Comité State and Local Governmental Operations del Senado, 24 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

1,061 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:06:36

   Um, Senator Williams, would you lead us in a prayer-

2. 0:06:40

   Be glad

3. 0:06:40

   ... before we get started? Thank you.

4. 0:06:43

   Number six. Let us pray. Dear God, thank you again for the many opportunities you've bestowed upon us. Please bless our men and women in harm's way. Please bless our peace officers as they go about their job every day. Please lead us, guide us, direct us. In thy name we pray, amen.

5. 0:07:03

   Amen.

6. 0:07:04

   Amen.

7. 0:07:07

   First bill we've got on the agenda is, uh, HB 521.

8. 0:07:13

   Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you.

9. 0:07:31

   All right. You ready, sir?

10. 0:07:32

    Yes, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have the original version of the bill. I understand it was recommitted from the, uh, Senate floor, so I'm not sure if there's a sub associated with this-

11. 0:07:45

    There is a sub

12. 0:07:45

    ... but I'll just discuss real quickly, uh, kind of a, a recap of what the original version of the bill that I had, uh, which was, uh, LC474051S. Uh, section one requires reporting of de-annexation maps and map files to the reapportionment office. We had, uh, made a provision a couple years back that would require annexation maps to be reported, and realized, uh, working with the, the, uh, reapportionment office that we had left off de-annexation maps, which have equal, uh, equal importance to them as far as district ma- boundaries and that sort of thing.

13. 0:08:25

    Section two of the bill basically covers a few of our communities that have, uh, unique scenarios and situations concerning growth and, uh, uh, that sort of thing that had come and requested and, and, um, and gotten it amended onto the bill to, uh, allow county approval of annexations in those communities. I believe that may be where some of the changes have been made-

14. 0:08:49

    That's correct

15. 0:08:50

    ... uh, since the thing. So, uh, I'll, I'll kind of leave that discussion till we get to that point. Section three, uh, takes the, the... When we have counties that own 100% of a parcel or collection of parcels that are contiguous, located within a municipality, and the county, for, for whatever reason, wishes to de-annex that property that they own 100% of, it currently, that is allowed in law, but there is no, uh, there's no timeline when that, uh, has to be addressed.

16. 0:09:22

    So all we've done with that section three is added a 90-day shot clock, if you will, so that, uh, once that application has been, uh, accepted, then the municipality has to act, either ag- uh, confirm or, or deny that, uh, appli- that de-annexation request within 90 days.

17. 0:09:44

    And that's, uh, again, aside from, from other specific provisions, that's, uh, that's the, the meat of the bill.

18. 0:10:01

    Any questions or comments from the committee?

19. 0:10:08

    Go ahead, Senator Williams.

20. 0:10:09

    Uh, Representative Anderson, can you give me a, an example of what might be taking place or how this would go about, or-

21. 0:10:18

    I don't have one

22. 0:10:21

    ... um, de-annexing. Is it from the city?

23. 0:10:24

    Yeah.

24. 0:10:24

    Is it a county-

25. 0:10:26

    I- if, if we're referring to the section three portion?

26. 0:10:28

    Uh-huh.

27. 0:10:29

    Okay. Yes, sir. This, this, this would be a scenario where a county, uh, owns 100% of a parcel or collection of parcels that are contiguous that is located within the municipality, okay? That's, it's in an area that has, uh, that is annexed by a municipality. The county may want to, uh, have that property de-annexed so that they have control over, uh, zoning, uh, you know, permitting, that sort of thing, for various reasons. Uh, again, the provision is currently in law that allows that de-annexation to occur, it's just there's no, uh, deadline for a decision, yay or nay, on that request to be presented.

28. 0:11:08

    So what we've done is put a 90-day deadline in place once that, uh, that application is received and, and deemed appropriate.

29. 0:11:18

    Would this, uh, if I may follow up-

30. 0:11:20

    Mm-hmm

31. 0:11:21

    ... would this also apply to state property, um, that might be in a county and it's been annexed by the city in the past? Would the, um... Could, could the county petition to have it de-annexed, or-

32. 0:11:40

    The, it's my understanding the provision we have here specifically deals with county and county-owned properties.

33. 0:11:46

    Okay.

34. 0:11:46

    Nothing outside of that.

35. 0:11:47

    It wouldn't be any state-owned property.

36. 0:11:48

    Correct.

37. 0:11:49

    Okay. Thank you.

38. 0:11:55

    I appreciate that. Um, want to make sure, so you're looking at the... Which LC are you looking at?

39. 0:12:02

    Uh, 474051S. I mean, that's, that's why I say that's, you know, prior-

40. 0:12:07

    And we have a sub-

41. 0:12:08

    ... prior to any sub that may have been, uh-

42. 0:12:10

    But you're not sure about the sub that we have in our hand?

43. 0:12:12

    I, I have not seen a copy of that, no sir.

44. 0:12:14

    And we just-

45. 0:12:15

    Not, not yet

46. 0:12:15

    ... are seeing a copy right now. So can we... I want to make sure we get a sense of the difference between this sub and what you presented. This seems like common sense that-

47. 0:12:26

    Thank you

48. 0:12:27

    ... the person bringing the bill should have an idea of what the sub is before the committee meeting, and we're reading it in real time. I'd just love to know what those changes are.

49. 0:12:37

    Um, changing state law is not a small matter.

50. 0:12:39

    And we've also got- we've got another representative here, uh, Representative Newton. You wanna? And we don't have a summary of that one either, Mr. Chairman. I don't think so. That's right. Yeah, some of these changes- Okay ... were, were made- Okay ... uh, actually today. Okay. Yeah. So it was kinda last minute.

51. 0:12:55

    So no analysis is available for us, so we'll tr- we'll try to get the analysis in real time from the folks presenting the bill.

52. 0:13:03

    That's correct.

53. 0:13:03

    Okay. So as it stands, I just don't have a good analysis of the changes, and it's a lot of unrea- readiness on my end. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

54. 0:13:15

    Thank you.

55. 0:13:20

    Uh, thank you mem- members of the committee, Chairman. Um, uh, we- we'll go to... I'm, I'm working off of LC 47429654295S.

56. 0:13:30

    And that's what I have. That's correct. Yeah, so what you g- what you've got is... What I want you to talk about is your, the addition that you've got to the bill.

57. 0:13:39

    Yes, sir.

58. 0:13:40

    And so what we've got, there, there are two additions to the bill, uh, dealing with the, uh, annexations on in section three or section two. And one is from the representative, and then one was actually from, uh...

59. 0:13:59

    Let's see. Could I get a copy of what the... So I can give the right line reference?

60. 0:14:06

    Or do you have a copy? Can I see it? There's my own right here.

61. 0:14:15

    And the other, uh, the other addition to it, uh, included the, the city of Holly Springs. That came from Senator Albers.

62. 0:14:23

    All right. I'm sorry. All right, then I'm now on LC620520se- uh, S. 620520S.

63. 0:14:34

    That's correct.

64. 0:14:35

    That's the one in front of you?

65. 0:14:36

    Yeah, that's the one we have.

66. 0:14:37

    Yeah.

67. 0:14:37

    Okay. Thank you. Yes, if you look to line, uh, 127, this is a particular, um, uh, request on annexation approval, uh, or prior approval, and it deals with a county that has, uh, a broadband services owned by the county and also abutting a military garrison of more than 5,000 that in particular agrees to an area in my area next to the Cyber Command post. And NSA is on that, located on that location as well, and this just requests that the county be able to, uh, have to prior authorize any annexations by a couple of the small cities in that area, um, as a way to, uh...

68. 0:15:19

    Well, th- that's just, that's the information that I've been given, and it's, uh, particularly due to our location and the county-owned utility that is broadband in that particular area.

69. 0:15:30

    And what, what county would that be?

70. 0:15:32

    That's Columbia County.

71. 0:15:33

    Columbia County.

72. 0:15:33

    Yes, sir.

73. 0:15:35

    And so for the committee members, um, and it's my understanding, uh, Representative Anderson, a portion of this section two was in the bill when you, when you-

74. 0:15:46

    That, that is correct. Yes, sir

75. 0:15:47

    ... when you crossed over.

76. 0:15:47

    Yes, sir.

77. 0:15:47

    And that had to do with Paulding County?

78. 0:15:49

    Paulding County and, uh-

79. 0:15:51

    Holly Springs

80. 0:15:52

    ... uh, well, Holly Springs was added. Um, uh-

81. 0:15:56

    That's it.

82. 0:15:57

    Let me just... Maybe it was just... The original version had Paulding County, correct. And then, uh, then there was a- an amendment that added, uh-

83. 0:16:07

    Holly Springs

84. 0:16:07

    ... Holly Springs.

85. 0:16:08

    Yeah.

86. 0:16:08

    Correct.

87. 0:16:08

    And then Columbia County.

88. 0:16:10

    Yes.

89. 0:16:10

    So yes. And so our language on your bill is 127 through 135, but there's earlier language, as you say, that, uh, deals with something more.

90. 0:16:19

    But I appreciate the committee's consideration.

91. 0:16:22

    And for the committee members, you know, essentially, uh, in these local municipalities, uh, there's issues with zoning, um, that they're having locally, so they've put this in. Uh, and essentially what it would do is if, if there's an annexation between a property owner and the city, the, uh, the county would have, uh... W- w- word did you use?

92. 0:16:41

    Uh, just, uh, written approval.

93. 0:16:42

    Written approval. Okay.

94. 0:16:43

    The, uh, I do think... We did check, and this is the only county in the state that this would apply to.

95. 0:16:48

    Okay.

96. 0:16:48

    That, that does, meets both of those criteria.

97. 0:16:51

    Okay.

98. 0:16:52

    So just narrowly worded just for a, a specific local issue.

99. 0:17:00

    Questions from the committee members?

100. 0:17:03

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I was trying to understand, uh, with lines 127 to, uh, 135, uh, and just wanna raise this, uh, issue. Um, as you know, I represent Chatham County, um, and we have a garrison, and that garrison is Hunter Army Airfield, which is under the command of Fort Stewart, which is the 3rd Infantry Division. And so we're in Liberty County. Fort Stewart is Liberty, Bryan, and Chatham County. That's three counties impacted by this bill.

101. 0:17:33

     Um, and I, I can't support being impacted unintentionally, is my thought process here, uh, with this new language.

102. 0:17:45

     That...

103. 0:17:49

     Re- representative.

104. 0:17:50

     No, I'm, I'm, I'm asking. I, you know-

105. 0:17:51

     I could tell you I had a, a list of the counties that do abut a military garrison, and you're correct, that also own the, the, the broadband excludes all those other counties. At Robins, Dobbins, St- Fort Stewart, um, uh, Benning. Um, uh, so we had checked, and that's, these two requirements narrows it down to a single county in Georgia.

106. 0:18:16

     Right. Whereas, for example, uh, in some ongoing negotiations with, uh, some of my governmental entities, they are entertaining, uh, the conversation about, uh, broadband and broadband access because we have such a high rate of poverty in the city of Savannah. For example, just 27%, some areas 33%, and that access to provide some affordability there is something that they have Had some discussions how we do that. Um, and so then when this popped up, I'm just perplexed as to how we, how we get there.

107. 0:18:50

     Would you like your county included, or do you not-

108. 0:18:53

     No, we-

109. 0:18:53

     Want your county included?

110. 0:18:54

     No, we don't wanna be included at all.

111. 0:18:55

     So my, my understanding is that this is the on- Columbia County's the only county that operates a community broadband utility. Um, there's a few through public partnerships up in Habersham, uh, Fannin and Towns, and also in, uh, North Georgia, uh, in Habersham and Fannin. Um, none of those abut a military reservation or garrison. So it would not apply to your counties. This, this exclude, this exclusion or this language would not apply to, to, uh, Liberty, Bryan, uh, et cetera, Chatham or Camden for that matter either.

112. 0:19:34

     And it would prohibit them from doing so if they- ... that's something they were going to, 'cause then they'd fall into this.

113. 0:19:42

     No, it would not prohibit them going forward. Is that what you mean?

114. 0:19:46

     Yeah, I, I just w- you just, we get these things so, so late, Representative. I'm trying to interpret it. Even my folks, uh, back in Savannah along way down the road, um, trying to understand the impact, y- just nature of timing. We just didn't have enough time to really understand the impact and/or to, to research that. And, um, like everybody, I'm always fighting for, for my county, um, because I always find more so centralized in the metro areas things for those specific folks, but then the rest of the state, we fall into the unintended consequences.

115. 0:20:18

     Um, and that's what I wanna ensure. And so I'm hoping to hear back from our city attorney to-

116. 0:20:23

     Okay

117. 0:20:23

     ... get that interpretation.

118. 0:20:24

     Well, my, like I said, my understanding is it's been-

119. 0:20:26

     Yeah

120. 0:20:26

     ... carefully vetted to make sure that it only applies to a single one of the 159 counties. And, uh, I hope that's, um, borne out by your research as well. Thank you.

121. 0:20:40

     Go ahead, Senator.

122. 0:20:41

     Fine. Thank you to the distinguished, uh, representative. I, Mr. Chairman, I'm, I'm concerned, and maybe it's just the politics of where politics are now, but why not do this as a local legislation to avoid exactly that situation? Because I might not even be thinking about a military garrison in my backyard, and by accident we have these unintended consequences. Is it that we've decided as a body to stop doing local legislation so that we know that it only impact, impacts Columbia, it only impacts Holly Springs, it only impacts Paulding or whatever, and, or is it just that that's just now the politics of it that you wanna make sure it goes through, you don't have the votes or something on the local level?

123. 0:21:30

     Uh, what's happening now, and I'm just going from my memory being a representative, but now I notice that I see more local legislation that's passed as general legislation. The whole body votes on it when, you know, there so often there is, just like, uh, Senator Mallow was saying, some unintended consequences. And if I can't reach my county attorney, if I'm not even thinking about a military garrison, then I vote on it in support you, which I would love to do when I can.

124. 0:22:02

     But I unintentionally have people throwing, going on my throat because I'm voting something that you thought only represented and impacted your local district. Is that just as a policy decision we're now making so that we can make sure that certain things happen? And why don't we do local legislation anymore, basically is my question. And why couldn't this be local legislation?

125. 0:22:26

     Well, I know over the years I've seen, uh, things that say how far, uh, between an airport that has at least five runways a, a bill will apply. There, there's all sorts of ways through general legislation that we have, um, amended policy somewhat and tried to do it narrowly because of, uh, sometimes unique situations. Uh, this is just one m- this is one more attempt that recognizes a, a, a single area that I'm, I'm told, um, and have been assured and have asked and doubled ask and said, and required written confirmation, um, that it is a narrow, a narrow, uh, portion of the bill.

126. 0:23:05

     So I would appreciate it. It's, it is, um... I, I'm not sure whether, I believe annexation may have to go through-

127. 0:23:11

     Yeah

128. 0:23:11

     ... general legislation.

129. 0:23:14

     It, is it that you didn't have enough time to do it, or-

130. 0:23:16

     Well, no, I don't believe it's possible to do it through-

131. 0:23:18

     Okay

132. 0:23:18

     ... just local legislation.

133. 0:23:19

     Okay.

134. 0:23:20

     This particular policy.

135. 0:23:21

     Mr. Chairman, if I may, uh, make a suggestion. I'm sure leg council could shed some light on that. I believe this is a category in a, a section of code that is not a, a allowable for local legislation. It has to be handled through general.

136. 0:23:34

     Yeah, that's great. I'm pretty sure that's accurate.

137. 0:23:38

     Uh, do you want me to go to the mic?

138. 0:23:39

     Yeah, if you would, please. Thank you.

139. 0:23:42

     Come on. Come on. We'll go all the way up.

140. 0:23:43

     Come on, we got you.

141. 0:23:43

     Go to work.

142. 0:23:44

     Come on, right here.

143. 0:23:46

     Be right here.

144. 0:23:46

     Number two.

145. 0:23:47

     I am number two. So broadly speaking, in this particular case because the provision is in general law, uh, local law cannot supersede general law. So in this specific circumstance, it's adding that carve out for a very narrow situation just because they couldn't achieve it through a local act since it is general law.

146. 0:24:08

     Thank you.

147. 0:24:09

     I have a question to determine, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Attorney, so for example, in Chatham County they're working on, uh, a public utility right now, a, a utility with broadband. And so since we ha- don't have it yet, but if we did have it, would we then not fall into this general law that would prohibit us and, and have these restrictions 'cause we'd then be providing that service?

148. 0:24:30

     I'm gonna say, uh, I'm not entirely sure what that would look like. It's, that one is a specific fact-based scenario, especially on the way this is written. If it meets every single one of these requirements, then potentially yes. But again, uh, that looking forward, I'm not entirely sure how that would look like.

149. 0:24:48

     Okay. Thank you.

150. 0:24:53

     Any further comments from the committee? Thank you. Thank you, sir.

151. 0:25:06

     Mr. Chairman.

152. 0:25:07

     Doc.

153. 0:25:08

     Could we put even on something like in existence as of a certain date so that we would avoid future, like, uh, like down at the senator from the distinguished 2nd District, so it wouldn't inc- un- unintentionally

154. 0:25:27

     include someone that we're not anticipating? That's what I... If an amendment, Mr. Legislative Council, that would say in existence as of whatever date so that anybody else coming along wouldn't be unintentionally included.

155. 0:25:48

     Is that something that... And would that hurt your bill, basically?

156. 0:25:52

     I, I, I would have no objection to that. Is it likely?

157. 0:25:56

     Uh, Mr.... Where representative left. Did he leave?

158. 0:26:04

     We've got, uh, we've got three folks signed up to, to speak. Oh, here we go. You found... Yeah, come on back up.

159. 0:26:12

     Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.

160. 0:26:14

     He had a question for you. Oh, yes sir.

161. 0:26:15

     Yes. Whether or not you would agree that, uh, notwithstanding... Okay, let me just get some language. Uh,

162. 0:26:25

     on line 27.

163. 0:26:27

     Okay. Yeah.

164. 0:26:28

     And I'm gonna ask legislative council to help with this. But, uh, the concept is any system as in existence as of January 1st, 2025-

165. 0:26:39

     That's fine

166. 0:26:39

     ... so that you know that it's not gonna impact anybody-

167. 0:26:42

     In the future

168. 0:26:43

     ... in the futures.

