Comité State and Local Governmental Operations del Senado, 26 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

1,655 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:44:18

   As we get to the end of session, this is our last, uh, Senate state and local government meeting, uh, this biennium. So, uh, we've got a lot of, uh, moving targets. Uh, so I, I appreciate everyone, uh, bearing with us, uh, and being patient. Uh, Senator Setzler, would you open us up in a prayer?

2. 0:44:37

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's pray. Dear Heavenly Father, Lord God, you're the giver of all good things. We thank you for all that you've given us. We thank you for all the folks that are gathered here today. We pray that each of us would be honest, forthright, and keep our eyes on you. And let us glorify you in all that we do. Let us, our words and our hearts be directed for what's best for the citizens of Georgia. Give us the wisdom that only you can give. We pray this in your holy name. Amen.

3. 0:45:06

   Well, as you, uh, know by the agenda, we've got a, uh, many, um, bills to go through today. Uh, I will let you know if you look on the agenda starting with HB1245, uh, 1317, 1523, 1526, 1543, and 1544, those are all local bills. Uh, as you know, we've got a few vacancies in the Senate, so they do not have a Senate sponsor. So our rules, they had to come back as a general bill.

4. 0:45:37

   Uh, I'll carry them on the floor. They're all local issues dealing with school boards, um, excise taxes, you know, normal things that you would see on a consent calendar. Uh, we do have to hear each one. Uh, representatives, I believe all of them are here but one. Uh, just keep it very brief, uh, because we've got a long agenda. I want to get through these very quickly. Uh, but, and then also, I know we've got, uh, a couple of bills that, that are contentious and, and do have opposition. In our last meeting it went very long. I did want to make sure that everyone had time to speak.

5. 0:46:08

   Uh, those two bills, there's some, uh, some changes to it. We'll let the author, uh, or the committee member who's got the changes will- will go through those motions, but we will not open it back up to the public, uh, due to time. This is our last meeting. We've got some other legislation that needs to get vetted. So I want to let y'all know that. On the contentious bills, I will require order. Uh, you know, we did have some talking back and forth in the last meeting. I know people are passionate about these issues because they hit home like a zoning case hits home. Uh, you know, it's an immediate reaction. So I, I understand that, but if we get out of hand, I'm gonna shut the meeting down and I'll do it really quickly and all these bills that are left will die.

6. 0:46:44

   They're dead and they'll have to get started over next year. So just want to let everybody know that up front. Uh, don't want anybody surprised if I shut it down if- if we get out of order. Uh, but starting, uh, with HB1245. And also, uh, folks that have signed up to speak, unfortunately you're going to have a minute. Um, now of course, if there's questions or dialogue with the senators, of course, we're not going to time that. You'll have time to vet that out. But, you know, make sure that you've got your sponsors, you know, your, uh, your questions or your comments or whatever you're, you're gonna say, make it quick, um, so we can get through this.

7. 0:47:17

   Like I said, if we run out of time, then the bills that we don't get to, uh, they have to start over next year.

8. 0:47:23

   Good morning, Senator.

9. 0:47:25

   Good morning.

10. 0:47:25

    Thank you for allowing me to come before the, uh, committee. I have HB1245. The bill, right, right now the Walker County School System, the commission- or the school board members are elected by the entire county. They do have districts, but they're elected by the entire county. They want to only be elected by their individual districts and not by the entire county. So I have a letter, uh, documenting, signed by them, asking for this. So that's the essence of what's-

11. 0:47:52

    Mr. Chairman, move to pass. Move to pass on HB1245.

12. 0:47:59

    Thank you. Yes, appropriate time. Do we have a second?

13. 0:48:01

    Second.

14. 0:48:02

    Any comments from the committee?

15. 0:48:04

    Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Can we confirm the LC number that we're motioning to pass on?

16. 0:48:07

    Thank you, Senator. That's a good point. Moving a little too fast, aren't we?

17. 0:48:12

    Sorry.

18. 0:48:12

    LC, we're working off of, just verifying with you, LC473833.

19. 0:48:19

    That's the bill. This is it.

20. 0:48:21

    Okay. Thank you.

21. 0:48:22

    Yes, sir.

22. 0:48:25

    Thank you very much.

23. 0:48:25

    Thank you, sir.

24. 0:48:27

    And then-

25. 0:48:27

    Mr. Chairman.

26. 0:48:28

    Yeah.

27. 0:48:28

    Um, with respect to boards of education throughout the State of Georgia, um, has there been any discussion about requiring every single one to have single member districts rather than at-large voting? Even though they may have a variation of at-large voting for the chairman, for example. But as far as district voting, uh, at large, has there been discussion about that and-

28. 0:48:55

    You're in favor of them having districts?

29. 0:48:57

    Yes, sir.

30. 0:48:57

    Yeah, no, I agree with you with that. I, I, you know, uh, you've got cities that are the same way. You know, some are at large. The problem with that, when they're at large, if you got a heavy population base in one part of the, the city or the, the school district, that's where all your members are gonna come from when you've got needs that may vary throughout the district. Thank you.

31. 0:49:16

    Yes, sir.

32. 0:49:19

    Oh, yes. Forgot to vote. Any other questions? I'm trying to move too fast. Yeah, go ahead.

33. 0:49:26

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I, um, um, will probably not be supporting your proposal. I think your proposal's gonna pass today. My concern about district voting is, is, um, in a entity that you have executive and legislative power that's infused into one, um, you know, we're a legislature. You have a House and a Senate, and you have executive power. When one vote determines everything, um, you may have your one elected official that represents you, but in a board of five or seven people, the power to un-elect and un- to undo what you, you ask for, um, is, um...

34. 0:50:06

    Y- y- y- you can't influence the controlling majority of, of, of the, uh, of the, um, um, of the vote. I think in smaller communities it makes sense. At larger communities, at some level, um, you get larger and larger and larger, I think district voting makes more sense. But I do think, folks, just I would just caution us to think about, um, my representative was with me, but I, there's nothing I can do to control the other votes, and one vote happens and, and, and it's dispositive. It's done when done. So I think for smaller communities it's, at large voting's better.

35. 0:50:38

    It's just my philosophy. I'm sure you'll get your bill, but I just wanted to say that on the record.

36. 0:50:41

    Thank you, Senator.

37. 0:50:42

    Thanks.

38. 0:50:42

    Yeah, I just want to remind the committee members this is local legislation. Y'all pressed green on something similar to this probably, uh, three or four times this year. Uh, these are the locals. Locals, their, their issues locally are, are unique to their area. We've got five bills that we've got to get through. After we get through these locals, I'd like to move along if we can. Thank you. Uh, all in favor say aye.

39. 0:51:03

    Aye.

40. 0:51:04

    Any opposed? Carries, thank you.

41. 0:51:06

    Do you need the documentation later, sir?

42. 0:51:08

    Uh, yeah, that'd be great if you could leave that for us. Uh, moving on to HB 1317.

43. 0:51:18

    Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time I'll, I'll ask do pass on LC 473939, HB 1317.

44. 0:51:28

    That'd be appropriate. We got a second?

45. 0:51:30

    Second.

46. 0:51:31

    Any discussion?

47. 0:51:32

    What does the bill do, Mr. Chairman?

48. 0:51:35

    It's local legislation.

49. 0:51:37

    It's a hotel motel tax requested by the city of Port O'Connor. It pa- um, approved unanimously from the city of Port O'Connor.

50. 0:51:45

    Yeah, and I'll remind the committee members, I review... Unfortunately I have to review all of these bills. I've reviewed them. These are s- I mean, I know, you know, as you start reading them you're like, "Oh, wait a minute, this could be, you know, we're talking about a tax or we're talking about this or that." But this is local. The locals are needing it. They've requested it, and I've vetted these. Um, you would've been pressing green on the consent calendar, um, if we'd had a senator, uh, sitting in the district. All in favor raise your hand.

51. 0:52:11

    Aye.

52. 0:52:11

    Or say aye. Yeah, that works. Thank you.

53. 0:52:16

    This is 'cause there's no senator.

54. 0:52:17

    What's that? Yeah, this is because there's no senator. Yeah, there's vacancies.

55. 0:52:20

    I guess.

56. 0:52:20

    Yep, that's all it is.

57. 0:52:25

    Uh, next up we've got House Bill 1523.

58. 0:52:32

    That's the one that's-

59. 0:52:32

    Oh, so the, the, uh...

60. 0:52:37

    So, yeah, and this has to do with the public facilities, uh, facility for Sumter County. Uh, that house member's not here. I'll be carrying all these on the Senate floor. Um, entertain a motion or-

61. 0:52:47

    Move do pass on-

62. 0:52:48

    Thank you

63. 0:52:49

    ... LC 474164.

64. 0:52:53

    Thank you. Do we have a second?

65. 0:52:55

    Second.

66. 0:52:55

    Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

67. 0:53:00

    Aye.

68. 0:53:00

    Any opposed say neat.

69. 0:53:05

    Light. Uh, it passes, thank you. Uh, moving on to House Bill 1526.

70. 0:53:15

    Representative Green is not here either, okay.

71. 0:53:23

    And this has to do with the local ad valorem tax.

72. 0:53:26

    Mr. Chairman.

73. 0:53:28

    Do pass.

74. 0:53:28

    I move do pass LC 474027.

75. 0:53:34

    Do we have a second?

76. 0:53:35

    Second.

77. 0:53:36

    Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

78. 0:53:38

    Aye.

79. 0:53:39

    Any opposed?

80. 0:53:46

    And that bill passes. Moving on to 1543, LC 474192.

81. 0:53:53

    Motion do pass.

82. 0:53:56

    Do we have a second?

83. 0:53:58

    Second.

84. 0:53:59

    Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

85. 0:54:03

    Aye.

86. 0:54:03

    Any opposed?

87. 0:54:03

    Best bill you ever passed.

88. 0:54:06

    Thank you. Your bill passed unanimously.

89. 0:54:08

    One more.

90. 0:54:09

    Yeah.

91. 0:54:10

    The next one.

92. 0:54:10

    Yeah, moving on to House Bill 1544. Another ad valorem tax.

93. 0:54:15

    Motion do pass LC 474198.

94. 0:54:18

    Do I have a second?

95. 0:54:20

    Second.

96. 0:54:21

    Uh, any discussion? All in favor say aye.

97. 0:54:23

    Aye.

98. 0:54:29

    As a, as a past logo chair, I, I understand what the chairman's trying to get done.

99. 0:54:34

    Who was the senator on this?

100. 0:54:37

     The, uh, that one was, was Moore.

101. 0:54:40

     I was hoping that there was another one that was

102. 0:54:42

     He, he, he was, he was the, he was the senator for that district, and we're yet to be determined on the new one.

103. 0:54:56

     On, uh... We're gonna have to, uh... We'll move 309 to later in the agenda. Um, there was a substitute added to it. Uh, I've discussed it with the committee members. In adding the substitute, there was a, a paragraph that was left off of the original bill, so we're adding that back, and, um, uh, the representative will present that. So we'll move on to, uh, Senate Bill, uh, 628, Senator Max Burns.

104. 0:55:28

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the committee heard Senate Bill 628, uh, on Tuesday. This is the bill to make a minor revision of the charter in Augusta-Richmond County at the request of the county commission. In support of the, uh, c- charter review committee, I have three members of the charter committee here with us today from Augusta. I'd like just to ask them to stand, and hopefully agree that this is what they'd like to see. So-

105. 0:55:50

     Absolutely.

106. 0:55:50

     Now, so at the end of the day, we made changes only to accommodate, uh, uh, delegation chairman Brian Prince, and that's on lines 27 through 32. It allows a county manager form of government. It allows the mayor to make a nomination. He must make at least two nominations and up to four, and then he has no vote in the decision unless there is a tie. I request favorable consideration from the committee.

107. 0:56:18

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

108. 0:56:19

     Thank you.

109. 0:56:19

     Uh, comments, questions from committee?

110. 0:56:22

     Mr. Chairman, are we going to have any testimony from anybody else other than just the, uh, author of the bill today?

111. 0:56:29

     No, uh, was not going to open it back up to public testimony. Of course, you all know we, we had a good three, three-plus hour meeting and didn't, didn't limit testimony. Let those folks, they were very passionate-

112. 0:56:38

     Mm-hmm

113. 0:56:38

     ... let them speak their mind. Um, it's my understanding, uh, with the author, there's been some changes made. Um, but, but by all means, we'll open it up for questions-

114. 0:56:48

     Yeah

115. 0:56:49

     ... for the author.

116. 0:56:49

     Well, I'll point out, this is LC474309S. And the only change-

117. 0:56:55

     4-

118. 0:56:55

     Uh, 4... Excuse me, I can't read. 4309S, is that correct?

119. 0:57:02

     That's correct.

120. 0:57:02

     Yes. 4309S.

121. 0:57:04

     And correct. And then the changes were made, as I pointed out, lines 27 through 32, at the request of, uh, our delegation chairman, who is, uh, Representative Bryan Prince.

122. 0:57:16

     Mr. Chairman, I, I move do pass on, uh, SB628 LC474309S.

123. 0:57:25

     Mr. Chairman-

124. 0:57:25

     We've got a motion to do pass. We've got a second.

125. 0:57:28

     Discussion.

126. 0:57:28

     Any discussion?

127. 0:57:29

     Discussion. Um-

128. 0:57:32

     Go ahead, Senator.

129. 0:57:32

     I had to hold the button there before we popped the motion.

130. 0:57:36

     Yeah. Uh, Senator, uh, with all due respect, I was very disturbed that, uh, the commission had three members the last time, and now we got three members here this time, or, uh, at least three witnesses last time, and they had a different... They were telling us that they had until March 31st to do something, and then they had an additional 90 days, and, uh, it looks like we're stirring the pot.

131. 0:58:09

     And, uh, if, if, if, if, it seems like this must be on a you gotta do it and you try to do it by November. Uh, what are the consequences if it does go through and let the local situation work itself out? Um, and I, and I do note, you know, those people traveled from Augusta last week, this week, and then we got somebody else traveling from Augusta, and I can just see that the, the community, um, seemingly is unduly being divided over something that maybe could be worked out.

132. 0:58:53

     Is it, it's, I mean-

133. 0:58:54

     And I would like nothing-

134. 0:58:55

     Am I correct about the March 31st date w- that I heard on the testimony this, earlier this week, and that you could have an additional 90 days? Is that, is that a fair statement?

135. 0:59:06

     Well, a- and one thing I would just... Not, not directed at you, Senator, but w- we dealing, we're dealing with a, a local issue. I know it's a general bill. Um, but in the local bills, you know, we, we trust our senators. You know, they're, they're plugged into their local areas. They know the issues, uh, that are going on, and, and I've had issues in my county. It's been over a decade ago-

136. 0:59:30

     Okay

137. 0:59:30

     ... um, where some things had to get cleaned up and, and, you know, sometimes, uh, you know, the, the state level has to come in to assist, and this looks like one of those times. But he has, you know, made a compromise with the locals, you know, some of them that were, were objecting to it. Um, and I believe, you know, letting this sit on the table and going to next year, you know, uh, from what I understand of the issue, it may make it worse, not help it.

138. 0:59:55

     I- in-

139. 0:59:55

     Sorry, Senator, go ahead

140. 0:59:56

     ... response to the senator, and just a brief response. I, I appreciate your concerns, but I, I point out that, uh, last time there was only one member of the Charter Review Committee here speaking, and they really not, were opposed to this particular request. And today we have three members of the Charter Review Committee who's here all supporting this request. This is a, a, essentially a unanimous request by the Charter Review Committee and a request, a, a majority request by the County Commission. So we are simply responding to the request of the community. And the reason for us to take action is to allow the voters of Richmond, Augusta, Augusta-Richmond County to vote on whether or not this is acceptable.

141. 1:00:33

     So we're not doing anything other than allowing them to make their, uh, their wishes known in a referendum. And I, again, appreciate favorable consideration.

142. 1:00:48

     Thank you. Any... Senator Howard.

143. 1:00:50

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Chairman Burns, thank you for bringing this, uh, back up. Um, I do appreciate you taking the consideration of members of the delegation's, the feedback into, you know, taking that into consideration. Um, am my understanding correctly that there's still, um, um, there's still a lot of unreadiness with several members of the delegation, uh, with this current, even with the substitute, even with the changes, there's still unreadiness as far as supporting the bill, although there is appreciation that language has been adopted.

144. 1:01:22

     Am I understanding that properly?

145. 1:01:24

     It is correct that we have not yet reached full consensus. I would suggest to you that members of the delegation do not object to this particular request. Their concern really relates to the process, and I would suggest that, uh, we cannot continue to, to not take action. And again, I request favorable consideration.

146. 1:01:46

     Mm-hmm. One, one last, if I may, Mr. Chair?

147. 1:01:48

     Yeah, go ahead.

148. 1:01:50

     Um, would I be accurate in understanding that several members of the dele- your delegation believe that the process is underway, there has been progress- ... it's not perfect, but they believe that the process should be allowed to continue, uh, before the state gets involved? Would that... I understand that's not your, uh, point of view, but am I correct that several members of the deve- delegation want the cr- pl- the local process to continue before the state gets involved?

149. 1:02:19

     Uh, I would suggest that, uh, the, the, uh, process will continue, and they're nearing that, that completion. But We're up against a hard deadline, and it's called sign or die. And if we do not put anything on the ballot, then the voters will not have an opportunity to express their will. This is an opportunity for the voters of Augusta-Richmond County to express their will in this matter.

150. 1:02:40

     This year, right?

151. 1:02:42

     This year.

152. 1:02:42

     This year.

153. 1:02:43

     This is for a manager, county manager form of gov- I apologize.

154. 1:02:47

     Thank you. No problem. Thank you.

155. 1:02:52

     S- Senator Mallow.

156. 1:02:53

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, to the, the senator, my only question is, uh, uh, in regards to the drafting of the, the, the ballot question, um, and its vagueness. Uh, any reason for how that was drafted? Um, lines 87, 88, usually-

157. 1:03:12

     Legislative counsel

158. 1:03:12

     ... when you see ... Sometimes they put a little more detail in so you can understand the referendum or the, the question. Um, but this one is just really vague. So folks may want, for example, the council manager form of government, but they may not understand the back end of what that looks like as to how it's prescribed in the other portions of this bill that will tie that to this referendum. So just wanted to ask that question, if there was guidance given by legislative counsel.

159. 1:03:37

     I accept the, uh, the wisdom of legislative counsel, and I recognize that the community will have to educate voters to determine a, a, a correct response.

160. 1:03:51

     Any further comments or questions?

161. 1:03:57

     Seeing none, what's the will of the committee?

162. 1:04:00

     You, you already got a motion and a second.

163. 1:04:02

     Oh, I forgot about that. Thank you for letting me know that.

164. 1:04:04

     Remember you only have-

165. 1:04:04

     Keeping me on track.

166. 1:04:06

     Remember you only have one election there, sir.

167. 1:04:08

     All right, so we got a motion, uh, do pass, and a second. We've had discussion. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? Bill passes. Thank you, Chairman.

168. 1:04:20

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

169. 1:04:27

     Now moving back to House Bills. We've got House Bill 646.

170. 1:04:48

     Well, good morning.

171. 1:04:52

     Good morning, y'all.

172. 1:04:52

     Good morning. How are you doing?

173. 1:04:53

     Good, good, good.

174. 1:04:56

     Mr. Chairman, I want to let the committee know, and on behalf of my friend and colleague-

175. 1:05:00

     Yes

176. 1:05:00

     ... today is a very rough day for she and Chairman Lumsden. Um, Shirley Spencer, their admin, has passed away. Uh, she had a stroke yesterday and unfortunately succumbed to that. And so it's, um, just, it's a tough day, so Ms. Patty's happy to be here, but, um, we appreciate your consideration. And, um, we have done a lot of compromising.

177. 1:05:25

     Yes, we have.

178. 1:05:26

     We've worked together. And also for the committee's benefit, I think Section 4 needs to have its just presentation from its author, because that was the, his bill, Chairman Lumsden. So I think that, um, I'll let Patty kind of explain the compromise on the coroner section that we made with ACCG. My understanding is they're now neutral on that. They may want to speak to Section 4. But, uh, I think it would be appropriate if the chairman so sees fit to allow Chairman Lumsden the opportunity to assuage some concerns that some folks had at the previous meeting.

179. 1:05:57

     So-

180. 1:05:57

     Yeah, absolutely

181. 1:05:58

     ... but I'll let Patty go ahead first.

182. 1:05:59

     Yes, that is-

183. 1:05:59

     Yeah, the floor is yours

184. 1:05:59

     ... I'm fine with, I'm fine with yielding to Chairman Lumsden.

185. 1:06:03

     Thank you.

186. 1:06:06

     Mr. Chairman, the, uh, in honor of Ms. Spencer, I, I just, just ask that we, we give her a few seconds of silence today.

187. 1:06:14

     Thank you. Thank you.

188. 1:06:14

     I think that's, uh, somebody that served you and, and the citizens of Georgia that way. Yeah.

189. 1:06:21

     Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Uh, very appropriate. Yeah, if everyone would you, if you'll bow your heads with us, uh, in a moment of silence. Thank you.

190. 1:06:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

191. 1:06:33

     Thank you.

192. 1:06:34

     Thank you. She actually served for Chairman Lumsden for 10 years, and my firm will be in charge of her services.

193. 1:06:41

     Well, please let us know the arrangements.

194. 1:06:43

     I certainly will. Thank you.

195. 1:06:43

     I'm so sorry for your loss.

196. 1:06:44

     Thank you.

197. 1:06:45

     Very sweet lady, and someone that had been my right hand for about 10 years. She was-

198. 1:06:49

     Oh, wow

199. 1:06:50

     ... she was top-notch.

200. 1:06:51

     10 years, a decade. Wow.

201. 1:06:53

     We're grieving her loss heavily. Thank you.

202. 1:06:54

     I'm so sorry for your loss as well.

203. 1:07:00

     All right, moving on, uh, to the bill at hand, House Bill 646.

204. 1:07:05

     646.

205. 1:07:05

     We're working off of LC 4743NS.

206. 1:07:10

     That's correct.

207. 1:07:11

     Okay.

208. 1:07:14

     Please proceed.

209. 1:07:16

     You can.

210. 1:07:16

     Yeah. The floor is yours.

211. 1:07:17

     You want me to explain my portion of this bill?

212. 1:07:18

     Yes, please.

213. 1:07:18

     Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you.

214. 1:07:19

     All right. Um, this was originally House Bill, um, 868. This is a bill that comes as a request from the, um, Constitutional Officers- Officers Association, and it addresses a retirement benefit for the four constitutional officers serving at the local level, those being the sheriff, clerk of courts, tax commissioners, and probate judge. These offices, as you probably know, were created by the state legislature, and their salaries and responsibilities are likewise determined by an act of the state legislature. The salaries and benefits, however, are the responsibility of the local government and vary from county to county based on population.

215. 1:07:56

     These are elected officers, and they must stand for election every four years. The bill addresses an issue some of these long-serving officers face when they have served at least 16 years and reached the age of 55. Many have served much longer than that. For them, this is more than public service. It's been their livelihood and their career. This bill would make it possible for these constitutional officers, once they have served 16 years and reached the age of 55, to retire and keep their health insurance till they reach the age of 65 and go on Medicare.

216. 1:08:29

     Currently, if they retire before age 65, they lose their health insurance and must get health insurance through the marketplace. The true cost of health insurance in the marketplace runs between 12 and $15,000 annually, depending on whether they have individual coverage or family coverage. Most of these officers will continue to serve because the cost of health insurance keeps them from being able to retire. While it is true that they must run for office every four years, it is highly unlikely that they will lose their office unless they do something that really turns voters against them.

217. 1:09:00

     This bill can give some of these long-serving officers an option to retire. However, many who qualify will not choose to do so because they still need to bu- build more years into their retirement plans. To understand what this bill does, you must consider the practical implications. Every time one of these constitutional officers is reelected, he or she receives a 5% increase in their salary. A constitutional officer who has served 16 years is making 20% more than a newly elected officer would make.

218. 1:09:31

     If they have served 20 years, they would be making 25% more. This bill would require the county to apply the difference between what the newly elected constitutional officer makes and what the retiring constitutional officer makes for the true cost of health insurance provided by the county for the retiring constitutional officer. You may argue that, uh, the, uh, long-serving constitutional officer, uh, r- retiring would be a savings to the county. Back to the practical implication. Without this option, the long-serving constitutional officer would not retire, and upon re-election, would receive another 5% increase, costing the county even more.

219. 1:10:08

     This is a revenue neutral option, and in a number of counties, it would, uh, represent a savings to the county budget. Yes, this is a mandate, but it's not an unfunded mandate. I believe that a revenue neutral option for the long-serving constitutional officer, uh, that is able to retire makes for good public policy, and we the legislature, I would remind you, set those policies. Mr. Chairman, that's the bill. Be glad to answer any questions.

220. 1:10:36

     Any comments or questions from committee?

221. 1:10:42

     Senator Howard.

222. 1:10:43

     All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate this bill, um, definitely addressing a much, a, a very urgent issue. Um, just wanted to see your thoughts on rising healthcare costs, uh, current legislation to, um, decrease our property taxes, which could affect, well, will likely affect the revenue for our counties, and just trying to find a way to put these things together 'cause we, we, we know we- best case scenario, bu- budget neutral and also ...

223. 1:11:14

     But there are gonna be some scenarios where, uh, that may not be the case, especially with all the other, uh, dominoes that are following real time. I just had a concern about that, that 10-year period, and I didn't know if you were open to a discussion about shortening that 10-year period and maybe making it five or seven.

224. 1:11:31

     Um, for me personally, um, I think this, as I said, came from the constitutional officers. I think it was a good faith effort on their part to try to address that concern. Um, the narrow, more narrow that you make it, the less likely there will be people to take advantage of it, and I would just point out that based on its current construction, statewide you're gonna have very few people on the whole that were gonna be, find themselves in this position at this particular moment. Going forward, there may be a few, but I would say statewide at any given point in time, you may have 10 or 15, uh, constitutional officers in various counties of the 159 counties that may, uh, qualify for it.

225. 1:12:13

     So I, I would believe in its current construction, really it's been thought through. I think this makes the most sense. As far as, um, the, um, other issue that you raised relative to insurance, uh, I am chairman of insurance in the House, and you have a bill before you that, uh, has been, um, the result of our, uh, study committee, uh, concerning, um, uh, the a- actions of, um, of, of the conduct of insurance, uh, in our state and how it affects, uh, premiums and, and, uh, how it affects our, uh, policy holders.

226. 1:12:46

     So, uh, I would urge you to, uh, move that. I think it's good policy.

227. 1:12:52

     Yeah.

228. 1:12:52

     Uh, it's been a issue that's been well studied, but I, I, I don't connect these two. Yes, this is really about county, uh, government and their actions. Insurance is about impacting, um, our, our policy holders and, and the public at large more than, more than it is about the, um, concern at the, uh, local government level.

229. 1:13:16

     Okay. Thank you.

230. 1:13:20

     Thank you.

231. 1:13:20

     Senator Williams.

232. 1:13:22

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lumpkin, thank you very much. You say it's cost neutral, but any of us that run a business, if I have someone that retires and I go ahead

233. 1:13:37

     and he comes off the payroll, but I've got to continue covering him with insurance and his spouse and possibly child, and then I hire someone to take that person's place, then I've got to insure them also. So it's not cost neutral.

234. 1:13:57

     I would argue in a practical sense, sir, it is, because if you, if that person, uh, leaves, he may leave because of the incentive, but if he doesn't have that incentive, he's not gonna leave. What's it gonna cost the county then? He's gonna continue to stay in his position, and the next time he's elected, it's gonna cost the county 5% more.

235. 1:14:19

     But what does hospital insurance and health insurance cost?

236. 1:14:23

     As I said, in the private market, it costs, uh, anywhere from 12 to $15,000 based on whether, uh, it's an individual or a, a, a family, uh, coverage.

237. 1:14:34

     Right.

238. 1:14:34

     Um, but I would point out that your, um- Your, your overall package, even including your, your health insurance, you're still, um, as I said, fif- uh, 15 ... Well, it's 20 per- 20 to 25%, uh, cost differential between what that new person is making and what the person that is, um, has been serving will continue to make. So all those factors cost in, and we had a number of, um, counties that came to, um, um, make, um, um, presentations relative to that, and many of them were actually seeing a significant savings because the larger the county, the more ...

239. 1:15:13

     the higher the salary, the greater the savings toward the co- for the county.

240. 1:15:19

     Okay.

241. 1:15:22

     I have a county that's in trouble financially, um, undergoing a forensic audit right now. And, uh, they're not ... You know, they've told me they can't handle anymore. They've, uh ... They're in, uh, financial straits right now. So, you know, this is, uh ... And I'll ... And I know you understand. You represent your constituents, I represent mine.

242. 1:15:53

     And whenever I convey to them what's going on, then they tell me, "Absolutely not. We can't afford it. We can't do it. We'll just have to keep doing what we're doing." And I know, um, I know that's, um, a big thing, especially a lot of county commissioners are concerned right now with the legislature talking about doing away with property taxes, lowering income tax, and the other things. And the counties are wondering where we're gonna get the money to operate.

243. 1:16:23

     So I understand, but I thank you for your testimony very much, sir.

244. 1:16:27

     Sure.

245. 1:16:34

     Go ahead, Ed.

246. 1:16:36

     Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Chairman Lumsden, you bringing this. Um, I think about this from different perspectives, uh, and there's some limiting ... There, there's a limiting effect in here. W- we've not really delved into this, provided, however, that such premium payments should not exceed the savings realized by the previous employee and the incoming employee. Um, these are county commissioners. Let's say a county commissioner in a small county makes $12,000 a year, and the incoming commissioner makes $12,000 a year. The difference in their pay is zero.

247. 1:17:06

     Mm.

248. 1:17:07

     That means this doesn't cost a penny for that. It's not like we're, we're, we're bankrolling things. It's only when you've got this differential, you have someone going out and someone coming in at a lower pay scale, that this, this actually, actually has space to operate. So when you think about the limiting effect of this, and I don't know that it's even good policy to put the limiting effect you've put in this bill. I, I'd support this without this provided however, 'cause I think this is a good service to provide to people. But that limiting effect really, again, for county commissioners where the, where the pay doesn't change, isn't it true this costs nothing?

