:42:29

     Thank you very much. Uh, Chris Manganiello, Chattahoochee Riverkeeper. Um, yes, uh, the, as some folks from GMA and ACCG have said, you know, this bill has changed quite a bit from, uh, what we saw, uh, last fall, and even a sub in between there. Uh, the sub that's, we're talking about today, I just had a chance to look at, um, when I sat down, um, about 20 minutes ago. So I've not had a real good chance to, to look at this. Um, as the, some of the folks before me have articulated, um, I think the big concern here is that, uh, private, uh, uh, land disturbance permit review and inspection, uh, being allowed by a third party, have concerns about that, uh, in terms of how that actually will work and where the local issuing authority, kind of what role they play if they are being kind of, you know, replaced by this third party.

231. 0:43:20

     Uh, and then, uh, specifically the lines 157 through 162, this, these statements about no deficiency in an inspection report would delay or stop a project, I'm not quite sure what exactly that means. So those are the, uh, two big areas that I have, um, some pause and concern about. Um, I think the earlier section about DCA, that's changed quite a bit, um, and, and it looks a lot better than it originally did. So, um, again, that kind of, uh, those lines in section three, uh, are the ones, uh, that, uh, are of most concern to me that, uh, make it hard to support this bill.

232. 0:43:55

     Thank you.

233. 0:43:55

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, that's everyone we have signed up right now to speak on 812. Uh-

234. 0:44:02

     May I say one thing?

235. 0:44:03

     Yes, sir. Please, if, if you don't mind, come to the-

236. 0:44:06

     Yes, sir

237. 0:44:06

     ... microphone over here and, uh, just introduce yourself and...

238. 0:44:11

     Third party providers-

239. 0:44:12

     Thank you, all. My, my name is Jay Knight, and I'm, uh, chairman of the Georgia Residential Land Development Council and a longtime Atlanta builder and developer. A material change is if we get a set of red lines back after our first submittal, we address those. If we decide to add things that the staff did not red line, anything we add is a material change. If it's any change we make that's beyond what the staff requested us to make, that's a material change, and we know the clock starts again.

240. 0:44:50

     The, uh, the third-party reviewers, many of the municipalities we work with already use third-party reviewers. So the, the, the reason we did that was to answer the question of increased workload to staff, is our preference would be to use staff. But if that's not available, then the third-party reviewer who has the, the same PE qualifications by any engineer that the staff would hire, uh, they would, they could do that report.

241. 0:45:23

     As a matter of fact, the ones we'd be using do this type of work for the municipalities on a contractor basis anyway. On top of that, the protection that the municipality has is at the end of construction, we bond the whole site anyway. So we place this enormous bond that is good for replacement and repair of any deficiencies in the development. In most cases, it's at least a 24-month bond.

242. 0:45:54

     And so at the end of 24 months, after a final plat has been recorded and people live there, we go out on site with the municipality and inspect the entire site. They will give us a punch list. Most of the time the punch list includes things like cracks in curb and things like that because there was a lot of construction traffic in the la- uh, in the last two years, and we fix those things. So the municipality's protected because the engineers have at least as much expertise as the staff engineers.

243. 0:46:26

     In many cases, they're the same entities. The, the, our engineering community in Georgia is routinely being hired by municipalities to do this type of review for them. On the building side, almost all the municipalities I work in now use a company called SafeBuild, and SafeBuild is a third-party inspection firm. And so this is a very routine thing in the state of Georgia for a long time. And, uh, and so the, um, the two-day check is not to, to make sure the engineering is correct, the, the...

244. 0:47:03

     It's just to check that the engineering has been completed. Our engineer will complete the work. He'll stamp it. I will bond it to the tune of millions of dollars. And then the county, what they have to do within two days is just say, "Yeah, they, they turned in the completed set." But that, that's it. There was just a couple of odds and ends that I may have misheard, but I just wanted to make sure I clarified. Okay. Thank you. I think we do have one question, if, Mr. Knight, if we can. Uh, Representative Sanchez

245. 0:47:31

     Thank you so much. Uh, just a quick question. The, what, what was talked about earlier was the liability. So does this bill address the liability at all? Does it... Who, who is liable? And-

246. 0:47:41

     The ex- it doesn't change the liability. Currently, the stamp, the engineer is issued a stamp after m- a lot of education and a lot of experience. He has a test for a PE stamp. He has liability every time he puts that hard-earned stamp on a, on a drawing. In addition to that, I have, uh, bonds. And so, so we absorb more, uh, of the liability, um, than anyone.

247. 0:48:09

     Thank you.

248. 0:48:10

     Okay, thank you. At this point, uh, we have no other questions, no other discussion. Uh, is there a motion on the part of the committee?

249. 0:48:26

     Want me to be the one?

250. 0:48:27

     Oh.

251. 0:48:27

     All right. I'll, I'll motion. Motion to pass.

252. 0:48:32

     We have a motion to pass. Do we have a sec- we have a second? Any discussion?

253. 0:48:36

     Got an amendment.

254. 0:48:37

     Amendment.

255. 0:48:38

     Okay. Uh, we got a li- Representative Oliver.

256. 0:48:45

     Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer an amendment on line 152 and on line 158, and my amendment is to delete the word "to" and insert the word "five" for both 152 and 158.

257. 0:49:07

     Second.

258. 0:49:10

     Okay. Uh, w- would the, uh, gentlelady consider making those two separate amendments? I've been asked that on the right-hand side.

259. 0:49:17

     Yes, sir. I think that's a better procedure.

260. 0:49:19

     Okay. We will take up the amendment on line 152 first to strike the word "to" and replace it with "five". That's a motion. Do we have a second?

261. 0:49:30

     Second.

262. 0:49:31

     All right. We're in a posture of, uh... Any discussion on that amendment?

263. 0:49:37

     Yes.

264. 0:49:38

     Oh.

265. 0:49:38

     May I?

266. 0:49:39

     I'm, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Go ahead.

267. 0:49:40

     May... Could you...

268. 0:49:42

     Well, I think, um, I just wanted to say appreciate splitting them in two. I think the line 152 makes more sense than line 158, which is about the applicant's timeline.

269. 0:49:53

     I'm gonna talk about that.

270. 0:49:56

     Okay. That's all.

271. 0:49:56

     Okay. Any other discussion on the amendment? This is, uh, the amendment to line 152 striking the word "to" and replacing it with the word "five." All right. All in favor say aye.

272. 0:50:09

     Aye.

273. 0:50:10

     Any opposed? Seeing none, that amendment passes. All right, now we're to, uh, uh-

274. 0:50:17

     Mr. Chairman, I-

275. 0:50:18

     Oh, okay. Go ahead.

276. 0:50:19

     Mr. Chairman, I move that on line 158, uh, the word "to" be deleted and the word "five" be inserted in lieu thereof.

277. 0:50:31

     Okay. The motion is on line 158 to strike the word "to" and insert the word "five" in its place. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

278. 0:50:41

     Second.

279. 0:50:42

     We have a second. Now we're in discussion. Uh, I've got two lights flashing. I'll, uh, recognize Chairman Thomas.

280. 0:50:49

     Uh, thank you, Chairman. Um, I, I just, I guess the onus on this is two business days for the private professional provider that's being hired by the construction company or the builder, correct? Uh, why do we even need to put this on there? The, the private professional provider is gonna, naturally through the way the process works, try to get it out as quickly as possible. Uh, I, I would prefer to offer another motion, uh, that we amend just to strike, uh, within two business days of, and just put after instead, so...

281. 0:51:25

     And I, I don't, I'm willing to leave that to you all if, if you would consider that a friendly amendment.

282. 0:51:31

     Yeah.

283. 0:51:31

     Yeah.

284. 0:51:32

     Okay. We're in the-

285. 0:51:33

     It's... And, and I'm sorry. I know you're not accepting it.

286. 0:51:35

     Well, no, no, no. No. No, actually, we're in the discussion.

287. 0:51:37

     Okay.

288. 0:51:37

     We can, uh, this is, this is a motion to amend the amendment that we're in consideration.

289. 0:51:44

     Oh.

290. 0:51:44

     So that is, that is in order at this point. We have a motion to, for a further amendment. Do we have a second?

291. 0:51:49

     Second.

292. 0:51:50

     Okay, we have a second. Now we're in discussion phase on that. I've got a couple of lights that were blinking. Uh, Representative Momtahan is-

293. 0:51:58

     I just have another amendment.

294. 0:52:00

     Okay. Okay. Can we get to that after... D- does, is, does it relate to the amendment of the amendment?

295. 0:52:06

     No.

296. 0:52:07

     Okay. We'll get to you later. I'm gonna recognize, uh, Representative Oliver.

297. 0:52:11

     Um, I, I wanna make sure I'm following this amendment to amendment closely, and then I can decide whether or not I can agree to it. I probably can, but, uh, what you are... Why don't you read the language as you wish to amend my amendment, uh, if you would, sir?

298. 0:52:30

     I thought-

299. 0:52:31

     Or I'll try to report-

300. 0:52:31

     With, with all due kindness, I, I, I'm, uh, recommending we strike the five out of the two, and it would read like this: Uh, the private professional provider shall submit a corrected inspection report after receiving notice from the local governing authority, because, again, the, the private professional provider is being paid by the developer in this case. So they're gonna naturally want to just turn it around as quickly as possible. I don't think putting a time limit on it in that particular case makes, makes much sense.

301. 0:53:02

     The only response I have is that I don't do anything in my law office unless there's a time limit, so...

302. 0:53:08

     You get paid, you get paid a lot more an hour than an engineer does.

303. 0:53:11

     I wish, but, um, I'm happy with whatever the will of this committee is on that amendment.

304. 0:53:18

     Okay.

305. 0:53:18

     Okay. Uh, if I may, I will restate what I just heard as the, the amendment we, that is on the table right now, and that would be on line 52 to strike from the word "within" through Oh, I'm sorry, 158. Line 158, to strike from within, uh, the, in this case, five business days of... Strike that word and that phrase and replace it with the word after. Is that-

306. 0:53:49

     Yes, that's what I was trying to do.

