Comité State and Local Governmental Operations del Senado, 2 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:14:32

   Busy agenda today. Thank y'all for being here. Uh, we'll call the State and Local Government, uh, Senate Committee to order. Uh, we'll go out of order a bit. Uh, Senator Hatchett has got a bill he said'll be quick, and he's got a committee he's gotta be at, so we wanna be sensitive to that and make sure we got members where they need to be. But before- but before we get to that, uh, Senator Setzler, would you lead us in a prayer? Thank you.

2. 0:14:58

   Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for this time. I pray that you would humble us, Lord God, before you. I pray that we would seek your wisdom in all that we do. I pray that you would lead us and guide us and direct us to what's best for the state of Georgia, and we do it in a spirit of- of collaboration and in joy. We pray this in your holy name. Amen.

3. 0:15:16

   Amen. Thank you. We've also got a- a new, uh, committee member, a new senator, Senator McNeel. Glad to have you here with us today. Uh, if you wanna tell the committee a little bit about yourself, if you haven't done that a lot already here lately.

4. 0:15:31

   This morning. Steven McNeel from the 18th district. Cover Bibb, Houston, Crawford, Peach, Monroe, and Upson Counties. Thank you for having me today.

5. 0:15:42

   Now, I understand you- you qualified today. Do you have any difficulties with that or-

6. 0:15:45

   I scored in Tuesday, and I got to qualify- ... the- the fortune of qualifying this morning, yes.

7. 0:15:51

   So if any members have trouble qualifying, Senator McNeel's a- a professional.

8. 0:15:55

   Done it twice in a month now.

9. 0:15:58

   Thank you. Senator Hatchett, without further delay, if you would come and, uh, present Senate Bill 593.

10. 0:16:08

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to confirm, I am working off of LC443493.

11. 0:16:20

    Is that what you have? Okay, good. Uh, a very short bill. Um, I have a constituent who does, uh... He's a builder, and one of the issues that he's run into, um, kinda statewide, is when he goes to purchase a piece of property, he'll ask the county what the impact fee will be that will be charged on him if he's- were to do certain developments. And the county will either fail to disclose all the impact fees, or they won't give to them accurate information.

12. 0:16:55

    And so what this says is, "Upon request by an individual, a municipality or county imposing development impact fees pursuant to this chapter shall disclose the total amount of development impact fees that would be due to the municipality or county as to any parcel or parcels of real estate in the event of transfer or ownership of such parcel or parcels." What this would do is just have transparency so that people can obviously fold into their cost before they purchase a piece of property, before they decide what to do with the piece of property, uh, what those impact fees would be so that they can make good business decisions, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

13. 0:17:36

    Yeah. And thank you for bringing this bill forward. Um, impact fees are a big- big part of what adds to construction costs when we're talking about affordability, so yeah, thank you. Senator Setzler.

14. 0:17:48

    Hey, Mr. Chairman. Um, what's the, uh... I understand upon request, but I mean, obviously, if- if a count- city or county, um, they have to have a certain amount of information to be able to do this. So what's, um, what information's incumbent upon the- the proponent, the property owner to provide to get that? Um, is it, um, number of lots? Is it, um, I mean, is it square footage of developed, um, area? Is, I mean, does this...

15. 0:18:19

    Is- is there already a standard in place of what's gotta be proposed or... 'Cause I mean, I- I think what you wanna do here, and I think it's a, it's a, it's an appropriate expectation, is when you ask, they can tell you, and they're gonna stand behind that number.

16. 0:18:33

    Right.

17. 0:18:34

    So what information is incumbent upon the- the- the proponent, the seller, or the- the- the property owner, uh, the developer, whoever, um, the applicant to get a locked-in number?

18. 0:18:48

    I think it would be up to them to make sure that what they're asking for is what they intend to do with the property. So if you are trying to subdivide it into 10 lots, to ask what the impact fee would be, and then they would disclose that to you. Obviously, the more information you give them in your request, the more specific they can be. If it's just broad, I don't think you can hold them to that number. But the intent, and in talking with my constituent and other builders, developers, um, when they do their applications and when they submit requests to the county, they're very specific as to what they want to do.

19. 0:19:22

    And that would be on them to make sure they're asking the right questions.

20. 0:19:28

    I- I guess, uh, you know, do- do we need to lock... Do- do we... If we wanna lock in the municipalities and the counties, do- do we need to lock them in with some s- specificity here? 'Cause for example, if we said this, they could say, "Well, hey, we- we'll give this to you as soon as you ask, but you need to ask in the form of sealed construction documents," which is, that's way down the road. That's way too- too... You know, we'll ask when you give us 30% of the documents. How- what are you thinking w- we need to do in- in- in your mind's eye about being clear about what you're asking for?

21. 0:19:59

    That's a good question. Um, let me tell you what I'm trying to prevent, and that's, uh, this one constituent of mine presented to the county, was told that impact fees wouldn't count because they were gonna be on septic. And then he, um, is, you know, doing a development, a neighborhood now, and they're charging him almost $1,000 for an impact fee for septic when all the houses...

22. 0:20:30

    Or excuse me, impact fee for- impact fee for sewage hookup When all of his houses are on the septic, and it's over 1,000 lots, I think.

23. 0:20:39

    Wow.

24. 0:20:39

    So you're talking about almost a million dollars in undisclosed impact fees. And so I'm happy to yield to the will of the committee and the knowledge of those that may be developers as far as the specificity or what's necessary, but the intent of this is just to make sure that counties are transparent with developers that are trying to get accurate numbers so that they can, you know, put it in their books properly.

25. 0:21:07

    I, I just don't want to pass you a bill and then it really not have the effect that you want, because we've not had the specificity to lock in the cities and counties with an obligation to a certain point. That, that's all. So just looking for clarity there.

26. 0:21:18

    Thank you.

27. 0:21:19

    Mr. Whit?

28. 0:21:21

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatchett, have you had the opportunity to talk to ACCG or GMA about this to try to determine what the easiest path forward would be for the counties to cooperate with your legislation?

29. 0:21:33

    I have not.

30. 0:21:35

    Um, I, I do think w- if we pass it out today, there'll still be that opportunity to have that conversation.

31. 0:21:41

    And it was a late arriving bill.

32. 0:21:43

    Yes.

33. 0:21:43

    I had to kind of push through. Um, there's a, a couple counties in the state that are notorious for this that aren't necessarily in my district, and I think that would be a very productive conversation. Um, would like to have this move, and then can obviously address that and maybe be able to amend it on the floor if needed.

34. 0:22:03

    Okay. When the time is right, Mr. Chair.

35. 0:22:09

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to my good friend. Uh, uh, Senator, I support what you're trying to do, and I just want to be clear about when asking for the impact fee, uh, vis-a-vis is it residential, commercial, industrial, as each zoning classification may carry its own set of impact fees. Uh, if you're doing residential, uh, you may be talking roads, parks, water, sewer, and when you deal with cities and counties, you could develop in the county, but you may have to switch that development to the city because they may control the water. The county may not have the water, uh, available to do that.

36. 0:22:41

    They don't own their water lines. Maybe a private utility. Most developers don't want to work with a private utility. They want to annex into a city to be able to do that. So I think to just put guardrails so that you can understand either it's, you know, the impact fee as the parcel is zoned today, or if you want to go pursue a zoning classification change, what would those impact fees be? Want to support it, uh, just want to make sure we put the guardrails there so that you can get what you're actually asking for, because it could vary and be so much different.

37. 0:23:10

    Yeah. Thank you.

38. 0:23:13

    Senator Williams?

39. 0:23:15

    Thank you. Thank you for bringing this. I've never developed a subdivision or anything, so how do you, when you propose to build a subdivision, do you present your plan to the city or the county, and you request that in writing, and you're, you would want them to give it back to you in writing too, wouldn't you?

40. 0:23:37

    Yes.

41. 0:23:37

    Right.

42. 0:23:38

    And so the way that, my understanding of how it works is if you're going to do a neighborhood, for example, and you've got, all right, I'm building a neighborhood with 24 houses. This is how big they're going to be, and you submit this to the county, and maybe you're under contract with, with proposed neighborhood, and you ask them what the impact fees would be for this development, they would give you those numbers so that you can obviously calculate what the purchase price of the land would be, and it could help with your budget.

43. 0:24:08

    Instead of presenting it to them, them saying, "Oh, there won't be impact fees," or refusing to give you the impact fees, uh, so that you can't make those adjustments. And this, I think, would just protect the, the builders and encourage more transparency.

44. 0:24:26

    Right. I just didn't understand that process.

45. 0:24:29

    Yeah.

46. 0:24:29

    Thank you.

47. 0:24:29

    I, I think it would be on the builder to be as specific. My intent would be if the builder's specific about certain plans and submits the certain plans to the county or municipality, they would tell them what the impact fees are going to be-

48. 0:24:41

    Okay

49. 0:24:41

    ... beforehand.

50. 0:24:42

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

51. 0:24:48

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it, Senator. Uh, do we have anybody speaking for or against any, this bill?

52. 0:24:55

    I'm speaking for it.

53. 0:24:56

    Okay.

54. 0:24:57

    I don't know about anybody-

55. 0:24:58

    I was just a little concerned about, um, some of our entities not speaking to it, and I don't know, I just feel like I need a little more information. But it's, makes sense, but I appreciate that. Thank you.

56. 0:25:12

    Thank you, Senator. Yeah, and we do not have anyone signed up to speak on that bill.

57. 0:25:19

    Appropriate time, Mr. Whit?

58. 0:25:21

    Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I make motion do pass.

59. 0:25:25

    I'll second.

60. 0:25:27

    So we've got a motion do pass and a second. Comment, Senator Setzler?

61. 0:25:34

    Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, want to ask, offer a friendly amendment to the author, um, which I think may actually help him. Um, and, and again, I, the word request is a, you know, I called the county manager and he didn't tell me. I, I... Is it your intention to do it upon application, or is application too far down the road?

62. 0:25:56

    I think application, at the time of application for, for certain, but I think you should also be able to make it prior to purchase of a piece of property as well.

63. 0:26:06

    Okay. So upon written r- w- w- p- p- upon written request, I was gonna say, uh, by any, I would insert the word written, this is my friendly amendment. Upon written request by any individual, which includes a specific description of project scope.

64. 0:26:23

    Okay.

65. 0:26:24

    And to say that, you have to say how many lots we've got, how much impervious we're gonna have. I mean, th- th- there, because until you know what your impervious surfaces are, you really can't know what the stormwater impact's gonna be, for example. So if you're gonna have a lot of paved area, covered area, I think- And in the, and in the permitting world, scope is a very general term. It's not like there's not drawings. You just... You can have a one-page description scope. I'm gonna have this many houses, this much imper- They may say you need to tell us the impervious amount. You know, your, you know, there may be some scope things you've gotta define for them.

66. 0:26:57

    Um, but that would be my suggestion to the gentleman. Um, so it would be say, "Upon written request," not application. "Upon written request by any individual, um, which includes a specific description of project scope," comma, and then the work, it moves on. Is that-

67. 0:27:14

    That's good with me. Thank you.

68. 0:27:16

    Okay.

69. 0:27:19

    Sure. I w- I will offer that as an amendment. Um, and I can provide that to council, if it's helpful.

70. 0:27:24

    Yeah, that'd be good. Thank you.

71. 0:27:25

    Okay. So, so it would read again, the Setzler amendment. I, I move, Mr. Chairman, upon written request by any individual, which includes a specific description of project scope, comma, then it goes on. That'd be the minimum.

72. 0:27:39

    We've got the Setzler amendment on the floor. Do we have a second?

73. 0:27:44

    Second.

74. 0:27:46

    We've got a amendment. We've got a-

75. 0:27:48

    I was bringing that up.

76. 0:27:50

    We've got a, a, we've got an amendment. We've got a motion to pass and a second. All in favor on the amendment, raise your hand. Amendment passes unanimous. Now we'll take up the underlying bill. We've got a motion to pass and a second on LC443493.

77. 0:28:10

    As amended.

78. 0:28:11

    As amended. All in favor, raise your hand.

79. 0:28:16

    Unfortunately, I was just wondering if it was-

80. 0:28:19

    Any opposed?

81. 0:28:21

    If you don't understand the rules, I don't know if there's changes coming out the rules, so-

82. 0:28:25

    Yeah

83. 0:28:25

    ... when we come back, that if that's good, we'll weigh in.

84. 0:28:28

    Thanks. Thank you.

85. 0:28:30

    Bill passed. Yes, sir. Thank you.

86. 0:28:31

    No problem.

87. 0:28:38

    Yeah. Oh, yeah. Uh, next on the agenda is Senate Bill 510, Senator Setzler.

88. 0:28:46

    Actually, let me, let me get this to council. I'm gonna ask him.

89. 0:29:34

    Mr. Chair, members of the committee, uh, pleased to bring before you Senate Bill 510, LC version 473980. Um, the General Assembly, um, around a decade ago, um, enabled in general law, um, and the, the, the potential for school districts on a district by district by district basis to, um, become non-partisan.

90. 0:30:04

    Now, there's a recognition that school boards, um, I think some districts, s- some communities have desired to keep theirs partisan. I think from our, my vantage point, I've seen, um, around me in my own county the benefits of a non-partisan school board. City of Marietta, of which I represent a portion, um, their school board functions well. Our Cobb County School Board has functioned well over the years. I do think, um, there's been some partisan rancor that has, has, has kind of pulled on members in ways that I don't think the members necessarily appreciated.

91. 0:30:47

    We have, in fact, we have a former Cobb County School Board member with us, the senator, the senator for the 35th can speak for himself, uh, on this. Um, but it's my belief that the best way forward for Cobb County Schools is a non-partisan school board starting in 2028. It wouldn't affect things for this year. Um, you know, there's people talking about, "Oh, this year's gonna be the wave election," and all, all this. It has nothing to do with this year. But, but we'd say in 2028 and beyond, that, uh, our, our school board would be a non-partisan school board, and I think, I think about the, the diversity of, of our, my, my district and all the different districts around the county.

92. 0:31:23

    I think it's the right move for Cobb, and that's why I'm bringing the bill. Glad to take questions.

93. 0:31:29

    Any questions or comments from the author?

94. 0:31:36

    Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it, Senator. Um, can we, what's, what's the partisan, um, split with the seven-member school board currently?

95. 0:31:47

    Cobb County School Board's currently a four Republican, three Democrat partisan breakdown today.

96. 0:31:54

    Okay. Um, do you remember when it became a four-three partisan split? 'Cause I-

97. 0:32:01

    I don't

98. 0:32:02

    ... think it was 2018. Um, for a couple decades it was a six Republican, one Democrat split for a very long time in Cobb County schools, and then 2018 election, for the first time, it was a four-three split. So it actually, um, yielded some conversations because the county was changing quite a bit. And I'm just curious about that history, of the history of it being overwhelmingly Republican for some decades and then recently being kind of 50/50, can go either way.

99. 0:32:39

    I just find the timing really interesting. I, I appreciate your vantage point and your beliefs. Um, there is a Um, so I guess another question is: How does the county delegation feel about this particular bill?

100. 0:32:54

     Yeah. Our county delegation, I think, is divided on this. Um, I think the, um, unfortunate reality really since two thousand and eighteen, um,

101. 0:33:13

     the tenor of partisan disagreement in the last ten years has gotten uglier. Um, I think I, I tell people a lot, unfortunately, all politics is national it seems like nowadays, unfortunately. It used to be all politics is local. I think all politics now is national. So you s- you see these proxy fights that are brought down to school boards. I told our county D-D.O.T. director one time, I said, "When you're standing up talking, people see a Washington bureaucrat talking on CNN when you're talking. Um, they don't see a local person because that's that, that tenor." Um, I think the--

102. 0:33:51

     I think many of the members here can imagine why some of the, some of the ugliness has emerged. There's just, there's a lot of commentary about that. Um, it's played out on the national stage. And unfortunately, I think it's taken folks who would otherwise have much more consensus on particular issues and required members to engage in partisan fights that they might not have chosen themselves. Um, we've had lawsuits. Um, we've had all kinds of things happen, uh, in Cobb that we just never had before.

