House Governmental Affairs Committee, February 11, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1164123830 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1164123830#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-11/house-governmental-affairs This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:11:01] We're gonna, we're gonna be at ease for just a few more minutes. We got some folks strickling in from other committees, so if y'all bear with us just about another five minutes. Thank you. [0:12:50] Okay, we're gonna get [0:13:21] started. This is a little late to start a meeting, but we got pushed back by session today, so I thank, thanks everyone for sticking with us and being here today. This is House Governmental Affairs full committee meeting. Uh, to get our meeting started, I'd like to recognize Representative Bazemore to, uh, offer the word of prayer. [0:13:39] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome everyone to your house. Father God, we do thank you, we praise you, we glorify your holy name, and we ask, Lord God, right now that you remember each and every person in here. Lord, give us the God ideas. Give us the patience, Lord God. Allow us to see what we need to do, and do what is right for the people of Georgia. We thank you now. We bless your holy name. In Jesus' name we pray, amen. [0:14:08] Amen. Thank you very much. We're gonna get right, started right away. Uh, I'll ask, uh, Representative Tim Fleming to come to the podium or the table, either one, to present House Bill 913. [0:14:30] You may proceed when you're ready, sir. [0:14:35] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Bring to you today House Bill 913. We're working off LC59-0172. Uh, what Has- House Bill 913 is, um, it's a cost saving measure bill. It enables choice and enables cost savings for state and local governments. What does the bill do? This bill prohibits software vendors from placing into software contracts terms that limit a customer's choice on what vendors they use for additional technology services. [0:15:06] For example, like cloud computing. Georgia public sector entities shouldn't be prevented from having full and free choice to select technology services that better meet their budgets and their goals and operational needs just because of a software contract and stipulations that are in it. Uh, example, think about when you go purchase a new car from a dealership, and in your purchase agreement, the dealer tells you where you h- wh- where you can buy your replacement tires, where you have to get your oil changed, where you have-- what collision center you have to use if you're in a wreck. [0:15:36] That's what we're dealing with here. Uh, this bill therefore prohibits contract terms that create lock-in or create penalty structures that deter or threaten customers from having this type of free choice. These contract terms can impose financial liabilities for violi- violating these licensing terms by selecting other vendors. These fines can be in the millions of dollars. And this only applies to contracts in the future, not contracts that are currently in place. This saves taxpayers money through competitive bidding and competitive pricing. [0:16:08] Vendors can freely compete for the business of the state and for local governments. It ensures budget funds are used effectively. Public sector entities, for example, should not be prevented from lower cost options that might be available to them that would free up funding for other projects or critical initiatives they may have. Strengthen cybersecurity by letting customers spread risk across multiple providers if they so, uh, choose for their organization. It gives agencies flexibility to choose the best technology for their specific needs that they, they have. [0:16:39] It's technology neutral. It doesn't pick winners or losers. It just ensures that there's fair competition across the playing field, and it puts Georgia and our local governments and entities in control, not software vendors. There have been several other states that have, uh, currently enacted this, these type of legislation, this type of legislation across the country. It has bipartisan support at the state and local level. You can look at this bill and see we have the bipartisanship on it with some of the co-signers. Um, it also has the support of several national organizations like ALEC and the Council of State Governments. [0:17:11] Uh, bottom line, this is about being good stewards of the taxpayer dollars and maintaining control, uh, over Georgia's technologi- technology decisions and letting the local governments, uh, hold control over their decisions as well. With that, Mr. Chairman, um, I'll be happy to take any questions and also at the appropriate time introduce, uh, Scott Drexel, who's with the Coalition of Fair Software Licensing as well, uh, if there's any questions. [0:17:33] Okay. At the moment, I see no questions, so let's go ahead and, uh, let Mr. Drexel introduce yourself, please. Tell us who you're with and, and go ahead and speak. [0:17:40] Sure. