Senate Public Safety Committee, February 2, 2026

Transcript

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

1. 0:16:26

   This meeting of the Senate Public Safety Committee to order. I'm gonna ask our very own, uh, chairman of our Senate Retirement Committee, Chairman Williams, to open us up in a word of prayer.

2. 0:16:37

   Thank you. Let us pray. Dear Heavenly Father, we come before you today and ask you to give us our courage, give us wisdom, give us strength, give us the tools needed to carry out the people's work. Dear Lord, bless the first responders, the men and women in harm's way.

3. 0:17:08

   Be with them and watch over them every day. In thy name we pray. Amen.

4. 0:17:15

   Amen. Thank you very much, Senator. Uh, first, uh, in your, uh, folders today are the list of our subcommittees, which are the same ones we had last year. But just a reminder, uh, we have one subcommittee for first responders that certain bills will be assigned to. That will be chaired by, uh, Senator Robertson. Uh, on that committee includes, uh, Senator Bearden, Jackson, now Dickerson, uh, on his first subcommittee, and Senator Wicks. Uh, we also have, uh, under a General Welfare and Safety Committee, which is chaired by Senator Bearden, uh, Senator Jones, Panes, Williams, uh, and I participate on those as well.

5. 0:17:54

   And last, we did have a special one that met this summer, which was chaired by Senator Bearden, uh, and that was for Next Generation 911, which at this point, uh, may have concluded its work, but we'll see if they need to reconstitute for any specific purpose as we work on that important initiative. We have, uh, four bills, uh, on the calendar today. Uh, we did have five. Uh, for anybody who was here originally for Senator Harbison AED bill, uh, he requested that we push that out because the folks that, uh, were instrumental in that bill want to come testify, and we wanted to support him in that matter.

6. 0:18:27

   So, that will be happening. Uh, at this point it is scheduled for February the 18th. So anyone, uh, who has a- an interest in that, please, uh, plan to be here that day and/or reach out directly to the bill's author, Senator Harbison. Uh, with that in mind, uh, we're gonna begin. There's a sign-up sheet in the back of the room. Um, couple of these bills are bills that we had heard last year. Uh, the ones that we had heard that is the same bill, we are not going to take the same testimony as we did 10 months ago. New bills, we will be. Uh, for time's sake, 'cause we do have to get out of this room because the Health and Human Services Committee is coming in right behind us.

7. 0:19:01

   So if you would mind, uh, Kiki, grabbing that. And we're gonna begin with Senator Hatchett. If you would please come down and talk to us about Senate Bill 384.

8. 0:19:16

   Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Uh, I present to you Senate Bill 384, which you should have a substitute, and I'm working off of LC 394893S.

9. 0:19:31

   Correct.

10. 0:19:34

    So if you look at this bill, it's about, if I'm not mistaken-

11. 0:19:40

    30?

12. 0:19:41

    It's 29 pages. And I think I, I will give credit to the, the Department of Revenue, Leg Council, everyone that's been, been involved in this since October. A very simple idea in theory may be much more complex when you get down to the, the, the law itself. But just a... I- I'll give a broad overview of the policy that I'm looking to establish with this bill, and then we'll go through sections, uh, just to kind of give the key points from each section.

13. 0:20:12

    But essentially, in Georgia, I feel like it should be an option as a motor vehicle owner to purchase a tag that is good for five years. Instead of having to get a tag every single year and go into the tag office every year, you get one tag, it lasts for five years.

14. 0:20:36

    Now, there's some complexity in accomplishing this goal, uh, which I'll go through briefly. If you, um, section by section here, if you're looking at section 1 and 3, this essentially clarifies that emission certificates remain valid for one inspection term, requires annual emissions compliance even if a vehicle is registered for five years. So, just because you have a five-year registration, if your county s- subjects you to emission standards, you con- have to continue to do that annually.

15. 0:21:08

    It explicitly authorizes counties to suspend a five-year registration if emi- emissions compliance is not maintained. So historically, if you don't pass emissions, you're not allowed to get a new tag for that year. This would just suspend the five-year tag that you have. It preserves existing penalties and DOT funding enforcement mechanisms for non-compliance. The key takeaway, I think, for the committee here for sections 1 through 3, is that the five-year registration does not mean five-year emissions exemption.