169. 0:26:43

     Yes, sir.

170. 0:26:43

     Because, you know, I don't wanna wake up and tomorrow morning and somebody called me, cursed me out 'cause I voted for your bill-

171. 0:26:50

     No, no, no

172. 0:26:50

     ... trying to help you-

173. 0:26:51

     I appreciate your language

174. 0:26:52

     ... and unintentionally-

175. 0:26:53

     Would it be... Go ahead and tell me what you would like it to read.

176. 0:26:57

     Uh, uh, well, notwithstanding any other provision to the chapter to the contrary, as to, as of... Well, let me-

177. 0:27:07

     Like after the word operates

178. 0:27:08

     ... legislative council, I don't want to go to work as a lawyer.

179. 0:27:11

     Thank you, leg council.

180. 0:27:12

     Give me language. Um-

181. 0:27:14

     Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your committee's indulgence for this. Thank you. Oh, absolutely. It's very important.

182. 0:27:18

     Just as of, you know, something in e- in existence as of January 1st, 2026. 'Cause-

183. 0:27:25

     Right

184. 0:27:27

     ... because if, if it's not in existence, then-

185. 0:27:31

     Future counties

186. 0:27:31

     ... future counties wouldn't be impacted. That's basically is what I'm saying.

187. 0:27:35

     And, uh, unfortunately, it needs to be an open class instead of a closed one to be constitutional, that is in consulting with the, um, original author of the bill. So places or municipalities or whatever qualifying entity it is, needs to be able to move in and out of the class. So, uh, you cannot add already in existence 'cause that closes the class.

188. 0:28:02

     Was there another phrase you had that mentioned county seat?

189. 0:28:06

     For, uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, to legislative council, would that be, for example, could we say for a county, um, with, um, an open seat, um, a provision for a county with an unincorporated county seat, then that would tighten it up in a way that we would-

190. 0:28:24

     It would be open, but tightened

191. 0:28:25

     ... open but tightened.

192. 0:28:26

     Yeah.

193. 0:28:27

     Uh, so long as-

194. 0:28:28

     We are unique in that too, or-

195. 0:28:30

     Yes

196. 0:28:31

     ... rare.

197. 0:28:31

     Yes. Uh, potentially, so long as the, uh, that would technically be open, unless a county theoretically would be able to unincorporate its county seat theoretically.

198. 0:28:46

     I would... I think that's pretty rare. I hope so.

199. 0:28:49

     Yeah. And that would protect m- my home, my home county.

200. 0:28:53

     Thank you.

201. 0:28:54

     Um, but would work-

202. 0:28:55

     That's great language

203. 0:28:56

     ... for Columbia County or anybody, you know, in that way. And to make that amendment, if you could find out where we can put it in there so it maintains its constitutionality. Um, but that way, we don't have the unintended consequences. Um, 'cause when you say garrison, Hunter is a garrison, but it's not its own garrison. It's a part of Fort Stewart, which spans three counties. Um, and we're one of the fastest growing areas in the state, and I wanna make sure, uh, we maintain that.

204. 0:29:26

     I appreciate that friendly amendment.

205. 0:29:28

     Yeah. Okay. And then I have language for that as well after the, any discussion, everything at the time to add amendments in, so.

206. 0:29:37

     Thank you.

207. 0:29:38

     Thank you.

208. 0:29:39

     Thank you, Doc. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Wicks.

209. 0:29:42

     Yeah. I was just... I was gonna need to hear the language again, clarification on it. It got a little jumbled there between... got a little conversational as opposed to committee testimony.

210. 0:29:52

     Uh, the amendment would be on line 127. Um, after the word county, it would be basically, notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter to the contrary, in any county with an unincorporated county seat where the county government owns, and it flows from there.

211. 0:30:11

     That's

212. 0:30:15

     great. And, and I guess this is a Georgia civics lesson for me. Do we know how many counties have unincorporated county seats?

213. 0:30:21

     Uh, I do believe, and I don't know off the top of my head, but I heard one potentially. The-

214. 0:30:26

     That's, that's our understanding. Yes. Is our... It is unincorporated.

215. 0:30:32

     Wow. Okay. Thank you.

216. 0:30:36

     Learn something. Thank you.

217. 0:30:37

     New every day, Mr. Wicks.

218. 0:30:41

     Thank you. All right, we've got, uh, three speakers signed up to speak. Uh, first up is Scott Turner, uh, from the City of Holly Springs.

219. 0:30:53

     Here, Chairman, or-

220. 0:30:55

     Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you.

221. 0:31:00

     Thank you. Thank you, uh, Chairman, members of the committee. I really appreciate it. My name is Scott Turner. You've seen me in other roles. Uh, I am a resident of the city of Holly Springs, and I have come to ask, uh... Actually, the city has asked me to register their objections to lines 115 through 126 of the legislation. Uh, last year there was a great deal of con- ... Actually, let me back up. A couple years ago the city agreed to a growth boundary agreement with the county of, its, the city of Holly Springs is wholly within the s- the Cherokee County.

222. 0:31:34

     And the city and the, and the county entered into a growth boundary agreement. There was some confusion over the language of that agreement, and it created a lot of conflict in the community. And the, the county and the city have entered into legal action o- over an annexation that the county contends is outside the growth boundary agreement. But if reading the language of that agreement, it's clearly inside of it. So, uh, there's been some local legislation that passed earlier this year.

223. 0:32:05

     A- and among the things that happened to s- the city of Holly Springs in that local legislation is it, it did create two at large city council seats. So this is directly targeting the city of Holly Springs. The city of Holly Springs wants to be good neighbors with Cherokee County and the, and the surrounding areas, and, uh, have taken steps to show that they're good neighbors by earlier this year passing a resolution forfeiting their right to exercise certain annexations that caused the controversy for the next year, and it hopes to continue to work with the community at large.

224. 0:32:38

     So the city of Holly Springs would like to ask for you to strike out the lines 115 through 126, because they don't feel it's necessary. They're trying to be good neighbors. They're trying to work with the county, and we would ask for that amendment at, if it so pleases the committee.

225. 0:32:55

     Thank you. Any questions? Go ahead, Senator Howard.

226. 0:33:00

     Thank you for, um, speaking on this. Uh, we are seeing a, a uptick in the state getting involved in, uh, local matters, especially in the middle of negotiations, in the middle of trying to work things out. Uh, seems a little heavy-handed, so I appreciate you speaking on behalf of the city of Holly Springs. Uh, would this legislation stop the process of the negotiations that are happening in real time? It's, it, it's-

227. 0:33:26

     It would certainly put the city at a major disadvantage for, for... And also would severely hinder private property rights if a, a owner of the city, uh, employs the 100% method when seeking, when people seek to be, uh, annexed into the city. They do not actively recruit property owners to go in, and they actually take the step to ask the adjoining property owners if they're okay with this new, with this parcel being annexed into the city.

228. 0:33:56

     Uh, it would certainly hamper their ability to perform functions like that into the future.

229. 0:34:03

     So it seems like this legislation would kind of meddle in a lot of local control, um, umbrella. So, but I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

230. 0:34:12

     Thank you.

231. 0:34:14

     Thank you.

232. 0:34:14

     Mr. Chairman.

233. 0:34:16

     Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Williams.

234. 0:34:17

     Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Turner. I appreciate you coming in.

235. 0:34:20

     Thank you.

236. 0:34:20

     How far are the city and the county, I guess, into these negotiations?

237. 0:34:26

     Well, the, the negotiations really haven't taken place yet. But the, so to answer your question directly, they haven't really started. But the city took the proactive action of unilaterally disarming. They, they passed the resolution saying they will not for the next year in an attempt to get negotiations to happen. Negotiations require two parties, and the county has to be willing to sit nec- down at the table. But this would remove all, all, uh, incentive for the county to have those conversations if this were, bill were to pass into law.

238. 0:34:58

     What's the incentive for the county to have the conversation now?

239. 0:35:02

     You have, I think you have a brand new mayor in the city of Holly Springs, and that mayor has developed a, uh, mentality of growing up and not out. You have, uh, somebody there who wants to work with the county. I don't think that that's always been the case, and I'm speaking from a, a, a resident of the city of Holly Springs as well as somebody who represented it for eight years. It has, it's been contentious in the past, and you have new leadership there. I think it needs to be given a chance to work.

240. 0:35:28

     So this has been a long going feud-

241. 0:35:30

     Yes, sir

242. 0:35:31

     ... if you will. And so now that there's a new mayor, is, are the city councilors new also?

243. 0:35:38

     The city councilors are not new-

244. 0:35:40

     So-

245. 0:35:40

     ... but the, the energy in the-

246. 0:35:41

     All right

247. 0:35:41

     ... in the council is certainly, uh, recognizable as a, a resident of the city new.

248. 0:35:45

     And what form of government is it? Is it strong mayor?

249. 0:35:47

     It is not.

250. 0:35:49

     Is there a city manager?

251. 0:35:50

     There is.

252. 0:35:50

     Okay. Is the city manager new?

253. 0:35:53

     No.

254. 0:35:54

     Okay. And the city manager been part of this contentious relationship?

255. 0:35:58

     As, as far as I can remember, the contention has been on both sides, sir. Yes.

256. 0:36:03

     No, no.

257. 0:36:03

     Yes.

258. 0:36:03

     I understand. I'm, I'm saying it goes both ways.

259. 0:36:05

     Yes.

260. 0:36:05

     Uh, I'm not trying to say that it's just... So could this be seen as the county attempting to finally move the needle with having a new mayor? And I've, I would never want to insult any leader of a city, because I would never wanna be one. Um-

261. 0:36:23

     Me neither.

262. 0:36:24

     Yeah, exactly. Um, but really the city manager and the city council kind of have the control, and the mayor gets to vote if there's a tie, right?

263. 0:36:33

     That is correct.

264. 0:36:34

     Yeah.

265. 0:36:35

     I would, I would just, if I may-

266. 0:36:37

     Please

267. 0:36:38

     ... add to that, that there is a, the, you have to live where I live.

268. 0:36:42

     Yeah.

269. 0:36:42

     And this is the thing when we start dealing with local issues. Like I, I always voted, when I was in the House, I always voted in favor of whatever the local legislation was, because I felt like you, Senator, knew more about Columbus than I did. And if you lived in Holly Springs and you saw this guy, Mayor Shirley has come in with a different energy and a different attitude and a different willingness to be collaborative, and he's not being given the chance to govern. And that breaks my heart for him because he's new to politics.

270. 0:37:13

     He's, this, he's, he's learning as he goes and he's, he's being hum- hamstrung by legislation like this.

271. 0:37:19

     It's-

272. 0:37:19

     He's not getting the chance to, to make it work.

273. 0:37:21

     And I, and I agree with you on local legislation. I don't like local legislation up here to have to deal with.

274. 0:37:26

     Mm-hmm.

275. 0:37:26

     But the problem is the only time we deal with local legislation is when local legislators don't do their job which is most of the time. Because I think a lot of times inside this building what people forget is we're not here just to serve local legislators. We're here to serve every citizen that's impacted by the inaction and dysfunction that happens in these cities which here in the state of Georgia seems to be happening much more of late. And it's kind of, you know, aggravating to me that we're having to burn time to try to solve problems when we could, um, if, you know, if I want to do this, I've got children.

276. 0:38:04

     I can go home and deal with that. But, um, I think and, and you and I are good friends, very good friends. I think that because of the fact that this has been going on for a while and this new mayor has now come in and we're hoping that he or she will do what's right to try to bring both parties to the table. While that would be a beautiful thing to happen I think there's a record there showing where that has not been able to be accomplished in the past. And I don't know how long it's been a problem but that's my concern.

277. 0:38:38

     May I add some-

278. 0:38:38

     Please

279. 0:38:39

     ... additional context?

280. 0:38:39

     Absolutely.

281. 0:38:40

     So when I was in the State House of Representatives, I'm one of only two members of the legislature to ever serve as a resident of Holly Springs in the legislature. And, uh, I was back in, from 2011 through 2020 when I served, um, it was dismaying to me how much conflict there was between the city and the county. And I sat down with the then mayor, that was two mayors ago, and the then county commission chair, that was two, two of those ago, and I asked them to sit down and, and hammer out a growth boundary agreement. And that's what happened eventually.

282. 0:39:11

     Uh, about a year after I left office they finally got around to sitting down and hammering out a growth boundary agreement. The conflict now is whether or not the city has followed that agreement. And the city will contend, and I'll show you the agreement, if you read the plain language and you understand the scenario that caused this round of disagreement you would see for yourself that the city followed the letter of that agreement. That being said, the county doesn't want the city to grow at all and I understand their reasons for that.

283. 0:39:43

     But it was the county's language that was adopted j- in the joint resolution between the county and the city. It was their s- county attorney who put that language in that allowed the city to exercise that clause. And so the city has taken this extraordinary step to show you that, yes, this has been going on a long time but things are different now. They passed a resolution last month forfeiting their right to use that clause. So they really are trying to demonstrate that they're being good neighbors. So I would ask you to give them that chance.

284. 0:40:15

     Okay.

285. 0:40:15

     Because this is a new day in the city of Holly Springs.

286. 0:40:18

     Well, and I, and I believe I'm the only person from Catola, Georgia to ever be in the general assembly. And thank the good Lord it's unincorporated. Our, the closest thing we have to a mayor is the guy that runs the local grocery store. But, um, so what I hear you saying is the last time there was a conflict like this it took a member of the general assembly to solve the problem, right?

287. 0:40:41

     In a, a, non-legislatively yes.

288. 0:40:43

     So yes.

289. 0:40:44

     I had, I, I sat them down at a lunch. I bought them both lunch. We hammered out we're, a, a path forward. They eventually followed that path. The, the, this mayor has been elected since then and he is definitely showing that he's wanting to be more collaborative, more cooperative. And I would, again, I repeat my call.

290. 0:41:03

     Um-

291. 0:41:03

     Please give him a chance.

292. 0:41:04

     I, I appreciate you a lot and I wish you were the mayor. Thank you very much.

293. 0:41:08

     Why would you... I thought we were friends, Randy. Dang.

294. 0:41:10

     It's just for the people not for you. Thank you.

295. 0:41:14

     Thank you.

296. 0:41:15

     Uh, next up, uh, Kendall Smith, City of Dallas.

297. 0:41:24

     Ladies and gentlemen, uh, I thank you for your time. Um, we, uh, we start off on section 2B. If you read the language in the bill, uh, it's like the airport in the 9,000 acres, um, we're, it's referring to Powhatan County but it's referring to the cities of, of Dallas, Hiram and Braswell. Um, but Dallas is-

298. 0:41:47

     It's 109 through, uh, 113.

299. 0:41:49

     I'm sorry. Um-

300. 0:41:50

     Go ahead

301. 0:41:51

     ... so, um, we were in the original, uh, bill that was discussed and, and I believe y'all may have asked, you know, are any of the affected cities here to be, you know, represented. So I just wanted to come today to, to represent Dallas. Um, we have a great working relationship with Powhatan County. We've never had a annexation dispute. Um, we've, we, whenever a annexation comes in or a development comes in we, um, we send that information.

302. 0:42:24

     We do a impact analysis with, uh, Powhatan County, uh, DOT, the Powhatan County Board of, um, uh, the school board and, um, and our, our Dallas Police Department. So we get the impact of what that development may do to that, um, you know, to those entities. So we're, we try to be very good stewards of, of anything that may come into the city. Um, just looking at section 2B we're just afraid that this sets a bad precedent that others may see a way to, to add, you know, um, a- A wording to, you know, pull out a particular city or something.

303. 0:43:09

     So, um, you know, just our request, if y'all could just pull out section 2B. Um, so.

304. 0:43:19

     Thank you. Any, uh, comments or questions? No, s- thank you so much for coming today.

305. 0:43:26

     Thank you.

306. 0:43:26

     Uh, last speaker, uh, DJ Walker.

307. 0:43:36

     Thank you. Got a name change there, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Chairman, members of the committee, uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Uh, I'm DJ Waller, and I represent the Georgia Municipal Association, which serves all 536 cities across the state. Um, before I get into the specific concerns with House Bill 521, I think it's important to step back and walk through the timeline that kind of led us here, because this process did not appear overnight. It reflects years of body, uh, work by this body, sorry. As recently as 2022, under leadership of Chairman Victor Anderson, the General Assembly was working through annexation disputes and city-county conflicts with the goal of creating a structured and fair process that encouraged local governments to resolve disagreements without immediately turning to legislation.

308. 0:44:18

     That work took a significant step forward in 2022 with the passage of House Bill 1461. That legislation was developed through the collaboration of GMA, ACCG, and DCA, and was intended to formalize and operationalize an annexation arbitration process that cities and counties could actually use. After House Bill 1461 was implemented, parties began working through the process in a real situation. Through that experience, it became clear that while the framework was sound, there was areas that, where the process could be improved and clarified to work, uh, better in practice.

309. 0:44:50

     Those lessons directly informed the work of this body in 2025 when House Bill 155, carried by Chairman Victor Anderson, was passed. So House Bill 155 built on House Bill 1461 by refining and strengthening the annexation arbitration process, responding to real-world feedback from cities, counties, and practitioners who used it. Since 2022, numerous cities and counties across Georgia have gone through this process. Some have reached an agreement and some have not. But the process itself has worked as intended by bringing parties to the table and providing a clear and neutral framework for resolving disputes.

310. 0:45:23

     That history matters. To our knowledge, in the situation involving Dallas and, and Paulding County, Paulding County has not objected to an annexation, and neither party has gone through the annexation arbitration process that exists in law today. That process, uh, that this body has spent years refining has not yet been utilized in this case. That brings me to my concern with Section 2 of House Bill 521. Section 2 is drafted as general law, but in practice it is tailored very specifically to the situation between Dallas and Paulding County and other cities that may be impacted that we don't know of.

311. 0:45:55

     It intervenes before the existing annexation arbitration process has been used. If the precedent becomes that unresolved local disputes are addressed through legislation before the established process is exhausted, it risks the undermining the framework this body has deliberately built. It also opens the door for local legislation to be effectively disguised as general law. And we can look at the hotel-motel tax statute and look at all the different, uh, laws that we have for every single city and county. Our position is not taking sides between Dallas and Paulding County. GMA is not weighing in on the merits of that local disagreement.

