Senate State and Local Governmental Operations Committee, January 29, 2026

Transcript

354 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:17:05

   Let us bow our heads. Dear Lord, we come to you again to thank you so much for the many blessings and opportunities you've bestowed upon us. Please give us the courage to do the things we need to do for the state of Georgia. Please lead us, guide us, direct us. In thy name we pray, amen.

2. 0:17:36

   As we're getting started, just wanna let everybody know that, uh, Senate Bill 301 has been removed from the agenda, uh, per the author. The first bill we've got on our agenda today is HB 244. If the author would please come up.

3. 0:17:58

   Mr. Chair, would your commission ask the state auditor join you at the desk?

4. 0:18:02

   No, not at all. Thank you.

5. 0:18:08

   Uh, before I'm... Mr. Chairman, can I proceed?

6. 0:18:11

   Please proceed.

7. 0:18:12

   I was gonna give you a summary of the bill and then have, um, uh, the auditor give you some color commentary, but we have a committee substitute and an amendment, and I'd like the leg council to kind of walk the committee through kind of what that does, so we can start from, from there and then move forward into the summary.

8. 0:18:26

   Okay.

9. 0:18:27

   If that's okay with you.

10. 0:18:27

    Yep.

11. 0:18:40

    So, um, so the committee's got, it should have a substitute before it. I believe it's LC473927S.

12. 0:18:52

    Correct.

13. 0:18:53

    Um, and that, that's the substitute that, uh, Representative Cannon is presenting here today. Um, and then there's also... I hope y'all also have copies of an amendment, Amendment AM470165.

14. 0:19:10

    Stuart, can you run through that LCS and-

15. 0:19:13

    Sure. So for the, the substitute, uh, 473927S.

16. 0:19:21

    How about tracking? Then I've got this amendment.

17. 0:19:25

    Right. And then the amendment is AM470165.

18. 0:19:32

    So the amendment would replace lines 24 through 31 in the, uh, the substitute before y'all. Um, and it's just providing some clarifying language. Uh, the s- the state auditor and I, um, we, we wanted to make sure... Ear- earlier today, there was a question as if the current language in the substitute would potentially leave a hole where certain governments could argue they did not have to do a state audit or do an audit each year.

19. 0:20:02

    Um, the amendment just slightly modifies the language on lines 24 through 31 to resolve any doubt that all local governments would be obligated to do one of the three type of audit or audit-like functions that are being proposed in the bill that Representative Cannon and, uh, the state auditor can explain in greater detail. But that's kind of the, the posture of the, how the amendment works with the substitute before y'all.

20. 0:20:36

    Thank you.

21. 0:20:37

    Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. All right, just a quick summary. Um, HB 244, uh, provides some additional flexibility in local government audit requirements based on the level of local government expenditures. The bill eases and reduces the financial reporting burden for those cities and counties who have expenditures less than 2.5 million. Uh, we heard this bill last year in this committee. Um, uh, the bill came out of some recommendations from the Rural Development Council in 2023, uh, specifically asking the Department of Audits and Accounts to come up with a reasonable way of reducing the accounting and audit burden on some smaller local, local governments by the 2025 legislative session.

22. 0:21:16

    Uh, we came close last year, just kind of came up short a little bit. We're gonna try again this year. Um, but the proposed language expands the use of what we call the agreed-upon procedures, AUP engagements, and creates a simpler reporting option as opposed to the financial statements, uh, being prepared and audited on the full generally accepted accounting principle basis, a ga- full GAAP basis. Specifically, the bill allows for two less costly options for our full GAAP, both from the preparer side and the auditor side.

23. 0:21:46

    It also incorporates some language to address late filings of local governments, primarily in the counties, that may be attributable to constitutional officers that, in some cases, keep their books separately from the county. Uh, we worked very closely with GMA, ACCG, uh, Mr. Griffin, and the state auditor's office, and leg council, uh, to craft the language. Appreciate their help and cooperation. Um, so overall, this legislation seeks to allow some... We're looking for some simplicity, uh, in general, in the reporting requirements for what are often very small, very rural local governments that just don't have that high level of government expenditures.

24. 0:22:25

    Uh, again, they're below 2.5 million. Um, I'd like to allow the state auditor to go through some details, if that's appropriate, Mr. Chairman.

25. 0:22:34

    That is.

26. 0:22:34

    Uh, and kind of walk through with the committee some of the key portions and highlights of the, of the language.

27. 0:22:42

    Thank you, Representative Cannon. And, uh, pleasure to be here, uh, committee and Mr. Chair- chairman. Just, uh, as, as, uh, Representative Cannon said, we're, this is in response to, uh, work done with the Rural House, Rural Development Council. Just very quickly, some stats. There currently are over 143 cities that are delinquent, uh, in their annual audit filings Uh, that's about 27% of the population. Uh, there are, are 67 of those cities that have two or more reports, uh, delinquent and 29 that are three or more, uh, in arrears.

28. 0:23:19

    The counties fare much better. Uh, there currently are only 24, uh, counties delinquent, uh, which is 15%, and two counties that have, uh, two reports in arrears. And, and this legislation really focuses on just the cities in terms of providing some relief and flexibility, uh, to the accounting models. As, as Representative Kanis said, the, the, uh, back in the back portion, uh, uh, relates to, uh, the counties.

29. 0:23:50

    Um, uh, I think you summarized what the legislation pretty well. I'd be glad to walk you through, uh, the line by line or the sections that relate to the, the big changes if you'd like me to do that, if that's appropriate.

30. 0:24:05

    Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you.

31. 0:24:07

    Okay. So again, we are providing flexibility to, uh, access cost-effective alternatives. And so we are generally expanding the use of the agreed-upon procedures audits, AUPs as we call it for short, and we're introducing or creating a optional re- different... A special purpose reporting framework, which is in lieu of a full GAAP audit. So on lines, uh, 18 to 23, that is where we are increasing the expenditure threshold, uh, uh, to 2.5 million.

32. 0:24:46

    Any, any, uh, city that has more than 2.5 million in expenditures will be required to have a full audit. Uh, that threshold before was 550,000. Uh, in lines 25 to 31, that, that is where we are creating the special option, uh, special purpose framework. So any expendit- any entities that have, uh, expenditures less than 2.5 million, uh, may opt to elect to have their, uh, audits performed on a special purpose framework.

33. 0:25:22

    Which line would it be?

34. 0:25:23

    It's around 25 to 31.

35. 0:25:27

    And that's where the amendment comes into play.