307. 0:53:51

     Okay.

308. 0:53:52

     That would be correct, Chairman.

309. 0:53:53

     Okay. And that was in the form of a motion. We've had a second. We're in discussion phase. Any further discussion? I'm assuming, Representative Momtahan, your light is still referring to a motion you wish to make after... Okay. All right, then we're in a posture to vote on this motion. All in favor of, of the, uh, a- amendment to the amendment say, "Aye."

310. 0:54:12

     Aye.

311. 0:54:13

     Any opposed? Like sign. Okay, that passes. Uh, that goes back to the, uh... By doing so, we have basically a- approved both amendments in that case. So now we're back to the underlying bill as amended. I'll recognize, uh, Representative Momtahan.

312. 0:54:34

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm thinking about just being a statewide uniform, you know, measure. And Mr. Chairman, we've got so many different communities across the state who have so many different needs. We've got issues, I think, in Paulding County, and that's who I represent. I know, uh, I'm not alone there. I've got my colleague here in Paulding County. We've got some issues. We've got some issues with some engineer folks, too, but that's for another day.

313. 0:55:07

     I don't know where I need to add this, so I wan- I wanna ask our legislative council, but I wanna put some of this back in the hands of the people. So I wanna add, uh, "No local government shall be subject to this code section unless approved by referendum of the voters."

314. 0:55:28

     That's my amendment.

315. 0:55:31

     Okay. To, uh, to recognize that as, as an amendment, we'll have to have it in a format with a location-

316. 0:55:38

     Okay

317. 0:55:39

     ... and proper wording.

318. 0:55:39

     Let's, uh, let's add that after line 167, Mr. Chairman.

319. 0:55:45

     Okay. So you're recommending after line 167?

320. 0:55:49

     That would apply to the whole co- the whole subsection.

321. 0:55:52

     Yes, sir.

322. 0:55:52

     Okay.

323. 0:55:52

     Yeah. Having to do with the distance-

324. 0:55:54

     Give me a second. I can pull it up, 'cause I was trying to follow the other amendments, so-

325. 0:55:58

     Okay.

326. 0:56:01

     Make sure that that's in there.

327. 0:56:07

     We'll give, uh, legislative council just a moment to

328. 0:56:12

     provide us a recommendation here.

329. 0:56:24

     And while we are doing that, just for clarity's sake, we'll be in discussion in just a moment, but I'll take a little bit of privilege and just ask the, uh, original author of the bill if they would consider that as a friendly amendment.

330. 0:56:36

     I wouldn't, uh, gut the bill probably.

331. 0:56:39

     Okay. So that would be no. Thank you.

332. 0:56:41

     Yeah, that's a no.

333. 0:56:42

     Thank you.

334. 0:56:49

     Okay. It's after line 167.

335. 0:56:56

     Okay. So, uh, uh, Mr. Morelli is not at a microphone, so you're saying after line 167, if you'd like to... Let's see. Hold on, hold on one second. Let me get you back up. What's that, 14? 13?

336. 0:57:08

     Let's see. 12. 12.

337. 0:57:10

     12. Okay. My bad. Thank you.

338. 0:57:12

     So, so the amendment would be, um, after line 167 to insert a new paragraph 25 with the language that Representative Momtahan has suggested. Well, what was the language again?

339. 0:57:26

     Yeah. So that language, Mr. Chairman, would be adding, "No local government shall be subject to this code section unless approved by referendum of voters."

340. 0:57:34

     And, uh, can I make a suggestion?

341. 0:57:37

     Absolutely.

342. 0:57:37

     Instead of code section, you wanna use the word subsection.

343. 0:57:40

     Okay. So, uh, Mr. Chairman, that should be, "No local government shall be subject to this code, to this subsection, unless approved by referendum of the voters."

344. 0:57:52

     Okay. So and that is in the form of a motion?

345. 0:57:55

     Uh, I make a motion to move.

346. 0:57:57

     Do we have a second?

347. 0:57:59

     Second. Yeah.

348. 0:57:59

     We have a second. Discussion on this motion. All right, Representative Sanchez.

349. 0:58:06

     Just a point of information. So this, uh, amendment would only apply to Section 3 of this bill, or would it apply to the entirety of the bill?

350. 0:58:15

     It would make you-

351. 0:58:18

     Right. Right. So this, this amendment does not prohibit the private professional provider program in any way. Just wanna make sure. But if we're gonna fundamentally restructure how building inspections are performed by local communities, it just says the voters of that community should have a say. So this has to do with the planning side of it, the planning review side of this bill, and that's what we're trying to effect here.

352. 0:58:40

     Okay. Thank you.

353. 0:58:42

     Okay. Uh, Chairman Thomas.

354. 0:58:45

     Uh, may I offer a compromise to this particular-

355. 0:58:51

     We're in discussion phase. If you're offering an amendment to the amendment, we would be in a posture to entertain that.

356. 0:58:56

     Uh, I would offer an amendment to the amendment, and I'm gonna ask legislative council to help me out here, to clarify that the particular amendment that my friend over here wants to amend to the bill actually reads like this: "Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter to the contrary or in, or in any county in which an airport is owned or operated either by such county or local authority, and such airport is adjacent to 9,000 acres or more of property currently or formerly owned by a municipality and has no incorporated territory within such county, any proposed annexation pursuant to this article is contingent upon the adoption of a resolution by the governing authority of such, uh, counties cont- consenting to this, uh, authority."

357. 0:59:41

     I think I know that by memory.

358. 0:59:42

     Oh.

359. 0:59:42

     So I would accept your amendment to my amendment.

360. 0:59:45

     Okay, I think, I think maybe we got a compromise here that works for everybody, Chairman Cheokas.

361. 0:59:52

     You said annexation.

362. 0:59:53

     Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Let me change that last little bit. If, if you want to, uh, maybe clarify that last little word that maybe make everybody happy here today.

363. 1:00:02

     Um, if, if-

364. 1:00:04

     Okay, to this, this, this, to this-

365. 1:00:06

     That can be added to the amendment, yes.

366. 1:00:08

     Okay. Can... If I have to state it exactly, which I know you require me to do.

367. 1:00:14

     We, we will require that.

368. 1:00:15

     Yes. Can you help me on that last little, couple words, 'cause that seems to be the part.

369. 1:00:21

     Yes.

370. 1:00:23

     Yes.

371. 1:00:23

     Uh, I mean, I'm gonna need to see all four.

372. 1:00:26

     Here, here, here, here, here.

373. 1:00:27

     I'm gonna need both of y'all's phones.

374. 1:00:30

     It's not that one. It's not that one.

375. 1:00:32

     No, I know.

376. 1:00:32

     It's this one right here.

377. 1:00:34

     Okay, okay. While we're conferring, uh-

378. 1:00:36

     Mr. Chair, can I try to work with you?

379. 1:00:38

     I do have another amendment, Mr. Chairman. After this amendment, I have all sorts of new shiny toys I'd like to play with.

380. 1:00:45

     Mr. Chairman, of course.

381. 1:00:47

     Okay, we, we are in the posture, we have an amendment to the amendment. Was that seconded?

382. 1:00:52

     Yes, second.

383. 1:00:52

     We had a second to that. We're in a posture of discussion on that. Uh, let's see. Who do we have?

384. 1:01:00

     I want to speak.

385. 1:01:00

     No, no, that's fine.

386. 1:01:01

     Yeah.

387. 1:01:02

     Okay. Representative Mary Frances Williams.

388. 1:01:04

     I waive.

389. 1:01:05

     Okay. Uh, Representative Oliver.

390. 1:01:10

     I would like to call a question on the amendment to the amendment and vote at this point.

391. 1:01:15

     Okay, we're in the posture of discussion on that particular, so that will be... Uh, I have no other discussion lights blinking, so that would be the proper, uh, posture to, uh, to address that. So, uh, with no other discussion to the amendment to the amendment, uh-

392. 1:01:33

     Until we get to this, we have amendments that Stewart

393. 1:01:39

     Yeah, I- I- I agree. I think we do need, as painful as it may be, I think we do need to restate the amendment as, as presented.

394. 1:01:51

     So the amendment would be after line 26, to insert a new paragraph 25, which would read as followed, "Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, in any county in which an airport is owned and or operated either by such county or a local authority and such airport is adjacent to 9,000 acres or more of property currently or formerly owned by a municipality that has no incorporated territory within such county, any proposed...

395. 1:02:27

     Or this, no local government shall be subject to this code section unless approved by a referendum of the voters of such jurisdiction."

396. 1:02:38

     Perfect.

397. 1:02:42

     Okay. Uh, Mr. Morelli, I think originally when you started this, you said line 26. Is that where this would need to go?

398. 1:02:49

     Line 167.

399. 1:02:50

     106... After 167?

400. 1:02:52

     Correct. It would be a new paragraph 25.

401. 1:02:55

     Gotcha. Okay, okay. So for, for that, that's for clarity. All right, so we're in a posture of, uh, a calling the question on this. All in favor of the amendment to the amendment, say aye.

402. 1:03:10

     Aye. Aye.

403. 1:03:12

     Okay. All opposed say no. No. Okay. In the opinion of the chair, the amendment to the amendment is voted down. Uh, I have, uh, Representative Mary Frances Williams.

404. 1:03:24

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

405. 1:03:25

     Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. There we go.

406. 1:03:26

     Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to call the question on the-

407. 1:03:29

     Oh

408. 1:03:29

     ... on the, um-

409. 1:03:30

     Underlying bill

410. 1:03:31

     ... on, on the underlying bill.

411. 1:03:32

     Uh, underlying bill as amended.

412. 1:03:34

     As amended.

413. 1:03:34

     Okay.

414. 1:03:38

     Okay, hold on.

415. 1:03:45

     Sorry.

416. 1:03:45

     Okay. We-

417. 1:03:46

     Before his time is up.