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, members of the committee. Again, my name is Scott Drexel, and I'm here on behalf of a group called the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing, which is made up of, uh, a sort of a cross-section of American companies and, um, uh, ac- across a number of, of key industries from healthcare, financial services, manufacturing, um, software, and then cloud and cybersecurity providers. So I'll, I'll try not to, to repeat too much of what the representative already, already covered. Um, the, the, the purpose for this legislation and the need for it arose out of, um, concerns among, uh, central IT leaders and procurement, um, leaders that, uh, there were terms and conditions, uh, provisions and terms and conditions that were buried that often have led to, uh, public agencies buying, uh, m- more services and goods above and beyond the software they thought they were purchasing. [0:18:33] So, um, and, and there's no particular reason for this. It's just a way for a software vendor to lock a public agency into buying more things from it. And so all this really does is it decouples those things. Um, there are a whole lot of reasons that a state might, uh, or, or an agency within a state might procure software in a certain way, whether it's to bundle it to, to, to realize some cost savings, which is totally fine. There's nothing in this bill that would prevent that. Uh, for cybersecurity reasons, you might want to diversify your vendors because that, that is, vendor diversification is very important to, uh, to cybersecurity because if you silo everything with one, uh, a vulnerability in, in one very quickly becomes a vulnerability in all. [0:19:15] But the most important thing is that it's central IT's decision how to, uh, purchase the, the, the goods that they need. You don't want a situation where you've got the tail wagging the dog, and the vendor is dictating to the purchaser how the purchaser can use the software that they already bought. So, um, you know, th- this is, uh, as, as the representative said, this has already passed in six states. Um, quite a bit of attention to it at the federal level as well. Uh, Federal Trade Commission actually started under the Biden administration, carried over into the Trump administration, an investigation into, uh, software providers. [0:19:50] I mean, I think you can count the number of, of, of issues you can say that about on one hand. Um, but specifically into how software, uh, companies were, were using their popularity in some of their software to leverage, uh, additional, uh, goods and services. Um, the House of Representatives, uh, has passed bipartisan legislation to, to look further into it. Um, but I'll stop there. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. [0:20:14] Okay. We have one question. Uh, Representative Adesanya. [0:20:17] Um, thank you, Chairman. I, I was just wondering, um, what, um, software companies were you were using and were doing that? [0:20:27] Um, so it, it, it's not targeted at any one software company in particular, but there are a couple that, that have, um, come under a little more scrutiny for these kind of, of, uh, tactics. Microsoft's a big one. Um, uh, Oracle's another big one. SAP. Again, it's, it's not, not targeted at them individually, but, um, th- those are some of the, the, uh, companies that have, I think, been under federal scrutiny at least for it a little bit more. [0:20:53] Thank you. [0:20:56] Okay, I see no more questions. What would be the will of the committee? [0:21:00] Motion to advance. [0:21:01] We have a motion. Do we have a second? [0:21:03] Second. [0:21:03] Second. Any comments or concerns? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. [0:21:07] Aye. [0:21:08] Any opposed? Motion carries. [0:21:09] Thank y'all, committee. [0:21:10] Thank you. [0:21:11] Thank you. [0:21:12] Next, we'll invite, uh, Floor Leader Wade to come to the podium and, uh, or to the table, either one, whichever's your preference, and present, uh, House Bill 1066. I believe this was a recommit from House Rules Committee. Uh- Will Wade Yes, sir ... and we have a committee sub. If you'll please give us the LC number to make sure everyone is looking at the proper version. Will Wade Certainly. And, uh, before I do that, up first I want to say thank you to the Rules Committee and the chairman for accepting my request to r- have this recommitted, um, and to my colleagues that asked some really great questions, uh, through the process last time. [0:21:50] Um, I know at the time I said I'd like to continue to keeping things moving, but I also committed to you that I would listen and I would work with the