312. 0:46:27

     Our concern is about protecting home rule and preserving the integrity of the annexation arbitration process this body has already put in place. We believe the appropriate path is to allow the parties to go through the process first. If that process did not resolve the issue, then it's, it is reasonable for the General Assembly to consider legislative options. But skipping that step sets a precedent that could have implications well beyond this single case. For those reasons, we respectfully ask the committee to reconsider or remove Section 2 of House Bill 521 while allowing the remainder of the bill to move forward if the committee so chooses. So thank you for your time and consideration.

313. 0:46:58

     I'm happy to answer any questions.

314. 0:47:00

     Thank you. Any comments or questions from the committee? Go ahead, Mr. Webb.

315. 0:47:06

     Good afternoon, DJ.

316. 0:47:08

     I knew it was coming.

317. 0:47:09

     I'm doing well. Listen, uh, how many cities do we have this, this year right now that are, that are in danger of losing their charters?

318. 0:47:18

     Um, that I know of right now is, in danger of losing their charter is three.

319. 0:47:23

     Three. And chaos all over the state it seems like, local government-wise, and I know that's gotta be a lot of strain on you and, uh-

320. 0:47:31

     You see my head, don't you?

321. 0:47:31

     Mr., Mr. Thor- Yeah. Yeah, I remember last year you had a full head of hair. This is, this is shocking to say the least. But, um, doesn't it seem like that we're getting an awful lot of local requests up here, what y'all identify as local requests, because cities and counties just cannot get their act together?

322. 0:47:50

     I think, um-

323. 0:47:51

     And I say doesn't it seem that way? I don't wanna put you in a box.

324. 0:47:54

     Absolutely.

325. 0:47:54

     Yeah.

326. 0:47:55

     I think, um, the, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I think it's, um, the people that are coming forward and talking about these issues. I don't think it's a lot. I wouldn't say it's a lot. Um, I will say that has been, um, brought to the General Assembly this year more than recent years, but I don't think it's a lot of cities and counties that are actually disagreeing.

327. 0:48:11

     Well, sitting up here where I sit, I see a lot of it. And, and I'm gonna tell you, it seems like that we've gotta be the ones making these decisions because they're not. And again, I do not envy your association and what y'all are having to deal with. There are other associations around the state that are just as, that deal with this same type of behavior day in, day out with their membership. And while I think to, to a certain degree we're obligated to take care of a problem if they can't take care of it, I really wish we could have an opportunity to sit down with them and explain to them what our role up here is, and it is not spending our time crawling into the playpen dealing with them.

328. 0:48:48

     And-

329. 0:48:48

     I 100% agree

330. 0:48:49

     ... and I greatly appreciate your time, and I appreciate your professionalism.

331. 0:48:52

     Absolutely. Thank you so much.

332. 0:49:03

     Yeah.

333. 0:49:08

     Thank you.

334. 0:49:12

     Go ahead, Senator Mangham.

335. 0:49:15

     Is there... Thank you for coming today, and thank you for your efforts to have some type of, uh, dispute resolution process. But is there a way to at least have a mandatory, uh, precondition to arbitrate prior to coming to us? Because this is gonna cause a lot of bad blood. No matter what we do up here-

336. 0:49:41

     I-

337. 0:49:41

     ... it's gonna be bad blood. And if at least they at least have an opportunity to, as a precondition to bring in general legislation, to have some type of arbitration process. Is that something you all have explored, or is that unworkable to have a mandatory arbitration or, or mediation clause?

338. 0:50:02

     I will say that's something that has been explored, it's been passed, uh, by the General Assembly. When you look at House Bill 155 that was passed last year, um, it deals with the annexation arbitration process. And this, uh, this situation with the city of Dallas and Paulding County, the county hasn't objected to, uh, the annexation, so we haven't gotten to that process. And that's where we're trying to get them to go towards, as opposed to using this legislation to stop cities from annexing. Let them go through the actual process that's was implemented by the General Assembly.

339. 0:50:28

     W- what I'm saying is some legislat- some language that says that they must go through that process before coming to the General Assembly .

340. 0:50:36

     I, I think that would be a good amendment, but I, I... I... w- our ask is to delete Section 2, and if you would like to add that, well, I mean, think we're open to it.

341. 0:50:49

     Mr. Whip.

342. 0:50:49

     Go ahead, Mr. Whip.

343. 0:50:50

     Yeah, I apologize. There was one I was gonna ask you. Now, this passed through the House, right?

344. 0:50:55

     This, this Bill 521?

345. 0:50:56

     Yes.

346. 0:50:57

     I, I, I don't know if it-

347. 0:50:58

     With, with that in it?

348. 0:50:59

     Chairman Anderson, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't, I don't know if this passed with that language in it.

349. 0:51:04

     So the, the bill that Chairman Anderson-

350. 0:51:07

     No, no, I understand, but this language passed through the House, correct?

351. 0:51:10

     In his original language, it passed through our committee.

352. 0:51:13

     Right. I remember that.

353. 0:51:14

     Yeah.

354. 0:51:14

     But I'm saying this came... This passed through the House, too, correct?

355. 0:51:17

     That's correct.

356. 0:51:18

     Do, do, do we, do we know what the vote was over in the House?

357. 0:51:21

     Uh, I don't recall, but I can look it up.

358. 0:51:22

     Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah, Section 2 was language I, I'd, I'd heard it before, so I just wanna make sure. Did GMA express their displeasure with this-

359. 0:51:33

     Yes, we did

360. 0:51:33

     ... during the House committee hearing?

361. 0:51:34

     Yes, we did. And then, too, um, we were planning to do that in the early committee when it was just the City of Dallas. And that other language got added, too, so now we're here to, to express our concerns.

362. 0:51:44

     Thank you. I appreciate you.

363. 0:51:44

     Absolutely.

364. 0:51:49

     Senator Howard.

365. 0:51:50

     Um, appreciate those, uh, comments and giving some context to what we're dealing with here. Uh, would it be fair to say that once, um, a city kinda, um, has observed, um, maybe a friend of a city kind of, um, go to the state legislature and kinda get what they want to bypass these local processes, once it happens once, um, you know, word gets around the state. And you can avoid these conflict, local conflicts, because you got a friend in the Senate or a friend in the House or, um...

366. 0:52:25

     And it seems that we're gonna see, the more we do this, the more we're gonna see it. So I don't think we should be surprised, 'cause this has been, definitely been, uh, creeping up over the last several years.

367. 0:52:33

     Absolutely. I would-

368. 0:52:34

     Um, so, but I really appreciate the work and the process that this body did. Uh, we, uh... It seems like we should give it a chance to work and let conflict happen between local folks, um, and only get involved when, as a last measure. Um, seems like we're getting into s- a situation where we're just doing peop- different groups' bidding, whoever has the better friends kind of thing, more powerful friends. And that can be, that can be very problematic, you know? Um, election by election, that, then it starts, the tit for tat starts coming. So I think maybe we can, uh, operate with some, some wisdom here.

369. 0:53:08

     And, you know, if we can simplify this bill and, you know, maybe Section 2 may have to hold for another time, so that way a good thing doesn't go to waste and, especially Section 1.

370. 0:53:19

     Yeah, and we're totally fine with the other sections. It's just Section 2 that we have an issue with.

371. 0:53:24

     That's why I choose not to have friends.

372. 0:53:26

     I thought we were friends.

373. 0:53:27

     No.

374. 0:53:28

     Oh, man.

375. 0:53:43

     You know what I mean.

376. 0:53:43

     Senator Ginn.

377. 0:53:44

     Uh, Mr. Chairman, I, I appreciate the, the, uh, discussion and so forth. And I know, uh, Representative Anderson's worked hard on this bill. And, you know, there's always gonna be city and county disputes. I, I, I've, I've, uh, co-chaired that with Chairman John LaHood in trying to deal with some of those. And it's, it's, it's like tiptoeing through the tulips, Adia. But I'm gonna move do pass on LC620520s. And as you say, there are a lot of powerful friends out there.

378. 0:54:15

     The, uh... There's no perfect answer, Chanda, but I think we're doing the right thing in moving this bill forward. And I'd, I'd like to move do pass on this legislation. And we got a lot of other things to discuss today.

379. 0:54:27

     All right. We've got a motion do pass. We've got a second. Discussion? Senator Mallow.

380. 0:54:31

     Uh, thank you, Chairman. I move to amend LC620520s, uh, on line 27 after, uh, the word "in any county," uh, inserting language "with an unincorporated county seat" and renumbering accordingly and fixing any scrivener's errors is my motion.

381. 0:54:54

     Second.

382. 0:54:56

     We've got a motion and a second on the amendment, uh, offered by-

383. 0:55:00

     Mr. Chairman, hold on. It's a friendly amendment.

384. 0:55:02

     It is a friendly amendment. Um, Dr. Newton, Representative Newton spoke to that being friendly, uh, as this would tighten the legislation up to specifically the area intended.

385. 0:55:14

     And I appreciate, Senator, appreciate you bringing that forward and catching that and tightening it up All right, so we got a, we got a motion on the amendment. We got a second. All in favor, raise your hand.

386. 0:55:26

     Passes unanimous. Now we'll vote. Any discussion on the underlying bill? Senator Howard.

387. 0:55:33

     I move that we strike section two, um, completely, and reword the section three to be section, the new section two.

388. 0:55:57

     We have a motion. Do we have a second?

389. 0:55:59

     I'll, I'll second it, but I would have a friendly amendment to that amendment.

390. 0:56:06

     It's...

391. 0:56:06

     And that is-

392. 0:56:06

     May he-

393. 0:56:07

     Well, well-

394. 0:56:08

     ... it's okay

395. 0:56:09

     ... I'll just second it. Well, discussion, 'cause I really wanna, wanna know what the author... I wanna make sure the author's fine with it, but, uh, that is if we had some language that-

396. 0:56:20

     So, so we're, we're, we're talking about it's been motioned and seconded, right?

397. 0:56:24

     Motion and second is correct.

398. 0:56:25

     Mr. Chairman. So parliamentary inquiry, I think it's the, I think it's the chair's position to call for discussion.

399. 0:56:32

     Yeah, I'll say, uh, we're in, in posture of voting, so we've got a, we've got a motion and a second on striking section two. All in favor?

400. 0:56:46

     Three. All opposed? Motion fails. Back to the underlying bill. We've got a motion to second to pass as amended. All in favor, raise your hand.

401. 0:57:01

     Any opposed? Bill passes. Congratulations, Representative.

402. 0:57:06

     Thank you.

403. 0:57:08

     That one's getting heavy.

404. 0:57:37

     All right, next up we've got House Bill 646.

405. 0:57:47

     Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I, too, don't have any friends. All of my friends are at the funeral home.

406. 0:57:59

     You got friends.

407. 0:58:00

     Yes.

408. 0:58:00

     We like you.

409. 0:58:01

     Thank you. Glad to know that. Thank you. Um, I'll be very brief. I'm here, once again, presenting House Bill 646, LC 474268S. And I have my colleague here to join me and for if there's any other questions or anything that we can kinda address together. But basically, um, House Bill 646 makes a comprehensive change to Georgia law governing county coroners. And we all know coroners are vital for public safety.

410. 0:58:32

     They support criminal justice, investigations, provide closure to families, and ensure accurate public health data. Um, this legislation primarily addresses compensra- compensation structures, staffing limitations, and retirement, uh, health benefits, while also removing certain fee-based practices associated with death investigations. Um, the key provisions of the bill, uh, includes, uh, the bill limits counties to one deputy coroner by default unless additional, uh, deputies are approved, uh, through the local budgeting process.

411. 0:59:09

     It establish a minimum compensation framework. Uh, the bill also establish a minimum salary for coroners. Um, salaries will automatically increase in line with state employee cost of living adjustments. Um, and the, uh, the bill also creates a statewide minimum salary schedule for coroners based on county population, ranging from approximately 17,000, uh, to 105,000 annually. Uh, counties will retain the authority to supplement salaries but cannot reduce compensation during a term of office.

412. 0:59:46

     Um, and this represents a significant shift toward a more uniform state influence compensation model. So I'm gonna kind of pause right here to see if anyone have any questions about this. Um, this is, you know-

413. 1:00:01

     LC-

414. 1:00:01

     I'm sorry?

415. 1:00:01

     Give us the LC number you're working off of.

416. 1:00:03

     LC 474268S.

417. 1:00:08

     Thank you.

418. 1:00:10

     Yes.

419. 1:00:13

     Any, you got any comments or questions? Senator Setzler.

420. 1:00:18

     I can. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, to the author.

421. 1:00:21

     Uh-huh.

422. 1:00:22

     Uh, how are you doing?

423. 1:00:23

     Hi. I'm good. How are you?

424. 1:00:24

     How many, um, how many citizens in a county is, is normally required before a coroner becomes a full-time role? W- what, what's, what's, what's the convention? I mean, obviously I can imagine a small, small county, it's not a full-time thing. At some point it becomes a full-time role. What's the... When, when does it become a full-time job typically?

425. 1:00:43

     Well, they, you know, they, they may be considered part-time in some areas, but it's, it's a lot of work involved with coroners. So, um, I don't know the exact number. I know for, for this bill here it's for 17,000 to... ranging from approximately 17,700 to 105 annually. Um, and the office conducts 100 or more death inves- investigations per year. Does that help you?

426. 1:01:11

     Yeah. I mean, a- and this isn't a trick, leading trick question. I, I come from a medical examiner county. We've got a county medical examiner.

427. 1:01:16

     Uh-huh.

428. 1:01:16

     Um, I know some counties are getting larger and they still have elected coroners. I just don't know the- The way they organize staff versus the coroner themselves. You know, if you've got a coroner, elected coroner that's got a big staff, but maybe they're, they're making $40,000 or $25,000 a year, um, because they're not taking on the load of the work themselves. Just, I, I, I just need some context for this. And-

429. 1:01:41

     And I have a coroner here present if you would like to hear from that person.

430. 1:01:44

     I'm just, just asking a general q-

431. 1:01:45

     Okay

432. 1:01:46

     ... w- whatever the case is, Mr. Chairman. I, I can hear this later. It doesn't have to happen now, but my-

433. 1:01:49

     I can speak to it

434. 1:01:50

     ... top of mind to me is that, that question.

435. 1:01:51

     Sure.

436. 1:01:52

     Um, I can speak to it, uh, Chairman. Um, so this is a bill we've worked on passing the House four years in a row.

437. 1:01:58

     Mm-hmm.

438. 1:02:00

     Um, so w- the county population size is, is the way that we went through this process. But it doesn't acknowledge the fact that if you take my home county, and this would not benefit my coroner that's here today. Our county has made the decision to pay well above this for that service because of the number of death cases we have. We also live in a community that has about 30,000 residents that live there, but we have the outlet mall, Georgia 400, a growing density in Dawson County, where there may be some days 150 to 200,000 people that are physically in the county.

439. 1:02:34

     And if a death occurs, the coroner gets that call. Um, what we contemplated through negotiations three years ago, I believe, with ACCG is to acknowledge that before a coroner would receive the same full-time benefits, um, like health insurance that the county offers other, uh, elected officers, um, there would have to be a, a documentation that they work 2,080 hours a year and that they have at least 100 cases per year. So that would at least carve out the smaller counties that don't do that. So I think that the industry would say when you have about 100 cases, that is pretty much the level.

440. 1:03:10

     There are situations in which you could contemplate, you may only have 50 cases, but if 10 of those cases are murders, that workload is much different than a natural death, right? So it's hard to, to pull that. T- the bill also contemplates and allows the count- the county commission, the c- coroner still has to go through a budget request.

441. 1:03:32

     Right.

442. 1:03:32

     And the county still has the ability to say no. So if there's financial constraints within a county that's within your representation, the bill literally puts in statute they're, they're, they are subject to the county appropriation, and they're only guaranteed one deputy coroner. And this bill doesn't even require that they pay them call time. It just contemplates if they choose to pay them call time, they're capped at 90 days.

443. 1:03:55

     What did you do? Mr. Chairman. Um, and I'm just asking questions. I'm just trying to-

444. 1:04:02

     Sure

445. 1:04:03

     ... this is a new issue for me. Um, so what, what problem is this trying to solve? Is this an issue of the coroner doesn't have budget power, taxing power, and they're being starved out by a county commission that wants to keep their salary too low? What, what's, what's the issue this is trying to solve?

446. 1:04:16

     I think that my, my reason, and Patty and I have worked on this issue for many years together.

447. 1:04:21

     Mm-hmm.

448. 1:04:21

     I think our collective belief and what we've experienced is, how do we ge- generate the opportunity for the next generation of coroners-

449. 1:04:28

     Right

450. 1:04:28

     ... and deputy coroners, and also understand that the, the public safety aspe- aspect of what they're trying to accomplish, it's very difficult to find deputy coroners that can come and do that. Being bi- bi-vocational is not as easy as it once was. And now, if you are a deputy coroner, you are required, if you're on call, you cannot leave the physical loca- of the, that county. So you're missing out on all kinds of-

451. 1:04:54

     Mm-hmm

452. 1:04:54

     ... you know, games and sporting events and children's events, those kinds of things. They do it to serve. It's $250 per case. They are not getting rich off of serving in this capacity.

453. 1:05:06

     Mm-hmm.

454. 1:05:06

     But it, they can't go get a job for another employer and say, "Oh, I'm sorry, I've gotta leave Walmart. I've gotta leave the, this local business because there's been a death, and I now, now need to take that call." So this is more about bringing uniformity across the state, and this has not been touched in 35 years.

455. 1:05:23

     Right.

456. 1:05:23

     Um, and Speaker Ralston was actually the person that asked me to work with Patty on this. That's when we started this effort. Kevin Tanner, my predecessor, I believe, worked on it with my coroner. This has been something that it's been trying to b- put in statute for many, many years. The other thing that I'll say is for counties, if you are a coroner that has longevity and you get ready to retire, that next deputy coroner of the county could be put in a position where, for example, my coroner currently makes much more than what this contemplates. The next coroner, the county may decide to lower that base salary to start that new base over instead of where our coroner has longevity.