36. 0:25:29

    And, and that's... And the amendment changes a couple words there. And then, uh, on lines 32 to 33, that is where we are increasing the, uh, ex- threshold, expenditure threshold for the AUP audits from 550,000 to a million. Uh, on lines 41 to 46, just to, to point out AUPs, those are not full audits. Those, that is an agreed-upon procedures review.

37. 0:26:01

    It's, it's, it's limited. It's, again, not as, uh, robust as an audit. Uh, there was concern that there, that they didn't go far enough. What we did to address that in those lines, uh, it is requiring that a full audit, either under full GAAP or under the special purpose framework, be conducted every fifth year.

38. 0:26:28

    Uh, and then lines 59 to 61, uh, grants the state auditor the flexibility to, uh, waive and create, uh, generate, cr- uh, exceptions to keep governments from jumping back and forth between, uh, the expenditure, uh, or the full audits and the AUPs, 'cause those are very different. And if you're right on the line, you don't, you do not wanna be jumping back and forth between the two different, uh, accounting bases. And then back towards the back, 141 to the end of the, the, uh, legislation, that is where, uh, um, language to incent, uh, certain public officials, uh, and employees to cooperate in providing, uh, financial information, uh, to their primary government in order to get their financial reports completed in a timely manner.

39. 0:27:24

    That's, that's pretty much-

40. 0:27:27

    Thank you

41. 0:27:27

    ... the bill.

42. 0:27:30

    Any questions, comments?

43. 0:27:35

    Go ahead, Mr. Wipp.

44. 0:27:37

    Thank you. Could you give me a, a brief understanding of a full GAAP?

45. 0:27:42

    Full GAAP is that, that is, uh, generally accepted accounting principles. Uh, you have to follow the, um, the, uh, standards that are set by the Government Accounting Standards Board. Uh, it requires you to complete a number of sets of f- financial statements and p- prescribes all the things that go into the notes. So, uh-

46. 0:28:07

    And, and these are the certifications that governments get. They walk around with the big ring binder, and at the beginning of their budget, they have that letter in there stating that they have completed all of that. Is, would that be close to right?

47. 0:28:20

    Uh, not-

48. 0:28:22

    Or they, where they promote the fact that it was a full GAAP audit.

49. 0:28:25

    It, it could, it could be.

50. 0:28:26

    A full GAAP's audit done?

51. 0:28:27

    There's-

52. 0:28:27

    Yep.

53. 0:28:27

    Yep.

54. 0:28:29

    And to, to the author, how many cities would be impacted by this?

55. 0:28:36

    I think we've got a list there. I think it was... Do you know, Mr. Auditor, there?

56. 0:28:41

    I do. Uh, so currently, um, moving the threshold of, uh, let's see, setting the threshold at a million captures 204 cities. That makes them eligible for the AUP. That's 38% of the population. Today, there are 142 cities that are eligible for the AUP.

57. 0:29:08

    What was that number? 142?

58. 0:29:10

    142. The 2.5 million threshold, uh, makes eligible 283 cities, which is about 50% of the population. Um, and that is, uh, y- yeah, that, those are the numbers.

59. 0:29:31

    And we're moving... We, we'd like to see, again, the, the use of the AUPs. Those procedures are generally less costly to prepare and audit, typically between 25 and 50% cheaper, less costly.

60. 0:29:45

    Are we giving irresponsible city leaders a, a, an easier way to, to do their audits? Those that don't wanna go through the full-

61. 0:29:59

    It, it-

62. 0:30:00

    ... audit

63. 0:30:00

    ... the, the AUP is less rigorous. Uh, the, the special pay, purpose framework is not. It's, it's, it is very much the same as a full audit. It, it is just, uh, the footnotes would be less complex. The numbers of statements would be less to prepare. They might be prepared on a cash basis, which is much easier than a full accrual basis. Uh, the AUP, we are increasing the number of, uh, entities, again, from 142 to 204.

64. 0:30:34

    Okay.

65. 0:30:35

    Uh, uh, it's still a review. Uh, and those procedures are very specific, and a- many of those are, are, uh, specified by my office. But to address the accountability thing, every fifth year, they have to have a full audit. That, which have, was not in place today.

66. 0:30:54

    Right.

67. 0:30:54

    That's a higher threshold.

68. 0:30:55

    That, that-

69. 0:30:55

    It's a higher threshold than it is today, so every fifth year must be the full GAAP audit.

70. 0:31:00

    Yeah.

71. 0:31:00

    And of course, if these are not done, then the state funds that come through the state to the counties and cities is, are withheld.

72. 0:31:08

    Yeah.

73. 0:31:08

    Elgi- you know, the ELIG funds, the CDBG accou- uh, ability, LRA funding. So that's part of the, the carrot is the, you need to get this stuff done, um, in order to receive state funds. If you can't get it done, then you don't get it. But some folks can't get the proper staff and can't afford an audit to get to the full GAAP, um, accounting. So this is, gives them an alternative way. Still holds them accountable and still makes them accountable to the taxpayers, but gives them a less rigorous form.

74. 0:31:39

    But there, there is some auditing involved, and it's prescribed by the state auditor.

75. 0:31:44

    Right. And I mean, there's... And Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind. I noticed, uh, there's been a lot of... There have been quite a few issues over the last couple of years-

76. 0:31:53

    Right

77. 0:31:53

    ... of smaller cities. And not to call out any, but we'll use Enigma as a, as an example, where mismanagement has, has impacted the, the, the citizens in a, in a very detrimental way. And so I just wanna make sure we're not, we're not paving a path for that type of behavior to, to be hidden longer and found out and discovered every five years. So it's my only concern, but I appreciate the legislation.

78. 0:32:22

    To that point, Mr., I th- I think that might still occur. And in those cases, I think there might need to be something on the back end to hold those cities accountable. Um, they can still not do an audit under this framework and still not be eligible, but there might be some, need to be some more rigorous, you know, response from the state to those particular local governments.

79. 0:32:40

    Thank you, sir.

80. 0:32:51

    Mr. Chairman, that's all we got.

81. 0:32:56

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on what the whip was asking there, Representative. Uh, I know I have a specific city that, that has not done one in, uh, I think over five years already and is non-compliant, the City of Quitman. And, um, uh, lines 141 on the back part of this bill, does that apply? Can you kind of walk me through, does that provide any more teeth than that? I know it mentions counties and consolidated governments, but does that... What... How does that part work?