folks that I have been communicating with to make what I think are appropriate, uh, considerations and changes for many of the points that were brought up during our last meeting. So some of this will be very much the same, but there are changes that I'll highlight. We are working off of LC474018S. All right. So couple of the main things, uh, what major changes are on lines 15 and 16, where in Georgia we have a lot of our code that acknowledges we are a diverse state. [0:22:30] We have rural areas, and we have non-rural areas. So this would, in A, define a five-mile radius around the perimeter of a racing facility in a rural, rural county, and a three-mile radius around the perimeter of a racing facility in any other county, which would be very similar to the North Carolina model. But it's not necessarily getting everything that everybody wants. Many other states are looking at 10-mile radiuses. And again, a reminder, Iowa has no radius at all, so I think this is a Georgia model that is a fair to many. [0:23:05] Uh, we also made a decision, and, uh, I think this was from some of the good content, was to really try to get in at what types of nuisances and what are we really ultimately trying to accomplish. So we added lines 21, a racing operation, which would mean lawful, permitted, a historically established use of a permanent or seasonal racing facility for organized, sanctioned, or scheduled motor vehicle racing activities, including comp- c- competitive or exhibition events, and all acts, conditions, and effects that are reasonably inherent, necessary, and incidental to such use, and shall include but not be limited to. [0:23:39] So these are more of a detail as to what is going on in racing facilities in our state. Um, I, I'm not gonna read each of these to you. I think y'all can have a few moments to read that. I'll highlight, I think, for me, getting at what the question surrounding what nuisances are we trying to discuss. Let me highlight line 34, which is labeled F. This is noise, vibration, dust, traffic, lighting, fumes, and emissions customarily associated with racing facilities and events. [0:24:10] And for anybody that has questions about fumes and emissions, the, this does not change any EPD or EPA standards of operation. They could still have a violation if they were not to properly ensure that they are, uh, functioning, uh, uh, within other state or federal law. It's just it can't be just because we know racetracks do have some emissions while they're driving fast around a course, and they do have fumes based on the technology that propels them. Um, I also wanna just highlight that right now in Georgia, a rural county is defined as a population of less than 50,000 based on the, the 2020 census. [0:24:50] So this would allow for that definition to change through basically at least conceptually in perpetuity after each census that's conducted every 10 years. And there will also be, uh, I wanna point out this, uh, really I think it's gonna be in D, which is lines 51 and 52, the immunity provided by this code section shall not apply to claims based solely on a material change to the historic racing operations of a racing facility. So th- that, that I think helps us ensure that we're trying to acknowledge this is, as long as they continue to conduct the business, that they've been approved locally. [0:25:29] So it, the home rule still applies. County commissions can di- dictate what's the appropriate, uh, predominantly noise or light ordinances. Um, but this would, uh, give that flexibility. So to the chairman, I am happy to answer any questions. And again, um, to my friend who offered the prayer, let's remember that prayer as we continue the conversation. [0:25:51] Okay. Representative Roberts. [0:25:53] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, okay, so my first question is actually to Stuart Morelli. Um, my understanding is the Constitution precludes us from legislating by population, and it literally has the word population in it. So I'm curious how we're getting around that constitutional issue. [0:26:23] Mr. Morrelli. [0:26:24] The Constitution says that the General Assembly shall define what a population act is. [0:26:29] Right. [0:26:29] And the definition of population act does not include a bill that uses pop- population classification which applies to three or more counties or cities. [0:26:40] Wait, say that one more... I'm trying to digest that. Say that one more time. [0:26:45] There are a number of exemptions to what is defined as a population act. One of the exemptions is a bill that uses a population classification that applies to three or m- more than three jurisdictions. [0:27:02] Okay, I'm not understanding it, but I'll think about that one. Okay. So I wanna talk about what you just said at the end, th- where you said, um, that if it's solely based on material change, then this doesn't