16. 0:21:40

    Uh, moving on to section 4, electronic notice authorization. So this is completely optional, right? If you wanna get a tag every year, you can continue to get a tag every year. If you want to do the five-year, then you have to opt in to allow the Department of Revenue to send you electronic notices for emissions non-compliance. And it still requires multiple notices, a 30-day, a 20-day, and a 10-day before suspension, and it also requires clear written consent at the time of registration.

17. 0:22:15

    But right now you're not automatically opted in when you buy a one-year tag, but if you do the five-year tag, you, you are subjecting yourself to electronic notification. Uh, section 5 This is which motor vehicle is eligible. So it limits the five-year registration eligibility to vehicles that have paid TABT, it excludes commercial vehicle, and it excludes alternative fuel vehicles as already defined in statute. The key point here is this avoids fleet abuse and preserves existing tax structures.

18. 0:22:51

    Um, if you're look- section six, which is a big one-

19. 0:22:54

    Short 1860

20. 0:22:55

    ... there are no refunds or credits. And this is something that you're gonna know when you walk in there. You buy a five-year tag, you will not get your money back. So if you decide to change your tag or get a new, if you get a new vehicle or something happens, you've already paid that. That money goes to the state, you don't get it back. And that's gonna be very clear. Um, c- and just-

21. 0:23:16

    Can I ask a question just 'cause this bill is so voluminous as we're going through it-

22. 0:23:19

    Yeah

23. 0:23:19

    ... Senator, would you mind? Uh, so let's say I have a, a current tag and an automobile that it's on, and I buy a new car but I transfer that same tag. Does that restart the clock over if I have a five-year, or does that just continue with my five years?

24. 0:23:33

    No, good question. It will not restart the clock over. You can continue if the tag is able, if it's the same type of vehicle and you can transfer your tag now, like if you have a one-year tag now that you can transfer to the... As long as it's the same type of transfer, you don't have to go back through and buy a new five-year tag.

25. 0:23:48

    Thank you.

26. 0:23:49

    Yeah.

27. 0:23:50

    Oh, got a question? Senator Williams.

28. 0:23:51

    I had a question. Perhaps if you were to have an automobile accident and totaled that vehicle, uh, and so you could transfer that tag maybe to another vehicle that you buy and have credit towards that?

29. 0:24:06

    That's correct, you can.

30. 0:24:07

    Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

31. 0:24:10

    Um, and I think those were a couple questions that I would've touched on. Um, section seven is the core authorization for five-year registration. It authorizes owners for, of eligible vehicles starting July 1, 2027 to choose the annual registration or the five-year registration. It requires payment of five times the annual registration fee, so you're not gonna get a discount. It's not a buy one and get one. It's, if it's $20, you're gonna pay 100. You pay five years in advance.

32. 0:24:40

    Um, that section also continues to confirm emissions requirements still apply annually. Um, the key point here, just to reiterate, this is optional. You pay upfront, there's no fee discount, and there's no refund. Um, section eight adds a definition for eligible motor vehicle registration term, and it aligns renewal deadlines for both annual and five-year registrations. Section nine, that's just kind of bringing the code up to speed.

33. 0:25:10

    Section nine, tag agent reporting. This authorizes the Department of Revenue to adopt rules governing distribution of funds related to five-year registration and specialty plates. So essentially, right now when the DOR collects money when you have a specialty tag, like for a college or something, they have rules as to when they're gonna disperse that. This just gives them the authority to disperse the monies as they see fit, determining on, or depending on the number of five-year tags they sell.

34. 0:25:43

    Uh, section 10 deals with the transfers we've talked about. Sections 11 through 28, specialty, prestige, military, and honorary plates. Um, across these sections the bill keeps existing annual specialty plate fees intact, adds a five-year equivalent fee, which is generally five times the annual fee, preserves free plates where currently authorized, and applies five-year options consistently across the prestige plates, military and veterans plates, Gold Star Family plates, elected official plates, honorary, and organizational plates.