249. 1:17:40

     I would point out to you that the original bill only addressed the four constitutional officers.

250. 1:17:47

     Yeah.

251. 1:17:48

     The county commissioners were added in as a committee request.

252. 1:17:51

     Yeah.

253. 1:17:52

     I'm perfectly fine if you take the county commissioners out.

254. 1:17:55

     Yeah. But, but my point is, I don't know county c- the only way this would cost one penny for a county commissioner is if county commissioner pay went down. Is that not true?

255. 1:18:06

     For county commissioners, um, as I said, you ... For, um, part-time county commissioners-

256. 1:18:12

     Uh-huh

257. 1:18:13

     ... the higher the salary, the greater the savings. But because these are part-time and their salaries are not, like, comparable to the full-time-

258. 1:18:23

     Yes

259. 1:18:23

     ... uh, constitutional officers, you know, I really didn't see that the, uh, addition of the county commissioners in terms of for practical purposes worked.

260. 1:18:33

     A- a- and Mr. Chair, if I could. Um, so to ... The, the thrust of this bill to me is, if you've got a sheriff that's been serving 20 years, more than 16, and they're 63 years old, or they're six- say, say they're 60, 61, and they're saying, "Do I stand for reelection or not stand for reelection?" Let's say they've done 20 years, they've had a good run, they've been in law enforcement for 40. I don't think we want to ins- in- incentivize a sheriff who's had a great career to stick around for four more years only to get benefits. I think this, this is a soft touch that says, "You know what?

261. 1:19:06

     If, if 40 years of law enforcement's enough, you're ready to tap out, um, we're gonna at least allow you to ha- after your years of service to get this benefit for the last four years until you're, you're kicked off and you're into Medicare." I think this is a very soft touch you're asking. I support this strongly. Um, and I just don't think we want to incentivize folks in these senior responsible roles to stick, to have the perverse incentive to stick around just for healthcare.

262. 1:19:32

     Thank you.

263. 1:19:33

     They've been serving for 16 or more years, so, which is the twice the vesting period of us. We, we're vested-

264. 1:19:38

     Right

265. 1:19:40

     ... at eight. Thank you for the bill.

266. 1:19:41

     Thank you.

267. 1:19:45

     Senator Ginn. Go ahead, Sam.

268. 1:19:49

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, again, I, I, I appreciate the, the effort here and, and I don't agree with, uh, what a state senator or state rep gets paid. Um, but we all do it for whatever reasons we do it for. Um, but obviously to kinda add on to what the chairman over here said about, you know, we, we have these positions. They're, you know, you said that they vary by population. Um, some of them's insurance varies depending on, obviously represent a lot of small rural communities, um, and they have heartburn with this as well and how they're gonna pay for it.

269. 1:20:25

     Um, we're also, I think, creating some winners and losers with the list that are, that are on here, and then who else is gonna wanna be added to the list later on. Um, and then the unknown of You know, the, the property tax bills that we have and how counties are gonna pay for this. I just, guess I just have a lot of questions on what this looks like long term. Um, and I have that fear for the State of Georgia and all that we're doing on the, on the tax credit side, and everything else that we're doing. I mean, at some point somebody's gotta pay taxes and we gotta run government, and it's just like any other business.

270. 1:20:56

     Somebody's, you know, we either gotta make the money or pay for it somehow. So just kind of a comment and guess that's really all I had, Mr. Chairman. So thank you.

271. 1:21:05

     If, if I may, I, I would just point out that we make tough decisions all the time here. The question before you, I think, is one of policy. Does this make sense from the standpoint of policy?

272. 1:21:21

     Would you, would you be opposed to a, an option to let each individual, just like their salaries vary and their insurance providers may vary, should we allow the counties maybe to have an option to do this if they want to? And-

273. 1:21:33

     Counties already have an option to do this. They could do it. They don't re- it, this legislation is not required. But for these four constitutional officers specifically, as I pointed out, we the legislature created them, we the legislature determine their salaries. So we the legislature also have a right to set policy regarding other benefits as well.

274. 1:21:59

     Senator Ginn.

275. 1:22:00

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the, uh, first off, uh, Representative Tinson, I, I like the coroner bill and actually have one of my coroners here, uh, today in support of-

276. 1:22:09

     I like the coroner bill too

277. 1:22:10

     ... in, in support of it. Said they, uh, uh, Chairman Lumsden said they, uh, I, I, I like the concept for a lot of places, and it makes a lot of sense. As, as most of y'all know, I was a county manager for 10 years. I was the first county manager in Franklin County. I got there, they, they were so broke they couldn't pay attention. Said they, uh, uh, I worked real hard to, to try to get, uh, the employee pay and benefits up for all the employees, constitutional officers, as well as others. Said they, uh, one of the things that, that when, when I look at this, and just to correct, uh, a, a little bit of error on here.

278. 1:22:45

     County commissioners, constitutional officers, they all have a, a, a, a up in their pay which every time they serve for re-election and their, their pay does go up. And one of the things that, that when I look at what's going on, you know, you, you, you look at a more populated county or higher density, you know, county, it, it, it, the, the percentage of, of taxes that are paid by an individual are almost insignificant when you look at the number of people that this would affect. But you go to some smaller counties in Georgia, some, some more, uh, rural counties that, that don't have that, that, uh, base that they're pulling from, and it gets down to the, the household.

279. 1:23:25

     You know, you're, you're, "Okay, hey, we, we got these people here." Now, I will tell you, and I'm gonna brag on, on my constitutional officers, I'm gonna brag on my, my county commissioners. Guess what? When they run for re-election they know a lot more than the one that's coming in the door. They, uh, and that's where for me, that's why we, we, we give that boost in pay for somebody that will continue to serve in that position. Last week when we heard this bill, I had a, a tax commissioner, I think she could be, uh, tax commissioner till the cows come home. She does a great job and, and, you know, that county can do this.

280. 1:23:58

     What I'm gonna propose here is an amendment that, that I'm gonna read and, and if we can, on, on line 140, 157 through 159 on section two, the, uh, I'll offer this amendment-

281. 1:24:12

     Section

282. 1:24:12

     ... to read, and I'm gonna give a copy of it to the chairman. "The, uh, owner after January 1, 2027, if a given county has in effect an ordinance expressly adopting the terms and provisions of this subsection, each eligible county officer of such county may elect for himself or herself and the spouse and dependents of such officers to be included in that county's health plan. For each eligible county officer that makes such election, the county governing authority of such officer shall pay 75% of any." The reason I say this is because this, this is one of those things.

283. 1:24:51

     When we paint a, a state law like this, we get every county in the state. Some of them can afford it, it's not a big deal. Some of them, it's a real problem. And for me, when I look at this, the, uh, uh, I think that, that this gives them an option. It does a great thing in, in spelling this out in state law, and I think it's gonna be a push to push a lot more counties to offer that. A- if there's a, if there's an incentive out there for this and it makes sense, I think the way you've got the, the, uh, section four written does make sense.

284. 1:25:23

     And, and it's something that I would encourage counties that can do this, "Hey, here, here's a, a, s- an option for those people that have served in, in public office and, and re- reward them for that public office." But I don't want to paint everybody the same. So Mr. Chairman, the, uh, I would offer that amendment. I'll give you this, this copy so you'll have it for your, uh, file, but I would ask for a second on that amendment and the, uh...

285. 1:25:50

     Yeah, we

286. 1:25:52

     Ed.

287. 1:25:52

     Yeah, we're getting, we're getting the cart before the horse.

288. 1:25:55

     Discuss that amendment again.

289. 1:25:57

     What's that?

290. 1:25:57

     Can we discuss that amendment? I just want to hear it again and just-

291. 1:25:58

     Yeah, absolutely.

292. 1:25:59

     Make sure it's all good, Matt.

293. 1:26:03

     Shall goes-

294. 1:26:03

     Yeah. Yeah.

295. 1:26:04

     Oh, we could-

296. 1:26:04

     Yeah, you can.

297. 1:26:06

     Can we, uh, can we put this in a rematch, posture that amendment?

298. 1:26:09

     That's what, that's what I want.

299. 1:26:10

     Yeah, that's what we'll do.

300. 1:26:10

     I just want to, you know, at the right time I want to make sure we're-

301. 1:26:13

     Yeah, we're getting the cart before the horse. Thank you. Yep. Any further questions? Senator Setzler.

302. 1:26:18

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, in deference to the senator from the 47th, I, I, I think it gets the, it gets the bill. It takes... Because today the posture we're in is it's a may. This takes it to a shall. I'm not sure what... To, to, the bill's proposed as a shall. Your, your amendment makes it a may. The current status of the law is a may Um, there's no need to do this if it becomes a may. If it's gonna be a may, take the whole code section out and move on. I think the code ... I think, I think ... 'Cause I will tell you, honestly, um, the language on 161 to 166, this, th- that limits this, actually moves it backwards.

303. 1:26:57

     Um, it would have a perverse effect on, on, on the, the effect of what the gentleman's trying to create. I, I, I mean, Mr. Chairman, I just think we ought to decide if section four stays in or not, 'cause as it stands today, all these things can happen as they may, at county discretion. Um, the cleaner thing would be to remove this altogether from this bill and let the coroner bill move on its own, unless we think the policy of section four is good, which means we leave it in. I think this creates a chaotic effect.

304. 1:27:27

     Go ahead, Senator.

305. 1:27:28

     You know, as, as, as, as the author's opinion on that.

306. 1:27:30

     M- Mr. Chairman, the, the reason that I think that, that, uh, Representative Lumsden has, has brought this forward is, is the constitutional officers are, are looking after the constitutional officers. The commissioners can look after the county commissioners. But I think because it's a financial position, and, and the county commissioners have to set the millage rate in each of their counties. They're the ones that are responsible for that. And that's where, for me, by, by putting it into effect, I think it's a good thing to do. I do think that the language that's, that, as spelled out here, is a, a, a good start, and I think by keeping that language alive in the bill gives a county, every county, a good place to start.

307. 1:28:11

     "Hey, here's what we're gonna do." If they want ... And I agree with, with, uh, the senator from the 37th-

308. 1:28:17

     Yes

309. 1:28:17

     ... said the, uh, that i- if they wanna do better than that, they always can. But this gives them a great place to start, and it's one of the things that, hey, I'm, I'm a big proponent for, for local control and local government, and that's where for me, I think this amendment st- still allows flexibility from one county to the next, but it gives them a good starting point and helps the constitutional officers, they, they, uh, that have that ability to move forward to do that. And I'd ask for your, uh, vote and consideration on the amendment, and I wanna pass, I don't wanna, I don't wanna see, no, my coroners, the, uh, I wanna see that, that bill, the, uh, pass as well.

310. 1:28:52

     So I think it's a, it's a good compromise to move the bill forward and, and, and still leave that language alive.

311. 1:28:58

     And I'm gonna let the author answer Senator Setzler's question.

312. 1:29:03

     I understand your argument. I would simply say that this is something that counties can already do. Um, they may do this. Um, by putting the language in place, I think that, that you've proposed, I, I do think that it perhaps communicates and sets a framework that counties could follow. Um, but as I said, they're already in a position of being able to do this. Um, they are, but they, for the most part, they are not doing that.

313. 1:29:33

     So, um, true what, um, uh, Senator, uh, uh, Setzler, uh, said, by changing it from, uh, shall to may, uh, it does, it does not accomplish what I had hoped to accomplish because I, as I said, we set policy. This legislature sets policy. Um, and I think what I proposed is a good policy, but if in the wisdom of this committee you want to do something different, obviously that is your, uh, prerogative.

314. 1:30:07

     Uh, but from the standpoint of my bringing you the bill, this was about establishing a policy. So thank you.

315. 1:30:16

     Thank you. So you're saying it's not friendly . I'm just kidding.

316. 1:30:20

     Yeah.

317. 1:30:21

     But thank you for explaining that well.

318. 1:30:23

     Mr. Chairman, I, if, if the committee, and now the, this, obviously this, uh, it's the discretion of the chair, we can amend the amendment or we can take a second amendment. Well, on 161, after the words age of 65, if this amendment should be adopted, then we're actually constraining the law and moving it backwards from where it would be today. Because as it stands today, they may do this, uh, without respect to how much the new incoming person's paid or the old person's paid. If we pass this, the only way they could provide a benefit is if the, the incoming pay, incoming em- employee's pay is lower than the outgoing person's pay.

319. 1:31:01

     It constrain, it further constrains and it actually moves it backwards from where it is today. So we, we definitely have to strike after age of 65 or we make the pro- we make the prospect worse. Which it's the pleasure of the committee to decide whether they take the senator from 47th's amendment, but just as a matter of administration, I wanted to make that, that technical point.

320. 1:31:21

     And may I say one other thing?

321. 1:31:23

     Yeah, absolutely.

322. 1:31:25

     I would remind you that if a person has served 16 years or 20 years or 25 years, yes, they're public servants. Yes, they have to be elected every four years. But for someone who has invested that much time in their working career into this, this is not just public service. It is their career, and we're talking about benefits that a person who has invested a career might be worthy of receiving.

323. 1:31:56

     Senator Mallow.

324. 1:31:58

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could we have legislative counsel opine on, uh, what my, uh, friend from Cobb County has said and the gentleman from the 47th so I can understand, uh, these propositions to these amendments? If he could do so.

325. 1:32:19

     Um, yes. First off, is there a copy of that amendment floating around?

326. 1:32:22

     Bring it.

327. 1:32:23

     Perfect.

328. 1:32:24

     We got it. First one.

329. 1:32:26

     So broadly speaking, we'll start with, uh, Senator Setzler's init- Setzler's initial proposition is that the language on line 161 through 166 is basically- ... that will be paid out of that 75%. So essentially, it is my understanding, and again, I'm in law, not math, that the amount the county will be paying would effectively be at most the same as they would be paying that officer up until age 65.

330. 1:33:01

     So the way it reads right now, it's the county shall pay 75% of any premiums for such plan, for such officer. That's 159 to 160.

331. 1:33:11

     Mm-hmm.

332. 1:33:11

     And then with that cap on it, it's basically, and unless the, um, that 75% would exceed the difference between the outgoing officer's salary and the incoming officer's salary. So let's say the 12,000 in the previous example earlier, if the outgoing officer's paid 15,000, the new officer would come in at 12,000, it'd be 75% of the premium, but that is capped at that 3000 being the difference between the two.

333. 1:33:42

     Okay.

334. 1:33:42

     Is that what it does?

335. 1:33:45

     Great. Great. And, and if today there's no such limitation, that there's a, as the may exists, person going out could be making 12,000, person coming in could be making 12,000. They still can offer benefits to that person if the county chooses to, chooses to fund it. If this were to pass, if the outgoing person made 12, any person, coming person made 12, they could provide no benefit. It would take away the county's option to offer a benefit to a person, which actually moves the ball in the opposite direction we're seeing the Rep- Representative Almonz is trying to take it.

336. 1:34:17

     That's, that's my only point. If we want to make this a may, we've got to take this out or we move the ball backwards and take away the county's ability to do it.

337. 1:34:25

     Go ahead, Senator Ginn.

338. 1:34:27

     The, uh, one of the things, and I- I'll ask legislative counsel to help me with this, but because we're, we're, we're talking about with an, uh, ordinance that would be passed, uh, by the county commissioners, should they, uh, uh, the... What would happen and how would we, we want to word this so that, because this covers the, those constitutional officers, their dependents, and their, their, uh, spouse. They, uh, if we said, uh, no less than this, this, uh, coverage is spelled out in, in the, the bill right here, so that that's a, that's a starting the, uh...

339. 1:35:06

     But if they want to make it better, they want to care, you know, they want to cover 100% or whatever the county commissioners want to do, let the county commissioners decide. But, but I'm trying to keep the formula. I like the formula that you have. It makes, it, it... What it does, and, and quite honestly, is push a big nudge for counties to, hey, this is, this is a way that, that, I like the math and it ma- and, and here's what it is. It gives a nudge to push, uh, for my constitutional officers, and at the same token, the, uh, s- make, make this as a, you know, uh, here's no less than if an o- if an offer is, is made, here's a starting point, and they can go above that if they want to.

340. 1:35:44

     And I think that would take care of the, uh, Senator Setzler's concern that, you know, we restrict them to only that. The, uh, that if they want to cover 100%, let them cover 100%, but, but, uh, that be done, and just use this as a, as a minimum coverage, so to speak, rather than, uh, going to, uh, the other. Can you, can you work on an amendment to, uh-

341. 1:36:06

     Uh

342. 1:36:06

     ... set this as a basis?

343. 1:36:07

     I can. My question as it follows with that would, would you like to keep the language from 161 to 66, that cap language in there as well?

344. 1:36:16

     That's, that's what I'm saying, is make that, make that a starting point for, for an ordinance th- that they would pass. That they, you know, if, if, if they're gonna pick up coverage for those people that are outgoing, because, uh, you know, some, some counties may pick them up al- already. I, I don't know. But to me, the, uh, uh, otherwise, y- if you strike that, then, then it's totally, you don't have a, in statute, you don't have a good starting point for county commissioners to, to bring that forward. And to me, I'm, I'm trying to keep the language, which I like your idea, in the bill so that, that, uh, that it starts the discussion as a nudge for, for those counties that can afford it.

345. 1:36:56

     Uh, so in that case, if you want to keep the main provision, so we'll go with the initial amendment as a proposition. Uh, we're still looking at line 161 to 62. It is provided, however, that such premium payment, instead of shall not exceed the savings, we'll turn it into shall, uh, some iteration of at least match or shall at a minimum be the savings realized between the counties.

346. 1:37:22

     That, that works. I mean, you know, I, I'm just... To me, I'm, I'm trying to keep that language 'cause I like the idea, should they, uh, and I want to help my constitutional officers. At the same token, I know that, you know, there's a benefit of keeping officers and, and those folks in office longer because they learn a lot more, and they're much more efficient at what work they do. And that's, that's where the taxpayers, that's why you g- you reelect somebody in office. It's 'cause you, you like the job they're doing, and you want to keep them there. And I think that's a, that's a reasonable thing to do, and this, this pushes, uh, those counties that can afford it to go ahead and, hey, let's, let's make this make sense without getting them out o- pushing them out of office.

347. 1:38:02

     Go ahead, Senator Setzler.

348. 1:38:02

     Mr. Chairman, if, if, if we say it shall be at least, if you have a tax commissioner that's going out making $120,000 a year and a tax commissioner coming in making $90,000 a year, um, 30,000... The, the, this benefit would have to be at least $30,000 a year. That doesn't make sense either. Um, I, I mean, the, the... We, we need to pass good law. I think what we need s- is something that's clean. I, I don't know that the benefit...

349. 1:38:34

     I mean, to, to me, we've got to strike this 161 to 166 language and just leave it to counties, we're gonna leave it to counties. I don't think this, this formula Does anything except seek to, it- it- a concession that the, the representative Blums and Brock seek to provide a concession to the counties to limit their cost. That they, he did that as an olive branch to counties to limit their cost. That unless there's a c- cost differential in the, in the pay, they're, they're not gonna be out anything. I think it was a very generous thing for him to do. Let's just take that out before we-

350. 1:39:04

     I, I would also point out if I may, in most counties, the, even the, the retiree would still be paying a portion of his insurance premium. We're only talking about 75%. Regardless of what the difference might be, we're only talking about 75% for the county to be absorbing, and that difference may be much greater than that 75%.

351. 1:39:33

     Thank you.

352. 1:39:35

     Is there any ... And, and let me ask-

353. 1:39:36

     Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry

354. 1:39:37

     ... if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman.

355. 1:39:38

     Yeah.

356. 1:39:38

     The, uh, is there anything in the bill that, that, that, uh, if we pass the amendment, that prohibits a county from paying more? You see any prohibition to a, to a, a county paying more?

357. 1:39:51

     It's, um-

358. 1:39:52

     If they, if they wanted to, to, uh, cover 100% of the cost or whatever the, the cost here. That's, I guess the first question I'm gonna ask is where's the, where's the prohibiting, prohibition to them, oh, picking up more costs if they want to?

359. 1:40:06

     Uh, if you look at line 159, uh, the sentence the governing authority of such officer shall pay 75%. So it'd be put in general law they would elect to under that instance.

360. 1:40:20

     So if we change that shall to a, um, a may pay or, or whatever they determine. I mean, you know, I'm just ... Is, is that the easiest way just to, to fix that?

361. 1:40:30

     So if there is that amend to Senator Setzler's as well, the other prohibition would be that provided however, which would put a cap on it. So it would be,

362. 1:40:42

     uh, if you make it optional toward that amendment and, uh, if need be to tack out language, if it is the will of the committee, very happy to recess to actually get the language locked in. But, um, at the moment, if you wanted to say at least it would be governing authority shall pay at least 75% and then you remove that provided however.

363. 1:41:06

     Okay. There you go. Um.

364. 1:41:08

     Do you need time to perfect that?

365. 1:41:10

     Um, I would say yes, just to make sure-

366. 1:41:14

     Yes

367. 1:41:14

     ... I get the language locked in. So.

368. 1:41:15

     Yeah.

369. 1:41:15

     At least as nearly as possible.

370. 1:41:17

     Yes.

371. 1:41:18

     All the words we used to get close back.

372. 1:41:21

     Yes. So I would need time to-

373. 1:41:23

     We pick up another bill and then come back to this.

374. 1:41:25

     Yeah. Awesome.

375. 1:41:26

     Yeah. We'll, uh, we'll stand in, not the committee, but yeah, we'll, we'll come back to your bill before we vote.

376. 1:41:31

     Uh-

377. 1:41:31

     So wanna make sure we get that, that language corrected. Yep, go ahead.

378. 1:41:35

     If I may, uh, since we're gonna need to come back, uh, would it be okay if Rep- Representative, uh, Will Wade sit in my space? I've-

379. 1:41:45

     Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I've discussed this bill with him-

380. 1:41:48

     Yeah

381. 1:41:48

     ... a number of times.

382. 1:41:48

     I just have some things that came up that I've-

383. 1:41:50

     We'll wrap it back up today

384. 1:41:50

     ... it requires my immediate attention.

385. 1:41:52

     Yeah, yeah. No, we're gonna, we're gonna vote on it before we, we adjourn today.

386. 1:41:55

     Okay.

387. 1:41:56

     I was

388. 1:41:56

     But yeah, you're, you're fine.

389. 1:41:57

     Yeah. Yeah.

390. 1:41:57

     Yes, ma'am. You're totally fine.

391. 1:41:58

     I have something that came up-

392. 1:41:59

     Yeah, no, we've, we've vetted the bill. We understand the changes.

393. 1:42:02

     Yes.

394. 1:42:02

     You know, so, yeah, we'll see, see what the will of the committee is.

395. 1:42:05

     Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

396. 1:42:06

     No, thank you for your time.

397. 1:42:06

     Thank you members of the committee.

398. 1:42:07

     Again, I'm so sorry for y'all's loss. I, I can't imagine.

399. 1:42:09

     Yes, and that's what I need to go take care of.

400. 1:42:10

     Yeah, I understand.

401. 1:42:11

     Before Representative, uh, Setzler leaves-

402. 1:42:13

     Yeah. Go ahead, Senator.

403. 1:42:14

     If, if we took out number four altogether, would you be upset? This section four-

404. 1:42:21

     I-

405. 1:42:21

     Would you be upset?

406. 1:42:22

     No, it wou- I wouldn't be upset. I'd be disappointed.

407. 1:42:25

     Okay.

408. 1:42:25

     But I wouldn't be upset. But, uh, I, I will be disappointed.

409. 1:42:28

     Okay.

410. 1:42:28

     And so you wouldn't wanna disappoint this.

411. 1:42:30

     Right.

412. 1:42:31

     Thank you.

413. 1:42:32

     I wouldn't wanna ever disappoint you.

414. 1:42:33

     Yeah. Thank you.

415. 1:42:35

     Thank you.

416. 1:42:35

     Thank you.

417. 1:42:36

     All the two.

418. 1:42:38

     Thank you.

419. 1:42:45

     All right. We'll move back up the agenda. Uh, committee members, I believe you have the, uh-

420. 1:42:50

     Whoo.

421. 1:42:51

     The final substitute for House Bill 309. Representative, yeah, if you'll come up and explain your part of the bill.

422. 1:43:05

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Um, I'm working on LC395127S. Uh, I will start with section five, if that's all right. We'll wind up bouncing around just a little bit. Um, so section five is the same that we talked about last time we were here. Um, if a county wants to create a police department, uh, the, uh, commissioners vote on it and it goes to a citizen's vote. If the county no longer wants that same police department, under current law, the commissioners vote on it and it's gone.

423. 1:43:40

     So this would go back to a citizen's vote. So the way you create it would be the same way you get rid of it. Um, the other s- uh, part in this that I will, would like to explain would be section seven. Um, section seven, um, essentially is, it's pretty simplistic. If a, um, builder, developer, whoever gets a permit for a project, um, a memorial, moratorium of, um, that s- type project cannot be retroactively put in place to stop the project once it's been approved.

424. 1:44:23

     And that's only on approved projects that are already, they're, they're already approved and permitted and-

425. 1:44:28

     Correct.

426. 1:44:28

     Yeah.

427. 1:44:28

     That's, yeah, p- uh, approved, permitted, plans in hand, typically, usually already started doing, digging some work or whatnot. Um, a moratorium cannot retroactively stop that-

428. 1:44:38

     And then, uh-

429. 1:44:39

     ... once they're approved

430. 1:44:39

     ... this doesn't put any timetables on moratoriums for municipalities. They can still-

431. 1:44:44

     No, absolutely

432. 1:44:44

     ... do what's under current statute.

433. 1:44:46

     Local can still do and put them in as-

434. 1:44:47

     It doesn't change none of that

435. 1:44:47

     ... as they please.

436. 1:44:49

     Okay.

437. 1:44:49

     Absolutely.

438. 1:44:52

     And then, uh, committee members, uh, before we take questions, uh, if you'll go to the first part of the bill, um, what I've done there, i- i- if y'all remember, um, it was a Republican Senate caucus priority, uh, dealing with, uh, permitting, on land disturbance permits. It was Senate Bill 447. Um, I've attached the, the language in 309, uh, with the, the author's permission. Uh, this, it, it mirrors what is sitting in rules in the House right now.

439. 1:45:23

     Uh, so we vetted this bill extensively, uh, when it got into House, um, and, uh, in House, uh, committee and subcommittee and in full committee. Um, vetted the bill even further, made, made several changes. One key change that, that gave us heartburn on the, on the committee, uh, dealing with, uh, what, what the stick was if, if the municipality didn't respond. At one point, we had deemed approved. At another time, we had where they would lose sovereign immunity. Uh, perfecting it with the House, uh, thought it was a good compromise.

440. 1:45:54

     It was just a, it gave a right of mandamus. Uh, you know, 'cause you, you're not talking about large sums of money. You're talking about, you know, permit fees and time or, or, you know, copies, things of that nature, which can get very expensive, uh, more than you would think. But, uh, so we added that in there. Um, and then also on the timetable where we had the initial project was submitted at 45 days, then the resubmittal dealing with comments, we had it at 14 da- days thereafter.

441. 1:46:24

     The first resubmittal, uh, the House changed that to, and I agreed to 20 days. That way, because the, you know, typically, since we're creating that sandbox, you know, the municipality's gotta put all their criteria in that sandbox. Well, the first round of comments will definitely have the most, most, uh, work to be done by the municipality, so giving them another six days to complete that, and then every application after that will be the 14 days. Nothing changed with that. It's the only thing, it did, it did tighten up the language, but, uh, it still keeps the, uh, the, uh, you know, the locals accountable.

442. 1:46:55

     I think it's a fair balance between the two.

443. 1:47:01

     And with that, uh, be happy to answer any questions on, um, both sides of this bill. And the reason for, just so the committee knows and, and the public, uh, the reason for sending this over, uh, there, there, there is a certain delegation in the House, um, that, uh, has an issue with, with the bill because they're dealing with something local, but this is a statewide matter. Go ahead, Senator.

444. 1:47:26

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the only thing, um, that, uh, we talked about after we passed this out of the, the Senate would be, um, line, in section E, starting at line 106, but more so going down to line 111. Um, I talked about by a state or federal agency and instances where that land and service permit may involve, um, the Army Corps of Engineers, and that may be an external review that is federal, not state. We don't control the Army Corps of Engineers, and they may control, for example, water drawdowns, permits for water, certain things like that, um, to ensure that that is included.

445. 1:48:02

     So while the application is in that review, it's tolled against the local government in case the instance you may need to get, um, something from the Army Corps of Engineers related to your land disturbance permit, uh, vis-à-vis water drawdowns, uh, different, different issues. So I'd like to just, if we could just add by, you know, state or federal agency.

446. 1:48:24

     Yeah, that'd be friendly. Yep.

447. 1:48:30

     Any further com- Go ahead, Senator Setzler.

448. 1:48:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two, um, issues to try to get this clean, um, may- maybe clean up some que- at least questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Um, the, uh, I'm on line of 5127S. That's, uh, um, the 20-day submission. So, so there's the initial submission.

449. 1:48:55

     What line?

450. 1:48:57

     I'm on, uh, s- starting on line, um, 93. Top, about, very bottom of page four. So the resubmission, there's 20 days for the first resubmission. Um, and then on line 94, there's 14 days for any subsequent resubmission, if there's a third or fourth or any subsequent, okay? Um, my only concern is, and listen, I, I feel the pain in my personal business of resubmission for permits.

451. 1:49:29

     It's, it's the design professional that gets hammered again and again and again with, "Fix this. This, now fix this. Now fix that." Listen, I f- I feel that. It's, it's a real thing. I think the balance here, I f- uh, uh, though is, is if,

452. 1:49:46

     I think for, uh, to, to, to deny the government to be able to raise a material question that have, you know, life safety, you know, or, or, or, or code issues, um, I think for any subsequent resubmission, like, like the, the, the sort of the third bite of the apple, I think they should not have, be able to add any comments. My concern is if we don't allow the government to add any new comments

453. 1:50:14

     in their second round of comments, I mean, the first round of comments, permit comes in, or a- permit application comes in with plans, they review it, and they put comments, "Fix these things." And then things come back. And they come back, "Okay, well, you, you satisfied these, didn't satisfy these." If they catch something else new there, it's my belief and policy they should be able to say, "Oh, by the way, there's one more thing." Now, after that second round, I think it's reasonable to say they can't bring in, bring up anything new. So round three, they should not be able to bring anything new.

