Comité Rules de la Cámara de Representantes, 20 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:24:17

   Morning, everybody.

2. 0:24:18

   Morning.

3. 0:24:20

   Happy Friday.

4. 0:24:22

   Good morning.

5. 0:24:40

   Chairman Hawkins, you're gonna open us up with a word of prayer, please, and we'll call the meeting to order.

6. 0:24:45

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Please bow your heads. God, we come to you today with open arms and open minds. Please give us the wisdom and the patience to make the right decisions for all those of Georgia's. We ask this in your name. Amen.

7. 0:24:59

   Amen. Thank you, sir. Okay, let's hear from our senators. Come on up, senators.

8. 0:25:07

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rules Committee, uh, Senate Bill 443. Senate Bill 443. A very common sense bill. Simply states that, uh, it's changing if you're blocking roads, streets, bridges, airports, et cetera, et cetera, uh, for blockage of someone passing, like cars, ambulance, mothers taking the kids to school, et cetera, et cetera. It just moves it to a highly aggravated misdemeanor. It changes it from a misdemeanor to a highly aggravated misdemeanor. Uh, sidewalks and all that kind of stuff still stays the same.

9. 0:25:40

   It's still a, it's still a misdemeanor on that level. And that's all it is, Mr. Chairman.

10. 0:25:44

    Okay. Got a question for you. Whip Park has a question.

11. 0:25:46

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senator, how does this, um, work with Georgia's Good Samaritan law? Uh, especially given that it imposes additional civil liability.

12. 0:25:55

    Could you speak a little louder?

13. 0:25:56

    How does this intersect with Georgia's Good Samaritan law, uh, with respect to the imposition of additional civil liability?

14. 0:26:03

    I can speak to that. All I know is, is, is, we're not, w- we don't have any problem with anybody protesting. We all, everybody ha- in, in Georgia, First Amendment, go for it. You just can't do it in the middle of the roads and block them.

15. 0:26:13

    Just, just to clarify. So for example, if a Good Samaritan renders aid, um, would they then sub- be subject to additional civil penalty, uh, under this bill?

16. 0:26:24

    That would be up to the court, sir. I don't, I mean, I wouldn't be able to go on that level.

17. 0:26:28

    Thank you.

18. 0:26:29

    Okay. No other questions. Thank you, Senator.

19. 0:26:33

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

20. 0:26:34

    Senator Kean, come on up.

21. 0:26:39

    Morning, Chairman, ladies of the, and gentlemen of the committee. I, uh, bring to you on page four of your blue sheet, on the third l- line down, said the, uh, SB499. I want everybody to be real quiet for a second. This bill is dealing with silencers. Said they, uh... It's one of the things that, that, uh... Oh, basically what we're doing is we're addressing a, a, little bit of a situation that came up, uh, the last year with the Big Beautiful Bill. They were actually gonna remove silencers, and the federal law would've had the 270,000 Georgia citizens that legally own a fire- a, a silencer or suppressor, sometimes they're called different things, they, uh, uh, would've, would've made all of those illegal.

22. 0:27:23

    So, you know, all those people that have paid the tax stamps and had those, those suppressors. The, uh, one of the things that I was proud that y'all did in, in your House Judiciary and Non-Civil Committee was you, oh, took up an amendment that, that we were supportive of. It wasn't until after it passed in the Senate that the Georgia Sheriff's Association brought to us an issue, and they said, "Hey, we, we'd like you to change this." And so I was proud that y'all were able to do that in your, oh, non-civil duty to, to address that amendment so that they're, oh, not only, oh, neutral, but they're in full support.

23. 0:27:55

    The, uh, it's one of the things, I think there's an opportunity to help the bill a little bit more with addressing an issue with a thing called the switch that goes into, oh, different firearms that make them go from semi-automatic to full automatic, and I hope that y'all can do that. I understand that's a possibility to get that done in, in, oh, your Rules committee.

24. 0:28:15

    Okay, got a question for you. Whip Park.

25. 0:28:17

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so, so the Georgia Sheriff's Association supports this bill?

26. 0:28:22

    Yes, sir. 100%.

27. 0:28:23

    S- so help me understand, you know, in the event of an active, uh, shooter at a school, um, isn't it true that this would make it harder to catch that active shooter?

28. 0:28:34

    No.