457. 1:05:58

     So to me, it gives uniformity, and it helps provide an opportunity so that people can be paid and acknowledged at least that if you look at what we scratched, uh, 34,999, they had a salary of $3,600. That's just not legitimate. And I think there's, um, testimony that can be provided, they've asked to sign up, that can give you another, uh, direct influence from a coroner's perspective.

458. 1:06:24

     Right.

459. 1:06:24

     Um, I do wanna add one other thing. Um, because of where we are in session, we did include House Bill 686, uh, 868 in this as well, which has been termed the COAG Bill. Uh, wanna just point out that the bill creates the option for allowing long-term county officers, but it's a narrow between ages of 55 and 65, and they, they have already served at least 16 years. Uh, and it would allow them to have healthcare premiums paid by the county up to 75%, and they would pay 25%. Again, the similar situation, I think ACCG has had some, uh, heartburn about it, but over a long cost curve, as those folks retire out, then those newer folks that have not...

460. 1:07:05

     The, the new sheriffs, if you will, new tax commissioner, they're gonna go back to those locally, uh, adopted base salaries, and then that would have a smoothing effect over time. It also acknowledges the service that these people do. Uh, and that passed out of House. Uh, it just, we got crossed up on crossover. So we worked together with both organizations, uh, to, to try to, to land this plane for both of tho- these efforts.

461. 1:07:27

     Thank you. Uh, we got several people signed up to speak. Uh, first up is John Clayton.

462. 1:07:54

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Uh, I'm John Clayton, and I'm here on behalf of COAG. That's the Constitutional Officers Association of Georgia. Uh, we represent the sheriffs, tax commissioners, clerks, and probate judges. I have Reagan Pritchett with me. She is the executive director. Uh, Kevin Payne, he was the president this year. He's a tax commissioner in Floyd County, and I'm not sure if y'all noticed in the, uh, news yesterday, the Floyd County courthouse burnt, so he lost his whole operation there. But, um, our thoughts are with him. I believe y'all have, uh, House Bill 868 in the form of an amendment. Uh, that bill was passed, uh, as, uh, Chairman Wade said, by the House Government Affairs Committee.

463. 1:08:29

     Uh, we helped our friends out at ACCG by adding county commissioners to the list who will be benefited by this. Uh, came out of Rules Committee, did not have a floor vote. Um, this allows county officers and commissioners who serve 16 years, who are between the ages of 55 and 65, and they can ... Uh, allow them to stay on their county healthcare plan until age 65, when rationally Medica- Medicare would take over. This is budget neutral to the county. The, the only, the cost, the, the, the cost has to be the difference between the outgoing constitutional officer's salary pay and the incoming.

464. 1:09:01

     It cannot be more than that. If it is more than that, it is borne by the outgoing county officer. Um, reasons for this, a lot of ... We, we, we found that a lot of, um, constitutional officers and commissioners would retire but for the health insurance. Uh, this helps outgoing constitutional officers transition into a new career. Guys, there's really not a huge labor pool for outgoing sheriffs, tax commissioners, clerks. Um, this will allow them to safely transition into a new job. Uh, this is very similar to the health benefit that all members of the general assembly have. Uh, they get that after eight years of service.

465. 1:09:32

     Um, and ladies and gentlemen, that's the, that's the amendment. If y'all have any questions, I'll be more than happy.

466. 1:09:40

     No questions. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Thank y'all. Uh, next up is the Coroners Association.

467. 1:09:53

     Uh, next up would be, uh, Todd Edwards. Oh, there you are. Sorry, didn't see you. Yeah, sure. Todd, you're on deck.

468. 1:10:01

     It's what happens when you get old.

469. 1:10:06

     First of all, I wanna thank you for, uh, Mr. Chairman, allowing us to, uh, to be here to speak today. Uh, committee members, thank you as well. Um, my name is Ted Bearden. I'm the Dawson County Coroner. I'm the director at large for the Georgia Coroners Association, and I'm also chairman of the legislative committee. To echo what Will said, I started working with Speaker Ralston years and years ago on this legislation, and I come year after year after year, and it just seems like every year the can just gets kicked down the road.

470. 1:10:40

     And this hasn't been addressed in 35 years. And we are losing good coroners. It is almost impossible to find good deputies with the requirements of the job, the time commitment. Um, in a, in the smaller counties, I'm, uh, almost 35,000 now, and they pay me more than what's in this bill, but it's not a livable wage. Uh, the coroners and deputy coroners have no choice other than to work bivocationally. Um, uh, there was a mention in the committee meeting last year about my website a- and my business, that my deputy coroners were listed on there as employees of my personal business, and th- they are listed on there because they work part-time.

471. 1:11:26

     I've got one deputy coroner that works full-time for the state of Georgia, and he works part-time as a deputy coroner and part-time as the funeral home just to support his family because he's got children in college. Uh, another one has growing children. He's full-time paramedic, um, and he works part-time at the funeral home, and he works part-time, uh, as a deputy coroner because it just doesn't pay a livable wage. And what we're asking is still not going to pay a livable wage. It is only a fraction of what the other county elected officials earn, even though we work 24/7/365.

472. 1:12:03

     There's never a moment there cannot be a coroner available. Uh, my wife kept my children locked in their bedroom one Christmas morning till 11:30 because she didn't want Santa Claus to come till dad got home. And I was out on a coroner's call serving my county. Uh, the honorable-

473. 1:12:20

     I bet that was a long morning for her.

474. 1:12:22

     It was. It was not pretty. Um, the honorable Mark Cox is president of the Coroners Association. He's here today. But I will tell you, I've spent over half my life as a coroner in Dawson County. And, um, uh, to begin with, uh, th- there, there was literally no pay. But the coroner's office didn't have a way to pick up remains, so they asked the funeral home to do it. And so, you know, we were gonna be there anyway, so I joined the coroner's office and, and been there since 1991.

475. 1:12:56

     And I've spent over half my life, and many, many of those years, because of the way it was set up, I took money out of my pocket to com- to make that office work and to make it be successful. And some counties get it, some counties don't. So that's why we're here today. We're just asking to make a uniform system across the state that's easy to, uh, implement. And as far as the deputy coroners are concerned, I want to read you an excerpt from an email That was sent to one of the senators here, and I'm just going to read the part where she talks about her deputy coroners.

476. 1:13:41

     Uh, Senator Dixon, I think I did forward this email to you a few days ago. "My deputy coroners are," and she names them both, "are full-time paramedics. One has been employed with the coroner's office for 10 years and the other for five. They serve this county tirelessly and without hesitation any chance they get. Unfortunately, I am unable to fully compensate them for their dedicated service. We currently split our on-call time by rotating in a manner that each of us work every third weekend, me taking the majority of the weekday calls.

477. 1:14:17

     They both work a full-time job where they work every other Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Each sixth weekend, they must take time off from their paramedic duties, uh, to take call time. Basically, each of us work 17 weekends a year." Those seven or eight weekends that they missed, those two deputy coroners are forfeiting $7,800 apiece to serve as a deputy coroner, and they're only compensated if they get a call.

478. 1:14:49

     Fortunately, they got a few calls during those weekends and was able to make up some of it, but not near all of it. And that's what we're faced with in this state. Uh, it's just the ability to find people willing to do one of the most distasteful jobs that anybody could ever be asked to do. Go take a baby out of a screaming mother's arms, or go tell someone their teenage son or daughter has drowned in Lake Lanier.

479. 1:15:21

     It's not fun, and not just anybody can do it. We need skilled, quality people, and unless something is done to address this, we're going to continue to have a major problem in finding those kind of people. Um, it's amazing what you can find on the internet, and I spent a little bit of time the other day, uh, looking at elected officials' salaries, and there's not a county in this state with a coroner that even comes near.

480. 1:15:58

     I can tell you what my sheriff, clerk of court, and all makes, then I can tell you what I make and, and... But, but I don't want to pause and have you laugh because it, it's honestly laughable. And, um, um, Senator Gooch, Chairman Wade, myself, Mark Cox, and a couple of committee members and committee chairmen from the ACCG met last summer. Uh, we were trying to work out something reasonable with the ACCG for them to take back to the ACCG, and, um, we thought we had something reasonable, but when they took it back, they g- they got a, a terrible response from some of the ch- uh, commissioners on the ACCG board.

481. 1:16:45

     Uh, and the ones that were creating the biggest conversation was because they had a personal problem with the coroner. It, it didn't have anything to do with his working. It was a personal issue, and he was just not willing to support anything, which means he's willing to s- to bring potential difficulty to every coroner in the state just because he don't like his. And we're trying to look at this on, at a, on a much bigger scale and in a bit much broader pictures.

482. 1:17:16

     And, you know, we, um, we've been kicking the can, kicking the can. I think we've about run out of road. And we are obligated as humans. We're not perfect people. I'm not gonna tell you coroners are perfect people. I'm not gonna tell you sheriffs are public people, uh, perfect people. The governor just relieved the sheriff in my adjoining county of his duties for a DUI at 10:30 in the morning.

483. 1:17:48

     We're not perfect, but we care. We care about our counties. We care about our citizens. We care about those that we serve. We're all put here to try to leave this world a little bit better than we found it. That's what I'm trying to do for the coroners, and you all have the opportunity today to help me make that happen. Thank you.

484. 1:18:12

     Thank you. We got one question. Senator Watson.

485. 1:18:16

     Yeah, I was just, just reading here, and of course we, we talked about this, uh, before. But on lines 39 and 40 it, it says that sufficient funds have been budgeted, uh, by the governing authority of the county. So what if they don't budget the funds? What have, what have we done here? And then maybe for the author as well, um, does this allow the locals to roll back any local supplements that they've already put in place to help the coroners?

486. 1:18:46

     It's my understanding what's in the bill is they can't do it during that term. During his term, they can't do it. And I'm just... The only county I can use as example is my county. I have four full-time deputies. They are not paid case fees. This bill will not affect them at all. When I went to the county several years ago, explained the problems we were having, they put all of my deputies on salary. So they're all salaried.

487. 1:19:16

     They, they, they do not worry about the case fees or any supplements or things of that nature. But-

488. 1:19:26

     By being bivo- bivocational, it's impossible for one person to be available 24/7, 365. And what you have... are gonna have to do is you're gonna have to present your situation to your county at budget time and show them where your needs are. And if you can show them where their needs are, I'd then I pray that they would be reasonable and, and, and, and do that.

489. 1:19:56

     Uh, you take a, a county with a population of, um, take Hall or Forsyth County, the population that they have, there is no way a coroner and one deputy could handle the caseloads in those counties.

490. 1:20:12

     Okay. What about the, the local supplements piece? Will they be able to roll back the local supplement if, if, if they decide to-

491. 1:20:19

     Defer to Will

492. 1:20:19

     ... to, to, to, uh, implement this-

493. 1:20:22

     After the-

494. 1:20:22

     ... if y'all convince them

495. 1:20:23

     ... after the term.

496. 1:20:24

     They could make changes-

497. 1:20:25

     After

498. 1:20:25

     ... in the future term.

499. 1:20:26

     After the term.

500. 1:20:26

     But if that coroner serves for 20 years, they can't ever roll back that local supplement.

501. 1:20:31

     Um, I think it's just during that term of office for that, that, like for w- what else?

502. 1:20:36

     Term of office or-

503. 1:20:37

     What about local supplement? You talking about-

504. 1:20:39

     The don't... Aren't, aren't coroners paid a local supplement by the local government?

505. 1:20:43

     Some are, some are not.

506. 1:20:44

     Some are.

507. 1:20:44

     That's right.

508. 1:20:45

     Some are.

509. 1:20:45

     So the-

510. 1:20:45

     Most are not

511. 1:20:46

     ... this would not pre- this would not prevent them from continuing-

512. 1:20:48

     Mm-hmm

513. 1:20:48

     ... if they wanted to. But they could... I mean, at a future date, the local supplement can be removed. I mean, I remember for lots of different local folks in '08, we had local supplements that we dropped on the school board, 'cause we, we had 37% reduction in our, um, digest. So we had to make cuts to our local supplements across a lot of local elected officials.

514. 1:21:08

     Right. Well, I'm just thinking if I'm a county official and, and the state's gonna do this, and I'm paying a local supplement, if the state's increased the pay, then I may roll back my local portion to, as a trade-off to implement this.

515. 1:21:21

     I think they'll have-

516. 1:21:22

     So they can pay for it

517. 1:21:22

     ... they'll have that option. I think-

518. 1:21:24

     Right

519. 1:21:24

     ... we have an amendment that will have-

520. 1:21:25

     Okay

521. 1:21:25

     ... that will clarify that.

522. 1:21:27

     Mm-hmm.

523. 1:21:27

     Um, and I'm, I'm amenable to that.

524. 1:21:28

     Okay.

525. 1:21:29

     I think Patty is, too.

526. 1:21:31

     Yes. I am.

527. 1:21:32

     Senator.

528. 1:21:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, appreciate you coming down talking to us. Um, I- I trust your salary is, is, is publicly available information, and your, and your staff as well. Um, what's your salary as a s- as a coroner right now?

529. 1:21:47

     Last year, I made just under 40,000, and each one of my deputies, uh, get a salary of about 16,000.

530. 1:21:56

     So your d- your, your sal- your deputy gets a salary of $16,000. How many, how many cases did you guys have last year that you-

531. 1:22:04

     About 150.

532. 1:22:06

     150?

533. 1:22:07

     Mm-hmm.

534. 1:22:10

     I- I appreciate it. I, I just, I-

535. 1:22:15

     I- I just think we've had a... This just seems out of sorts, Mr. Chairman. I'm'll... I'll- I'll- I'll- I'll have questions for the counties to, to sort of what, w- w- why 40,000 and 16,000 seems right for Dawson County. I f- I mean, you guys have a growing county. That seems, seems odd to me. Thank you.

536. 1:22:33

     Okay. Thank you.

537. 1:22:36

     Mr. Chairman, let, let me say for the record, I- I- I think the, um, the low pay of members of the General Assembly should not reflect as low pay on coroners- ... who do death investigations. I'm- I'm- I'm happy with our pa- pay where it is, 'cause we're in a legislative role, but in an operational role like this, it's a completely different ballgame, Mr. Chairman.

538. 1:22:56

     Thank you.

539. 1:23:00

     Mr. Webb, did you have a question?

540. 1:23:01

     No.

541. 1:23:03

     Danny.

542. 1:23:04

     On the, on the 868 language, is there an option, if we're putting in an option for the coroners, is there an option on the healthcare piece for the counties?

543. 1:23:15

     So for healthcare for the coroners?

544. 1:23:18

     No, on the, the 868 language.

545. 1:23:20

     For the counties.

546. 1:23:21

     Is there-

547. 1:23:21

     Section 4.

548. 1:23:22

     Section 4.

549. 1:23:22

     Section 4 for the counties.

550. 1:23:23

     Right.

551. 1:23:24

     Mm-hmm.

552. 1:23:24

     Is, uh, is that optional for them as well?

553. 1:23:28

     Um, I'd, I'd like-

554. 1:23:29

     Is it mandatory?

555. 1:23:30

     John... I think it's gonna be mandatory. I think it would be, um... Let me... If John Clayton can come up, I'd double-check, but I think that this would be something, but it would be very narrow to those that have already been in office for at least 16 years. Um, and they are 55, between the ages of 55 and 65.

556. 1:23:48

     Okay.

557. 1:24:00

     Yeah, the way I read it, it, it would be mandatory.

558. 1:24:05

     Go ahead, Senator.

559. 1:24:06

     One of you please walk me through s- the necessity of Section 4 again. I know it's a real narrow window, and the thought was, if I heard correctly, certain s- class of people will be rolling out. It seems somewhat speculative, right? That, I mean, they're gonna retire between 55 and 65, and a new class of people come in.

560. 1:24:27

     Well, I mean, so if you've been, uh... I f- I can let John Clayton speak to it.

561. 1:24:30

     Okay.

562. 1:24:30

     But I had one tax commissioner indicate that they have served seven terms, uh, in a county that neighbors me, and that they would be willing to go ahead and retire. I don't know their age, but they would fall in that category. I'm guessing somewhere in the middle of that range. And then the next person that would be elected to the tax commissioner would have a lower base salary without any of the longevity that they had built up in those seven terms. Does that make sense? And then they would not be able to get the same insurance benefit unless that next, in this case, which the tax commissioner would have successfully served 16 years, and then also been over the age of 55 before they would able, be able to have this.

563. 1:25:12

     And I think it just recognizes what probate judges, sheriffs, tax commissioners, tax collectors, clerks, and county commissioners, um, do in our state.

564. 1:25:22

     Okay. And that stands now. W- what is retirement a- age as it stands now? Uh, uh, uh, give me the why.

565. 1:25:30

     Or anything, this section's needed?

566. 1:25:31

     Uh, uh, John, I'd like him to come up and speak to that 'cause he knows more about every single group that is involved in this and why this makes sense. Um, I'm happy for him to come up and speak to it.

567. 1:25:43

     Mr.-

568. 1:25:43

     If the chairman so chooses.

569. 1:25:45

     Thank you. Yeah, if we- if he comes back in the room.

570. 1:25:47

     Okay.

571. 1:25:48

     Yeah. Go ahead, Senator Ginn.

572. 1:25:50

     Mr. Chairman, I, I, I'd ask that, that, uh, one of my tax commissioners, Cynthia, ah, Candice, if you would, uh, come here and join us at the, uh, microphone, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chairman.

573. 1:26:02

     Absolutely.

574. 1:26:04

     The, uh-

575. 1:26:06

     This is-

576. 1:26:07

     This is the tax commissioner from Jackson County. And, and she's only 29. She had the, uh... But she's been tax... Y- you c- i- if you'd like to, uh, Candice, if, uh, would it be okay if she sits at witness three?

577. 1:26:22

     Sure.

578. 1:26:22

     The, uh, because I wanna, I wanna, I wanna use a case in point. The, uh... Oh.

579. 1:26:28

     Can I have, uh, Cindy Cannon from White County also?

580. 1:26:31

     That's-

581. 1:26:31

     The tax commissioner from White County.