35. 0:26:16

    The key point here is sections 11 through 28 mostly just conforming language. It's not new benefits or new fees. Um, section 29 is about the fee structure. Section 30 deals with emissions and reporting, which I've already touched on. Sections 31 and 32 is the effective date, which it will be July 1, 2027. Essentially, this bill just gives Georgia an optional convenience without weakening emissions enforcement, without costing the state revenue, and without changing who is eligible to register their vehicles in Georgia.

36. 0:26:51

    And I'm happy to answer any questions.

37. 0:26:53

    Uh, Senator Hatchett, thank you for bringing this bill forward. Uh, very thoughtful. Uh, I wanna thank you especially for the time you spent with, uh, the Department of Revenue and all of the, uh, interested parties. I'm gonna look over to, uh, Joe at DOR for a thumbs up that you are okay with this, uh, legislation as you participated in it.

38. 0:27:11

    Two up.

39. 0:27:11

    Two thumbs up. That's even better. Okay. Just to make sure. Uh, I think it's a great convenience, uh, and, and I, I personally look forward to doing that as well. Uh, so it's a win-win. I've got, uh, a great bill in front of us, and I'll open it up to the committee for any questions for the bill's author.

40. 0:27:28

    Seeing none, what is the will of the committee? 'Cause I have nobody signed up to speak.

41. 0:27:31

    Uh, motion to pass.

42. 0:27:32

    Motion to pass from the vice chairman. Do I have a second? I... Second. Oh. Oh. Oh. Okay, I've got a second from Senator Williams. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor please say, "Aye."

43. 0:27:43

    Aye.

44. 0:27:43

    All opposed, please say, "No." Passed unanimously.

45. 0:27:46

    Thanks, guys.

46. 0:27:46

    Best of luck in the Senate Rules Committee.

47. 0:27:48

    Thank you.

48. 0:27:48

    Thank you, Leader Hatchett. All right, very good. Next bill on the calendar is going to be House Bill 77. Representative Lehman, come on down. Good to see you again as always. Uh, we heard this bill last year. This will be very familiar to you. Uh, because we did, we're not gonna take testimony. This is just kicking it back out through the process. Will you just briefly remind everybody what this bill is? It's, uh, pretty much a no-brainer, I think.

49. 0:28:14

    Well, thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Members of the committee. So this bill, um, has passed, actually, I believe through this committee twice. This will be the third time. Um, we perfected it or changed it last time. So I think it's really good, but everybody's, uh, super happy about it, or happy with it. The Georgia Sheriff Association, just to re- just to remind you guys, are on board. They've endorsed it. They're fine with it. The Georgia Trucking Association is behind it. Um, and I, I, I, I guess I'll say the funeral, uh, caucus of the House and is certainly behind it. And I hope the Senate, I, I had a little conversation with Rick here.

50. 0:28:45

    I, I know we were on board last year, but I think we're all good, uh, with the bill. Um, but basically what it does, it, it came to me because my sheriffs and my deputies were concerned that there was getting, uh, more and more, um- Traffic risk whenever they were given a funeral proces- procession in the area. They were having people come on, uh, on, uh, facing traffic, and there was two incidents where when they were on motorcycles, they were almost got hit by ongoing traffic. And they explained that it was a, it, the, uh, the situation was getting worse and worse and worse, and something needed to happen with it.

51. 0:29:15

    So what this bill does is requires, um, people that are coming on two-lane roads, those rural roads, coming to, uh, facing the, the, uh, procession has to pull over on the side of the road, um, and, uh, and wait till that procession goes by. And, uh, to make it clear with where it begins and ends, there's flashing lights in the front and the rear. Um, uh, I could go in, in all the details of it, but it's, um, it's basically just allows them or tells them to pull over. Now, the commercial trucks at the side of the road is precarious for them.

52. 0:29:47

    They don't have to go off the side of the road. They can just pull over, um, as, you know, using their common sense the best that they can. Um, but that's basically the bill, gentlemen, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

53. 0:29:58

    Questions for the bill's author. Uh, Senator Bearden.

54. 0:30:02

    Did you say a funeral caucus?

55. 0:30:05

    Yeah. I like to say that word caucus.