29. 0:28:34

    And if so, you know, what, what, what are we supposed to tell parents who may lose additional children?

30. 0:28:39

    In, in actuality, s- so one of the things, and thank you for the question, the, uh, when you add a suppressor to a firearm, it makes that firearm six to nine inches longer, so they're, they're gonna be more visible. So the, uh, one of the things that happens with a suppressor is you're actually dropping the, the sound decibels, the, uh, which is logarithmic in scale, uh, down anywhere from about 25 to, to 30 or maybe 35 if you got a really impressive one, the, uh, in sound. The, uh, you take any kind of, uh, firearm, the, uh, I promise you, you can hear it with a suppressor.

31. 0:29:11

    So they're, they don't, they're not like on the movies. They don't make them silent. The, the spot shotters that they're using around, uh, certain cities like Metro Atlanta that, that are identifying gunfire, they can, they can still spot them with a suppressor used on a firearm. So, uh, it's not gonna make it where it, it's, uh, more difficult for somebody to locate a shooter. It's not gonna make it where... But what it does is for, a lot of times, uh, I have hunters that use, uh, my property, lease my property, the, uh, to go hunting. The, uh, one of the things that when they're up at the crack of dawn and pull a trigger on a high-powered rifle, the, uh, unfortunately it wakes up a lot of my neighbors and, and, you know, this will be s- one of those things that, uh, suppresses that sound, helps to, to, uh, diminish that sound.

32. 0:29:53

    It also saves the hunter's hearing. Well, I've got some supporting letters if you want to see them from the audiologist that, well, when you drop that sound level, it's not ever recommended just to use a suppressor, but a suppressor in addition to, uh, hearing protection, the, uh, will, will help save hearing. And I was a competitive shooter in high school and college, so for me, the, uh, uh, that, I lost a good bit of hearing because I wasn't wearing the right suppressors as a high school and college student. So-

33. 0:30:20

    I'm certainly sympathetic to, to hunters and, and, you know, the, the desire to protect folks' ears. But again, I think in the current environment that we're in, given the school shootings that continue to harm especially younger generations, again, I'm, I'm just struggling with how this body would look a parent in the face if the, um, if a bill like this resulted in additional deaths. Well, and that's one thing I agree. I, I, I hope that, that, uh, oh, y'all can add the language in to, to, ah, put in state statute the, the prohibition for this, this, what they call the switch.

34. 0:30:54

    Okay. Have another question. Uh, Representative Evans has a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, um, you, you mentioned that you have land and folks hunt on it, and without the silencers, your neighbors were being woken up, and with the silencers, they won't. Doesn't that concede that whether the guns are longer or not, they certainly become less able to be pinpointed with the silencers? If, if it's waking up your neighbors without them, if, if it's waking them up without the silencers but not waking them up with them, doesn't that concede that they're less likely to be detected?

35. 0:31:29

    I don't want to get too technical on the sound, but one of the things that, that, uh, you take a, an example of a .308. It's about 170 decibels. So if you drop it, th- that's, that's, um, instantaneously damaging to the, the hearing of, of an individual, the, uh, that's, that's firing that gun. If you drop it 25 to 30 decibels, if a s- if you're using a suppressor, that sound can still carry the, uh, ah, through, but, uh, it's so much more diminished inside of your home. You know, s- I, I can tell you in my, my, my house, I have double pane windows and well-insulated home.

36. 0:32:05

    The, uh, ah, you know, I can hear a gunshot from over a mile away. The, uh, the suppressor, maybe I can get that reduction down to half a mile away. So that's where for me- The bottom- ... the, the whole idea is, is to reduce the sound. The bottom line is with the silencer, your neighbors are being woken up and warned there's a gunshot. Without a silencer, they're not, right? That's what you testified to just a moment ago. Yeah, based on how far they are away. Yes, ma'am. I live out in the middle of nowhere, so. Thank you. Okay, don't see any more questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

37. 0:32:35

    Mm-hmm. Yes, sir. Senator, come on up.

38. 0:32:40

    Thank you, Chairman, committee. Good to be back. Senate Bill 587. It's the middle of page four. This is a feel-good bill that everyone's gonna wanna get behind. If you own a pet, if you support adoption, but you believe that animal cruelty should be tracked by our friends at the Prosecuting Attorneys Council, this is the creation of a statewide database that if you have been convicted, not accused of, but convicted of animal cruelty, you'll go into a database that's maintained by PAC, and then animal rights groups that handle adoptions can check that database and decide whether or not you're worthy to adopt a pet again.