582. 1:26:33

     That's, that's-

583. 1:26:33

     That, that's up, uh, up to, to the chairman, Cindy. Uh, but I, I wanted to f- I wanted to pick on my t- my, one of my tax commissioners. Cynthia, uh, and, uh, tell me, uh, how long have you been tax commissioner now?

584. 1:26:48

     Uh, I've worked in the office for 18 years. I've been tax commissioner for 10 years.

585. 1:26:52

     Okay. And, and I don't know if you've had a chance to read through section 4 of this proposed legislation.

586. 1:26:59

     I have not.

587. 1:27:00

     The, uh, but, uh, Senator McNeel, Cynthia, uh, when I look the, uh, h- here, I'll use her as an example. I can see that, that, uh, for Jackson County, they have, uh, I'm, I'm really proud of the, the, uh, leadership in Jackson County. They've got all their ducks in a row. And, and I, I told, uh, tax commissioner, uh, th- that I, I said, "Hey, I could support this in Jackson County all day long." But unfortunately, I see all over the state situations where they're not that well, well organized and, and aligned.

588. 1:27:35

     And that's one of the problems that for me, th- it makes good sense to do this in Jackson County. The, uh... Should I ask? I, I want to ask how old you are, but how many trips, trips you made around the sun, Candice?

589. 1:27:47

     40 whole trips.

590. 1:27:48

     See, uh, so she could be tax commissioner for the next 25 years and, and still just be getting to retirement age. The, uh, the, the situation is, is if she does, her pay keeps going up and up and up. If at 55 she decided she wanted to retire, 15 years, if she wanted to retire, the, uh, the scenario is, is that the next person that takes a, the, uh, that position would be coming in at a much lower salary. That being the case, when I look at, at this language, th- there would be a, a, a win for the, a windfall for the county to, to have somebody come in at a much lower salary this place, because they don't have the cost of living adjustments, the longevity adjustments in their pay.

591. 1:28:32

     But that's great for Jackson County 'cause, 'cause they've got their ducks in a row and can afford it. But I know I look at a lot of counties around the state that don't have that. And to me, I think that, that, uh, oh, the right thing is to, to, uh... The section that you're talking about in where f- funds are available, uh, the, uh, and, and, uh, the bill that, that's gotta be made county by county. And I can tell you that it makes great sense, and that's one of the, the things that, uh, I wanna, I wanna make sure that people understand.

592. 1:29:09

     We've got a real-life example of somebody that does a great job as tax commissioner, and, and that's where to me, there's a win for that. The, uh... I think, uh, painting this is a broad brush, and I want to ask the, uh, uh, two House members, if I can, get around to my question. If you did this county by county, is that a problem?

593. 1:29:30

     I mean, I guess that's one of those things where we've had a lot of that conversation today. Previous bill presentation, et cetera. Um, I, you know, I personally don't have a problem for it to have a change that similarly recognizes, uh, subject to the local governing authority like we did regarding the deputy coroner pay. I don't know that the folks that are here representing the COAG, um, would agree with that or not. Um, that's their specific bill. I was not the sponsor of that-

594. 1:29:56

     Right

595. 1:29:56

     ... legislation that now has been added to this language. But we serve our people back home to serve as many Georgian as well as we can, and if that's what the committee's will is, then I think that, I think that's something that should be considered. Uh, because I think what you'll have is the counties that are good actors will do it and have it done in a manner that would work for that community. Um, that, that's just my personal off-the-cuff, uh, opinion. I don't know what Patty's thoughts are, and if, um, the commissioner from, um, from White County would like to speak.

596. 1:30:27

     Thank you very much. Um, I would like to speak in favor of the bill, and I would like to give just a, a thought on Mr. Ginn's, um, train of thought. So in this particular bill, the way it was written, there is protection in there for the counties. It can never... The cost savings that the county would recognize from a retiring constitutional officer, the restrictions to qualify for this is very restrictive. You have to be between the age of 55 and 65, and you have to have at least 16 years of service.

597. 1:31:00

     So that retiring constitutional officer, if you factor in their longevity This particular bill is basically just gap insurance for these public servants that has done long tenure of service. It's gap insurance just to allow them that small window to, of insurance, and it cannot be detrimental to the county. In most counties, it would actually be revenue positive when you factor in, and I'm from a small county, when you factor in the longevity versus the 75% of the county insurance, in my county, it would actually be revenue positive when I retire of over $12,000 even after they expend the cost, the 75% of the insurance.

598. 1:31:47

     And it cannot be detrimental to the counties in that aspect because it cannot exceed the savings from that retiring constitutional officer. So in, it, I can't see that it would be detrimental to the county in that aspect because-

599. 1:32:02

     It-

600. 1:32:02

     ... you're, you're expending those funds to cover that cost.

601. 1:32:05

     Lines 154 through 159, 160, I think is the reference that she's making there, Chairman.

602. 1:32:12

     The, and, and I guess my question is when I look at this, it's not only for the constitutional officer, but it includes a spouse and dependents. And to me, the, the, uh, this is an umbrella that, that, you know, when I look at the, the financial picture, you know, 'cause, hey, every elected official knows that they could be beat in the next election, and that's where to me, I, I get it. I understand, you know, you've got some people that, that probably could, could do a great job and could serve. I know, uh, you know, my tax commissioner said they, uh, uh, uh, Taylor, uh, uh, does a great job, and she's, she, she probably could win till she's 99.

603. 1:32:48

     But, but you know, for me, I don't think she wants to work that long.

604. 1:32:51

     Yeah.

605. 1:32:51

     They, uh, but I look at it, and I'm, I'm trying to not... 'Cause I was a c- I was a county manager for, for 10 years. I understand county government, and that's where I look at it, and I'm like, "This could, could put a lot of burden onto the, the taxpayers of the county that, okay, if somebody wants to step out of that role, I just, we're painting the whole state with one brush," and that's where for me, the, the issue is, was local control and what do we do with that. And that's, that's the tough part, and I know that, uh, you know, I, I've worked with, with, uh, Candy on a lot of different issues, and we've, we've tackled, uh, thick and thin.

606. 1:33:27

     And, you know, I want to continue to work with her, Cindy. Uh, I just want to make sure that, you know, okay, in Jackson County it makes sense. It does work, Cindy. Uh, uh, in other counties around the state, I know that they're not able to, to meet that, that financial situation. So that's what my difficulty is.

607. 1:33:44

     Thank you. Um-

608. 1:33:44

     If I may just add one other thing-

609. 1:33:46

     Quickly

610. 1:33:46

     ... please. So in this, the way it's restricted, being between the age of 55 and 65 and having 16 years of service, in our review of most counties with the four constitutional officers, your sheriff, tax commissioner, probate judge, and clerk of superior court, most counties might have two constitutional officers that would qualify. And due to the ten-year window, by the time those go off, you may or may not have another. So it appears to be maybe two constitutional officers in most counties that would be on there at one time.

611. 1:34:18

     Thank you.

612. 1:34:19

     Thank you. Next up, uh, Todd Edwards. And then after that, uh, we've got, well, I guess, I guess both of y'all from ACCG.

613. 1:34:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, Todd Edwards with the Association of County Commissioners. Um, we'll start with the coroner, uh, section of the bill, the first one. Just go over a couple of notes, and I'll try to be as quick as possible. Uh, coroners, they're definitely vital. No one's disagreeing with that. Uh, s- some question whether or not they should shape, be elected, but that's not the point here in today's hearing. Local governments, I think the major point, can already increase coroner pay. They can do that through local supplements at the local level. If they don't do it to what y'all feel is necessary, y'all can do it as members of the general assembly through local legislation.

614. 1:35:07

     I think it was heard, you know, as another state law, uh, handling their local business. Uh, I think this would be a case for that. Uh, furthermore, um, deputy coroners, as stated by the representative earlier, um, they can be paid too, hired by the local governments, and that could be agreed. A member in D- Dawson County spoke earlier. That's already the case up there. Second, uh, question that was asked was full-time role. Uh, it can be, depending on the population, but that, that's why you have deputy coroners. Someone needs to be on call all the time.

615. 1:35:38

     That's between the coroner, the deputy, and again, uh, that can already be taken care of so that no one has to be there full time. They can go on vacation. And then most have other full-time jobs, I would argue, if you look at coroners, much like our commissioners. Uh, they have full-time jobs. They serve the public. That's the office they ran for. They know what they got into. Um, lastly, the coroner, and I mentioned that run for office, and I touch on not the, you know, the, the statement that these salaries have not been touched in 20 years. That's simply not the case. What you see in statute is, gets amended every time, uh, someone gets a pay raise or state employees do.

616. 1:36:13

     That applies to coroners. Uh, so that's a stagnant number right there, but in real, in actual calculations as we go through the years, those numbers have added up. It's just not reflected in the, uh, in the, uh, legislation. We have, however, we did have worked for years, uh, with Representative Wade, Representative Bentley. We're to the point where w- if we could offer a few friendly amendments, I think our members could be neutral on the legislation. I've asked our general counsel, Lar- Larry Ramsey, to speak to that, specifically on the coroner aspect of the bill.

617. 1:36:43

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Larry Ramsey, also with ACCG. Uh, to Todd's point about trying to, uh, get to this point where we're treating coroners the same as the constitutional officers, um, most of that bill does this. We're, we're not opposed to the concept of the New structure of base salaries, uh, but there are other provisions of the bill as presented that don't mirror the way that the constitutional officers are, are dealt with. And some of this has been discussed earlier, uh, but there are a couple of places where, and, uh, uh, Senator Watson's comment about term versus term of office, there are a couple of pr- places in the bill that we think that could be clarified.

618. 1:37:24

     The local governments cannot reduce the pay of other elected officials, including judges, constitutional officers, during their current term of office. The way the bill is written right now, it seems to say that for, it, it extends through the term of the coroner. And we would s- ask that that be matched up so that in a couple of different places, um, both at lines, uh, both 43, having the words term of replaced with current term of office of, so that again, that matches up with the way other elected officials are treated for purposes of, of local supplements.

619. 1:38:00

     And then a similar change at lines 128 to 134 to make it clear that, uh, after the date stated for the remainder of his or her current term of office, there could not be those adjustments. And we have, uh, submitted to, um, to I guess to the, both the author and hopefully the committee has some of our proposed language on those particular, two particular changes. Uh, the other provision that is in the bill right now at lines 35 to 40, where it doesn't really match up with the way that other constitutional officers, um, are, are dealt with, has to do with deputy pay.

620. 1:38:39

     You've heard some discussion about that. And the way the bill's written right now at those lines is that a deputy coroner would be guaranteed at least $9,000 a year whether he or she worked or not. It's a hundred dollar-

621. 1:38:51

     That's not true.

622. 1:38:52

     Well, that's the language. As I read the language, it says you can't be, it's up to $100, uh, per day for up to a 90 days on days that they don't work. And so if I misunderstand the intent-

623. 1:39:03

     Sure

624. 1:39:03

     ... of the author-

625. 1:39:04

     Um, I'll read-

626. 1:39:05

     It-

627. 1:39:05

     It's okay. I'm on the-

628. 1:39:06

     Okay

629. 1:39:06

     ... education committee, and literacy is extremely important to me. So provided fur- on line 39, "Provided further that sufficient funds have been budgeted by the governing authority of the county," meaning it's a setting a cap of up to 90 days. But that's still subject to the county coroner and the county commission going through a budget process. So I'll give you an example. This could be where Senator Setzler lives. They may say, "You know what? 40 days makes sense for us. That balances out. We're comfortable doing 40 days. We'll budget that item. We have a great recession.

630. 1:39:37

     We love our deputy coroners. Our digest just dropped 40%. We can't pay any." That is embedded in that language. So I just humbly disagree.

631. 1:39:46

     Well, I certainly not, uh, trying to, uh, pick a fight with the author, and so I understand his, his point about the subject to appropriation. That is simply a different approach that we see for any other deputies, for any other elected officials around the state about this concept of potential pay, uh, for days not worked. But I, I get your point, uh, Mr. Author, and I appreciate, uh, your clarification on that point.

632. 1:40:07

     Sure. And I'm, Patty and I have discussed there's, uh-

633. 1:40:10

     Right

634. 1:40:10

     ... i- if the committee wants to continue, um, there's language here that I am fine with on the three potential amendments. I do think that I would prefer to keep not striking the, that, you know, provided further that sufficient funds have been budgeted by the governing authority of the county. I still think that's an important piece to give locals the opportunity to address budget constraints that may be outside of that county commission's, um, knowledge. I understand there's a county that's dealing with some audit issues with our state auditor, and they may not be in a financial position to pay that.

635. 1:40:44

     So I, I'm, I think that that makes sense. I'm amenable to, uh, some language here that basically says if, if a county has a local supplement for a deputy, that they would, um, you know, not have to pay a county fee. Um, if that's something that the locals are caring about and ACCG can be neutral, those are three, uh, we're amenable to those changes if the committee wants to move forward. And just for clarity for Senator Ginn, Mr. Clayton is back in, and maybe we can ask him if they would be amenable to a s- similar subject to local appropriations as it relates to, um, section four.

636. 1:41:18

     Shall we pause on our testimony? And Mr. Clayton, yes, sir.

637. 1:41:25

     Thank you. I, I wasn't here for the question. I'm sorry I stepped out, but happy to answer.

638. 1:41:29

     Your question about section four, Senator.

639. 1:41:32

     You know, man.

640. 1:41:35

     Mr. Clayton, my, my question is, is, is, you know, I, I, I don't pick on one of my tax commissioners, uh, Candy Taylor, mess anything up or miss anything.

641. 1:43:06

     I want to get with y'all between now and Thursday-

642. 1:43:08

     Yeah

643. 1:43:08

     ... and then we'll-

644. 1:43:08

     Okay

645. 1:43:08

     ... we'll just have a vote for it when we come back. Yeah, go ahead Senator Setzler.

646. 1:43:12

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So if we're not doing a vote today, I'm gon- I'll spill my beans and tell the author, I think, where I personally am for what it's worth. I think you're onto something. I think the- I support Section 4. I think mandate, I don't think that should be subject to appropriations. I respect the gentleman, um, my, my, my friend, um, from East Georgia, but I'd, I would take a different tact. I- I- it, it may come to the committee to vote it, but I'd vote it. I think it's worth sticking in there for. I think, I think the, what, um, the, the... From my vantage point, Mr. Chairman, and I'm just saying this for purposes of the previous speakers, um, people that give, that, that serve in a senior role, probate court judge, sheriff, c- tax commissioner, clerk of court, commissioners.

647. 1:43:52

     These are, particularly the ones that are full-time jobs, these are, these are senior roles. If you serve 16 years or more up to age 55 or 65, you've put in the, the, the s- the most productive years of your professional life to these roles. Now you could've been building a business, you could've been doing lots of things, but you chose to be a tax commissioner. You chose to be a, a sheriff. Um, you could've been lining yourself up for a great retirement hookup, but rather you took this role. I think, I don't want to create perverse incentives, Mr.

648. 1:44:23

     Chairman, for people to stay in their role longer than perhaps they should. Maybe I'm, they're, they're, a sheriff's done it 16 years. Well, I don't want to do 24 'cause I don't really feel like running that long, but I, I got to keep my benefits. We can't create perverse incentives for folks to stay in office just for benefits. But we also have to recognize these people are senior people who gave the core earning years of their life to these pr- these roles. And, you know, as a member of the general assembly, if you come in at age 30, you leave at age 38, you're vested in, and you can by, by paying your share, you're vested till age 65 in our benefits after eight years.

649. 1:44:57

     Right.

650. 1:44:57

     I don't see why 16 years, Mr., Mr. Chairman, is not enough. I just, I think that's a solid policy. I, I wouldn't, and I wouldn't give too much on the, on the pay for the, the, the, the, the coroners. From, from my perspective, I'm just sh- spill the beans on my opinion. I think people are on standby who are on duty for the county. They're not just chilling. They're on duty for the county.

651. 1:45:17

     Right.

652. 1:45:17

     I think they ought to get paid for that.

653. 1:45:19

     Yes.

654. 1:45:19

     I think 100 bucks is not that much. A- and I think it should not be subject to appropriation. I think this should be a shall. We're in the shall business, and the, your, your bill should stay a shall bill. And if we want to change it, we change it, but I don't think subject to appropriations for a county that's underpaying people now ought to be able to persist with that approach because we give them an out.

655. 1:45:37

     Thank you. All right, we got to move on to the next bill. I got two more bills-

656. 1:45:40

     Sure

657. 1:45:40

     ... on here. Yeah, we'll have that. Yeah. Yeah, sorry. Um, moving on to House Bill, uh, 1316.

658. 1:45:49

     Thank you all.

659. 1:45:50

     Thank you.

660. 1:45:50

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

661. 1:45:51

     Yeah, thank you.

662. 1:45:52

     Whoa.

663. 1:45:53

     Hm?

664. 1:45:54

     Little rude.

665. 1:45:55

     Everybody asks questions.

666. 1:46:02

     Thank you.

667. 1:46:02

     All right, guys. Uh, this bill, uh, is a little bit unique. We've got the representative here. Um, it's a local bill. It would've been, uh, in Colton Moore's district, which is vacant currently. Uh, so per Senate rules, we had to recommit it as a general bill. Um, I'll carry it on the House floor if the representative shall allow. Yeah, go ahead.

668. 1:46:25

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. Appreciate you hearing this. We put two bills in in 2025. We've got a city school system and a county school system. Four places in the bill. The two bills were identical. And, and by design, we had a, a 70-year-old and a 75-year-old exemption.

669. 1:46:42

     Okay. Go ahead.

670. 1:46:44

     They had a five-year residency clause that you had to live in the county five years. The county and city said, "We probably won't do away with that," so we did away with it. I went and a- asked them to take them out. Lo and behold, after the bills passed, the 75-year-old exemption in the county did not get the five-year, uh, residency clause removed. I caught that after it w- went through the session last year. I dropped this bill, put it in the beginning of this year. Everybody's in accordance.

671. 1:47:15

     We're not changing the clause. We're simply taking it out. The city passed theirs last November. The county is on the, on the b- on the ballot this November. We're just taking the clause out of the ballot question. They do not have a five-year residency clause now. So we, all we're doing is changing the ballot question legally to remove the five-year retirement, uh, requirement for the 75 and older exemption from school taxes.