82. 0:33:25

    So, so essentially what we're saying there is that, you know, basically you have, you know, organic county departments has to perform an audit, and you have outside county departments that, uh, they're not organic to the county that als- also have to provide input to the county audit. So for example, the Department of Public Health has to provide numbers to the county before the county can submit its audit. The library has to provide numbers to the county before the county can submit its audit, its audit. Probate court, sheriff's office, clerk of the court all keep separate books. And there's some cases where the county is prepared to do it or the city's prepared to do it but doesn't have those other outside agency books ready, uh, this says the county can go ahead and submit their audit and get credit for it from the state.

83. 0:34:09

    So it, it kinda, it kinda allows them to, you know, just move forward with the process because of an outside agency's holding them up. Uh, it do- doesn't punish them for an outside agency not keeping up with their, the timeline of submitting audits, their, their numbers to the, to the county or the city.

84. 0:34:25

    Okay. So there's no way to, uh, make that apply to the cities within the counties in any shape, form, or fashion?

85. 0:34:34

    In most cases, the city audits are separate from the county audits. It wouldn't have no bearing on the county audit. Those are separate local... If I'm correct in that. So it'd be no... It'd be two separate audits for the county and for the city.

86. 0:34:47

    Okay. So withholding the funds, that's to the actual agency within the county?

87. 0:34:52

    That's correct. Potential.

88. 0:34:53

    So it have-

89. 0:34:53

    But it have, it has to be refinished or ref- ref- refurbished to that department once they're given to the county for audit submission.

90. 0:35:01

    So we have teeth to get it, to, to get it from the agencies within the county, but we don't have teeth to get it, information from the cities within the county-

91. 0:35:08

    That's correct

92. 0:35:09

    ... at this time.

93. 0:35:09

    That's correct. Uh, one potential option that, uh, you could do is pull the city's charter. That's an option. Um- And I'm not sure we need to go that far, but, um, you know, we need to have some responsibility to the taxpayers in those cities where they're not doing their audits, and counties. Um, I'm not sure this bill addresses that, though. Thank you.

94. 0:35:33

    Thank you. Senator Ginn.

95. 0:35:35

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, representative, I've, I've been a recovering city and county manager of about 20 years. The, uh ... And, and I understand some of the local governments I'd go into, uh, maybe they, they, they were a little bit behind on some of those, those requirements. What I'm kind of curious about, I, I think about one that's been behind for five years. You mentioned other measures. What other measures would you do, whether it be for a city or county, that, that just can't seem to get it together?

96. 0:36:06

    The, uh ... What ... You know, I, and, and I'll pick on my friends from ACCG and GMA to, to- ... give me their suggestions on this, this as well.

97. 0:36:15

    Well, I'm not sure, um, there's much to do for counties. I think the s- state legislature, the General Assembly, can have, has tools in the toolbox for cities. Uh, the other side of that is, um, withholding of funds, and we already do that. So if you're not up to all, up to speed on your audits or within compliance, you don't get access to LMIG, you don't get access to LRA funding or CDBG. In many cases, that's millions of dollars a year, uh, that you're losing out on at the local level, so-

98. 0:36:42

    Equi- equipment ain't a million dollars a year getting an LMAG.

99. 0:36:45

    Sir?

100. 0:36:46

     Equipment's not getting a million dollars a year in LMAG.

101. 0:36:48

     Oh, yeah. Well, whatever the amount they're getting to als- to augment their, whatever, their SPLOST, their TSPLOST allocation, that goes a long way in getting more asphalt on the ground. It's, it's a little bit for that area. But, uh, they just don't get those revenues. But there is probably some stuff we should look at on the backside to have some more teeth in them not doing it after a, such a long period of time.

102. 0:37:08

     That's why I'm looking for a suggestion. Just put you on the spot.

103. 0:37:13

     I mean, pulling the au- pulling the charter is an option. Um, certainly is. Should, it should be considered. I don't know what, uh ... I'm not versed in the county aspect of that, but, uh, uh, and maybe ACCG or GMA can provide some other options, but, uh, or ledge counsel. I, but I'm, I'm not aware.

104. 0:37:31

     Ho- hoping that they'll weigh in on that. Thanks.

105. 0:37:34

     Yes, sir.

106. 0:37:36

     Any further comments or questions from the committee? Uh, we've got two speakers signed up. Uh, first ACCG. Uh, Nathan, will you come forward?

107. 0:37:49

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

108. 0:37:50

     Thank you.

109. 0:38:01

     Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here today with you, Chairman Dixon, and the members of this committee. My name is Nathan Corbett, and I'm with ACCG. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. ACCG fully supports this substitute version of the bill. Our members rank this as a legislative priority for this session. This bill grants counties vital 90-day extensions on their audits when circumstances beyond the county's control prevent timely filing. This pau- this pauses the loss of qualified local government status, which would harm county residents due to the loss of state grant funding such as LMAG and LRA, like we've already heard.

110. 0:38:44

     That's all I have for you today, and thank you for this opportunity to speak.

111. 0:38:48

     I think we've got a question for you.

112. 0:38:50

     Mr. Corbett.

113. 0:38:51

     Yes.

114. 0:38:51

     Appreciate s- good to see you today. Tell me, give me an example of something that would be beyond their control.

115. 0:38:58

     Um, well, the immediate circumstance which comes to mind is, uh, faulty behavior on the part of who is helping them run the audit.

116. 0:39:08

     So hiring the wrong vendor?

117. 0:39:10

     Uh, possibly. You might characterize it that way, yes, sir.

118. 0:39:12

     Yeah. I mean, I could appreciate if we're talking about Helene or if we're talking about, you know, something Mother Nature related, catastrophic, and I, I didn't mean to get the pitching coach brought into the game, but-

119. 0:39:26

     I think what I-

120. 0:39:26

     I think you were throwing good-

121. 0:39:27

     The bench is warm, sir, so I can-

122. 0:39:29

     I think you were, I think you were throwing pretty good pitches, but, uh-

123. 0:39:33

     I think, uh, Representative Cannon alluded to it earlier when we're waiting on a constitutional officer who hadn't turned in the, well, the necessary materials for us to complete the audit on time. And then over the weekend, I think he heard from, uh, if I'm... I won't speak for the representative, but, uh, counties that experience challenges with Department of, uh, what is it? Health, uh-

124. 0:39:51

     Public Health

125. 0:39:51

     ... yeah, Public Health and libraries.

126. 0:39:53

     So, so if I'm hearing you, and Todd, thanks. So it's, it's the things that, that Chairman Cannon is referring to about where we encourage the sheriff's office to pres- to pan their, let them review their books and, and Department of Health. So these are the things that we classify as beyond their control.

127. 0:40:11

     The county.