103. 0:34:23

     And I think, you know, there, there were, there were partisan disagreements in the past, but I think for some reason, the last eight years has gotten ugly. And I think, um, n-no one can say that, "Hey, we're trying to do this. The school board's is a Democrat school board. It's, it's Republican-led school board." Um, we'll still have a partisan election in twenty twenty-six. The voters will decide. That, that could, that could change in either, in either direction after the twenty twenty-six election. We could have more Republicans, less Republicans. We could flip to be Democrat-led. I'm not trying to prejudge that. I'm just saying in twenty twenty-eight and beyond, I think the, I think we have-- I think the eight years has informed me, particularly when you've got a, a school board right in our own county that we see operating in a much more consensus...

104. 0:35:04

     They, they don't agree on everything. They don't-- The Merritt City School Board doesn't agree on every issue. But I just find the tenor there as being different than I do, um, and I don't think it's getting better necessarily. And I think at the end of the day, um, these are public schools. It's a diverse array of kids. I think a, a non-partisan nature would be better for it. That's it.

105. 0:35:29

     Thank

106. 0:35:35

     you. Go ahead, Senator.

107. 0:35:36

     Thank you, uh, Senator, for bringing this, uh, this legislation. And, uh, you almost answered my question, and that is the local delegation. At one time when I was in the House, and I just don't see it a lot now, but there was local legislation and there was a local delegation that dealt with the local issue because they knew the local issues in the area. And now it seems like, you know,

108. 0:36:08

     things that might be local are now general bills. Is there a reason why it was not local legislation, why you chose not to do local legislation? 'Cause I'm almost always, although I agree with the concept of, of what you're doing, I wanna say that first of all, I do agree that it should be non-partisan because I think it's time out for our country to be bickering back and forth. And you're right, they see a, they see a D.C. bureaucrat standing up whenever we stand up. They don't even know the difference between whether you are a federal senator or a state senator, some people don't.

109. 0:36:42

     And so, but, uh, as far as the local, uh, delegation, how large is the local de-delegation and, and, and is that-- would, would that be a problem bringing it through the local legislation?

110. 0:36:54

     Yeah. Um, as you know, Senator, the, the local process is, is what, what I refer to as it's, it's a cons-- it's a consent calendar. You know, it's a-- When there's, there's, um, non-disputed bills that we wanna accelerate through the process, we do that. We know members can pull things off the calendar and vote on them separately. Um, so it's just a-- That local calendar process is a way to accelerate a large quantity of local bills when everyone kind of agrees, and it's very efficient. You know, again, that's why I use the term it's like a consent calendar.

111. 0:37:25

     Um, any member could disagree with the proposal, and it not be vote-- it'd be voted on separately. Um, we've got six senators that represent some portion of Cobb County. Um, three senators have signed on the bill. Um, I've offered it to others. I don't-- I'm not criticizing them for not signing it. I think it's great policy. Uh, I think in many ways, the other three Senate colleagues of mine, you know, their, their political realities might not be friendly to this, even if they perhaps even agreed with it.

112. 0:38:02

     So I, I don't wanna put them in a box. I will tell you, as I, I'd alluded to, um, before on, on other bills, I've actually had local elected officials from both parties ask me for this specific thing. I've had school board members in both parties from my county ask me for this specific thing. I can't because, 'cause they're local politics, they can't come in the paper and say that. Um, so that's, that's a, that's an anecdotal thing. Uh, that's-- That alone doesn't pass the bill, but, uh, it just-- you do need to be aware of that. That's, that's, that's part of my, part of my thinking on this.

113. 0:38:34

     So I'm not gonna, you know, try to put any other members in a, in an awkward spot. You know, we're, we're right down the middle in the Senate. Um, House, we're gonna be s-split as well. Um, and Because of that, we're gonna end up voting on it as a whole Senate. We'd be voting on this whole House anyway. So I just would just ask members to vote their conscience on this.

114. 0:38:55

     Uh, and one, one other question that's kind of related but unrelated. Uh,

115. 0:39:04

     it may not be appropriate for this particular legislation. I have some legislation that says that 180 days prior to qualifying for any office, there will be no change in voting practice or procedure. Would you kind of support that type of proposition?

116. 0:39:19

     Yeah, I think it's unseemly to do that. That's one, one of the reasons, you know, I, I had announced this, um, talked about this, doing this last year, um, or first year of the biennium, um, considered it, um,

117. 0:39:36

     wanted to talk to more people, spend some more time with it. Um, this is not something we're rushing through. This is not a 2026. This is 2028. This is two year... Actually, qualifying for 2026 started today, so this would affect what's happening literally two years from today and not sooner. So again, I think it's something we, we're pushing out, and I think, I think the public would be, would have a right to be conc- concerned if we tried to, even if we tried to ram this through early in session or even the big... Even if we had done this last year, the, the last session, the first, the first year of a biennium, still with the optics of that doesn't look good for 2026.

118. 0:40:09

     That's why we're pushing this to 2028.

119. 0:40:11

     Thank you, Senator.

120. 0:40:13

     Senator Howard.

121. 0:40:14

     Thank you. Um, just a follow-up. Uh, the most recent, um, I guess, boundary changes after the last census, it was very contentious, uh, with the Cobb School Board. Um, couple of Democrats were kind of drawn into the same district. People would say that there was some really creative gerrymandering going on, so very, very partisan. Um, and some, a lot of people, to your point, people say, "Oh, looks like everything was done to preserve this, uh, three to four, um, majority on the Cobb School Board." With the contentious history of how the boundaries were changed recently, would you be open to having this concept start in January 1, 2030, um, just kind of preparing, or '32, preparing for the next census?

122. 0:41:05

     Because it, very contentious, I mean, this gives the whole county time. Since it did, did not go through the delegation, maybe we do this in 2032 after the census is done and it's nonpartisan. We can kind of have a new clean slate. Would you be open to that?

123. 0:41:22

     I mean, I, I think it's, um, it's a fair question. I, I, I considered '26, '28, third- '30, tried to consider this. Um, I will tell you, um, for those of you who don't know, there was a lawsuit that was filed against the maps that were drawn initially. In fact, what, what happened was the, the, the Cobb School Board, um, actually was involved in, in sort of proposing some maps and supporting a map set that members not, filed and passed and, um, there was a law- lawsuit.

124. 0:41:53

     Um, that map was, at the end of the day, s- set aside by the courts, and the map we have in place was actually, was, was passed in response to that. Um, and the map we passed that was in response to that met all the metrics and all the best pract- mapping best practices. Um, not telling you that everybody in every quarter applauded the map, but it was a very balanced, uh, by every measure, reapportionment solid map, and it's, it's accepted by the courts in response to that ugliness. So I think where we are today is, is a good place, um, and I think it's a good foundation to start from.

125. 0:42:27

     That's, that's why I think '28 is the, is the better choice. I mean, I, I wouldn't consider it a friendly amendment. I think '28 is what we need. But I mean, the idea that it not happen now, I, I would agree with. But I, I, I disagree we need to have another reapportionment process in six years before we do this. I think '28 is the balance.

126. 0:42:46

     Okay. There's just a lot of political folks that are looking at 2028 as the year will be obviously a Democratic flip seat where possibility in 2026, but 2028, um, everybody who knows Cobb politics knows that 2028 is, is almost a definite based on the, the current maps that were contentious. And I just found it interesting that January 1, 2028 is when it would potentially be nonpartisan just at the moment where it would likely turn into a Democratic majority on the Cobb School Board.

127. 0:43:23

     Well, Senator, if I, if I'm listening to my friends in the Democratic caucus on the floor, the speeches are that this session, um, that, that actions of the majority party are mindful of this, this blue wave that's coming in 2026, and 2026 will be the big year. I'm hearing a lot of that. Um, that, that may well be. Um, this doesn't prejudge that. I mean, we, we, we have a seat on the school board that's up. If the seat on the school board that's up, um, the, the, actually there are three, three seats that are up this session. One that's currently held by a Republican. If that school board member were to lose, then there'd be a...

128. 0:43:59

     And, and, and the other school board members who are currently Democrats don't lose to a Republican. If it were, if it were to flip that way, we would have a four to three Democrat school board, you know, starting in 2027. So we can't forecast these things. We don't know what the political fortunes will be. Uh, I just think it's, it's appropriate to put this out two years. Um, and, you know, one of the reasons we didn't want to do this last year is, like, don't rush it. Let's put it out two ye- I think two years is the right balance. So.

129. 0:44:26

     And so three Republican seats will be up in 2028.

130. 0:44:29

     Mm-hmm.

131. 0:44:30

     Is that correct? I believe so.

132. 0:44:35

     Two, yeah, one this year that's currently held by Republicans, assuming nothing flips to Republican.

133. 0:44:40

     Correct.

134. 0:44:41

     That's, that's currently Democrat, which it could.

135. 0:44:42

     So-

136. 0:44:43

     Um, I think, I think what the gentleman's saying, uh, uh, and again, to the point, um- No seat on the Cobb County School Board is held by any one party. It's cur- it's cur- there's a current occupant that qualifies under a certain party. Um, and if there's no Democrat seats that are won by Republicans, and a Republican seat, we- we- we- as we go through all that, I don't know if that sh- should be top of mind of this committee, but-

137. 0:45:10

     Yeah, clearly, I mean, November's a million years away in politics. Who knows? The political winds change, you know, on a monthly basis, so hard to predict what, what happens this year, let alone what happens in '28. Uh, you know, in, in the session, 2022 session, I changed, or I have, I authored the bill that changed Gwinnett County Schools nonpartisan. Um, it's a long-term approach, I'll tell you. Uh, but I s- I would say in the last election, uh, as far as, you know, the partisan divide between the candidates were not there. It was on, you know, the issues-

138. 0:45:41

     The issues

139. 0:45:41

     ... issues with the school, the school board, things like that. So I will say it's not a silver bullet, I don't think, but I think it does help. And, you know, I believe that, you know, governance from the sheriff down at local, at the local level should be nonpartisan. I mean, the issues they're dealing with and the governance that they govern over, I mean, there's no, no, no business for partisan politics. They can leave it for us in Washington, I think.

140. 0:46:07

     Senator Williams.

141. 0:46:08

     I was just gonna ask him how my election was gonna turn out since they were able to predict- ... how these elections coming up is gonna turn out. That's all.

142. 0:46:16

     You, you'll be all right. You'll, you'll get it.

143. 0:46:21

     Thank you. Thank you. Uh, just, uh, in general, I haven't taken my... In general, has there been any recent legislation, uh, requiring single-member districts for all the school boards? Has there been any legislation to that effect?

144. 0:46:36

     You're talking about the state?

145. 0:46:36

     Or is there, and what are, what is the composition of the current Cobb-

146. 0:46:40

     I see

147. 0:46:40

     ... School Board?

148. 0:46:40

     I think you're the only member in this chamber who's ever had any experience in multi-member districts. Your very early legislative career. I don't, I've never in my entire time here have heard any discussion about multi-member districts anywhere. Now I, I don't doubt that they may, they may exist some places, but I don't think that's, that's certainly not gonna be part of anything that I'm part of on the school board. I think single-member districts is what folks expect, and I think multi-member is a thing of the past. And, you know, if, if there's something that, that we would do outside of that to mandate that statewide, that's, that's something I'd support, and I think it's great.

149. 0:47:16

     I just, that's, that's nowhere on my radar screen.

150. 0:47:22

     Any further comments or questions?

151. 0:47:27

     Seeing none, we have no one signed up to speak. Uh, Chairman would entertain a motion.

152. 0:47:35

     Mr. Chairman, make motion do pass.

153. 0:47:38

     We've got a-

154. 0:47:39

     Second

155. 0:47:39

     ... got a motion and a second do pass. Any discussion? Yeah. Senator Howard, go ahead.

156. 0:47:47

     This is the appropriate time to offer an amendment in line 10, say January 1st, uh, 2030.

157. 0:47:55

     Line 10. You'd, you'd need to do that on, um- Line 10 ... 15 as well. Line 15. Yeah.

158. 0:48:05

     10, 12, yeah, everywhere it says 2028, it'd be 2030.

159. 0:48:13

     Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's discussion. I, I would, I would object to that. I wouldn't call that a friendly amendment. I, I do think it's, it does move the ball forward for us, but I think, I think 28's the better choice. So I would just ask the committee to consider that.

160. 0:48:24

     Um, yeah, and I agree with the author. I think, you know, as far as trying to time, you know, partisan politics, that's what we're trying to get off the school board, so.

161. 0:48:32

     Is there a second?

162. 0:48:34

     Second. We've got a motion and a second. Any discussion?

163. 0:48:40

     All in favor?

164. 0:48:41

     Comment on discussion.

165. 0:48:43

     Go ahead.

166. 0:48:43

     Um, I, I believe, I believe this amendment will help clear a cycle of, um, all seven members, so it won't come across as a targeted, um, vote. We have a 2026 election, 2028 election. All seven board members would have their elections, and 2030 would be a fresh start. Um, if we start in 2028, it would look very much so targeted to the three Republi- who are now Republicans on the school board.

167. 0:49:14

     So 2030 gives that, uh, that, that time where it can have a whole cycle for all seven board members, so thank you for your consideration.

168. 0:49:23

     Mr. Chairman, to, to the gentleman's question, um, if we roll in a nonpartisan school board in 2028, um, we become nonpartisan two years sooner. If we wait two years longer, it's gonna stretch out. It's, it's gonna leave partisan politics in it two years longer. I, I don't think... I, I personally think, um, doing it as soon as we can do it in an organized, credible way, the better. But, 'cause I don't think we need to, again, we, I think we've seen the benefits of that within our county, um, but I don't wanna rush it.

169. 0:49:56

     That, so I feel like '28, we can do it in an organized way, but not waste two, two years. That's, that's all.

170. 0:50:04

     All right, we've got a motion and a second on the amendment. All in favor, raise your hand. All opposed. Amendment fails. We'll take up the underlying bill, uh, working off of LC 473980. We've got a motion do pass and a second. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed?

171. 0:50:29

     Passes. Oh.

172. 0:50:30

     Quorum.

173. 0:50:32

     And I'll make a motion do pass.

174. 0:50:35

     Mr. Chairman, what was that vote? I didn't-

175. 0:50:38

     Four to four with eight coops.

176. 0:50:40

     I, I voted too, Mr. Chair. There, there's 11 there.

177. 0:50:44

     Oh, that one.

178. 0:50:45

     Oh.

179. 0:50:46

     Thank you.

180. 0:50:46

     So you didn't need to vote. No.

181. 0:50:47

     Thank you.

182. 0:50:48

     Show where it's at, I guess

183. 0:50:54

     Now moving on to, uh, Senate Bill, uh, 584.

184. 0:51:01

     Senator Burns.

185. 0:51:12

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee. I bring you Senate Bill 584. We're running, uh, working on LC443474. Is that correct?

186. 0:51:24

     Correct.

187. 0:51:25

     Uh, this is a bill about fees, about service fees. It's about the viability of fees in local government. So a city or a county having the ability to identify a need to provide a service and then to collect a fee for delivering the service. Uh, we use fees extensively in Georgia to provide essential services, fire fees, trash fees, storm water fees, EMS fees, 911 fees.