672. 1:47:42

     Thank you. Any questions or comments?

673. 1:47:45

     Motion to pass.

674. 1:47:45

     We got a motion to pass. Do we have a second?

675. 1:47:47

     Second.

676. 1:47:48

     All in favor, raise your hand. Passed unanimous. Thank you.

677. 1:47:52

     A minute and 39 seconds.

678. 1:47:53

     There we go. That's a record, this committee.

679. 1:47:55

     Very good. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

680. 1:47:56

     Feel appreciated.

681. 1:47:57

     Appreciation.

682. 1:47:59

     Do we?

683. 1:48:04

     Appreciate it very much, sir.

684. 1:48:07

     Last bill on the agenda, SB 628.

685. 1:48:10

     Hope he's that fast.

686. 1:48:12

     I, I would like to-

687. 1:48:13

     He quit.

688. 1:48:13

     I would like to be that fast, but, uh, just a, a moment of, uh, personal privilege. Uh, there was an incident at a Cobb County high school today where a student brought a weapon to school. Mercifully, that individual was apprehended, and no, no further issues, uh, prevail. My grandson is in that school. Uh, Hillgrove High School in Cobb County, Georgia.

689. 1:48:44

     Okay, so let's talk about business, but I just want to point out that business is not important when you're under that situation. Okay, so-

690. 1:48:52

     You're right about that, senator

691. 1:48:52

     ... what I have for you is a local bill that has to be under general rule because, uh, we can't as a delegation agree on what's best to do. Uh, this is, uh, an Augusta Richmond County charter revision The current charter was adopted in 1996 when Augusta and Richmond County consolidated. Uh, the mayor in his wisdom, um, a couple years back, created a charter review committee of citizens.

692. 1:49:26

     It was supported by the Carl Vinson Institute, and that committee has come up with a number of recommendations. They haven't finalized their report, but what I ask you to consider this afternoon is one recommendation from that committee. It is their number one request. It essentially moves the county from an administrator form of government to a county manager form of government. This recommendation was, uh, unanimous by the charter review committee, and it was supported, uh, by resolution of the Augusta Richmond Commission.

693. 1:50:06

     So looking quickly at the bill, uh, it, it really does only one thing. It creates a s- a county, city county manager form of government, and that city county manager would have administrative responsibility for the county operations. Um, we worked diligently with our delegation. We have four members, so actually five members in our House delegation. One, uh, position is currently vacant. We have two members in the Senate delegation. We worked extensively with them on, on wording, and we are at a point where I have accepted, uh, language from the chairman of the delegation, Representative Brian Prince.

694. 1:50:48

     And if I would just point to the lines 27 through 33. There shall be an office of county manager. Currently, it reads to be nominated by the mayor and appointed by a majority of, of vote of the commission, and then there's a sentence notwithstanding any other provision of this charter or contrary, the mayor shall only nominate the county manager. The mayor shall have no vote on the appointment of the county manager by the commission. Uh, the reason for that language is right now the, the, uh, mayor does have a vote on the county commission but would not have a vote in this instance.

695. 1:51:24

     Uh, in negotiating with Representative Prince and, um, his colleagues, although I will acknowledge the fact that they, uh, they have to make their own decision, I ask that line 29 through 28, beginning with the word notwithstanding any provision of this charter to the contrary, that we insert language recommended by Representative Prince that says the mayor shall nominate two but not more than four candidates for the county manager and shall have no vote on the appointment unless the commission vote is tied.

696. 1:52:03

     So I'm happy to take any questions. Uh, I would say that, uh, it is imperative that Augusta move forward. Uh, they have some, uh, significant challenges, and they can best be served by a county manager form of government. I believe that the charter review committee will complete their work. They will provide that to the county commission, and the county commission will bring forth future recommendations. But at this time, uh, we ask that you allow the voters of Richmond County to determine whether or not they would like to have a county manager form of government.

697. 1:52:36

     If you look on lines 86, the ba- uh, 85 through 87, the ballot shall have written or printed thereon the words, "Yes or no, shall the act be approved that provides for a council manager form of government for Augusta-Richmond County?" It would go to the voters. The voters would decide, and I think the legislature should allow the voters to have that opportunity. I'd be happy to take any questions.

698. 1:53:10

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I appreciate you going to that line. That was my concern with the whole bill. As it's drafted right now, essentially the mayor would have veto authority 'cause they, only they would be able to place a person into nomination.

699. 1:53:21

     Uh, that is the request of the commission. That is, that is how it is done now. That is how the current administrator is provided. Uh, but recognize that the, the mayor makes the, a nomination. He must nominate two but not more than four, and then the commission itself makes the choice, makes the decision.

700. 1:53:39

     That solves my problem 'cause I, I was, I was gonna raise this issue to you. 'Cause as it stands today, if it says the mayor shall only nominate-

701. 1:53:45

     Oh, no

702. 1:53:45

     ... it requires him to nominate only the person they nomin- but s- that's all. Yeah.

703. 1:53:49

     Thank you.

704. 1:53:52

     Senator Howard.

705. 1:53:54

     Thank you so much. Um, Senator Burns, appreciate you coming forward with this, um, legislation. Um, I, I had comments earlier about the state getting involved in local matters, and, um, you did provide some context, and I, I do appreciate it. You, you mentioned something kind of quickly. You mentioned that, um, that there is a org- there's a body that is still deliberating on language.

706. 1:54:18

     The, the-

707. 1:54:18

     Can you just say that one more time?

708. 1:54:20

     Yeah. The charter review committee-

709. 1:54:22

     Mm-hmm

710. 1:54:23

     ... uh, has been working for about a year, year and a half, or more, and what they're doing now is actually there are about a dozen or so recommendations.

711. 1:54:33

     Mm-hmm.

712. 1:54:33

     The vast majority of them are unanimous.

713. 1:54:37

     Sure.

714. 1:54:37

     Interestingly enough, there's one or two, as you would expect-

715. 1:54:40

     Sure

716. 1:54:40

     ... are not yet in consensus, and that's delayed their final report. And I know there's been a, there's been a desire by some, uh, that we not do anything till after the committee has completed its work. It's completed its work as it relates to this issue, and I would ask that we favorably, um, allow-

717. 1:55:00

     Understand

718. 1:55:00

     ... we're just allowing the voters by referendum-

719. 1:55:03

     Understand

720. 1:55:03

     ... to either agree or disagree.

721. 1:55:04

     And from what I'm understanding, so basically you're kind of seeing the, a draft form and not a, it's not a final report, but there's some language that you feel like is partially final enough to come to this body. But if- Again, just looking at precedent and when the state gets involved, I'm encouraged when there's a committee going through the process.

722. 1:55:26

     Right

723. 1:55:26

     That sometimes can take longer than what we want, and there's back and forth, and it seems like there is some agreement, and then there's some portions that are not there yet. I would love that this would come forward when there is a final, uh, report. That way we can see the report, we can get involved, we can see why we're even getting involved in the first place. But I respect the sense of urgency. Obviously, you've been doing this a lot longer than me. But just s- uh, for principle matters, it ... I would feel more comfortable having a, a final report and then seeing our role at the state getting involved in a very local matter.

724. 1:56:01

     We have had... I, I appreciate the question, I appreciate the concern, and, um, we've had multiple conversations with the community about how best to move forward. And, um, the, um, the environment in which this has had to gain consensus has been challenging because I'm not convinced that all pl- uh, all participants, uh, want to see any recommendation. So it's been delayed. There's been a delay and then a delay and then a delay.

725. 1:56:31

     The one thing, the, the most important and most significant component is to allow for a city county manager so that that person can have the responsibility of managing a very large enterprise, a billion-dollar enterprise in Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, and be able to work with department heads to correct concerns and issues, to, uh, to basically re- assume responsibility. And I want to acknowledge the fact that the mayor is receding in his direct involvement.

726. 1:57:04

     And I would also say that commissioners, part of the challenge we face right now is that commissioners have a tendency to become operationally engaged. What we need is for the commissioners to recede from operational day-to-day responsibilities or, or authority or o- oversight and allow the manager to do that and have the commission do what its intended purpose is, which is to establish the policy and the direction of the community. Remember, it's gonna take a majority of the commissioners to hire a manager. It's gonna take a majority of the commissioners to hire a manager if the, the citizens of Augusta-Richmond County adopt this resolution.

727. 1:57:42

     If I may just one last question. Um, uh, is it my understanding that, um, even with the adoption of some of the language from some of the folks in the delegation, there's still a, a strong sense of unreadiness across the board, um, with this legislation?

728. 1:57:58

     I, I, I would acknowledge the fact that, uh, members of the delegation, uh, I will say three of us are comfortable and I would suggest that three are not yet comfortable. I would say that on the underlying concept, I think we agree.

729. 1:58:14

     Sure. Sure.

730. 1:58:14

     I think we agree on the, on the, uh, the reality that, that Richmond Augusta, Augusta-Richmond County's, uh, consolidated government needs a professional, uh, county manager style of government. I know there's been frustration in the fact that the process has not worked as effectively or as smoothly as we'd like. But at the end of the day, the citizens of Augusta-Richmond County deserve the opportunity to vote. That's all this is.

731. 1:58:44

     Understood. Thank you.

732. 1:58:45

     Thank you.

733. 1:58:45

     That's my questions.

734. 1:58:48

     Representative.

735. 1:58:48

     Do you mind if I-

736. 1:58:49

     Yeah, if you guys comment.

737. 1:58:51

     I wanna, uh, those of you I'm sure know Representative Newton, Chairman Newton.

738. 1:58:54

     Yeah.

739. 1:58:55

     Uh, Chairman Newton and I served on the Augusta-Richmond delegation together so, and I appreciate all of his work on this, on this legislation.

740. 1:59:01

     Good to see you, sir.

741. 1:59:02

     Thank you. I, I ... Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, and, and I just really wanted to speak to s- to one of the questions you raised of isn't the process moving. One of the challenges we face in Augusta, and we're not the only community, uh, that has this challenge, but because of the, the somewhat weaker form of, uh, style of government or form of government we have now compared to the county manager that's been proposed by the Charter Review Committee and then by majority of the county commission that sent us the, the request and then this effort among some of us to, uh, accommodate different language changes in this limited, much more limited than a 50-page charter replacement, was to just go on and get the manager and the, the, the ability to have a chain of command and oversight.

742. 1:59:45

     One of the challenges we have in the community right now is that we're not eligible for certain grants because of failures of our audit process, gaps in our audit process. You all know that in our appropriations we've been working on homelessness grants. Our housing and community development is currently not eligible for any grants that might come about in the budget that, either the amended budget we just passed or the, uh, or the FY27 that we're working on now. We won't be eligible for those because of the failures of, of our current form of government.

743. 2:00:15

     So that's the sense of urgency when you, when, when you raise the question, and very legitimate, why not let the process work its way out.

744. 2:00:22

     Right.

745. 2:00:22

     And it's, as it, unfortunately it seems that the process is not gonna work its way out, that, that the ac- the accountability that's needed is not there in the current ... And that's, that's why there's the urgency for this. I'm very disappointed at, at this new, uh, the, the, the effort we're making across the state. Augusta has homelessness problems. Every community in the state probably does. But the, it's very disturbing to some of us that our, our community is not eligible for the grants they would otherwise deserve to take care of our people, our, some of our most needy people, that we won't be eligible for those because of the system of our current government.

746. 2:00:58

     So I appreciate the, the senator, uh, bringing this along with all the additions and amendments he made in response to the delegation. And so I, I do see that as part of our role, uh, in particular at this time to look out for some of the neediest when it comes to housing and community development. But thank you, Mr. Chairman.

747. 2:01:15

     Thank you.

748. 2:01:16

     Senator Ginn.

749. 2:01:17

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, if, if, uh, Senator Burns, if you'd help me on line 41.

750. 2:01:24

     Yes, sir

751. 2:01:26

     What type of law enforcement do you have in Augusta-Richmond County?

752. 2:01:29

     We have a sheriff, elected sheriff, and, uh, we also have a marshal service that's, uh- Is it pacing? ... a part of the court- We need to enforcement ... enforcement process.

753. 2:01:39

     You have county police?

754. 2:01:41

     Uh, we do not. We do not. We have a county sheriff's department that has the responsibility for, uh, uh, en- enforcement

755. 2:01:46

     And on, on line, on line 57-

756. 2:01:49

     Yes

757. 2:01:49

     ... should the, uh, number nine, uh, "his or her entire time to the duties and affairs of the office of county manager and hold no other office or employment for numeration while serving, uh, as county manager."

758. 2:02:01

     Right.

759. 2:02:02

     The, uh, I, I pity the, the poor ch- uh, fellow that, that or, or lady that takes the job on as county manager, having been one for 10 years-

760. 2:02:12

     Let me say, you, you know it well, don't you?

761. 2:02:14

     Said that they, uh, they got a sp- special place in heaven, 'cause they, they've been through hell on Earth.

762. 2:02:17

     That's a fact.

763. 2:02:18

     But, but, uh, wanna make sure that, that n- n- in number one, the, uh, uh, that's a doable thing. I don't know how y- you know, your county manager will be able to enforce the law, the, as, uh, y- you know, d- to the best of his ability, uh, or her ability. I'm sure that, you know, there, there's a opportunity there, but you might wanna look at the language on that. The, uh-

764. 2:02:39

     Happy to-

765. 2:02:40

     And, and I-

766. 2:02:40

     ... happy to address that

767. 2:02:41

     ... and then as far as the, uh, I, I guess for enumeration, all those thankless jobs that they do in the community, uh, that's the on- that's the part that's the saving grace for that, that person that serves in that role.

768. 2:02:53

     Thank you.

769. 2:02:54

     So accept it.

770. 2:02:54

     We, we'd be happy to, uh, accept, uh, friendly amendments to clarification. I wanna, uh, acknowledge and, and thank the legislative council for their drafts, and I, I would certainly rely on them heavily.

771. 2:03:05

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What's the pay for your mayor?

772. 2:03:09

     He said 75,000. I do not... I think it's $75,000. I think it's $75,000 a year.

773. 2:03:12

     Okay, so it's not a-

774. 2:03:14

     Yeah, well-

775. 2:03:14

     ... well-compensated senior... It's a full-time job then.

776. 2:03:17

     Yeah.

777. 2:03:17

     It's a, it's a pretty well-compensated part-time job.

778. 2:03:20

     Part-time job. But it, it ha- carries with it right now full-time responsibilities. You got, you have to, if I may, Mr. Chairman, uh, the cur- the current mayor's ability to ad- uh, to manage the county is, is hampered a bit by the w- weak form of mayor's government that we have. This would provide a stronger role for county, uh, operational management under the direction of the, the county manager, the city county manager, with the oversight and control of the commission, the elected commission.

779. 2:03:55

     Okay. I asked the question, I support this bill as, as county manager approach. The challenge I've got is you have this county manager, and then we empower a full-time mayor. Are, are we taking away the full-time mayor role? 'Cause to me, when you get a full-time manager, you have a part-time mayor.

780. 2:04:09

     If, uh, well-

781. 2:04:10

     Which, which, which you will often have.

782. 2:04:11

     Which you often have.

783. 2:04:12

     My county made the mistake of having a full-time county manager and a full-time chairman, and that becomes a problem. I don't wanna c- I don't wanna manufacture that problem for you.

784. 2:04:22

     I, I, I appreciate that. But I, I believe the, the, uh, the legislation would adopt the county form, county manager form of government, and the mayor's, uh, responsibilities would, in many cases, transfer to the manager. Uh, and candidly, many of the, the responsibilities that certain commissioners have assumed would be, uh, placed on a, a single, uh, management executive to control a, um, a billion-dollar enterprise. It's a, it's a huge operation.

785. 2:04:52

     I get it. I just, the last thing I'll say, I j- I would just caution you guys as local officials to beware of the difficulty of who really is in charge of those things. You have chairman or mayors that sort of interpose themselves in a more full-time role. It, it muddies the water of that. I th- just, I d- you'd do well to r- clarity the mayor's a part-time role.

786. 2:05:13

     Thank you.

787. 2:05:14

     Thank you. We've got some folks signed up to speak. Uh, we got James Williams.

788. 2:05:19

     One, one question.

789. 2:05:23

     Yeah.

790. 2:05:24

     What's the timetable for the, uh, review commission, uh, chair and senator?

791. 2:05:31

     The, uh-

792. 2:05:31

     Chair of the review commission, was there a timetable that was to have the review, or is there a deadline-

793. 2:05:36

     Yes, and, and it was last year

794. 2:05:38

     ... from which-

795. 2:05:39

     It was last year.

796. 2:05:40

     Yeah.

797. 2:05:40

     And, uh, most recently it was, uh, the 19th. Uh, we, we've had any number of deadlines that unfortunately have not been met. And in many cases, or in s- at least some case, I shouldn't say many, in some cases it's because members don't show up. Uh, so we, they, they don't have a quorum to conduct business because we have members that feel that they disagree, and they are able to block their disagreement by not participating.

798. 2:06:12

     That's unfortunate, because, uh, you and I are elected to represent our constituency, and we're expected to show up, and we're expected to cast a vote either for or against legislation. And I think, um, that should be, be true for local as well as state and federal officials.

799. 2:06:29

     Uh, thank you.

800. 2:06:30

     If I might add, uh, we, we did have some recent meetings, and there's 10 members current

801. 2:06:35

     on that. Seven is a quorum and four members did not show up so that the six could not pass what had been-

802. 2:06:41

     Could not agree

803. 2:06:42

     ... discussed. Uh, and once again, it would still come to us for additional ver- uh, changes potentially as a legislature. Uh, but I do think, uh, right now my understanding is that commiss- that committee, that charter review committee may be disbanded at, at the, as of the 31st of this month. Um, so there is a draft charter out there. It could not get a vote because for lack of a quorum for four individuals who were on that but did not show up to two different meetings, that they would've voted, and they, they, I believe they would've had a majority of the committee that voted out the draft.

804. 2:07:15

     So we're at a somewhat of a ... But when you ask about a timetable, it could be years before we actually get anything that resembles a full charter review. Um, so that was the effort on trying to make at least one step to get the accountability back that we need so that we can at least get the ship going, the state go in the right direction. But thank you.