128. 0:40:12

     And this ... In the county. And this being defined as beyond their control does not open it up so they can maybe stretch those definitions out and claim other things beyond their control. Because I, I can agree with those 100%, and, um, have a tremendous amount of respect for Mr. Corbett. But if you RFP out a vendor to come in and, and do this work for you, if that vendor is not meeting the standards, I don't think that that would necessarily be something that I would call beyond the control.

129. 0:40:42

     Would, would that be f- fairly close to-

130. 0:40:45

     I had, I'd never thought of that as being included in that, which is, uh, what does it say? Beyond the control category.

131. 0:40:51

     Right. I think that was, that was the word, that was the words used.

132. 0:40:53

     We were trying to get, get it what-

133. 0:40:55

     Yeah.

134. 0:40:55

     Yeah. We're, we're trying to just get it at the other entities we just mentioned.

135. 0:40:58

     Yeah.

136. 0:40:58

     Not of it, not the actual audit.

137. 0:40:59

     And, and, and I appreciate that you have relationships in counties that can be sticky at times, and where constitutional officers and others can intentionally slow a process or-

138. 0:41:13

     Or unintentionally.

139. 0:41:14

     Yeah.

140. 0:41:14

     I mean, you know, that could-

141. 0:41:15

     Yeah

142. 0:41:15

     ... could run into a problem. It just prohibits or it doesn't allow the county to be punished in those cases.

143. 0:41:19

     Right. Okay, thank you.

144. 0:41:22

     Senator Ginn.

145. 0:41:24

     I, uh, appreciate the, the comments. I, I just, I, I was gonna s- ask you about, okay, y- you know, some, some counties strictly go by, "Okay, hey, we're, we're not dealing with the development authority, the airport authority, the water and sewer authority." The, uh, one of the things that to me, sometimes they're an integral part of the audit, sometimes they're not. Is, is it spelled out? And I, I, this is one where we tried to make sure we included everybody. We want to w- wherever we're funding an agency, we, we like to have them in our audit.

146. 0:41:55

     Now I'll ask you and also maybe we should ask Greg Sidney, uh, ah, is there a preference that the state likes to see or is there a preference that ACTG recommends in, in dealing with that for, for county governments?

147. 0:42:12

     I cannot speak to that, sir. Nor, nor can I, but would you like to come up?

148. 0:42:17

     As far as, as a, a county that, you know, we, we had water and sewer authorities, we had airport authorities, we had, we had a lot of different, y- you know, development authority, you name it. Just like most counties, the, uh, do you like to have those in an integral part of the, the county audit or do you want them happen to be more separate? Is there-

149. 0:42:37

     Yeah, if you would come up to the mic

150. 0:42:38

     ... rationale for?

151. 0:42:41

     So I think, I think the, the accounting standards of the audit standards dictate where those, and where you report those entities. So for a county report, it, again, the, the standards as, as, uh, the whip mentioned, it, it will specify what has to be in the county audit, whether it's, uh, the sheriff's office or safety or what, or whatnot. So it, I, it's specified. It's not it's a requirement. If that helps.

152. 0:43:11

     Yeah. I, I don't know of anything in state law that specifies some of the authorities and, and to me, we always like, if we're funding an authority in some which or way, we like to have it in our audit. And that, that, that was my logic in it. But I don't think it's spelled out in state law that that's one way or the other. And when you were asking about, you know, what could delay something, sometimes, you know, when you're dealing with other... 'Cause those are truly other separate government entities. But, uh, if they're an agency that you're interacting with and you want to put them in your audit.

153. 0:43:41

     So, so again, it depends on, th- there are the, the standards, uh, again, dictate whether to include or not. So we call them component units. Th- it, again, if they meet certain requirements, they go into the specific audit of whether it be a county or a city. If it doesn't meet that requirement, it, it does, it is excluded from the reporting entity, uh, of the audit. So again, there's requirements that have to be met in order to include it in, uh, an audit report.

154. 0:44:12

     Thank you.

155. 0:44:14

     Senator Howard.

156. 0:44:17

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question about, uh, entities that are between 1 million-

157. 0:44:24

     Thank you.

158. 0:44:24

     Uh, thank you, um, Mr. Chair. Uh, entities that are between 1 million and 2.5, can you help me find that language on the

159. 0:44:34

     bill here?

160. 0:44:35

     That might be best addressed to legislative counsel, sir.

161. 0:44:39

     Yes. I know we were auditors here, too. I know we were in the sponsor.

162. 0:44:44

     My apologies.

163. 0:44:46

     It just is, it's a little, it's more clear for the entities that are over, what, 2.5 and above on line 21, and then those that are b- , uh, 1 million and below on 33. Was there a section there?

164. 0:44:58

     Yes, yes, sir. I, I, uh, don't know if you, um, have a copy of the amendment.

165. 0:45:04

     Yeah.

166. 0:45:04

     The amendment clarifies that, that language.

167. 0:45:08

     Okay.

168. 0:45:08

     Um, making it clear that entities which have expenditures of less than $2.5 million-

169. 0:45:15

     Got it

170. 0:45:16

     ... have the option of doing the, um, special purpose framework.

171. 0:45:20

     And that creates that, forgive me, that, that was that third category that you mentioned at the beginning-

172. 0:45:25

     Yeah

173. 0:45:25

     ... covering that.

174. 0:45:26

     No, no, sir. The, the third category is for governments that make less than, or have expenditures of less than a million dollars.

175. 0:45:32

     Thank you.

176. 0:45:33

     So there, there are three, there are three categories. The, the, the, if a government makes more than 2.5 million, they have to do the GAAP. If they make, or if they have expenditures of 2.5 million or less, or less than 2.5 million, they can do the special purpose framework with the, through the auditor's office.

177. 0:45:53

     Great.

178. 0:45:53

     And then those governments with expenditures of less than a million dollars can use the alternate program. That is the, the cheaper, easier way that they can use every four years or so.

179. 0:46:03

     Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.

180. 0:46:06

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

181. 0:46:08

     All right, next up, uh, GMA, Jim Thornton.

182. 0:46:16

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Um, Jim Thornton with the Georgia Municipal Association. We represent all 536 cities in Georgia. Um, I think we've heard that about 250 or so that are, uh, potential- potentially affected by this change in law. Um, and so I want to begin by thanking, uh, Representative Cannon for bringing this bill and the state auditor for working so closely on it. Um, I want to respond to a couple of the questions. I'll begin with two comments. One is obviously G- GMA is in support of this bill. We think it will help a lot of our cities become compliant with state law, and we think it will help them, uh, not only become compliant, but also be more transparent to their citizens, um, as a result of this work.