418. 1:03:46

     But before we do that, we, we are back... We, we really need to address the origin... That was the amendment to the amendment that was just voted down, so we need to address the original amendment from Representative Momtahan. So I will ask him to repeat the, restate the original amendment.

419. 1:04:03

     Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It would say that no local government shall be subject to this code section, I'm sorry, subsection, unless approved by referendum of the voters.

420. 1:04:15

     Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call the question on that amendment at this time.

421. 1:04:19

     Okay. The question has been called on that amendment. That amendment was presented with a second, so we're in a posture to, uh, to vote on that. All in favor of that amendment say aye.

422. 1:04:29

     Aye.

423. 1:04:30

     All opposed. No. Okay. Any chair of the... The opinion of the chair, excuse me, the amendment failed. So-

424. 1:04:38

     Mr. Chairman.

425. 1:04:38

     Uh-

426. 1:04:40

     Call the question.

427. 1:04:43

     I'd call the question on the third one.

428. 1:04:43

     Okay. The, the chair will recognize the call of the question at this point. So we're now back to the original bill as amended. Uh, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill is passed.

429. 1:05:02

     Can I get the visual?

430. 1:05:04

     Sure. Sure, yes. Uh, raising of hands?

431. 1:05:09

     Yes.

432. 1:05:10

     Okay, okay. By hand vote, all in favor of, of the, the bill as amended, raise your right hand.

433. 1:05:24

     Five, six, seven, eight,

434. 1:05:28

     nine.

435. 1:05:28

     Okay. All opposed, raise your hand.

436. 1:05:30

     One, two.

437. 1:05:32

     Three.

438. 1:05:32

     Three.

439. 1:05:33

     Four.

440. 1:05:33

     One, two, three, four.

441. 1:05:37

     Okay. The, uh, the bill passes.

442. 1:05:40

     Thank you.

443. 1:05:41

     Thank you.

444. 1:05:44

     Okay.

445. 1:05:51

     So you know, I can keep, uh, put you all right there.

446. 1:05:53

     All right. Next, uh, next we're gonna move to House Bill 1166. I'll invite, uh, Representative Herring to come to the, uh, presentation microphone.

447. 1:06:16

     And so that's fine. All right. I'll be right back. All right. Thank you.

448. 1:06:22

     Okay. Representative Herring, you may, uh, proceed when you are ready. I believe we are operating under a substitute for your bill, so if you'll make sure we have the correct LC number.

449. 1:06:32

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. Um, this is the sub-

450. 1:06:35

     Ho- hold on one second. If we, if we can, everybody just, let's pay attention to the presentation of the bill, please. Thank you.

451. 1:06:43

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee. This is the substitute for House Bill 1166. LC474110S.

452. 1:06:58

     And I just wanna briefly, um, state a few things about the substitute. Um, House Bill 1166 is about families. It's about allowing parents, grandparents, and adult children to stay on the same property when life cir- circumstances change. This bill simply says that on residential property, a homeowner may build one secondary dwelling of 400 square feet or less without going through a zoning decision.

453. 1:07:31

     That means a small space for a grandmother who can no longer live alone, a returning adult child getting back on their feet, or a caregiver who needs to live close by. Importantly, this bill states it does n- it does continue to protect public safety, infrastructure standards, and local governments refrain authority over cost codes, septic systems, flood plan rules, and other health and safety regulations. It also limits this to one secondary unit per parcel.

454. 1:08:07

     This is a practical family solution that gives Georgians flexibility while maintaining safeguards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration.

455. 1:08:20

     Okay. I will ask if, uh, if you could, just real briefly, let's go over the, the differences between the original presentation and the sub that we have today, just for, for the committee.

456. 1:08:29

     Absolutely. I think the concerns before were, um, lines 30, um, through, I think it was 49. Um, so right now, with this substitution, um, local governments still retain the state minimum bui- building codes, septic systems, historic districts, flood plan participation requirements, and manufactured housing standards. Um, this is not going to be a large sta- scale development.

457. 1:09:01

     I think that was one of the concerns. Um, this is not going to be a multi-unit housing situation, and this is not going to be the density expansion across neighborhoods. This is just going to be a small 400 square foot or less dwelling in the back of a yard that is a single family home.

458. 1:09:23

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, Representative Oliver.

459. 1:09:26

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for an opportunity yesterday to have a very good discussion about this bill that brought forth good questions about we don't want a development created on anybody's large or small. And what we wanted to make sure that the county or the city maintain some, uh, power in relation to setback type issues. But the permitting process will be all the same for this. As the committee knows, and the chairman's known, 'cause he's been very helpful about this, uh, that we have developed a package of bills that create m- more doors, more opportunities to build more dwellings.

460. 1:10:04

     And the obstacles to the dwellings, like these very small homes on people's private personal property, uh, need to be addressed by this bill. Thank the committee for its good discussion yesterday. Uh, the amendments that we're offering and the substitute were offered by GMA and, um, other f- the, and ACCG, and we were accommodating to their wishes to clarify. This is not about development. This is not about, um, anything other than freedom of a property owner to do a small dwelling for the purpose of creating another opportunity for affordable housing.

461. 1:10:48

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, Representative Olaleye.

462. 1:10:54

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank, uh, the bill's author for, uh, her incredible work, and, uh, call the question. Motion to pass.

463. 1:11:05

     Okay. We do have a couple of other comments before I recognize that. Thank you. Uh, Representative Adesanya.

464. 1:11:13

     Th- thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you, um, Rep Herring, for, um, the changes you, you've made on, um, on the bill. Um, I support it. I think it's, um, helpful. As I mentioned in, um, the previous time we had this discussion in committee, um, I think it, it helps with the shortages we have in housing. Um, and I still support it, but I was, um, I'm curious. Does, um, if you live in a subdivision, are you allowed, if this bill passes, does that still allow that to, to happen if the HOA allows it?

465. 1:11:41

     Well, you're still gonna have to go through the zoning codes that your- wherever you live has. So that's not changing that. And so if you have an HOA, your HOA has to make that decision for you. That's not gonna change that.

466. 1:11:54

     Thank you.

467. 1:11:54

     Mm-hmm.

468. 1:11:55

     Okay. Chairman Thomas.

469. 1:11:57

     Uh, thank you. And first of all, thank you very much 'cause you picked up almost every comment that I had, um, and and concern I had. But I do have one, and I- I'd like to put this out to the committee as well. Um, I think my biggest concern has been the institutional investor. And in this particular case, um, it would be nice if we could clarify on this policy statement that these, this is exclusive to homesteaded properties, and I don't know if the committee would be willing to, to limit it to homestead-only properties.

470. 1:12:28

     Um, because I think ultimately the goal here is, again, to ... I would live in the house. It would be a ho- my homesteaded house, and this would be for someone who, um, you know, a, a parent or a child. Uh, but I think it kinda just tightens it a little bit more. Again, I, I'm open to discussion with the committee if they're willing for that, but, but I, I would like to possibly tighten it up a little bit more if possible.

471. 1:12:51

     Okay.

472. 1:12:51

     Yeah.

473. 1:12:52

     Uh, Representative Oliver.

474. 1:12:54

     The fact that it's limited to one dwelling is, is a safeguard, but I, I don't object your suggestion. I'm trying to figure out how we, how, where the amendment would go. Do you have a specific language and a specific suggestion?

475. 1:13:08

     I, I, I d- I do. I, I ... Again, we're, we're not entertaining-

476. 1:13:12

     Yeah. We, we-

477. 1:13:12

     ... amendments at this time, but I can make one if, if it ... I just didn't really wanna put it out if the, there was no consideration. So-

478. 1:13:19

     Motion to go forward with discussion, I guess.

479. 1:13:21

     Yeah. Yeah. We'll, we'll get to that point in just a moment. Thank you. Uh, let's see. Representative Williams.

480. 1:13:28

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, um, I'm trying to think through this. Couldn't there be a situation ... If, if it's homesteaded, where does, where does that mean exactly?

481. 1:13:40

     You claim it.

482. 1:13:41

     You're claiming it as your primary residence.

483. 1:13:43

     Primary residence.

484. 1:13:44

     So isn't it possible that in a family, um, where there's ... I don't know, the parents own two homes and they want to give one to an adult child, um, it may not be homesteaded. I, I'm just thinking about keeping it within the f- I mean, there, there are situations in families where I can see that it might ... A, a dwelling like this might not be homesteaded.

485. 1:14:12

     I would say that, uh, sometimes when it's best not to let really, really good get in the way of, of perfect. That is the one scenario where maybe that play out. But I think ultimately what I'm more concerned about versus that scenario is an institutional investor coming in, buying a property. It's not homesteaded. They build another, uh, another, what, what do we call 'em, ADAs on that property. So, and this, this is just a tightening of the language just a little bit more to, to make sure that it really truly meets the intent. And ag- would you even consider that to be a friendly amendment if, if I was to offer it?

486. 1:14:44

     Well, actually, I'm sorry, this is inappropriate. It's not the right time.

487. 1:14:47

     Yeah. We'll, we'll consider, we'll consider that when we get to that point. Is it, uh ... Chairman Leverett?

488. 1:14:52

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to the author, is the ... You've mentioned for family, the, the, the idea here is for, to allow a family to ... You can build a small house for a parent or a child or something on this.

489. 1:15:04

     Right, or a caregiver.

490. 1:15:05

     Or a caregiver.

491. 1:15:06

     Mm-hmm.

492. 1:15:07

     Um, but I don't ... That is not, that limitation is not set out in the proposed bill.

493. 1:15:14

     No, it's not.

494. 1:15:15

     Okay. So, a- a- and I'm assuming the idea is it would not, you would not be likely to build one of these homes and then just rent it to the general public if it's on property that's residentially-

495. 1:15:27

     No, the, the intent is just for you to be able to build that small property if you have someone who wants to live in, that's your family member. So y- it's just one parcel for one single family home and for the purposes that I just listed.

496. 1:15:39

     Okay. And then I'm assuming the se- secondary unit on line 54 is, um, trying to convey the, the, the notion that the, there's a house 'cause there's a residence, there's a, a larger house. This is just sort of subordinate to that larger house, but it would be on the same, uh, lot or, or, or zoned lot as the, as the main house.