188. 0:52:03

     Even some counties have utilities where they charge for water or sewer or gas. So fee for service is not a new concept. Recently, counties have undergone, uh, aggressive legal action against the use of a fee for fire service. And these counties, uh, multiple of them are in my district, in the 23rd Senate district. So Emanuel County, Johnson County, Screven County's being sued, Jenkins is under threat, McDuffie County, Chatham County, the gentleman from I-16, Port Wentworth, J- um, Walker County, Richmond Hill, Bryan County.

189. 0:52:51

     So the challenge we have is we need clarity. We need to be able to clarify whether or not a fee for service is a viable approach to providing an essential service. Um, a fee is transparent. The, the, the f- individual who's assessed the fee receives a service for the fee.

190. 0:53:21

     If the service is inadequate, they have the opportunity to challenge that. It's a fair approach, and it generates resources that are necessary. So the specifics that I want to talk about are fire fees. Fire service fees, uh, in Scr- in Emanuel County, Georgia began in 2018. In 20- or 2019, they were $30 per property, um, plat. It was a flat fee. And that fee has been challenged in court because they say it's inequitable.

191. 0:53:57

     And the challenge is not the $30, the challenge is the fact that the suit claims to be rep- to represent all property owners in, or all of, uh, individuals, taxpayers assessed with this fee as a class. And so instead of $30, it becomes $1.1 million. Excuse me, $1.4 million. Forcing the county government to negotiate a settlement of over $650,000.

192. 0:54:30

     64% of which went to the attorney who filed the suit. 36% went to, eventually, the individuals who were a part of the class. Indeed, in some cases, the individuals received less money for their claim than they had paid in fees. And when the fee was shifted to a ad valorem tax, they actually paid more money in ad valorem tax than they would for their fee.

193. 0:55:02

     So at the end of the day, the way we would hope to address the challenge is to require that individ- any taxpayer, any property owner, anyone assessed a fee for service, they could seek recourse if they felt that that fee was inappropriate, but it could not be combined with other similar individuals in a class. So if you'll look at, uh, Senate Bill 584,

194. 0:55:33

     the, the, the significant change is at the end of the bill, line 76 and 77. Simply states, "A class action or suit for refund shall not be submitted or maintained by the taxpayer on behalf of a class of, of, of a class consisting of other taxpayers." So if we have a, a single individual who felt that the fee was inappropriate, then they could seek recourse, but they could not seek recourse on behalf of other taxpayers.

195. 0:56:10

     I have a, a number of individuals here that can explain the challenge much more than I can, and I'd like to invite, uh, Aaron Myers to join me here and share with the committee the challenge that he's faced. He represents my home county of Screven as well as Walker County. So Aaron, share with the committee the challenge that we face in Georgia.

196. 0:56:31

     All right. Hey, good afternoon. Uh, my name is Aaron Myers. I'm an attorney. I'm a partner with the law firm Gerard and Davis. I've been, uh, practicing in the local government area for the past 13 years, almost exclusively dealing with tax matters and finance matters. I've seen the development of the law with respect to, uh, ad valorem taxes, ad valorem tax refund claims over several years. Uh, I've had a few appellate cases in the same, uh, genre, and, uh, it's with that background, uh, that I'm currently representing two counties as defendants in these class action tax refunds.

197. 0:57:12

     So I, I briefly wanted to explain, uh, why I, I believe that, that we're seeing a, a recent, uh, uptick in the amount of class action tax refund claims, and why a bill like this might be necessary, uh, and, and to sort of explain why I believe that this, uh, dovetails with what Senator Burns described as the underlying issue is about being able to charge fees for services. So just very briefly, uh, forty-eight five three eighty is the code section that allows for ad valorem tax refunds.

198. 0:57:47

     That has been the law of the land for, for, uh, I would say about twenty-five years. Uh, up until about fifteen years ago, uh, it had been understood by the Supreme Court of Georgia that class action tax refunds were not even permitted under that code section because the prior interpretation had been sovereign immunity prevents any claim unless the claim is specifically waived by statute. And, and the court at that time said there isn't a specific waiver for a class action.

199. 0:58:18

     Uh, several years later, the court reversed itself and said, "We, we've changed our minds. Class actions are now permitted." About three years ago, uh, the Court of Appeals, uh, fundamentally changed the law further or had a new interpretation further. Uh, the code section forty-eight five three eighty pretty clearly says that the, the refund claim can be for up to three years. It says the counties and cities shall refund taxes within three years. The Court of Appeals recently, whether three years ago, held that that actually means five years.

200. 0:58:50

     You can go back five years now. And, uh, so, so that-- those two decisions fundamentally changed the risk profile that local governments face. You know, taxation fees, this is what allows local governments to actually operate and provide the services that they do on a daily basis, and this class action mechanism, uh, is, is, uh, in the wrong hands, very dangerous. Uh, and so what we're seeing right now with these fire fees is the fundamental problem with class actions against a government on behalf of the entire tax base.

201. 0:59:25

     Uh, say, for example, you're a plaintiff's attorney, you're, you're writing up a lawsuit, you say, "We're, we're going to bring a class action. Uh, we seek a tax refund of all fire fees paid in Walker County over the past five years, uh, and I'm gonna represent the entire class of people who, who both paid that fee, and they're simultaneously the people who are going to have to cut a check for the refund amount." The plaintiffs and the people on the hook for the liability are one and the same.

202. 0:59:57

     That's inevitable whenever you have a class action lawsuit where the entire class of taxpayers is identical to the, uh, to the entire class of proposed plaintiffs. Uh, the, the other issue here is when we're dealing with a service like fire protection, that can be as much as twenty-five to, uh, thirty-three, thirty-five percent of a local government's operating budget between operations and capital costs.

203. 1:00:27

     So when you reach back five years through a tax refund claim, you're essentially taking over a full year's amount of revenues from the county in a single year if, if there were a judgment holding, uh, that the, the tax was wrongly levied. Uh, so you, you have to-- if you're the county, you, you're now facing a situation where if you lose the lawsuit, uh, in a, in a single stroke, you need a hundred and twenty-five percent of your prior revenues right now.

204. 1:00:59

     Uh, you're gonna cut a check to, uh, uh, for the, the loss in litigation. At least forty percent of that is going to get taken by plaintiff's class counsel. You're gonna be left with sixty percent to be distributed among the taxpayers. The taxpayers are then going to have to pay an increased tax that year to fund the refund check they just got sixty percent of. Uh, that's a fundamental injustice, and it's only-- something like that can only be cured, in my view, by eliminating the ability to bring a class action, uh, per se for these tax refund claims.

205. 1:01:39

     And then just briefly to talk about Senator Burns', uh, opinion, uh, about this a-and how it relates to the underlying fee issue. Uh, back in the 1976 Constitution and, and leading up to that, there were many studies. Some of you may have been familiar with this. There was a fundamental change in the relationship between the state and local government. So the home rule amendments were passed. Local governments no longer had to come to the legislature every year and get a specific local law authorizing, uh, for example, a fee for fire services.

206. 1:02:15

     Uh, because at the time, prior to that 1976 Constitution, uh, there were only certain services that could be funded with ad valorem taxes, and any deviation from that required a special local law. Uh, and obviously, the legislature has better things to do each year than give, uh, every local government the authority to charge a specific fee for a specif-specific service. So as part of that 1976 amendment, you had the, uh, the special districts clause was added.

207. 1:02:47

     That special districts clause says each local government by resolution can create a new tax district within its boundaries, and it can use fees, assessments, or taxes to fund the service that it's providing. So local governments across the state have been operating within that mechanism for Decades. Uh, I, I daresay since 1976. And it's been the common understanding within the local government, uh, and local government finance community that this was the type of activity that was perfectly allowed, if not the express intent of the legislature when that constitution was changed.

208. 1:03:26

     Uh, there, with this recent up- uh, uh, increase of class action tax refunds, we have had a, a breed of these claims specifically targeting the fire fees. And, uh, a year ago I would've told you, uh, those should be dead on arrival because I understood the history and the context of the special districts clause. But regardless of the outcome, as these happen, uh, as these progress through the court system, uh, what you actually see is very complex, very expensive litigation.

209. 1:04:00

     And when local governments are facing the prospect of having to, to issue a refund check equal to 125% of their prior year's total revenues, that's a very intimidating thought. Uh, it costs them a lot of money in, in defense and, you know, right now, uh, as I said, I'm representing two counties, so it's, it's almost, uh, uh, antagonistic to my interest to be saying, "Put me out of work on these class actions." Uh, but I, I do believe this is the kind of thing that isn't a productive use of taxpayer money.

210. 1:04:32

     And even if these claims were to succeed, many more people would be hurt rather than benefit. So I fully support, uh, SB584 and would urge the, uh, committee to pass it.

211. 1:04:44

     Thank you. Senator Mallow?

212. 1:04:48

     Absolutely. Uh, to the author of the bill and to you, uh, the attorney representing several, uh, counties, and my colleagues may be shocked to hear this, but I'm adam- adamantly opposed to local, uh, and county governments collecting fees that are taxes. Uh, and so my question then becomes, um, we have the local option sales tax. Do any of those counties use a local option sales tax in which in their service delivery they say, "We offer fire service, fire protection," and then come back and charge their constituents a fire fee at the same time?

213. 1:05:21

     Yeah. So the local option sales tax bylaw is a- automatically rolled back against the millage rate. It can't be used to fund any particular service. So it goes to-

214. 1:05:30

     It goes into the general fund.

215. 1:05:31

     It goes to general fund.

216. 1:05:32

     Absolutely. It goes into the general fund, and that's my question. So when you deal with these fire fees or stormwater fees, uh, they are prescribed by the manner that, depending on how your commission or council is set up, you can raise that fee at any time. But taxpayers don't necessarily see any relief in challenging that. Um, and you don't have to have a public hearing for, uh, a fee. You just raise the fee, and people have no choice but to pay it. So what is the recourse for the taxpayer, and we've heard in this building that property taxes are sky-high, other than suing a city or county to say, "Don't charge the fee.

217. 1:06:09

     I don't want the fee," but you all have kept the fee instituted? I mean, wouldn't it also make sense that you just wouldn't charge the fee at all if you have this overwhelming majority of folks that say, "We don't want it"?

218. 1:06:20

     I think that's, that's a great question. And, uh, I think fundamentally you have to decide is, uh, are we going to allow local governments, uh, and their democratically elected representatives to make the decision, are we going to fund this fee or fund this service with a fee or with an ad valorem property tax? And I, uh, I fundamentally believe if you disagree with whether the service is being funded with a fee or a tax, that needs to be a decision that's made as part of the, uh, electoral process.

219. 1:06:53

     If the fee is too high, that's also a political question. If a fee is miscalculated, that's the type of thing that an individual can, uh, resolve through 48-5-380 as we're contemplating it, removing the class action component. And I can tell you after working with local governments for so many years, if, if an individual were to identify a, a true miscalculation, a systematic issue, I would imagine the local government would correct that on their own pretty quickly.

220. 1:07:26

     Uh, but what, what's at issue in these is a fundamental difference in opinion about whether or not the, the local government can charge a fee. So you, you've got your elected representatives who decide that a fee system is appropriate. There is a political way to change that. But rather than going through the political process, there's a legal attack, and that legal attack is costly for everyone across the board. And even if the pr- if, if the challenger succeeded, uh, the relief isn't going to be passed on to the taxpayer.

221. 1:08:00

     Most of that is going to go to the attorneys who are sort of s- stirring up the sentiment against the fees.

222. 1:08:08

     Um, my final question would be, uh, when cities and counties engage in the special local option sales tax, uh, and they park those funds in an account that usually bears interest, uh, there's no obligation under that law that they have to roll back the millage rate from that, those f- funds earning interest which the taxpayer has. And so what I find is duplicitous for cities and counties who say, "We are gonna fund firetrucks in our general fund, but also we're gonna have a fire fee. But also we got those, uh, firetrucks budgeted in the SPLOST ballot, and we're gonna pay for those out of SPLOST, and then we just created budget savings," where the taxpayer does not necessarily see a rollback of the millage rate.

223. 1:08:45

     Um, and so I just feel that that is somewhat disingenuous from both cities and counties on this issue, um, at this time.

224. 1:08:55

     Mr. Smith.

225. 1:08:55

     I think... May I?

226. 1:08:56

     Oh, go ahead.

227. 1:08:57

     Mr. Chairman. I think the fundamental question is, is a tax the appropriate technique to utilize to re- to receive the resources necessary for a service, or is a fee a more appropriate approach? Now, I would suggest that on a county-by-county basis, some counties might do it better than others, but at the end of the day, uh, a fee is a transparent mechanism by which we deliver essential services. I'm gonna, I'm gonna go to, uh, 911. Uh, what, what do you pay every month on your, on your, um, mobile telephone or on your home phone if you have one left?

228. 1:09:39

     So you're paying a fee for access to 911 services. Is that not true?

229. 1:09:46

     Uh, Senator, while that may absolutely be true, we don't pay the same fee to have a police service, for example, and that is an essential function of government, and both of those are es- essential functions of government, in my opinion, and are levied through the millage rate process. So it should be, uh, handled as a tax so that the taxpayer can understand that, they can show up to public hearing and provide that. But when we're talking about the specifics to a fee for such a large service, well, if my city or county doesn't provide fire service, then my insurance rate goes up because based on the ISO rating of that fire department-

230. 1:10:20

     Right

231. 1:10:20

     ... will reflect what I'm insured. So if it's about protecting the citizen and the homeowner, then it should be an ad valorem tax, so that way we can prescribe the manner for this.

232. 1:10:30

     Uh, uh, if I may, Mr. Chair.

233. 1:10:31

     Through public hearing.

234. 1:10:32

     Well, Madam Chair, I think, I think part of the challenge is not every fire has the same risk level. So if I have raw land, raw land does not burn. Crops burn. Structures burn. Various, various types of structures have different risk levels, but my point is, not every taxpayer, not every ad valorem taxpayer receives the same level of benefit. That's why a fee is a more appropriate mechanism to provide essential services.

235. 1:11:07

     Thank you.

236. 1:11:08

     Go ahead, Mr. Webb.

237. 1:11:09

     Yes. You know, I go to church every Sunday, and I pray, and sometimes I don't feel I see results out of it, but having one of my Democratic friends in the Senate speaking like a fiscal Republican makes me believe that maybe some of my prayers are getting through. Um-

238. 1:11:28

     Mr. Chairman

239. 1:11:28

     ... but how do we make sure that the citizens who get up and go to work every day and don't have time to go to county commission meetings every week or month, however oft- however often they're had, how do we make them aware of the fact that their fees, property taxes, and other things charged on them are not being commingled and being used for the same thing? And, uh, a p- point of clarification, the 911 fee on the cell phones is used to support 911.

240. 1:11:59

     Right.

241. 1:12:00

     But if that fee should go away, 911 would still be there. There would just have to be another funding source to do that. I'm a little concerned that, um, with the look at the rate of property tax increases throughout the state, that counties still feel comfortable coming out and layering a fee on top and saying it is for a particular service that many of the citizens feel should have already been included or have been led to believe in the past were included in their property taxes. So where is their recourse if we take away this particular, uh, opportunity?

242. 1:12:35

     I, I think at the end of the day, uh, the voters make the decision. So if a county commission is excessive in their, uh, or aggressive in their mechanism for collecting fees and they're not delivering the appropriate services and they're not maintaining tax rates at the appropriate level, I think that the voters have to make that choice. I will suggest that, uh, the fee is at least transparent. You know what it is on an annualized basis, and you know what it's supposed to be providing. So the service is defined, the fee is defined, and it's, it's known.

243. 1:13:08

     I would suggest that if you put it in a ad valorem tax bill, that's goes into a general fund, and you have no transparency, and I would suggest that there's a significant documentation about the use of fees. So in the Emanuel County case, they documented extensively the use of their fire service fee, and it only was used for equipment, for vehicles, for training, for a new, uh, fire station in, in underserved areas to reduce the ISO rating, fire service rating, to reduce the property owner's ultimate insurance tax burden.