56. 0:30:07

    Well, me and my friend from the 29th is gonna do a cop caucus.

57. 0:30:12

    We already were a cop caucus.

58. 0:30:14

    It's unofficial.

59. 0:30:15

    Just-

60. 0:30:15

    We're gonna make it official now. We're gonna leave the paperwork

61. 0:30:16

    ... just because I still want to be a fireman.

62. 0:30:17

    We don't speak of that.

63. 0:30:18

    Okay. Other questions from the committee members? Seeing none. What's the will of the committee?

64. 0:30:25

    Do pass.

65. 0:30:25

    Motion to pass. I got a second. Second. Second from Senator Payne. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye.

66. 0:30:31

    Aye.

67. 0:30:32

    All opposed, please say no. Passes unanimously. Best of luck in the, uh, Senate Rules Committee, and I believe, who's carrying this?

68. 0:30:41

    Um, I have to check. Last year, um, I just need to, uh, confirm that the same person's gonna carry it last year. But I don't have anybody right now, but I can get it to your office.

69. 0:30:48

    Ba- based on the subject matter, I have a suggestion for you.

70. 0:30:52

    Yeah. I think he's carrying a lot right now, but we'll see. Thank you, sir.

71. 0:30:54

    Okay. All right.

72. 0:30:55

    Yeah.

73. 0:30:55

    Uh, would you get back to us before the end of the day, please?

74. 0:30:57

    I will.

75. 0:30:57

    Because we have to turn those in. Thank you.

76. 0:30:59

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

77. 0:30:59

    Okay. Next bill, S- House Bill 549. Again, another bill we passed out last year. Uh, Representative Sebaugh, if you would come up to, uh, the podium here. This is, again, another straightforward one.

78. 0:31:14

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee. Uh, House Bill 4- 549 did pass this committee last session, uh, and I appreciate you letting me bring it forward again. This is a law enforcement training reimbursement bill. I'm working off LC 39-4641.

79. 0:31:31

    Correct.

80. 0:31:33

    Um, the law requiring reimbursement of these officers' initial training expenses is already in place. Uh, the change is on line 15 of House Bill 549 changes the timeframe from 15 months to 36 months. In practice, these agencies realized that the 15-month window was too short, as most agencies have not fully recovered their investment by that point, particularly when salary, uh, academy time, field training, and required eq- uh, equipment are considered.

81. 0:32:08

    They discovered once the 15-month mark passes, the originating agency absorbs the full loss even though another agency benefits from a fully trained officer. In, on line 25 through 33, it defines the total training expenses to be in r- reimbursed, so there's no question there. Uh, all concerned stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies and, uh, training, with training interest are in agreement that this update is reasonable, fair, and necessary.

82. 0:32:38

    And, uh, Senator Tim Bearden will be carrying this bill. And if there are no questions, I'll ask for a do pass.

83. 0:32:45

    Thank you for that, uh, good explanation. Are there questions from the committee members?

84. 0:32:48

    Mm-mm.

85. 0:32:48

    Question from our vice chairman.

86. 0:32:51

    Yeah. Uh, thank you, Representative. I'm very supportive of this legislation last year. Has any b- any consideration being given to who would reimburse if the federal government comes in and offers a $50,000 signing bonus, and we lose some of our men and women that have been on the job for 36 months, whether that might shift back to that individual to reimburse that money? Or is that something that, that we can discuss as this... I, I love the legislation. There's just something recently that came up and had a question asked of me.

87. 0:33:23

    Um-

88. 0:33:24

    Well-

89. 0:33:24

    ... or is it maybe there's, uh, because, uh, we certainly can't bill the federal government. Uh, but will that be the, uh-

90. 0:33:32

    That's the-

91. 0:33:32

    ... something I'll, I'll speak with the Senate carrier on that. Just-

92. 0:33:35

    Okay. Yeah, that's fine

93. 0:33:36

    ... but thank you for this. Appreciate this.

94. 0:33:38

    Good, good comments. I might step out with a friendly amendment, but. You should All right. Yeah, exactly.

95. 0:33:43

    Pleasure of the committee.

96. 0:33:44

    Other questions from the committee members?