39. 0:33:22

    This is a animal safety bill. Folks back home are gonna love it. We have gotten tremendous support and applause from folks in, uh, the animal adoption world, and, uh, happy to take any questions. Don't see any questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Senator Goodwin, come on up.

40. 0:33:45

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. Um, I have Senate Bill 447. It's on page three, uh, third from the bottom. Committee members, this, uh, bill has to do with housing affordability, uh, in dealing with the permitting process, the land disturbance permit process. Uh, the chair- chairwoman of Natural Resources said it best, that this bill simply creates a sandbox that the applicant and the, uh, municipality have to operate in, creates clear criteria from what the municipality requires on the plat.

41. 0:34:15

    Also sets up timetables for when the plat has to be reviewed and turned around. Uh, it also requires the applicant to submit a completed application, um, which is deemed approved by the municipality, and no, no timetable would start until that, uh, was completed. Also, if it's a large project, complicated project that triggers a DRI, a Development of Regional Impact, the timetables would not apply to those types of projects, giving them more time to be, uh, vetted and processed. Uh, with that, Mr.

42. 0:34:45

    Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Senator Dixon. Got a couple of questions for you. Representative Kelley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senator Dixon, how did we choose, uh, the number 250 on line 159? Uh, it was based on, um, that... And thank you for, uh, bringing that up. That, that was based on criteria of smaller municipalities that, um, don't have many permits that are coming in or, you know, may not have a sophisticated permitting process. It would exclude those municipalities.

43. 0:35:16

    Who came up with that number? Was it the municipalities or the developers? Uh, good grief. Well, I mean, we worked, uh, very close with GMA and ACCG throughout this process, um, along with the, the house, uh, uh, committee as well in making probably well over a dozen changes and adjustments, uh, to this bill to make it, like I said, a fair sandbox for the applicant and for, uh, the municipality. What position, uh, are GMA and ACCG taking on this bill at the time?

44. 0:35:50

    Golly, I'd have, I would actually have to ask them, because I've got another permitting bill, and I, I don't want to misspeak. If my recollection remembers it, they were neutral, but I, I'd have to ask them. I don't want to misspeak to that. All right. Thank you. Okay, don't see any other questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members.

45. 0:36:10

    Yes, sir. Come on up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, page 25 from the top is, uh, House Resolution 1608. That is a house study, a request for a house study committee on municipal franchise fees.

46. 0:36:27

    Okay. Don't see any questions. Thank you, sir.

47. 0:36:30

    Thank you, sir.

48. 0:36:34

    Yes, sir, Representative Miles.

49. 0:36:36

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I pr- wanna present to you a House Resolution 1393.

50. 0:36:48

    1393. Okay. Tell us about it.

51. 0:36:53

    It's down at the, at the, three-quarters of the page down.

52. 0:36:56

    Yes, sir. First page.

53. 0:36:59

    1393. HR 1393, about three-quarters a page on the first page.

54. 0:37:04

    Okay.

55. 0:37:05

    This is a request for a study committee to study our rural hospitals. Rural hospitals are at a crisis at time. We are losing a lot of rural hospitals. We've brought a lot of piecemeal bills to help our rural hospitals, but they have a big problem with financial problems, uh, being reimbursements, and also for getting, attracting phys- physicians down to those rural hospitals. The study committee could look at all of those parameters that would keep our hosp- rural hospitals solvent. Also, it would look at programs that w- would allow physicians to go to rural hospitals.

56. 0:37:38

    We, we have several programs that are, are allowing to pay tuition for a physician to go to practice in rural hospitals and allow those physicians to stay in those rural hospitals. So we got a lot of issues just to keep our rural hospitals solvent. We've got a lot of hospital deserts right now in the, in the state, and if it discontinues, we're gonna have a, a real lot, a lot of problems with people not having medical facilities to go to. So-

57. 0:38:03

    Oh

58. 0:38:03

    ... with that, Mr. Chair, I-

59. 0:38:05

    Thank you, sir. Don't see any questions. Thank you.

60. 0:38:07

    Thank you much. Appreciate it.

61. 0:38:09

    Chairman Mathiak.