244. 1:13:46

     So I would suggest that at the end of the day, it'll be up to the voter to determine whether or not the county commission is effectively managing both their tax revenue and their service fee revenue.

245. 1:13:59

     Would your legislation, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman-

246. 1:14:01

     Sure

247. 1:14:01

     ... is it not true that your legislation would prohibit the ability for someone to file a class action suit, correct?

248. 1:14:07

     It would prohibit individuals from joining other individuals, and I think one of the things I think you need to recognize is if you allow class action, many of the, uh, parties that would be a part of the class are not even aware that they may be a part of a class. It's all taxpayers or it's all property owners or it's all some group, and the interesting portion about that is-

249. 1:14:28

     So, so do we punish them for their ignorance?

250. 1:14:30

     No. No, but I want to point out the fact that the benefit to those individuals can be negative. So they may be a part of a group where indeed their cost of, of, uh, the service goes up because their ad valorem tax is greater than the service fee. Recognize that most service fees are nominal. We're talking $30 a month, in some cases, 10.

251. 1:14:55

     And, and nominal is subjective-

252. 1:14:57

     Subjective

253. 1:14:57

     ... as to who, who the money's coming out of.

254. 1:14:59

     True.

255. 1:14:59

     I've, I, I know some people $30 is, is, is-

256. 1:15:03

     Significant

257. 1:15:04

     ... pretty good. $30 is, or groceries. Um, but so not having the, the tool of a class action suit, then do we encourage the ... And do you think the counties and municipalities are easily absorbed if multiple groups of citizens go and file individual, uh, legal actions against the counties to challenge the fee versus property tax model that we seem to currently have?

258. 1:15:29

     I think individuals always have the right to seek recourse if they feel-

259. 1:15:32

     My question is, do you think that would be a better tool?

260. 1:15:35

     I think it is an effective tool. I think it is w- a long-standing effective tool. Is it better or worse? I think that depends on the situation.

261. 1:15:43

     There's still the legal cost to the county or the municipality. Would that be correct?

262. 1:15:46

     Uh, yes, but they would not be subject to significant, um, damages. For example-

263. 1:15:53

     Well, no, sir

264. 1:15:53

     ... Cha-

265. 1:15:53

     Instead of, instead of their attorney working on a case involving 500 residents, their attorney would work on 500 individual cases.

266. 1:16:02

     That's possible-

267. 1:16:03

     Right

268. 1:16:04

     ... but I would suggest that in Chatham County's case, it's a $40 million challenge, and if Chatham County were to be held, uh, that the fee was not appropriate, 60%, roughly, of that would go to attorneys, and 40% of that would go to the taxpayers of Chatham County, which they would then have to increase taxes to pay.

269. 1:16:26

     And, and Chairman Burns, I, I'm not challenging the impact it would have on the counties.

270. 1:16:31

     Okay.

271. 1:16:31

     That's there. The, but, you know, many times, and many of us, based on our professions, have had more than one lawsuit filed against us.

272. 1:16:38

     Indeed.

273. 1:16:39

     And if we do things wrong, then we are liable for doing things wrong.

274. 1:16:44

     Sure.

275. 1:16:45

     But the courts determine what's right and wrong, the attorney in the black robe. And so I'm just concerned that we don't take anything away from someone that gives them the opportunity to have due process in a civil setting. And so I, I do appreciate you.

276. 1:17:00

     Thank you.

277. 1:17:00

     Appreciate your legislation.

278. 1:17:01

     Thank you.

279. 1:17:02

     Senator, could I briefly address that?

280. 1:17:04

     Absolutely. Yes, sir.

281. 1:17:05

     Okay.

282. 1:17:05

     If it's okay with the chair?

283. 1:17:07

     Yeah.

284. 1:17:07

     Okay. Um, the, w- what I see, y- y- you asked if it's, if it's better, uh, a- and I would say that the, the current system is not the better way to address these issues, a- and it's not better because-

285. 1:17:22

     And when you say the current system, you're talking about the opportunity to file class action?

286. 1:17:26

     Yes, Senator.

287. 1:17:26

     Okay.

288. 1:17:27

     A- and so I say it's not better because, uh, it, right now the, the debate I'm hearing is should we do fees or should we do taxes? If the local government were to shift to an ad valorem tax system, uh, some of those people would pay less than what they pay for fees as a result. Some people would pay more. And what the, the current system and what we're actually seeing on the ground-

289. 1:17:49

     And real, and real quick, I want to ask you to answer this elementary question. Why would some pay more and some pay less?

290. 1:17:55

     Well, it, some would pay more because, uh, just a- as an example, in, in, uh, let, let's, let's say it's a $30 a year fire fee, and, and that's been-

291. 1:18:05

     Right

292. 1:18:05

     ... very common. Uh, and the local government has set that fee because they've determined that they need, let's say for example, uh, $3.5 million to operate their fire services that year, and when they look at the number of parcels-

293. 1:18:20

     But don't overcomplicate it. Why would some pay more and some pay less?

294. 1:18:23

     W- right. So when, when you, they start with the cost that they need to raise, and then they look backwards to figure out what does the per parcel fee need to be to generate that revenue.

295. 1:18:35

     It's because one-

296. 1:18:36

     And if-

297. 1:18:36

     ... one taxpayer, one citizen, one resident happens to own more, and it would require more resources should there be a, a fire or whatever. Would that be close?

298. 1:18:47

     Yeah, yeah. I, I, that, that's what I was getting at.

299. 1:18:48

     So, so-

300. 1:18:49

     Yeah

301. 1:18:49

     ... so the fact that I own a certain parcel that is larger than my neighbor, I mean, I think that's a responsibility that I should be able to understand, that my fees or, or my property taxes are higher, but that the fees I would pay for a particular service would be higher. I mean, that's expectations. I don't think there is a balance in the fact that somebody who owns hundreds of acres of land and somebody who owns 10 acres of land should walk into it with the one owning the multiple acres thinking that there's some kind of equity between the two there.

302. 1:19:21

     There is an expectations of paying higher prices for if, if something happens, more resources are going to have to be committed to my property than my neighbor's property.

303. 1:19:30

     Well-

304. 1:19:30

     And I think that's reasonable. What I'm trying to say is I'm just trying to get to the civil action of it.

305. 1:19:34

     Mm-hmm.

306. 1:19:34

     What are the citizens' rights for due process should they feel that they are paying duplicative fees, one in the form of a fee and one in the form of property taxes, to get whatever we're talking about, whether it's trash pickup, whether it's fire service, or whatever else?

307. 1:19:52

     Well, so what, what I just understood you to say is what is the taxpayer's li- litigation pathway to make a change that I believe is, is the type of change that they elect representatives to do. Uh, if, if the-

308. 1:20:06

     The very elected representatives who caused this problem.

309. 1:20:09

     But, but it's not a problem-

310. 1:20:10

     Okay

311. 1:20:10

     ... from everyone's perspective.

312. 1:20:12

     Right.

313. 1:20:12

     From, from ... And, and, and so I, I think fundamentally it's a question of is this the type of thing that, that we're gonna, uh, let local representatives at, at the local level, is this a decision that we're going to let them make? Uh, should we fund fire services with a fee or fire services with a property tax? Um, right now the, the way the Constitution was written, this was a decision local elected county commissioners should be able to make, but this class action component lets a single taxpayer attack that through the court system at great cost to everyone else and to bring in a lot of people who potentially like the fee system into plaintiffs and to fund this whole endeavor.

314. 1:20:58

     Do ... Have, has the court found against counties?

315. 1:21:01

     It is found in favor, and it is found against. That's part of the problem.

316. 1:21:04

     Okay. Once you've ... So there is case law-

317. 1:21:07

     Yes

318. 1:21:08

     ... where the county was held liable for this model.

319. 1:21:09

     There's also case law where it's upheld. It's upheld.

320. 1:21:12

     I, no, I understand.

321. 1:21:13

     Okay.

322. 1:21:13

     But there's, there's case law, so, so that determination-

323. 1:21:16

     But, but-

324. 1:21:16

     ... has been made by the courts. Is that not correct?

325. 1:21:17

     That's not true. That's not true.

326. 1:21:18

     Okay.

327. 1:21:18

     There, there is no case law establishing that. The, the case law, uh-

328. 1:21:22

     Was it, were these p- were these settlements?

329. 1:21:25

     No. The, they're in- Chatham County, there, there was, uh, a case that went up on summary judgment with facts that are unique to Chatham County, and that particular judge found, uh, against the county in that. But I would say that, that wasn't a finding that declares as a matter of law that the fee system can never be utilized for fire services. So, so there is no case law-

330. 1:21:46

     But, but, but particularly, the judge found something, correct?

331. 1:21:48

     It... Well, he did find something, but-

332. 1:21:50

     Would, would that not be case law?

333. 1:21:52

     Well, no, n- because it's not binding precedent. A- as I understand case law, case law establishes precedent for more than just one particular case at the superior court level.

334. 1:22:01

     But it can be, but it can be referenced. It can be referenced by another, uh, case in another county. To go back to Chatham County, if the same circumstances exist that existed in Chatham County that the judge found to be improper, correct?

335. 1:22:15

     It would, yes.

336. 1:22:16

     Okay.

337. 1:22:16

     Under those very specific facts.

338. 1:22:18

     Yep. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.

339. 1:22:20

     If, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Clarke County, uh, had a stormwater fee assessed recently, and it was upheld in courts. McDuffie County had a fire service fee, uh, adjudicated in the courts, and it was upheld. So part of the challenge we have is we have some inconsistencies in whether or not a fee for service is a fundamental way in which communities can fund essential services. What we're looking for is to seek relief from the county from having to deal with a class action as they work through the fee challenge.

340. 1:22:58

     But in having the, having the fees determined in Clarke and others were done through this particular tool, where there were class action lawsuit filed-

341. 1:23:05

     There were-

342. 1:23:06

     And, and-

343. 1:23:06

     In, in, in McDuffie, I'm sure of, I need to check on Clarke, but I know in McDuffie County, um, they, they were challenged-

344. 1:23:13

     Were there, were there attorneys, were there attorney fees awarded back to the county, or, or-

345. 1:23:17

     I would have to check with the-

346. 1:23:18

     Okay. Thank you

347. 1:23:18

     ... with the county on that.

348. 1:23:21

     Senator Setzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I appreciate the author's, um, attention to these kind of issues, and I think you, you've shown a, a great, great, uh, skill at being able to delve into hard, complex things and wrestle with them. I'm gonna lay a couple things out, then I'm gonna ask a question. I believe fees should be possible as a mechanism to fund government. To your point, I think, think, I think, I think it's a mech- it's a tool. I also believe that if a fee is represented to, um, fund, getting back to the, the questions from the senator from the second, I agree.

349. 1:23:58

     If, if, if the, if a fee is char- is levied for, uh, an item, and then there's sort of double-dipping over here in the general fund, and it's sort of being double-funded, there's almost, it's, it's almost a... I won't say it's a fraud. It's certainly, it's a misrepresentation of, of the facts, and I think there's a wa- that the citizens ought to have a mechanism to do that that's beyond just saying, "Well, solve it at the ballot box." The problem, I mean, the ballot box solves some things, but there, th- there, there is, there are many things, when you think about the nature of, Mr. Chairman, uh, this is my, my question, the nature of concentrated benefits, decentralized costs.

350. 1:24:33

     I mean, the governments, government employees, agencies are, they're, they're, they, they have an interest in funding their operation. They believe in their mission. They're gonna find ways to do that. To say that, um, taxpayers who might have an incremental im- im- impact on them is, are gonna be motivated to go fight that individually, it's just not always realistic. That's why class actions as a mechanism are so useful, because class actions get at that, hey, there's the, the, the cost to the individual may be kind of small, but as a collective, it's a lot of money, so someone needs to lead that effort.

351. 1:25:05

     It's hard to have the 500 cases. So I love the, the use of class action when it's appropriate, but I also believe in, in fees as a mechanism. So what I want to get to is, this, this is really my question, is if I believe fees ought to be available as a mechanism, but I also believe that class action are, are, are an important mechanism from time to time. If something's being misrepresented, there ought to be an ability to go hold government accountable beyond just the ballot box. Is cla- is eliminating class action the way to do this?

352. 1:25:36

     Or is there another mechanism by which we need to affirm the ability to use fees without taking away citizens' collective r- r- rights through class action to hold government accountable to use them properly? 'Cause I, I'm just not sure that eliminating the class action tool is the way to solve this problem.

353. 1:25:53

     Yeah. Uh, my answer to that would be this was the solution chosen for the State of Georgia. There, there is a law that specifically prohibits class action tax refunds against the State of Georgia, and I believe that the rationale was the same rationale that I gave here, is, is that's the wrong tool for the job. When you lump in a lot of people and say, "We're all collectively going in together," and some of those people may not willingly join.

354. 1:26:19

     Is, is, is there, excuse me, is there an ability to do a, a declaratory judgment on the back side of it? With that judgment, we get paid. I mean, uh, 'cause to me, if, if there's a, there's a DEC action you can file that you have standing for, that has behind it teeth to pay people back their dollars, that may be an efficient way to do it. I'm, I'm looking for a judicially efficient way for an individual citizen who's too dang busy to do this to get fair treatment from the government.

355. 1:26:45

     A- and that was gonna be my point, too, is, i- is it is a DEC action, and there is a recognized standard that the courts have applied in this particular context, and we're talking about taxes that the government did not have the legal authority to levy. The, the courts have already recognized this type of relief, where step one is they go in DE- DEC action and argue to the court that the county or city did not have the legal authority to do this. The court says, "I agree," and before I make the local government relinquish all of the, the ill-gotten gains, the courts go through a recognized, uh, process to determine, was this clearly established at the time, and is there some other overriding injustice that that kind of order would do?

356. 1:27:32

     Do the waivers of sovereign immunity exist in statute to do that? Or do we need to give a specific waiver of sovereign immunity for that kind of DEC action to happen so citizens can recover without a class action? And I don't kn- and I, and I don't know why class action's a dirty word. Maybe it's not the right tool. But I'm just saying, is, is, is this, is there specific authority that citizens can say, "Hey, there, there's a, there's a declaratory judgment mechanism that you can specifically follow to get actual money back"?

357. 1:28:01

     So to, to that point, here, let, let me just go the, the clearest way that, that I could. A taxpayer goes through the declaratory judgment path. They get an order declaring that the county never had the authority to levy the type of tax that they were levying. Right? At the end of the day, you have a superior court order saying, "The county was not authorized to do this. That was illegal." Every single taxpayer at that point who wants to get their refund can, can line up and say, "Under 48-5-380, I'm entitled to a refund for any illegal taxes.

358. 1:28:37

     The court has already said it's illegal. I'll take my refund now, please." That would be a direct path for every single taxpayer to get the relief without this class action mechanism, and this class action mechanism really is the problem. I, I understand the, how class actions help, uh, i- in a lot of situations. Let's say a, a company hurts everybody by a penny, and they're doing something wrong that needs to change. The only way that's gonna change is through a class action. But when you're talking about a class action against a local government, it is fundamentally an action against the taxpayers by the taxpayers.

359. 1:29:14

     It's fundamentally different than what we think of in the commercial context.

360. 1:29:21

     Senator Mallow.

361. 1:29:22

     So for the clarification, since you said it's a issue against the taxpayer by the taxpayer. So when you deal with a fire fee versus an ad valorem tax, if a school falls within that fire protection district, that school then pays a fire fee because it is not a tax. Is that not true?

362. 1:29:39

     I think it would be on a case-by-case basis. But it would be possible, I believe.

363. 1:29:44

     That- that's all I needed. So if it would be possible for a taxpayer to have a fire fee and a school be in that district and that school be levied that fee, then is that not again against the same taxpayer that pays the school board taxes? Yes?