apply. However, in the subsection immediately before that, it says, "No racing facility shall become a nuisance, either public or private, solely as a result of a ch- of changed conditions." So to me, those are in conflict. [0:27:35] You are saying that if it's built a year ago and they increase their operations, they increase their noise, they increase their dust, they increase their vibration, that every property owner within five miles- [0:27:49] Right [0:27:49] ... has no right to bring a nuisance claim. Am I misunderstanding that? [0:27:53] I'm gonna defer, since, um, I worked with legislative council to, uh, try to encapsulate what we were, um, discussing, um, the material change, and this is to be about scope of business versus that of, of the only material change is not necessarily ours. Right? But if they're continuing to do... Refer back to lines 26 through 35, if what that material change is c- is still inconsistent with practice testing, qualifying racing events, racing vehicles. [0:28:23] So the mere changing of certain vehicles, as long as they go with their local jurisdiction, and that local jurisdictions allows that business to make that change, and there's a process that does that, then they can continue. That, that does not constitute a material change. But I will say this, we also, and I didn't highlight this earlier, so I apologize, lines 36 through 39, we are not going to include, this does not include all-terrain vehicle racing or exhibition, recreational off-road or trail riding, unorganized, unsanctioned, or casual vehicle operation not associated with a motorsports park event or motorical vehicle use occurring outside the boundaries or scheduled activities of a racing facility. [0:29:02] So with that, to your specific question, I'm happy to let, um, legislative council try to help, I guess, provide a distinction between C and D. [0:29:12] I appreciate that. That was a, a lot of non-answer. Stuart, can you help me with this? [0:29:21] Proceed, Mr. Morrelli. [0:29:23] I guess it would come down to a factual determination on what's a material change versus a non-material change. [0:29:30] But C says you can't be held li- liable for a nuisance for a changed condition, and D says it's not gonna apply to a changed condition. So am I m- [0:29:40] A material change. [0:29:42] Okay. And where is material... Okay. Well, but he's exempted all of these material changes up above, right? He's e- exempted practice and testing, operation of race vehicles. Any of those things, if they change, they become more intense, it wouldn't be a material change. [0:30:07] I guess that would be for parties to litigate. [0:30:10] So, and that's a beautiful segue. So I'm trying to understand, in Georgia, we are a pro-property rights state la- last I checked, and I'm just curious, um, do you agree that the right to use and enjoy your property is a fundamental right here in Georgia? [0:30:31] I do. [0:30:31] O- [0:30:31] But I also believe that if I have a racetrack, and I live in a community that has one, many of you have testified in previous committee that you live in communities that have a racetrack, and that racetrack has been there before me. And I'll be honest with you, I have bought property in proximity to a place called the Dawsonville Pool Room. I grew up on Alan Street, and every time Bill Elliot won a race, does everybody know what happens? The siren goes off. We call it the sirene, and y'all can make fun of that if you want to, or you can accept it as that's my culture, and it's a part of racing. [0:31:08] It's a loud noise, and I grew up listening to it. And I accepted that because that sirene was happening before my parents moved into that house, and we just learned to accept it, and it wasn't a nuisance to us. That's kinda my point. [0:31:21] I understand your point. [0:31:22] It was there first. [0:31:23] My, I'm a zoning attorney. I understand coming to a nuisance. My issue with this is, as I pointed out in subcommittee, 41 racetracks in Georgia, that's over two million acres across the state of Georgia, where property owners within those two million acres- [0:31:41] Right [0:31:41] ... will be denied access to the courts. And now, according to this bill, which I thought you told me was gonna be better, is actually worse, it clearly says that if you increase the conditions on a racetrack- [0:31:54] Okay [0:31:54] ... within those things, that you are exempt from br- you cannot bring a nuisance claim. [0:31:59] Well, there was committee testimony that said that they wanted to have better understanding as to what the racing tracks are doing. These are the things that the racing tracks are good with that. [0:32:09] I, I'm not arguing with the nuisances. You've outlined- [0:32:11] And I think, as the gentleman had said, I would, I would argue this. When counties that govern most of these, there are also cities that govern the