62. 0:38:15

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee. Today I have a House Resolution 1474. It's on the first page near the bottom. What this does is ask for a caucus for life sciences, um, and that is a study of living organisms within our state, and it's kind of a, a divi- diverse field, excuse me. Biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostics, industrial, um, biotechnology.

63. 0:38:47

    Um, it, I'm asking for world-class universities to be a part of that, and I just got asked by Georgia Tech to be a part of this out in the hallway. The, um, we will look at global manufacturers, and it's really the advancement of some of those, um, items that I just mentioned. It will con- include food security and sustainable practices. It's going to look at high income employment.

64. 0:39:18

    Di- again, diverse skills. It's an investment in our infrastructure of our state, and they will look at policymaking. And that's my caucus ask.

65. 0:39:30

    Okay. Don't see any questions. Thank you, ma'am.

66. 0:39:32

    Thank you, sir. Thank you, committee.

67. 0:39:34

    Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

68. 0:39:38

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, House Resolution 1371, first page, six up from the bottom. Uh, this resolution would create the House Study Committee on Code Revisions, uh, for autonomous vehicles. We are seeing an ever-increasing supply of vehicles that drive themselves around our city and our state. Uh, we need to take a, a look at what changes we need to make to our code to account for these and to, uh, to deal with them as they continue to emerge, and that's what this study committee would seek to do. Be happy to answer any questions.

69. 0:40:09

    Okay. Have, have a question. Representative Williams.

70. 0:40:13

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

71. 0:40:17

    Would this also apply to the little fellows we see on, excuse my, my voice this morning, the little vehicles we see on the sidewalks? Sometimes they're a little confused. They're in each other's face talking. I can't figure out what they're saying, but, but, uh, would this include them and-

72. 0:40:35

    Yes, sir. In the, uh, in the committee hearing, uh, uh, Chairman Jones asked that we add, uh, micro mobility to that, so this would include-

73. 0:40:45

    Oh, that's good

74. 0:40:45

    ... looking at micro mobility as well. Yes, sir.

75. 0:40:50

    Okay.

76. 0:40:50

    We need to get me one of those. I'm glad you were able to answer that question for our technology expert over here.

77. 0:41:00

    Those things are everywhere. Don't see any other questions. Thank you, sir.

78. 0:41:03

    Thank you.

79. 0:41:06

    Yes, sir, Senator.

80. 0:41:08

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I have two more for y'all. First, on page three towards the bottom, Senate Bill 433. This is Rio's law. What it does, it creates a specialty license plate so that first responders know when they approach a vehicle that someone in that car may have autism. It also mandates uniform training for all law enforcement in our state as to how to interact with folks with autism.

81. 0:41:32

    Okay. Don't see any questions. What else you got?

82. 0:41:35

    On page four, uh, about I guess a fourth of the way down, Senate Bill 547. This makes pimping and pandering a felony on the first offense versus a high and aggravated misdemeanor. Something else we can do to take on human trafficking in our state.

83. 0:41:53

    The first state. Okay. I don't, don't see any questions. Thank you.

84. 0:41:56

    Thank you. Yes, sir.

85. 0:41:58

    Senator Watson.

86. 0:42:01

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, members of the committee. Uh, page four at the top, I bring to you Senate Bill 478. Uh, this is, uh, dealing with the Georgia Outdoor Stewardship Act that I think this body's very familiar with. We're raising the current 40%, uh, to 60% of the funds contributed to, uh, improve our outdoors across the state. Be glad to take any questions if there are any.

87. 0:42:24

    Don't see any questions.

88. 0:42:25

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

89. 0:42:28

    Yes, sir, Senator Robinson.

90. 0:42:32

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's three bills on here. Uh, on page three, SB268 deals with, uh, individuals interfering with, uh, public order with first responders. We've also added language on there in the House related to incest, uh, dealing with foster parents and step-grandparents to protect children. Um,

91. 0:42:56

    next one is- Wait, wait just a minute. I apologize, Mr. Chairman ... we got a question. Uh, Whip Park has a question for you on that one, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so, so with respect to the underlying bill, um, the definition of first responder and harassed is very, very broad. Um, could a mother screaming at a paramedic to help her child faster be charged with a crime? No, sir. Uh, uh, uh, okay. Um, would this bill make it a crime, uh, to film a first responder from 24 feet away if they've been- No, sir ... warned.