805. 2:07:37

     Thank you. Go ahead, sir.

806. 2:07:41

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. My name is James Williams and excuse me. I am a resident of Augusta, Richmond County. I am a long life resident of Augusta, Richmond County. I don't live in parts. I live in Richmond County. And having living, having been living in Richmond County, as a participating resident, as an advocate in our community, uh, historically, and I'm, I'm not here to give you a history lesson, but when I hear some of the things that's been said in terms of where we are and how we got here, uh, there's some history that needs to be known.

807. 2:08:30

     Now, it, it could be long-term. I could make it long-term, but I'm not going to. I was there when the Augusta, Richmond County became a consolidated government. I was a part of that activity as a citizen. I know and understand why and how. And ever since we have been a consolidated government, we've had that many mayors, five to six mayors, since that consolidation.

808. 2:09:01

     Each mayor worked as a mayor carrying out a responsibility that they could in the best way that they knew how in a position that they were in and what they brought to the city of Augusta as a mayor. When I say that, Augusta, Richmond County, under a consolidated government, never had an issue of being governed by the 10 commission governan- uh, uh, commission nor with the mayor up until now and since the census of 2024 ...

809. 2:09:41

     I'm sorry. Well, the last census.

810. 2:09:44

     2010.

811. 2:09:44

     The last census change in terms of, uh, the growth in the county and how the growth in terms of, uh, racial makeup affected the county. Historically, uh, uh, Augusta, Richmond County has been a s- community that has been governed by, uh, well, prior to that in terms of commission, a commission government, uh, form of government, meaning we had a smaller group, uh, of commissioners as opposed to what we got now.

812. 2:10:23

     And, and how it got there in terms of the commission when the consolidated government was formed, uh, back in, in '95, uh, it was suggested and the attempt was to get less commissioners in this government than what we have now, and that was what the, uh, citizen voted on. The attempt was to have five commissioners, five commissioners to govern the whole county.

813. 2:10:55

     The attempt was to make and have a, uh, uh, uh, a makeup of three white commissioners, two Black commissioners. That would have been the makeup, but because of the intervening of the Justice Department, uh, we were able to establish the government where it had, uh, 10 commissioners with, uh, two super district commissioners and four district commissioners.

814. 2:11:29

     That's our makeup as it is now. It would have been different had it been allowed to or had not the federal government intervened and said that it recommends this kind of government. To the point of where we are, all the previous mayors has worked with no issue, govern- uh, ran the county as a mayor with no issue. The commissioners has done their job as commissioners. The effort of working this, uh, government together and not wanting to take, uh, control because of who's in minority, of who's in minority and keeping control, we have an issue.

815. 2:12:13

     We got to this with the current mayor who solicited and got by vote the opportunity to vote on the commission as to opposed to what he had when he became mayor. It's under this administration of this mayor and this commission that we're here with now recommending a county ma- uh, a city manager, uh, form of government, uh, commission form of government. Because of the way people would like to see the city operated.

816. 2:12:48

     No one is, uh, uh, arguing the change, but it's the way that we got here in terms of how you establish a committee to say, "Go out and review the charter for the citizens," this review committee appointed by the commission with a, a, a period of time to do this review, 12 to 18 months. 12 to 18 months.

817. 2:13:19

     We are somewhat in a year north of those full-time 18 months, so we're not even there yet.

818. 2:13:28

     Oh.

819. 2:13:29

     The committee worked, and, and, and I'm not gonna usurp what they can tell you because we have some persons that, that's a part of that. The committee has worked. I have been a part of every meeting, but exception of maybe one, and I watched it online. I was present in terms of the committee forming itself as a committee. All times having a quorum up until two meetings. So the idea that the committee did not function in that manner is, is a misnomer.

820. 2:14:01

     Just to make certain that you understand that they did function, and they are still functioning in the form of, I guess, where they are, the posture they're in now. What is being brought to you in the form of this bill was taken out of the idea of the form of government that would be presented in the final review, and that review is not finished. That review was not given the opportunity to be finished because of the way that, uh, it was, it, it, it, it was, it was managed by those persons in charge of making certain that the committee functioned properly.

821. 2:14:46

     The county hired a consulting firm for over a quarter million dollars, Carl Vinson Institute, to consult with the charter review committee to help them, uh, uh, realign the current charter. That committee worked up until a few days ago, basically, until we got to where we are. With that, we cannot support the way and this committee has functioned.

822. 2:15:20

     Not i- its committee, but the way the committee has been basically, um, dictated to.

823. 2:15:29

     The way it has been dictated to. When you find people who, who, who give themselves, and they gave themselves freely, they gave of themselves freely to do this job, to do this review, up until a few days ago, when things that was gonna be in this review started showing up that they did not vote on, they did not know where it come from, and they could not support the way it happened.

824. 2:16:03

     So with that, the citizens of Augusta would love to have some ethics involved, they would love to have some integrity involved, they would love to have some transparency involved. Knowing that if you do what you're about to do, uh, in, in, in moving this bill forward, that you're violating the integrity of the hearts and minds of the citizens. So with that, I would like to yield to those who, uh, may have something to say, but in the form that this is being done, um, the citizens of Augusta does not support that.

825. 2:16:43

     Thank you. Senator Setzler.

826. 2:16:46

     Mr., Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your being here today. Um, you know, I... While the sponsor of this, this is, you know, s- isn't it true Representative Brian Prince supports this, this proposal among other, among the other representatives here? I don't know. Yeah.

827. 2:17:04

     That is my understanding, that, uh, by, uh, Mr., that Representative Prince, uh, would support this, uh, proposal because he is the one who offered the changes that I provided. We've been under, uh, co- intense conversations with not only Representative Prince, but, uh, Representative, uh, Colton Howard, Representative LC Miles, uh, Senator, uh, Harold Jones. Uh, a- and I, and I appreciate the input from our witness. I, I really do. I think the, the interesting component is I don't believe you have a, a problem with a county manager.

828. 2:17:40

     Do you? Do you feel like, like that's the wrong way to go?

829. 2:17:44

     No, go ahead.

830. 2:17:45

     Please.

831. 2:17:47

     Sir, I'm, I'm not here to debate whether-

832. 2:17:49

     I'm just, I'm asking you

833. 2:17:49

     ... no, no, no, no, no. You, you asked me. I'm not here to debate whether this is the wrong or right way to go.

834. 2:17:54

     Okay.

835. 2:17:54

     Okay?

836. 2:17:55

     Do you believe it's the right way to go?

837. 2:17:57

     I, I'm not gonna answer that.

838. 2:18:00

     Why, why do you-

839. 2:18:00

     Be- because it's, it's not my determination. It's the-

840. 2:18:02

     Well, a- if you, you were not on the charter review committee, is that correct?

841. 2:18:05

     That's correct.

842. 2:18:06

     But you were- Senator, hey ... you were actively participating.

843. 2:18:07

     Max, Max.

844. 2:18:08

     I'm sorry.

845. 2:18:09

     Yeah, you gotta, you gotta answer that.

846. 2:18:10

     That's right.

847. 2:18:10

     Yeah. I, I just, I, I was, uh, the... You know, Representative Prince offered a, a, an, an improvement of the bill. I, I don't wanna put him in a box a- about exactly where he is, but I do think he, his idea of a constructive, um, improvement to make, to move this forward, um, I just think there's... First of all, thanks for being here. It, it-

848. 2:18:31

     You're welcome

849. 2:18:32

     ... if, if you're from the Augusta area, it took you time to get here. You, you don't, you don't just find yourself down the street from the state capital, so I appreciate-

850. 2:18:37

     Mm-hmm

851. 2:18:37

     ... you taking the time-

852. 2:18:37

     Thank you

853. 2:18:38

     ... and others. Uh, and I don't wanna minimize that.

854. 2:18:40

     Okay.

855. 2:18:41

     Um, I will tell you, it, it is not the- We are certainly not, as a, as a legislature, captive to the final results of a study that's, that's done locally. I think the input, the, the, those studies that are put together, it's the input, the discussion, the process that informs-

856. 2:19:01

     Yeah

857. 2:19:04

     ... um, what should move forward. Um, it wasn't a legislative study committee of our... W- w- we wouldn't have processed of our own. I think what I hear from members that, who I think are models of integrity, um, is that, um, is the, the process of discussing this has led to clarity of members that represent a portion of Augusta, the, the, the, the ci- the, the, the Augusta Richmond. And I just... I don't think it's, it's fair and appropriate to say, well, that process is still playing out for some commission report, that somehow we ought to become...

858. 2:19:40

     we as a legislature ought to be subservient to the findings of some report that's done by people locally. I think it, it might inform us, um, but I don't... we certainly shouldn't... I, I think it's a wrong premise to suggest we wait for the fi- the final results of some report before we can act, and we have to act pursuant to that. So I mean, I appreciate you coming down and sh- sh- sharing the process with us, but I, I mean, I think the, I think the author of the bill made a pretty strong case. That's, that, that, that, that, that's what we're moving for. I, I wouldn't accept the premise this is some messed up process.

859. 2:20:11

     That's all.

860. 2:20:14

     There we go. Go ahead and answer.

861. 2:20:15

     Mr. Chair, in, in response to the, uh, gentleman, the county government... I'm sorry, the county commission, acting on behalf of the citizens, formed this committee and requested that this committee, giving them time through a resolution, on behalf of the citizens, to do the job of reviewing the current charter to bring back in a full review whatever they find, and present it, and present it, properly present it with the citizens' input.

862. 2:21:05

     Not taking snippets out of it, and a snippet, the one piece that satisfies, or you feel that this is what we want, and this is the reason w- that we did this, you're negating what you cho- what you appointed that committee to do on behalf of the citizens. And the citizens will be, be given opportunity to speak if it should get to becoming a bill. But during the process, what about processes? And that is a concern that we, that we, that we are at.

863. 2:21:36

     And, and, and, and it, and it's very hard to really, on behalf of the people, and my being a citizen, to hear that, uh, um, my ability to, um, have the right is being usurped, taken before the people who represent me get what they said that they wanted for me as a citizen, um, j- all of us, and somebody else take parts out of it saying that it's complete.

864. 2:22:07

     But, but you're, you're speaking. Uh, that, that's... You're here today sharing the citizens' sentiment, a citizen's sentiment, may- perhaps you and some others, before us as we act. It's... So we're not shutting down citizen input. This, this is citizen input, and you came to do this. This is our citizen input, and that's why we have public comment on this.

865. 2:22:25

     Yeah.

866. 2:22:25

     I, I just, I, I, I don't, I don't know how we've shut you down. That, that's all.

867. 2:22:29

     Well, I, I, I, uh, Mr. Chairperson, I, if I may w- w- with this-

868. 2:22:33

     If you could wrap it up.

869. 2:22:34

     Yeah. Yes, sir.

870. 2:22:34

     We've, we've, we've been in here for two hours.

871. 2:22:35

     You know, and, and it, uh... there's an old proverbial adage, um, uh, "Measure twice, cut once. Haste brings waste." And we are in a hasty foot posture, and I don't think that is good, and we wouldn't be going through the deliberation as we are if we were in a position otherwise.

872. 2:22:59

     Thank you. Uh, next up we've got the Augusta Charter Review.

873. 2:23:08

     Sheffie Robinson or Angela Vacos?

874. 2:23:12

     I'm sorry, say that again.

875. 2:23:13

     Sheffie Robinson or Angela Vacos?

876. 2:23:15

     Uh, Robinson.

877. 2:23:17

     Mr. Chairman, I, I, I appreciate the consideration of the committee. Uh, we've been here two hours and 40 minutes. I would like to ask that we table this bill. I have another committee meeting in 20 minutes.

878. 2:23:33

     It's only 11:15.

879. 2:23:33

     In 20 minutes.

880. 2:23:35

     Po- postpone consideration, you mean?

881. 2:23:37

     Yes, postpone consideration.

882. 2:23:40

     So what, what I'll do, um-

883. 2:23:42

     Do you wanna hear additional-

884. 2:23:43

     Yeah. No, uh, we'll do a hearing only, but I will allow the last-

885. 2:23:46

     Thank you

886. 2:23:46

     ... we've got, uh, three folks-

887. 2:23:47

     Thank you

888. 2:23:48

     ... left to speak.

889. 2:23:51

     Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Dr. Sheffie Robinson. I am born and raised in Augusta, Georgia, and I represent District One on the Augusta Charter Review Committee. Uh, as much as I am completely in favor of changing the form of government to the commission manager structure, as a member of this committee, we were n- while we had decided on what to change it to, we had not decided on a lot of the details. We were still combing through, um, charters from, um, Macon-Bibb as well as Athens-Clarke to figure out what was going to be best for Augusta.

890. 2:24:26

     So the, but the pressures from elected officials disenfranchised this entire process. Um, as e- every member of the Charter Review Committee are private citizens, none of us are paid, we're all volunteers. But because of pressures from outside of our body, we were constantly being pushed in different directions than what was needed for the charter review to be effective. Uh, we spent a lot of time on form of government, and, uh, it negated other pieces of the charter that did not get the attention that it needed. So when it got to the end of things, things started to be rushed.

891. 2:25:00

     The reason I and three other people were not at the last two charter review meetings was because the draft charter changed significant other pieces of our charter that we never voted on. Our elections were changed from a majority being 50 plus 1 to plurality. Uh, a lot of the ethics language has been removed, had been removed, and other pieces of the, um, language for the city man- the county manager and mayor po- um, uh, positions had been changed.

892. 2:25:31

     Um, it was to, uh, to my knowledge, the Carl Vinson Institute that had drafted that, um, that document with the help of the chair. And a lot of that information in the document was not what we voted on. When we voted, uh, across the 11 and a half months that we were in this process, we voted on specific language. However, when the charter was presented to us, that specific language had been changed. So we didn't not attend that meeting to stop quorum so that, because we didn't want the charter to pass.

893. 2:26:04

     It's literally the charter was changed from what we voted on. No one is against the form of government being changed. We were, however, against some of the, uh, adjustments that had been made to that language, as well as some of the details that we had still yet to figure out. Through this whole process, one thing that had been said many times is, "Well, Augusta is different." And being different has not served us at all. When we had Athens-Clarke and Macon-Bibb and a couple of other charters that were in line with where we needed to be, but that information was not what was in the draft charter that we had.

894. 2:26:40

     Um, like, uh, Reverend Williams said, a lot of the issues that we've had in the city of Augusta with regard to our government didn't start until our current mayor became a, a member of that body. He was able to get his vote to be a member of the commission, but him become, him now having a vote on the commission effectively nullified our executive branch. So yes, a county manager would fix that, but only if, as, uh, Senator Setzler stated, only if the manager, um, the mayor is a part-time mayor.

895. 2:27:14

     That's how that works. That's how, uh, Athens-Clarke has been able to see success. That is how the citizens of Augusta should be able to see success. But we were not finished that work. We had not been able to evalu- co-continue to evaluate those things, because our people and members of our committee kept getting calls from legislatures to push this thing forward before we were done, before it would be right. What is right for the city of Augusta is to give us time to finish this report and get it to you in the most, um, uh, cleanest way possible with the input from the committee, from our, uh, constituents, with the input from our, um, our professionals that helped draft the document, and not let it be driven by how quickly we can get it through the House.

896. 2:28:03

     Thank you.

897. 2:28:05

     Mr. Chair.

898. 2:28:06

     Go ahead, Mr. Webb.

899. 2:28:08

     Um, just a point of clarification. The first consolidated government in Georgia was Columbus-Muscogee.

900. 2:28:15

     Correct.

901. 2:28:15

     Has a full-time mayor and a full-time city manager, i.e., county commissioner or, or county manager because once the government's consolidated, the city councilors also become county commissioners, so they're a part of, uh, ACCG and GMA, uh, because the unification causes that thing. Now, failing to show up to the last three, and you said it was not to, or the last two, you said it was not to impact the quorum, but because y'all felt that the thing, the charter had been changed, and you felt that you wouldn't have a voice.

902. 2:28:53

     What-

903. 2:28:53

     That's not what I said.

904. 2:28:54

     Okay, well, you said, you said you didn't show up 'cause you didn't like the changes?

905. 2:28:58

     That's not what I said.

906. 2:28:59

     Okay, go, go, go ahead. Tell me.

907. 2:28:59

     I said what we voted on-

908. 2:29:01

     Right

909. 2:29:01

     ... to be in that draft document-

910. 2:29:03

     Right

911. 2:29:03

     ... was not what was in the draft document.

912. 2:29:05

     And so you showed, you chose not to show up to vote on the draft document or to do what with the draft document?

913. 2:29:14

     The draft document, we, uh, had submitted additional changes to the draft document.

914. 2:29:18

     Okay.

915. 2:29:19

     And a lot of these-

916. 2:29:20

     Who is we?

917. 2:29:21

     Uh, many of the members of the co-

918. 2:29:22

     Okay

919. 2:29:22

     ... of the committee.

920. 2:29:23

     Okay.

921. 2:29:23

     And a lot of the, um, suggestions we had to discuss were, for the lack of a better word, and many times we were told we didn't need to add them because the adjustments had already been made for us.

922. 2:29:36

     Okay. Made-

923. 2:29:37

     Which-

924. 2:29:38

     Made to coincide with what you wanted or

925. 2:29:40

     No

926. 2:29:40

     ... opposite of what you wanted?

927. 2:29:40

     They just had been made. They, we weren't told whether they had been coincided or not, they had just been made. But by our legal counsel, those changes couldn't be made until they were voted on. We didn't vote on them.

928. 2:29:53

     Which, which legal counsel? Your personal or the county's?

929. 2:29:56

     No, the county.

930. 2:29:57

     The county legal?

931. 2:29:59

     Yes.

932. 2:29:59

     Um, now have the majority of the current county commissioners, where are they at on this particular change?

933. 2:30:10

     I mean, they voted to send the half-baked referendum that failed the local legislation.

934. 2:30:14

     Um, you know, these meetings go a, a whole lot better if the person at the podium talks, and we're here just to gather information.

935. 2:30:23

     Sure.

936. 2:30:23

     Nobody's here-

937. 2:30:23

     Absolutely.