454. 1:50:48

     My concern is, as it's drawn now, Mr. Chairman, um, this says if they don't catch it in their first review and, and document it, they can never raise an issue That means they have to get a 100 on their test paper.

455. 1:51:02

     They have 45 days to do that.

456. 1:51:04

     They, they do. I'm, I'm just saying. I don't know that we can hold a standard, they have to get a 100 on the test paper or it's, it's done. I, I don't ... I definitely think after the second bite of the apple, absolutely it's done. I just think if, if they find something the second time around, I'm just asking the, the, the, the chair of the committee as a, as a, as a balance here, um-

457. 1:51:29

     I'd be opposed to that. I think that ... I mean, it doesn't gut the bill, but I think it does away with the meaning of it.

458. 1:51:39

     Second issue, Mr. Chairman, I raise-

459. 1:51:40

     Yeah

460. 1:51:40

     ... is, uh, back on the, uh, gentleman's, um, lines 255 through 26- 56.

461. 1:51:50

     Um, this deals with moratoria. Um, it says, "Moratorium shall not apply to any property where," there's two things, "the governing authority has been given in good faith written approval or confirmation."

462. 1:52:02

     What line? What line?

463. 1:52:04

     I'm on line 255, 256, 257.

464. 1:52:07

     255?

465. 1:52:09

     Yep. 255 through 258.

466. 1:52:11

     Yeah, no, it's, uh, on, uh, we're still on pages, uh, it's on-

467. 1:52:14

     Yeah. I'm, I'm leaping back. This is line 30 ... This is LC 395127S.

468. 1:52:23

     Oh, this is it.

469. 1:52:24

     Um-

470. 1:52:25

     Still on the 27. Yeah, it's, it's, um-

471. 1:52:30

     To ... Uh, uh, Mr. Chairman, this, this is gon- this is gonna be a question for the author. It, it's ultimately, but I'm trying to get our members with us.

472. 1:52:37

     All right.

473. 1:52:38

     Okay. On line 255 through 258, um, I understand the moratorium shall not apply on things that a permit. That's lines 257-58. If, if, if, if they've issued a, a permit to proceed, completely get that. My question is,

474. 1:52:58

     what does it mean for a governing authority to have issued a written approval or confirmation of an identified development? That's pretty ... That seems pretty loose to me. That's a, "Hey, you know, met with the county managers. Hey, we like this. You know, we got the concept. Yeah, we approve this in theory, but you need to s- we see more details. Show us your, your, your, your plans." I'm concerned that, that ... I think 257, 258 makes great sense. I think written approval or confirmation is too loose.

475. 1:53:28

     I don't ... I'm not sure that's, that's, that's defined enough to have legal substance. Just wanna ask the author his thoughts on that.

476. 1:53:37

     Thank you. Go ahead. If you wanna comment.

477. 1:53:40

     Uh, this was not a part of my original language. It was brought to me and added to be asked to it. Um, I ... The general principle of the fact that once you've been approved on a project, they shouldn't be able to retroactively, uh, I'm ... I, I can understand your language of this being a little more on the vague end. Um, and I'd be open to other language.

478. 1:54:01

     Mr. Chair, I, I think the permit's a solid line to draw. I just think this other language, 'cause sometimes, you know, you submit concepts. You, you, you might present to a downtown development authority. They may look at it. "Hey, we like this. You know, this, this moves forward." You've gotten some kind of positive affirmation, but we, we gotta, you know ... Th- th- this is a bright line test 'cause they put in a moratorium, what is in, what is out. Um, a- and I think if you got a permit, you're clear. If, if it's, if you've just been talking to people and submitted the concept and it's still kind of back and forth, I mean, if the gentleman's friendly to that, I, I would just move to strike the wr- I mean, I, I've got the specific language.

479. 1:54:42

     But that written approval or confirmation, that's, that's, that's pretty, that's pretty undefined. That was my only concern.

480. 1:54:47

     Yeah. The only thing I'd like to ask leg council, uh, because, I mean, written approval, I mean, when a zoning is finalized is when the, you know, it's 30 days. You know, the chairman signs it, and you got 30-day appeal period, and that's your, your written approval. So I, I don't know if ... I'd like to ask leg council on their opinion on if they feel like this is too loose or if this is capturing approved projects.

481. 1:55:10

     Mr. Chairman, before, uh, council responds on that, I'd, I'd like to draw a specific question to, for example, a PUD, a planning and development, and that being approved, but then you have made substantive changes to that PUD that would now result in the denial because you're outside of the scope of that PUD. Would that bind, uh, that local government with, with how vague this language is?

482. 1:55:33

     Yeah. We've got, uh, Macy McFall. If you'd come up, uh, I think she can provide more clarity for the committee.

483. 1:55:45

     Good afternoon, y'all. So to your point, so generally what locals sometimes may do is they will, they will send you an email or a written that's, written notice that says, "Hey, you are zoned appropriately for this project." And so your project will go ahead and spend, they may spend $100 million getting that project, like shoveling dirt, getting moving. And so this just ensures that that written confirmation, and locals are very careful when they provide that, that allows you to have a good faith understanding that you can go forward with this project.

484. 1:56:21

     And to add to that, um, under the dynamic of what you're speaking of, if they are said, "Hey, look, you're zoned correctly. This is good," the design period during that time could be nine months to a year or longer, depending on what it is. At what point, they could spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to then get up, submit, "Oh, never mind, a moratorium is," I think that's worth considering in what we're trying to do here.

485. 1:56:44

     To that, to that point, the permit actually sometimes comes after it's been 18 months that you've been working with that locality. You've spent tons of money. And so I think that's the protection that we're trying to ensure.

486. 1:56:55

     And then also remind the committee that the portion of this bill that deals with permitting would help tighten that up.

487. 1:57:01

     Exactly.

488. 1:57:01

     So if they go one-

489. 1:57:02

     And it's just intentionality on part of the locals too, is what we want.

490. 1:57:07

     And then it also doesn't, it doesn't, you know, I know there were talk of time frames. There's no, no restriction on time frames with this language either. Go ahead, Senator Setzler.

491. 1:57:15

     Yeah. And Mr. Chairman, mo- moratoria on certain kinds of development are tools local governments have. It's a tool that I support using in appropriate places. Um, I just think there's got to be clarity in what that means. I mean, I think it's, if it's, if it's a formal approval of zoning classification, um, you know, I know there's ... To- to me, there needs to be a bright line test on this, 'cause if this is gonna be heavily, this could be heavily litigated and a whole lot of money's on the line, I just think it's got a, we need a bright line test if it means ...

492. 1:57:53

     I know you got written approval. I just ...

493. 1:57:57

     W- written approval of existing zoning, a written, a formal adoption of the new zoning classification, something that's a, an act that is, is a, is a snapshot in time. Um, because what's gonna happen is people say, "Well, you know, I went by and met with the developer. They said, 'Yeah, you're zoned for this. You're good.'" But maybe there are elements of it that, that sort of change. You know, there was, it was within the general zoning, but there were some other changes to the plan that aren't exactly consistent. Well, did that constitute approval or not? We spent money in design, but now they don't like the design, so do we get around their ability to stop this?

494. 1:58:29

     It's just, I, I can imagine there being some real

495. 1:58:32

     And then, too, I wasn't fully paying attention. I was reading. Um, can't do two things at once. Uh, on 257, wouldn't that take care of, of what Senator Setzler's worried about with the, uh, local governments issuing permits? I mean, the, the, the saying that's got to have a permit issued and, and not related to the moratorium.

496. 1:58:49

     Correct. And I think to your point, we want the localities to have ... So they will take this, and they can have, um, a local ordinance on what written confirmation is. And so I think that gives them the flexibility as well. We still want them to have local control to make those decisions.

497. 1:59:10

     Yes. Yeah, Senator Mallow.

498. 1:59:11

     Uh, in the city of Savannah, for example, in Chatham County, um, we have hotels, uh, that are built and constructed, and that might be development by right. But however, you have the Metropolitan Planning Commission who can send you an email and say, "By right, you can absolutely build that." However, does that constitute approval? That's not the city of Savannah who issues the permits. That's not the mayor and council. And so I just have hesitation because we have several layers of review, uh, historical preservation committee, HPC, MPC, before you can get to that point, and it may not move.

499. 1:59:46

     Before you get to council, you've got to go through MPC, you've got to go through HPC. However, we found in instances where city of Savannah said absolutely, but did not know that that building was historic in nature. And since it is, now it goes through a different process because when this was submitted, you did not say that this was, this structure was historic, it was this, it was not contributing, whatever, and then they find out that it is, somebody missed that. Would they then be bound to move forward? I just-

500. 2:00:11

     No

501. 2:00:11

     ... have issues 'cause of its vagueness.

502. 2:00:13

     No, it would be all on the actual, the local government authority that has the power to issue this permit, so they still keep that full authority. It's not some other, you know, a planning commission staffer who says, "Yeah, this looks good to go." That would not, that would not cover it under the law.

503. 2:00:31

     So it would have to be s- you got something from the mayor and council or chairman and board of commissioners, not something from a city staff person.

504. 2:00:38

     Exactly. Yeah, it would be the local gov- the permitting authority. That's a- w- all that is con- contemplated.

505. 2:00:50

     Senator Howard.

506. 2:00:51

     Thank you so much. Uh, my comment and question is really about the senator from the 37's first point. And I know, I know you mentioned that, uh, you wouldn't feel comfortable with that, but I wanted to see was there anything unfactual about his observation from his first point about how this bill reads as it is.

507. 2:01:10

     What reads?

508. 2:01:11

     Uh, when it comes to that second, um, review.

509. 2:01:16

     You wanna what?

510. 2:01:17

     Um-

511. 2:01:18

     Factual?

512. 2:01:19

     It, was there anything unfactual about how he, uh, w- what he shared with his first point that he made? Um, 'cause I know you mentioned that you had, you know, some, you were uncomfortable making any of those changes that he recommended.

513. 2:01:30

     Mm-hmm.

514. 2:01:31

     But his recommendations were based on his observation of the language. Was there anything unfactual about what he said? It just seems to me that-

515. 2:01:40

     No, I wasn't challenging the factual-

516. 2:01:41

     Yeah

517. 2:01:41

     ... w- what, if he was stating something true or false.

518. 2:01:44

     Yeah.

519. 2:01:44

     What, what it was was, um, there again, uh, the municipality on the first try, they have 45... We voted this out already, guys.

520. 2:01:52

     No, I, I remember.

521. 2:01:53

     Um, but anyways, yeah, it, you got 45 days. You got a month and a half to read the darn thing. You're talking about somebody that's a professional, that, that knows what they're doing. I- I- that's plenty of time to do that, and they've got a sandbox that they, I mean, they've already got... I mean, in the bill, you're gonna have to have, you're gonna have to lay out everything that they're gonna be commenting on. They got a month and a half to do it. I would hope that, you know, within that timeframe, that they would have time to review it accurately. Um, I wouldn't see why they wouldn't. Uh, I mean, I can review plans within a couple hours, but I've done it for, you know, 25 years.

522. 2:02:23

     But, um, but I think 45 days, you know, sets that out. We got municipalities that are acting bad, and we've got to put those guardrails up. Savannah does it in 10 days.

523. 2:02:33

     Yeah.

524. 2:02:33

     And, I mean, they, you know, I, I know you are-

525. 2:02:34

     Yeah

526. 2:02:34

     ... but I'm just pointing to a good actor. Uh, Barrow County that, that I represent, I mean, they're, they operate within a couple of months, you know, going through a, the land improvement permit.

527. 2:02:42

     I think the time was not a problem. It's really about, uh, what you gathered in that timeframe, right? Once you go back in and you're reassessing, uh, you know, um, sometimes it can be a different pair of eyes seeing it in person. It changes things.

528. 2:02:56

     Yeah.

529. 2:02:56

     And so I just wanted to double-check and, and again, I was just for clarity. He just made some, uh, uh, good points and I wanted to kind of get a sense of, uh-

530. 2:03:04

     No-

531. 2:03:04

     ... clarification

532. 2:03:05

     ... it, no, it's a valid point.

533. 2:03:06

     Yeah.

534. 2:03:06

     I, you know, I just, I mean, we've vetted and I've vetted the heck out of it myself.

535. 2:03:09

     Sure.

536. 2:03:09

     Um, and but, you know, what, what I would say would be that, uh, you know, you got professionals and they've got a timeframe and, and they need to do it within that timeframe, and that's, that 45 days is plenty enough time to do that. And we've got to hold them accountable because they're delaying projects. And we're talking about affordability here from property taxes to income tax to housing that people can't afford. First-time homebuyers average is 40-plus years old to, to buy a house. This right here will help affordability. Is it the, is it the one shot, you know, silver bullet? No.

537. 2:03:40

     But it, it is a step in the right direction and, um, you know, I know your caucus and my caucus-

538. 2:03:44

     Sure

539. 2:03:44

     ... affordability is our number one issue.

540. 2:03:46

     Sure.

541. 2:03:47

     Uh, and, and among many others, but, um, this, this will do, do, this will do good to help that.

542. 2:03:53

     Yeah.

543. 2:03:53

     And like I said, I, you know, 45 days-

544. 2:03:56

     Yeah

545. 2:03:56

     ... is plenty enough time to review a plat and-

546. 2:03:57

     That's all

547. 2:03:58

     ... come up with a comment.

548. 2:03:58

     Thank you so much.

549. 2:03:58

     But thank you for, it was a valid question, though.

550. 2:04:00

     Thank you.

551. 2:04:00

     Thank you. Thank you. Yep. Sorry, go ahead.

552. 2:04:03

     Mr. Chairman, the, uh, I, I don't want to delay anything else. I don't want, surely don't delay somebody's construction project, but I move to do pass LC395127S.

553. 2:04:15

     Second.

554. 2:04:15

     We got a motion and a second. All in favor, raise your hand.

555. 2:04:19

     Mr.

556. 2:04:21

     All in favor, raise your hand.

557. 2:04:26

     Well, he can, he can make it as a p- amendment, and then he, uh-

558. 2:04:29

     Oh, wait, no. We've got your amendment we've got to make. I apologize. I need to slow down.

559. 2:04:33

     Yeah.

560. 2:04:34

     All right, we need to go back to comments.

561. 2:04:36

     So do pass motion, and then motion to amend.

562. 2:04:39

     Yep. Thank you.

563. 2:04:40

     LC395127S, uh, by, on line 111. Um, the motion to amend is by inserting on line 111 after state the word or federal agency

564. 2:05:02

     And that is a friendly amendment. Thank you all for catching me. I was getting, getting ahead of myself there.

565. 2:05:08

     Uh, so, um- Second.

566. 2:05:10

     We've got a motion and a second on that amendment.

567. 2:05:17

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. And a second amendment would be to also on line 106-

568. 2:05:21

     Mm-hmm

569. 2:05:21

     ... um, by inserting-

570. 2:05:25

     Or federal

571. 2:05:26

     ... "utilize a federal or state agency," uh, so that 106 and 111 are, uh, congruent, uh, as advised by legislative council.

572. 2:05:38

     Thank you.

573. 2:05:39

     That's my amendment. Second.

574. 2:05:41

     Thank you. And we've got a motion, uh, and a second due pass on the amendment. All in favor?

575. 2:05:47

     Uh-

576. 2:05:49

     Any opposed? Now we'll take up the underlying bill.

577. 2:05:55

     I got a question on, uh, on, on 7-1 off of the amendment to the, to this, uh, section seven piece, Mr. Chairman. Um, and I'm, I'm sub- I'm, I'm, uh, this is really big policy, and I wanna make sure that we're talking about a specific development. Um, and I think if, if we were to add on line 50... I'm, I'm prepared to offer this as an amendment. I wanna, um, be deferent to the chairman's bill. Um, in good faith, official written approval, I mean, written approval.

578. 2:06:29

     I got an email saying, "Yeah, good." I mean, to me, if it's an official action, it's an official approval, there's gotta be a, there's gotta be a discreetness to the action or otherwise. There, there's gotta be a moment in time, and it's gotta be for a specific development. If you, if you get an email from seven years ago that says, "This project's able to be used for multifamily development," and then seven years later, "So, oh, oh, I've got this... They, they told me seven years ago, um, that this, this is available for multifamily development," a- and now all of a sudden that voids the ability to bring a moratorium in place.

579. 2:07:01

     It's not with respect to a project, but with respect to a, a zoning categorization. This is, this eliminates the ability to do a moratoria. And I have, I, I think, I, I do not wanna gut our local government's ability to do moratoria. I think it's an important tool.

580. 2:07:17

     Could I respond to that, if you don't mind, Senator?

581. 2:07:19

     Yes, please go ahead.

582. 2:07:20

     So, James, I think the language on line 56 already covers that. It's for an identified development of such property. So you would have already had to say, "This is what we are developing this property for." It's not just some pie in the sky, years down the road. It's for an identified development.

583. 2:07:40

     Right. And I, I think the, we're gonna do a community. We have this, this, sort of this dr- this... I'm not trying to b- be silly. I'm just saying, I mean, w- we have this dream of this senior living facility in this area, and we've got our, we have our marketing sheet. We've, we've done this, as opposed to a specific scope. I think if it's tied to a scope, that makes sense to me. Uh, I- I'm just... I mean, I am... M- my communities use moratoria in very meaningful ways, and I, I don't wanna gut their ability to do that.

584. 2:08:10

     To me, if it's a official written approval, and if it's a identified development scope, if it's a specific scope we're doing, you know, 89 townhomes versus townhomes here somewhere. If it's a specific scope, I think that makes sense. That's, it's broader than a permit. But, um-

585. 2:08:30

     Legislative council, go ahead.

586. 2:08:31

     Um, toward that end, it is important to keep in mind when especially looking at statutes that deal with specific industries, often it is read in industry terms. Uh, I'm not familiar with these industry terms, so if someone from the industry can describe the scope of what an identified development is as sort of within that industry, in this case, that may offer some clarification.

587. 2:08:54

     Well-

588. 2:08:54

     And, uh, yeah, I don't have that at this time. I'm sorry.

589. 2:08:56

     I, I'm just speaking from the perspective of an identified development. From a design perspective, developments sort of have these, they, they, they're ideas that exist for years, and then someone comes in with a specific scope. If it's scoped, I mean, to me, a specific iden- specifically scoped...

590. 2:09:14

     I, I'm trying to find a way to get to yes on the bill, Mr. Chairman.

591. 2:09:16

     Yeah.

592. 2:09:16

     So I'd like to, I'd like to offer a-

593. 2:09:17

     Well, we have a, we have a recovering, uh, county manager and city manager here that-

594. 2:09:22

     Yeah.

595. 2:09:22

     Yeah.

596. 2:09:23

     Yes.

597. 2:09:24

     Yeah, yeah. And, and,

598. 2:09:28

     hey, uh, just so you... Nobody can give that authority away. You know, if there's a staff member that erroneously gives, uh, information out that it's not approved, that, that, that is, is easily, they, uh, stop. The only people that can give the authority is the governing authority. And so you don't have to worry about, you know, well, well, somebody flippantly said something. That, that goes back to the governing authority, whatever that may be, for the city or county or whoever.

599. 2:09:57

     Yes, Mr. Chairman. So I, I, um, I'd like to offer an amendment. I may be alone on this, but I would like to offer one that says, reads the following. Um, before the word written, I'd like to w- i- insert the word official. And it, I'd like to strike the word identified and put the word specific. And after development, I'd like to set, insert the word scope.

600. 2:10:27

     So line 256 would re- would read, "In good faith, official written approval or confirmation of a specific development scope

601. 2:10:37

     for such property," scope for, "or where a permit's been approved." That's, it's, permit's very narrow, very specific, very far down the road. But, uh, official approval for specific development scope, that's 89 townhomes in this place. You've got approval for that. You get, you, you clear the bar. If it's, we wanna do town homes in this area, and we have this dream, we've got a marketing select, that's not, that doesn't qualify.

602. 2:11:05

     I'll second that.

603. 2:11:07

     Okay. W- well second. Hmm? Uh, so we got a motion and a second. And we got comments? I know we got some comments coming.

604. 2:11:18

     Yeah, a question with, to the author of the amendment and the second. Uh, y- when you say specific and you say identified, that's pretty much, I think, a, a quarter reason that basically gonna be the same thing. And even, even when you say an official, if I get something from, in writing from a staffer, it's going to be official. It is official. So m- may I ask you whether or not your intent, would it be accomplished if on line 255, you gave it some s- time, time, timetable?

605. 2:11:54

     Say, such local government has, within 24 months or 12 months, or some period of time, so that you know that you're relying on it for 12 months, and after that, you know, it's over. Or 24 months, if you really wanna go out there. You know, I know you said seven years, that's, which re- is ridiculous if you're doing a, a development of a specific or identified area, 'cause things change in that period of time. So what, would you, would your objective be accomplished by, on line 255, saying, "Such local government has, has within X months, X number of months, given, in good faith, written approval"?

606. 2:12:38

     Because if it's written, it is official when it's coming from whoever from that locality. If it's-

607. 2:12:46

     Yeah, that, well, it, the problem with that is, is part with the other part of the bill where we're trying to get, we're trying to get those time frames, you know, giving reasonable-

608. 2:12:54

     Yeah

609. 2:12:54

     ... time frames for permits.

610. 2:12:55

     Right.

611. 2:12:56

     I- that, that's-

612. 2:12:57

     So you can, whatever frame of time-

613. 2:12:58

     Well, no, I mean, no, I'm, we're, in, in certain municipalities it takes years to get a permit. So you, you put a time frame of 24 months, it may take three years and-

614. 2:13:05

     Okay.

615. 2:13:05

     And the zoning would give this away

616. 2:13:06

     ... in, in certain metro or, yeah, certain counties and around Atlanta.

617. 2:13:08

     This is more friendly to folks who oppose moratoria- ... than your language is.

618. 2:13:12

     Yeah.

619. 2:13:13

     Okay.

620. 2:13:13

     I, I just, I just, I want there to be officialness to it. I don't want it to be some email that they're, they're waving.

621. 2:13:18

     All right.

622. 2:13:18

     And I think specific scope, that's, that's fair to me. That's, that's all.

623. 2:13:26

     So-

624. 2:13:26

     I'll move that, Mr. Chairman.

625. 2:13:28

     And then just to read what the amendment would be, it would be, uh, on line 256, before the word written, you have official, which is underscored. Then you are going to strike an identified and replace it with for a. Then you insert before development the word specific, underscored. You're gonna strike the word of after development and replace it with scope for underscored such property.

626. 2:14:04

     So that line reads now, Faith, comma, official written approval, comma, or confirmation for a specific development scope for such property, comma, or. And that is the whole line. Does that capture the amendment?

627. 2:14:22

     It does, yes.

628. 2:14:22

     Okay.

629. 2:14:26

     We got a motion and a second.

630. 2:14:28

     Yeah, we got a motion and a second for approval of the Second Amendment. Um, all in favor, raise your hand.

631. 2:14:37

     Oh, yeah. All opposed?

632. 2:14:43

     Okay. Motion passes. Then moving on to the First Amendment.

633. 2:14:51

     We didn't get there.

634. 2:14:52

     No, we didn't. We're at... We didn't vote on that, did we?

635. 2:14:57

     We voted on the bill.

636. 2:14:58

     Yeah.

637. 2:14:59

     That was 41.

638. 2:15:00

     Yeah.

639. 2:15:00

     Appreciate y'all keeping me straight.

640. 2:15:01

     As amended.

641. 2:15:02

     Okay, now we'll vote on the bill as amended, working again off LC 39-5127S. We got a motion to pass and a second. All in favor, raise your hand.

642. 2:15:15

     After all that work. We got one opposed. No, I appreciate all the debate. No, I do. Thank you. No, I get it. Yeah.

643. 2:15:26

     Do you want to go back-

644. 2:15:26

     Your bill passes.

645. 2:15:27

     Thank you, sir.

646. 2:15:28

     If you wanna go back to this. Then we're ready, we're ready to do 646, if you're ready.

647. 2:15:34

     Hmm? Go back?

648. 2:15:34

     646, yeah.

649. 2:15:35

     Okay. We can do it quick?

650. 2:15:37

     So it is this portion, plus that strike, plus subsection one and clear.

651. 2:16:44

     It's not limited.

652. 2:16:54

     It's great to see y'all back. We're jumping around this, uh-

653. 2:16:57

     We're Christmas tree-ing our agenda like we're doing bills right now, so, uh

654. 2:17:00

     And listen, I, I have to tell the chairman, I'm very impressed with mandating our communities to respond to the demands of the construction industry so we can help with affordability and get people in homes much quicker. So that-

655. 2:17:12

     Yeah, no, thank you for saying that, and I, I do wanna ... I didn't commend the committee, but thank y'all for vetting the bill. Um, I know we didn't agree on everything, but, uh, that was good legislation. It's gonna help with affordability for housing. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.

656. 2:17:24

     So, um, again, we're here to-

657. 2:17:26

     Senator

658. 2:17:26

     ... uh, bring, uh, House Bill 646. Thank you, guys, for understanding, uh, Representative Stinson's situation. Um, I'll remind this committee this is the, um, third year in a row that I, Patty and I, have been working on this corner bill. Honored to join Chairman Lumpsden with his esteemed knowledge related to the COAG request. Um, I think that, um, AC CG has indicated that they're, um, basically neutral on the corner portion of the bill. I think they had their same concerns that I think that senator from 37th and the 47th were discussing for a potential amendment.

659. 2:18:01

     Um, I, I, I'll let Chairman Lumpsden speak to if the amendment is considered favorable once that's been determined. Um, I, um, uh, I think that in the vast majority of cases for the COAG portion section four, I've been given information that I believe is accurate that there are less than 50 current constitutional officers that this would actually impact statewide right now. And I do think that, um, Chairman Lumpsden may have something additional to add. But, um, we're ready to hear.

660. 2:18:33

     I hope we can have a motion do pass, and then to start the discussions on a potential amendment.

661. 2:18:38

     Mm-hmm. You ready?

662. 2:18:42

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move do pass LC4743-10SHP646.

663. 2:18:50

     Second.

664. 2:18:51

     Got a motion second. Yeah, Mr. Chairman- Got it ... I'll offer an amendment. If you look on line 166, the, uh, after 166, in that sec- following section two, we're s- we're starting to section three, with the verbiage, "Nothing in this subsection shall limit the authority of the governing authority to pay a higher amount or percentage of county health plan costs for eligible county officers than is provided in paragraph two of this subsection." Basically, it, I like the language that, that, uh, Chairman Lumpsden has in the bill.

665. 2:19:27

     It's a great thing, and it gives, uh, a, a, a good thing there, but it doesn't limit them to that. If they wanna go above that, they can. And to me, I, I'd, I'd offer that as a, an amendment. They, uh, um, and I think it, it, it addresses the senator from the 37th, uh, concern on, "Hey, we don't wanna limit their ability," but at the same token, it, it ... I love the language that you've got here. I think it makes a lot of sense. Questions? Thank you. Go ahead, Senator Setzler.

666. 2:19:58

     To the author, did, did you strike the language on 161 through 166 after the word age of 65?

667. 2:20:06

     No, sir. With me, I, I wouldn't make any change to that section, and the reason being is because this, this, uh, is, is just taking the limits off of, uh, what they w- what they can do. They can, they can, uh, the county, uh, governing authority can do whatever they want to in, uh, in that.

668. 2:20:23

     As, as counsel said, though, if we don't eliminate 161 through 166, then it will have the unintended consequence, which is not your intention, of putting a limitation in place that does not exist under current law. It will further constrain them. But, uh-

669. 2:20:37

     Let me, let me read this to you again. Nothing in this subsection. Nothing in this subsection shall limit the authority of a county governing authority to pay a higher amount or percentage of county, excuse me, uh, percentage of county health plan cost for eligible county officers than is provided in paragraph two of this subsection. So-

670. 2:21:02

     Great. That's, that's right, and paragraph two says, "If the salary of the person coming in is equal to the salary of the person going out, the amount of benefit can be exactly zero." It eliminates their ability by law to give them this benefit. That's exactly what 16, 161 through 166 says. That's, that's why we defer to counsel, and counsel confirmed that. All we're looking to do is strike 161 through 166 so it doesn't have the effect that you're not, you're not trying to create that. I agree. Let's just make sure we do our homework and remove that so we don't have the unintended, unintended consequence.

671. 2:21:35

     That's all. 'Cause it's, i- if we leave in 161 through 166, it will have the effect, the maximum benefit allowable, again, this is part of paragraph two, will be zero if the pay of the incoming person is equal to the pay of the outgoing person. That's what, that's the way that works.

672. 2:21:57

     Uh, Mr. Chairman, can ledge counsel comment? 'Cause I'm, I'm not, I don't wanna argue or disagree with either party. I mean, I would assume that he can clarify. I mean, if it's saying that, that, that, that language that Frank Ginn, Senator Ginn from 47's offering would basically set the language that 37th, the senator in 37th has, uh, highlighted as the new minimum, and then thereby creating an opportunity for the county to go above that in those cases in which there would be an unintended zero, uh, net change.

673. 2:22:30

     Is that how I'm understanding it, or?

674. 2:22:34

     So for the amendment, I, assuming you still want to include your initial-

675. 2:22:38

     I wanna do the n-

676. 2:22:38

     ... amendment and opposition to make it optional.

677. 2:22:40

     Yeah.

678. 2:22:40

     Um, with that, and this is now a slight lang- change to your language, which may be able to harmonize it, if you keep paragraph two as amended with the making it optional, the new paragraph reading, "Nothing in this subsection shall limit the authority of a county, of a county governing authority to adopt an ordinance to pay a higher amount or percentage." So initially it's adopting an ordinance, and this is the formula for it with the ordinance. However, if- if they instead decide to adopt an ordinance at a higher level.

679. 2:23:14

     So instead of saying limiting the authority to pay, they can similarly adopt an ordinance.

680. 2:23:18

     Yeah, I think you're right. If it, if it, if it says nothing shall limit the ability to hire-- adopt an ordinance that pays more, yes.

681. 2:23:25

     Okay.

682. 2:23:25

     It references back the amount prescribed-

683. 2:23:27

     Yeah, that works.

684. 2:23:28

     If you limit back-- If you reference back to paragraph 2, that part of paragraph 2 guts what he's trying to do.

685. 2:23:35

     That, that works.