92. 0:43:27

    If a first responder is acting unlawfully, would this bill still make it a crime to approach within 24 feet? I think you're talking about a different, a different, uh, statute, prob- possibly even federal statutes if you're talking about a first responder acting illegally. Depending on what the role of the first responder is, the obligations, uh, between, uh, a law enforcement officer and that of a firefighter or paramedic are entirely different. So if you could give me an example of an illegal action, I could probably answer that question better. Uh, again, I think I appreciate the intent of your bill. It's just how the bill is written with very broad definitions for first responder and harassed.

93. 0:44:00

    Yes, and this, uh, there's- Could have some unintended consequences. I appreciate that. And th- this type of bill has been tested by the courts in Arizona and Louisiana, and I think we went more narrow than those did. What we've done is we've protected the First Amendment rights of anybody that wants to film, engage with. What we're focusing on are the individuals. Recently, there was a, uh, individual that, uh, attempted to disrupt a protest in Upstate New York with a explosive device.

94. 0:44:31

    Uh, as the officers on scene tackled the individual along with the explosive device, uh, most of the people in the crowd grabbed their phones and ran in close. Them filming the incident was no problem at all. The distance away from the officer so that they not interfere, we've seen individuals grab officers by arms and legs, trying to pull them away, things of that nature. We never want to stymie anyone's First Amendment rights to be where they're allowed to be and to say what they want to say and to film what they want to film. All we don't, all we're trying to do is protect those first responders, paramedics, firefighters, law enforcement, and others.

95. 0:45:07

    We even have some DOT, uh, employees that are, uh, classified as first responders. Keep people from interfering with them while they're doing their job, legally doing their job. Could, could you provide, um, the names of those cases that you mentioned? I will get them for you. Yes, sir, and I'll get them over to you. Thank you. Thank you. Leader Hugley, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, to Senator Robinson, give me, uh, an example of this emotional distress that we want to protect, uh, the first responders from.

96. 0:45:39

    Uh, uh, would you tell me where you're at in the bill? Well, the bill speaks to, uh, intentionally causing emotional distress. My concern is these things are already a crime. We already have criminal statutes that, that take care of this, and I'm trying to understand. Give me an example, uh, a local example if you have one, of why we need this here in Georgia. Well, I'm not, I'm not familiar with what law you're, you're talking about that we already have that deals with handling emotional distress.

97. 0:46:13

    I think, uh, in many of these situations, um, and I can only speak, well, uh, and I think I can speak well for the paramedic side, too, that paramedics and law enforcement officers are trained to not get overly emotional, get overly attached in a situation. They must focus on their training, and as they move forward and as they execute the training, someone coming in, getting close up behind them, um, th- it gets very emotional on crash scenes and things of that nature, especially if there's a survivor there or a family member that shows up, and they're allowed to be as emotional as they need to be.

98. 0:46:49

    What they cannot do is they cannot interfere, and so when the first responder asks them to step back to give them the opportunity to save a life or to give them the opportunity to carry out whatever responsibilities they may have at that moment, as long as that in- as long as that individual follows that instruction, steps back, they can continue being emotional. They can scream. They can yell, but what they cannot do is interfere with the action. So on line 23- Yes, ma'am ... uh, under your definition of harass, it includes intentionally causes substantial emotional distress.

99. 0:47:24

    That's what I'm referring to. What is your example of, of, what do you have in mind for that, that would constitute that? Do you have the LC number that you're reading off, ma'am, please? Uh, LC481621S. Okay, and you said that was on line 23? Um, on the second page, line 23. Yes, ma'am. This is the, uh, the latest rendition of this. It's, yes, it does give the definition, causes, intentionally causes substantial emotional distress in that first responder and serves no legitimate purpose.

100. 0:47:59

     I think that would be any conduct that that first responder would have to articulate, and they would have to describe exactly the conduct, and they would have to describe exactly how that conduct im- impacted them. In many cases, and I will use an, uh, an arrest as an example, when an officer's attempting to arrest somebody and there are folks interfering, saying, pulling, tugging at the officer or even standing so close that the officer feels that he or she cannot safely handcuff that individual, it requires the officer to step up the use of force while at the same time the officer continues to feel the threat up on them.

101. 0:48:34

     And so that, that would be one of those harassing and causing emotional distress to the officer. And I'd be happy to get you a definition for emotional distress and send that to you.