364. 1:30:01

     No, no, because when the ta- when the taxpayer pays the school board's taxes, they're not paying for fire protection, they're paying for education.

365. 1:30:07

     They're not, but they pay the county for that service. And if the county has a fee, then they're gonna, essentially, if the fee for, uh, however many schools in the fire protection district, the school district says, "We gotta increase our millage rate to pay this additional fee we didn't know we had to pay," now that's on that same taxpayer again. And this is the same issue I've dealt with in all of my cities. I represent Fort Wentworth, I represent Garden City, I represent unincorporated, and the City of Savannah just passed a stormwater fee. I agree with none of them because the taxpayers are paying in each jurisdiction over and over and over again, only so what?

366. 1:30:39

     The county kick it off the hook. If it is a fee and it is, in essence, a tax, why not put it in a special services district which allows you the ability to tax it in SSD and tax the prescribed people within that jurisdiction for that fee only?

367. 1:30:53

     Be- because in, in s- and, and just to be clear, all of these are in a special service district. And the, the reason that it wouldn't be done on an ad valorem basis across the board is because in 1976, the Constitution was amended because in some cases, it shouldn't be done on an ad valorem basis. And who decides whether it should or shouldn't? Well, it's the people that are elected to make those kinds of decisions for the local government.

368. 1:31:21

     And then the only recourse for the taxpayer is to wait four years until an election when the government could've been charging them for the last four years, and then they can elect someone else, and then they abolish the fee or do away with it. So that's the only recourse for the taxpayer.

369. 1:31:36

     And I don't want to give the wrong impression here. Uh, I don't like paying taxes or fees at all. The question is, are we going to have taxes and fees imposed upon us by our elected officials, or are we going to have a system where a couple of clever plaintiffs' attorneys can get together and essentially have their own tax on the taxpayers through these class actions? And, and it is a tax. Uh, take, take one of my clients, for example. When, when the attorney absconds, if, if he wins and he absconds with 40% of 125% of the county's revenues over the past year, that money leaves the county.

370. 1:32:14

     And who paid for it? It's the taxpayers. This, these class actions are a tax on the taxpayers without their consent.

371. 1:32:21

     And my last question, Mr. Chairman. Does not the judge in that judicial circuit set the amount that that plaintiff's attorney would recover from that class action? Is that not true?

372. 1:32:31

     The, the judge wouldn't have unlimited discretion, and in most cases, they're bound to follow industry norms. And unfortunately, the industry norm in a class action is gonna be anywhere but from 30 to 50% i- is what the judge is going to award in that case.

373. 1:32:47

     So industry norm and case law. There's no case law, so what industry norms are we following? Are they out-of-state industry norms?

374. 1:32:55

     No, the- these are local. In a hearing like this where, where the court is deciding how much of the, the total refund amount should go to the attorney, what they are going to look at is what other similar courts in Georgia have done in similar cases with class actions. And in all of these class actions, it's going to be somewhere between 30 to 50%. That's the tax that the taxpayer is paying to have these cases brought on their behalf. And at least half of those taxpayers were better off under the fee system than they were under the ad valorem system.

375. 1:33:30

     So to answer the majority whip's question, there is case law to support what we've been talking about this whole time.

376. 1:33:35

     No, no, no. You, that was just on your question about how we decide how much of money goes to the attorneys for their attorney's fees.

377. 1:33:43

     This takes some, takes some, takes some practice.

378. 1:33:48

     As one of the bad guys sitting on the panel, I am a plaintiff's attorney, so I'll give you that counsel. And I'm just surprised at the conversation from the senator from the second as well as the, the whip over there. They, they, uh, surprising me in where they're standing. But it, it appears to me that we're conflating two issues. One, uh, whether or not you wanna be able to do a fee versus a tax, and whether you can have some type of legislation, as my distinguished counsel from, I mean, my colleague from Cobb County was trying to say.

379. 1:34:24

     Uh, if you wanna charge a fee, can you approach it a different way rather than taking people's rights away? Because you're on the one hand saying, "You can have the right to bring an action, but we only charge you $30." So the average person not gonna ta- have time to go and hire a lawyer for how much per hour to get $30? I mean, and, and you are admitting that there may be a situation where there are ill-gotten gains.

380. 1:34:55

     So, you know, if I'm a smart plaintiff's attorney, I can still just sue you, keep suing you 500 times, and you'll still pay more money, ask the court for attorney's fees because you knew it was wrong and you kept doing it, and you didn't just go ahead and do the right thing. So my i- my, my concern is the approach that you're going after. I'm not even, I'm not taking a position one way or the other about the propriety of a fee versus a tax. But I do agree you can't do- Both.

381. 1:35:28

     You can't go over there and say, um, "I sat on the DeKalb splash bo- board." You can't go over here and pay for it over here in this fund, and then you go get, uh, get some on this fund, and you're not giving, reducing the millage rate. You're, you're double-dipping and triple-dipping. So if you are transparent to the citizens with some type of mechanism that says, "A fee is legal under these circumstances," where you agree not to take and commingle from other sources so that you will be in line with whatever the court ...

382. 1:36:04

     Because there's some court that said you were wrong. That's why you gotta give 40%. Now, in this exam- In fact, how much money was involved when you said the attorney got 40% of this, and, and you said administrative fees were-

383. 1:36:17

     5%

384. 1:36:17

     ... were, uh, 24%?

385. 1:36:22

     I believe that's Johnson County. Is that correct?

386. 1:36:24

     And how much was the total amount of the amount?

387. 1:36:26

     Well, the ACCG addressed that, Senator. Um-

388. 1:36:31

     The total, what was the total?

389. 1:36:34

     Johnson County, I think, if I remember correctly, it was roughly a million dollars.

390. 1:36:39

     And what was the average fee for each individual?

391. 1:36:41

     It was 10.

392. 1:36:42

     $10?

393. 1:36:44

     I believe it was 10. Again, I, I would have to, to verify that. Um ...

394. 1:36:51

     It, it, it, it appears that with, well, just for the record, I'm trying to say, create a safe harbor, a legal way to take the $10, rather than an illegal way of doing it. And then you're trying to say you're gonna protect yourself by abolishing the rights of a person to bring a cl- bring an action, because they cannot afford to br- hire a lawyer for a $10 recovery. So why not just do the right thing up front and not take people's rights away?

395. 1:37:24

     So I'm, I'm for you having some type of safe harbor to take that $10 legally, up above board, saying you're not doing all the things that Senator from the 2nd stated, or, or from the ... All of the, all of the, all of these reasons that a court will find that you did wrong. Just if you don't do wrong, you may legally charge a fee and take the $10, period.

396. 1:37:57

     You don't need a class action then. You don't need to take away class action ability, because there are poor people. There are people working every day. They don't have time to get off work to go get $10 when it's gonna cost them $30 to miss a day's work. So with all due respect, I hope my distinguished whip and my, some of my other colleagues will help, uh, craft some s- pass a bill that will give you safe harbor to legally do it that does not contravene what is right, 'cause most of the time we know what's right.

397. 1:38:32

     And if in fact the judge has found you to be wrong, unfortunately, in our system, the only way we listen is, is we have to hold the hammer over your head sometimes. And then you'll say, "Okay." You'll do right. So I would support a safe harbor for you to do it. If you want a fee, just be transparent about that versus double-dipping and triple-dipping as the law says you're contravening, versus taking away someone's, I think, the right, uh, to go to court and get your ...

398. 1:39:11

     Justice should not be hampered because you only have a $30 bill when it's gonna cost you more than that to go really get a lawyer. Everybody knows that.

399. 1:39:23

     Senator, respectfully, I think I might be able to change your mind on that. Um-

400. 1:39:28

     I love, I welcome that.

401. 1:39:32

     So I believe what we're talking about here is perfectly legal, right? A- and just follow me along here for a moment. The Special Districts Clause gave local governments the power to create special districts, and it says, "To charge taxes, fees, or assessments within the district to provide the service." So counties and cities all across the state for decades have understood that they had that power to do it. But in these cases, you've got an attorney with a clever argument who says, "But hold on.

402. 1:40:02

     I think we're somewhere in between a tax and a fee, and somewhere in between a fee and an assessment, somewhere between an assessment and a tax. And if I win, you're gonna give me 40% of the last 125% of taxes or fees you collected countywide last year." Is that the kind of system we want to incentive, uh, incentivize, where we're not talking about clearly right or clearly wrong. I've been around local governments a long time, and I don't see a lot of people doing clearly wrong stuff.

403. 1:40:34

     These are being used for driving a wedge in, in areas of law that, that are complex a- and no one ... I mean, for decades people have thought fire fees are completely legal, until suddenly half the state's being sued for them. A- and when I said this a tax, these class actions are a tax, I mean it. Uh, all of these people, whether they want to be involved in the lawsuit or not, are getting named as plaintiffs, and if they win as the plaintiff, they're gonna pay themselves a refund check, minus the 40% that goes to the attorney who challenged this novel theory of law on their behalf, and it costs them money.

404. 1:41:16

     They didn't ask for that. A- and that, respectfully, I would just say class actions do not seem to be a very good tool in this case. The alternative is, if we're dealing with a situation where it's clear right and clear wrong, that is a cheap declaratory judgment action, and a lot of people would bring those, and local governments will follow those orders

405. 1:41:38

     Um, um, I want to end it, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Would you, would you agree with me, counsel, that it is the province of the judiciary to interpret the law, not to make law?

406. 1:41:49

     I wholeheartedly believe that that is how it should operate.

407. 1:41:53

     Well, we are the legislature, and I, what I'm trying to say is create a safe harbor where it's clear that under these circumstances, you may collect this fee. And this body can say, "Collect this fee under these limited circumstances," so that when it does go to court, the court is interpreting this legislative body's intent rather than saying that this is clearly illegal and you gotta pay.

408. 1:42:25

     So that's all I'm suggesting. I am saying there is an alternative approach to this rather than taking away, cutting away my rights to really go after justice by saying I cannot join my neighbor. It's, it's like we're both impacted, so I go to Senator S- Setzler and says, "Ed, I don't have but $50. I need $100, and you're impacted too." So Ed gives me some money. You're, you're violating our right to join together to get justice, and I just think that ...

409. 1:43:00

     I'm, I'm finished. I'm done.

410. 1:43:01

     Thank you, Senator. Senator Ginn.

411. 1:43:04

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could, I, I'm gonna take a, a second and kinda see if I'm on the right page, but the, uh, our, our, our friend, uh, the whip, they, uh, uh, told me that he was talking about Clarke County. Now, I can tell you, I represent about half of Clarke County, and half the, uh, about half of Clarke County is government owned. It's either the, the local government, state government, or the federal government. You start looking at all of the research and things that are done there, one which way.

412. 1:43:35

     Now, I agree with my senator friend from the second that said, you know, "We're all paying into that. Whatever you do," said the, uh, you know, "the government doesn't have any money unless we give it to them," and that's, that, he's exactly right. But the way I'm reading this, the, uh, uh ... I look at my, my colleague to my left here a- as a, a attorney. Basically, when we do a class action suit, that means that everybody that's paying in that fee is gonna have to pay that fee again, said they, 'cause they, they, uh, they cover that cost.

413. 1:44:10

     Am I not correct that ... And, and then the, the class action attorneys r- s- funneled off 40% of it or whatever fee there was, and we're all losing. All, every taxpayer in the state loses when you do that. Am I not correct, uh, Senator Burns?

414. 1:44:24

     I believe the senator's correct.

415. 1:44:25

     The, uh, uh, Mr. Chairman, I, I know some people that came up here from a long way away.

416. 1:44:30

     Yep.

417. 1:44:30

     And I'm gonna ask you to, to, to let's let them, uh, address the subject for us and, and, uh-

418. 1:44:37

     Okay

419. 1:44:37

     ... you know, see what we can do about passing this, this legislation forward.

420. 1:44:41

     And Clarke County was brought up by the chairman.

421. 1:44:44

     And, and you as well.

422. 1:44:45

     Oh, no. I, I, I, I asked you about it.

423. 1:44:48

     I know you did. I, I, I'm keeping up with you there, Mr. Whip.

424. 1:44:51

     Yeah, after he brought it up and gave-

425. 1:44:52

     Look, there hasn't seen a tax they don't like or a fee.

426. 1:44:55

     That's right.

427. 1:44:57

     Very spirited debate. Now we're finally getting on to our, uh, folks that signed up on our sheet. Uh, we got some folks that traveled from a very long way, and very grateful that y'all came here today to give testimony. Uh, first up, we've got Bryant County's, uh, attorney, um, Aaron Kipler.

428. 1:45:14

     Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

429. 1:45:22

     Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with y'all about this issue. My name is Aaron Kipler. I am the Bryan County attorney. I also represent some other jurisdictions in the defense of these class actions. With me is Chairman Carter Infinger, County Administrator Ben Taylor. They're here as well. They drove up from Bryan County too. The debate we just had was on the substance largely on whether or not these fees should be taxes and how they should be assessed.

430. 1:45:53

     That's really not what this bill does. The special districts paragraph of the Constitution authorizes fees, taxes, and assessments to be levied upon special districts to fund local governmental services. Bryan County's fire fee, for instance, is only in un- unincorporated Bryan County. It does not include cities within the county, and it's used solely for the purposes of the fire department. In fact, it doesn't even cover the entire fire department, so there's a shortfall with that. Now, I could talk to y'all for hours about the substance of these cases.

431. 1:46:27

     I could tell y'all ... I'm not going to, Senator, don't worry. I could tell y'all about how if Bryan County were forced to refund these fire fees that are used exclusively for the fire department, Bryan County would have to more than double its millage rate. So the idea of protecting taxpayers, the idea of actually providing tax relief, is not through this mechanism. Because what the difference is, the fundamental difference between a class action and a private context, injured person versus a company, tobacco, cars, or whatever, the car company pays the victims.

432. 1:47:03

     In these cases, the plaintiffs, the class members, are the taxpayers. The payors of the refund are the taxpayers because the only way the counties or cities can fund this is by levying taxes. In fact, the plaintiff's expert that's used in these cases admitted in a deposition that the only way Bryan County would be able to refund the fire fees would be through the issuance of a bond, which of course requires voter approval, or the increase in taxes.

433. 1:47:35

     But we're not really here about the substance It's important, but as the senator said, the courts will figure that issue out. The courts will determine how these things should be assessed. The courts will determine whether or not they're fees, taxes, or something else, and whether or not they're legal. The Constitution already gives that mechanism. I want to talk about the process, because really what this bill does is it changes the procedure in which these types of claims can be brought, and it's really important.

434. 1:48:08

     First point, state law already precludes class actions against the state for tax refunds. The state is already protected from it. The counties and cities are left fending for themselves. It makes no sense that the state would be immune, but the counties and cities are not. It makes no practical sense. And the reason is, the wisdom behind it is what I said a moment ago, that the payors of these refunds or of these fees are the payees of the refund.

435. 1:48:41

     It's the same people. But before you get that refund, you gotta pay that lawyer his contingency fee, and in these cases, it's 40%. So it's literally taking your money from your left pocket, taking out your $100, giving 40 bucks to this lawyer that you did not hire, that you did not select, nor did you negotiate with, and then putting $60 back in your right pocket and calling it a day. And then when you get your tax invoice the next year, it went up, because the only way to fund that thing is by increasing taxes.

436. 1:49:16

     That's the wisdom of it. It makes sense, which is why the General Assembly precluded it against the state. But in addition to representing counties and cities, I'm actually an unwitting class member in one of these cases. I own property in the city limits of a jurisdiction that reached a settlement agreement. I didn't know they reached a settlement agreement. You know how you get those little things in the mail saying, "Hey, there's a class action, and if you wanna be in this, you can do things"? Well, during Christmas break, I was on a Christmas vacation with my family.