686. 2:23:36

     Okay. So to read this again in total for the amendment, we have the initial amendment which strikes lines one fifty-seven through one fifty-nine and replaces it with the following. On or after January 1st, 2027, if a given county, uh, and from that I say adopts an ordinance adopting the terms and provisions of this subsection, each eligible county officer of such county may elect for himself or herself and the spouse and dependents of such officer to be included in that county's health plan.

687. 2:24:15

     For each eligible county officer that makes such an election, the county governing authority of such officer shall pay seventy-five percent of any, and then it continues on from there. This, uh, that paragraph, the rest of that remains unchanged. The second part of the amendment is now after the, uh, four, uh, forty-eight dash five dash one eighty-three period on line one sixty-six, we are adding in a new subsection three, which is to read, "Nothing in this subsection shall limit the authority of a county governing authority to adopt an ordinance to pay a higher amount or percentage of county health plan costs for eligible county officers than is provided in paragraph two of this subsection," all of which is underscored.

688. 2:25:03

     So moved.

689. 2:25:04

     Man, I'm glad I'm not a lawyer. But thank you. We need you. All right, so we've got, uh, we've got a motion. I think we've got a second. Second. All right. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? Thank you. Passes. Um-

690. 2:25:24

     That just proves we can't make everybody happy.

691. 2:25:27

     That's right. It gets, it gets the bill. Yeah. And then moving on, uh-

692. 2:25:31

     No, it's a great corner-

693. 2:25:32

     To the underlying-

694. 2:25:33

     ... and I, and I wanna thank my corner for coming down, so.

695. 2:25:36

     Thank you. Uh, moving on to the underlying bill. We've got a motion to pass and a second. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? Thank you.

696. 2:25:48

     Thank you.

697. 2:25:51

     Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Great work, committee. Absolutely.

698. 2:25:53

     Appreciate all of it.

699. 2:25:54

     That's what I'm here for.

700. 2:25:55

     The last four years.

701. 2:25:57

     And there's a reason for that too. Congratulations, Representative. There we go. I don't even know where I'm at now.

702. 2:26:08

     Okay. Um,

703. 2:26:11

     so we've got, uh, we've got some leadership in the room. We've got, uh, Leader Anavitarte. I'm gonna bump you up. I believe, uh, you've got a bill that's not too controversial.

704. 2:26:23

     Which one is this?

705. 2:26:24

     Uh, this would be HB 1166.

706. 2:26:32

     Good afternoon, colleagues.

707. 2:26:38

     Yeah, so I'm, uh, Senate Bill 1166. The LC number I am working off of is 620519S.

708. 2:26:51

     That's correct.

709. 2:26:52

     Okay.

710. 2:26:56

     So today I'm bringing this bill to 1166 as a substitute to address a problem that I and many others, I guess, are witnessing and having to endure, um, just not in our local communities, but across this entire state. And it, it seems like it's accelerating very quickly, um, and that is on the topic of distressed municipalities, um, and find a new way to take detailed steps in an effort to help save cities, uh, protect cities, um, you know, who are at risk of being disincorporated because of their financial status.

711. 2:27:45

     Um, this bill, and it's-- I'm gonna go through the details of it, and I do have a couple folks that'll probably come up and, um, speak after me, um, Mr. Chairman. But basically, this bill adds and defines what a quote-unquote distressed municipality is. Um, in the code section, this term distressed municipality means a municipal corporation in the state or an authority controlled directly or indirectly by such municipal corporation which failed to meet one of the minimum standards specified for an active municipality pursuant under code section 3637.1, or has met at least two of the q- qualifying, uh, or following criteria.

712. 2:28:31

     Um, the list includes, but it's not limited to, the ability, inability to pay employees for thirty days, the inability to prepare and approve an annual budget for two consec- consecutive fiscal years, and accumulated and operated a deficit equal to more than, uh, to five percent or more of its revenues. It adds provisions for the governor, uh, to appoint a review commission done upon the written request of the majority of senators and House of Representatives members whose districts include all or a portion of the alleged distressed municipality.

713. 2:29:11

     It also, um, allows under that section, um, a list of requirements for members to review, um, for the commission, um, that's listed. Within fourteen days of the appointment, the commission shall make a written report of its findings to the governor. If the commission finds that the municipality is a distressed municipality, the governor may direct the attorney general to file a petition in the Superior Court of the Judicial Circuit, um, of where the distressed municipality is located.

714. 2:29:47

     Uh, this petition will name an individual to be appointed as the receiver. The Superior Court does not have authority to appoint anyone other than the person who is named in the petition. A list of requirements for the receiver is given and exclude- includes requirements such as requirement of a minimum of five years of experience in local legal management or budgetary matters and must be a resident of the state. The attorney general shall publish a notice of the filing petition in the legal organ of the county, which is the legal status, um, of the municipality or newspaper having general circulation in the county or at least equal to that of the legal organ.

715. 2:30:27

     And the Superior Court will conduct a hearing within thirty days of the AG's filing, which will issue an order on the petition within sixty days of the filing. If the Superior Court grants that the petition finds a mus- municipality to be distressed, the court, um, shall order the following. Um, it'll set forth some findings. It'll appoint a receiver for two years. However, the attorney general may request additional two-year extension if further implementation of the recovery plan is needed to bring the municipality out of distress.

716. 2:31:02

     It'll direct to develop a recovery plan within thirty days and submit it to the court. The recovery plan shall include items such as, but not limited to, continued provisions of vital and necessary services, payment of obligation among finances related to the distressed city, timely deposit of required payments, and the execution of new contracts or agreements. The bill also provides the items that in the recovery plan and receiver are not authorized to c- that they're not authorized to commit.

717. 2:31:36

     It includes things but not limited to the adopti- uh, adoption of a taxation beyond what is authorized by law or the Constitution. So for example, the receiver can't go in and just tax the people with, um, a new bond or a new property tax or something else, um, just to basically cover debt. Um, interference with a lien, charge, covenant, relative priority held by the holder of debt obligation of the, of the distressed city and granted by contract, law, rule, or regulation, um, unilaterally impairs and modifies existing bonds, notes, municipal securities, um, and other lawful contracts or legal obligations of the city.

718. 2:32:20

     And so when you think about a city's operations and you think about, you know, restructuring con- contracts to try and save money, create more efficiencies, um, the receiver would have an opportunity to do that. It would also apply proceeds of sale without applying those proceeds to the payment of outstanding debt obligations. So if a city wanted to sell a building, land, other assets, basically those, those proceeds would go to the debt first before just going back into, um, a general fund.

719. 2:32:53

     There shall also be a court hearing on the recovery pl- plan within thirty days of receiving the plan. The court shall confirm the plan within sixty days of receipt of the plan unless there's a cl- clear convincing evidence that the plan is inadequate to alleviate fiscal, the fiscal emergency. The powers and duties of the receiver shall include but are not limited to requiring the city, the distressed city to take actions necessary to implement the plan, require the distressed city to engage in intergovernmental agreements between itself and other political subdivisions.

720. 2:33:28

     Um, and that's an opportunity also to save money if a city, again, whether it's maybe borrowing county facilities to provide a service or things like that. Um, they would submit quarterly reports to the governing body. Um, the CEO, if we're talking about a consolidated government of some sort, um, and the attorney general would recommend that the city, um, be disincorporated if that was found to be an option, or recommend that the AG and the court, um, that that mus- municipality be removed from receivership.

721. 2:34:02

     Any elected official or appointed official of the city municipality, um, may petition the court to enjoin any action of the receiver that is contrary to this code ins- code section. The bill includes a provision giving the governor power to direct the Department of Administrative Services to authorize an emer- emergency procurement and utilize statewide contracts and pre-qualified vendors to secure staffing or professional services.

722. 2:34:32

     Um, and also the Department of Administrative Services shall establish and maintain a master statewide contract roster, um, for local government turnaround specialists. And this is, you know, I would consider maybe one of the bigger, most important parts of the bill. Um, and they would do that in consultation and collaboration with the state auditor. The state auditor is here today, um, and can talk about it from his perspective, just the bigger challenges that we're seeing. And finally, um, a list of requirements, um, of those turnaround specialists, um, to help the city, um, recover, get back in a good financial position for its citizens.

723. 2:35:13

     Um, and that experience is, you know, someone who's experienced in providing fiscal recovery and also pro- professional credentials. Um, we believe that this is an opportunity to where we're seeing time and time again, I have in my own county, two fiscally distressed cities. Um, one we've seen in the last 24 months, um, spending down a fund balance to basically make their budget even. Um, looking into the future, um, from their own words, that they're gonna have to take out temporary loans to make pa- payroll.

724. 2:35:46

     And then I have another city that's probably, um, according to the tax commissioner, collecting nearly $300,000 without an adopted budget. Has not had a state audit in 18 years. Um, city court where there's no reconciliation of court cases and fines and fees from law enforcement. Um, and then we've seen even recently a, a fire chief in that city arrested by the state fire marshal for alleged fraud, um, with really no recourse in, in terms of what should happen to that city on behalf of the taxpayers of the government.

725. 2:36:20

     So we believe that this also helps de-politicize a lot of these situations where we find ourselves where, whether it's senators and representatives or others, um, you know, trying to make, you know, political issues out of a city when there is truly financial crisis, um, spending issues, deficit issues, um, from their balance sheets. And, and you know, and, and you all has, may have seen this in your communities where, you know, auditors go in, they audit cities, they audit counties, they even audit school boards.

726. 2:36:50

     And many of those government, um, agencies, and I'm speaking as a former city councilman, so I've lived this and breathed this myself, even as a former school board member, so I believe I have scr- street cred to talk about this. Um, you know, an auditor can give clean findings. An audit can be found to be clean, but you don't truly know what is the financial condition of that city entity, county entity, or school board until you really get into the dollars and cents of the audit to understand, for example, you know, are they spending more than they're bringing in?

727. 2:37:23

     What is the trend of that fund balance? What is the f- you know, their emergency fund when there's a natural disaster, there's a crisis? Um, the, the local city county water system breaks, and then they have no recourse to basically, you know, bring water into a community to basically provide essential services. Um, or if we've seen a natural disaster, does a school have to close, um, and that collaboration of a city, city and county with the school district to provide that service so the school can stay open just because they don't have enough fund balance to basically keep, keep the local government going.

728. 2:37:57

     So we believe this is a very fair, um, transparent approach, um, that allows the state to help these cities that are in distress. Um, and I think give, give them some leverage, um, to where the city has input. Um, there's an independent person, um, or body with a receivership in the state, in the state of Georgia as a backstop. And a- and as we all know, um, you know, the state of Georgia under the Constitution basically is given the power invested in all these city charters across the state, um, to be in existence.

729. 2:38:33

     But at the end of the day, this is about the taxpayer. This is about citizens having tools to save their own cities and find a positive way to move forward. Um, because, you know, we're seeing more and more of that, whether it's shortfalls because of, because of COVID money, um, shortfalls just because of pure, um, you know, just improper fiscal management. Or, as we've seen in some cities, maybe them not having the right experts at the table to give them that advice to make sound, prudent, fis- you know, fiscally, um, solvent decisions, um, on behalf of their citizens in terms of how they're doing business and also how they should structure contracts, um, to where there is a return on investment for every dollar spent.

730. 2:39:18

     Um, whereas in, in one of my cities, I see that, you know, we don't know what the dollar is because there is no city budget. Or in another case where for every dollar they're spending, the cost of that dollar is $1.38. And for many of you that are in business for yourselves, you know if you're running 30- 38 cents over every dollar in your business, you're probably gonna go out of business at some point because that's not a sustainable way to do money, and that's not a good return on investment. You know, I would always think, you know, break even or obviously we wanna spend less than that dollar for the taxpayer.

731. 2:39:49

     So, um, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn it back to the committee if there's questions. I know the state auditor, Greg Griffin, is here, um, for comments, and I think the Georgia Municipal Association would also have comments related to this bill.

732. 2:40:02

     Thank you, Mr. Leader. Comments, questions from committee?

733. 2:40:06

     One. One question.

734. 2:40:07

     Yes, sir.

735. 2:40:07

     Um, I, on line 302,

736. 2:40:12

     uh, you say any elected or appointed official of a distressed municipality, and I, if, if it's, if it-

737. 2:40:20

     Same senator. What line again? I'm sorry.

738. 2:40:22

     302.

739. 2:40:22

     302. Okay.

740. 2:40:23

     302. Y- uh, if it's, if it is a distressed municipality, evidently there's some dysfunctionality going on, and the electeds-

741. 2:40:34

     Mm-hmm

742. 2:40:35

     ... or the appointees are probably being very derelict in their duties.

743. 2:40:39

     Yes, sir.

744. 2:40:40

     Um, so I am asking you as the author of the, uh, legislation whether or not as a friendly amendment, would it be a friendly amendment to say, "or an interested par- or a party in interest"? Because if I can show a court that I have an interest in whatever this, uh, receiver is doing, I can have standing to bring it at least before the court. But if in fact you only have the elected or appointed derelict officials who have standing to object to whatever the receiver is doing, I would think there would be some real limitations.

745. 2:41:14

     So I'm just saying it, it, uh, it at least gives standing to a party in interest. If I can show the court I do have an interest in this, I should be able to bring it before the court. But right now- The way you have it written, it seems like one of these derelict elected or appointed officials is the only one that can stop the, the receiver from doing what the receiver should or should not be doing.

746. 2:41:38

     Right. Yeah. I mean, Senator, it's a good comment. About... I don't have a great answer for that. Um, maybe some of the folks behind me that are gonna come up to speak-

747. 2:41:45

     Sure

748. 2:41:45

     ... can speak to that.

749. 2:41:45

     Okay.

750. 2:41:45

     But I think that's a fair, um, I think, question, because as, as I said earlier, when we get into these situations, and, you know, we're truly trying to address a financial crisis, but then people wanna make it political. And when we get into elected officials, especially local elected officials, a lot of them like to make it political. Um, you know, there, there may be another party or somebody that maybe can, you know, bring some, you know, cooler heads, or to your point, um, maybe actually have, um, you know, a best interest that maybe others don't have.

751. 2:42:20

     But I'll, I'll let the committee maybe debate that and talk about that, and then the state auditor and maybe GMA has some comments related, um, to what th- bas- you know, what we're seeing across the entire state of how maybe that would apply. But thank you, Senator Mallow.

752. 2:42:32

     Thank you.

753. 2:42:34

     We got several more questions, but I do, do wanna remind the committee at the beginning of session, I may have done it last year. You know, the easy button, the, the Staples, you push the easy button.

754. 2:42:42

     Yeah.

755. 2:42:42

     I couldn't find one, but I mean, Mr. Leader, I mean, if you wanna change the charter, dissolve it. I mean, we can, we can just knock 'em out. I'm just kidding.

756. 2:42:51

     I got two of those already. We'll see what happens.

757. 2:42:54

     No, go ahead. All right. Uh, next up, Senator Setzler.

758. 2:42:57

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I've got a just couple of technical questions, and you m- may... By the way, I support the bill. Love what you're doing. Important stuff.

759. 2:43:05

     Thank you, Senator.

760. 2:43:06

     Um, now I, I am gonna ask the, the folks coming up about the, uh, what happens to bonds, you know, that, that have been engaged-

761. 2:43:11

     That's fair

762. 2:43:12

     ... I'll let, that's a more technical question. Um, the, uh, on line 167, um, the 5% or more, um, operating deficit, my, my mind goes to, do we wanna set that over some period of time? Is it a 5% deficit over two years, 5% deficit over a year? I know there, there could, there could be certain 5% operating deficit for a number of months. There could... The, the sales tax could go down. You could have... You know, COVID could happen.

763. 2:43:43

     There could be some little blip that maybe we oughta state, whether it's 2 years or 12 months. I don't have a... I'm not pre-judged to have, but we, we, we would seem to want to designate that over a period of time.

764. 2:43:55

     Yeah. I, I mean, s- I didn't mean to interrupt you, Senator Setzler. I mean, I do think that's a, that's a fair comment. Um, in some of the situations I'm dealing with now in Paulding County, um, you know, I don't, I don't know if there's this belief that, you know, cities can all of a sudden become equal and balanced overnight. Uh, you know, if you sh- if you show... If you go back one or two years and you're sho- showing this trend, you know, of millions of dollars, you know, going in deficit, um, it's gonna probably take months, if not years, to truly balance that out without having to take short-term loans to make payment, um, for employees, short-term loans or cash transfers, you know, to kinda avoid having to prop up a city service.

765. 2:44:39

     Um, I think the, the ultimate goal here is to wipe all those things away to where basically your accounts receivable, you're just, you know, based on whatever the taxes you're bringing in and the tax you're spending out, it keeps it clean to where maybe you are building up this fund balance for those emergencies. So I think to your point, you know, what is 5%? Is that 6 months, 12 months, 18 months over time, um, to allow a trend? And I think that's, you know, what I've tried to express to some of our communities in Paulding County. Like, you need to have a trend in place before you just go and balance your budget or write a, you know, something to say, "Hey, I'm healthy again." I, I don't think that it happens.

766. 2:45:18

     It doesn't ha- happen when you got a cardiovascular disease. It doesn't happen, for example, when you're trying to, uh, recover from something as serious as cancer. I mean, in every other facet of life, even in, in a financial perspective, um, there's no one pill that's gonna make you healthy again and give you a perfect blood pressure and a perfect, you know, workout routine to where you're gonna live, you know, for the rest of our lives till we're 150, which, unless you're Moses, um, maybe he can tell us right now, that's not gonna happen. So I, I do think that's a fair question, but I think that trend of how we get to healthiness and see some of our cities that are struggling and failing, um, even the situation I've heard through, um, some of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle with Quitman, um, how do we even take dire, dire, dire situation and, and maybe get them back to health?

767. 2:46:08

     And maybe it takes a decade. I don't know, Senator. But, um, but I think to have these tools in place so it's transparent, the taxpayer knows what they get, um, and I think there's a little bit of this independence that Senator, uh, Mangham and I were, were going back and forth a little bit on, you know, what could that look like, um, to kind of get to cooler hai- heads, um, I think would be the ultimate goal. So I think that is a fair question.

768. 2:46:31

     And one last, Mr. Chairman. The, the two cities in question, you're, you're, you're talking about, these are not cities with a population of 500 or 700 people. These are cities of, I guess the smallest one's in the 4,000 or 5,000 range, and others are even larger.

769. 2:46:44

     Yeah. I mean, one of my cities is 300 and something people. I mean, that's, that's, and that's a whole another s- And the other one, I mean, we're talking 5, 6, 7,000 people. Um, you know, so what I would consider kind of your low to medium size, um, city. Um, you know, and I, and I feel, I feel like in kind of that low medium to medium size, we're seeing a lot of this distress. I mean, we know the big cities have their own financial challenges. Um, and I know those are way more complex than probably we have, you know, 12 hours to talk about it here.

770. 2:47:18

     Um, but I, but I, but I think it is the long-term longevity of these smaller towns, um, in rural or kind of on the fringes of Metro Atlanta- Um, that are struggling because of growth and, and, and maybe some of that's separate from just fiscal mismanagement, maybe it's because of in- infrastructure costs and other things that they just literally can't absorb. But I do think they have to g- they sh- they should go through some sort of process having this conversation about whether maybe they should exist. I mean, I think that's a real conversation that we should not be afraid of, um, in, in terms of, you know, what is the best role of government if they can't afford to exist.

771. 2:47:57

     Um, and I, and I think people who just wanna push on back and push back on that and say, "Well, that's a political thing," then we're doing a disa- disservice to the people who are actually barely making ends meet, going to work every single day to pay for their rent, pay for their food, pay for their gas, pay for their kid to go to school, um, and then, you know, levying more taxes to basically this, you know, continuous black hole that's never gonna make it better. And I just think it's, it's unfair to those citizens in these communities. Um, so I think to have some, you know, some, uh, tools in the toolbox would help.

772. 2:48:32

     Thank you. Senator Mallow.

773. 2:48:35

     Absolutely. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, to my friend, the majority leader, uh, just a couple questions. Uh, in this very committee just earlier this year, uh, we heard bills to limit the city's ability, uh, for property owners to annex into those cities, which would create additional revenue through property taxes for those cities. Um, and so it appears to me if we want those cities to provide the services they provide and property owners want to annex in, now this will require, that bill required approval from the county commission.

774. 2:49:06

     And so it seems as if we're tying the hands of the local government when they have the tools to do it. Uh, and my second question would be, I don't know if Paulding County has a development authority, but should the development authority come in and abate taxes and put a new deal in the city, um, that is in question here, and they cannot collect property taxes from them, but they still have to deliver services, police, fire, s- sanitation, all those things. So then we're effectively then tying their hands again, um, through a development authority should that be the, the causation.

775. 2:49:41

     Uh, and then my, my last question would be, uh, when I read this bill and I talk about the ways that, you know, uh, we talk about the receivership, uh, going forward in line 216, talking about a recovery plan and et cetera, um, how do cities, small cities like this recover when they may be at the other end of things happening to them that they may not necessarily control?

776. 2:50:12

     Um, and so as the author is here, maybe he can also, uh, speak to what that may look like. Um, you know, talking about general obligation debt-

777. 2:50:22

     Mm-hmm

778. 2:50:22

     ... uh, tax anticipation notes, um, and et cetera, should they be, you know, taking on debt to expand or provide services to annex in-

779. 2:50:31

     Right

780. 2:50:31

     ... to meet this growing demand of growth, but they're waiting on property taxes to come in. Um, what does that period of time look like? Are the collections where they should be? Do they just have people not paying their tax bills? Could it be one large entity not paying the property tax bill, but they've received the services? Can you speak to those questions?

781. 2:50:48

     Yeah. So I'll work backwards in kinda what you said. So I think, Senator Mallow, I think the last part of what you said, um, I, I think is critical because I think to have that, I mean, just like you and I with our family budget or, you know, those of us that, you know, do financial planning for our families or even our businesses, like you're going to every tool and understand what i- what is that plan. Most of these cities, you know, they pass a budget. There, there really is no plan. And I think when you get into that situation to where, you know, you can potentially restructure contracts, or maybe to your point, you have a challenge where maybe the taxes, whatever I'm collecting them on, I don't know, SPLOST, LOS, whatever, is not really reconciling where I'm at.

782. 2:51:35

     I think it allows for the receivership and the independent folks to basically try and reconcile, I think, with that city, you know, what are the options and what are the steps? But then I think it forces the electeds to have that conversation where in some cities right now, that, that conversation won't happen. Um, so I think that gives a-- I think that brings fairness, I think, to the table, um, if I'm hearing you right, of kind of what should those expectations be when you, when you kind of build this, this plan with this independent receiver. Um, I think, you know, when we talk about, you know, industrial building authorities taking out abatements, um, for, for taxes, um, I think that could be a, you know, in some cases, a dangerous slippery slope.

783. 2:52:16

     I don't know that a building authority like in Paulding County, um, is put in existence to basically pay property taxes. Um, I do think it's, it's there to encourage growth. I mean, just like I know you, you work with your development authorities in Southeast Georgia, so there's opportunities there. But the city I'm, I'm, you know, referring to in, in, in my community doesn't even have a property tax. So we are in a situation where money is basically, you know, not being managed appropriately with no property tax.

784. 2:52:48

     So you know every year when I build this family budget for the city, I have a finite amount of money coming in the door that the taxpayers paid. It doesn't probably change. Um, you know, their revenue is mostly based off of sales tax. Um, so obviously if, you know, the economy's hard, sales tax is probably gonna be down a little bit. If the economy is booming, sales tax is gonna be a little bit up. But, you know, they're often, they're working off of literally a fixed budget, and when you're overspending that fixed budget and you don't have a tax, like you kind of already know what your baseline should be.

785. 2:53:25

     Um, I, my personal feeling and the community's personal feeling is that I would rather you get your, your, your budget tight and against what you're balanced against- And what you know you're bringing in, and I think to where Senator Setzler was going, show a trend that you can manage that money. You know, it's, uh, it's, it's kind of like, you know, if you're in Alcoholic Anonymous and you're trying to get off of alcohol, and you don't stick to the plan, but I keep giving you, Senator Mallow, a bottle o- a bottle of liquor to keep drinking, to keep spending- ...

786. 2:53:56

     you're never gonna, you're never gonna straighten out your life. And I think that's where, you know, it's, it's critical to demonstrate, you know, kind of the restraint and, um, how to stick to that plan before, you know, maybe other tools are put in place to levy a new property tax or maybe the Industrial Building Authority, um, you know, um, uh, you know, rebating taxes of some sort. Um, I think at some place and time that maybe that's an okay tool.

787. 2:54:30

     But I think to say, you know, "Senator Mallow, I'm gonna, I'm gonna levy a $300 property tax on you because I've not made good financial decisions," I, I think you and I would say that's, that's probably not a fair deal if, you know, you're already making ends meet buying groceries and paying for diapers and putting, you know, and paying for childcare. I think that makes it harder on the local, and then you create this, you know, storm that you never get out of. I mean, I... But, but I think your comments are, I think are, um, well taken, and I think they're very measured.

788. 2:55:11

     Go ahead, Sam.

789. 2:55:12

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I, just to comment, I, you mentioned, uh, the city of Quitman. Um, and obviously, I, I represent the city of Quitman and, and I'm dealing with some of these issues. So I, I appreciate a effort to, uh, to try to catch this before it gets as bad as the city of Quitman with nine audits, and we have no idea where they stand financially. We have no, uh... Their, their water infrastructure, their sewer infrastructure, their, e- everything, the LMEG funds, they've been missing out on all of those resources that other communities in our state have been receiving.

790. 2:55:47

     And, um, you know, we don't know at what point that, you know, something bad is gonna happen there. And, um, the, the, the current model that we have of if you don't do your audit, you just don't get any state and federal funds evidently doesn't work very well, so we've gotta have a tool where we can step in and try to get ahold of these problems before they get as bad as, as what they are.

791. 2:56:08

     Yeah. And, and Senator Watson, I wanna be very clear for our, uh, ears and audience listening outside this building. This, this is not about taking city land. This is not about, um, you know, the county government trying to enrich itself. I mean, you know, I think this is about financial stewardship, especially in a time right now everybody is struggling. And we constantly hear government should live within its means. We constantly hear that, you know, government is spending too much.

792. 2:56:39

     And I, and I think even between the majority party and the minority parties, we debate, you know, what is the best, you know, pathway to address affordability? Whatever that is, I think one thing we all agree is that if you let government just explode, and there is no recourse, and there is no handle on that, you know, the farmers in your community pay, and the teachers in my community, you know, pay for it. Um, I think is, you know, e- even between my house and Senator Howard's house, between Paulding and Cobb County, it's the exact same situation.

793. 2:57:16

     If, if we don't have some sort of constraints or measure controls on what government is spending, at the end of the day, you know, we're all going to fail. And I think that's what, you know, we need to give the, our, some of our people the tools to help put things in place and, and save some of these communities because right now it's, it, it is either kind of get your act together or, you know, maybe do, you know, why should you exist? And, and as Senator, you know, uh, Mangham talked about, um, you know, we do have local elected officials that, you know, they talk a good game, like, "I'm gonna fix it," but then we find ourself right back in the same boat a year later and then, you know, the perpetual no audits or whatever.

794. 2:57:57

     So-

795. 2:57:58

     Well-

796. 2:57:58

     It's a challenge.

797. 2:57:59

     Thank you for the bill.

798. 2:58:00

     Thank you.

799. 2:58:03

     Senator Howard.

800. 2:58:04

     Appreciate that, Mr. Chair. Thank you, uh, Leader. Um, Majority Leader, you clearly, um, you're in here 'cause you care about the people, and you know about process, so, um, I'm trying to catch up. So can you... This is a pretty extensive substitute, and clearly you're identifying problems that have been going on for quite a while, and you've been, you know, a state senator doing your thing for a while. Can you tell me how we got to this point with this solution with, um...

801. 2:58:35

     I think that's, uh, I guess my first question.

802. 2:58:37

     Yeah, it's a great question. I'm, I think it's-

803. 2:58:39

     Like that timeline. Can you walk me through kind of over the last-

804. 2:58:41

     Yeah

805. 2:58:41

     ... few months how we got to this bill sub today?

806. 2:58:45

     Yeah. I mean, I think going, going back, I mean, even over the last few years, um, you know, a lot of cities either not doing audits. I had a city that did not do audits for six-plus years, um, the city of Aragon in Polk County, Georgia. Um, they had a lot of challenges. They had a mayor allegedly taking city dollars and loaning it out to private citizens. Um, you know, just a lot of different challenges. And then once they cleaned house, um, with the help of the state auditor, who was in the room, um, we were, we were able to find a pathway for them to, um, you know, get audit, you know, audit compliant, I guess is what I'll say.

807. 2:59:29

     Um, and it took, it took a number of years.

808. 2:59:31

     Mm-hmm.

809. 2:59:32

     Um, and it, and it took us having to talk about dissolving the city. It talked about a lot of those challenges. But one of the challenges, and I'll let the state auditor speak for himself, is that, you know, when it comes to, um, holding people accountable, as Senator Watson said, you know, beyond, you know, DCA money or maybe some DOT money, there, there really is no kind of, you know, mechanism in terms of accountability. We know what the, the mechanism of accountability is with the state when we don't perform and bond ratings go down and everything else, or what, what would happen in mine and your private business.

810. 3:00:04

     Um, but I think what we've seen the last several years, um, and this kind of just- ... you know, accelerating into more cities across the state is why we've, we've, we're here today.

811. 3:00:15

     If I, if I may, um, I was kind of talking about this specific legislation. We're looking at a, a pretty extensive substitute that's doing something very big, right? You're, you're... We have to sign a superseding the will of the people because there's a unique challenge, right?

812. 3:00:30

     Right.

813. 3:00:30

     So with this particular sub, you know, I'm just catching up reading it in real time over the last hour or so, of how did it get, how did this language get here? Like, what did this language look like over the last couple of weeks or couple of months? Because this is obviously a, the problem is big.

814. 3:00:49

     Mm-hmm.

815. 3:00:49

     You've had eyes on it for many, many years. You have some, some leeway when it comes to, like, you have some sway when it comes to getting legislation through. You've, you pa- passed some very important legislation-

816. 3:01:00

     Right

817. 3:01:00

     ... over the last, uh, few months. So how did this language get here considering such a, this is such a big issue?