183. 0:46:57

     Um- Brief note of background. Um, about two years ago, after the House Rural Development Council recommended, um, that this issue be addressed, the state auditor actually convened a working group. Um, he was there along with his staff. He brought in a couple of accounting firms that across the state do a lot of local government audits. He brought in city managers, county managers, clerks, et cetera, brought in GMA and ACCG. We actually hosted that meeting at our office at GMA. Um, and some of the things that y'all have asked about were discussed in that particular working group because we wanted to make sure that whatever changes were made did not allow non-compliance, did not allow lack of transparency, did not allow bad actors to, um, take advantage of a system.

184. 0:47:43

     But we also recognized and heard from the audit firms that there were real issues with a city with a two million dollar annual budget paying for a full GASB audit, which not only requires them to do an accrual basis of accounting, which, which quite honestly a lot of folks in, in smaller communities are not as familiar with. It would require them to make assessments for pension liabilities and things into the future when almost all of them use GMA's pension plan. So it's not a, it's not something they would be doing on their own.

185. 0:48:15

     It would require them to provide lots of footnotes where they document all kinds of potential down- down, uh, stream risks. These are the same standards where they were written for the city of Atlanta. They were written for the city of Savannah, Macon, Columbus, et cetera. And they make sense. The GASB standards make sense in a complicated organization with lots of authorities, with lots of departments, with lots of moving parts. They simply didn't make sense in a city of five hundred people with a two million dollar budget where they're providing two or three services.

186. 0:48:45

     But the state, the state auditor was essentially, uh, coming to the table and saying, uh, and what he presented today was, was a great example of that, "I can write standards that apply to Georgia cities, not having to follow the national standards, but I can write standards that make sense for Georgia cities that are more understandable for elected officials, that are more understandable for staff that are having to keep financial statements, that are more transparent to the citizens because it's actually going to the real questions of is this city sustainable?

187. 0:49:15

     Is this city viable in the long term or not?" Um, and, and he can do that in a much more cost-effective way that would incentivize those same accounting firms who are also at the table to wanna bid on the work. Because when we survey our members, and it's about a hundred... It, it, it varies, a hundred and twenty to a hundred and forty that, you know, might be out of compliance at any given time. When we survey them, they're having staff turnover issues. They're having staff that aren't as familiar with these complicated standards. They're going out to bid to accounting firms and not getting any bids back, or when they get bids back, it may be a forty thousand dollar bid for a city with a five hundred thousand dollar annual budget, and that becomes, that becomes fairly cost prohibitive for them.

188. 0:50:00

     So we at GMA are not a police organization. As you know, we don't regulate cities. We have no regulatory power. We're a membership organization. We do provide a lot of services. Um, we have a member services team that's deployed throughout the state that goes into our smaller cities and tries to help them get up to compliance and get, get up to, get up to standards. But, um, at the end of the day, if they don't have the personnel or they don't have the audit firms responding to the RFPs, they, they, they can't, uh, they can't make that work. Um, but to, uh, Senator Robertson's point, nothing from day one of that meeting has been intended to relax the standards in such a way as to make it easier for anyone to abuse the system.

189. 0:50:39

     Quite by contrast, we're trying to make it easier for them to, to, to have an audit that complies with the meaningful standards the state auditor has directed that will ensure that money is being spent effectively and transparently. Um, I recognize Senator Watson and GMA recognizes that we're still gonna have some cities that don't, uh, that don't comply. That's, that's with five hundred and thirty-six in the, in the, uh, in the wheelhouse. There are gonna be some that are gonna struggle, and we do think that it is appropriate in a, in separately perhaps for the legislature to consider how to address that.

190. 0:51:13

     Um, I'm already, I can tell you we're having some conversations about some of the cities that have been, have been referenced and try to figure out what we can do on the, on the back end to help them, um, and, and address it. It's not always as simple as, no, no, with respect to Representative Cannon, it's not always as simple as removing the charter because sometimes that then just shifts all of the debt and liabilities to the county and, and that's not necessarily something the counties are always going to want. So there, there probably needs to be a, a, a middle ground, uh, perspective, and that's something that, uh, that GMA is working closely with, with some, some members on already.

191. 0:51:47

     Um, and, uh, and, and finally, just to the point about the, the two point five million, to some extent that's an arbitrary number, but we felt like it, anything above that probably, uh, can justify the cost and expense of a, of a full GASB standard audit. It's the smaller cities that, that become, it becomes cost prohibitive for, um, and so we think that this is something that will bring many of them into compliance. I will tell you, when we surveyed our members last, um, we had a hundred and seventeen. Uh, the number's up, but that's because we moved into a new year.

192. 0:52:19

     So when we surveyed them in the fall, we were at one seventeen. Now the number's up. But, but of that, we, we, um, identified that, uh, sixty-eight of them were essentially making progress on catching up. Um, we had fifteen that were almost complete. So I think we, I think we are making a lot of progress in that regard, um, and we'll continue to work so and work with, with your committee. But we do support this legislation and feel like it will be of benefit to, uh, all of the residents of those cities.

193. 0:52:47

     So you think it'd be too aggressive if I got like a little Staples easy button and put pull charter and just have Representative or Senator come by and just slap it and-

194. 0:52:55

     It's not, it's not, it's not, it, it, it's easy legislatively. It's not always easy to implement. That's the, I think that's the, I think that would be the concern that we would have.

195. 0:53:04

     Yeah. Well, thank you for your testimony and- Uh, Senator Ginn.

196. 0:53:09

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So at the, uh, at the appropriate time, I- I move do pass. I know we got an amendment to, to, uh, pick up as well, so-

197. 0:53:16

     Yes, it would be appropriate

198. 0:53:17

     ... I, I believe, I believe Senator Roberts may have a burning question.

199. 0:53:20

     No. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Wipf.

200. 0:53:21

     Just real quick, I, I wanna ask Mr. Thornton. So right now, all 536 are doing, are meeting the GASB standard on audits?

201. 0:53:29

     So, so all of them are required to.

202. 0:53:32

     Okay.

203. 0:53:32

     Uh, yeah, it, it, w- if, unless they qualify for the, they're less than 550, I think, under the current-

204. 0:53:38

     Right. I think-

205. 0:53:38

     And-

206. 0:53:38

     ... I think you made a great point-

207. 0:53:39

     Yeah

208. 0:53:39

     ... when you brought in the City of Atlanta and other larger cities. So what we're trying to do is we're just trying to make sure apples and apples or oranges and oranges, that we're not making some of these smaller cities adhere to the same laborious paperwork that we would require Atlanta to submit to, right?