497. 1:16:01

     Yes, sir.

498. 1:16:01

     Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

499. 1:16:03

     Okay. Thank you. I see no other questions at this point. Uh, we have, uh, one signed up to speak in favor of this. Mr. Jeff Ledford with the Georgia Realtors.

500. 1:16:16

     Get on in there in the room.

501. 1:16:17

     All right. I'll be quick on this one. I wanna thank you for the time that you allowed me yesterday to speak to this. Uh, Jeff Ledford on behalf of the Georgia Realtors. Uh, I understand the concern that has been brought up, but I would like to add these are single family residentially zoned properties. So I don't think you are gonna have illegal use where you necessarily will open it up to that concern. Um, that said, um, I'm happy to take any questions of why we support it, but I believe I covered most of that yesterday.

502. 1:16:53

     Okay. Uh, uh, Representative Bazemore.

503. 1:16:56

     Not a question, but when it's appropriate to make a motion-

504. 1:17:02

     Okay. All right

505. 1:17:02

     ... to do pass.

506. 1:17:02

     We have no one else signed up to speak to the bill, so at this point, we, it would be appropriate for the, the committee to entertain a motion.

507. 1:17:09

     So I make a motion to do pass.

508. 1:17:11

     Second. A motion and a second. Now we're in the discussion phase. Any discussion regarding the bill? Chairman Thomas.

509. 1:17:18

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, and thank everybody for being patient with me as I was talking through this. I'd like to offer a- an amendment to, on line 54, authorized as a secondary unit on the same parcel as a homesteaded residential unit, and I think that, that clarifies the, the intent that our, our friend, um, Representative Herring is trying to, to bring to the committee today.

510. 1:17:44

     Okay. So we have the motion to add the word homesteaded- Uh, on line 54 between A and residential.

511. 1:17:53

     Second.

512. 1:17:54

     That's the... Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment say aye.

513. 1:18:03

     Aye.

514. 1:18:03

     Any opposed? No opposition. Now we're back to the underlying bill as amended. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

515. 1:18:13

     Aye.

516. 1:18:13

     Any opposed? Bill passes on to, uh, rules. Thank you.

517. 1:18:17

     Thank you.

518. 1:18:24

     Okay. Next, we're gonna, uh, ask, uh, Representative Frye to come up and, uh, talk with us on House Bill 400, if he is ready.

519. 1:18:34

     Oh, he's ready. I'm ready. Mr. Chair, I think I could do this in my sleep.

520. 1:18:41

     I think this is... To, to call this a retread might be a understatement, correct?

521. 1:18:45

     Well, you know, I appreciate the opportunity. It really means a lot.

522. 1:18:48

     Yes, sir. I'll let you proceed.

523. 1:18:51

     Thank you, um, Chairman and members of the committee and, and those in the audience working late with us today. Um, I can do this relatively quick. I think those who have been here for the ne- last four years have, have heard about the CHOICE Act, which actually stands for Community Housing Options Increased Cost Efficiency. Um, you know, I'd like to proceed with a couple of facts that I've uncovered recently. That the median age of our first-time homebuyers in the State of Georgia is 40.

524. 1:19:26

     40 years old, median age. I bought my first home when I was 24. I still live there. And that opportunity, uh, is something that we should be working to provide to all the folks that are coming up. I know there's some young folks behind me that are well below 40, and I'm sorry if I ruined your evening. Um, the median age of all homebuyers in the State of Georgia is 59.

525. 1:19:56

     So I mean, I'm not even 59 yet, and that's, this just, this, those stats just blow my mind, right? Anyway, I'd like for people to be able to get homes earlier, if that's okay. Um, you know, since 1985, houses are four times as expensive, but income's only two and a half times higher. And, you know, the detrimental effects of this i- is they've done studies that housing costs in general across the nation explain half of the decline in the US fertility rate since 1990, knocking out our workforce that we're needing so badly.

526. 1:20:37

     Um,

527. 1:20:41

     and there's a bunch of other things, so if y'all wanna hear the rest of them, you can holler at me. I hope I've made my points. It's, it's a dire situation. The act itself provides local governments with choices on how to address housing density in their communities. The whole idea is that the one thing that's gonna solve this is a bill like y'all just passed right there, because that increases the doors in the market, and it's a market-based solution. And when we do stuff like passing House Bill 812, incredible opportunity.

528. 1:21:14

     I've had a ridiculous amount of delays in a neighborhood I'm building, professionally designed. That's gonna help the speed of the construction. But this actually will help the buyers of the homes by increasing the stock, and that's what we need right now. Um, if y'all recall that this bill basically has a list of policies that were worked out, uh, by a committee that would give municipalities the opportunity to choose from a laundry list of zoning policies, and the more policies that they chose to enact, the more points they would get on applications that they give to the state government for funding for their local communities, meaning that we would reward communities that want to participate in increasing density, putting more doors in the market.

529. 1:22:17

     Um, I don't think y'all want me to go over, but there's tier one policies, there's, which is lines 187 to 207. Tier two policies are lines 208 to 226. Tier three is 227 to 255, and tier four is 256 to 271. There's a lot of very simple decisions that could be made by smaller communities, uh, smaller counties to kinda get them to be able to qualify for grants without having to do too much of a heavy lift.

530. 1:22:54

     For example, I don't think Taliaferro County... Uh, anybody here from Taliaferro?

531. 1:23:00

     Taliaferro.

532. 1:23:02

     Taliaferro.

533. 1:23:02

     Taliaferro.

534. 1:23:02

     Yeah, that's fine. I read it. I say it like I read it. Thank goodness we passed that bill today. Um, so listen, really, anybody have, uh, they, I doubt they've got a parking requirement for their residential units. So they could just check that box, right? They don't have the policy in place. They say, "Okay, we're not gonna do a parking requirement." Boom, they're done. So there's a lot of them that they can, the smaller communities could utilize, um, to at least be able to get a tier one designation.

535. 1:23:42

     Um, that's the gist of the bill. I know people have heard this thing. I know the hour's late. I'm not trying to get away with anything here, and I'll answer any questions that anybody may have. I know we've got people that wanna testify. Um- So this is, this bill has been beaten up for the past four years now, and so get started again if you'd like.

536. 1:24:05

     Okay.

537. 1:24:06

     Representative Olaleye.

538. 1:24:08

     Thank you.

539. 1:24:08

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Representative Frye, thank you for your persistence on this issue. We know it's, it's all about supply. We are not gonna be able to drive down, uh, pressure on our home prices without increasing more supply into the housing market. This bill creates the right incentive, uh, structure to reward those municipalities that are moving in the right direction to increase density in our communities and, uh, at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman.

540. 1:24:39

     All right. Any other questions on the committee for the presenter? I see none. We do have, uh, just one. We have a couple of folks signed up to speak, ACCG and GMA. Uh, y'all wanna go separately? Okay.

541. 1:24:55

     Last.

542. 1:24:56

     Uh, let's, let's go right here. We got that seat occupied right now.

543. 1:24:59

     It's mine.

544. 1:24:59

     Come on, buddy. Sit, come on, have a seat.

545. 1:25:01

     Hey.

546. 1:25:01

     I know what you're gonna say.

547. 1:25:03

     We'll let you go ahead. Introduce yourself and go ahead and speak.

548. 1:25:05

     It's me again. Yeah. So thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee. I rise today just to share ACCG's opposition to House Bill 400. As counties without the infrastructure for mass density, nor the political environment, would be able to meet these preferential schematics would always be at the end of the line. These are Ricky Bobby rules, if you're not first, you're last. And so this is the end of line for your crucial GFFA, DCA loans, your LMIG. These are desperately needed infrastructure, and we would hate to see a further exacerbation of have and have-nots.

549. 1:25:37

     Um, out of our respect to Representative Frye and the work he's doing to, um, help the housing crisis, we absolutely respect and commend that, but we just have different thoughts on the solutions to it. Thank you so much.

550. 1:25:50

     Okay. Thank you.

551. 1:25:52

     Mm-hmm.

552. 1:25:53

     Uh, Noah from GMA.

553. 1:25:55

     You've got a paper.

554. 1:25:58

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Noah Reynolds with GMA, uh, here speaking in support of the bill. Um, one of the biggest factors that we have to consider in municipalities across the state is the cost of infrastructure when it comes to new deve- new development. And how you pay for that infrastructure is really important. You do not wanna subjugate existing residents to higher costs, whether those be through property taxes or sales taxes, and this provides a methodology by which local governments can make some changes to the way in which they do zoning and land use preferences, and be able to receive priority points to receive some state funding that is made available. So we support the bill. I thank the author for bringing it.

555. 1:26:29

     Yeah. Thank you, sir.

556. 1:26:30

     Thank you. Did... Okay. All right. No more questions, and I think that's everyone we had to speak.

557. 1:26:37

     Yeah.

558. 1:26:37

     Yes. Oh.

559. 1:26:38

     You know one more.

560. 1:26:38

     Sorry. Sorry. Yes, yes. If, if you'll come, Elizabeth, if you'll come up and-

561. 1:26:43

     No, I'm not

562. 1:26:43

     ... if, just, just for the record, please.

563. 1:26:45

     Be voting no tomorrow. About to vote Noah.

564. 1:26:52

     I'll speak for you.

565. 1:26:53

     Voting.

566. 1:26:55

     Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you. My name is Elizabeth Appley, and I'm here to speak in support of bill in, on behalf of House ATL, Enterprise Community Partners, the Georgia Supportive Housing Association, Nine to Five Georgia, Presbyterians for a Better Georgia, Habitat for Humanity, and the Corporation for Supportive Housing. Uh, we thank the author for this legislation, which will increase, uh, access to affordable housing at a time of desperate need. Uh, it's all carrot and no stick.

567. 1:27:28

     Okay. Thank you. No, no additional comments. Uh, Mr. Ledford, did you wanna-

568. 1:27:33

     I, I think I forgot to write this one down, but, um, Georgia Realtors, we're in full support of this.