102. 0:48:44

     I just want to know what your, what your view was.

103. 0:48:47

     Well, my view normally, ma'am, has been from being in those situations.

104. 0:48:52

     Okay. Let's see. No more questions on that. Did you have something else, you said?

105. 0:48:57

     Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um,

106. 0:49:04

     um, SB565, um, deals with, uh, private university law enforcement officers. We'll be defining them as peace officers under Georgia statute. Recently, there was an active shooter, uh, at the CDC. Approximately 33 agencies from here around Atlanta respond to the that, but the very first agency that was able to respond was Emory Police Department. They are all POST certified law enforcement officers, but they work for a private university, so they don't have the same protections as a peace officer has under Georgia code.

107. 0:49:38

     But what they did, understanding that they did not have this protection, they had been- this had been articulated to them by their attorneys in the past. These brave men and women immediately responded. They went off campus onto the facilities of the CDC. They engaged the individual who just prior to that had killed another law enforcement officer. Uh, their engagement caused the individual to retreat into the building there at the CDC and neutralize himself. Uh, if not for the actions of these private university POST certified law enforcement officers, we think this would have been much greater.

108. 0:50:11

     So what we're doing is adding pe- identifying them as peace officers under the POST council so that they have some of those same, um, protections as other law enforcement officers do.

109. 0:50:22

     Okay. Don't see any questions on that.

110. 0:50:24

     Thank you, sir. And finally, um, on the structure rule, uh, on page five, 430, this, uh, my purpose of this is just to, uh, uh, define what a military museum is here in Georgia so that they could go through the process, uh, in acquiring, uh, any, uh, hotel motel tax that may be available for tourism. We just want to clarify that definition of a military or a, yes, sir, military museum.

111. 0:50:52

     Okay, we do have a question. Whip Ford.

112. 0:50:58

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I, I appreciate, uh, this bill. Would this apply to a museum dedicated to the Confederacy?

113. 0:51:05

     Dedicated to?

114. 0:51:07

     The Confederacy.

115. 0:51:09

     Uh, wasn't my intent. It was, my primary focus is on, uh, that, that, that museum would have to meet certain standards as, as you read through the definition. I've actually never been to a museum that focuses on the Confederacy, so I really wouldn't know what one looks like.

116. 0:51:25

     Thank you.

117. 0:51:25

     Thank you.

118. 0:51:28

     Don't see any more questions.

119. 0:51:30

     Thank you, sir.

120. 0:51:35

     Thank you. President. Senator Walker, pro tem, I know y'all are busy over this morning. You want to come on up and share with us?

121. 0:51:41

     Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Uh, we do have, uh, 16 real, real good House bills on the floor today that we're gonna- ... gonna-

122. 0:51:53

     18.

123. 0:51:54

     18. I stand corrected. Um, so thank you. I'm here to present Senate Bill 284 and ask for y- your favorable consideration of that. I don't know. I don't even have a blue sheet. I think they ran out maybe, but, um-

124. 0:52:10

     On page three.

125. 0:52:12

     Page three.

126. 0:52:12

     Page three. Uh, so I, I introduced this bill last year prior to the First Liberty building and loan collapse and situation. Uh, but that case against First Liberty is a prime example of why I think we need this legislation. The securities visio- division of the Secretary of State's office currently can levy fines to, uh, against people that defraud investors or, or have a pyra- pyramid scheme or, you know, con men and women.

127. 0:52:48

     They can levy fines. They can order a cease, do a cease and desist order, but they cannot require them to return funds to the defrauded investor. Um, and if this bill were to pass, that would be an option for the securities division commissioner to require the money be returned directly to the defrauded investor. The First Liberty situation, they're now in federal receivership, and the receivership might decide to return money to, say, vendors or other people injured before the actual investors.

128. 0:53:25

     That's up to the, to the receiver on that. So this would allow the s- securities division to return money to the people that, you know, got ripped off. Uh, the, we made a change to that, and i- if this were to pass, it would be effective upon the governor's signature, which might actually give some, uh, relief to these folks that lost money in that scheme. And then there was a good House measure in section two that was added to help our schools in low we- wealth areas to get Low Wealth Capital Outlay grants.

129. 0:54:04

     Uh, so I think it's a very good measure that would help the citizens of Georgia.