97. 0:33:48

    Seeing none. What's the pleasure of the committee? I'll make a motion to pass. Motion to pass. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Senator Dickerson. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye.

98. 0:33:57

    Aye.

99. 0:33:57

    Aye.

100. 0:33:58

     All opposed, please say no. Passed unanimously. And you mentioned that, uh, Chairman Bearden will be carrying that for you. Very good. Okay. Stay where you're at. We're gonna go to House Bill 61. Uh, this again is a bill that we had passed out last session, and why don't you take us through this bill if you would, please?

101. 0:34:16

     I will. And thank you again, uh, committee members. I'm working off LC 63-0073S.

102. 0:34:23

     Correct.

103. 0:34:24

     Uh, two changes were made. On line 20, changed the date from 2025 to 2026. And on line 320, we changed to go into effect upon the governor's signature.

104. 0:34:37

     Very good. You want to just hit the highlights real quick?

105. 0:34:39

     Yep. This bill passed this committee, uh, but failed to get a floor vote. Uh, House Bill 61 is a targeted balanced public safety and property rights measure that closes critical loopholes in Georgia law that have been exploited by squatters, fraudsters, and individuals unlawfully occupying property. In 2024, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1017 to address squatting, and that legislation was an important first step. But since its enactment, law enforcement, property owners, and the hospitality industry have identified gaps that still prevent timely and effective removal of unauthorized occupants.

106. 0:35:17

     House Bill 61 responds directly to those concerns. At its core, this bill does three things. First, it gives law enforcement clear authority to act. It expands magistrate court jurisdiction and creates a verified sworn complaint process that allows sheriffs to immediately remove individuals who are unlawfully residing on a property where no tenancy exists. This restores the fundamental property right to exclude and prevents officers from being forced into legal uncertainty or inaction.

107. 0:35:52

     Second, it strengthens deterrence and accountability. This bill enhances the unlawful squatting statute by requiring alleged squatters to produce valid documentation within a defined timeframe and authorizes arrest when that documentation is missing or fraudulent. Importantly, House Bill 61 creates a new felony offense for presenting a fake lease, deed, or rental agreement to remain in possession of a property. This addresses one of the most common tactics used to delay removal.

108. 0:36:27

     Third, it modernizes and clarifies related areas of law. It clarifies the distinction between innkeeper-guest relationship and landlord-tenant relationships, particularly for extended stay hotels, ensuring that guests do not improperly claim tenant rights. It also shortens delays in executing writs of possession and improves officer safety protocols during removals. This bill is carefully balanced. It preserves due process, protects legitimate tenants with valid leases, provides civil remedies for wrongful removal, and includes clear safeguards for both property owners and law enforcement officers.

109. 0:37:10

     House Bill 61 is not about eviction reform. It is about addressing situations where no lawful tenancy exists, where property is being occupied through trespass or fraud, and where public safety and property rights are at risk. For these reasons, House Bill 61 represents a necessary refinement of Georgia's squatting laws. It reflects the input of law enforcement and industry stakeholders and provides clear constitutional tools to address a growing problem. I respectfully recommend the committee again give House Bill 61 a due pass.

110. 0:37:46

     Thank you, Representative Siva. I appreciate the work you did on the original bill and the follow-up language. This has impacted many of my constituents, and I appreciate the good work you've been doing. Questions for the bill's author from the committee members?

111. 0:38:00

     Uh, they don't work. Just hold up your hand if you don't mind. Thank you, Senator Halpern. Uh, recognize you for a question.

112. 0:38:06

     Thank you. So I recognize for sure that there is a balance, um, between the hospitality industry, which of course is a business that is renting its rooms and, of course, you know, needs to have people pay for those rooms as expected, whether they're renting day by day, week by week, or I don't think most people are renting much longer than week by week. And at the same time, I know also that, um, there are people who are staying in hotels for long lengths of time.

113. 0:38:42

     And we hear all the time about the extended stay, uh, hotels, but I, but I do believe, um, from the information I've received, that it's beyond just extended stays. So it's your regular everyday hotel as well. This bill, of course, puts, um, kind of engages law enforcement in the removal of people from a room if they fail to pay, you know, like day one or two or three. Um, I wonder if there's a possibility of amending this or subbing this out further.