437. 1:49:50

     I returned on December 29th, opened my mail. I got a little card in the mail. It says, "Guess what? You are a member of a class." On December 29th, mind you. "You are a member of a class because you own property in the city limits. The deadline for you to object, December 27th." "Failure to object," this notice says, means I'm stuck in the class. It means I have to pay these lawyers 40%, and by the way, look forward to your ad valorem millage rate increase next year.

438. 1:50:24

     That's what I came home from Christmas to. And then, because class procedure is so important, you're supposed to run these legal ads, right? Newspaper is, you know, come and object. Well, guess when the legal ad ran? December 30th. After the objection period ran, after I got my mail notice. Now, I'm a lawyer. I can recognize things when things are wrong, so I filed an untimely objection. That's gonna be litigated with the court, thankfully.

439. 1:50:55

     But here's what we learned in that case. We learned that settlement was $5 million. $5 million. That lawyer was gonna get $2 million, 40%. He worked less than 400 hours on that case. So the taxpayers of that jurisdiction, of which I am one of them, is going to pay that lawyer and his law firm more than $6,000 an hour to force me into a class that I had nothing to do with, nor did I want to be involved in it.

440. 1:51:29

     In fact, unlike typical class actions, consumer class actions, where you have a right to opt out, you can say, "Look, I don't wanna be part of the suit against, you know, General Motors. I wanna sue them myself," these class actions, you can't do that. And do you know why you can't do that? Because the class is every property owner in the county. In fact, the notice says you may not withdraw. You can object if you want to, as long as you get your notice timely, which you do, which you likely will not.

441. 1:51:59

     So the question is, ultimately for this committee and then the Senate and then the House, and then of course the governor, is, is this the right procedure? And I think the senator was asking that question. Is this the right procedure to do this? The answer to that question is no. The best way to challenge tax refunds is for the taxpayer who claims he is aggrieved to bring a claim against the government that took his money. That's what you have to do with the state. That's what you have to do with the federal government.

442. 1:52:30

     That's what you should have to do to the counties and cities also. The debate about whether or not a fee is in being improperly used, the courts will figure that issue out. Whether or not the fees are being properly segregated or double-dipping, courts will figure that out. That's not what this bill does. It simply brings alignment between the counties and cities and the state. That's what this does. Very narrow. That's all it does.

443. 1:52:59

     Thank you.

444. 1:53:00

     Yes.

445. 1:53:00

     Yeah, you got, you got several questions.

446. 1:53:02

     Yes, sir.

447. 1:53:02

     If you'll hang on just a minute. Uh, Mr. Whip?

448. 1:53:04

     Yes, I do not have a question. I have a, a, a appreciation. I appreciate that. As, as we were talking earlier and going back and forth, I think it is important that we look, Mr. Chairman, at the fact that while we all agree that there are opportunities throughout all 159 counties where, uh, the elected officials in those counties may be double-dipping and may be, um, having taxpayers pay for things and moving the money around, as was said, I think the primary thing we do need to focus on, is this the correct tool to use to solve that problem?

449. 1:53:41

     And I think, uh- I think Mr. Kapler has, has expressed very clearly and, and I think in a way I can understand and agree with, that this is not the correct tool for that. But, and if the state of Georgia does appreciate the benefit, then, uh, I don't quite understand why other local governments would not be able to appreciate that same benefit. But that is something that we have to correct down the road. I think as of saying right now, we know it's going on, it's a problem that has to be solved, but this is not the proper tool to solve, and that was...

450. 1:54:14

     I appreciate your, uh, clarity on that. Thank you very much.

451. 1:54:18

     Thank you, Senator. Senator Mallow.

452. 1:54:20

     Absolutely. I'm, uh, thankful for your, your passion. Um, are you, uh, a county attorney that's in-house or do they contract with your firm?

453. 1:54:28

     They contract with my firm. Yes, sir.

454. 1:54:30

     Okay. Uh, and my follow-up question to that is, uh, should you, your firm and the county receive litigation, um, vis-a-vis in a class action, then do you then charge more for that service or do you refer it to ju- different counsel? How does that work?

455. 1:54:49

     No, a great question. I typically handle most of the litigation within the county. Some litigation is referred to insurance counsel i- if insurance is provided. But my hourly rate for governmental services is a negotiated rate substantially lower than my commercial rate, and I do not charge more for litigation or general counsel advice provided to the county.

456. 1:55:09

     So if you were in litigation based on a fire fee, you would then charge your billable hours preparing to litigate-

457. 1:55:16

     Yes, sir

458. 1:55:16

     ... whatever that case is. So it's not waived to the taxpayer 'cause they would essentially be paying that to you as well, right?

459. 1:55:25

     Y- yes, sir. So the taxpayers, of course, do pay, uh, taxes that fund the general fund of the government. Part of that is legal services, which is necessary for, obviously, for counties and cities.

460. 1:55:35

     Uh, and since you've been, uh, the Bryan County attorney, overwhelmingly last year, did Bryan County not approve, uh, the floating local option, float- floating local option sales tax overwhelmingly voter approved and to cap the property taxes for the school board at the same time?

461. 1:55:53

     A- absolutely. Bryan County has devoted significant effort. The county administrator has a very tight fiscal management of the county. The county commission as a whole has voted back to roll back taxes every year for the last 10 years. This litigation would cause nearly doubling the a- the ad valorem millage rate.

462. 1:56:13

     So my, uh, final question is, if a county's rolled back the millage rate year after year and we say as a elected body, we've cut taxes, rolled back the millage rate, but you told me earlier that the fire service is not all the way funded by the fee, so therefore why not just include it in the millage rate and stop giving people false hope and saying, "We're rolling the millage rate back and we're cutting taxes," but you're going up on whatever the fee is, and you said that the fee you collect now is not even enough to fund the service.

463. 1:56:44

     It's not enough to fund the service. Other, so there's other taxes. Again, this is an unincorporated only service, so some counties might provide it county-wide, some cities might do it differently, and Bryan County is unincorporated only, which means you can only use unincorporated revenues. In this case, the fire fee is an unincorporated only revenue. There is no separate ad valorem that Bryan County charges to fund this. It's come from insurance premium taxes and other types of unincorporated only s- uh, revenue sources. So this, the fire protection provided by Bryan County is pr- funded solely through fire fees and that the balance of that is through insurance premium taxes and other unincorporated revenue sources.

464. 1:57:26

     And so the citizens who live in Bryan County but live in Richmond Hill do not bear the benefit of that insurance premium tax that is collected throughout the whole county. They don't get that benefit because it's applied to the fire service district.

465. 1:57:41

     No.

466. 1:57:41

     But they pay city taxes to the City of Richmond Hill that provides them with fire service. But because you have residents that live in a special unincorporated district, they, you've done additional things to help reduce their tax burden, but the folks who live in a city that pay taxes to a city don't necessarily receive that benefit.

467. 1:57:59

     Well, th- I think that's the, the greatness of local government is that when people live in the city, they can elect people to govern themselves for them, and if you don't live in the city, then you, then you are governed by the unincorporated body. And so the residents who live in the city of Richmond Hill, those folks might pay taxes for fire, they might pay taxes for other things that they enjoy that the unincorporated county does not. But anything that's provided by Bryan County and unincorporated only is funded through unincorporated only revenues. So in other words, any taxes, let's say if, say you lived in the city of Richmond Hill.

468. 1:58:33

     Any taxes you pay by virtue of living in the city of Richmond Hill solely because of that fact are not being used by Bryan County to fund the fire department. That's not how it works.

469. 1:58:42

     You just said they use the insurance premium tax, and that's a countywide tax, not specific to unincorporated.

470. 1:58:48

     Well, portions of it are, but not all of it, though.

471. 1:58:51

     Oh, okay. Now it's portions.

472. 1:58:51

     So, so it depends, again, it's how it's budgeted.

473. 1:58:54

     Gotcha.

474. 1:58:54

     And one of the questions earlier was about, well, how do you know and how do you participate in the local government decision-making? Well, the fire fees are part of the annual budget. The budget has public hearings. You, if you don't like the increase or the decrease or whatever it may be, come to the public hearing and say, "Members of the commission, I don't like the fire fee. I think it should cost less." Okay. Maybe it does. But most likely, as we all know, costs go up, equipment's extremely expensive, payroll goes up. We pay our, our firefighters good livable wages, and they wanna get raises.

475. 1:59:25

     So these things cost more on an annualized basis. It's just the nature of the beast, unfortunately.

476. 1:59:32

     Thank you.

477. 1:59:32

     Senator Setzler.

478. 1:59:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, you, you painted a very vivid picture about the, this kind of the, the, the fact that these, the size of these settlements, um, you know, it, you've described the attorney's fees as, as taxes themselves. Let, let's say we follow the, the logic of the bill and, and, and, and add lines seventy-six and seventy-seven. Let's, let's say we follow this approach of, of the offer. Um, if that is the case, I'm, I'm reading lines, uh, twenty-one through twenty-seven of the bill, which is the existing code section forty-eight five three eighty.

479. 2:00:04

     It says, "Each county municipality..." So, so current law says, "Each county municipality shall refund the taxpayers of any and all taxes and license fees which are determined to have been erroneously or illegally assessed and collected."

480. 2:00:16

     Okay.

481. 2:00:16

     It says that. Now, here's the question. Walk me through the process for a citizen, and this is the hard question for you. Walk me through the process for a citizen to build the case, um, get enough evidence to get past summary judgment and into discovery to get the details. I mean, I think we can agree, you gotta get into discovery to pull this out to really be able to build the business case that the dollars here, the dollars here are the same dollars and all that. I mean, you gotta do that. I mean, even at four hundred hours, I mean, four hundred hours at three seventy-five an hour, which is a, not an atypical commercial rate for an attorney, not, not Atlanta attorneys, not the high price folks, but, but working attorneys.

482. 2:00:59

     That's a hundred and two thousand dollars of legal fees. So walk me through the process. Who's the citizen that spends a hundred and fifty thousand dollars in legal fees to... Is it open re- So, so is it open records request? Then you submit that in summary judgment, then you get a discovery. How, walk me through that process that someone's got to go through to make this happen. If you don't have class action as a tool, what does an individual have to put out themselves out of their own dol- o- out of their own dollars and their own expense? I have consi- I have citizens in my own county that have had to spend two hundred thousand dollars to hold my own county accountable.

483. 2:01:32

     The lawlessness of a county to be able to fight their, in fact, to assert they don't have standing, and you have to fight the standing, all these procedural things. Then to get to, to, to build your case, get the discovery. It's a hundred and fifty thousand dollars of, of legal costs. Is that the mechanism you're suggesting we have if class action is taken away?

484. 2:01:52

     So not necessarily. I think what, at least what I've experienced over the last, say, five years, citizen engagement has gone up tremendously. Social media is a way in which people communicate with each other. They build consensus. They build ideas. They come up, uh, where they do open records acts as consolidations almost. You get a lot of information very rapidly on social media. I think we've all experienced that. So if you have a taxpayer who believes that their fire fee is being used improperly, there's, is actually a very simple way to challenge this because whether or not it's a fee, an assessment, or tax is really a legal question.

485. 2:02:31

     It's not much of a factual issue. It's a legal question. And so while yes, you could do discovery and you can noodle around with all that, which, uh, mind you, if, if I may have a quick aside, when you have a class action, the first several years of class litigation ain't on the merits. It's on whether or not it ought to be a class. So you are spending years oftentimes of time and expense determining whether or not they're numerous, superior, common, typical, and so forth.

486. 2:03:01

     And so you're not even getting into whether or not it's a fee, tax, or assessment until years down the road. So that's like number one. But number two is the procedural mechanism or the, the vehicle to challenge something like that is actually quite simple. It's a deck action. It's a deck action against the government alleging they've done something illegally. Uh, the Georgia Constitution already waives sovereign immunity for similar things. There, nothing substantive needs to change to authorize that. It can be done right now. And so the tax refund statute exists. I think it's really intended to be a pretty expeditious process because if you read the statute, like you said, Senator, it says you shall cause these refunds to occur.

487. 2:03:40

     I don't think the statute was ever intended to be this full-blown litigation monstrosity that it has turned into with class actions. Because if it is, if the only way these things are litigated is through class actions, then every tax refund case would be a class action, and that's clearly not the case. Many people bring tax refund claims on an individual basis. Otherwise, they, they're, it wouldn't even exist.

488. 2:04:02

     Would your county be more comfortable that if someone brings a tax refund case and they prevail on the merits, they get automatic attorney's fees?

489. 2:04:08

     If they were to get automatic attor- Well, I think they actually would.

490. 2:04:11

     Well, uh, uh, our-

491. 2:04:12

     I, I... I'm sorry.

492. 2:04:14

     I, I, it seems to me our laws in Georgia are very open to attorney's fees. I mean, uh, there's, I think the federal courts are a little bit better for that. But I mean, to me, if you get automatic attorney's fees, you're, if you prevail on the merits, even if you realize, wait a minute, I was cheated out of thirty dollars, but the, but the county now gets to pay my eighty thousand dollars of attorney's fees because it cost me that much to, to bring this case, that starts to become a remedy, and the county has to make a calculation. Do I want, do we want to do this or not? That to me seems more fair if we're going to eliminate this class. And there seems, there seems to be judicial economy.

493. 2:04:45

     Right now, the cost of, of actually bringing the case and making the claim is so absurdly high, who's going to do it? So to me, if we're gonna, if we're gonna eliminate the class action mechanism to, to the gentleman's, from the fift- fifty-six, fifty-fifth, uh, point, we need to give a very clear way forward that's, that's rational, that, that a rational person can, can... Not, not the professional constituent who's willing to pay sixty thousand dollars to prove he's right, but that can actually get recovery for this, um, in the real world under real conditions.

494. 2:05:17

     That, that's, that's where I'm at.

495. 2:05:19

     Yeah, and I think you can. You know, the statute provides for the local governments ought to prepare rules and procedures for governing these types of pr- uh, these types of refund claims. And so I think if you were to say, look, class refunds or class actions are precluded because they don't just make, they don't make practical sense, I think the counties and cities would be encouraged then to come up with expedited processes to, to provide for these refunds if they were to be valid.

496. 2:05:43

     But counties and cities have no incentive to do that. Counties and cities say, "Hey, we were elected. We, we, we represent the will of the people, and we have spoken. We've put the tax in place. We've got, we have our, we have our ad valorem tax. We've got the fee." There's no incentive for them to incentivize people to hold them accountable to their decisions. We, we've got to have a mechanism of some kind That cit- informed citizens can get recovery and be funded to do that with the expertise that's required to do it if class actions can be taken off the table.

497. 2:06:10

     So I actually think, Senator, if I may, that the citizens actually, it is very common for them to do that. And I think about tax appeals when the assessment comes out. People file tax appeals on their assessments all of the time, and they don't find that on an individualized basis to be cost burden assumption, cost prohibitive.

498. 2:06:26

     So I know, I know, I know you're not speaking for all counties, but from your county's perspective, well, well-

499. 2:06:30

     Yes, certainly, certainly

500. 2:06:31

     ... so from your county's, if, if, if, if the gentleman, if the, if, um, one constituent then said, you know what, if they won their tax appeal, um, is it good public policy to say if one citizen wins the tax appeal, then the county automatically has to refund all people? 'Cause as it stands now, you've gotta make the claim yourself. If one person wins an appeal, if there's a duty to f- refund everybody, there would seem to be judicial economy behind that, but there's gotta be some mechanism for John Q. Public, at the end of the day, when the government wants to hold onto their money and, and they've been proven to do the wrong thing, they gotta get their money back.

501. 2:07:04

     W- which I-

502. 2:07:05

     We're going, you're gonna have to wrap it up.

503. 2:07:06

     Oh.