130. 0:54:08

     All right. Thank you. We've got a question. Ch- Charlice Byrd.

131. 0:54:12

     Um, good morning-

132. 0:54:14

     Good morning

133. 0:54:14

     ... Senator. Sorry, bad, um, speech. I live in the area where these violators lived, and I've watched firsthand people tell me they've lost their money, they've lost their savings. I was disappointed our state did not have anything to deal with that, so I want to thank you for bringing it.

134. 0:54:33

     Thank you, Chair Lady.

135. 0:54:35

     Okay. Thank you, Senator. Don't see any more questions. Thank you, sir.

136. 0:54:38

     Thank you.

137. 0:54:39

     Yeah. Chairman Tillery.

138. 0:54:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, second page, third from the bottom, Senate Bill 91 takes a sledgehammer to the PBM issue and helps our independent pharmacists, big small business, uh, endeavor that I hope we can get across the, the table this year

139. 0:54:59

     Okay. Don't see any questions. Senate Bill 402 is a pilot program that if passed, I think, uh, Representative Silcox is gonna carry, it's for autism, making sure that we kind of get down to the cause of why our foster care system has a seven to one ratio of children who have, uh, or are seven times more likely to have autism in our foster care system. Okay. Don't see any questions on that one. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Senator Hatchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, two bills today.

140. 0:55:30

     The first one is, uh, sixth down on page number three. That's Senate Bill 384. It deals with the five-year optional registration. Uh, some questions that I've gotten about this bill is I originally wanted to do five-year for everybody. Well, some people, um, have to do emissions. Obviously, you have insurance requirements. Uh, if you don't meet those requirements for insurance or emissions, then when you go to register your tag again, the tag office knows and they won't give you a new sticker.

141. 0:56:03

     Um, with the five-year tag, the only way you can get it is if you opt in to electronic notification. So electronic notification, which a lo- some people don't want 'cause they don't want the government to have their cell phone number in, in a lot of cases, but if you opt into the five-year tag, you will get electronic notifications. So that's the only way this is able to work because it's an optional opt-in. Happy to answer any questions on that. Okay. Don't see any questions. Thank you. All right, and then on page four, uh, 10 down, it's Senate Bill 593.

142. 0:56:35

     This deals with, um, impact fees. If you are building a subdivision or you're building a home, if you submit a request, a written request describing exactly what you're going to do to the county, this just requires the county or city to disclose what those impact fees are gonna be. Uh, I had a constituent that, uh, did this. The county said there wouldn't be any impact fees. Then when he closed on the property and began the process of developing this area, he was hit with over $800,000 of impact fees.

143. 0:57:10

     All this does, it's just transparency, and it just says if you get a request and it's detailed and it's written, then you have to disclose what those impact fees are going to be. And it just, uh, prevents, um, ambush style impact fees. Okay, got a question. Representative Kelley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, short bill here, so I'm trying to figure out how it fits in the full, uh, title here. What is the timeline for which municipality or county would have to disclose that?

144. 0:57:41

     What's the shot clock? That's a, that's a big word this session. What's the shot clock that they have to disclose that? You know, I don't think there is a shot clock on this bill. When do they have to ... When they ... Upon the written request by the individual, how long does the municipality or the county have to tell them what the impact fees will be? I think it would just be a reasonable time. And, and to be fair, what this is really trying to address, at least in my constituent's, uh, position, is making decisions prior to purchase of a land so that you can bake those costs into the purchase price if needed.

145. 0:58:19

     Um, so we may need to put a shot clock on it, and that's something that I hadn't even considered. But really, if they do have to do it, at least it gives the person who's purchasing the land some time, uh, to wait for the county prior to closing. Maybe we can chat offline because I, I know that what I see, you know, is I, I don't want us to pressure them into a rush situation- Mm-hmm ... where then the brunt of the impact on the community is borne by all the other taxpayers.

146. 0:58:50

     Yeah, and I think my constituent, the issue that I had, was actually a l- a piece of property he purchased in Paulding County, which I think you may represent. So this would address an issue in Paulding. I just don't want to shift it to the taxpayers in Paulding. I understand. Yes, sir. Okay, we've got another question. Is that Chair- uh, Chairman Martin? Uh, Chairman Neal, for a question. My question is this: This is a transfer of property, so this is the sale of property. If I'm gonna buy property, I'm gonna ask the, this municipality, city or county, how much my impact fees are gonna be if I develop that property.