114. 0:39:20

     Just wanna get a sense of your, of your openness to create slightly more of that counterbalance because I recognize that people who've been at a hotel for long lengths of time, um, while they may not in fact in this bill be treated as tenants with the normal eviction proceedings, that that is what they've become accustomed to for now. And at the same time, wanna manage against businesses having to wait months and months and months, which is what a typical eviction proceeding can take, which is, you know, kind of e- antithetical to that business being able to then pay its own bills if you start to have too many people who aren't paying.

115. 0:40:03

     Um, but I, I've, I, I'm trying to get a sense for just that, like that, that, that openness, 'cause there seems to be maybe a, a slightly more middle ground potentially, but I don't know if this is a hearing or if we're taking a vote, so I just wanted to put that out there and just get your sense. Obviously, this is your sub. I understand that we passed it last year. But just trying to get your sense of that balance given, um, both the Supreme Court ruling, some of the misunderstandings that are happening on the ground every day at hotels and law enforcement who feel like right away people should come out, and then, you know, that more empathetic side for people who've really made it their home.

116. 0:40:49

     Right. And I, I appreciate the question, and I assure the committee and, and the folks behind me that I have n- n- I did not... I've been working on this for four years. This, we did not go into this lightly. Um, there is c- mass confusion between the difference between a tenant and a lease and a innkeeper-guest relationship. House Bill 61 clearly defines the difference between that. One is a lease-tenant relationship, one is a innkeeper-guest relationship with a contract.

117. 0:41:23

     With a contract that says, "You have this room from this date till this date." Uh, this, uh, House Bill 61 also, um, gives pri- h- you have to give prior notice, I think it's 24-hour notice, um, that your, your contract is, is up. You can either renew it or not renew it and, um... But I think House Bill 61 explicitly requires a valid written occupancy contract between the innkeeper and the guest, and that contract sets the time period of occupancy, it defines the terms and conditions, and it gives the guest notice of when the stay ends and under what conditions removal may occur.

118. 0:42:05

     It also gives or lines, let me see.

119. 0:42:17

     Where is it?

120. 0:42:26

     It a- well, it a- I don't... I have to find the, the exact language, but it gives the, uh, hotel owner, uh, an opportunity to work out payment arrangements with the, the guest that's there without penalty. You know, normally, even in a landlord-tenant agreement, if you accept $100 on $1,000 rent, then they've paid rent, so you have to start all over. It's the same thing with the innkeeper bill. Um, but this gi- this specifically states that they can work, uh, on payments with, uh, these tenants.

121. 0:43:02

     But from of some of the, uh, professionals that I've talked with, you know, most of these are not families that we're dealing with, it's individuals that we're dealing with that, that aren't paying their rent. The other argument is that other, uh, agencies, um, are paying the rent, not the actual tenant, and that there may be some misconception there. But, uh, I would think that it would be up to the hotel owner to work with that paying agent to say, "No payments. We didn't receive payment," or, "Payment's coming up." Um, so I think House Bill 61 addresses that.

122. 0:43:39

     And the whole idea is not to kick people out of hotels. The, the purpose behind this bill, one, on the squatter side is, you have people stealing somebody's property.

123. 0:43:52

     Common sense tells you you can't walk into somebody's house, change the locks, and claim it as your own, and then wait two years to get your property back. House Bill 61 corrects that. You get your property back immediately. And if the owner false testifies that you don't have a right to be in there and you do, then they're convicted of a felony. So I think it's very fair and balanced on the squatter side. Same thing on the innkeeper or hotel side. I mean, a hotel is a temporary living space even though we do have those extended stays.

124. 0:44:26

     You know, many legislators come up here and will rent a hotel for 90 days. That doesn't make them a tenant in the Georgia Tech Hotel because they stay 90 days, and then they wanna stay another 30 days without paying. Georgia Tech Hotel shouldn't have to go through the eviction process to get somebody out, and that's what's occurring. And I would say for the majority of these people, these aren't, these aren't the people that we work so hard to take care of. Uh, these are criminals that know exactly what they're doing, for the most part.