818. 3:01:06

     Yeah, I think, so we, we introduced this legislation or a version of this legislation several weeks ago. So this is, this is not a new concept. Um-

819. 3:01:15

     Was that s- which Senate bill? Was that a-

820. 3:01:17

     I'll have to go back-

821. 3:01:18

     Okay

822. 3:01:18

     ... and see which one. Um, but in terms of the concepts and some of the mechanisms in here, um, it's not a new ... Also, and these are things that we've been talking about for months, if not in some form or fashion or, you know, con- conceptually, you know, for the last few years.

823. 3:01:34

     Okay.

824. 3:01:35

     Um, so I think that's why, you know, as we continue to see challenges, you know, this, this creates an apolitical solution to, to allow the citizens, the electeds, the House and Senate-

825. 3:01:48

     Yeah

826. 3:01:48

     ... um, and the community, you know, find some independent-

827. 3:01:52

     Yeah

828. 3:01:52

     ... remedies to solve a problem.

829. 3:01:54

     I think we have a lot of agreement there. Can I ask one more, another question? Um, 'cause I just want, such a big deal, we need to make sure we have good input on this, right? So getting it last minute makes it hard to, so that's why I have a few questions.

830. 3:02:06

     Go for it.

831. 3:02:06

     Um, clearly the state has, this is not the first time the state has had to deal with cities that have had some trou- some trouble, and there's been, there's laws in place. But this bill is changing some of those laws, and you went through it pretty briefly earlier. Can you go through that again? Like, what are the specific changes that triggers the state needs to get involved?

832. 3:02:26

     Yeah. And I'll leave some of that up to the next couple of guests who are gonna talk, and they can get into the weeds. I think I've gotten-

833. 3:02:31

     Yeah

834. 3:02:31

     ... the questions, um-

835. 3:02:32

     But just, but just big picture.

836. 3:02:34

     Uh.

837. 3:02:34

     When you're asking-

838. 3:02:34

     Right

839. 3:02:35

     ... when your, when your constituents in Paulding County say, "Hey, what are you doing down there?"

840. 3:02:38

     Right.

841. 3:02:38

     You're talking about a couple of cities. I don't know if it's Hiram or others, but-

842. 3:02:41

     Right

843. 3:02:42

     ... um, you're gonna get questions.

844. 3:02:43

     Oh, yeah.

845. 3:02:43

     How would you say that, how would you explain what this law does as far as the triggers, like, in a sentence?

846. 3:02:50

     So I think it goes back to what Senator Watson said. Um, you know, cities do audits, but audits don't tell the full story. Just because somebody checks the box and says, "I have a clean audit," doesn't tell the story until you get into the weeds of what is the audit. And last year when we found that there were challenges in terms of ex- more expenditures than revenue, just kind of basic simple math, um, it started leading down this road of questions and conversations of, you know, what is the best way to do it?

847. 3:03:20

     At the ultimate, at the end of the day, whether it's popular or unpopular, it takes leadership to basically find ways to empower and create tools, you know. And so, you know, we have an, an auditor, auditor, state auditor that works with the House and the Senate who is independent in nature. But if we don't give the auditor tools like we do in the private sector to go through and review, um, budgets and documents and how decisions were made related to those expenses and revenues, and it may be even in some dire situations, which is not in this bill today to be very clear, maybe investigative powers like some audits have, like we do in the private sector or other parts of industry, um, you know-

848. 3:04:03

     So, so what, what... And, and I hate to interrupt. I just don't, I didn't hear, I'm not hearing what, in just real lay person's term before we get to the auditor, what does this bill do to change the trigger to say the state needs to get involved?

849. 3:04:14

     I think it, it, what it changes is that it allows tools and mechanisms for the state to hold people accountable sooner than later when problems happen, not wait until basically-

850. 3:04:25

     Okay

851. 3:04:26

     ... we're, we're in a dire straits situation without many tools to use.

852. 3:04:31

     Would you think it's helpful if we were able to kind of review this language a couple of weeks ago, you know, in this committee instead of, like, we're, we're almost done. We're a couple days out, right? So-

853. 3:04:41

     Yeah, but, I mean, this is important language, Senator.

854. 3:04:43

     This is so, this is so important.

855. 3:04:44

     Right.

856. 3:04:44

     And it seems like having that good dialogue to really dig-

857. 3:04:48

     Right. Well, we're having a good dialogue right now.

858. 3:04:50

     Yeah, but I'm, you had time to read this for, you know-

859. 3:04:52

     Right

860. 3:04:53

     ... a while. I'm reading it right now.

861. 3:04:54

     We can, we can get together offline and, and review.

862. 3:04:56

     Yeah. But we're talking about a potential dissolving cities and charters, like-

863. 3:05:00

     Yeah, through a receivership, right.

864. 3:05:02

     Right.

865. 3:05:02

     Having an independent person-

866. 3:05:04

     You have a head start on the bill. I'm still-

867. 3:05:06

     What's that?

868. 3:05:07

     You have a head start on the bill. I'm still working my way through it, so that's, and that's what I'm trying to walk through. Um, are we gonna get it, will the auditor be able to kind of walk us through section by section?

869. 3:05:16

     The state auditor is here to answer questions.

870. 3:05:18

     But will he, he be able to walk us through just-

871. 3:05:21

     Well, I just walked us through. I mean, if we want to, me to start reading pages-

872. 3:05:25

     You, you're-

873. 3:05:25

     ... I can do that too

874. 3:05:26

     ... you're going fast. You're going, you're faster than me.

875. 3:05:28

     Hey.

876. 3:05:28

     You're smarter than I am, I think.

877. 3:05:29

     I don't know if I'm smarter than you, but-

878. 3:05:31

     Well, with this issue-

879. 3:05:32

     Trying to make use of the time.

880. 3:05:33

     Yeah. Um-

881. 3:05:35

     And I appreciate the questions.

882. 3:05:36

     Yeah. So the part that's we're striking, can you explain what this new legislation would be? Can you be specific on, like, what exactly are we striking and how are we replacing that?

883. 3:05:51

     Do you have a, a reference to what we're striking specifically?

884. 3:05:54

     Yeah, I'm look- I'm, I'm looking at 44 through... Most of 44 through 74. Well, 77. Yeah, 74. And I wish, I don't even know if people online-

885. 3:06:07

     Right

886. 3:06:07

     ... or in the audience even know what's going on.

887. 3:06:09

     Yeah, so basically 44 through that section is, um, Senator Watson and I were, as we were, um, discussing before, when it comes to the Department of, you know, Community Affairs holding state grant money, compiling a list of s- of cities that are not in compliance, um, basically this is what that section is, is striking. So basically instead of creating a list, and a city goes on a list and they're not eligible for grant money, basically this bill actually now has teeth in the law to say that instead of just putting you on a list and we're gonna watch you, and maybe you never get grant money one day, we're actually gonna, you know, hold you accountable and address the issue.

888. 3:06:48

     That's all those sections-

889. 3:06:49

     Okay

890. 3:06:49

     ... that's all those stricken sections mean.

891. 3:06:50

     And for the tw- uh, 112 through 123, tell me about why that was necessary to strike.

892. 3:07:02

     It's basically more of the same, uh, related to DCA.

893. 3:07:08

     Okay. And so section two, i- is this all new language?

894. 3:07:15

     New to... Compared to what?

895. 3:07:17

     Compared to anything that was in statute before.

896. 3:07:21

     I mean, if it's, if- if it's struck in the substitute, it's, it's gone. And this substitute-

897. 3:07:25

     Mr. Leader, um, we got a-

898. 3:07:27

     Yep

899. 3:07:27

     ... you wanna phone a friend in the audience? They got... They made, uh-

900. 3:07:31

     Yep. They can come on up

901. 3:07:32

     ...

902. 3:07:35

     my-

903. 3:07:35

     Country lawyer.

904. 3:07:36

     Country lawyer. What's up, man?

905. 3:07:38

     How are you?

906. 3:07:39

     Good.

907. 3:07:40

     I'm Rushi Patel with GMA. And I can, I think I can handle-

908. 3:07:43

     Thank you

909. 3:07:43

     ... some of these questions here. So if you look at section one of the bill, section one of the bill is current law, but this was a law that was passed 30 years ago, the mid 1990s, to get rid of a bunch of cities that just didn't exist. They-

910. 3:07:57

     Oh, Richmond, Augusta

911. 3:07:57

     ... they, they existed in name, but they weren't doing anything.

912. 3:07:59

     My God.

913. 3:08:00

     And so all the strikes you see in section one are related to provisions of that law that were tied in time to 1994, 1995, and 1996, and they're kind of just clean up at this point, because they, they don't really m- m- make any sense to be in the law in 19... Like, if you look at line 112, it says, "At the session of the General Assembly held in the year 1996." Well-

914. 3:08:24

     Right. That was confusing to me

915. 3:08:25

     ... 30 years ago.

916. 3:08:26

     Okay. That, that makes sense.

917. 3:08:27

     So that's, that's why that's being struck.

918. 3:08:28

     Okay.

919. 3:08:28

     So section one is really just clean up.

920. 3:08:30

     Got it.

921. 3:08:31

     Section two is the new language.

922. 3:08:33

     Okay. Okay.

923. 3:08:33

     And, and s- uh, Senator Anavitarte had a bill a few weeks ago, probably over a month ago, um, I think it was Senate Bill 390 or 599, that was very similar to what section two is. Um, I think the significant-

924. 3:08:48

     But that never came here, right? We didn't see that here, 599? We didn't see that language or-

925. 3:08:52

     I don't remember what committee that was in.

926. 3:08:54

     Okay.

927. 3:08:54

     Um, but the, I think the significant difference between that bill and what you see here is that that bill had a lot of the, um, had a lot of the, uh, responsibilities put on DCA, and this is more similar to current processes in the law for when local officials commit crimes, quite frankly. And so this is just copying and pasting a lot of that.

928. 3:09:19

     Okay.

929. 3:09:19

     Um, and so what you have here is a really good middle ground. Uh, I, I think the senator explained this really well, is right now the current law is that you either get rid of a charter and, and say bye bye to the city, and then you create problems of who's g- who's providing police service, who's providing f- fire service, who's doing all that there, or you let the city continue to run in a dysfunctional way. And so what this is doing is it's creating a, um, a tool for a middle path to get some...

930. 3:09:51

     effectively getting, like, a super city manager in place for a couple of years to straighten that ship. And that, that's effectively what this language in section two does.

931. 3:10:02

     Um, so does it, does it acknowledge if there is a city already, like, in a process to get on its feet or get in a better standing? Does this language allow for a process to be complete before the state gets involved? We just had another bill where the state's getting involved while a local process is underway, and that, that's, that was Richmond, Augusta. Now, here in Paulding County, I just don't know if this, does this language allow for that before we say, "Nope, we think it's urgent, like now urgent, not six months or a year from now urgent." So is there allowance for, for local government to do what loc- to get on its feet by the people elected by the people of that city?

932. 3:10:45

     Uh, and so I, that's a good question. And so what I would say to that is, you know, the c- the current state of the matter is, is that, um, you could have newly... I've seen a lot of cities where they've been dysfunctional, and then you have new folks come in that are very competent, but they're having to deal with 15, 20 years of incompetence, you know?

933. 3:11:03

     Yeah.

934. 3:11:03

     And, and that's unfortunately something that does happen.

935. 3:11:07

     But I'm more speaking about, uh, like, if they're in a plan.

936. 3:11:10

     Yeah.

937. 3:11:10

     You know, they're, uh, they're-

938. 3:11:11

     A local plan. A locally created plan

939. 3:11:12

     ... there, there's some kind of plan. They've hired a consultant. They're doing, they're working the plan to get in a better position.

940. 3:11:19

     And, and-

941. 3:11:19

     Is this, does, is there, does this language allow them to-

942. 3:11:22

     Y-

943. 3:11:22

     ... complete that plan?

944. 3:11:23

     Yeah. And so what I would say about that is, like, the, the way that this is drafted is it leaves it to the local delegation to, to have that relationship with the local officials. Without, you know, if you take that away right now, you're in a s- you're in a worse situation, I think, 'cause they, they could have, um, they could have a local plan, and the local delegation could say- You might have a plan, but I've been dealing with this for 20 years, so I'm just gonna yank the charter.

945. 3:11:51

     Yeah. Does this-

946. 3:11:52

     So this allows for-

947. 3:11:53

     Does it-

948. 3:11:54

     ... that same conversation

949. 3:11:54

     But I, y'all are giving examples that I think are really fair.

950. 3:11:57

     Mm-hmm.

951. 3:11:57

     But does, I don't, and I'm, again, I'm still reading it right now. Does, does the new state law that you're proposing identify how long somebody has been in trouble? 'Cause I didn't see that yet. Because all the examples you're giving is people have been doing... It's been a mess for a really long time. So does the state law account for the mess being a mess for a long time, so now the state has to go in? And I just didn't hear that part.

952. 3:12:23

     Yeah, so I mean, that's a good question. And so if you look at, I think it's, um, yeah, so s-

953. 3:12:28

     And thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to go through these. Yeah, yeah.

954. 3:12:31

     So starting at line, at the beginning of Section 2, at Line 142, basically, there, there's basically two ways that you end up in this position of potentially having a receiver appointed. One is, um, if you fail to meet one of the minimum standards in the current existing law, and those standards are failing to provide at least thir- three services, failing to have at least six meetings of, you know, o- open meetings through the year, or failing to have elections. If you fail to do one of those, that could put you in receivership.

955. 3:13:02

     And that's no, that's no change.

956. 3:13:04

     N-

957. 3:13:04

     That's already been-

958. 3:13:05

     That, that's, tho- tho- those standards are in the law for-

959. 3:13:07

     Okay

960. 3:13:07

     ... inactive municipalities for basically yanking a charter.

961. 3:13:10

     Got it, got it.

962. 3:13:11

     Um, and then you have the additions on lines 147 to 167.

963. 3:13:16

     And this gets to the question I had for the leader, right?

964. 3:13:18

     Yeah.

965. 3:13:18

     Okay.

966. 3:13:18

     And so 147 to 167 are very much tied to the finances of the city. The State of Georgia is very unique in the Union is that the State of Georgia is the only state that, um, has a statute that prohibits municipal bankruptcies. Um, and that's a good thing. Our cities are supposed to have balanced budgets, and our cities are pr- supposed to do annual budgets, and they're supposed to do audits frequently. Um, and, and unfortunately, we do have, we have 536 members, and unfortunately, we do have some members that fail to do that sort of thing.

967. 3:13:51

     So what you see on lines 147 to 167 is language that is very much tied to making sure the city gets their ship in order on their finances.

968. 3:14:02

     Okay.

969. 3:14:02

     Um, because we're not supposed to go bankrupt in Georgia.

970. 3:14:05

     Can you say that three times fast?

971. 3:14:07

     Get their ship in or-

972. 3:14:08

     Sorry. We've been here three hours.

973. 3:14:09

     I can't.

974. 3:14:09

     I can't help myself.

975. 3:14:10

     Yeah. Yeah.

976. 3:14:11

     So wi- with that, uh, line 1, 166, the municipality's accumulated or operated in a deficit equal to 5% or more of its revenues.

977. 3:14:21

     Mm-hmm.

978. 3:14:22

     Is this for a certain amount of years, or...?

979. 3:14:26

     And, and that's a great question because-

980. 3:14:27

     'Cause that seems like a-

981. 3:14:28

     ... Senator Setzler raised that question as well.

982. 3:14:29

     Yeah, I'm just trying to-

983. 3:14:30

     And I think that, that's a, that's a valid, valid and good question.

984. 3:14:33

     Mm.

985. 3:14:33

     And I think that, um-

986. 3:14:34

     So is, like, so for, a city can be doing everything right.

987. 3:14:37

     Right.

988. 3:14:37

     But if they have a year or two where they're 5% off, that, that can, that's enough to trigger this whole mechanism that we're talking about.

989. 3:14:48

     Yeah, and I think the, the way-

990. 3:14:49

     That's-

991. 3:14:49

     ... the way that it's-

992. 3:14:51

     I just wanna make sure I'm h- I'm reading that right.

993. 3:14:53

     Yeah, no, it's a great question, and I think the, the thing it ties back to, in my mind, is that cities in Georgia are supposed to have annual balanced budgets.

994. 3:15:01

     You're right. Right.

995. 3:15:02

     And so that should probably be, like, an annual, you know, this is your past year budget. You're, are you 5% over on what you're supposed to have? Is that a problem on an annual? But it, it's clear-

996. 3:15:15

     It, but, but, but-

997. 3:15:15

     ... I, I understand that's just how we state that.

998. 3:15:16

     So, like, by itself, this thing can trigger this whole thing that we're getting, like, a couple days before a session is about to be done. And it just seems, I don't know, like, I think we should be really be very careful before we start jumping in into local matters. And all the examples that you all have given, which I completely agree with, people have, it's been a mess for a long time.

999. 3:15:38

     Mm-hmm.

1000. 3:15:39

      Let's, it just, I, as f- fellow, you know, we've been school board members, it seems like a local folks should have a chance to elect new people, get things in order with, say, some help. Uh, you do this. You help, uh, you help folks all the time. But the fact that this is, this trigger is like, boom, like, like, this is a new trigger. This is not a-

1001. 3:16:02

      Uh, I, I think the alternative to, to having this in the law is the charter getting yanked, and that is much worse for the people who live in that community than having their services-

1002. 3:16:09

      Yeah, y'all remember the hammer, right? We got this. We can, if you want to.

1003. 3:16:13

      Yeah. That, I mean, that's, that's fun and all, but this is serious business.

1004. 3:16:17

      Yeah.

1005. 3:16:17

      Like, actually, I reject the fact that you only have this or this because it, it, you have other options, which is, let's work on our relationships with our delegations and all those other things. And then maybe if there's a, and I'm just, and maybe I can offer an amendment maybe.

1006. 3:16:34

      But, Senator, I mean, in, in fairness, I, I hear you, and I know the road you're trying to go down here, but I mean, let's, let's be real. I think-

1007. 3:16:40

      Like, a pattern is what I'm after

1008. 3:16:41

      ... well, well, you know, there, there's a pattern with elections, but at the same time, if the taxpayer and the citizen that's paying the taxes is gonna be real- you know, um, rely on the politician to save their problems, do you really think that's gonna happen? I mean, maybe-

1009. 3:16:56

      Yeah

1010. 3:16:56

      ... where you live in Cobb County it does, but I've been, I've never seen that in durable. I've never seen that in Paulding County, where, you know, sometimes people have to step in-

1011. 3:17:05

      Yeah

1012. 3:17:05

      ... and have hard conversations. I think, you know, did, did we wait for new elected board members to happen when the DeKalb School Board basically had to be completely removed and a receiver-

1013. 3:17:16

      Yeah, I'm glad you brought that-

1014. 3:17:17

      ... put in place by the governor

1015. 3:17:18

      ... I'm glad you brought that up

1016. 3:17:18

      But that's kind of the same situation.

1017. 3:17:19

      No, no, no. I'm glad you brought that up because in DeKalb County Schools, there was a pattern over many years with various school boards, and so there is, it's a different situation. All I'm saying is-

1018. 3:17:28

      It's not that different

1019. 3:17:29

      ... so all I'm saying is maybe, and again, I'll, I can make an amend- uh, offer an amendment if-

1020. 3:17:35

      Okay

1021. 3:17:35

      ... if you would be o- okay with it, but line 166, if the municipality has accumulated or operated a deficit equal or to 5% or more of its revenues. If we can put some kind of timetable, you know, for two consecutive years or-

1022. 3:17:47

      Well, I think that's what Senator Setzler had-

1023. 3:17:49

      Right. Right

1024. 3:17:49

      ... had already raised.

1025. 3:17:50

      Yeah. And s-

1026. 3:17:51

      Right

1027. 3:17:51

      ... but I just wanted to highlight it and echo. You know, I'm not, I'm not, we're not battling. We just wanna make it right. I think we just wanna be fair.

1028. 3:17:57

      No, I, I mean, I want it to be, you know, great.

1029. 3:17:59

      And I think we all agree that we don't want-

1030. 3:18:01

      That's right

1031. 3:18:01

      ... dysfunctional municipalities just kind of continuing on. It's, I mean, I agree with-

1032. 3:18:05

      Right

1033. 3:18:05

      ... a lot of what you said.

1034. 3:18:07

      Right.

1035. 3:18:07

      So, and that was, this goes back to those triggers. Like-

1036. 3:18:10

      Yeah

1037. 3:18:10

      ... I just want to feel good about before the state jumps in. Like-

1038. 3:18:13

      No, no, I, I think me and you are on the same page with that.

1039. 3:18:15

      Yeah.

1040. 3:18:16

      So, no, and I think-

1041. 3:18:17

      And of course I'll, I'll yield-

1042. 3:18:18

      That's a true, I mean-

1043. 3:18:19

      I'll yield to the Senator 37

1044. 3:18:20

      ... you have to demonstrate and-

1045. 3:18:21

      Yeah

1046. 3:18:21

      ... Senator Howard, I mean, you have to demonstrate like a trend. But the trend in terms of how you, you know, got into the situation, there's got to be a trend of how you're going to get out of the situation, too. But I think leaving it up to people who are saying or rejecting a payment plan or a financial plan, and for them just to say in public, "I'm going to fix the problem," like that's not a plan. And that's-

1047. 3:18:47

      Yeah

1048. 3:18:47

      ... you know, if we want to talk about the city of Hiram, that's basically what they're doing.

1049. 3:18:52

      It's okay. I don't know enough about it.

1050. 3:18:54

      I, I think you do, but it's okay.

1051. 3:18:56

      I actually don't.

1052. 3:18:57

      I love, I love you, man.

1053. 3:18:59

      I don't know.

1054. 3:19:00

      You're a freshman. We're, we're, we-

1055. 3:19:01

      For the record

1056. 3:19:01

      ... we still got to haze you, though.

1057. 3:19:03

      So

1058. 3:19:03

      We need you to bring a bill.

1059. 3:19:07

      Amen. Praise the Lord.

1060. 3:19:08

      And also, and just as true is that I'm just now kind of finding out some-

1061. 3:19:12

      ... drama going on in Hiram. I really don't know a lot.

1062. 3:19:15

      I know. They, they-

1063. 3:19:15

      Hold on, hold on, hold on

1064. 3:19:16

      ... they call it drama, I call it drama.

1065. 3:19:16

      Hold on, hold on. I don't, I don't know a lot of the backstory at all. I'm just speaking to, uh, this pattern of like-

1066. 3:19:23

      No, I hear you

1067. 3:19:24

      ... a itchy, a itchy-

1068. 3:19:24

      Yes, sir

1069. 3:19:24

      ... trigger finger for the state getting involved in local matters-

1070. 3:19:27

      Yeah

1071. 3:19:27

      ... which I've been on the backside of, you know.

1072. 3:19:30

      Oh, we, well, we-

1073. 3:19:30

      And so

1074. 3:19:31

      ... we can trade war stories. Of course.

1075. 3:19:32

      Yeah. So I just want to be a- a- as a principled body-

1076. 3:19:36

      Yeah, I g- I hear you, sir

1077. 3:19:37

      ... let's just consider some of the ideas that, you know-

1078. 3:19:41

      And, and our districts are almost neighbors. We're not neighbors, but we're close.

1079. 3:19:44

      Yeah. Hey, in my mind, we are neighbors, and again, that's part of why I love you, sir-

1080. 3:19:47

      Yes, sir

1081. 3:19:47

      ... 'cause I'm loving my neighbor. Um, so thank you-

1082. 3:19:50

      Thank you

1083. 3:19:50

      ... Mr. Chairman. I'm going to make some-

1084. 3:19:51

      And I'll make a comment for you as well. Uh, if you look at, yeah, lines 168 through 173, you know, you've got, you know, where the governor would, would appoint a commission, but, but it's got to be triggered by a majority of the senators and representatives from-

1085. 3:20:05

      Right

1086. 3:20:05

      ... that affected district. So you've got some backstops there as well at the state level.

1087. 3:20:09

      A- a- and Mr. Chairman-

1088. 3:20:10

      Yeah

1089. 3:20:10

      ... I might add that that commission is going to be the DCA commissioner and two city officials from somewhere else in the state. So it's local folks that are going to be on that commission.

1090. 3:20:21

      And it's good we got ACCG sitting next to the leader. I mean chairman. Sorry. My bad. Sorry. I know that was offensive, I apologize. And that, that was not intended to be a joke, so that was the most laughs I got.

1091. 3:20:38

      Wow. You owe him now.

1092. 3:20:40

      I do. Yeah, I'm aware of that.

1093. 3:20:42

      Okay.

1094. 3:20:42

      On oversight and just let him know. Appreciate that. Appreciate that. Thanks.

1095. 3:20:48

      I don't even remember where we're at now. Um, Senator Ginn, you still have a question?

1096. 3:20:52

      Well, Mr. Chairman, I, I don't know how long you want to, uh, have speakers come up. Uh-

1097. 3:20:56

      It'd be appropriate

1098. 3:20:57

      ... but, but, uh, I, I would think that we've got support from, uh, is anybody in opposition to the bill?

1099. 3:21:04

      Mm-hmm.

1100. 3:21:06

      No.

1101. 3:21:06

      No, they're all for it.

1102. 3:21:07

      I mean, if he wants to say something.

1103. 3:21:08

      Me, uh, I'm, I'm going to move, uh, that we move, do pass LC62-0519S, uh, House Bill 1166 forward and do pass.

1104. 3:21:22

      Second.

1105. 3:21:23

      We got a motion and a second.

1106. 3:21:25

      That's Snickers. I ain't going for it.

1107. 3:21:26

      Everybody wants to bow their head and pray that we have no questions. All in favor, raise your hand.

1108. 3:21:34

      Oh, naturally.

1109. 3:21:35

      He has a...

1110. 3:21:38

      Yeah, go ahead, Senator.

1111. 3:21:40

      Um,

1112. 3:21:42

      on, um, actually, uh, on line 167, um, actually lines 166, 167, uh, you've got, um, paragraph nine, "The municipality has accumulated an operating deficit equal to 5% or more of its revenue." And I would add in as an amendment, "for two consecutive fiscal years without adequate cash reserves," period. And I said the cash reserves thing. There could be some cities that have been very judicious and built cash reserves and able to-

1113. 3:22:14

      Makes sense

1114. 3:22:14

      ... a- able to kind of withstand that. Um, we could let adequate cash reserves, I think, be determined if there's a judicial fight over this. But I think that's, I think that's a conventional enough term. But, uh, but my, my amendment would be, "for two consecutive fiscal years without adequate cash reserves." That'd be my first amendment.

1115. 3:22:35

      Yeah, good amendment. Um, got a second for the amendment?

1116. 3:22:38

      Second.

1117. 3:22:38

      Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your hand.

1118. 3:22:46

      Got one more, Mr. Chairman.

1119. 3:22:47

      Any opposed? It passes. You got one more amendment?

1120. 3:22:51

      One, one more small amendment.

1121. 3:22:51

      Second amendment.

1122. 3:22:52

      I would defer to the author on this. On line 156, uh, it's talking about the municipality contracted a governing authority that, that there's 12 months of, um, not paying, have re- failed to reach a written agreement, um, with its contractor. I would, I would insert after written agreement or judicial disposition. If they went to court and a judge ordered that, hey, whatever, maybe the contractor didn't like the terms the city offered, but the judge says it's good, it should be good.

1123. 3:23:23

      Would that be an amenable agreement to-

1124. 3:23:26

      I think so, Senator.

1125. 3:23:27

      Yeah.

1126. 3:23:27

      Yeah, I think that's appropriate.

1127. 3:23:29

      So I would just add, "after a written agreement or judicial disposition" on line 156.

1128. 3:23:36

      Got a motion on the amendment. You got a second. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? Amendment passes. Now we'll go on to the underlying bill.

1129. 3:23:51

      Oh, sorry.

1130. 3:23:55

      That was for the amendment?

1131. 3:23:56

      That was for the amendment, yeah.

1132. 3:24:02

      I know we've, we've been going long here. We've got some more candy bars down here if y'all need some sugar. If anybody's diabetic or pre-diabetic.

1133. 3:24:11

      Line 302, uh-

1134. 3:24:11

      You can go to the bathroom, but limit it to two bathroom breaks.

1135. 3:24:16

      Any elected or appointed official or a party in interest of a distressed municipality, is that, uh-

1136. 3:24:24

      Say that line number again.

1137. 3:24:25

      Line 302, any elected or appointed official, comma, or a party in interest of a distressed mu- mis- municipality.

1138. 3:24:40

      Somebody state your proposal.

1139. 3:24:43

      I propose to amend on page, on line 302- ... add the words "or a party in interest" after the word official.

1140. 3:24:55

      Makes sense.

1141. 3:24:56

      So that it would read as follows: Any elected or appointed official, comma, or a party in interest of a distressed municipality may petition the court.

1142. 3:25:10

      Chair.

1143. 3:25:14

      As a quick question for that, um, just to make sure, uh, I'm not exactly sure how we do or phrase interested parties in the code, but if it is we more often use an interested party instead of a party in interest, would you be amenable to that, either one of the two?

1144. 3:25:29

      Yeah, it's fine.

1145. 3:25:29

      Okay.

1146. 3:25:34

      Senator Sessler.

1147. 3:25:37

      I, I wanna understand the effect. Is, would this allow a private party that's upset with the city to be able to, to petition, um, to initiate this process? What's, what's the effect of that? I, I would ask the author and counsel.

1148. 3:25:53

      Well, what I'm trying to do is if someone's water is going to be put out and they can show that what the receiver is doing-

1149. 3:26:02

      That's right

1150. 3:26:02

      ... affects them in, in con- contravening some of their rights, that they have a right to come in and show the court that their rights are being affected, and they can, they can show that. I, I mean, they have to show the court they at least have standing to go-

1151. 3:26:16

      Yeah

1152. 3:26:16

      ... before the court. Right now they wouldn't have standing.

1153. 3:26:18

      Okay.

1154. 3:26:19

      And it would w- d- be, be dependent upon derelict duty elected officials. And then the first pl- the ones who screwed up in the first place would be the only ones that could, could come into court.

1155. 3:26:31

      Go ahead, uh, counsel.

1156. 3:26:33

      Um, that specific provision is for the official or municipality to enjoin the actions of the receiver. So it wouldn't be initiating the process, it'd be enjoining certain actions or preventing them from happening, would be-

1157. 3:26:46

      Okay

1158. 3:26:46

      ... the effect of that. So the interested party would stop the receiver from doing something.