entity, if they are making a material change, they have to go through local processes within their counties through zoning or ordinance, um, changes. Right? They do [0:32:31] Um, that is what I've been told. And if there is a question, community members can go petition their elected officials locally to either agree with or disagree with potentially material changes, right? This is to get at the opportunity for the scope of business. Again, like my daughter and son, you and I may have to agree to disagree, but I think it also gives an opportunity that if you disagree with that material change, then that can still be argued. So you would have a right to, as the gentleman said, litigate what is a material change. [0:33:02] I respectfully disagree, and I'm an attorney- Okay, fair ... um, that those two provisions are in conflict, and that y'all have done a great job of writing out. It will be a motion to dismiss, and it will be granted. And so you can increase the noise and the dust right now, and y- you are giving a blanket immunity across two million acres. That is just in one acre, if it was zoned for four units per acre, that's 200,000 homeowners. I'm just giving perspective here- I, I don't think it's two million ... so everyone understands. In one of those acres. [0:33:32] Two million acres. Mr. Chairman. I'm not opposed to racing. I'm not- Understood ... saying people should be able to come to a nuisance un- like, unreasonably. But this is a blanket immunity for a private industry. Airports don't get this, this radius. Oh. And, and builders- I'll have to take a look at that ... that build within the radius of an airport have to put in noise-rated windows. Are we going to give notice to every property owner that buys a house? Is it gonna be a property disclosure? [0:34:02] Are we gonna require builders to put noise-rated wind- uh, windows in? Nothing will prohibit the local community to, to have those standards for all properties. That's not a local community thing. That's- If, if I may, let's, uh, let's, let's do this. Uh, Representative Roberts, do you have a- another line of questioning? Before we go- I'm good. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And, and before we proceed, I would like to, uh, ask, and this is not an immediate request, but I'd like to ask for legislative counsel, uh, Mr. Morelli, if you can just glance in the next minute or two at those sections and see if there is an obvious solution to the, the purported, uh, potential conflict here. [0:34:38] Uh, if you'd like to look at that, we'll, we'll, we'll come back to that when, when appropriate, if, if that's acceptable. That's acceptable to me. Okay. Thank you. We're gonna move on now. Uh, Representative Momtahan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, uh, thank you, Leader Wade, for, uh, this bill. I like your bill. Um, in fact, I, I'm sitting here as you're talking about these violations and how, you know, or, or rather these noises, and actually in Paulding County, Georgia, uh, we are home of the East Paulding Raiders, and so that's a football team that's located in, uh, my colleague's district. [0:35:19] And from time to time, we also get noise complaints about a cannon that they fire off on a pirate ship, um, which is great. Uh, you know, from my business, I can hear on Friday nights, the, every time they score, just like the siren, uh, they shoot that cannon. [0:35:41] Have you contemplated potentially, rather than just looking at these racetracks, adding in high school athletic fields? [0:35:55] I, I, I, uh, appreciate the question. To the, to the p- to the person that asked the prior questions in great detail and with respect, it is not my intent to go through that endeavor at this time. So thank you. W- A further question, Mr. Chairman. Would the author of the bill take that as a friendly amendment to his bill? At this time, I would not. So- But I- I know you said no amendments last go round, so we just wanted to clear that in now and figure out where we're going. That, that, I, I would be happy to talk to you about a separate piece of legislation, my friend. [0:36:30] Thank you. Thank you. [0:36:35] Representative Oliver. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that this has been a fair effort to try to narrow and specify some of the issues that I was talking about last week about- Yeah ... what kinds of activities you're granting nuisance immunity to. And I'm satisfied also that, and this is not my expertise area of expertise in any way, that there is common law, there's case law that says if you moved into an area where there was already noise, that you have more, much more limited in the cases you can bring. [0:37:09] I think this represents a, a compromise. I will say, and I've said this to you- Yes, ma'am ... and I'll say to the committee, I'm gonna vote no on this, not because of these inconsistencies, but because we have made a policy decision with three popular industries that I know of, I don't think we've done more than three, of granting immunity to gun ranges, chicken farms that smell bad, and now racetracks. And the policy decision to grant immunity based on who we're really mad at right now, uh, is really irritating our constituents. [0:37:47] It's not the best way to approach it. That's the reason for my no. It's not that you haven't made a good faith effort to make this more sensical and narrowing, and then it does raise some consi- inconsistencies about the common law issue of what is a material change. If your racetrack decided to go into the adult entertainment business, I don't think the immunity would- It would not apply ... would not apply. But- But that is a material change ... there's, but there's an argument here. I, I understand there's an argument. And they're no longer, it's n- that would be no longer a racing operation. [0:38:19] Right. It would be an adjunct to the, of adult entertainment to something, and that would take it out of the immunity. That's correct. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say to the committee what I said to the, uh, author, is I'm gonna vote no because the policy of piecemeal creating a protection, which is a big protection for, uh, a favorite industry, is not the policy decision I would like to go to. I appreciate the gentlelady's comments. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Chairman Leverett. [0:38:47] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just kind of seeing where I said, I don't- [0:38:51] Sure [0:38:51] ... really, u- unlike my colleague, I, I don't necessarily object to the policy. I think the whole notion of trying to provide some additional clarification and codification of the common law doctrine of coming to the nuisance is useful. Even if we are doing it one industry at a time, uh, I, I still think that's helpful. Um, a- a- and, and I recognize it, that, that, y- you know, reasonable people can disagree with me on that. The, th- the question I do have though sort of relates to Representative Roberts' question about trying to discern what the fine distinction is between paragraph C and paragraph D. [0:39:29] So lines 46 through 50 and lines 51 through 52. I, I think the, the, the, the legislative council's opinion was, well, if it becomes a material change, then it doesn't apply. If it's non-material, then the immunity still applies. Small changes would. But I, I just... It, it's, it, it, it takes a little bit of work to get there, and I, I just wondered was the, was the intention of C to say that you don't become a nuisance solely because the are- the, the changed conditions are in the area around the racing facility rather than... [0:40:07] I mean, it's a result of change. It does say changed conditions related to racing operations, which seems to pull it closer into D, but I wondered if, if maybe that was the, the concept that w- we were after in paragraph C, or, or was it to make a distinction between material changes and minor changes? [0:40:27] So I, I think you are getting at what the communication I had with, uh, legislative council was, and also because the original bill was kind of, kind of had some more conversations around operational times. And there are so many things that we can't contemplate. The local communities may dictate a change of times and, and the market conditions may change when races are, and I didn't want that to be conflated as a material change because that could happen in the future. I also wanted to ensure, and I am, I am willing to have better language to bring clarity since I, as my friends back home that are attorneys say I play one for three months. [0:41:06] I am not an attorney, so I would allow and appreciate input from both of you, uh, too, because of your experience in this at working with legislative council to come up with something that brings clarity to that just to ensure that we want to protect the tourism industry and the entertainment industry relating to this specific group, um, because I don't, I don't think that it makes sense that if they are, through their local process, getting an ordinance change to go from a go-kart or... [0:41:38] and then end up having a d- Like, there may be a track right now that decides they own ex- property and have a future desire to add to their course an additional type of racing, right? But it would still be in concert with what we laid out 26 through, uh, 35. Lines 26 through 35. But they may not do that today. They go to the county and they say, "Hey, we're now gonna add an additional, you know, mile and a half of course, and now because we're gonna have this type of rated, um, road, we can now take a Formula 1 vehicle versus what were a different type of racing." Does that make sense? [0:42:16] So that's, that's the policy objective because to