147. 0:59:22

     That's what you're after, right? Yes. Okay. My question is, is oftentimes, uh, you'll be purchasing property that is zoned O&I in a city. You can do- Speak into the mic. I'm sorry. Oftentimes, you, you could be purchasing property that has a zoning classification of O&I. In that O- O&I category, it depend, the density is not set. The, the particular uses are not set. Depending upon how you choose to develop the property, the impact fees can vary greatly. Sometimes they're square foot, based on square foot.

148. 0:59:53

     Sometimes it's based on type of effort. What, what would the county or city, how would they respond to that not knowing how you intend to develop the property? You're just buying the property. Well, you would have to request with specificity what your intention is, and if you, you know, have a specific intent for the property and you have that written, "This is exactly what I want to do with the property, you know, I want it to be zoned this. If it is, and I'm gonna put this many houses on it," what would the impact fees be? Fair enough. So it would be a, a, a, at minimum, a straw man of a zoning application.

149. 1:00:25

     Correct. Maybe not the specific zoning application, but a straw man of units and that sort of thing. Correct. Thank you. Okay, I don't see any other questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Burns.

150. 1:00:39

     Committee, good morning. I think I may be your last target today. Um, three bills. We've talked about two of them. I'll just point them out. One's on page two, um, five down from the, uh, up from the bottom, Senate Bill 74. We've talked about that. Now move on to s- to, uh, page three, top of the page, Senate Bill 214. We've discussed that. I want to highlight this morning Senate Bill 400. It's number eight down from the top on page two. This is an agency bill

151. 1:01:08

     It's an agency bill for the Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission. It cleans up some language and provides them with some additional oversight capacity so that they can ensure that, um, nonpublic, private, non-degree granting institutions, uh, treat the, uh, citizens and the students of Georgia fairly.

152. 1:01:29

     Okay. Senator- I'm happy to answer questions. Don't, don't see any questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Appreciate you. Thank you.

153. 1:01:41

     Okay.

154. 1:01:47

     Going recognize, uh, Chairman Powell to speak to, um, Senate Bill 384 by substitute. You should have it on your desk.

155. 1:01:58

     Can you hear me?

156. 1:01:59

     Yeah.

157. 1:01:59

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, there's a substitute for SB384 that the good Senator Hatchett just explained, is the- the- the genesis of the, the principle of the bill is about doing a five-year tag, and the amendment that's been added to this is a, uh, a bill that was heard in the House Motor Vehicle Committee that does away with the decals. Uh, during the testimony and all the, uh, bi- when the bill was being presented, basically showed that there's no purpose for those decals anymore, um, because of TAVT tax and things like that, and everything is online today.

158. 1:02:38

     There was no purpose to even having a decal anymore. And, uh, it passed out of the committee, uh, didn't make it through crossover. Uh, the savings on this was somewhere between $5.5 to $6 million a year that your local governments, Department of Revenue and local governments have to keep these decals and such as that. So they really, it was basically proven that it had no purpose to have a decal, and the author has now asked that this be added to the bill.

159. 1:03:09

     Okay. Any questions? Okay, don't hear any questions. All right. Do we hear a motion to approve the substitute Senate Bill 384, 39-5097- 97S?

160. 1:03:25

     So moved.

161. 1:03:25

     Have a motion and a second to approve. Is there any, uh, opposition? Okay, it's approved. Okay, now we have a calendar for today. We have one item on there. Let's set a supplemental calendar for today also under modified structure.

162. 1:03:47

     Senate Bill 23.

163. 1:03:49

     Moved.

164. 1:03:50

     Second. Have a move and a second. Any opposition? It's on. Senate Bill 284.

165. 1:03:57

     Moved.

166. 1:03:58

     Second. Have a move and second. Any opposition? It's on. Okay, Senate Bill 384 by substitute LC39-5097S.

167. 1:04:10

     Moved.

168. 1:04:11

     Move and second. Any opposition? It's on. Senate Bill 395. Moved. Moved and second. Any opposition? It's on. Okay, that will be our supplemental calendar for today. Uh, we'll have a rules meeting scheduled for 9:00 AM on Monday, and if you have not been by the office and talked to Miss Pam, please, uh, stop by at your convenience. Thank you. We adjourn.