209. 0:53:53

     That is exactly the point.

210. 0:53:54

     Okay. And I hope that my comments never m- never led you to believe that, that the state auditor or anybody else would try to make it easier for somebody to cheat or somebody to avoid their job. Um, but we just wanted to make sure that those who already do that, which Senator Watson and myself have, have seen those things occur, um, that, that we're not making it easier for them not to do their job. So, but I do appreciate all the work, uh, GMA does. Thank you.

211. 0:54:20

     Appreciate you.

212. 0:54:23

     Thank you. So we've got a motion do pass on the, uh, committee substitute LC473927S. Do we have a second?

213. 0:54:35

     Second.

214. 0:54:35

     We've got a second.

215. 0:54:36

     Yeah.

216. 0:54:36

     Any further discussion?

217. 0:54:38

     Mr. Chairman, I, before we vote on that, I'd like to propose an amendment, Amendment 470165, the, uh, which goes through, uh, amending House Bill 244, the, uh, replacing line 24 through 31 with the following. And I think everybody can read better than myself, so the, uh, you've got the amendment out in front of you. Uh, and I propose that amendment, and I-

218. 0:55:03

     Any comments or questions on the amendment?

219. 0:55:12

     Vote, vote the amendment.

220. 0:55:21

     Yeah?

221. 0:55:21

     Sure, go for it.

222. 0:55:25

     So we've got a motion, um, do pass on the amendment. Do we have a second?

223. 0:55:30

     Second.

224. 0:55:30

     Thank you. We got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

225. 0:55:34

     Aye.

226. 0:55:34

     Aye.

227. 0:55:35

     Any opposed? Amendment passes unanimously. Now we'll take up, um-

228. 0:55:41

     The bill as amended

229. 0:55:42

     ... the bill as amended. Uh, we've got a motion do pass, and we've got a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye.

230. 0:55:51

     Aye.

231. 0:55:52

     Any opposed? Passes unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

232. 0:55:55

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Senate sponsor will be Senator Watson.

233. 0:55:58

     Thank you.

234. 0:56:15

     Next up we've got, uh, House Bill 309.

235. 0:56:56

     Is the sponsor here, uh, for HB 309? Suppose not. Yeah, I guess we'll move on from that one to, uh, the last one we've got on our agenda today is House Bill 521.

236. 0:57:30

     Mr. Chairman, if it's okay, excuse me, I asked, uh, Representative Gullett to join me. Uh, one section of this was a, uh, an amendment last year-

237. 0:57:38

     Oh, absolutely

238. 0:57:39

     ... from, from a bill that he had. Okay, thank you.

239. 0:57:50

     Yep.

240. 0:57:51

     Okay.

241. 0:57:51

     Proceed, please.

242. 0:57:52

     All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. House Bill 521, uh, one we considered last year, actually, uh, almost made it. Uh, got it out of this committee, but I think it came back. This is, uh, we're working from LC473531S. This bill has three sections. I'm gonna go over sections one and three, and Representative Gullett's gonna go over section two. Section one, a, a few years ago, we, uh, passed a bill that required annexation notifica- an- municipalities that were annexing property to notify the, uh, state legislative reapportionment, uh, department of those changes in maps.

243. 0:58:37

     It was a very important addition that Ms. Gina Wright asked for. Uh, after we passed that bill and, and got to looking at it, we realized that while they're nowhere near as many, occasionally we do have de-annexations, and those, that, that same process should happen for de-annexations. So section one is several pages, but it's about 20 some odd additions of the word de-annexation, de-annexing, some variation of that, where we, uh, applied annexation to for the, uh, reapportionment office notification And I'm gonna skip over to section three real quick.

244. 0:59:11

     And all section three does, currently if a county owns property and they own all of the parcels of property within a municipal boundary, and they want to de-annex that, and they request a de-annexation, there is currently no limitation or no shot clock, if you will. No timeframe that that de-annexation has to be responded to. So all we're doing is asking for a 90-day response from the city regarding a county's desire to de-annex a piece of property that the county owns.

245. 0:59:44

     This is not private property. This is actually county-owned property. Uh, and of course, it has a caveat in there that the, the municipality can deny the, uh, de-annexation under the normal terms if it's detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the ... and property owners of the area to be de-annexed or to the area remaining within the municipality. So all we're doing is asking for a response to that request within 90 days.

246. 1:00:11

     And then are, as far as the need for this legislation, are you seeing this happen a lot in the state when those requests are-

247. 1:00:16

     We ... I know it's happened a couple of times. Uh, uh, this, this kinda came about from a, a situation in Henry County. Uh, that situation may or may not have been resolved at this point, but uh, it, it did bring my attention to the fact that this is, this is an open-ended process as it is currently encoded.

248. 1:00:33

     And when these situations happen, are they just not responding to the county?

249. 1:00:37

     That's my understanding.

250. 1:00:37

     They just continue to push it off.

251. 1:00:38

     Yes.

252. 1:00:38

     Okay.

253. 1:00:38

     Yes.

254. 1:00:39

     All right. Thank you.

255. 1:00:40

     A- and I will, uh, if, if there's, if that's su- uh, adequate, I'll turn it over to Representative Gullet to discuss-

256. 1:00:47

     Thank you

257. 1:00:47

     ... section two.

258. 1:00:50

     Thank you. Thank you, members of the committee. Uh, section two is an amendment that was, uh, added in, um, rules on our side. Uh, it did pass the House, came over here, passed this committee, uh, and just didn't get called before sine die last year. Um, it only affects Paulding County. Um, Paulding County has, uh, a, a local airport adjacent to 9,000 acres of property, so that's how it, it's tied to Paulding County. But what it does is it says, um, that a s- basically a city in Paulding County can't annex unless the county, um, passes a resolution in agreement with the annexation.

259. 1:01:25

     So what were happening, we're a really fast-growing county. We have restricted, our, our schools are overburdened, our infrastructure's overburdened by how fast we're growing. The county has realized that, but some of the cities have not. And so what has happened is, uh, really fast annexation has occurred. Um, the developers know, um, that the county has no ability to, um, zone some different density, high density, uh, areas, so they're going to the cities. The cities are looking to grow, um, and are growing really faster and impacting the county at a, at a, at a really great, um, to a great extent.