125. 0:44:59

     Not all of them, but for the most part they know exactly what they're doing. I think House Bill 61 will be some of the strongest squatter legislation in the country. We've had a lot of great people working on this. It's been a huge problem in Georgia. House Bill 1017 really put a dent in squatter, but we found there were still some loopholes that we're closing with this bill. And, um, I hope that answers your question.

126. 0:45:25

     I have a question from Senator Williams.

127. 0:45:27

     Thank you. My concern, and, and I understand the property and squatting, and I agree with that. My concern is some of the families that are living in hotels because they cannot get the first and the last month's rent. They have been evicted before. They are on hard times. They have small children. This-- I would hate to see an innkeeper put a family out with small children during this extremely cold weather, and these people have nowhere else to go.

128. 0:46:06

     This is the, something that is in the back of my mind on the innkeeper's part of it. Now, I, I see a different part on a house, by all means. Um, but some of these families with small children, because they can't afford anything else, they're living in hotels. They've been in that hotel for a year.

129. 0:46:36

     And all of a sudden, they quit getting their SSI checks for some reason, and they get behind, and they have small kids and they've nowhere to go. No family, nowhere to go. And those are the people that are helpless, that how do we help them without hurting them? And that's just coming from my heart.

130. 0:47:01

     And I appreciate that comment too, 'cause it certainly comes from my heart. I've worked with a number of- Uh, nonprofit agencies that help the homeless, that h- help homeless veterans and those kind of things. So don't think that this is, uh ... I- I have to separate this into two separate things. I- if you have those kind of situations, we have nonprofit charities that can pay that bill and help that.

131. 0:47:24

     We don't have that in Baldwin County. I don't have that nonprofit charity. I had phone calls this past weekend from families-

132. 0:47:30

     But there are nonprofits and churches that, that could pay that bill.

133. 0:47:35

     But they won't. I don't have anybody down there.

134. 0:47:38

     So why does that become the hoteler's responsibility to become a charity at that case?

135. 0:47:44

     Next question.

136. 0:47:46

     That's, that's what I'm dealing with. I think most people would do the right thing in those situations. Um, but the law has to address the hotel property owner's rights versus the charitable. I mean, they're, they're not a charity. That's not the business that they're in. I know that they, they do work with the charitable organizations to house a lot of those. A lot of our homeless folks are, are folks that are down on their luck.

137. 0:48:16

     Um, but that's ... To me, that's a whole separate issue. I think the law should be clear that the hotel owner has a property right, and-

138. 0:48:26

     I, I, I understand, and I agree. You know, I thought the happiest day w- of my life was when I bought some rental property. I found out the happiest day of my life was when I sold that rental property. Um, but to talk about charity work, what I do for a living, I do a lot of charity work. Because when people come to me, they will still have the tattoos and the cigarettes and the Mountain Dews, but they don't, they can't pay for a funeral.

139. 0:49:02

     They can't do anything for that. I understand that. But it's, it's a fine line, and, uh, I guess, uh, maybe this is something we'll have to work through. But I appreciate the bill, and I appreciate the squatting part. I just, um, when there's small children involved, then I have a problem. I'm ... That's why I have a, an issue.

140. 0:49:28

     Senator, I, I appreciate that. By the way, I've had those happy days, too, when I was no longer was renting to other people. I appreciate that very much. And I, I think that all of us here are very kind and charitable people there. We try to work it out. I think and your, your example is right. If someone comes and you help them with that funeral they couldn't afford, you do it out of the kindness of your heart, but not because we legally tell you you have to host that funeral. And I think that probably is a little bit of the delineation there. Um, we've got several folks in my district I share. We, we've had several squatters in houses.

141. 0:50:00

     Well, they got the bills for the house. They had to pay for the tax to the house, but they couldn't have access to their house.

142. 0:50:06

     Oh, right.

143. 0:50:06

     Uh, and, and they were starting to get foreclosed on the house that they owned but they couldn't get into. So the victims were actually the other side. Same is true for a hotel or a motel. They w- they run on very thin margins as well. So there's victims all around, I guess, is, is part of the challenge, so. Uh, Senator Robertson.