569. 1:27:38

     Okay. For the record, Georgia Realtors supports, uh... So Representative Olaleye.

570. 1:27:46

     Is it the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman?

571. 1:27:47

     It is the appropriate time. Yeah.

572. 1:27:48

     I'd like to call to question, uh, motion do pass on House Bill 400.

573. 1:27:52

     Second.

574. 1:27:53

     We have a motion and a second. Uh, comments, uh, Rep, Chairman Sainz?

575. 1:27:59

     Quick question for the author. I wanna support your fertility bill, but, um, that county's Talladega Nights quote really made me on the fence. Do you have some kind of applicable quote that would, uh, motion a support of the policy?

576. 1:28:13

     All right. The chair will rule that comment out of order. I'm gonna recognize, uh, Chairman, uh, Representative Fleming. We- we're in a posture of discussion on the motion, uh, to do pass. We have a second, so I'll recognize, uh, Matt.

577. 1:28:27

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appropriate time, I'd like to offer an amendment.

578. 1:28:29

     Okay. It is the appropriate time.

579. 1:28:31

     A few date changes in here. Um, if y'all take a look, uh, I make the amendment we, on line 282 says, uh, "Owner after July 1st, 2026," uh, this, I think that needs to be changed to '27, if the authors go with that. And then if you'll go further, changing 26 to 27 on line 282. It's a, just a date change.

580. 1:29:02

     Same time.

581. 1:29:02

     Yeah.

582. 1:29:06

     A- and then, um, on 320, line 329, doing the same thing, striking 2026 and adding 2027.

583. 1:29:19

     What's the line number?

584. 1:29:19

     329.

585. 1:29:19

     329. And then on line 398, very last page, that just needs to be added to, from, changed from 2025 to 2026.

586. 1:29:33

     Okay. And that is a motion to amend.

587. 1:29:36

     Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

588. 1:29:37

     Do we have a second?

589. 1:29:38

     Second.

590. 1:29:38

     Any discussion on the motion to amend? Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment, which is simply changing the da- applicable dates, say aye.

591. 1:29:49

     Aye.

592. 1:29:49

     Any oppose? Seeing none, the amendment passes. Now we're back to the underlying bill. I see no other, uh, lights flashing here, so all in favor of the bill as amended, say aye. Any opposed? Bill passes. We'll go from here.

593. 1:30:05

     Thank you, Mr. Chair-

594. 1:30:06

     Thank you

595. 1:30:06

     ... members of the committee. Appreciate y'all.

596. 1:30:08

     Thank you. Next, we're gonna ask, uh, Chairman Carpenter to come up and we'll talk about, uh, House Bill 1315.

597. 1:30:17

     Oh, let's see here. I think y'all have managed to turn this into judiciary. Monahan's added more amendments in this room than I've seen since the last time I was here. So I'm not gonna go through the, uh... I'll go through the bill. I'm not gonna go through the, uh, the statement that I had, uh, prepared just to talk about the need for affordable housing. Clearly, all the bills you've heard today, it's an issue. We understand it's an issue. Um, this is basically a bill brought forward, forward to address temporary moratoriums, uh, and in fact, making sure that they are temporary.

598. 1:30:50

     Um, uh, what we currently have in some municipalities and jurisdictions around the state are, um, rolling temporary moratoriums, and this bill just seeks to address those in making sure that if it's 180 day in duration, that at the end of that 100 days, they're not gonna roll it into another, uh, moratorium. It does exclude data centers. It does exclude solar, uh, power facilities, if you will. Um, but it does provide an opportunity for people that are, um, wanting to build in communities, give them an avenue to do so.

599. 1:31:26

     And we all understand that the cost of carrying property with nothing going on only is going to increase the cost of housing when it, when you are allowed to build, build on it. So this actually, for the first time in a long time, is a, a bill that, um, brings a cause of action. Um, it allows these, uh, property owners/developers to, uh, recoup some of their cost if they so choose to extend these moratoriums. Uh, one would be the loss of the development value.

600. 1:31:58

     The other would be the carrying cost of the moratorium period. And then the other one that we, uh, issue that we've been addressing, uh, property taxes. It would allow them to, uh, to recoup some of their increase in property ad valorem taxes that they paid as they've held the property. Um, be glad to take any questions. I know there's some people against this legislation, but I think it's important as a state that needs housing, um, residential housing, needs commercial, uh, property, that w- we expedite this process and make sure that these temporary moratoriums are not, in fact, rolling permanent moratoriums, which feels like what they're, what they are at this point.

601. 1:32:35

     So I'll be glad to take any questions.

602. 1:32:37

     Okay. Representative Sanchez.

603. 1:32:40

     Thank you, Representative. First, thank you, Chair. Uh, I really appreciate this bill. I think, uh, I appreciate the exceptions on data centers and solar power facilities. And so you said, you're talking about housing, but it does apply to other forms of zoning outside of residential, except for those two, right?

604. 1:32:54

     Uh, it's commercial and residential. Not industrial, but commercial and residential. Yes.

605. 1:32:58

     Got it. Thank you so much.

606. 1:33:00

     Okay. Thank you. I see no other comments on the part of the committee, so we have a few people signed up to speak either for or against the bill. Uh, we'll start out with Mr. Jeff Ledford. If need be, I'll just... We're in support of it. Okay. The- Questions, yeah ... Mr. Ledford with the Realtors says they are in support of the bill. Let's see. Who's next here? Okay. Uh, ACG, Ms. Kaylyn Day.

607. 1:33:26

     May I also ask Noah Rance to join me?

608. 1:33:28

     Okay. Yes, please.

609. 1:33:29

     You want me to get up so y'all can sit? It'll look cute. This looks cute.

610. 1:33:34

     Sorry. Thank you, Representative.

611. 1:33:35

     It'll look good for the newsletter.

612. 1:33:36

     Yeah, right.

613. 1:33:40

     Writing, writing, writing. Writing for the people.

614. 1:33:46

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Noah Rance with GMA.

615. 1:33:48

     Kaylyn Day, ACCG.

616. 1:33:49

     Uh, appreciate the opportunity to share some concerns today about House Bill 315. Um, two things that come to mind. Um, your previous legislation just now spoke about the importance of funding for infrastructure, and that's one of the things that's not recognized in this bill. One of the items that could be recognized for a stayed moratorium is if the health or safety of the community is considered to be imbued. And I think one of the most important things that we need to consider is that we have a lot of communities around the Metro Atlanta area that are simply at their infrastructural capacities.

617. 1:34:17

     Mm-hmm.

618. 1:34:18

     And what cannot be solved in 180 days is the financing of a new $15 million water treatment center or the financing of a new $25 million sewage treatment center. There are very real issues that communities across the state of Georgia are facing as it relates to infrastructure, and I think that some of them cannot be solved in those timeframes. But we do understand that a rolling, never-ending moratorium is not the answer.

619. 1:34:38

     Mm-hmm.

620. 1:34:38

     We have worked on a version of this bill in the past, and we're able to come up with some good compromise language that's just not represented here today.

621. 1:34:45

     Mm-hmm.

622. 1:34:45

     But should the committee wish, I'm committed to working with the author to find some of those changes that are necessary. Speaking to the waiver of sovereign immunity to recoup some of the lost developmental value, I need it to be understood that a waiver of sovereign immunity creates a right of action against a local government. But ultimately, that right of action is against the local taxpayers. If you are suing a city and you are found to be liable, that money is being paid out of the city coffers. That's money that's not going to provide other essential services that that city is working to provide. Those are property tax dollars that were collected that are now being diverted to go to a private individual.

623. 1:35:18

     That is the right of action-

624. 1:35:18

     Yeah

625. 1:35:18

     ... that is being created. So those are the concerns we have with the legislation. I'll let Kaylyn...

626. 1:35:23

     Yeah, we are in the same place at GMA as our thoughts. Just to reiterate, you know, for example, Henry County has a moratorium on some residential rezonings, and that's tied to road congestion. It's water and sewer capacity, public safety response times. Um, again, counties need the time that's bought through moratoriums to ensure infrastructure readiness, public safety's there, and that this is a good managed way to handle growth. Um, counties also, we have concerns around the 30-day public notice requirement. The need for a moratorium might arise within 30 days, and that our planning and permitting, uh, departments would be overloaded by the amount of people trying to get in through the deadline.

627. 1:36:00

     Just, so just something to keep in mind. And then just to reiterate a lot of what Noah said, you know, ACCG takes strong issue with the waiver of sovereign immunity. You're not just suing your county, you're suing your taxpayers. So thank you very much.

628. 1:36:14

     Okay. Thank you.

629. 1:36:15

     Thank you, sir.

630. 1:36:15

     Thank you.

631. 1:36:16

     All right. And, uh, next we have Jordan Tinch with Greater Atlanta Home Builders.

632. 1:36:22

     Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.

633. 1:36:23

     Oh.

634. 1:36:23

     Jordan had to leave.

635. 1:36:24

     Yes. Okay.

636. 1:36:26

     Um, I have to just take for the record.

637. 1:36:27

     Just, just come ahead and, uh, go ahead and just introduce yourself and make the statement there.

638. 1:36:30

     Yes, sir. Lauren Froelich on behalf of the Greater Atlanta Home Builders Association. We strongly support the bill. Uh, we appreciate the author bringing it. It's a challenge that our builders are facing, uh, every day, every year here, um, in building. And we also have, um... If it's okay, I'd love to ask Mr. Jay Knight, he didn't sign up for this one, but also to add his comments as someone who experiences this and lives this, if that's okay.

639. 1:36:55

     Okay.

640. 1:37:02

     Gina. Gina.

641. 1:37:02

     Yes. I'm sorry, go ahead. Mr. Knight, go ahead. I apologize.