504. 2:07:06

     I got six more, and I know there's several people from South Georgia, and we're two hours into the meeting.

505. 2:07:10

     Yes, sir.

506. 2:07:10

     Thank, thank you.

507. 2:07:11

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

508. 2:07:11

     Yeah, thank you. Uh, next up we've got the Bryan County Commission Chair, uh, Carter Infinger.

509. 2:07:19

     Thank you. I, I, I, that's why I hired an attorney. He's, he can speak a lot more eloquently than, than I can. But thank y'all for taking the time to hear this. Just as for me, simply means if there's a class action lawsuit, you know, we have to, we have to pay that class action. Everybody's included, but who pays, who pays the class action? The taxpayers do.

510. 2:07:41

     Mm-hmm.

511. 2:07:41

     So the taxpayers are suing us. They get their money back, the lawyer gets 40% of it, we gotta get a bond, and the taxpayers have to pay it back. I mean, to me, that doesn't make sense, right? If they wanna bring an individual case, it's fine, but I mean, that's why I don't, you know, I, I think when, when you look at it like that, you're, you're charging your, your... I think he said it great. You're taking $100 out, giving $40, and putting $60 in my pocket. To get that $40, we still have to charge the taxpayers to get their money back.

512. 2:08:09

     Mm-hmm.

513. 2:08:09

     Which doesn't make sense. And I think class action, you know, in, in a refund case, that it doesn't make sense, right? If, again, like he said, General Motors is different. But you, in a refund, your citizens are having to pay their own refund, and just, it just messes... Ours, we've been collecting a fire fee since in the mid-'90s. I think we collect about $4 million a year. So that's kinda, I mean, he, he said it better than I did, but that's kinda where I'm at. I just don't think class action works in a, in for, in a refund case 'cause you're paying your own self back minus your 40% that goes to the attorney.

514. 2:08:44

     I think it's, I mean, to me, it's pretty simple. So yeah.

515. 2:08:48

     Sometimes we lose logic in government.

516. 2:08:50

     Uh, yeah, I know, right? Well, government's hard. Yeah. Government's tough.

517. 2:08:53

     Thank-

518. 2:08:53

     But that's all I had to say. Thank y'all for listening.

519. 2:08:54

     Thank you for your testimony.

520. 2:08:55

     Appreciate it.

521. 2:08:58

     We got, uh, Patrick Flossom is up next.

522. 2:09:12

     Well, good evening, uh, chairman, uh, members of the committee. I appreciate, uh, what y'all do for the, uh, taxpayers of Georgia. Um, I've been a county commissioner, uh, for eight years and chaired five of those years, and I also had the honor to advocate for all the railroaders in the state of Georgia, along with its retirees. Um, with Brooks County, south, in very south Georgia, um, it hit us the same way. We didn't know we had a fire... Well, we had a, we knew we had a fire fee, and it had been going on for years, and we used that money to fund the fire department.

523. 2:09:48

     And then when we had a lawsuit come up, we ended up having to negotiate that, which ended up costing us a million dollars. And then the county ended up, you know, we had to pay that. So it's kinda like we're taking money from the citizens, not that, that we're wanting to, but now, you know, we had to rethink things out, and we're using it, uh, the millage rate to be able to fund our fire department. But now we're having to recoup, have to recoup that money to be able to pay the citizens that, um, that we ended up paying.

524. 2:10:29

     So it's just, it's hard for me, uh, to understand how s- we need something to protect the counties, um, in the, in the way of lawsuits. I mean, I hear what's being spoke today, and it kinda makes me feel like, uh, and, and maybe, and forgive me if, if I'm wrong, but it's like, it's, I'm, it sounds like I'm hearing like, well, the county's just, is doing this to, to get more money. I know for me, the only reason I ran for commissioner was because I wanted to be a good steward of the tax dollar, and I wanted, and I fought hard to, to win that election so I could fight for the people in the county that I love and where I live.

525. 2:11:09

     And you know, it's just heartbreaking when we had to come up with a million dollars to then only, you know, you gotta decide now, you gotta figure out how to, uh, manage your budget and a deficit now, and now you're trying to figure out, uh, where you're gonna get that money. And I live in a rural county. Um, but, uh, I support, uh, Bill 584, and I appreciate your time. And, uh, thank y'all for what you do.

526. 2:11:34

     Thank you. We got, uh, Ben Taylor up next.

527. 2:11:44

     I appreciate the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chairman and, uh, committee. Um, I'm Ben Taylor. I'm the, been the county, uh, administrator for Bryan County for 12 years. Been a county manager or city manager for about 22 years now. And over that period of time, this is the first that I'm starting to see a lot of this coming up. It's almost like somebody has found a loophole within the law and using this as a way to make money, uh, that funds, uh, that, that, and, and that funds your most vital, uh, services in your community, your fire, your stormwater, uh, fees.

528. 2:12:17

     And this could trickle down to a lot of different fees that cities and, and counties have charged, uh, since the 1970s, and a fu- and a, and a trend that's probably gonna continue with, with some of the tax reform bills that are, that are there now coming through the, y'all's, uh, y'all's houses. But, um, I th- I do ask you to, uh, to take a look at it. If it's good for the state, it exists for a good reason. And, uh, and with l- local governments, so some of those are your most vital, uh, public resources that are provided through these fees and these taxes, so.

529. 2:12:52

     Thank you.

530. 2:12:55

     We got, uh, Dan Snipes.

531. 2:13:03

     Good evening. I'm Dan Snipes. I'm an attorney in Statesboro, and I represent the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. Um, I wanna just express some concerns, and I think most of these concerns have been articulated in some form or another. But I think the concern I have with where we are with SB 584 is that this is part of a bigger tax policy debate about whether or not ad valorem taxes sh- should be how we fund services, or should there be individual fees that fund those services.

532. 2:13:34

     And 584 does not address that fundamental concern, which is a great policy debate that I think something that needs to be had. And I think that Representative Mangham me- mentioned something about finding a safe harbor so that there could be clarity for how local governments use fees to fund services, and I think that, that is a great... That's a issue that needs to be addressed that's not addressed. But the problem that, or the concern that I see with 584 is, though, it completely eliminates class action lawsuits as a means to aggregate smaller value claims to correct something.

533. 2:14:14

     And beyond this issue that everybody's talking about here today, which are fees for services, but what if there's fees imposed and then a county, for whatever reason, chooses not to provide the service or then provides the services in an extremely biased manner, so they're picking winners and losers above, amongst their citizens? And if you do that, the way 584 is, takes away the, an aggrieved group of citizens to band together to aggregate claims through a class action.

534. 2:14:46

     And what, it goes too far. And I'm not, for, for the cases that have been mentioned and the cases that, and, and particularly things like, I think, you know, I live in Statesboro. Bryan County is an extremely well-run county and has great administrators, and they do a very good job, and that's indicative by how much economic development they have. But not all 159 counties in Georgia are the same. And what this is doing is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And as we sit here for... And I, I had a chance to talk to the sponsor and, you know, Senator Burns is right there.

535. 2:15:19

     I mean, he, he, he's my neighbor, basically. And we had a chance to talk today, but this was a bill that got dropped last Wednesday and first read was on Thursday. And then as, as we have a chance to start looking at such a large policy matter right now, we're trying to change the tires as we're going down the highway. And what we need to do here is pull over and just take a more reasoned approach to how we go about addressing this. 'Cause I do think there are things that need to be addressed.

536. 2:15:49

     And while any class action case requires there to be a class certification hearing, requires a judge to be involved to approve a settlement, to approve what the fees are, maybe we need to put some safeguards in place as those relate to these cases. But this just eliminates that entire group of cases, and it goes too far. So I, I'm just here to ask the committee, this process needs to slow down because one of the things that we know is, as we go through this week and then go into the last days of session, there are not, there's not gonna be as much time to generally reflect on what is the best pu- public policy for all 159 counties and for situations that are, that could be much different than the current cases that have been, you've been discussed today.

537. 2:16:40

     A- you know, and like I said, I can... The first examples I come, come up with are, what if a local government is charging a fee and just either not providing the service or going about providing the service in a biased manner, and then your only recourse is an election that could be four years away? So for that reason, I want to ask y'all to just, to pause and consider this before we move forward.

538. 2:17:05

     We've got one question. Mr. Webb.

539. 2:17:06

     I just have a question, Mr. Chair. This is to the chair. Is, is this the last witness?

540. 2:17:12

     Uh, all we have, uh, that was the last witness from folks that are from far, f- far, far away. We've got ACCG and GMA. They're the last two.

541. 2:17:22

     Okay.

542. 2:17:27

     That's what I thought.

543. 2:17:27

     Thank you. All right. Next up, we've got ACCG and then GMA following.

544. 2:17:33

     Now, I know y'all want me to start with the 1945 Constitution and move forward-

545. 2:17:38

     And if you'd work your way back, please

546. 2:17:40

     ... and work my way up, right?

547. 2:17:40

     Take your time.

548. 2:17:41

     It's 6:00 in the evening, and I've already-

549. 2:17:43

     All, all my lights-

550. 2:17:44

     ... spent-

551. 2:17:44

     All of my lights are already lighting up

552. 2:17:46

     ... another hour here

553. 2:17:46

     We're gonna be up here for a while.

554. 2:17:49

     Good evening, everybody. My name is Vivian Arnstis. I am deputy general counsel at ACCG. I am relatively new to ACCG, but I am not new to local government. I have been practicing law in the county attorney context for about 33 years. Last seven years, I was the county attorney for DeKalb County. So I'm not gonna repeat everything that has been said, um, today. I think the thing to look at is what the state statute says. What do we look at when we're looking at refunds of taxes in the state context?

555. 2:18:25

     And I'm gonna read to you, it's very short, and you're gonna see that the lines might match just exactly the lines in lines 76 and 77 That is how the state refund statute reads. It reads as follows: "An action for a refund pursuant to paragraph four of this subsection shall not be brought by the taxpayer on behalf of a class consisting of other taxpayers who are alleged to be similarly situated." That statute went into place in 2003.

556. 2:19:02

     And perhaps think about, as you have heard everybody talk today, that there is just a fundamental difference between a class action lawsuit, PFAS, right, what's the Home Depot, the killer that they brought the class action lawsuit, and a class action lawsuit that is brought against counties and cities and states. It, I mean, it is a circular lawsuit. And you've heard the reasons. It becomes a cottage industry.

557. 2:19:36

     It's a cottage industry for the plaintiff's lawyers to make money. We're looking at right now you've got over 17 of these pending in the state of Georgia. Some have been settled. Some have reached a trial decision. And I know we got into a discussion about whether there was case law or not case law, but there'd been a trial decision. There hasn't been a decision by the Supreme Court or the Georgia Court of Appeals on a class action lawsuit of this type.

558. 2:20:09

     There's been an individual decision in Athens-Clarke County on the stormwater utility charge. But there's not been a class action lawsuit decision. And I think that where we look at this is that really what you do not want to have is your taxpayers paying $6,000 an hour, right? They're paid a contingency of 40%, and then at the end of the day, there's not one single solitary change in service delivery.

559. 2:20:42

     It's the same service before and after. It's a waste of taxpayer money. ACCG gave you a one-page factual report. I'd ask that you look at it. And the reason that I'd ask that you look at it, it's a very much the same arguments you've heard today. One of the things I'd really like for you to take a look at is what does the local media say about this issue in August of this year? Okay? And the, and the, the point that, that is made, and one of the things that I think is really interesting, is the same thing we just heard here.

560. 2:21:17

     Are we talking about financial justice? Are we talking about legal loopholes? And at the end of the day, the simplest way to close that legal loophole is to treat cities and counties the same as the state.

561. 2:21:34

     Thank you so much.

562. 2:21:35

     Mm-hmm.

563. 2:21:37

     Last up, we got GMA. Oh, yeah, go ahead, Mr. Webb.

564. 2:21:40

     Oh, he's gonna take me on, you know that.

565. 2:21:42

     Just a, just a quick comment. Just, just a quick comment. In the future, when you're winning, don't bring in the local media. It's just-

566. 2:21:51

     Point well taken. Give it to the fact that, you know, blame my fairness, sir. I will take that advice. Thank you.

567. 2:21:58

     Senator Mallow.

568. 2:21:59

     Oh, excuse me, sir.

569. 2:22:00

     Thank you, Chairman. Uh, since you mentioned, uh, like the state, many of us in this room, we have to run every two years. So, uh, would that be, uh, something ACCG would support as county commissioners running every two years to be on cycle with their state representatives and senators so they can be held accountable much sooner?

570. 2:22:18

     Well, you know, I think the policy council at ACCG would have to make that decision. That's not something that I could, um, bind my clients with.

571. 2:22:25

     I'm sorry.

572. 2:22:28

     Understood. Thank you.

573. 2:22:35

     Well, good evening, everyone. I'll be quick. My name is Rushi Patel. I'm the general counsel with the Georgia Municipal Association. And honestly, Vivian is way smarter than myself, so, um, I can't repeat everything that she said because she says it better. Um, we are also in support of this legislation. Um, one thing I would like to note is that you've heard a number of speakers talk about the drawn-out process that brings up class action lawsuits. When you have a drawn-out process like that, even if the plaintiffs are correct, which I would dispute in most of these cases, even if the plaintiffs are correct, that delays them getting a refund significantly than an individual lawsuit.

574. 2:23:16

     So, you know, the individual lawsuit, one of the speakers talked about the taxpayer refund cases. I've, I've done one of those myself. It, it goes pretty quickly. Um, so I would just note that this is obviously a very complicated issue. It seems like, uh, the members of the committee have, uh, have a lot of opinions on it. But this is something that we just want to be on, on par with the state. And I would thank you.

575. 2:23:43

     Thank you. Comment? Yes, sir.

576. 2:23:46

     Mr. Chairman.

577. 2:23:48

     Mr. Webb.

578. 2:23:48

     Mr. Chairman, I think, I think he makes a great point that it is a complicated issue. I think Mr. Kapler and I think, uh, Mr. Snipes have both made valid points. And, um, not to upset anybody, but to give the author a little bit of time to meet with those groups and see if we can't come up with something that doesn't take this action away completely, as, as Mr. Snipes alluded to, I would, uh, move that we table this legislation.

579. 2:24:12

     Second.

580. 2:24:14

     We've got a motion and a second for tabling. Discussion? Senator Setzler.

581. 2:24:20

     Mr., Mr. Chairman, uh, I do think there's a problem. Um, I, my, my concern is do we, if we do nothing, I was gonna ask the, uh, counsel for Gwin, for, for ACCG how many cases are pending or are likely to be pending this next year. I mean, are we inviting more cases to stack up? In, in, in my mind, I was- Just for, for policy, Mr. Chairman, to, to, speaking to that s- to, to that motion to table, I, I was thinking if we enacted this and says pr- provisions of the, the bill basically, uh, would stand repealed on June 30, 2027.

582. 2:24:55

     So basically at... We, we'd give us next session to fix this. If it's not fixed by next session, the law goes into ef- the, the law would revert back to how it, how it is today. But we would give them a pause so that more cases don't pile up in the interim. Now I, I don't know how they feel about that, but I just-

583. 2:25:13

     Yeah, I-

584. 2:25:13

     Because, because I, I, I think Mr. Snipes is making a great case. I don't think this repeal solves the problem. But I do think we've got this issue of cases that are flying at us right now that may be an issue of urgency. That's my only concern.

585. 2:25:26

     So yes, these cases are being-

586. 2:25:28

     I ma-

587. 2:25:28

     I'm sorry. I

588. 2:25:28

     Sorry, yeah. Public, public d-

589. 2:25:30

     I have one last question.

590. 2:25:30

     Yeah. Thank you.

591. 2:25:31

     I have one last question.

592. 2:25:32

     Senator Williams?