1159. 3:26:51

      Stop the receiver from doing something, that they are claiming that the receiver is violating the law, basically.

1160. 3:26:57

      Thank you. Senator Mallow, do you have something?

1161. 3:27:04

      I think, I think, uh, uh, counsel clarified my thoughts.

1162. 3:27:09

      Is that a friendly amendment or do we get a-

1163. 3:27:12

      I got a question for legislative counsel. Would-

1164. 3:27:14

      Go ahead, Senator.

1165. 3:27:15

      Would the interested party even have standing on a-

1166. 3:27:18

      The resident

1167. 3:27:19

      ... to enjoin that receivership between the city and the

1168. 3:27:26

      resident? Do you think there would be an issue of standing to include all interested parties?

1169. 3:27:31

      Uh, in that particular case-

1170. 3:27:32

      Parties

1171. 3:27:33

      ... for the determination of standing, at that point it would be a judicial determination. If a party is interested in the event, it sort of is an implication that, uh, they have some sort of standing for it. But ultimately, at the end of the day, if, um, a court decides, no, you don't actually have standing, then that'd be a judicial decision. But as an initial matter, potentially if they are interested, they would maybe have standing, but I would leave that to the court specifically.

1172. 3:28:07

      Fair enough.

1173. 3:28:10

      All right, back to voting on the underlying bill. Wait. Nope.

1174. 3:28:15

      Yeah.

1175. 3:28:15

      Sorry, back to the amendment.

1176. 3:28:16

      Was that a friendly amendment? Did you have ... Was that a-

1177. 3:28:18

      Yeah, I mean, I think that's gonna end up being adjudicated to the court, whether somebody wants to challenge the receiver, I mean, but it gives them a day in court.

1178. 3:28:28

      Yeah, they at least have standing.

1179. 3:28:30

      Yes, sir.

1180. 3:28:31

      Thank you.

1181. 3:28:31

      Probably an adjustment

1182. 3:28:36

      Move.

1183. 3:28:39

      Second.

1184. 3:28:40

      All right, back to, uh, now we got a third amendment. Uh, we got a motion and a second. We've had plenty of discussion. All in favor, raise your hand.

1185. 3:28:51

      Any opposed? What?

1186. 3:28:53

      Mostly the pro-

1187. 3:28:55

      The private party

1188. 3:28:56

      ... so that the resident has standing to challenge the receiver. Okay, great. Since I don't have elected officials, I'll take it like this.

1189. 3:29:09

      All right. That, now we're gonna vote the underlying bill, I hope. Uh, LC 6205-19S. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed?

1190. 3:29:25

      I.

1191. 3:29:25

      Bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Leader.

1192. 3:29:28

      Thank you, Mister Chairman.

1193. 3:29:35

      Thank

1194. 3:29:38

      you,

1195. 3:29:41

      GMA. Now we're on to the, uh, last bill on the to, on the agenda, but not least by any means. Representative Gaine, working off, we're working on House Bill 295.

1196. 3:29:53

      For an interested party/party

1197. 3:30:00

      with interest.

1198. 3:30:06

      Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. I know we're three and a half hours in, and, uh-

1199. 3:30:10

      Thank you. Enjoyed the-

1200. 3:30:10

      I enjoyed all the, uh, y- enjoyed all the commentary so far. I didn't know we were in judiciary today. So, uh, uh, but wanna thank you for-

1201. 3:30:17

      Yeah, I'm not a, not a lawyer-

1202. 3:30:18

      I-

1203. 3:30:18

      But I did stay at Holiday Inn Express last night

1204. 3:30:21

      That's right. Uh, but I'll be very brief in my presentation. Uh, House Bill 295 is a, a bill that, uh, is about two simple principles, which is public safety in our communities and accountability for taxpay- taxpayers. If a local jurisdiction refuses to enforce a law, whether that means declining to enforce state or local laws related to homelessness, public safety, or illegal immigration, then property owners in those communities deserve a remedy. This bill applies when a local government adopts a policy of declining to enforce laws against illegal public camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, drug possession, shoplifting, or public intoxication, urination on private property.

1205. 3:30:56

      It also applies when a local government fails to uphold Georgia's prohibition on sanctuary policies or refuses to cooperate with federal immigration authorities as required under law. I'll tell you the number of times where I hear from, uh, folks in my community that go to their business downtown, Senator Ginn I know represents Athens. I, um, I know he gets these same calls when, uh, they go to their business, uh, only to find someone camping directly or something in their front, in front of their door. Or the business owners who have to spray down their, uh, front, front, front, uh, front area before their door because there's so much defecation in front of the business.

1206. 3:31:28

      Uh, property owners who have to install additional lighting, fencing, or private security out of their own pocket just to protect what their whole, what they've built their whole, you know, worked their whole lives to build. And then they get the property tax bill to fund the local government that just failed them, and that's what this bill is all about, is correcting that. Because when policies drive down property values or force owners to incur document- documented mitigation expenses, they should not be left holding the bill. House Bill 295 ensures, uh, that documented expenses, or in cases where the, there's a reduction in property value, the owner can file a claim up to the amount of ad valorem taxes paid the, the prior year.

1207. 3:32:05

      Georgia has invested very heavily in helping homelessness individuals, including in the most recent amended budget of $45 million, uh, specific targeted program in addition to investments we've made over time, as well as billions of dollars into mental health programs, which I've strongly supported. We fund substance abuse recovery programs. We partner with nonprofits and faith-based organizations, but compassion does not mean refusing to enforce the law. Allowing illegal encampments, theft, and disorder to flourish is not kindness, it's neglect.

1208. 3:32:36

      We want compassion. We want people to get into treatment and shelter. We also want accountability. House Bill 295 creates a sta- straightforward process where a property owner can file a claim. The local government has 30 days to act, and if it refuses, the owner can seek relief in the courts. Our goal here is that property owners never even use this statute. Our goal is simply to get local governments to enforce the law, and that's what we're here to do. And if a local government chooses not to, taxpayers should not bear the financial burden alone. And Mr. Chairman, that's what this bill is. Happy to answer any questions.

1209. 3:33:10

      Any questions, comments from the committee?

1210. 3:33:15

      Do we, do we have any other witnesses to this?

1211. 3:33:19

      Quite a few.

1212. 3:33:21

      And if it's o- if it's okay, Mr. Chairman, I would, uh, there's Greg Gool, who I just met in the hallway. I know he's here. I know, uh, he may be on the, uh, testimony, but he, he actually lives here in Atlanta, heard about this bill, uh, has had many issues, uh, with, in midtown, and, uh, just showed up to support it. And, uh, ma- I wanna make sure he- he's able to say hello because he, um, you know, came here just hearing about the bill, which I think shows the need for passing this.

1213. 3:33:45

      Yeah, we- we've got him number three-

1214. 3:33:47

      Great

1215. 3:33:47

      ... on here. Yep, we'll make sure we hear from him. Thank you for letting us know that.

1216. 3:33:51

      And then I've also, you're probably wondering who's sitting next to me. I guess I should introduce him. But Chris Sharp is with the Cicero Institute, former law enforcement, retired military, uh, former professor in- including at Valdosta State University, and, uh, you know, happy to answer, he's happy to answer questions if there are any as well.

1217. 3:34:06

      Thank you. Any, uh, comments, questions, committee?

1218. 3:34:10

      I have several questions. However, I would like to hear some testimony before I get into it.

1219. 3:34:16

      That sounds good.

1220. 3:34:17

      Part of it.

1221. 3:34:19

      Thank you. Yeah, and we'll give y'all time for rebuttal and, and let your speaker speak as well. Uh, first up, we've got

1222. 3:34:29

      the City of Atlanta.

1223. 3:34:33

      Sorry, I need to put my glasses on.

1224. 3:34:39

      Mohamed, how are you doing, sir? Good to see you.

1225. 3:34:41

      I am not Mohamed.

1226. 3:34:43

      You're not? Okay.

1227. 3:34:45

      I had to, uh, to, to leave. Uh, would you like me to-

1228. 3:34:48

      Uh, yeah, I guess you can come over here to witness, witness one or two, whichever you like.

1229. 3:34:53

      Thank you,

1230. 3:34:59

      Chairman. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. Uh, my name is Justin Kernan. I'm the, uh, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs for the Office of the Mayor of Atlanta, and I just wanted to take a few moments and speak about some of the, um, the other impacts of this particular legislation. Um, first of all, we're gonna talk about the fiscal impact, uh, to this. This bill can cr- could possibly create an enormous amount of lawsuits, um, exposing cities across Georgia, especially City of Atlanta, to unprecedented and unpredictable, uh, financial damages. Um, this could also create a cottage industry for trial lawyers.

1231. 3:35:32

      I think there were a couple of bills that we, uh, went through in the past that tried to address some of these, um, but now we're creating a specific industry for trial lawyers. Um, this bill would greatly, uh, benefit that industry, and, uh, you can look at the City of Phoenix and what happened in the City of Phoenix when this exact type of law passed. It created that type of industry and did nothing to actually reduce, um, the number of, uh, you know, uh, homelessness. In fact, those numbers actually went up in that particular city. And so, um, it's proven that this type of thing is not necessarily a fix for the actual underlying issues.

1232. 3:36:09

      Um, and then in the bill it says damages are based on fair market value or the mitigation of cost, um, and those measures, uh, are highly subjective and largely controlled by the property owner themselves and not the city. And then, uh, also in this bill, compensation is capped at least, um, capped at least two years of ad valorem taxes paid. Um, this essentially turns the city's general fund into a refund pool for any property, uh, owner that is dissa- that- dissatisfied with law enforcement's outcomes when it comes to these particular matters.

1233. 3:36:46

      Um, and then, uh, this bill also includes a l- a, a twist in how, uh, some of these things, these matters are actually, uh, procedurally taken care of. Unl- like in typical litigation now, in this law, in this bill, the city would bear the burden of proof to demonstrate its actions were unlawful and that the, uh, or the claim is unreasonable. So now we're flipping, uh, the burden of proof. And there's low risk to plaintiffs, um, that come. Property owners face almost no, uh, risk in while filing, uh, while a recent, um, amendment to the bill allows for the city to recover fe- fees, but after one unsuccessful claim, which is down from, uh, previously when you could, uh, it was two.

1234. 3:37:29

      And so the owners are still entitled to attorney fees if they prevail, creating a one-way street for litigation. And then, uh, the bill also can, um, actually has very ambiguous terms like policy, pattern, or practice. None of those things are in current state law, so it's gonna be very difficult to, uh, um, to determine. Um, and then, uh, this bill also ignores the will of local constituents who elect a local, l- elect local officials specifically to manage these largely complex city issues.

1235. 3:38:04

      As we all know, there's no one-size-fits-all, uh, problem for a lot of these approaches, and so now we're, we're creating a penalty for everyone. And then we also have to think about the fact that some of these, uh, we, we would be pe- penalizing municipalities for certain things that are un- that are out of their control. And so when you look at some, um, you know, uh, matters of people being, uh, released from jails and things of that nature. So if you have someone that is arrested and they go to, let's say, Fulton County, Fulton County lets them out on bail, now this person's back on the street.

1236. 3:38:36

      Uh, this person has, is, uh, part of the criminal justice system, uh, cycling through that process back on the streets. Now the city can s- get sued, um, but we're not the reason why that person may be back out on the streets. And so this is a lot more complicated than, um, you know, than it perceived. We all are in agreement that there are a lot of things that have to be done on this topic. We just don't feel that this is the right approach.

1237. 3:39:02

      Thank you for your testimony.

1238. 3:39:04

      Thank you.

1239. 3:39:04

      I've heard, with this bill coming up, I've heard from other cities where they've had, I won't say blessing, but, uh, where the homeless are moved from one place-

1240. 3:39:11

      Yeah

1241. 3:39:11

      ... to another and they end up in a city.

1242. 3:39:12

      Absolutely.

1243. 3:39:13

      And, okay.

1244. 3:39:14

      Absolutely. That, that, th- that happens, um, when, even when we look at, um, not only just homelessness, but when we look at our warming centers on nights that it's cold. Um, when we check in the names and the list of some of our warming centers, we have sometimes less than 30% of the people in those warming centers originated in the city of Atlanta. Um, and now we're having regional conversations because, uh, Gwinnett County is going through that same thing when people from neighboring counties that don't have the resources are coming in. So people flood to the areas that are providing resources. And so it is our obligation as a city, or the mayor has taken it as his obligation to try to mitigate this and to take on these things as possible, but some of these are residents that have originated somewhere else.

1245. 3:39:55

      Thank you for that.

1246. 3:39:56

      Thank you.

1247. 3:39:56

      Uh, any other comments or questions from the committee?

1248. 3:40:01

      Thank you very much.

1249. 3:40:02

      Thank you.

1250. 3:40:03

      Senator Ginn.

1251. 3:40:03

      Justin, Justin, if you don't mind, you know, talk to me a little bit. Uh, okay, I'm a taxpayer in the community, and the, uh, every morning I, I get up, I, I know a lot of us come around the, the, uh, Washington Street here, the, uh, and I'll just use the church as an example. There's homeless people out there pretty much every day-

1252. 3:40:26

      Yeah

1253. 3:40:26

      ... out in front of the church. The, uh, they may, they may actually, uh, um, you know, encourage that, I'm not sure, but they're sleeping on a, on a public sidewalk. They, uh, they're sleeping in doorways. There, there's, oh, seems like, uh, an, uh, little bit more trash than, than what I would expect to see in, on a city street. So the, uh, if, if that was a private business and that was in front of your business, what would you wanna do to, uh, address that? How would you... You know, if you're the property owner, you're trying to run a business, every morning your customers are trying to come in your door and you got homeless people sleeping on sidewalks in front of you, what would you do?

1254. 3:41:02

      And, and why is this not, this bill not a good start for addressing that?

1255. 3:41:08

      Well, to address the scenario, uh, that you placed, uh, you are 100% correct. When you, um, come down Washington Street, you see people sleeping on sidewalks and on the streets. The church has a shelter inside. The people that are left outside were not able to get beds inside of that shelter. And so, um, they, some of them have waited in line for a good amount of time, and they've decided to just set up camp right there. A lot of people also typically try to stay closer to those shelters in those times, um, because of the fact that they know that they have a finite amount of time in which they can, uh, receive those services.

1256. 3:41:40

      And so that's why, unfortunately, you see a lot of that congregating here is because, once again, people flood to where those services are. And to, um, you know, address the business part of it, that, that, that is a complicated issue that we are, uh, working through with a lot of different approaches. But like I said, there's no one-size-fits-all, um, approach to any of these, uh, solutions.

1257. 3:42:02

      S- so the, the bill that, that, uh, Representative Gaines has presented us gives a remedy for that. So the, uh... And, and that's where as a business owner, you know, it, it all comes down to... I, I c- I know there's, there's places up, as I, uh, ride through, uh, r- Athens-Clarke County, the, uh... And I'll see, uh, encampments, encampments of, of lots of people. And if, and if that's your property, there's two things that you wanna worry about on that encampment.

1258. 3:42:33

      So first off is, uh, the liability that exposes the property owner to. And then the other side of that is, is what type of illegal activities may be taking place on, on that property.

1259. 3:42:44

      Absolutely.

1260. 3:42:44

      And, and to me, uh, I'm trying to, to understand what it is that, you know, if you don't start here, where do we go? And that's where, uh, I, I applaud Representative Gaines for bringing the legislation 'cause I, I can see it firsthand and I can, every day I come to the capital I can see, you know, the, the sidewalks cluttered with, with, uh, uh, this and, and I don't know what, what the local government's doing about it.

1261. 3:43:12

      So, um-

1262. 3:43:17

      This is also a cyclical issue because you have homeless people, you can charge them with trespassing, you can arrest people, you can get them off the streets. They go to jail, they get right back out, and they're right back in the situation. That's why this bill will not do anything to address that particular, you know, uh, part of the problem. City of Phoenix, like I said, uh, uh, there's something like this on the books and it's not working. And so to that point, um, addressing the allowing for lawsuits does not address the underlying, the underlying issue at all.

1263. 3:43:54

      It does not. And so there are... And I applaud the, uh, the, the, the author of the bill for working on something, um, that, you know, he felt would, would, would solve the issue, and we would love to sit down with the author and, and, you know, work together, uh, with us and then other, uh, cities and counties across the state, which everyone is seeing those numbers go up, going up currently. Um, and we would love to work on a, uh, some type of plan that's going to actually work and has the flexibility for the different municipalities and/or, um, other forms of local government.

1264. 3:44:26

      But this is not the... All it does is create a cycle of lawsuits that does not address the underlying issue.

1265. 3:44:34

      Thank y'all. I'll ask the, the, uh, sponsor of the bill to a- address, maybe he's got some ideas on, you know, what we do. Thank you.

1266. 3:44:42

      Thank you.

1267. 3:44:42

      Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1268. 3:44:43

      Thank you. Senator Setzler.

1269. 3:44:46

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, thanks for being here. Um, I'm gonna ask a, a related follow-up question. Um, let's, let's, let's want you to advise us how, how we ought to proceed as a legislature. Um, my mom, for example, just as an example, she's a very small woman. She's about five foot tall. Um, doesn't have great physical abilities to, you know, she, she's fit and s- she's in her 80s, and she walks, she's very healthy. But if she owns a, a flower shop, or she owns a frame shop, or she owns a s- a, a coffee shop, uh, in Atlanta, you know, in Midtown, um, and she comes in in the morning, gets in at, you know, 5:30 to get set up so she can start serving coffee at, it's, it's at 5:00 AM, and there's a large, intimidating, imposing male sleeping in the doorway of her coffee shop, what specifically is she to do at that moment?

1270. 3:45:47

      Call law enforcement.

1271. 3:45:49

      Call law enforcement. Okay. Um, d- and law enforcement would have a duty to be there pretty expeditiously, and they, they would remove the person?

1272. 3:45:57

      We have several different, um, ways that we deal with those type of issues, um, including sometimes if there's someone that's having a mental health issue, which is another part of a conversation that we need to address as, as a general assembly. But there are different pl- um, different things that would be dispatched, uh, to help with, uh, service, including pr- finding services to provide said person. Um, the city has also done a, you know, a, a, a, you know, we, we're building a lot of, uh, affordable housing and rapid housing and trying to get people off the streets, but this is a problem not only here.

1273. 3:46:31

      You go out throughout the states and you look under a lot of the, uh, DLT underpasses, and you're starting to see this. We traveled around the state this, uh, year, and in different communities all over the state, people are telling us, "We're seeing homeless people where we never saw them before."

1274. 3:46:44

      Right.

1275. 3:46:44

      And so it's not of a, you know, there, there, there is an issue. No one is denying the issue. What I'm saying for-

1276. 3:46:53

      Excuse me

1277. 3:46:53

      ... uh, for the purposes of this meeting today, lawsuits and litigious actions don't solve the underlying problem.

1278. 3:47:01

      No, no, we, we, the specific issue, though, is we've got a duty to provide governments the powers they need to, to, to, to do their, play their role as governments. We also have indi- right, obligations to individuals to protect their individual rights.

1279. 3:47:14

      Absolutely.

1280. 3:47:14

      And, and to your point, so when a, when a, a s- a, a s- slight of build female business owner walks into her business and there's an imposing man sleeping in the doorway of her coffee shop, it's a law enforcement duty to get rid of him. If that happens the next day and the following day, such they get, um... What, what is... W- w- we could have this, uh, which, which I thank the Chair for his indulgence. It's an issue of law enforcement.

1281. 3:47:42

      It's, it's, I, I think what, what you're, what you're describing is an issue that the state is also recognizing that we need help with, which is why, you know, we're having conversations about, um, additional mental health services. The state, um, was looking at putting $50 million in the budget to help with some of these programs. That number also got cut. And so the, the, the-

1282. 3:48:02

      Does the business owner, excuse me, does the business owner have taxing power?

1283. 3:48:05

      Does the business owner have taxing power?

1284. 3:48:06

      Does the business owner have the power to levy ad valorem taxes to fund a security guard?

1285. 3:48:12

      No.

1286. 3:48:12

      Does the business owner have the ability to charge sales taxes? They'll, they'll have a tax ident. The taxing power belongs to, to, to local government.

1287. 3:48:19

      Absolutely. The taxing authority belongs to the local government. What I'm just, what I-

1288. 3:48:23

      The police power belongs to local government.

1289. 3:48:25

      And you can't... Unfortunately, this isn't an issue that you can just police your way out of. And so the, the, the issue is a lot more broader, and there are mental health components and all of these other things that tie into it. So this is a con- conversation that we need to have.

1290. 3:48:40

      Right.

1291. 3:48:41

      The simple standard is that-

1292. 3:48:42

      Correct

1293. 3:48:42

      ... this particular bill does not do anything to address any of the issues.

1294. 3:48:48

      M- Mr. Chairman, conversations are a... With all due... Th- thank you for, for, for your thoughts. Conversations, Mr. Chairman, are things we have over time for long-term systemic problems. What we have here is we have acute problems that specific business owners have entered into five and 10-year leases. They've put their entire life savings on the line to start a business. They show up every day early in the morning to, to, to do their thing, and this contemplates not only litigiousness, this co- contemplates this idea that if, if- I- if they've got to incur costs to, to get a security guard to, to, to, to move away people who are urinating, defecating, or sleeping in front of their front door so they can have their business, that is a duty, is a law enforcement duty, part of the police powers of the city.

1295. 3:49:35

      And if those police powers are then pushed over to the individual to step up and step in for and provide, there should be a, the, there, there should be a- appropriate compensation to do that. That's what this does. It's, what's happening is through policies, isn't it true, that the police obligations of a l- of a, of a local government who have the taxing power, they have the police power, and they have the obligation to solve this issue, it's being pushed over to private individuals and there's no commensurate compensation for that.

1296. 3:50:05

      I will say that this, I will con- continue to contest that this issue is a lot more broad than- ... than, than, than what the, uh, gentleman is describing.

1297. 3:50:16

      Mr. Chairman, I would suggest it's exactly that specific, 'cause it's not just a broad concept. This is specific issue for specific people who are incurring specific cost that are not their, they, they don't, they don't even have the powers to really address them. They don't have the court power, they don't have the police power, they don't have taxing power. They're simply trying to do the basic decent thing. And these are decent business owners. These are not people that are callous to the, to the plight of homeless people. It's just they have a specific need they need specific help for, and we as a general assembly have obligations not just to local governments to empower them to do their jobs, which we give them the power to do, but we have obligations to individuals for their specific property rights and their liberty rights, and that's the balance we're trying

1298. 3:51:00

      to strike.

1299. 3:51:00

      I have a question for the gentleman from the-

1300. 3:51:00

      Go ahead. You can go ahead, Senator Mallow.

1301. 3:51:02

      Thank you. Um, so, um, hearing the senator from the 37th and his, uh, position as relates to the private property owner, can the, for example, the City of Atlanta regulate if a church were to provide meals to someone who was homeless, which is adjacent to a coffee shop, and since said church provides meals to folks who are homeless adjacent to said coffee shop, after the church has finished providing those meals, an individual decides to sleep in front of that business, what can the City of Atlanta do to stop a church from providing meals?

1302. 3:51:33

      That is the, um, the church has the, uh, the right to provide those services on their property.

1303. 3:51:39

      And so, for example, if it was not a church and there was another, uh, business that was next door and it was a bakery next to the coffee shop, and that bakery chose to provide free, um, bagels to folks who may be unhoused or homeless, but it's next to that coffee shop business, what remedy does the City of Atlanta have to tell that private business you can't provide those bagels to people who are homeless because you're affecting the coffee shop next door?

1304. 3:52:02

      That business has the right to provide those services.

1305. 3:52:04

      So at what point does the City of Atlanta have the authority to effectuate some type of change among private entities that may be initiating the causation that the other business owner is experiencing?

1306. 3:52:16

      Those things are not, um, things that are directly, uh, that the, the, the City of Atlanta can directly impact.

1307. 3:52:23

      Thank you. Uh, and my last question would be as it relates to, for example, on line 30 where it says, "A policy, uh, pattern, or practice means a pervasive, systemic or organized standard operating procedure of a generalized nature, but shall not include accident, isolated or sporadic acts." For example, uh, many cities in Georgia when they have large festivals or groups of people may tend to enact what's known as a festival ordinance. In which case, uh, it takes the city government from the usual standard operating procedures where they may have a large influx of people and move from enforcing certain actions because of the sheer number of people underwhelmed and overwhelmed with law enforcement resources.

1308. 3:53:05

      They tend to not administer, uh, all of the local ordinances as it relates to public intoxication or these other things through that festival ordinance. Now, uh, it's not sporadic, it's not, uh, isolated, but it is a general operating procedure that when you enact a festival ordinance, you're saying, "We're just gonna enforce the, the most violent of things because we just can't arrest everybody or issue enough citations because we don't have the manpower to do that." Uh, does the City of Atlanta enact some sort of ordinance like that?

1309. 3:53:34

      The times in which it's necessary, those are, those are done as well.

1310. 3:53:38

      Thank you.

1311. 3:53:40

      Thank you.

1312. 3:53:41

      Um, any other comments that... Go ahead, Senator.

1313. 3:53:44

      I think the distinguished, uh, senator from Savannah just covered a couple of my, one or two of my points, but I'll go to a whole nother different, uh, array. As far as the number of shel- homeless shelters, can you tell the, tell us what is the current status of the sh- homeless shelters and what are the proposed plans for homeless shelters, and what imp- what impact, if any, does that, do they have on, um, persons who would subject the city for liability?

1314. 3:54:17

      I don't have the number, the exact number of shelters that are within our city limits, but what I can tell you is we have more than everyone else. And so we have those resources which what, that's the major thing that drives people into the center of our city, um, because of the fact that that's where the resources are.

1315. 3:54:36

      And if you in fact have these homeless shelters, uh, and how many, if any, uh, private shelters and how many, if any, provided by the City of Atlanta or Fulton County or some governmental entity? Do you have any numbers of that?

1316. 3:54:59

      The shelters in the, in the city are not operated by the City of Atlanta.

1317. 3:55:03

      All right. So the City of Atlanta has no control over people who are ch- attempting to alleviate the problem by providing shelter to these homeless people?

1318. 3:55:14

      It's a, it's a, it's a public service that is operated by, uh, mostly churches and nonprofits and other organizations within the city

1319. 3:55:23

      So if some, in fact this... So if someone provides shelter to the homeless and there are only 100 beds and 200 people show up, is it fair to say that those people have nowhere else to go, they're gonna just hang out at that particular location?

1320. 3:55:42

      Senator, I believe you just described, um, the reason why we see so many around this particular building because that is exactly what, what, what happens when people get in lines and they wait in lines for long periods of times, uh, sometimes for those beds, um, and then there's a cutoff. And when that bed, when they get that cutoff, everyone else that's, that's, that has not made it into the facility at that moment, um, they are, uh, left outside of that, and sometimes they don't have a way to get back to go to anywhere else. Sometimes they have traveled from somewhere else to get to that point and try to be there on time.

1321. 3:56:17

      It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a tough life to, uh, for those individuals to, to, to have to live.

1322. 3:56:23

      Would, and would the witness, uh, would you... Is it a fair statement that a number of these people that are on the streets are mentally ill?

1323. 3:56:34

      There's a lot of data that shows that.

1324. 3:56:37

      And if you can get some of that data, I would really appre- appreciate that. Uh, i- is it further fair to say that a number of persons who, uh, are mentally ill, even if you provide, uh, even if there is housing, they may choose not to avail themselves to that housing?

1325. 3:56:58

      That is something that we have interacted, um, that, that we have directly encountered. Um, we have provided housing, um, services for folks, and they still either sleep in the car in front of their house, or sometimes they're in their homes during the daytime and they have to find someplace else to sleep because, uh, you know, some people have been out on the streets for so long, it's a very difficult adjustment. And speaking of the mental health services, um, that is something that is beyond the city's, uh, scope of, of, of services to provide. Those services have to be provided by the county.

1326. 3:57:30

      Therefore, when you're trying to solve an issue such as homelessness, it's difficult because you do have to have every single, uh, level of government working together, um, to, to actually solve the underlying issues.

1327. 3:57:45

      Is it fair to say that rising housing costs, poverty, mental illness, as well as high rates of addiction are contributing to this housing crisis?

1328. 3:57:54

      Yes. There's a lot of data that shows that, and it's a nationwide issue, not just, uh, Metro Atlanta, not just Georgia.

1329. 3:57:59

      Is it fair to say that the state of Georgia also has a role to play in alleviating this homeless crisis?

1330. 3:58:07

      I believe the, the gentleman believes what he's speaking.

1331. 3:58:11

      Well, uh, uh, is there effort by the city to work with the state and other actors to alleviate this homeless, some solutions to this homeless problem? Is there, are there some plans, and, and, and can you even share any of those plans, if you have any? Or what are, are your suggested courses of action to help with us, us with what is clearly a homeless crisis as we wa- ride down, uh, come to the Capitol, under the bridges, we have people under the, sleeping under the, uh...

1332. 3:58:50

      I mean, I saw where, uh, I guess, I don't know who did it, but you put rocks up under there for, they couldn't sleep under there, but they still s- have an encampment there. What, if any, plans do we have to try to address this, uh, to s- a solution to this homeless issue?

1333. 3:59:09

      There are, um... The city has done a lot of work, especially over the last four years under, um, this current administration, to not just get people off the streets, but get people off streets into homes and trying to find, uh, ways to provide the mental health services and the other wraparound services that, that have gone along with that. Uh, the city has built thousands of units of affordable housing in the last four years and has transitioned, um, several people. There's a, there's a wonderful facility not too far from, um, this building called The Melody in which we took container homes and, uh, we built those into, uh, semi-permanent structures.

1334. 3:59:46

      Um, and those are used to help to get people. So when we- we're closing these encampments and we're doing all of these other things that the city is working very closely with the state. We work very closely with GDOT to close, um, encampments and under bridges and, and, and things of that nature, and the goal is to move people into housing. But that's a very difficult, uh, transition. It takes a good amount of time to do it. You have to build, uh, the structures. You have to have everything in place. You have to have the wraparound services in place. Um, and there are still greater needs, uh, that local governments have in order to get those services.