642. 1:37:07

     We, uh, in the industry, we, uh, we, uh, uh, support the bill, and, uh, GRLDC supports the bill. Just a little bit about moratoriums and what you just heard about, uh, infrastructure. Those are real concerns. Uh, in the development world, let me just explain how it works. So we d- we buy a piece of land. We install the water lines on our dime. On our dime, we install the sewer lines. Then after we paid for all the infrastructure, as private developers, we give that to the municipality.

643. 1:37:42

     After we give it to the municipality, when we wanna use it and get a building permit, we then have to purchase a sewer tap, this is thousands of dollars, from that same municipality, and we purchase a water meter f- from the, um, from the same municipality, and it's thousands of dollars. So the idea is to maintain their QLG rating, they have to turn in a future land use map every five years. That future land use map is not just to explain the limitations on us as land users, but it's supposed to let the people who make the decisions on sewer growth, water growth, roadway growth, and school growth, they can plan for that five-year growth.

644. 1:38:22

     So what happens is, if a, if a municipality ever declares a mor- moratorium, what they're doing is surrendering to the fact that they failed to plan, because they have gotten many, many resources. We have paid them. In addition, in addition to paying for all the sewer lines, all the water lines, paying the tap fees, paying the water line fees, we, we solicit customers to buy our houses. And those people pay sewer, uh, water bills. They also pay property taxes.

645. 1:38:52

     And so the moratorium is not an in- it's just an indictment of, of poor planning. Now, what it does, too, is my typical land deal looks like this. And you, you're all from Georgia. You, you, you know these people. I buy a piece of land from an 80-year-old, uh, lady who's been waiting her entire life to, uh, sell this piece of property. Everything around her has been developed. Well, in Newton County right now, there's a two-year moratorium. So she's gonna be 80, 82, and there's no guarantee they won't renew it.

646. 1:39:24

     The way the municipalities work is they'll have a meeting, a workshop at 6:00, and at 7:00, they may just arbitrarily implement a moratorium. And so any type of, uh, guardrails for that would really protect Georgia landowners, and it would certainly help get more housing stock to the market. And as the gentleman over here talked about how supply of more, more houses will help with downward pressure on pricing, he was exactly right.

647. 1:39:55

     Okay. Thank you.

648. 1:39:56

     Yes.

649. 1:39:58

     All right. Seeing no other comments, and I think that exhausts our list of, uh, speakers, uh, recognize Chairman Thomas.

650. 1:40:05

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, uh, I know that there's, this is not the first time that I've seen this bill, but this is the first time we've seen it in this committee this year. Uh, I'd really like to take this back to subcommittee and work on it a little bit before we bring it out. So a, a motion to table.

651. 1:40:22

     Okay. We have a motion to table. Uh, that does not require a second. Uh, no discussion. All in favor of tabling, laying the bill on the table, say aye.

652. 1:40:33

     Aye.

653. 1:40:33

     Aye.

654. 1:40:33

     Any opposed? Okay. We will table this bill for now, and it will be subject to be called off the table at any time.

655. 1:40:40

     Thank you.

656. 1:40:41

     Thank you.

657. 1:40:41

     Appreciate you guys. Mr. Chairman, if you, if you may, though, I, I, I wouldn't mind if we can reassign it to subcommittee and work on it a little bit in subcommittee. I'd really appreciate that.

658. 1:40:52

     Okay. We will do that. Yes, we'll do that.

659. 1:40:53

     Sounds good.

660. 1:40:54

     Thank you.

661. 1:40:54

     Thank you.

662. 1:40:57

     Okay. Next, we're gonna recognize Representative Reese to present House Bill 863.

663. 1:41:05

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the members of this committee. I know the day is going long, but I appreciate your work on behalf of the people in the State of Georgia. Uh, this bill here, Hou- I'm working off of House Bill 863, LC59-0367S, which is the substitute. And, uh, we presented this bill before your subcommittee, and it was received very favorably. We actually have a substitute because of a change that was recommended. And what this bill does, it, it makes reasonable efforts, um, is it asks state agencies to make reasonable efforts in at least giving 20% of state contracts to small businesses.

664. 1:41:46

     We know that sm- Geo- small Georgia businesses at that. We know that, um, small businesses are the backbones of our economy, um, local, state, and federal, and we just wanna make sure that our small businesses are being recognized as it relates to state contractual opportunities. And again, this is not a requirement. It just, it, it, it asks the state to make reasonable efforts to dedicate 20% of the annual procurement contracts to projects and contracts involving Georgia small businesses. And that's pretty much it.

665. 1:42:18

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, recognize, uh, Representative Adesanya. Um, thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Representative, uh, Reese. Um, what percentage do state small businesses currently get? I know you are proposing 20%. What, what do we have right now? I'm not sure if we have anything right now. I think this is actual establishing something on the record to strongly suggest that we at least give 20% to small businesses. All right. Thank you.

666. 1:42:47

     Okay. No other questions on the part of the committee. We have one person signed up, I believe, to speak, uh, Marquis Tate.

667. 1:42:57

     All right. Hello, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you, uh, Representative Reese, for the support on this. My name is Marquis Tate. I proudly serve as the chair of the board of the Atlanta Black Chambers. I stand before you, uh, today in strong support of the Georgia House Bill 863, the Small Business Set-Aside Act. Small businesses are not a side note in Georgia's economy. They are the backbone of it, and there are over 1.3 million small businesses in our state accounting for nearly half of Georgia's workforce.

668. 1:43:28

     Depending on the small businesses, these small businesses depend on, and the employees depend on, their livelihood. When small businesses grow, Georgia grows. The State of Georgia spends approximately $4 billion annually in purchasing and, and on procurement. That represents one of the largest economic opportunities available in our state, yet many qualified small businesses struggle to access the contracts, not because the lack of capacity, but because they lack opportunity. House Bill 863 is not a preference, it is a, it is, it is about participation.

669. 1:44:00

     It creates a pathway for small businesses, businesses to compete for that fair share of that approximately 400, 4 billion in state purchasing. Expanding the pool, uh, to vendors strengthens the competition, drives innovation, uh, increases efficiency, and keeps more taxpayer dollars circulating inside the Georgia community, as Representative Reese said. Um, our state partners, the Georgia Coalition of Black Chambers, is actually one of our partners that helps small businesses statewide in, in accessing the contracts and other growth channels.

670. 1:44:31

     We're building the pipeline. We are providing compliance training, procurement readiness, education, and many other, uh, technical assistance programs. So House Bill 863 strengthens the Georgia economic engine. It supports workforce sta- stability. It benefits rural, suburban, urban communities alike, and it ensures that small businesses, which employ nearly half of the state's workforce, have a meaningful access to participate. So I strongly support, um, the, the, or I respectfully urge the committee to, uh, strongly support this House Bill 863.

671. 1:45:08

     Thank you. Okay. We do have a question. Uh- Nope. Nope. Okay. Okay. No way. Thank you very much. All right. That's, uh, we have no one else signed up to speak. Uh, we're... Okay. Rec- recognize Representative Olaleye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Rep Reese, thank you for this bill. I, I appreciate the, the, the spirit and the focus on wanting to support our small businesses. There's no mandate, there's no penalty. It, it is simply encouraging our state agencies to think of our small businesses when procuring, uh, support, um, for the, for, uh, their programs and services.

672. 1:45:51

     And so, uh, I, I'd love to call the question and, uh, make a motion due pass. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

673. 1:46:04

     Seeing none, all in favor say, "Aye." Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Bill goes on. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. And, uh, next we're gonna ask Representative Neal to come and talk to us about House Bill 779 that we have heard in subcommittee before, so.

674. 1:46:29

     Just go ahead when you're ready.

675. 1:46:49

     Okay. Yeah. If you will, uh, let's clarify the LC number. Yeah. I think there was a, a substitute on this. Yes. Uh, LC620444S.

676. 1:47:05

     Okay?

677. 1:47:09

     Okay. We're ready. You're ready? Okay. Thank you. Thank you to the Chair. Thank you to the committee. Um, today I present to you, uh, House Bill 779. So as I mentioned before in subcommittee, as this started as trying to fix a problem in Clayton, uh, which quickly shifted to statewide when I discovered that this issue is across the state, not just in Clayton County. Then I spoke to members of both sides of the aisle, and we shared the same stories. Um, apartment complexes do, do not, and have not adequately provided emergency contact management or management numbers for after-hours communications between the apartment complexes and law enforcement or fire departments.

678. 1:47:51

     Overnight, whether it be a water main break, a water issue, an emergency on the property, I've had citizens and I've had law enforcement and fire departments communicated with me and saying they do not have contact numbers. Law enforcement and the fire department absolutely needs to have the ability to make contact with someone representing the complex. Not doing so is inexcusable. So the resident does not have to simply endure whatever crisis they are in the middle of, uh, in the middle of the night. So-

679. 1:48:21

     This is not for the bad apples. There are apartment complexes that do what they're supposed to do. This bill doesn't apply to you. If you do that, this bill does not apply to you. But, um, we are trying to catch the bad apples. So there have been some changes since our last meeting, incorporating bipartisan input from members of this committee as well, and input from, um, uh, external, uh, groups as well. So, um, if you're looking at the bill, the initial changes, uh, happened at 17, line 17 through 19.

680. 1:48:56

     Um, one of our committee members, um, Mr. Fleming, thank you so much, recommended that we add that, uh, to ensure that the information is put inside of the, uh, system that is used to dispatch law enforcement so law enforcement will, will simply, or fire departments, will be able to just, uh, refer to that in their, um, in their system for easy access. Um, if you go to line 43, line 43 through 45, um, is inserted due to a number of members wanted to clarify how citizens and/or the fire department would be able to, um, have secondary options for getting this information.

681. 1:49:38

     43 is in a residential lease, and 44 is posting on the door, uh, of the apartment complex. And then, um, as I got, uh, additional information earlier, uh, some entities have outlined that sometimes their management or after hours rotates. Uh, so line 45, um, if you, it reference, references them distribu- distributing the information annually so that if there are any changes, they can provide that, uh, update to the Senate outside of those two options in 43 and 44.

682. 1:50:12

     And outside of that, I stand for any questions.