260. 1:02:03

     Our schools are ... Every school is, is well over, um, our, you know, our, our allotment size. Um, sometimes there are four t- uh, four kids to a school bus seat. Um, we're just a really great place to live and people are trying to move there. But, uh, our infrastructure needs to catch up, and we're working through that. Um, but the cities, um, just really haven't, haven't understood that. They're looking to, to annex, especially there's been some, some great properties that are for commercial development. We're a bedroom community, um, that the cities have annexed and, and are putting housing there.

261. 1:02:38

     Uh, which is great, but it's taking away some, uh, opportunities for our, our county for an economic development standpoint, which, uh, when 88% of the people leave your county to go to work, um, is, uh, we need jobs in our area. And, and some of those opportunities have been taken off the table, uh, by some of the cities. But happy to answer any questions related to that.

262. 1:02:57

     Thank you, Representative Gullet.

263. 1:02:57

     Again, it only affects Paulding County.

264. 1:03:00

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, in reference to your county, who controls the water and sewer?

265. 1:03:05

     Uh, both. We have a, a water department and we also, uh, at the county level, um, and the, uh, one of the cities that, one of the cities has a s- city water department as well.

266. 1:03:16

     So the county controls water and sewer, and the city controls water and sewer as well?

267. 1:03:19

     That's correct, yes.

268. 1:03:25

     There's a service delivery area of, where they, where they have, but yes, both have one.

269. 1:03:30

     And just one final follow-up. Uh, annexing to a city, um, which is still within the rights of the, the developer. So you want a private property owner, if they own all of the parcels, to be bound to have to work with the county if they wanted to annex themselves into the city?

270. 1:03:55

     Yeah, so this, this affects, um, incor- incorporated territory contingent upon adoption of resolution. Yes, that's, that's correct. They ... Yeah, there's different kind of annexations and, uh, uh, wasn't prepared to speak to this bill, to be honest with you. I didn't know it was up, um, really, but yes, uh, if, if that is a requirement of this, um, yes, they, they sh- you need to talk to the county as far as the infrastructure. If you're zoning it, uh, for, uh, and all these zonings are really not economic development. They are typically high density housing at the moment, um, that is a heavy impact to the county itself from infrastructure to the roads, uh, especially the schools at the moment.

271. 1:04:37

     And at, my last question, at what time does the county catch up?

272. 1:04:42

     We're working towards it. I mean, it's a, we haven't been able to slow it because it's been growing through cities at the moment. But, um, I think the county is, uh, A, the cities are working on a plan, it's just, um, uh, there's no, there's no magic wand to say we're caught up, you know, in, in three years or, or four years. It's, it's an ongoing problem that they're, that they're working through. Uh, I don't have an answer for you, but it's, um, we're one of the fastest growing counties in the nation for many, many years now. Uh, since I moved there we were the sixth fastest growing county, that was in 2007.

273. 1:05:15

     Um, so it's, it's happening, but we are ... Uh, I'm not saying we're full. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying it's, it's affecting our, our students in school. Uh, it's affecting, um, economic development opportunities, so it ultimately affects the taxpayer, uh, from property taxes. New, no new economic development's coming, um, and ultimately property taxes are, are risen because of that.

274. 1:05:39

     There's no offset from a tax revenue.

275. 1:05:43

     Senator Ginn.

276. 1:05:45

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hey, uh, not sure, and, and I might have to call on my legislative council, but we ran into a situation l- last year that was kind of interesting. I managed a city that, that had... was in three counties, but I have in my Senate district one that, that is in four counties, and they wanted to annex a piece of property the, uh, in one of those counties. The county was in agreement with them annexing it, and they were trying to get it annexed. But because the city was in f- the, uh, different four counties, the, uh, oh, to pass as a local, uh, local bill, we had to get all of the signatures from all of the senators to do it.

277. 1:06:26

     And I'm like, "Okay, that seems a little odd for me that it wouldn't be just the senators that were in that county." And that's a, that's a Senate rule, and I'd like to try to, uh, get that rule amended, but I'd also like to have it done in state law. Now, um, one of my wise and esteemed, uh, legislators over here tells me that our Senate rule prevails over, even over state law, the, uh, in that case. The, uh, uh... But I want him to, uh, help me to explain it, and I would like to know if in this bill, if we put it in, if we can get it added into this bill in a way that makes sense, we come back and change our, our rule to allow that to happen.

278. 1:07:06

     As... And, and want to ask for, uh... When I look at your bill and the synopsis on it, I haven't had a chance to study the, the entirety of the bill, but w- would that be allowed in, uh, the way that I'm reading your bill, that, that you got a county that agrees, you're saying the city wants to annex the, uh, this portion, or de-annex it either way, the, uh, that, that that's, uh, permissible?

279. 1:07:32

     I'll s- I'll speak to the annexation part, de-annexation part. Uh, Chairman Anderson can speak to you, but, uh, I don't think it would, would from the annexation piece because this only applies to Paulding County, uh, based on the restrictions of the 9,000 acres. So, um, section, section two only applies to Paulding County. Um, I'm not sure about the de-annexation piece.

280. 1:07:55

     Uh, the, excuse me. The de-annexation portion in here, a- again, would apply statewide and to any county-owned property within a municipal, uh, boundary that is, is available or that the county wishes to de-annex. And honestly, all it does is puts that 90-day shot clock on. So, uh, I mean, of course, we, we defer to the wisdom of the Senate. Uh, you folks operate under a little different rules from we do, so you have the possibility of passing this out of here and making an amendment later if you need to, uh, need to do that and can get it, uh, worded that way, and it would just come back over to us for an agree.

281. 1:08:35

     We'll have to take a look I guess and study. But d- but right now your annexation is only for, uh, Paulding.

282. 1:08:42

     That's correct, yeah. Section two's only for Paulding County.

283. 1:08:44

     Okay. I don't want to try to do it on the fly. We may do it later.

284. 1:08:51

     Any further comments?

285. 1:08:59

     Inquiry, Mr. Chair. Why can't, could you not just do this with local legislation if it's only Paulding County?

286. 1:09:06

     Yeah, at the time, um, I had a bill actually for the entire state. Um, it got added. It was, it was late in the session. Uh, it got added. But, uh, talked local from our local delegation, th- this was the path forward that we wanted to take at the time, and so, um, since it was there, um, versus a local legislation. But, um, that's, that's the best answer I got for you.

287. 1:09:31

     Okay. Is, is, is it, is it a possible route to go local legislation? It's just a, a more politically acceptable route to go this route rather than go through your local legislation?

288. 1:09:44

     Ask your, ask your

289. 1:09:49

     I- if it doesn't-

290. 1:09:49

     Yeah, so I think-

291. 1:09:49

     ... cause any heartburn, I don't call it heartburn.