593. 2:25:33

     Yeah, I'd like to weigh in on this also. I think the thing to do is to move it forward so that we can work on it and they can work on it and not lose this momentum. I'd rather not see it tabled. I'd rather... I'd, I'd like to see it move forward so that y'all can continue working on it even if it's worked on in the House, that we have heard a lot of testimony, a lot of it makes sense. I'm not a fan of class action either.

594. 2:26:04

     I've been a county commissioner. I've... I just... That's my thoughts. I'd like to see it move on through.

595. 2:26:11

     Thank you, Senator.

596. 2:26:13

     Just Mr. Chairman, I'd make myself available. I support the majority whip, uh, to make myself available for the next committee meeting so that we could have some time and come back with a substitute. Uh, I'm, I'm gonna be in Atlanta till Saturday, so I would absolutely be available for another meeting so we can perfect this and send it out of the committee the right way.

597. 2:26:29

     Thank you. All right, so we've got, we've got a motion to table and a second on the floor.

598. 2:26:35

     Is, is... Pardon me there, Mr. Chairman. Is there a time to act on this after today?

599. 2:26:41

     Yes. We'll go in at 1:00 tomorrow.

600. 2:26:46

     But not sure if we've got space for a committee meeting tomorrow or not.

601. 2:26:50

     Yes, sir.

602. 2:26:50

     I would have to check on that.

603. 2:26:51

     I, I just... I do think there's a problem, but I don't think we, um...

604. 2:27:01

     I, I wanna give, I wanna give the, the, the author a opportunity to do something, but I don't think the bill as it's written does it. So I, I mean, uh, may- maybe I'm the only one that's thinking about repealing this next year so it get... The, the current law goes back into effect but gives us a hiatus. I, I, you know, I don't know. Um, I just offer that to the chair and the committee. Committee members reserve value in moving it forward, but having it repealed, it gives us till next session to solve this, but if it's not solved, it reverts back to the status quo. I don't know.

605. 2:27:31

     Mr. Webb.

606. 2:27:32

     I think my motion, I think my motion gives us that opportunity, but also we know that there are other legislation moving around here that this bill, this, this issue could be solved on with attaching it to and moving it through or something that's coming across the other way. But I d- I do think, uh, there does need to be, and I think the word used was pause, uh, so that we can, we can perfect this, that we're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

607. 2:27:58

     Thank you. And I appreciate all the folks that came from, uh, South Georgia today to testify. Uh, I, I tell you it was very meaningful and, and really helped us grasp the, uh, the meaning of the, the legislation. But there was very spirited debate. Uh, definitely wanna make sure we get this right before we pass it out of the committee. Uh, we are the body, the upper chamber for perfecting bills. We wanna make sure we get this right before we get it out of the committee. But, uh, thank y'all very much. Uh, and we will take a vote now on the table.

608. 2:28:28

     So we've got a motion and a second to table. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passes.

609. 2:28:42

     I gotta go and pee, Mr. Chairman, so the longer this goes, I'll stay till we fix it.

610. 2:28:47

     We got one more bill on the agenda. It's a hearing only.

611. 2:28:56

     Figure out who represents who.

612. 2:28:58

     SB 496. This is our last bill.

613. 2:29:08

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just noticing under the last testimony that, um, all our county folks were wearing boots, and all our city folks and our lawyers were wearing loafers or oxfords. And so I'm gonna simplify this for you. If you're wearing boots, you're probably gonna support this legislation. If you're wearing loafers or oxfords, you're probably not gonna support this legislation.

614. 2:29:40

     You made that real easy.

615. 2:29:42

     Um, I like to simplify things. But no, this is... Uh, the bill's simple. It simply says that, uh, in order for a city to annex any property into the county, uh, they have to have the c- consent of the county, um, by way of resolution. So I understand, um, I'm, I'm counting, counting boots versus loafers back there, and I know this, this ain't gonna pass. Um, but so I do...

616. 2:30:13

     But I do appreciate the hearing because it, it does deserve a conversation. Uh, we've got... You know, I, I live in the city of Newnan. I'm represented by multiple, uh, city councilmen and a, uh, and a mayor, and then I also have a county commissioner. My parents, my brother and his family, my sister and her family, and my in-laws all live in the county. All they have is a county commissioner And they have no say when property gets annexed.

617. 2:30:46

     They have no representation when their property gets annexed. And in a, in a, in a growing state like we're, we're in right now, um, people feel unrepresented because, because we see cities annexing properties and it's not necessarily following the land use plan set out by the county. Uh, we see it with data centers. We see it with, um, you know, we see it with, with large developments, housing.

618. 2:31:18

     Um, um, you know, the, it's, it's, it's out there. It, and it's been going on for a long time. And so, you know, we, we also live in a legislature where we create cities. You're a little familiar with that.

619. 2:31:36

     Just a little.

620. 2:31:37

     And I think, you know, and we as a, as a body have, have continued to, uh, complain about the number of cities we continue to form and trying to figure out how do we do that. And to me it's a, it, it, it goes to show the bigger issue, a greater, a greater problem we have that we're not necessarily addressing, and that's that the counties have very little say so in these annexing. And these people in the counties, they choose to live in the county for a reason, and people choose to live in the city for a reason.

621. 2:32:12

     And when you choose to live in that county and then all of a sudden you don't have that choice, you've lost your voice. And to me, that's where, where those people, when there's a group of people in a county that feel like they've lost their voice, then they turn and try to form or do or are successful in forming their own city. And so we continue to put band-aids on the problem and not fixing the core issue.

622. 2:32:43

     We're treating the symptoms, we're not treating the illness. And that is these people in the county are losing their representation, and that is what this bill is about. Um, I knew it was gonna be controversial when I dropped it. I knew it was, uh, probably not gonna, uh, was probably not gonna move far, and it's obviously not since we're getting a hearing only, but, but the conversation is important. Um, it i- it is something that's, that's long overdue.

623. 2:33:14

     I think the process that is out there now, I don't think it, I don't think it serves people in the county very well, and I think we need to take a long, hard look at that process in making sure that these people are not losing their voice. With that, I'll yield for questions.

624. 2:33:36

     Let me shock you. I actually support, I think if you annex into a city and you come from a county, you have to annex everything, including the road. You shouldn't just leave the roads on counties a- and take the cheap way and just annex the property into the city. If you're gonna annex, you gotta take everything, roads included, and that will slow some of this down. And so that's not included in, uh, this, uh, legislation, but I would absolutely support it.

625. 2:34:00

     And that's a, that's a great point, and I, I think, you know, w- we do see cities that can't afford services or can't afford, um, certain amenities like roads and can't afford the infrastructure, but they're taking the revenue from the county. And so, um, absolutely that needs to be part of the conversation moving forward as we try to figure this out, 'cause I'm committed to it now. I don't plan on doing, getting anything done this year, but, um, I think if we take a measured approach, a bipartisan approach and try to figure this out, we can do it.

626. 2:34:37

     Yeah, and I'd love to work with you on it as well. You know, there is definitely an imbalance.

627. 2:34:41

     Bipartisan. Sign there. I'll leave the roads to the county. House and Miller agree.

628. 2:34:45

     Senator Setzler.

629. 2:34:46

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the bill. I, listen, I, I wanna just, I'm not wearing boots right now, but I'm with you on this one. I, I- I, um-

630. 2:34:55

     I miscalculated.

631. 2:34:56

     Y- yes, sir. I think, um, I think citizens who live in counties, when they buy there, I mean, they, they pour their life savings into property. Sometimes they'll buy a small home if that's what they can afford, they might, might buy land. But the land you surround them is part of a covenant. It's not a covenant covenant like an HOA covenant. It's, it's, there, there's an understanding of, hey, the land you surround us is residential. We're res- residential. When they buy in, that's their expectation of what they're buying into. Um, folks who wanna change a rural property into a commercial, dense commercial area assert a property right.

632. 2:35:29

     They don't recognize the people around them that bought into that, bought in under the context of what they understood to be around them. When that changes, and that happens in this annexation process, it is, it's an assault on the property rights of those that are oftentimes made fun of as NIMBYs, not in my backyards, but they're people bought into communities with expectations of what was gonna be around them. And the current process gives them no voice whatsoever 'cause it's only the city for whom they cannot vote who's making these decisions. So I appreciate the gentleman. If this weren't a hearing only, I'd make a motion on it, but I, I think this is something, I think you're onto something.

633. 2:36:02

     I appreciate you calling me gentleman.

634. 2:36:07

     Any further questions- ... on the committee?

635. 2:36:10

     Uh, nothing, Mr. Chairman. There's probably a mic. It's just a few of us. I also wanna make sure though we protect folks like, uh, my good friend, the chair from the 11th. If his kids decide they're gonna sell the family farm and they wanna develop it one day, I don't necessarily wanna lock them into where they can't do that and they're stuck with something that they can't operate, they can't farm, they can't do anything with it, and they end up losing it. So if there is a way where they can annex that and they do it in a way that is cost prohibitive, cost, uh, effective, and they take the road, they take all the other stuff and move that over, I wanna make sure that that's a, a vehicle to do that.

636. 2:36:43

     Totally agree. I, I'm, I'm all for property ri- private property rights. Um, but we've got to respect all private property-

637. 2:36:51

     Around it as well

638. 2:36:52

     Yeah, no, and I'm, I'm grateful

639. 2:36:53

     And it's a balance and I, I, I feel like that it's a little bit out of balanced right now and I would like to get it more in balance

640. 2:37:05

     Which is good. That's

641. 2:37:06

     Is that a song bro?

642. 2:37:08

     Sign you up

643. 2:37:11

     Well, with no further questions, looks like we'll be taking this back up again next year.

644. 2:37:15

     All right, well, I've got, uh, 15 witnesses I'd like to bring in

645. 2:37:19

     Okay, we'll bring them. They can have ... We'll, we'll just cut them down to 15 minutes a piece

646. 2:37:24

     Are they wearing boots today?

647. 2:37:25

     All boots. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the hearing-

648. 2:37:30

     Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman

649. 2:37:30

     ... and look forward to working with each and every one of you on this.

650. 2:37:33

     Thank you

651. 2:37:34

     Good job, Senator.

652. 2:37:37

     We-

653. 2:37:37

     I'm wearing boots tomorrow.

654. 2:37:39

     Senator Ginn, you got a motion? Mr. Chairman, said they, uh, I, I, I'm kind of disappointed where we're at, but the, uh, believe it's appropriate for me to make a motion to remove Senate Bill 584 LC 443474 from the table. There you go. It's off the table.

655. 2:37:58

     Second.

656. 2:38:00

     We got a motion-

657. 2:38:01

     Second

658. 2:38:02

     ... and two seconds-

659. 2:38:04

     Third

660. 2:38:04

     ... to remove-

661. 2:38:06

     Senate bill

662. 2:38:07

     Just

663. 2:38:19

     point, point of order, Mr. Chair, are we trying to perfect the bill? Is that what we're trying to do? I, I, I'm here to, committed for, to long, long as you want to stay here. Get it, get it whatever it needs to be. But I know we can't do it unless we get it on the table, and we ain't gonna get to meet tomorrow. W- vote carries, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, vote carries. Understand the senator's move was to try to perfect the bill to keep it moving forward this year. I, I, I don't know the author's- These, these lawsuits are gonna keep stacking up for these local governments, and that's all the taxpayers. Same ones we represent, the local governments represent.

664. 2:38:50

     And, and, and I, and I do appreciate the fact that we're caught between a rock and a hard place, and the rock is the taxpayers are on the hook. The hard place is the taxpayers are on the hook, and I, and I appreciate that. The, uh, you know, the, some folks went across the hallway to have a conversation. I went in there and there was one side having a conversation, and the recommendation that was made, which I appreciate, was the recommendation that was made here at the table. And so I think what we have to understand is I think every one of us want to perfect the bill.

665. 2:39:20

     I don't ... If we could, if we could figure out how to, the, I think, uh, eliminating class action suits across the board, I think is a concern of mine. And I need people a lot smarter than I am to sit here and articulate to me what the solution is to solve that problem. Um, I think if you talk to ACCG and GMA, I am not an opponent of those organizations. They do an incredible job. But right here, I have taxpayers back home that know I'm up here to support them, that I have to protect their, their ability to stand up and challenge the government when the government is not treating them fairly.

666. 2:40:01

     Senator Williams?

667. 2:40:02

     Yeah, I was just wondering if we can put some kind of dollar limit on there. W- is that a way to get this to where we need it to be? That if a individual finds that they've been overcharged an amount less than $1,000, then it is not subject to, uh, a, a class action suit. I'm just trying to figure out the guardrail of what we could do because, you know, it, it is an issue, it is a problem for local taxpayers, and you may find out that you've been overcharged $500 for a fee, and you're petitioning the county or the city to reimburse you, pay you back.

668. 2:40:54

     Um, and you just get the word out, "Hey, they overcharged me," and, but if we set a dollar limit on it, is that permissible with alleged counsel? Is that a way to get this ball rolling? Is that a way to get the conversation started?

669. 2:41:12

     Senator Ginn, you're still lit up. The, uh, I, I think Senator Williams got a good point. The point for me is I, I'm not opposed to, hey, if you feel like your government has aggrieved you, then you have a right as an individual to bring a- an action against your local government. So then, and I don't want to interfere with that right. My concern is, is that when we allow the class action lawsuit, every taxpayer loses in that case, and that's what is painful to me, is that the, the ta- ev- every taxpayer's paying for the, the litigation, the, the awards and everything else, and that's the problem that I have.

670. 2:41:47

     And that's where, to me, I want to stop the class action suits, not an individual. You, you have, you have individual rights to bring a, an action against the individual, oh, local government. But as a, as a class, that's what this bill is about, is stopping a class action suit.

671. 2:42:04

     And ... Senator Setzler.

672. 2:42:07

     Mr. Chair, m- my solution to the gentleman's question is, again, the class action nature, I mean, let me start with what the rep said. We've got to give a means of recovery for citizens who get screwed. I mean, I, I, I watched my own county, um, spend a quarter of a million dollars of tax money when they were cravenly wrong, just they were, they're outrageously unlawful, and they made citizens bring cases against the county to try to stop them in their runaway case. It's, it's, when you've seen it with your own two eyes in a courtroom, it takes your breath away. There's got to be an ability for citizens to get recovery if the county is wrong.

673. 2:42:41

     If class action's not the mechanism, I think there's two things we do. I know this is, this sounds like a judiciary committee. I think thing one is if a, if a, if a person brings a, a s- a suit pursuant to this, this code section that already exists, and a lot of this is already here, what I read was already in law, that you've got to shall refund the dollars, that the person who, if you prevail in a lawsuit, you get attorney's fees. That's not a $6,000 an hour recovery. It's just, it's simple attorney's fees if you prevail, and that if you do prevail and that you realize that the $30 they cheated you out of should come back to you, every other citizen in the county gets their 30 bucks back.

674. 2:43:18

     If we g- if we grant attorney's fees to a prevailing party bringing a claim to enforce this section on a regular claim, and they win, if they get automatic attorney's fees, their attorneys may not take the case. But if you have a meritorious case, the attorney's gonna say, "Wait a minute. If I don't, I don't get paid if we, if we don't win, but if we do win, I get paid." You can get an attorney to take a meritorious case. You've got an expert to carry this thing through to trial to win for you if you get attorney's fees. And if you get attorney's fees, and then, then everyone gets paid out, those two things together, in my opinion, solve this.

675. 2:43:52

     Without the class action suit, where it ends up being $4 million or $6,000 an hour, you're, you're only paying $300 an hour for an attorney for as many, only the hours he charges. That to me is fair.

676. 2:44:03

     Can you write that amendment?

677. 2:44:04

     Yes, I can.

678. 2:44:08

     We are adjourned. Oh, okay. I was gonna say, would you write the amendment? I-