683. 1:50:15

     Okay. Uh, Representative Adesanya.

684. 1:50:18

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, thank you, Representative Neal. Um, I like your bill. Um, I was thinking through, and um, I was wondering if, um, apartment complexes, uh, provide the contact information to fire stations, um, wouldn't it be quicker when you have a, say, fire emergency and you call 911, wouldn't that be quicker than calling? 'Cause I mean, I've heard of situations where, um, calling the fire station takes a little longer, which is weird, right?

685. 1:50:49

     And then dispatching 911 tends to be a little quicker process.

686. 1:50:54

     Yeah, so this is after you call 911. So what's been happening in communities is you call 911 for help, uh, they respond, and then the police get there and they say, "You know what? We need management," or they say, "Oh, we need an after hours, um, uh, person to fix said issue at the apartment complex." And then when fire department or the police department say, "Hey, where's that number?" No one has it.

687. 1:51:15

     Mm.

688. 1:51:15

     And so the citizen has to deal with, and that family has to deal with whatever that issue is, sometimes a day, sometimes two days, however long it takes. Especially some complexes, um, that, uh, have come, that people have come to me where sometimes their management teams are not there every day.

689. 1:51:30

     Yeah.

690. 1:51:30

     And so, um, this is what happens after 911. This is not in lieu of 911.

691. 1:51:35

     Thank you.

692. 1:51:36

     Thank you.

693. 1:51:40

     Okay. Uh, Representative Williams.

694. 1:51:43

     At the appropriate at the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion.

695. 1:51:50

     All right. It's not quite that time, but, uh, we got a couple of people signed up to speak to the bill. We're gonna start out here with, uh, Jeff Ledford.

696. 1:52:12

     Mr. Chair, members of the committee, um, you, I'm certain you know this by now. I've testified enough today. But Jeff Ledford with the Realtors. Um, and I'm just now looking over the sub. Um, our, our main concern is not that we don't wanna have someone to contact, um, but that in this, where you have the $2,000, the $5,000, um, penalties per violation, per incident, I guess, um, it could get very exorbitant on a mom and pop.

697. 1:52:44

     Exceed.

698. 1:52:44

     Yeah. It, but, but again, uh, uh, uh, not to exceed, but, uh, it, it could get up to that amount. Um, i- in a situation, and I guess what I'm reading with this is even in, um, this sub, you could have a situation where someone gets a call. I am... I'm, I'm, my, my parents when they retired, they rented out the house I grew up in. Well, they would be the landlord. Um, they would be the only person to call. Uh, but if you called them and they did not wake up at 3:00 in the morning, uh, and respond within an hour, they could be subject to $5,000 in a penalty the way I'm reading this.

699. 1:53:25

     Um, I'm not certain what, um... Not that we're against the landlord or the owner of the property being notified or a, a management entity, but, uh, if I am a broker being hired to manage a property, uh, if I get a call at 3:00 in the morning from the fire department, my reaction is gonna be, "Let's put the fire out." What, you know? And then, you know, see what we need to do. But, uh, it's gonna be taking care of the property. I'm not certain what the one-hour response time, um, is addressing or where we've had a deficiency on the, again, the mom and pops, a single house, uh, issue, um, that seems exorbitant.

700. 1:54:07

     Okay. Uh, the author-

701. 1:54:09

     So-

702. 1:54:09

     ... would like to-

703. 1:54:10

     Yeah

704. 1:54:10

     ... comment, respond. Yes.

705. 1:54:11

     Yes. So, um, I have empathy for moms and pops.

706. 1:54:14

     Sure.

707. 1:54:14

     But at the same time, if you can't adeq- adequately manage your properties-

708. 1:54:17

     Sure

709. 1:54:18

     ... you probably shouldn't be a landlord.

710. 1:54:19

     But-

711. 1:54:20

     And my second follow-up is, um- Fire departments don't only come out for fires.

712. 1:54:25

     Oh, sure. Sure.

713. 1:54:26

     Yeah, so they'll put the fire out. That's the original 911 call we're speaking about.

714. 1:54:30

     Right

715. 1:54:30

     But they come out for every other, all the other things that happen, um, that can happen overnight, and sometimes they have to try... Sometimes they, they're forced to stay because we cannot find or get a number for an entity, so they have, they have to force-

716. 1:54:44

     Sure, sure. And, and we are, we, uh, we were highly supportive of, uh, House Bill 399 last year, which requires you to have someone who is a licensed broker and to have access by the local government to that lease-

717. 1:54:55

     Okay

718. 1:54:55

     ... so they have that information. Um, uh, what I'm concerned about is in here, the, the one-hour response t- some of the issues that are in here seem, um... We may not have someone who is a, a ma- a separate management number from the landlord. It could be a, in a mom-and-pop situation, that could be one and the same. Um, I think most of our folks are gonna be responsive. They wanna be responsive.

719. 1:55:21

     Yeah.

720. 1:55:22

     But I think you're going to have a chilling effect on people that may want to be housing providers if they know that if they don't answer the phone within one hour, if they're the only person that owns it and they are in the hospital, and, you know, they may have someone else that can help them with it. They may have some, you know, some other way to handle that, but if by the fact that not responding within one hour at any point, you know, 24/7 could subject you to $5,000, that could have a chilling effect on some of the mom-and-pops that may be willing to be a housing provider that may not want to be now.

721. 1:55:57

     I was gonna jump in on that, too-

722. 1:55:58

     Sure

723. 1:55:59

     ... uh, as a response. Um, so tenants are inferior, and so-

724. 1:56:02

     Mm-hmm

725. 1:56:03

     ... letting it just be okay for you just not to respond, whether you're a mom-and-pop or you're a larger entity, that cannot be the position of this body to allow that just to happen, um, just 'cause you don't feel like getting up at, in the middle of the night or if you just missed a call. We cannot let that just be okay.

726. 1:56:20

     Well-

727. 1:56:20

     People are suffering, and so we have to definitely consider both sides.

728. 1:56:23

     I, and I'm, I may be missing, I guess I may be missing the point of what, what would I be getting a call about. Um, and I'm, I'm just in a situation, um, you know, I have an, uh, elderly mother, uh, that if something happens, I, I sure hope, you know, 911 gets there and helps her and all that, and I know that I may not, I may not wake up if a call comes in saying something's happened. I, I definitely want to be there and want to help with things, but what would a landlord be getting a call about, um, if it's not a, a taking care...

729. 1:56:56

     I mean, I, I get the taking care of the property. We're concerned about that. We wanna be, um, good tare- caretakers of the property and, and, and, and respect the tenants. Yes, they are very important.

730. 1:57:07

     Mm-hmm.

731. 1:57:07

     But y- what would the, what would the response time issue of 1:00 in the morning, 3:00 in the morning, something like that, not responding in an hour be that would be critical to that that, that the fire department and ambulance, police would not be taking care of to ensure that person's safety? Not to say you're not responsible for what you may need to be responsible for, but that, that one-hour response time of $5,000.

732. 1:57:31

     I take that.

733. 1:57:32

     Okay. If, if I may, this, uh, this-

734. 1:57:33

     Yeah

735. 1:57:33

     ... this, this, uh, is, is a valid topic of discussion-

736. 1:57:37

     Sure

737. 1:57:37

     ... and we need to, to go forward with that.

738. 1:57:39

     Okay.

739. 1:57:40

     Uh, uh, we've got a couple of members that have questions, I believe, for, uh, for the, the, the, the, the discussion here-

740. 1:57:47

     Sure

741. 1:57:48

     ... so not to interrupt you.

742. 1:57:49

     No.

743. 1:57:49

     Bob just wanted to respond to his question.

744. 1:57:49

     Representative Neal. Yes. Un- understand. Okay. Representative Sanchez.

745. 1:57:53

     If I may, we're working off LC044S, correct?

746. 1:57:57

     Yeah.

747. 1:57:57

     Yeah, so the, this LC does say landlord or manager of any apartment building or complex, so it doesn't include single-family housing, and it also, uh, would, uh, there's not, uh, I believe a majority of these kind of in- structures are o- not owned by mom-and-pops, so I think that issue may not be as big of an issue as you may think.

748. 1:58:13

     Well, it-

749. 1:58:13

     Or am I wrong on that?

750. 1:58:14

     Uh, well, I'm n- I'm not certain. That may, that may clarify some of my answer because it's, I read it as a landlord or a manager of any apartment complex.

751. 1:58:23

     Okay.

752. 1:58:24

     So I, I, it was just the ambiguity of that.

753. 1:58:26

     And then-

754. 1:58:27

     Is this for only apartment complexes, or is it a single-family home that-

755. 1:58:31

     And then I was interpreting that-

756. 1:58:32

     Sure

757. 1:58:32

     ... as he was saying a mom-and-pop that owns said thing. I didn't wanna use thou- those entities, that person as-

758. 1:58:40

     Sure

759. 1:58:40

     ... because of their certain age, they are excused from having-

760. 1:58:44

     Oh

761. 1:58:44

     ... to take care of people in a certain way.

762. 1:58:45

     No, no, no, I, I, we, obviously, we, we want anybody that takes on the responsibility of property management is going to be responsible for everything they need to be responsible for, um, and that is consistent with license law. Um, I, I was just, I'm concerned in that if it is landlord or manager of any apartment complex, in other words, that's not, that's not how I was reading that to begin with, then that could bring a whole new dynamic into this of someone that may not be willing to rent out a house they have, provide it, uh, to someone that may need something when we're in a supply-

763. 1:59:21

     Okay. Uh, uh

764. 1:59:21

     ... yeah

765. 1:59:21

     ... again, a point of semantics-

766. 1:59:23

     Sure

767. 1:59:23

     ... uh, that may need some clarity.

768. 1:59:24

     Sure. Sure, yeah.

769. 1:59:25

     Uh, we're gonna re- recognize Representative Adesanya.