me, that is not a material change from racing o- operations. Does that make sense? That is the goal. [0:42:26] I, I think so. I, I will confess, I, I've, I've sort of got tired in the middle of that. [0:42:32] I'm tired too, my friend. [0:42:34] And, and, and y- you, you lost me at one point, but I think I... In all, in all sincerity, I do think I- [0:42:39] You come to that racetrack, you will not be tired. [0:42:43] So it, it, it, it seems to me also you, you, you were bringing up a separate issue that I don't know if you need to address it here, but I think w- when you presented initially, and, and today also, you were mentioning the, the fact that you are not intending to preempt any local zoning conditional use requirement- [0:43:03] No [0:43:03] ... anything of that nature. [0:43:04] No. [0:43:05] And, and I don't know that y- you know, y- your language as it is, I'm not sure really speaks to that issue. It's simply talking about a common law nuisance claim. [0:43:12] That's correct. [0:43:13] I, I, I didn't know if something clarifying that desire might satisfy the ladies' concerns. [0:43:21] I think so. [0:43:21] Okay. All right. That might satisfy some of them, but it might not get you to a yes. Um, so th- that was just another thought, and, and, um, a- as well as trying to understand what the distinction was between paragraph C and D. Um, uh, so anyway, I just, uh, uh- [0:43:40] Fair. No, I, I agree, and I, I would... Before we take one question, would it be okay if we allow, um, legislative council, Mr. Morelli, to respond to your earlier question and then based on the feedback, if there's a way to provide additional clarity to the policy objective? [0:43:56] Uh, let m- Is that appropriate, Mr. Morelli? [0:44:02] I have no issue. [0:44:02] Okay. Uh, well, let's do this. Let's, let's recognize Representative Roberts first. [0:44:06] I have another question for, um, Mr. Morelli. Um, where'd it go? On line 21, where it says, "Racing operations means the lawful permitted, permitted or historically established use," to me, that brings that out of it could preempt local control. Historically established is a very broad term, and we're saying that the state law says if it's historically established use, it's fine, but if the local government says it's not, what's going to preempt? [0:44:45] Mr. Morelli. [0:44:50] Nothing in this statute on its face purports to affect the governmental powers of enter- any governmental entity. It's just a set of conditions to bring a nuisance action. So I... Yes, that, that there is an or there in the definition, but nothing in the substance of the statute in any way is addressing governmental powers. [0:45:17] But it's granting the definition of racing operations as historically established, which could be in conflict with the local ordinance. [0:45:26] No, because this only deals with nuisance actions. It does not affect any governmental powers possessed by a governmental entity. [0:45:34] Hmm. I have to think about that one. [0:45:40] Okay. Thank you. Any other questions on the part of the committee? Do we have a, a... Seeing, seeing none, do we have a motion? [0:45:48] Motion to [0:45:49] We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Representative Roberts. [0:45:57] All right. I just have to say this. It's okay. Uh, I'll be quick. I mean, for generations, Georgia law has protected our most basic civil and economic rights, private property rights. We represent, I don't even know, millions of constituents who buy their homes, spend their life savings buying a home, and with this bill, we are creating absolute immunity, including increased operations if they change the use and increase the, the nuisance, for a private industry that is encompassing two million acres across the state of Georgia. [0:46:41] That radius is insane. We're also passing an, uh, I think what is unconstitutional population, um, bill. And so I just don't understand how Georgia, the pro-property rights people, that we are putting one industry over millions of Georgians across the state, and I cannot support the bill. I think it, those two provisions are inconsistent and give absolute immunity, and that is not what I came down here to do. [0:47:11] Thank you. Uh, Representative Sanchez. [0:47:14] Thank you so much, Chair. And I know we've had a discussion a lot around, around this already, but... And I know I've mentioned this before, I know this comment is sometimes triggering to some folks, but we represent people, not corporations. I am tired of a government that continues to do things for special interests and wealthy interests and not for the interests of the people. And I think it's important that we prioritize working people and the constituents who vote us in instead of the major corporations that may contribute to some people's campaigns. Thank you. [0:47:40] Mr. Chairman, may I at least make one comment? These