144. 0:50:22

     Yeah. Um, Senator Williams, the morning Teresa wakes up and I don't, I'm gonna have her reach out to you about smulching me, uh, for charity, if you don't mind. I'm sure there's plenty of people that wanna spread it around. Um, um, Representative Sebaugh, I appreciate your work on this, and I know you've been working on this for four years, like you've talked about. Of, out of everybody you've dealt with, how many, what percentage, if, if you even wanna guess, are the situations that Senator Williams is talking about?

145. 0:50:53

     Are the vast majority, um, individuals that have moved in there with the intent of paying for a while and then not paying? And I'm talking about the extended stay. I'm not talking about the, the squatter side. I'm talking about the hotels where they're coming in there. Are you finding that the vast majority are moving in there with the intention or, or really not caring due to the fact that they're gonna take advantage because they're under the impression they would have to go through the normal dispossessory process now? Or are you finding where the vast majority of them are families and they're, uh, looking for a place to stay that they can afford?

146. 0:51:26

     Senator, can I ph- Chairman, can I- Whip, can I phone a friend?

147. 0:51:30

     Sure. Absolutely. If you f- if you ... But, but I, I know you've talked to a lot of them.

148. 0:51:34

     She, she's here.

149. 0:51:34

     Yeah.

150. 0:51:35

     Yeah. Um, Lisa Anders, is she here?

151. 0:51:42

     Lisa works with the Gwinnett, um-

152. 0:51:45

     Tourism office

153. 0:51:46

     ... tourism office. And she w- she and I were talking about the numbers, uh, of families versus individuals, uh-

154. 0:51:54

     And-

155. 0:51:55

     ... taking advantage of this.

156. 0:51:56

     What's her, what's your last name? I'm sorry.

157. 0:51:57

     Sorry. Hi, my name is Lisa Anders. I'm the COO of Explore Gwinnett, which is the tourism office in Gwinnett County. Um, thanks for the opportunity to speak. And it's really is a nuanced and complicated issue. And I'm here because my hotels, this is the burning issue that they call me about every single solitary week. Um, and there's different issues. I will say in Gwinnett we-

158. 0:52:20

     Ms. Anders, did you, you heard my question though, correct?

159. 0:52:23

     Yeah. Um-

160. 0:52:23

     I, I, w- I would like to know what the percentage, the vast percentage of the individuals you're dealing with. Are we talking about, uh, the example that Senator Williams gave, where it's a family with small children and all this? Or are we finding that it's predominantly individuals or couples moving into these places and choosing not to leave?

161. 0:52:40

     In my experience, I can give you an anecdotal answer. The vast majority of people that we are currently struggling with are individuals who are systematically abusing the system because they're aware they're able to. Our families typically are either supported ... We do have some support with nonprofit organizations. And I've got a lot of hotels who, out of their compassion, quite honestly, work with their families because they know they're paycheck to paycheck, and they let them pay weekly. Um, the problem, uh, the problem children, as we'll call them, um, are the ones who know the system doesn't really offer an opportunity for the hotels to force them to leave, and they are primarily male individuals.

162. 0:53:25

     That's our consistent demographic.

163. 0:53:28

     Thank you. I appreciate that.

164. 0:53:29

     Thank you very much. Okay. Other questions, committee?

165. 0:53:35

     All right. Seeing none, uh, what's the will of the committee?

166. 0:53:40

     Move to pass.

167. 0:53:40

     Move to pass, Senator Payne. Second from Senator Robertson. Further discussion? Uh, seeing none, all those in favor, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, uh, eight. All those opposed? Mike Sign.

168. 0:53:55

     That's me.

169. 0:53:55

     Two opposed. All right. Motion passes. Uh, best of luck in the Senate Rules Committee. And, uh, I believe Senator Still is carrying this bill for you in the Senate. Is that correct?

170. 0:54:05

     Correct.

171. 0:54:06

     All right. Thank you so much.

172. 0:54:08

     Thank you.

173. 0:54:08

     All right. Thank you all for being here today. I hope everyone has a wonderful day. And this meeting is hereby adjourned.