938. 2:30:25

     Nobody's here to throw disparaging remarks back and forth. We make the best decisions when we get the best information.

939. 2:30:30

     Yes, sir.

940. 2:30:31

     And that's all we're doing.

941. 2:30:32

     Mm-hmm.

942. 2:30:32

     And so I, I appreciate, uh, everybody maintaining the quorum. So your concern is that th- the mayor would be a full-time mayor, or is, are y'all choosing to make it a part-time mayor?

943. 2:30:45

     No, we had not chosen to do that. Um, we had, uh, mostly chosen to go with the form of government at being the manager, um, commission manager change. Some of those details that ended up being in that draft charter we never talked about 'Cause again, we were given specific language to vote on, but then when that language went into the draft charter, it was completely different from what we voted on.

944. 2:31:08

     Do you have a copy of the draft charter now?

945. 2:31:10

     Do you have a copy?

946. 2:31:12

     I don't have a copy.

947. 2:31:12

     No, that's fine. I mean, you can email it. I'm, I'm fine with that.

948. 2:31:14

     Yes, we do have a copy of the draft charter.

949. 2:31:16

     I'd love to-

950. 2:31:16

     Yes

951. 2:31:16

     ... but you had not seen it-

952. 2:31:18

     No

953. 2:31:18

     ... till before the last two meetings?

954. 2:31:20

     Correct. We got it, like, that Monday before that last meeting.

955. 2:31:23

     Okay. And but y'all, did y'all get a chance-

956. 2:31:25

     I mean, no, the last three meetings.

957. 2:31:27

     Did y'all-

958. 2:31:28

     So we got it at the beginning of March

959. 2:31:29

     ... so did y'all get a chance to review it prior to those last three meetings?

960. 2:31:33

     Like, a couple days before.

961. 2:31:34

     Did y'all notice the changes that were made in there that you did not agree with?

962. 2:31:38

     Yes.

963. 2:31:38

     And y'all were able to voice those disagreements?

964. 2:31:42

     No.

965. 2:31:42

     Okay. Thank you.

966. 2:31:47

     Go ahead. Um, well, thank you. Uh, I'll be brief, but, uh, just listening to the conversation that we're having here just speaks to, um, evidence that we're not letting local work finish its job. Like, the way that we are getting into the weeds at, like, it just seems inappropriate. And, um, if you have a commission that was within the window of time that is supposed to do its job, and just speaking objectively, I think if, if we were, if we had knew nothing about what was going on, we didn't, no party, we didn't know city, nothing, and we just listened to the facts, I think we would all say, "You know what?

967. 2:32:27

     Let them try to do their job," and then show evidence that it's a complete mess, so we have to get involved. And we've had people bring bills that were years in the making before we make a decision, and here we're not doing that. Uh, I think it all-

968. 2:32:40

     Well, this is only a hearing only.

969. 2:32:41

     No, he, it wasn't, but it wasn't at first, you know? And just, so I appreciate that. And, and I-

970. 2:32:46

     Well, it developed. That's part of the-

971. 2:32:47

     Understood

972. 2:32:47

     ... this committee process. I mean-

973. 2:32:48

     And I, and I respect your decision there-

974. 2:32:50

     You're being-

975. 2:32:50

     ... uh, Mr. Chair

976. 2:32:51

     ... that's part of vetting a bill.

977. 2:32:52

     But it may come right back up. So I just wanted to just-

978. 2:32:54

     Yeah

979. 2:32:54

     ... throw it out there that it just seems like this is more evidence that, I mean, this is seems like a next year thing, but hopefully can be resolved at the local level so it doesn't have to come here. So I just wanted to thank you for your testimony. And there is context, you guys, as well. I mean, I live in Cobb County. We have committee members here, and I've been on the community activist and the community organizing side of things in committees, trying to do the work on a local level, and then somebody knew a friend in, in one of these committees, and all of a sudden, local work got usurped by very powerful people at the state level.

980. 2:33:30

     And it's the same reason why in Cobb County, all of a sudden, when you have dynamics change in Cobb County, you have, oh, we need to change the DA, we need to change the school board to non, um, to, you know-

981. 2:33:41

     Well, you know why we changed the school board in Gwinnett County to nonpartisan?

982. 2:33:44

     I, I understand. I was just-

983. 2:33:45

     That's enough, Senator.

984. 2:33:46

     Yeah, thank you.

985. 2:33:46

     And the reason we did that was because there was partisan politics that percolated on the board.

986. 2:33:50

     Speaking of-

987. 2:33:51

     Yeah

988. 2:33:51

     ... speaking of Cobb County.

989. 2:33:53

     Go ahead, Mr. Webb.

990. 2:33:54

     Ma'am, who made the appointments to the commission?

991. 2:33:57

     Each commissioner, uh, and the mayor had an appointment.

992. 2:34:00

     Okay. And so each, each one of you were appointed by a different commissioner?

993. 2:34:04

     Correct.

994. 2:34:05

     Okay. And the, how many of the commissioners voted to have this legislation brought forth?

995. 2:34:12

     Uh, s- four, five, plus the mayor.

996. 2:34:15

     Five plus the mayor. And how many are there total?

997. 2:34:18

     11.

998. 2:34:18

     11. So the other six chose not to?

999. 2:34:21

     The other five.

1000. 2:34:22

      The other five.

1001. 2:34:23

      We had one person absent.

1002. 2:34:24

      The mayor, the mayor, is, is there, is the mayor... You know, they called the mayor. Is that how you ref- referenced him?

1003. 2:34:31

      Yeah, the mayor.

1004. 2:34:31

      So the mayor doesn't get a vote unless there's a tie-

1005. 2:34:32

      Yes, he does

1006. 2:34:33

      ... correct?

1007. 2:34:33

      He does. He gets a vote.

1008. 2:34:34

      He does, he gets a vote.

1009. 2:34:35

      On the commission or on-

1010. 2:34:36

      On the commission

1011. 2:34:37

      ... leg- local legislation? Point of clarification, uh, Senator Burns.

1012. 2:34:40

      Yeah, i- if I could. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the mayor gets a vote at the table. What happened in this case is, um, there were n- not all commissioners were present, so that the, the resolution that we're responding to is at the request of the majority of the commissioners and the mayor of Richmond, Augusta, uh, Richmond County, Augusta, Georgia. Now, um, this is not, uh, unlike, uh, Senator Howard's insinuation, this is not a situation where anyone came to me and asked for any personal favors for anything.

1013. 2:35:14

      It's a simple matter of good governance. It's a simple matter. And I think it's interesting that at least I appreciate a charter commit- committee member being here, I think, and she confirms the fact that, uh, that the concept of a county manager form of government is what they would like to see. She does speak to the fact that they couldn't agree on details. That's absolutely true. But what this does allow is a county manager form of government and the commissioners, the elected commissioners of Richmond Co- Augusta, Georgia, Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia, can, can create those details, can fill in those details.

1014. 2:35:48

      So we're not dictating to them how that management form of government should work, nor are we dictating to them how they would go through the process of selecting it or the, or the qualifications. We are suggesting that the mayor nominate two to four members for the commission to consider. We are also recognizing the possibility of a tie, and in the case of a tie, the mayor would have a deciding vote for that decision only. And, and again- Thank you.

1015. 2:36:18

      Thank you ... I appreciate the input. Yeah. Thank you, Senator Burns. I appreciate that. And, and Mr., Mr. Chair, if I could say this once again to the committee. It's really easy to sit here and say, because we do try to stay out of local as much as possible, but everything that gets brought up here to us is brought up here to us because of this type of dysfunction that is happening back there. And so when somebody makes a choice to solve that problem by bringing it here to the General Assembly, to this committee, I think it's extremely important that, that we do our job seriously and that we look at all the evidence.

1016. 2:36:53

      And it is not our place in the Georgia State Senate to sit up here and give our commentary on what we think is happening.

1017. 2:37:02

      Because while I care deeply for my, my brother in the Georgia State Senate, everything-- this is happening everywhere. While I know that many times people think the world revolves around Atlanta, Georgia, according to the Bible I read, it does not. And so, um, these issues bubble up. I'm trying to tackle some of them locally at home now, and I appreciate the opportunity. I appreciate the senator to bring these up here because it's just another clarification where individuals carry more about their opinion than they do the majority of the people that we all represent, the fifty-six of us in the Senate, and our obligation is to those people first.

1018. 2:37:44

      And thank you. With that, I will-- I am finished, and I'll, I'll yield to whatever the will of the chair is at this point.

1019. 2:37:52

      Thank you, Mr. Wipp. Um, we got two more speakers. Would like to hear from them, assuming they drove quite a ways and it's Saturday-

1020. 2:37:58

      Mr. Chairman, I would-

1021. 2:37:59

      ... two-hour meeting

1022. 2:37:59

      ... I respectfully request the ability to be excused because I have to chair higher education at four o'clock.

1023. 2:38:04

      You may. Thank you.

1024. 2:38:04

      Thank you.

1025. 2:38:07

      Hi, my name is Angela Backus, and I am a charter review member representing District Two. As I was sitting here listening to you guys discussing some of the other bills that came before you, uh, one of you, I believe it was you, Senator Robertson, um, suggested maybe local legislation should be required to go through arbitration. I don't remember if that was you or somebody else. Um, that's part of the reason why I'm coming before you guys today. Our charter review, review committee started its work April of last year.

1026. 2:38:40

      Our deadline was not until March 31st, and we had the ability to extend it by ninety days if needed. So it was not accurate when it was told to you that we have missed several deadlines. That was not the case at all. Sorry.

1027. 2:38:56

      Ah, you're doing a great job.

1028. 2:38:58

      Um, we haven't completed our work. In fact, just in regards to city manager, there were two active motions that were already noticed and on the agenda for the following meeting when a singular commissioner, um, decided to run with just this portion of the proposed charter. Um, Commissioner Brandon Garrett noted that he received a call from Senator Max Burns and the Chamber of Commerce, and that's what initiated this premature legislation.

1029. 2:39:29

      It was not an-- it wasn't ever that we couldn't come to any, any con- you know, not thinking of the right word.

1030. 2:39:37

      Consensus.

1031. 2:39:38

      Consensus. Thank you. Um, the-- it was just this bill before you is based upon three people, the person from the Chamber of Commerce, one commissioner, and Senator Max Burns, who unfortunately has stepped out now. It's not based upon the eleven people that have spent the last twelve months volunteering their time, going over all of the information, if y'all saw how much stuff they send us, listening to the expert witnesses and all of that. It's three people that got to skip past all of that, and that is why I oppose this today, because it is not based upon the information that we as a committee had to sit there and listen to and digest and ask questions about and come to a final decision on.

1032. 2:40:24

      One of the motions that was on the agenda when this was put through was to change the way that the mayor puts forth the recommended person for manager, the candidates. We-- I reached out to Dr. Kimberly Nelson, who Carl Vinson Institute of Government had brought before us as a subject matter expert, and I asked her, "What do you think about this?" She made it very clear that adding in that stipulation actually does not move forward with a council-manager form of government.

1033. 2:40:55

      What it does is it creates a hybrid of council manager and strong mayor, which she says does not deliver on the advantages of either. So in the middle of us putting forth our motions to change that, then you have a singular commissioner taking off with it after he said he received a call from Senator Max Burns and the Chamber of Commerce. Um, just to piggyback on what Miss-- Dr. Robinson said, it was not easy for us to not show up for a meeting. We have dedicated a year of our life, hundreds of hours to doing this.

1034. 2:41:30

      Twenty town halls, and I missed one of them because I was in Athens for a conference. So not only the actual meetings, but also other stuff as well. We had twenty-two motions on that agenda, and one of the last motions was for Carl Vinson Institute to take a small recess, update anything in the charter, and then immediately go to vote on it. We were still finding things that were wrong and inaccurate. Um, the election by plurality, that was not a motion on there 'cause we didn't notice it until after the motions were due to be put on there.

1035. 2:42:06

      And then Carl Vinson, who's being blamed for getting all of this stuff wrong, um, in our draft charter, they were gonna go and fix it real quick, and then we were gonna just trust that it was okay and move forward to vote the same day. It wasn't an issue with voting on a charter. It wasn't an issue with having our motions heard. It wasn't an issue with being outnumbered on that committee. It was an issue with the process being followed the way that it was supposed to be followed and being rushed because first they wanted us to vote on on Mar- on March 5th. And that's when we, according to our rules of procedure, a motion to, um, to change something we already voted on had to be n-noticed first for one whole meeting, discussed at the following one.

1036. 2:42:48

      They wanted to bypass even those rules. So I end up being the bad guy 'cause I'm like, "No, we can't. We have to wait till March 19th." And then, like I said, anything that we found that was not written in there the way that it was supposed to have been or anything that needed to be changed that was voted on, we couldn't on March 19th because it would still have to be noticed. So the issue with-- it, it was the rushing of the process to force us to vote before, I think, before we noticed more problems.

1037. 2:43:16

      And y'all have got, y'all have got until the end of June to complete it. Y'all have still got three months on your timetable. Is that-

1038. 2:43:23

      So the resolution said that it was through March 31st with the ability to extend ninety days. But neither our parliamentarian or our chair have approached the commission for that extension And I just wanna note too that even the process of Mr. Burns and Commissioner Garrett going and doing all of this violates th- their own resolution that created our body to begin with. Uh, it says very clearly we are to be independent.

1039. 2:43:54

      Independent, but then you jump in and you grab one little piece of what we... And it was accurate. We, we voted unanimously on that piece, but then there were a million other pieces that came after that that changed what that meant. So it was very dishonest in my opinion to put in that resolu- the new resolution that we were unanimous because we were only on that piece. I'm not opposed to having a city manager. I think it would be an added benefit to our community, but I am opposed to the things that make it a hybrid form of government 'cause that's not what I said yes to.

1040. 2:44:28

      Thank you.

1041. 2:44:32

      Well, do we have any more witnesses?

1042. 2:44:34

      We've got one more.

1043. 2:44:35

      Oh, oh.

1044. 2:44:36

      Okay.

1045. 2:44:36

      Well, okay. I'll wait.

1046. 2:44:38

      Last but not least.

1047. 2:44:40

      Oh, yeah.

1048. 2:44:47

      Good afternoon. My name is Gayla Keesee. I am co-president of the League of Women Voters of the CSRA. The league has been following the charter review process from its inception, and this is a consolidated government, so it's very different from some of the th- um, discussions that y'all were having earlier about, uh, different government forms and things like that. And I'm here today because SB2se- uh, 2628 directly impacts that work.

1049. 2:45:23

      In reviewing LC 474276, now introduced as SB6228, we identified critical areas where the structure falls short. I outlined specific modifications and the rationale in detail in my email that I sent to the committee yesterday, and I would encourage those to be reviewed as part of this discussion since this is only a hearing now and you have time to do that.

1050. 2:45:57

      Or if you want, I can provide specifics now and we can go into detail. Many of the recommendations that we provided reflect consistent concerns that were raised throughout the charter review process in both committee deliberations and public comment around the clarity of authority, accountability, transparency, and the balance of power, which are also tenets of good governance that are supported by the league.

1051. 2:46:29

      I want to reiterate that the purpose of those recommendations is not intended to change the direction of the bill. They are intended to strengthen it. The Charter Review Committee did unanimously approve moving to the commission manager form of government, but without the necessary infrastructure, it becomes simply a name change that leaves room for misinterpretation and undermines accountability and transparency.

1052. 2:47:04

      SB628 moves Augusta Richmond County government toward a commission manager form of government. However, as written, there are several areas in the current bill where the structure is not consistently defined and where lines of authority are blurred, and that matters because in a commission manager system, the effectiveness of the structure depends on clear separation between legislative authority and administrative authority, and on accountability to the governing body as a whole.

1053. 2:47:42

      One area where this lack of clarity is most evident is in the appointment process of the manager. As written, the mayor was given authority to nominate that manager. Just one vote is all they need. I mean, one nomination was all it needed. We approve Brian Prince's change because it would have created a dual influence over that process, and that was noted.

1054. 2:48:12

      The modifications we provided, however, address this by recommending an independent recruitment and vetting process with a defined pool of qualified candidates up to three presented to the full commission. And for those don't, don't know you, it's two years ago the mayor got a vote on the commission, which means the mayor is a part of the commission as well as being executive. So that full commission would be the mayor also.

1055. 2:48:43

      There are also provisions that blur the line between administrative and legislative functions. For example, assigning agenda preparation to the manager shifts the control of the commission's work away from the governing body. The manager is not an administrative person to make an agenda. The clerk does that now. We also identified concerns related to financial authority. As written in the bill, the bill allows expenditures up to a set amount without bids or prior commission approval.

1056. 2:49:21

      That removes key safeguards for transparency and oversight of public funds. The recommendations we provided address these issues by clearly defining the manager as the chief administrative officer responsible for day-to-day operations, establishing that the manager reports to and is accountable to the full commission, including the mayor, limiting the role to administrative functions and preventing overlap in it-- legislative authority, strengthening non-interference provisions so that elected officials do not direct staff outside the established chain of command, which is an issue that was brought up in the charter review committee discussion a lot.

1057. 2:50:13

      Restoring appropriate financial oversight and procurement requirements. We also address qualifications and responsibilities for the city manager, ensuring that the manager has the experience required for the role and that the authority of the position is clearly defined. These elements are essential to creating a system that is clear, consistent, and accountable, and we don't say we're gonna leave it up to the commission to come up with those later.

1058. 2:50:46

      I keep seeing the six-four committee vote, and that was on the resolution, and that was on the committee who approved these thing, uh, the, to move forward. That doesn't automatically make it representative or equitable. When decisions impact governance structure, voting power, or representation, the question isn't just how many people voted, it is who is affected and how.

1059. 2:51:19

      We've heard throughout the process that changes could disproportionately impact certain communities, and those concerns shouldn't be dismissed just because they don't carry the majority vote. Majority rule without considering minority impact exactly why transparency, accountability, and balance of power matter in the first place. The goal is simple, to ensure that SB628 reflects a true commission manager structure that functions as attended.

1060. 2:51:57

      Thank you.

1061. 2:51:58

      Thank you so much. And again, this was a hearing only, and we are adjourned. Y'all have a good evening.