1335. 4:00:19

      So we were very excited to see that there was a, uh, budget line item that was gonna be dedicated to, uh, some of those type of projects all around the state. Uh, we were very excited to hear about mental health hospitals and all of these other resources that are needed. Um, I feel like those are the types of investment, uh, that local governments need from the state in order to help to solve, uh, some of these issues.

1336. 4:00:44

      Thank you.

1337. 4:00:44

      Well, thank you.

1338. 4:00:45

      You just mentioned where it was about to go with the governor did. I was really proud to see that line item. It was a $45 or $50 million, uh, that I had not seen that type of, uh, investment before. What, if any, uh, involvement would the city have directly in... Are you... How would the city of Atlanta have any influence over those dollars, if at any, if at all?

1339. 4:01:15

      If at a-- So we, we actually have and, um, we are fortunate in, in having, um, um, a l- a leader at the state that has the such great foresight to actually create the wh- an entire kind of office around this. So a, a sub-sec in our p- in our housing office is a, uh, someone that is responsible for coming up with solutions specifically on homelessness. And so depending on, um, what the requirements are that would come out, we would definitely, um... We're already thinking through, uh, we have a lot of different things that we have, we just don't have the funds to do it, so this would give us the operational capital to actually carry out some of those plans.

1340. 4:01:51

      Thank you, Senator. That's all. Um, Senator Mallow.

1341. 4:01:55

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just had a question for legislative council, uh, uh, specifically related to line 45, um, where it talks about panhandling. Uh, believe the City of Savannah had an ordinance, uh, on panhandling, and there was a Supreme Court, uh, they stayed a case. They did not hear a case to overturn a lower court's case on panhandling. Um, can you speak to that or... 'Cause w- we've not enforced, uh, the panhandling ordinance for that reason, and maybe my colleague, Senator McNeel, may have, uh, I saw his legal brain light up.

1342. 4:02:26

      Um, so may, he may wanna opine on that as well.

1343. 4:02:32

      Go ahead, Senator McNeel.

1344. 4:02:37

      Go ahead, leg council.

1345. 4:02:38

      Uh, I very, I am aware of the case. I have not looked at it in years. So I'd have to look at the specifics for it for what it would say or does not say. But, um, so yeah, at the moment, I will circle back to you.

1346. 4:02:52

      I believe that's allowed within zones. It's constitutional if it's allowed. In the City of Macon, for instance-

1347. 4:02:59

      Mm

1348. 4:02:59

      ... they have created a panhandling zone, and that, that has been upheld. Uh, and they, and as far as banning it all together, I think, I think that w- that was challenged successfully. But they are, municipalities are allowed to create zones to, to allow it.

1349. 4:03:21

      And then I had a question for you, uh, with the City of Atlanta. Do y'all have any like job like programs as far as once you get them in housing, get them stabilized, as far as get them, getting them a job so they can be self-sufficient?

1350. 4:03:32

      Yes, the city has worked with, uh, the nonprofits that we work with, uh, placing people in homes and other wraparound services. Employment is one of them. And the city also has a Department of Labor within itself, uh, to help with some of that stuff as well.

1351. 4:03:46

      Thank you.

1352. 4:03:46

      Yes, sir.

1353. 4:03:46

      Yeah, we've gotta, I've gotta give a shout-out to Home of Hope in, in my district. They, they help, uh, you know, pregnant, pregnant single women that, that are essentially most times homeless or, or in their cars. And it's a 90-day program, but a lot of times it takes, m- you know, upwards of a year before they're, they've got a job and they, they've got, you know, permanent hou- placement as far as a home and all. So, but yeah, no, thank you for saying that. Um, we'll move on. We've got several other speakers. Thank you for your comments. And committee, thank you for your questions on that one. Uh, we've got next up is-

1354. 4:04:15

      Thank you

1355. 4:04:15

      ... House ATL.

1356. 4:04:27

      And I just wanna remind the speakers, uh, I know it's been a long meeting, uh, of course comments back and forth don't count.

1357. 4:04:32

      Yeah.

1358. 4:04:32

      But try to keep your, your statement to a minute.

1359. 4:04:34

      I'll be brief.

1360. 4:04:34

      Thank you.

1361. 4:04:35

      Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to speak. So I'm Natalie Keyser. I lead a nonprofit, uh, called House ATL. We are a membership coalition. We have 450 members across Metro Atlanta. They include developers, banks, lenders, real estate agents, nonprofits, local governments, all participating together to work towards housing affordability in Metro Atlanta. So, uh, we oppose this bill, and, um, I really appreciated the conversation that was had previously. I'll try to touch on it a little bit, but I'm just gonna share that, um, we're, uh, very concerned.

1362. 4:05:10

      We understand the concern about homelessness. We know it is increasing. We understand the desire to legislate this kind of solution. We think that, as the prior speaker said, that the direction is not addressing the cause. Uh, the cause of homelessness is lack of housing, and there are things that we can do as a state to direct, to, to directly impact the housing supply. I do just wanna note that the bill just prior to this would've been a step in the right direction towards increasing the housing supply. House Bill 1166. There was no cost to allowing, uh, people to build small dwelling units in their backyard, accessory dwelling units.

1363. 4:05:46

      There are many steps that the state can take like that, that will help increase housing supply. Um, additionally, I just want to note that, um, the, the, the cost, as was noted, the, the, it's not only the cost of incarceration, um, that is, uh, will be a, a, a challenge for, for local governments to, to handle that is not a solution. It's also the cost to the individual. When people are homeless on the street, um, when street outward, uh, outreach workers are trying to work with them, when they are arrested, they lose contact with that street outreach worker.

1364. 4:06:18

      They lose their ID. They lose their documents. They lose access to their medications. When they go to jail, there is trauma involved in that, that can es- exacerbate mental health issues. So it can actually put pers- put a person who may have been in the process of being, of being helped by a nonprofit like some of our members into a cycle that puts just, pushes them into a more difficult situation than they were in previously.

1365. 4:06:44

      I also wanted to note there was another question about h- uh, solutions. Another very good program that the State of Georgia has is called the Georgia Housing Voucher Program. Um, the Georgia Housing Voucher Program is specifically for this purpose. It helps people who are chronically mentally ill and chronically homeless. Is that my one minute?

1366. 4:07:01

      Mm-hmm.

1367. 4:07:01

      Okay. So I just wanna mention the Georgia Housing Voucher Program has been underfunded. Uh, you are doing an increase of 9.9, um, million this year potentially in the, uh, FY 2027 budget. But it is, uh, an $18 million in the deficit, so it needs to be properly funded. Um-

1368. 4:07:18

      Thank you.

1369. 4:07:19

      Thank you.

1370. 4:07:19

      Senator Setzler, you have a question?

1371. 4:07:20

      I was just gonna ask her, um-

1372. 4:07:24

      Th- thank you for your advocacy for homeless people. I, I, as I've shared with folks before, you know, I think we, just as we look at every homeless person as a, as a human being, as a thou, a person that's worthy of the best, um, we also expect the best of them. Expect we, we just as we treat them as, as people with dignity, we expect them to behave likewise. There, there's, there's, there's a covenant, there's a balance there. Um, the, the housing insecurity you're talking about, um, you know, we talk about families that, that may, may fall out of, um, a job and may have, have a housing circumstance for, for a period of ti- short period of time.

1373. 4:07:59

      How many folks, and I'm not being, I'm not being silly here. How many folks or families that are temporarily or may, may, may, maybe out, out of an apartment or a home, how many of the, how many of the people that are urinating on the sides of businesses on Broad Street in Athens are families who are out of a home?

1374. 4:08:19

      No, that's correct. Those are usually individuals who've been homeless for a while, have experienced the trauma of the street, and are, are having, uh, challenges due to that, that often creates mental health issues. We think that mental illness is the cause of homelessness. It's rarely the cause. Mental illness is often, um, if you sleep on the streets for, for many nights, you know, all of us will have anxiety and short-term thoughts.

1375. 4:08:42

      Correct, 'cause I mean, the, the challenge we face here, isn't it true that, that it's, it's not people that are temporarily out of a place to live. This, this housing could solve that. It's not even really shelters. I mean, they're in, in, in... Shelters are very accommodating, but shelters also have to have rules. Very often people that are, that are sleeping on the streets c- chronically don't, have, have kind of fallen out of, out of, um... They've broken the rules of the shelter. Um, they've repeatedly broken the rules, uh-

1376. 4:09:13

      Well, sometimes, I mean, a, a lot of them are, are fearful of the congregate settings.

1377. 4:09:18

      Correct. Or, or, or as you, as you just said, or, or, or thirdly, they just don't feel comfortable in a shelter setting, and they would prefer to be, you know, not, not, you know, housed.

1378. 4:09:28

      Our, our experience has been in Metro Atlanta, when you give someone their own space with a door that locks, where they can keep their stuff, and they don't have to exit, so they have a permanent housing unit, even very small, I would encourage all of you to visit The Melody, which is walking distance from here. Even if it's very small, they will choose that.

1379. 4:09:45

      Okay. So, so this, this bill in no way discourages, you know, um, places to live with doors that lock. It no way discourages more shel- It, it, this simply says that business owners themselves that are trying to have a place of business ought to have the support of their local governments and have their basic property rights maintained. This is not an attack on homeless people. This is, th- this, this is a, this is a recognition. Cities need to be held accountable.

1380. 4:10:15

      The complexity, the mosaic of all the h- the people that are, that are unhoused and homeless is a, is a, is a mix of people, mix of issues from mental health to criminality to, to, to, to hesitancy to be in communal settings. There's a mix of these reasons, and we're not attacking those people. We're simply saying, getting back to this issue, the, the property... J- just as we care for homeless people, and we invest in that, and we care about that, we also have to care about our business owners who-

1381. 4:10:43

      I, I respect your concern. My parents are small business people. You s- gave the florist shop-

1382. 4:10:47

      Yeah

1383. 4:10:47

      ... example earlier. My mom and dad ran a florist shop. I worked in a florist shop. I respect that, and I understand that.

1384. 4:10:53

      Yeah.

1385. 4:10:53

      But this is not solving the concern that that florist shop owner has. If you, if, if you pressure local governments to, to try to, to, to, from the state level, to decide the solution that they should be using, incarceration, it's not gonna fix that cycle of homelessness.

1386. 4:11:09

      But, but, but again, the, isn't it true this bill, and in fact, the bill author, I think delicately and appropriately talked about our commitment to mental health and trying to address these root issues. This, this bill does not purport to s- to solve root issues. There are root causes that need to be invested in. I think, Mr. General, someone's done a good job of that. This addresses, however, not the root issue, but does address a- an acute issue, which is one of businesses that can't do their jobs, gas stations that can't be gas stations because governments are not performing their part in trying to police aggressive panhandling and folks that, that are, that are just destructive to, to the interest of, of, of business owners.

1387. 4:11:51

      That's the, this is, this is not a root cause issue, but this is an acute issue that people need help with.

1388. 4:11:57

      I think it's taking resources. It's, it's, it's drawing resources from the city to try to deal with these l- this litigation and also directing those, those resources towards arrest and incarceration when a lot of these local governments are trying to work with nonprofits, with churches, with others in their community to work on solutions to these issues. Maybe the juris- maybe there are cities that you're working with that are not trying to solve this issue. I don't know. But in Metro Atlanta, many of our cities and counties are trying to work together to solve these issues.

1389. 4:12:29

      One, one last thing, Mr. Chairman. Again, I, I applaud the City of Atlanta for many of the things they're doing to address these root cause issues. Housing availability, housing affordability, um, places to stay, places to, you know, pr- providing, you know, for food insecurity. I, I applaud those things. Those things need to continue.

1390. 4:12:48

      Yes.

1391. 4:12:49

      The, but what's happening is, is there's a, an, an awareness of those things, thankfully.

1392. 4:12:54

      Mm-hmm.

1393. 4:12:55

      But there's a neglect of a specific thing, which is businesses that need to not have people who are aggressively panhandling or sleeping in front of their businesses or defecating on their, on their businesses. That specific thing is where the gap is, and this, this seeks to only address that issue.

1394. 4:13:11

      I'm not, I'm not sure that there is a neglect. I mean, the city and the, and if you're talking about the City of Atlanta and Fulton County, they've invested heavily, and the Pre-arrest Diversion Initiative is one effort that they have where s- outreach workers can, can go and assist in those exact situations that you're describing. They have outreach vans. They go, they assist, they help the person get them to a place and try to get them services and find them housing. So they're- They're investing in that

1395. 4:13:37

      But if young women are afraid to leave their cars at the gas pump and walk into a convenience store to buy a bottle of water or a protein bar because the, the, the, the, the environment around a gas station or a basic convenience store is scary to them, reasonably, a reasonable person would be scared of that. We have a law enforcement problem, and there's lots of root causes to this, which I think we can all agree on, but there's a, an acute problem that people are afraid to live within their communities and do basic things like walk in a coffee shop or go into a gas station because, because there is th- this one thing, which is in, w- which is providing a safe environment for, for law-abiding citizens is being neglected by local governments.

1396. 4:14:20

      That's what this bill's addressing. There is a, there is a problem. To suggest there's not a problem that, that young women, um, or men perhaps, w- y- it's 7:45 at night after the sun goes down, it's not their fault that they're scared to walk into a convenience store. There's a real problem that's got to be addressed, and that is specifically being neglected by our governments.

1397. 4:14:42

      So I'll say as a woman, not young any longer, but I have been there, um, my fear is not, when I'm at a gas station, is not normally around people who are homeless. Uh, it is around other types of characters that identify as threatening. Um, so I, I-

1398. 4:14:58

      Aggressive panhandlers, others, other kind of issues.

1399. 4:15:00

      Uh, well, we disagree. Any other questions?

1400. 4:15:08

      Senator Howard.

1401. 4:15:09

      Uh, thank you so much. I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Obviously, this is a, it's complicated or this would've been solved long time ago. Uh, you, you part- you, you mentioned you partner a lot with the, with the city. Is that correct?

1402. 4:15:21

      Yes, we do.

1403. 4:15:22

      And, uh, from my recollection, cities are funded through property taxes.

1404. 4:15:27

      Yes.

1405. 4:15:28

      And usually cities are stretched thin with budgets to try to achieve like a lot of different goals that we have, including homelessness.

1406. 4:15:36

      Yes.

1407. 4:15:36

      And they're funded through property taxes.

1408. 4:15:38

      Yes.

1409. 4:15:39

      And so, a- and we've spent a, a tremendous amount of time in this legislature talking about ways to reduce the revenue s- stream for our cities, right?

1410. 4:15:49

      Yes.

1411. 4:15:50

      Okay. So there's a pretty good chance at, at the end of our session, we'll have less revenue for our cities to be able to provide services for cities across the state, right?

1412. 4:16:01

      Yes, that is correct.

1413. 4:16:02

      Okay.

1414. 4:16:03

      Uh, we, we've been interested in trying to identify more dedicated revenue service, revenue sources for these so that we do not have to struggle so hard in the general allocation, uh, every year to, to find the appropriate services-

1415. 4:16:16

      Yeah

1416. 4:16:16

      ... for housing and homelessness.

1417. 4:16:17

      It, this helps 'cause I'm just connecting dot, I'm connecting some dots. Uh, sometimes we talk about taxes in, in one vein, but we don't connect it to services in another vein.

1418. 4:16:29

      Yes.

1419. 4:16:29

      And these things all interconnect and-

1420. 4:16:31

      They are interconnected

1421. 4:16:31

      ... sometimes when we get nervous, we just say throw people in jail like that's gonna make things better. But we all know that that ends up making the problem worse. But I do agree with, uh, my colleague from the 37th that there is an acute issue that, that-

1422. 4:16:45

      There is an acute issue

1423. 4:16:45

      ... and, um, and again, I, I think we're all searching for the right solutions.

1424. 4:16:51

      Yes.

1425. 4:16:51

      I think it's fair to say that this is a, a good attempt at trying to find the right solution, but, you know, sometimes our best intentions still have challenges. So thank you for your, um, testimony.

1426. 4:17:02

      Thank you.

1427. 4:17:03

      Thank you. Um, thank you very much for your testimony. Next speaker, uh, we've got Greg. Thank you.

1428. 4:17:14

      Thank you. Can you hear me? Uh, my name is Greg Gool. Thank you very much for your time today. I'm a resident of Midtown Atlanta. Um, drink coffee at local coffee shops. I've seen what they look like. It's called a bunch of feces on their front door. This was just three days ago, three weeks ago. Um, but I'm not here to talk about that specifically. I'm here to talk about my community, my pre- private residence. I was assaulted by a homeless person two years ago February. Thank goodness it was me, not my four foot nine wife.

1429. 4:17:46

      If my voice is shaking, it's 'cause I think of her every time. I think this is a very serious issue. It is acute issue. We can't solve homelessness today, but I can tell you what, I would like to be safe in my own neighborhood. I'm recently retired. I've invested over $300,000 in my home. That's past tense. My income earning is limited in the future. Hopefully, I'll have a good future. So let me tell you about what I found in my building in Midtown.

1430. 4:18:18

      Couple years ago, I decided to get some exercise walking down our stairwells. Homeless camp inside our building. Not one stairwells, not two stairwells, but three. Three out of four. What did I find in there? Well, I found clothes. I found feces. I found urine. I found sex toys. I found crack pipes. I found marijuana, and I found all sorts of other things. Thankfully, we're addressing that issue.

1431. 4:18:50

      How are we addressing this? Because we now spend $100,000 a year to have people come through our private property to help clean up our private property from things that are happening elsewhere. For me, it's safety. For me, it's living every day.

1432. 4:19:13

      I don't know-- I know, I do know our residents are thankful that we are taking efforts to keep our residents safe. As recently as three months ago, I had a homeless person on our property, again, threaten me with physical violence and say words that I wouldn't repeat here. What was I doing? I was picking up the trash that he took out of the trash can and threw on our property. It's all I was doing. Didn't even, didn't even address him I'm not just one person.

1433. 4:19:46

      We have 500 units,

1434. 4:19:51

      and we have a lot of people. Things would be a little bit different if this guy decided to assault my wife, my friend's children, any one of our neighbors in my building. I get to live here, too. I get to live here, too. I shouldn't have to leave. I shouldn't have to worry about me walking outside. I love the city of Atlanta. That's why I chose to leave the suburbs, DeKalb County and Marietta, to move downtown in Midtown, and I love living here, and I understand what comes with it.

1435. 4:20:26

      But that doesn't mean I get to be threatened when I go out, and that doesn't mean someone has to pick my life over someone else's life. This is not a choice for me between whether we support law enforcement or we re- support Greg Ghoul or we support our resident. It's not a matter of whether we support homeless people or don't support homeless people. This room is filled with many intelligent individuals. We can't s- solve the world's problems, but we certainly don't have to pick one group over another.

1436. 4:21:03

      We can support police and law enforcement, we can help the homeless people, and we can provide services which many organizations are doing. I put my money where my mouth is. I changed my will. If my wife and I die, one-fifth of it will go to the Atlanta Mission specifically because of this reason. I volunteer a lot of time for the safety of our community. I have a lot of empathy. I've called the police. I've called emergency medical services.

1437. 4:21:35

      I've cleaned up feces. I've given tips to our maintenance people that have to clean up this stuff, but they don't have to, actually, but I like to keep my community clean, I like to communi- keep our community vibrant, and I like to keep our community safe. And not only do I pay taxes to get some assistance from the law enforcement, we're voluntarily now paying six figures a year just to keep our community clean, and that does not mean we do not like homeless people.

1438. 4:22:06

      Does not mean that at all. We do what we can do to help, and we do have a church right down the road. They threatened me, too. They threatened my wife. Not the church, but their guests. And the reason why I refer to them as their guests, because I called them after this dude hanging out there after he got his meal. I called them back. Actually, I didn't call them. I walked right into the church, said, "I wanna talk to somebody about this.

1439. 4:22:37

      I should be able to walk on the sidewalk, right? I should be able to. I can take care of myself, but maybe not everybody else can." So I called them, had a nice conversation, and he referred to his guests, and he referred to the mission bigger than me, bigger than all of us here,

1440. 4:22:58

      and I wanted to say, "What do I do about the safety of my wife? What do I do about the safety of myself walking in my own neighborhood?" So with that being said,

1441. 4:23:12

      it's my understanding that if anyone from that church, guests, um, threaten me again, the church has some responsibility to their guests, and, and I don't mean that mean. I volunteered to work there, too. I'm recently retired. I volunteered to work one or two days a week to help figure out something else to do anything. I don't even care if they ask me to clean up afterwards. I'll do that. But I just wanted to say thank you.

1442. 4:23:44

      This is an acute problem, and we have a lot of well-meaning people, very smart people that are helping a lot of people, and I just wanted to say I support this bill. But I'll tell you what. This is not a choice between homeless people or us, police or us. We can help and support everybody, and, and thank you for listening very much.

1443. 4:24:12

      Thank you. And I have one question. Uh-

1444. 4:24:14

      Yes

1445. 4:24:14

      ... your building, assuming outside your walls is common area in the build-

1446. 4:24:18

      Do what?

1447. 4:24:18

      The building you live in, is it, is it a condo, like common area outside the, the drywall? Like, do you live in like a, is it condominium ownership?

1448. 4:24:26

      Yes, I live in a condominium. Um, I live in a condominium. We have 500 units. So, um, as-

1449. 4:24:32

      What does, what does law enforcement do when you call onto, I guess, private property or the, the association property? What, what can they do or...?

1450. 4:24:40

      Well, we ha- we invite them on our private property, and they help escort people off. Um, I'm also here to tell you that one gentleman who had a very well sense of being, um, I got into... I get to know a lot of these folks 'cause I walk a lot, um, was actually, the officer invited him, told him that he would be a great candidate for the Gateway Center for a diversion program, and he turned it down. Um, he turned it down. So yes, so we have retail at the f- at the bottom level of our building.

1451. 4:25:11

      We have retail parking, and then we have residents that live above it. So a lot of the homeless population vagrants are entering our stairwells through our retail public access parking lot. And we own, but we, I say we, we own through our homeowners association and our master association, we own that property.

1452. 4:25:33

      Yeah.

1453. 4:25:33

      So they can also, uh, use the restaurants in there, right? They... We have restaurants down below, and then we also have other common areas of hallways and lobbies, and they often get in there and sleep. So when I refer to these stairwells- These are emergency stairwells that the entire community use, and often people in the residential, excuse me, the retail use to get out.

1454. 4:25:56

      Thank you. Any further comments? Go ahead, senator.

1455. 4:26:00

      Thank you for coming down. Yes, um, would you... What, if any, suggestions do you have for, for example, you were threatened when you went to the church. Uh, what-

1456. 4:26:14

      I was walking by the church, yes

1457. 4:26:15

      ... walking by the church. What can... what recommendations would you have for involvement of the church, law enforcement, as well as the city? What would you like for them to actually do to assist, to make it just a better situation?

1458. 4:26:32

      Great question. Um, I wish I had the real- a real big answer, but I have a couple of ideas. Uh, I've asked that church specifically if they could perhaps modernize their food giveaway program, maybe modernize the- their mission of helping less fortunate and hunger. Um, what that church does... Let me phrase. I'll, I'm sorry, I'll, I'll focus a little bit better here. What I've asked their church to do something that they're not gonna do. I've asked them to serve the food and provide meals for the, for the homeless on their property, and if the homeless wanna eat, they can eat on their property.

1459. 4:27:13

      They didn't seem-

1460. 4:27:13

      But what are they currently doing and... Tell us.

1461. 4:27:15

      What do they currently do? They, they, uh... And I know they have the capacity, 'cause I've lived there for 25 years, and I've been to that church many times. Um, their, um, uh... What they do is they put their, their food or meals together, and they box them up in Styrofoam containers. And then, and then the, the people who want a meal come up to the door, and then they hand it out, and then the people with the meal go elsewhere. Quite often, some of them come to our building and hang out inside. But, um, that's what they do, so they're, they're giving it, and then they go out.

1462. 4:27:48

      I have suggested quite literally to the deacon who, or the gentleman who I spoke to, um, they got a building. They got a room. They got a room this size or bigger. Set up tables. Invite them in. Have a two-hour block. They'd like to eat, they could sit down. Maybe they can get additional wraparound services. I will volunteer to serve if they do that, because at least we have an opportunity to make sure they're getting fed. And I'm not saying that they don't try.

1463. 4:28:19

      Uh, they do. They, they clean up better because it used to be much worse. And, and so I'm not saying things are worse, worse, worse. They're getting better, better, better, except now that Fife is coming in, everybody's... there's more and more and more things going up. As we try to solve these homeless issues in Downtown Atlanta, um, many of them, I believe I heard recently 400 have now found homes, uh, thanks to these things. I, I like what the mayor's doing. But a lot of them are, are, are migrating elsewhere as we clean up. So where, where do they migrate?

1464. 4:28:50

      They migrate to other places, and the closest place where they can get to often is just about 1.5 miles away in Midtown, and, um, and there we have it. So I have offered, I have suggested the church to do that on their things. I have offered to attend as many meetings as they want, um, to come up with some prob- uh, solving. Uh, but, um, he, he, he, he listened to me. Very pleasant man, of course. Um, but, but I don't know that, you know, I don't know where it went with that one.

1465. 4:29:19

      Thank you. Senator Mallow?

1466. 4:29:21

      Thank you, mister, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for legislative counsel, uh, drawing attention to lines, uh, 41, Section B, declining to enforce existing laws, ordinances, other legislation prohibiting, and it lists out the following, uh, and drawing attention to line 48, public intoxic- intoxication or public urination while trespassing on private property, or, uh, how does local government enforce, for example, this gentleman's issue being that it is private property, how does local government enforce that? But by line 48 saying that this now creates causation against cities, what it...

1467. 4:29:57

      w- what power does the city have in relation to that? Because it's now creating the causation, but they can't tell what, a private property owner what to do on their property unless they've-

1468. 4:30:10

      Chair Mallow

1469. 4:30:10

      ... called and trespassed that individual.

1470. 4:30:13

      Uh, in general, in the Georgia Constitution, the police power is one of the supplemental powers given to, I do believe, both counties and municipalities. So, uh, not to give a lawyer answer, the police power is a fairly broad, uh, example. It's not just criminal enforcement, but the, the keeping of order, ordinances, that sort of thing. So, um, m- municipality and counties have fairly broad authority to enforce it, of course, within their own ordinance and laws, our general laws, uh, and constitutional provisions.

1471. 4:30:49

      And so, for example, should, uh, the city come and cite all the individuals and trespass them, and the property owner or the group of owners in the condominium make no reasonable effort to solve the problem that exists by providing security fencing, gating, or additional things, and the city starts to come out and provide those calls for service, but now each individual condominium owner can cause action against the city, but the actual owner of the property has no duty to do anything?

1472. 4:31:18

      Uh, I'm not exactly sure how the interactions will play out as well as how, uh, actions will proceed under this. Um, this just appears to be giving sort of... It's two separate powers, which is the police power versus a... Cause of action is the wrong word for it, but, um, versus an action against the city itself. So it's kind of dealing with two separate things. Um, and the

1473. 4:31:48

      For example, this gentleman lives in a condominium-

1474. 4:31:50

      Mm-hmm

1475. 4:31:50

      ... so he therefore is an owner, but he is not the master property owner. So as an owner, he has causation under this-

1476. 4:31:57

      Mm-hmm

1477. 4:31:57

      ... but he can't ... The city ... He can't effectuate the, the change because of the condominium and its multiple owners, but he can now have that issue against the city. But if the city goes back and tells them, the homeowner association-

1478. 4:32:10

      Mm-hmm

1479. 4:32:11

      ... "You should do this," what causation do they have to ensure that they do it for the people that live in their association, right? So I'm just making sure that 300 condominium owners can't bring cause against the city, but the actual thing itself does nothing to help reduce that.

1480. 4:32:28

      Uh-

1481. 4:32:28

      Like, they get blamed for it, but they really can't control it.

1482. 4:32:30

      The city, in that instance, if, say, it's a part of a code enforcement or anything like that, that would be the mechanism they would use to help enforce it, as well as the bylaws of the association and, um, sort of agreements within that. So there are some mechanisms there, and it goes back to their police power. If it's, again, within the ordinance, the laws, or whatever, they would have that authority to be able to tell private property owners, "Hey, you have to do X, Y, and Z."

1483. 4:32:58

      Senator Howard.

1484. 4:33:00

      I just want to thank you for the testimony, and thank you for-

1485. 4:33:02

      No, thank you

1486. 4:33:02

      ... being so active in not only identifying a problem, but being ... trying to do the best you can to be a part of a solution. I think that's admirable, and we need more people like you. Um-

1487. 4:33:11

      Thank you

1488. 4:33:12

      ... I do con- concern for the folks who are not like you, who might see dollar signs in the sense of, how can I now, you know, find a way to, you know, bring a bunch of lawsuits in, uh, against the city? Um, based on what I'm understanding about the current version of the bill, do you have concerns about folks who are not, who are not operating with the level of integrity that you're operating with? But are-

1489. 4:33:36

      Every day

1490. 4:33:36

      ... but they're fired up and they may be seeing ... I mean, we do live in Georgia. If I listen to the gospel channel, every ... the commercial come on and people are trying to get their checks by getting run over by something. So this just seems like we ... I don't know, I don't know if we're, um, there's a possibility we might be encouraging a industry of folks to find a way to let's sue a municipality, you know. Because there ... 'Cause clearly there's a problem. It's complicated. It's nuanced. Your, your, your, your testimony is so spot on on just how complicated it can be.

1491. 4:34:12

      I, I just wanna know your thoughts on-

1492. 4:34:14

      I have time?

1493. 4:34:15

      ... the legal part. Yes.

1494. 4:34:16

      Absolutely. So, um, I got back on our board to make sure our community was doing what we could do for the residents of our community. Um, hmm. Last week, a young lady threatened to sue the board. All I knew to do is tell her how to spell my name correctly. People say all the time, "I'm gonna sue this. I'm gonna sue that." I'm not gonna live my life anymore worrying what, what someone may or may not do.

1495. 4:34:44

      I'm not gonna live my life afraid.

1496. 4:34:48

      Thank you. Senator Setzler.

1497. 4:34:50

      Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the senator from the 35th, raised the question about, you know, being able to bring a case and get big settlement for it. Lines 97 through 103, um, s- subsection E, I think it's important to understand f- for the senator, um, compensation is paid by the local government persons, the person this code section shall be in lieu of other claims, so they're, they're essentially, um, limiting their ability to pursue claims other, under theories of, of tort or cause of action. And then B, this the second part, and two, not exceed the amount of ad valorem property taxes paid by such owners partial.