770. 1:59:28

     Um, thank you again, Chairman. Um, thank you, Rep Neal. Um, I believe your bill is, um, uh, you're working in good faith. Um, I mean, I'm curious if, I mean, I really feel like $5,000 fine or, wait, between, between 2,000 to $5,000 fine, I think it's a little much, and I'm, this is my standpoint. So, um, imagine if you own an apartment complex, and, um, you've got multiple units, right? Um, and you have incidents happen that it's beyond, um, something that 911 cannot resolve.

771. 2:00:02

     Um, I think a one-hour timeframe to, for a landlord to, or the, the workers at the, at the, at the apartment complex, I think a one-hour timeframe, it's, um, it's too short in my view. Um, so I, I don't know if we need to extend that, amend that to 24 hours. Um, I just imagine complexes with multiple units in it, and they're getting fined 2,000, 5,000, 3,000, 4,000. I mean, I mean, I'm hoping no complex is having that much violation.

772. 2:00:33

     I'm hoping they're responding and not neglecting, but I think a one-hour timeframe would put them in that, would jeopardize, you know, their margin.

773. 2:00:43

     Oh, it's on.

774. 2:00:44

     Thank you. Representative Oliver.

775. 2:00:46

     I'm concerned about the criminality issue on these apartment complexes. And in my real world-

776. 2:00:51

     For sure

777. 2:00:52

     ... of my district, uh, we have very, very expensive high-end-

778. 2:00:56

     Mm-hmm

779. 2:00:56

     ... and we have the other end.

780. 2:00:58

     Sure.

781. 2:00:58

     And totally within my district. The criminality that goes on at these apartment complexes is seriously dangerous to-

782. 2:01:08

     Yeah

783. 2:01:08

     ... the tenants, the families, and whatever. And a poorly managed apartment complex i- who doesn't have the management skill or will to comply with this bill is one that I want to address the sanctions with.

784. 2:01:23

     Right. Right.

785. 2:01:23

     Uh, the, we're dealing with ... I'm thinking about all the apartment, I'm thinking about every single 6:00 news story, there's a crime and a fire in a lowly managed apartment complex. That's where my focus is in support of this bill.

786. 2:01:41

     I, I, I understand completely what you're saying. Um, m- again, my biggest concern is that this, as written, appears to address all landlords in all types of properties.

787. 2:01:53

     I get it.

788. 2:01:54

     And, uh, uh, not just in the taking care of it, I believe strongly in, you know, taking care of the property. It's just, um, again, the one-hour timeframe, $5,000, the punitive approach on someone who may be a good landlord, just may be hard of hearing and not pick up the phone in the middle of the night. Okay. We have a couple more comments, more recognized. Chairman Thomas.

789. 2:02:20

     Thank you, uh, Chairman. I, I, I'm getting really hung up in lines 24 through, through 27 as well. Um, this seems to be one of the biggest, uh, beasts that I have with what I'm reading here. Uh, my, my first question is, it says, "An, any landlord or manager who receives a communication from a local police or fire department shall respond to such communication within one hour," which is, I would say, okay to me, except for if, what happens if it's a text message and they don't get it? Is that now the one hour?

790. 2:02:51

     It's the ambiguity that, that concerns me. Uh, again, if, what if the landlord has, uh, hires a manager? What about that case, where if the manager doesn't respond, is now the landlord also gonna be responsible for this 5,000? Do they both get charged with misdemeanors? Are they both $5,000 a piece, so now it's a $10,000 pop? I, I, I'm, I'm not, I'm not, I understand what you're trying to do, and I think your heart's in the right place, but I, I still think there's some definite tightening up of this language that we gotta do to make it clear to the point, um, o- of, that I feel, would feel comfortable passing it.

791. 2:03:25

     Um, the, with, uh, and obviously I'm one vote of many here, but I'm just letting you know that, that I, I, as long as this is in here, I, I can't support this measure the way that it's written. Okay?

792. 2:03:36

     Thank you so much.

793. 2:03:39

     Okay. Thank you. Uh-

794. 2:03:41

     No, no problem.

795. 2:03:41

     And then also to follow up, it says, um, not to exceed 5,000, so it wouldn't get to the number-

796. 2:03:47

     Yes.

797. 2:03:47

     Speaking of.

798. 2:03:47

     That's what I'm saying. Is it per person? I mean, because if, again, if I, if I own, if I own it and I, I delegate my responsibilities to a manager who I've hired, well, I'm still the landlord, and the way that this is written, landlord or manager does not respond, well, he or she shall be guilty of the misdemeanor, but it's not specific if it's applied to one or both. And now you're holding people liable that are, have delegated that responsibility. So I, I, I, again, I, I, in general, I understand what you're trying to do, and I think your heart's in the right place.

799. 2:04:21

     And, and, uh, I know Representative Mary Margaret Oliver-

800. 2:04:24

     Yeah

801. 2:04:24

     ... uh, feels strongly about this too, um, which, uh, that's, that's important to me. Uh-

802. 2:04:30

     Yeah

803. 2:04:30

     ... but, but I have concerns about how this, the-

804. 2:04:33

     Yeah, so-

805. 2:04:33

     Application is.

806. 2:04:34

     It's your recommendation. Um, I've actually taken everything that every member has recommended last time, has been incorporated. That's no different. That's a simple, um, amendment that we can definitely get done. That's a simple fix.

807. 2:04:45

     Yeah, and it w- I think what I'd like to do is I'd, I'd tr- I'd like to work on it a little bit more in subcommittee. For, for what it's worth, I, I've, uh, I had to provide an AI bill like 19 times before I ever got it- ... it to, to rules. So, uh, sometimes these things take a little while. But, but again, I think your heart's in the right place, so I appreciate it.

808. 2:05:05

     Okay. That's all we have for questions for Mr. Ledford. Thank you. Uh, and, uh, I think we are gonna do hearing only on this, put it back to subcommittee to try to address some of these concerns. I realize that there may be a fix there, but we wanna make sure that we get it right when we do that.

809. 2:05:20

     Okay.

810. 2:05:20

     Uh, we'll recognize Mr. Hayden Stanley.

811. 2:05:24

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. And I understand, uh, you, you've been in this building, in this room, uh, for a long time. Thank you, Representative Neal. Uh, I represent the Georgia Apartment Association. My name's Hayden Stanley. And we have, we, the Apartment Association does not represent the moms and pops. These are companies that are full-time professional owners, managers of, uh, of these apartment communities.

812. 2:05:56

     And so there are a couple of things that I wanted to just bring up, and I will be brief, but this is an important bill. And Representative Neal and I have, um, talked and worked on a number of measures, uh, that pertain to the apartment industry. Um, and I'm, I'm reading the updated substitute, but it's still largely intact. There, um, a, a couple of things. In terms of lines of contact between properties and local government, there are a number of those.

813. 2:06:28

     There is the business license. I have a copy of a Clayton County business license here which requires that, uh, ownership and property information be provided. There are regular- fire inspections from the fire department that go into these properties and inspect them. Uh, there are, there is a relationship between service, uh, for water and sewer. So there are a number of, of ways that local government and properties have an existing relationship.

814. 2:07:01

     Uh, further, because this is statewide and outside of, of whatever's going on in Clayton County, and I've seen the, the articles and I've seen the television, and I know that there are issues there. However, there are more than a dozen communities in Metro Atlanta that have annual apartment inspection regimes whereby every unit is inspected every year for code compliance. That's not happening in Clayton County, but it's happening in DeKalb County.

815. 2:07:33

     It's happening, uh, throughout Metro Atlanta and could be done again if these fire inspections that occur annually in many of the local communities are not being done annually in Clayton County. Those are tools that local government has to pursue. And then finally, there, uh, n- I don't wanna retread, uh, the, uh, the area that you've already discussed regarding the penalties and the level of penalties. And while certainly up to $5,000 or up to $2,000 is inconsistent with other penalties associated with misdemeanors in the code, making, charging someone with a misdemeanor and putting their information on GCIC because they failed to respond within an hour is, is astonishing.

816. 2:08:29

     That, that is creating a new criminal infraction for failure to return a phone call, basically making employees liable, uh, in, in this way. So thank you. We'll, we will engage, uh, but we believe that there are a number of, uh, tools in Georgia Code today that local government has and can take advantage of to make sure that these properties are properly maintained, and the contact, uh, is certainly part of that.

817. 2:09:06

     I would like to respond.

818. 2:09:08

     Yeah.

819. 2:09:08

     I was hoping it didn't come to this moment, but, um, this bill has been sitting for over a year, and me and Hayden, we all have always had great communication. He and his team have refused to provide information for this bill. I have asked numerous times, to include last night, to include before we got in here. Outside of this moment on a similar topic, Mr.

820. 2:09:39

     Hayden and his group have also been advised by leadership on your side to provide me information to update, um, a bill that was similar to this. And once again, because they simply do not agree with it, they refuse to provide support and sup- provide language. So while I respect Mr. Hayden and those that he represents, I think it is unfair because there have been numerous times that he has been given the opportunity to help improve these bills, bills related to this type of topic and housing in general, and has refused to provide the information to make it where we can work on this together.

821. 2:10:16

     And I want to make sure the committee knows that. I did not, and I have been more than amicable to the Apartment Association, and they have refused to try to work with me.

822. 2:10:26

     Okay. Well, hope- hopefully we'll get some, some further discussion from here, so.

823. 2:10:31

     Thank you so much.

824. 2:10:32

     With respect, we have a different view of, of this. However-

825. 2:10:35

     I, I understand

826. 2:10:36

     ... with respect.

827. 2:10:37

     Yes, understand. Respect.

828. 2:10:38

     Thank you.

829. 2:10:39

     Thank you.

830. 2:10:39

     Mr. Chairman.

831. 2:10:39

     Thank you both.

832. 2:10:39

     Thank you, members.

833. 2:10:39

     Thank you both. Uh, okay, I see no motion. We're doing a, a hearing only on this bill. Plus, we have lost quorum. Uh, and so everything else will be transferred to a future meeting. We will have a meeting we already have scheduled on Monday. We'll have an agenda for that very soon. Thank you. Meeting is adjourned.