292. 1:09:51

     No, no, it's not. At, at the time that this, this came up, it was after local legislation could be dropped-

293. 1:09:56

     Okay

294. 1:09:56

     ... in order to get it, so that's why it got added to this legislation here.

295. 1:09:59

     Okay. All right.

296. 1:10:00

     In, in rules, it was-

297. 1:10:01

     All right

298. 1:10:01

     ... the timing of it.

299. 1:10:02

     I was kind of wondering why. Thank you.

300. 1:10:05

     Mm-hmm.

301. 1:10:09

     Senator Howard.

302. 1:10:11

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this forward. In section two, um, the way it was framed, it seems like there's a little bit of a conflict between city's vision and approach versus the county's vision and approach. Um, can you explain that a- to me a little bit more?

303. 1:10:30

     Yeah, I mean, I, I think probably, um, there's always been a difference between city's approaches and county's approaches. It's probably, like, just a natural rub of a city and a county, um, since the beginning of those create... you know, no matter where you are. Um, it wa- this was not something that, like, the county asked us to do, um, in order to do this. This was something that we have seen in order to help our infrastructure and from our constituents, uh, especially the school system, um, at the time.

304. 1:11:01

     So, uh, that is, um, a, a legislative fix that we've come to, um, not, like, a county requested fix to come to.

305. 1:11:10

     If I may, Mr. Chair, another question.

306. 1:11:12

     Please go ahead.

307. 1:11:13

     Um, so if, if this isn't coming from the county commission, um, is it coming from the, the s- the school board? Specifically

308. 1:11:24

     The idea came from, from the legislators, the request. The problem is affecting everyone. The problem is affecting commissioners. The problem is affecting schools. Um, uh, the, the problem is affecting, I mean, every- It's affecting GDOT, some of the projects that we have as far as, you know, opening up our pipes to allow traffic to go through. So, um, it, it's kind of like, you know, as we have our listening t- you know, days, and here's the, here's the problems we're facing. We're bombarded with these problems, and how do we solve it?

309. 1:11:54

     That's kind of how it was solved. It wasn't, uh, of a proposal from a school board or a commissioner or, or anyone. It was, um, us putting our heads together, trying to figure out a, a path forward, if that makes sense legislatively.

310. 1:12:08

     And-

311. 1:12:08

     And, and talking to legislative council, trying to get, you know, what can we do here?

312. 1:12:11

     Understood. And would I be correct saying that, um, representatives from the school board or the county commission wouldn't be here to, like, be in support of this? Because this is more of a state rep and, you know ... Or I'm just trying to get a sense of, like, how it got here and added to this piece. It just, when you have that kind of conflict, as a, you know, former school board member, I understand that t- that tug and pull.

313. 1:12:37

     Sure.

314. 1:12:37

     Um, but I'm just trying to gather the state's response to then intervene if it wasn't a specific request from e- you know, neither-

315. 1:12:46

     The request is, "Please help us." We're, you know, "Please help us," is the request. They didn't, they didn't have an answer. They didn't give us an answer. A lot of times the, the answers I get from, uh, either the school board or, is usually like, pass a resolution asking me to do something specific.

316. 1:13:02

     Understood.

317. 1:13:02

     And this is just over time. A- and from constituents, "Hey, I have, you know, X number of ki- my kid rides on a bus with three other kids on a seat," you know, or, "Our kid's at 100, 120% capa- or school's at 120% capacity," you know, a- as we are trying to catch, obviously trying to build schools and catch things up and, and get the money to do that. So, um, it was really a legislative fix to a, a problem that a bunch of people have given us. Uh, do I think the commissioners are upset by this? No, I'm sure that they are not. Um, do I think the school board is upset by this?

318. 1:13:33

     If it's gonna help, you know, do I want it to? No, I do not. I think that's gonna, you know, uh, I think that's gonna help, and I think they ... I'm not gonna speak for them, but I think they would think it was gonna help too.

319. 1:13:43

     Yeah. Would, would it be appropriate to just request some of that communication, just so we can hear from those people who are making that request? Just as s- supplementary, even after today, just to-

320. 1:13:58

     Sure. Yeah, I can, I mean, you need a email? I, sure, I can have them, you know, reach out.

321. 1:14:05

     Thank you.

322. 1:14:05

     Yeah.

323. 1:14:05

     I appreciate it. Thank you.

324. 1:14:06

     I can't commit them to doing it, but I'm sure that they, they would be happy to do, do so.

325. 1:14:10

     Okay. Thank you.

326. 1:14:13

     Mr. Webb.

327. 1:14:13

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gullet, looking at line 112, after the comma-

328. 1:14:21

     Mm

329. 1:14:22

     ... it says, "Any proposed annexation pursuant to this article is contingent upon the adoption of a resolution by the governing authority of such county consenting to such annexation." So if the governing authority did not want it, then they had every, every power not to adopt a resolution, right?

330. 1:14:40

     That's, that's correct.

331. 1:14:41

     So you're giving, you're, you're giving the opportunity for the governing authority to determine whether it's advantageous to help alleviate some of the issues that you've described, right?

332. 1:14:53

     Yeah, so they, they would pass a resolution in support of it to happen.

333. 1:14:57

     And if they didn't support it, then they would not pass a resolution, correct?

334. 1:15:01

     That's correct.

335. 1:15:01

     Okay. So you're not taking any authority away from the county, right?

336. 1:15:04

     That's right.

337. 1:15:05

     Okay. Thank you.

338. 1:15:06

     Giving them much more authority.

339. 1:15:07

     Yes, sir. Thank you.

340. 1:15:08

     Thank you.

341. 1:15:18

     Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a motion to pass.

342. 1:15:21

     Appropriate time.

343. 1:15:22

     I make a motion to pass House Bill 521, LC473531S.

344. 1:15:29

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

345. 1:15:31

     Second.

346. 1:15:32

     We've got a motion to pass, multiple seconds. Any further discussion from the committee? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

347. 1:15:40

     Aye.

348. 1:15:41

     Any opposed?

349. 1:15:42

     Opposed.

350. 1:15:43

     We got one opposed, but you did pass.

351. 1:15:45

     Thank you.

352. 1:15:46

     Thank you.

353. 1:15:51

     Then one last call, uh, Representative Clifton.

354. 1:15:57

     Not sitting up here anyway. Okay. All right. Well, that conducts all of our business for today. Thank you everyone, uh, that showed up. I know y'all are all busy, but, uh, we are adjourned.