1498. 4:35:27

      Um, so if your property tax is, uh, uh, for the year as a, as a business owner is $10,000, then under no way could you ever pursue, um, compensation more than the amount of taxes you paid. So there, there's a, there's a real limit to the amount of taxes being, the, the, the amount of exposure cities have here. Um, you're sidestepping other causes of action to, to use this, to, if you avail yourself of this, and there, there's, there's a significant limitation there. There's not some pot of gold, some damages that you're gonna get from a, from a jury as a result of this.

1499. 4:35:59

      This is just really getting decent service from your city. This, this creates an incentive for the cities to step up and help. So.

1500. 4:36:08

      Thank you.

1501. 4:36:08

      Sure, go ahead.

1502. 4:36:09

      And based on how you're reading it, Senator, um, could an attorney work with other attorneys and just get a collection of people and different properties? And especially if you have a unit with 500 units, each unit has their own property tax. It just seems like cra- uh, attorneys are very, uh, creative on building cases. So I just, based on how you're reading ... Again, I'm not an attorney, but based on what you're seeing here, the attorneys in the room, do y'all not see that this is an opportunity for, for that?

1503. 4:36:39

      I, I would s-

1504. 4:36:39

      For some version of that?

1505. 4:36:40

      I would say if I've been harmed by a powerful actor, um, and I don't have resources, I'm, I'm thankful my attorneys serve me well and do a good job. Um, I think in this case, you know, we talk about in lieu of other claims, this cannot be characterized as, as, as a big pot of gold. Now, if the answer is individual property owners have paid $2,000 a year and $2,500 a year, if, if the, if the, if we engage an attorney that understands the nuances of this and can bring a claim for me, if I can demonstrate actual harm, um, I'm thankful for someone to be able to bring a claim that can demonstrate actual harm.

1506. 4:37:18

      So in this situation, we have 500, um, folks, right? And clearly there's been a case building up. I'm just, again, I'm just-

1507. 4:37:28

      Yeah

1508. 4:37:28

      ... could all, class action, if, I don't know if that classifies it, could all, all of them work together with an attorney to all meet the whatever, 4 or $5,000? But I'm just picking a number.

1509. 4:37:39

      If the, if the, if the issue-

1510. 4:37:40

      And multiply that times 500, and then I'm-

1511. 4:37:42

      Yes, sir

1512. 4:37:42

      ... that's just one building.

1513. 4:37:43

      Yes, sir. If, if the remedy for a big complex like this, um- Is spending $100,000 per year specifically for the issue of cleaning up trash and feces and the sort of the, the clutter and chaos that's created by non-enforcement of existing laws. Now, again, the first time that doesn't happen, first time you, you, you-

1514. 4:38:05

      Mm-hmm

1515. 4:38:05

      ... it's, it's... There, there's a couple... This has to happen a couple of times before you build the case-

1516. 4:38:09

      Sure

1517. 4:38:10

      ... of non-enforcement for a city. It simply allows p- a person to be made whole, and not made whole in the big sense, not the, the pot of gold sense, but, but just really a direct cost sense. If I've gotta have an, a, a security guard because repeatedly, and this, this repeated, um, again, the, the definition. I, I f- and I, and I will tell you to, to, to the-

1518. 4:38:30

      Yeah, 'cause I don't think that the individual will kind of get some big pot of gold, but I do think that there may be some attorneys that are very astute that can find a way to get their pot of gold off of the city's or the county's dime. And, and again, like I mentioned to the last speaker, we, our cities and our counties are gonna be dealing with s- uh, more belt-tightening with property value, uh, property values going up and taxes going down. I mean, it just seems like... Again, I don't have the answer.

1519. 4:39:01

      I'm just asking questions about this particular point of view.

1520. 4:39:04

      I will tell you, if you're, as a business owner, I know you are one, if you had to demonstrate all the elements that are required to prove this plus this plus this plus this plus this to win one of these cases, there's a lot that's gotta be proven to do this. There, there really is. I think there's... I think it'd be hard to prove these cases.

1521. 4:39:19

      That sounds like billable hours to me.

1522. 4:39:21

      Well, it, it's-

1523. 4:39:22

      S-

1524. 4:39:22

      But I mean, and, and to stop the commentary back and forth, I mean, great question back and forth.

1525. 4:39:26

      I mean, I, I thought it would go a minute, but thank you.

1526. 4:39:28

      You know, y'all, y'all... Oh yeah, and y'all do have, um... You know, we gotta keep moving.

1527. 4:39:31

      I understand.

1528. 4:39:31

      Um, but you know, and great questions back and forth, but you know, you've gotta understand where the... And I'm not a lawyer, uh, won't pretend to be one, but if he's been harmed for e- uh, 25 years or however many years you've had the issue, and the municipality's not... I mean, and if he, if they're taking all the steps of the, you know, they're spending $100,000 a year on security keeping, uh, you know, from where that tran- transition from commercial to residential space is, and they're still being harmed and the municipality's not helping them, then some- they should have a cause of action. And I mean, it, the, the city exists because of the taxpayers paying the city taxpayer money.

1529. 4:40:04

      If they're not performing the services, there should be an issue.

1530. 4:40:06

      Can I say one other thing?

1531. 4:40:06

      I mean, there should be a right of action.

1532. 4:40:08

      I'd like to say one other thing and then I'll, I'll, uh, appreciate your time. Um, I don't know that as a board, HOA board, that I would recommend filing a lawsuit from a HOA a- a- and challenge the, our dollars on something like this. And, and the main reason why is our condominium, our bylaws very specifically state we do not provide security. That is up to the individual, individual resident, individual homeowners. HOA attorneys are regularly inviting, not inviting, regularly telling condominium association boards, "Don't supply security." And I look at them every time and say, "Are you kidding me?" I ha- we, we're, we live in a place where it's reasonable to do something, and then they back off.

1533. 4:40:57

      But I'm the one, I'm finding I'm the one guy out of 15 HOAs, I'm the one the guy says, "Are you s- really? Of course we don't provide security. However, we can make sure that back alley is lit up," which we did two, three years ago for another $10,000. We can, we can, for another $8,000, we can put more lights in the front. We have access control systems. We have concierge systems. So all I'm saying relative to that is even that's what's coming at us.

1534. 4:41:28

      So, so we, and this came directly out of one HOA attorney's mouth, "Well, you just have to get creative how you do it." Thank you, that's my job I guess, because I don't, I, I, I think we should be able to do some reasonable things to protect or create a reasonable environment. But to think about the dilemma, when we talk about lawsuits, think about the dilemma when attorneys are telling HOAs not to provide security, and then we have police force not around or doing other things.

1535. 4:42:00

      Wh- wh- where does that leave us? We're in that middle zone. Um, and I, I-

1536. 4:42:04

      We, we've got a good bill for you. It's in the House if you want to encourage some House members. It creates a, a oversight, creates a board, kind of like the Real Estate Commission for HOAs.

1537. 4:42:13

      What's that? Which one is that? 406?

1538. 4:42:15

      I don't remember. You'll have to, you'll have to look it up, but we can get it to you.

1539. 4:42:17

      Senate Bill 406?

1540. 4:42:19

      That, yep, that's it. Thank you.

1541. 4:42:20

      I'm all over it. Thank you.

1542. 4:42:21

      Thank you.

1543. 4:42:21

      Next up we've got-

1544. 4:42:23

      Appreciate it.

1545. 4:42:23

      Thank you very much for coming. Uh, we got SPARK. Is that right?

1546. 4:42:28

      Well, where was it? Where's the?

1547. 4:42:34

      Joy Monroe.

1548. 4:42:41

      Can you take over on that?

1549. 4:42:47

      Good afternoon. I'm Joy Monroe, and I'm the director of SPARK, which is the Single Parent Alliance and Resource Center, and I just wanted to, um, talk about HB 295. As a woman who's also not as young as I used to be, uh, nor as petite as I used to be, I do appreciate concerns about public spaces and safety. But this bill takes us in the wrong direction. Um, as we heard earlier from the city, from the gentleman from the city of Atlanta, this bill simply doesn't address the actual problem.

1550. 4:43:22

      It doesn't solve homelessness, it entrenches it and simply perpetuates the cycle instead of bringing any forward progress. What actually solves homelessness is housing. Because of the increase in homelessness and the widely acknowledged housing crisis, my nonprofit has had to do a great deal of research on homelessness and what works and what doesn't. We've had to expand our scope, host forums, and travel to see, to learn what others are doing and what is working and what isn't We heard earlier that this model already exists in Arizona and has not been effective.

1551. 4:43:56

      That jibes with what I already knew. The models that do work do not lead with incarceration, they lead with housing, diversion, and supportive services. While we do acknowledge that the problem exists, we want to stress that we want to get behind and partner with others on solutions that actually work. It's not us versus them, but if we are, if we arrest individuals, and they're incarcerated, and then released, and then put back on the same streets from which they were arrested, we have not made any forward progress.

1552. 4:44:27

      We have simply wasted resources that we do not have to waste. Additionally, moving resources away from the cities that have invested in solutions and partners with service providers is counterproductive, to say the least. Criminalizing homelessness won't solve homelessness. It will simply increase c- incarceration, undermine re-entry and housing access, and further harm our neighbors who are already in crisis, and ultimately cost taxpayers more in the long run as costs are then shifted downstream.

1553. 4:44:59

      It increases at the hospital level, it increases for the police force, it increases for local schools as well. We urge continued investment in housing first solutions and the supportive services that make them work, which are both more humane and more cost-effective than punitive enforcement. National studies estimate that incarceration can cost upwards of $60,000 per person per year, while supportive housing programs cost between 24,000 and 35,000 per year.

1554. 4:45:29

      It's a much more cost-effective solution that actually works to reduce recidivism and homelessness. I work closely with many municipalities and law, law enforcement agencies who are working with compassion to move people into housing. This bill would undermine existing local efforts where government, law enforcement, and nonprofits are already implementing solutions that work. Thank you for your time.

1555. 4:45:54

      Any questions for, for the witness? Okay, thank you for your testimony, Joy.

1556. 4:45:59

      Thank you.

1557. 4:46:01

      Any, uh, not too good on this, but, but, uh, Layla from the Georgia Housing Co- or Gwinnett Housing Corporation.

1558. 4:46:15

      If you can keep it as brief as possible. We got a long list of folks that wanna testify, and we've been here on hour number five, so that Snickers bar went away a long time ago.

1559. 4:46:25

      Thank you, Chairman and the committee members. I just want to say first that, um, um, I don't fear my unhoused neighbors, and I think criminalizing homelessness is not gonna make me feel safer as a woman, especially knowing that they are three times as likely to be victims of violent crimes, um, than the general population. But working for Gwinnett Housing Corporation, a nonprofit that serves afford- uh, develops affordable housing for homeless families, um, I kindly ask you to, um, vote against this bill. The l- legislation undermines local control.

1560. 4:46:56

      It penalizes the communities that are actively working to address what we've discussed are complex challenges through collaboration. Across Georgia, local governments, law enforcement, and nonprofits are partnering to implement thoughtful community-based strategies that im- improve public safety while also connecting individuals to housing, mental health services, um, and other care. These approaches reflect the reality that the unhoused cannot be legislated out of sight without sizable investments in affordable housing and mental health services.

1561. 4:47:28

      And arrest and incarceration are not the most effective or humane responses to issues like homelessness. Jail is not a solution. Key argument often used to justify this bill is that enforcement will get these people off the streets. However, the cost to house and provide services to an inmate in my county, in Gwinnett County, is almost $35,000 a year. This figure reflects just incarceration costs. It does not include the indirect human and community costs of car- incarceration. But in contrast, there's research across the country, multiple data on this, that shows that supportive housing and housing first programs, where people are placed in stable housing first, they cost substantially less and provide, uh, savings to the taxpayer.

1562. 4:48:11

      By exposing our local governments to lawsuits for perceived failures to enforce certain laws, this bill creates a powerful incentive to prioritize enforcement and arrest over long-term evidence-based solutions. This shift would strain law, law enforcement and local governments, court systems, um, divert limited public resources, and ultimately make it harder to achieve sustainable outcomes, meaning moving these people into permanent housing. So rather than imposing these rigid mandates, Georgia should trust and support their local leaders and their partners to develop solutions that reflect their unique needs of their communities.

1563. 4:48:49

      This bill risks undermining existing progress and replacing it with a system that's driven by liability instead of results.

1564. 4:48:56

      Thank you very much.

1565. 4:48:57

      Thank you.

1566. 4:48:59

      I, uh, uh, oh, you had a counterpart named Karen that was gonna testify. I'm, I'm think, they, uh, we, we can just hear from one from that organization, and, yeah, we're gonna make a motion on that one real quick like. Uh, Beth Stevens, uh, Enterprise Community Partners.

1567. 4:49:18

      Thank you. I will be quick. Uh, thank you. Committee. Um, my name is Beth Stephens. I'm the state and local policy director for an- Enterprise Community Partners in our Southeast office here in Georgia. I'm here to share our concerns about House Bill 295 and urge you to vote against the legislation. Um, many people across our state are facing skyrocketing housing costs. Wages have not kept up with rents, housing supply has not kept up with demand, and healthcare can be difficult to access. These pressures are felt by many of us, um, and have the biggest impact on the people at risk of homelessness or who are already experiencing it.

1568. 4:49:52

      The root cause of homelessness is lack of affordable housing, and we in Georgia are experiencing a critical housing shortage. Um, according to a statewide housing needs analysis conducted by the KB Advisory Group and commissioned by Enterprise, Georgia needs 715,000 new or replacement housing units to be built over the next decade, um, to account for the need. Um, Enterprise advocates for these resources that are needed to construct this housing and meet this growing need, and we know that providing housing and supportive services is the most effective way to prevent homelessness and end it quickly when it occurs.

1569. 4:50:27

      House Bill 295 would result in increased incarceration of people experiencing homelessness, which may get them off the street temporarily, but does not provide a sustainable solution or address the root cause of homelessness. A criminal record makes it more difficult to move into a rental unit, and spending the night in jail can cause a person to lose their place in line when they're awaiting shelter or temporary housing. We support proven solutions to homelessness, like investments in affordable housing and permanent supportive housing, um, emergency shelter for everyone who needs it.

1570. 4:50:58

      Uh, and when we connect people who are experiencing homelessness to housing, we're saving money in public spending on emergency room visits and incarceration costs. If we choose to pass this bill, we're not going to be closer to ensuring that our communities are equipped to support those who need to get back on their feet. This law doesn't make us safer or more economically vibrant. It directs community resources away from known homelessness solutions. And for all those reasons, we urge the committee to vote against 295. Thank you.

1571. 4:51:26

      Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Stephens. And the, uh, uh, Lucy Ruiz with Georgia Appleseed.

1572. 4:51:37

      Did you bring any apples? Our group's hungry.

1573. 4:51:40

      I understand. Unfortunately, I don't have them today. Um, good afternoon, committee. Thank you for, um, hearing us. My name is Lucy Ruiz, and I serve as the housing policy counsel for Georgia Appleseed, a 20-year-old nonpartisan, nonprofit law center dedicated to ensuring every Georgia family has a safe and healthy home. We lead the statewide housing, Healthy Housing Coalition, and based on that experience, we know that Georgia children are bearing the brunt of today's housing crisis, and the data speaks to that.

1574. 4:52:12

      In 2024, Georgia's Department of Education reported that more than 46,000 Georgia schoolchildren were homeless, which was a 30% increase in just two years alone. Of those n- of those, about 9,000 are living in hotels, 2,000 are living in shelters, and 850 have no shelter at all, are living on the streets or in a vehicle. Georgia ranks seventh among states with the highest number of homeless children in school, and these numbers do not even include the more than 14,000 homeless children who are too young to go to school.

1575. 4:52:45

      We are concerned that House Bill 295, um, makes these children vulnerable to criminal prosecution and only put, sets their families back even further than they are. Um, and so we ask this committee to vote no on House Bill 295.

1576. 4:53:01

      All right, you've got a flashing question over here from Miss, Senator Setzler.

1577. 4:53:05

      Thank you. Appreciate your, appreciate what you guys do. Um, can we agree that the children that f- uh, you, you describe that are, that have housing insecurity are not the root of loitering, panhandling, shoplifting, public intoxication, and the kind of, kind of v- issues that the author of the bill is seeking to address?

1578. 4:53:27

      Um, respectfully, Senator, and I'm speaking to, uh, my more than seven years of experience. Prior to being with Georgia Appleseed, I was the delinquency public defender in Fulton County. Those were many of my cases. And as I'm sure this committee is aware, um, we handled those cases not as criminal prosecutions. They're handled differently in juvenile court delinquency matters as rehabilitation. We want to keep these children from engaging in a pattern of criminal behavior. Unfortunately, a lot of these actions happen out of pure desperation.

1579. 4:54:02

      We have children on the streets having to beg for money to feed their siblings, to feed their families. And unfortunately, when laws like this go into effect and law enforcement does not have any discretion as to whether or not to get this child into a shelter or send this child to a DJJ facility, these children are just going to continue into this cycle of delinquency at no fault of their own.

1580. 4:54:29

      Mm. But, but I think just to, to be fair, uh, a- and you do describe a real problem, but this issue and, and this bill deals with recidivist, aggressive panhandling. It deals with people who are, um, urinating, defecating on businesses, in and around business, sleeping in doorways, and, and involved in a, albeit lower level, a crimi- a level of criminality and a g- a- and, and, and, and, and recidivist misdemeanor behavior.

1581. 4:55:00

      That's not what you're talking about with kids. So I mean, I, I d- I do appreciate, like, like I said, I appreciate what you do, but I think it's, it's not helpful to mischaracterize this about bill as one that's, that's going after kids. This is really an issue of recidivist misdemeanor behavior by people who are repeatedly time and time and time and time again impacting businesses. So to be fair, appreciate your contribution, but that's really not what this bill addresses.

1582. 4:55:25

      Lucy, thank you for your testimony. I'm gonna move a little faster here. Elizabeth Apley.

1583. 4:55:33

      Now, and I'm gonna speed us up in case you hadn't caught on to the message here. I'm gonna show you what, what, uh, Lee Anderson can do in a committee meeting.

1584. 4:55:42

      Mr. Chairman, uh, members of the committee, thank you. My name's Elizabeth Appley. I'm an attorney and public policy advocate. I'm here today on behalf of the Georgia Supportive Housing Association, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, 9 to 5 Georgia, Presbyterians for a Better Georgia, and St. Vincent de Paul Georgia. These are groups working every day to house and feed and advocate to prevent and ameliorate homelessness, which is a housing problem. The House Ways and Means chair has shared with you repeatedly data showing that there's been a 29% increase in median household income between 2019 and 2024, but a 45% increase in the cost of rent in Georgia.

1585. 4:56:24

      Elizabeth, I'm gonna ask you to stop right there.

1586. 4:56:26

      Yeah.

1587. 4:56:26

      The, uh, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna just suspend the, uh, I want our committee members to understand, and I'm gonna have to go ahead and get us called back to order, make sure everybody's here. The, uh, we lose this meeting room at 4:00 today. The, uh, uh, and we are going to get through this bill one way or the other.

1588. 4:56:43

      Okay.

1589. 4:56:43

      The, uh, if the chairman comes back before, uh, the, uh, uh, I, we get it called up, I wanna make sure I've got a, uh, all my me- members here, as many of them as attendance. So if you can hear me in the building, please come back to the meeting room. The, including the bill sponsor, said the, uh, uh. So if I could get, get, uh, folks to come on back in, that'd be great. I will let you go ahead and finish your testimony-

1590. 4:57:06

      Okay

1591. 4:57:06

      ... while they're, they're assembling, but I did wanna stop you and make sure people know we want them coming down here quick.

1592. 4:57:12

      So current law that-

1593. 4:57:14

      Mm

1594. 4:57:14

      ... adopted by this body in 2023, I believe, yes, 2023, already prohibits a local government from adopting or enforcing any written policy under which they prohibit the enforcement of any order or ordinance prohibiting unauthorized public sleeping, camping, or obstruction of sidewalks, OCGA 3660-31, and it provides a remedy.

1595. 4:57:39

      Thank, thank you, Elizabeth.

1596. 4:57:40

      This-

1597. 4:57:40

      I, I'm, I'm gonna cut you off again. So the, uh, I wanna get this bill, uh, up or down one way or the other. We're gonna move it forward, but I'm gonna let, let the author close. The, uh, Representative Gaines, Gaines, you have the, the, uh, floor. Thank you, Elizabeth.

1598. 4:57:57

      Pardon?

1599. 4:58:01

      Mr. Chair, would I, uh, ask that we get the written input from anyone else that wanted to testify, being cut off and not being able to testify, such as Elizabeth Appley from the-

1600. 4:58:14

      That'd be fine. We'll be glad to take, take any kinda additional written comments to it, so the, uh, and see where we go. Uh, Senator Howard, do you have a quick question?

1601. 4:58:22

      It's a point of order. Just wanted to make sure I have time to offer an amendment. I know we're gonna be moving fast, so I'd like to take the time.

1602. 4:58:27

      You better hurry. Make it, make it snappy when we get there. The, uh, uh, uh, Representative Gaines, do you have anything to close on your, the language of the bill?

1603. 4:58:35

      I'll be extremely brief. Just a couple points I heard come up, and, and I know he may have just a very brief point. One was I know Arizona came up 'cause they have passed something very similar, and I, uh, have this in my folder, just some of the different actions that ci- local cities in Arizona have, uh, have, have done as a result of what they passed, including Surprise reinstates homeless, uh, camping ban prohibiting sleeping in public spaces. The Mesa City Council took action. Goodyear took action. Um, so I think you've seen action as a result of what Arizona has passed in a positive direction.

1604. 4:59:06

      Someone mentioned busing of homeless individuals. That is something that we've seen. That's why this legislature passed two years ago a bill that prohibited that and gave local governments the opportunity to try to hold other local jurisdictions accountable. It's up to those local governments to actually enforce it. Um, and so those are just a couple points that I heard early on. I know he had a couple of, uh, data points, and then we'll, we'll, we'll let it g- let it go from there.

1605. 4:59:28

      Yes, Mr. Chair.

1606. 4:59:28

      State your name please for us.

1607. 4:59:30

      Uh, yes, Dr. Chris Sharp, Cicero Institute. Uh, couple things that I wanted to point out. First off, there are 20,000 total beds, and this is what the homeless ser- service providers are, are presenting to the federal government. There are 20,000 beds across the state of Georgia. Only 70, 69% of them are being used. And so total, there are 12,290 unsheltered homeless. There are more beds than there are homeless people in those beds. The fiscal impact, uh, to Atlanta and Savannah, the two, uh, largest property value and tourism lo- locations in Georgia, $3.4 billion in property loss, that's individual property loss in median home costs in Atlanta, and $684 million in Savannah.

1608. 5:00:12

      That's based off of the Association of Realtors, and they did an impact study in, uh, in Los Angeles that showed that it reduces property values by 3.14% in having a homeless encampment within a third of a mile from your house. I ha- I heard a question about, uh, the prevalence of mental illness within the population. Again, what's been reported to the federal government is 18% of Georgia's, uh, un- unsheltered homeless popul- or overall homeless population is eight, is, uh, seriously mentally ill, and an additional 10% are chronically addicted.

1609. 5:00:44

      Further, 3% are registered sex offenders, which is a completely l- completely different subpopulation that we don't hear about, and I'll leave it at that.

1610. 5:00:52

      Thank you for your testimony. Said the, uh, uh, Senator Howard, I believe you said you might have an amendment. Do you wanna talk about it just a little bit before we take any action?

1611. 5:01:01

      Yes. Uh, again, wanted to thank the author of the bill. I really appreciate it. Just kinda speaks to why we need to invest, 'cause it seems like the, um, it's worth the investment from our state to help, um, get ahead of this. So I do have an, a amendment to add to... Well, I move that in lines 134, after the word section, um, we'll make that a comma and, and put, "In no event shall a claim be made pursuant to this code's Um, on behalf of the, of a class of persons who are alleged to be similarly situated.

1612. 5:01:39

      And I know Ledge Council has some cleanup to do there. But this, but just the intent of this amendment is to, um, make sure that we don't have, we don't create a new cottage industry of class action lawsuits against our municipalities, and especially at a time where, you know, a lot of, uh, belt-tightening will be necessary with, um, um, our, um, changes to property value, property taxes. Excuse me. I'll go back. I'll say that again.

1613. 5:02:06

      Say it in English.

1614. 5:02:07

      Oh, okay. So basically we're, we're trying to limit the ability for folks to have class action lawsuits.

1615. 5:02:13

      And, and the, uh...

1616. 5:02:16

      So Le- Ledge Council has... Oh, I'm sorry.

1617. 5:02:18

      What's your thoughts on... That is, I wanna make sure we get the bill done one way or the other.

1618. 5:02:25

      I g- I guess the question is, is, is that a necessary add to the bill? I mean, I, I, I don't think it is. Um, and so, you know, it's something I, I wouldn't, um, be in favor of, but, you know, happy to learn more from the lawyers in the room. But, uh-

1619. 5:02:38

      Mm-hmm

1620. 5:02:38

      ... initially I would not think that is. And this is something, you know, we have incorporated a lot of, uh, changes from GMA and ACCG and others. This bill's been in place, or we've been through the process for the last three years. Um, and so we've certainly considered all sorts of different things. Um, but open to hearing, I guess, the need for, for this a- addition.

1621. 5:03:00

      Senator McNeel, you have a question.

1622. 5:03:01

      With all due respect to Senator Howard, I, I don't see a cottage industry of class action lawsuits arising out of these kind of actions where your recovery is limited to a tax bill or, or two. And these cl- It'd be hard to class it anyhow because each individual property owner is gonna be unique to them, um, to the, their market value drop will be unique to them. Um, and the, their, their cost of mitigating the harms that, uh, have occurred on their properties will be unique to them.

1623. 5:03:31

      It'd be very difficult to put into a class. Um, so I'd, I'd be opposed to the amendment.

1624. 5:03:39

      May I ask a question to our esteemed attorney? Ask a follow-up question to our esteemed attorney.

1625. 5:03:44

      Yes, go ahead.

1626. 5:03:45

      Um, obviously in, in the, in Atlanta and other big parts where you may have a huge building, uh, in, you know, Atlanta or other parts, a huge building of all individual units. I mean, it could be several hundred units, and it just seems like there should be some protections in those situations because maybe the, a lot of the... You know, we're thinking about a collection of collecting information, right? But if you can identify each unit within one building or, or even a block, uh, these residential towers are huge.

1627. 5:04:15

      And if you can have the same argument for a collection of towers in a close place, it, it seems that there would be. But you would know better than me, I just wanted to throw that out there for consideration, so. But I think Ledge Council has some exact wording there.

1628. 5:04:30

      Um, I am starting to get exact wording together.

1629. 5:04:33

      Okay.

1630. 5:04:33

      But broadly, it would be, um...

1631. 5:04:39

      Uh, hold on. Brain. It is essentially, uh, actions brought pursuant to this code section shall not be brought as class actions, is gonna be the short version of it. Um, there may be a reference to, uh, parts of the Civil Practice Act involving class actions, but I need to delve through that to see what it is. But broadly speaking, it'd be adding a new subsection that says that actions pursuant to this code section should not be brough- brought as a class action.

1632. 5:05:16

      Second. While our chairman's over there, so the, the ledge, the, the committee sub that we have here from the house committee, it's passed through the house just like it is.

1633. 5:05:25

      That's right.

1634. 5:05:25

      So if we don't make any changes, we could pass this bill just like it is and get it on the floor. And, and hey, one of the things that, that we meet every year, the, uh... If it doesn't work, you know, I, I think we can address it. But I, I think, you know, the, the goal here is, is we gotta do something to protect all these, these property owners.

1635. 5:05:45

      That's right.

1636. 5:05:48

      Mr. Chair, you got the chair back.

1637. 5:05:52

      Well, former chairman, I appreciate those comments. Where are we at?

1638. 5:06:01

      I've been going around running my mouth. We have a do pass. What's that? Oh, sorry. We don't have a do pass, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a do pass motion.

1639. 5:06:11

      Second.

1640. 5:06:11

      All right, we got a motion and a do, for do pass and a second. I walk out of the room, and they clear the room of all the... I, I gotta start learning more about efficiency. Uh, we got a, a motion to do pass. We got a second. Open for discussion or amendments.

1641. 5:06:26

      So movement was, um, um, I move that in line 134, as stated by Ledge Council.

1642. 5:06:36

      Again, that amendment will be line 134 after section two, period, to put in a new subsection that reads, "Actions brought pursuant to this code section shall not be brought as class actions." And, um, I also would ask that as well, depending on specific language in our class action statute, to mess with that a little bit to make sure it's in compliance with everything.

1643. 5:07:01

      Second.

1644. 5:07:04

      All right. So we got a motion and a second for the amendment offered by Senator Howard. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed?

1645. 5:07:16

      Party line vote. The, the motion fails.

1646. 5:07:24

      Now we'll take up the underlying bill, uh, working off of LC 630070S.

1647. 5:07:32

      Mr. Chairman, I move to, uh, LC630070S.

1648. 5:07:36

      We have a motion for table, and we've got a second. It does take precedent. Um, all in favor for tabling, raise your hand.

1649. 5:07:46

      We need clarification down there.

1650. 5:07:51

      It's like being at an auction, man. You gotta be careful of those fingers now. Just leave me hung. That's right. Well, at least we're not meeting at 6:00 AM, like another member that's not here with us. He probably already have taken a nap. Uh, all right. So y'all voted for it. Yeah, uh, all opposed? We got three, four. Motion fails. We'll take, uh, the underlying bill. We got a motion to pass. We got a second. LC 630070S. Do that without my glasses. All in favor, raise your hand.

1651. 5:08:23

      Like sign opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.

1652. 5:08:27

      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1653. 5:08:27

      Thank you all for coming. Thank you all for all the debate. I know this is a big issue.

1654. 5:08:31

      Thank you.

1655. 5:08:31

      I know we got two sides to it, but, um, we do gotta protect property owners' rights. Oh, yeah. And we've been here so long, we are adjourned, but, uh, this is our last logo meeting. I can tell everyone is very sad that this is the end of the biennium, but, uh, we are adjourned.