businesses are in the marketplace, and our citizens that we represent are the customers that go to these 41, uh, or 44, depending on which research you're using. And I don't know that, I'm not gonna argue the mileage that's been impacted, but I did concede from five miles down to three for those that are non-rural communities. So just wanna make that for the record that I did try to be as amenable as possible to the concerns brought. [0:48:12] So thank you. [0:48:13] Okay. Thank you. Uh, Chairman Sainz. [0:48:17] Mr. Chairman, I think there's been adequate deliberation on this bill, and at, at, if appropriate, I'd like to call to question. [0:48:24] Okay. The chairman will recognize that, uh, the question has been called. All in favor of... Let me make sure I get everything straight here, please. All in favor of House Bill 1066, LC47-4018S, say I. [0:48:44] I. [0:48:44] All opposed say no. [0:48:46] No. [0:48:46] Okay. We'll take a hand vote on this. All in favor raise your hand. [0:48:52] One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. [0:48:56] Okay. All opposed raise your hand. [0:49:00] One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. [0:49:04] Okay. Motion passes. [0:49:05] All right. Thank you. [0:49:07] Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time and deliberation. [0:49:13] Okay. Next, we'll ask, uh, Floor Leader Seabaugh to come and present House Bill 1130. [0:49:25] And guest. Honored guest. [0:49:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, I present House Bill 1130, LC 47-39-37. It's titled the SECURE Act. The Georgia SECURE Act is about one simple principle: No one should be discouraged from serving the public because of threats to their personal safety or threats to their family. The SECURE Act brings Georgia law in line with federal law. And in an era of heightened political tension, the SECURE Act helps ensure that Georgians from all walks of life can step forward to serve without fear, intimidation, or personal risk. [0:50:17] This bill codifies an opinion issued by the State Ethics Commission several years ago. You might remember when members were being swatted. Uh, the State Ethics Department issued a, an opinion that determined that elected officials and candidates may use campaign funds for legitimate security services. Rather than leaving that guidance solely in an advisory opinion, House Bill 1130 places clear statutory language into the code so there's consistency and certainty for all campaigns moving forward. [0:50:49] The bill does- primarily does three things. It defines and limits security expenditures, allowing legitimate costs such as professionally installed security equipment and monitoring services, while expressly prohibiting structural home improvements, weapons, or payments to family members for security services. It strengthens transparency and enforcement by establishing a defined compliance period when campaign records are requested for inspection and provides penalties for failure to comply, and it prevents personal enrichment. [0:51:23] So it requires that security equipment purchased with campaign funds be returned to the campaign or reimbursed at fair market value at the conclusion of the campaign or term of office. So this legislation does not change election procedures, voting laws, or ballot access. It simply provides clarity in a statute, strengthens reporting requirements, and reinforces accountability. This is a narrow, common sense, good government measure that promotes transparency while recognizing the real security needs of those who serve. [0:51:59] So I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions. [0:52:05] Okay, at this point, uh, whoop, we do have a couple of questions. Representative Adesanya. [0:52:13] Um, thank you, Chair. Um, Representative Seabaugh, thank you. Um, I have this question, and I know, um, it, as the House Minority Treasurer, a few of our members have asked me, um, in the past. So, like, Chair, uh, or Director Ahmahi, maybe you can help with that, too. So, like, what amount do you o- well, what amount triggers you all to request for the bank statement? Like, what figure? [0:52:40] Yeah, so that, that's a little sort of separate and distinct from some of the security. Um, there's not a numerical value that would trigger that request. Where that usually comes into play is if we start getting sort of informal complaints from the public about a campaign issue, or we see something that's kind of on that line. Rather than just issue an ethics complaint, send out subpoenas, and it being out there in sort of the political zeitgeist, sometimes we will say, "Hey, we, we wanna request these specific bank records you're required to keep," and if that can help us sort of sort through this issue one way or the other, at least we go in with clear eyes. [0:53:19] But there's not a numerical amount that would trigger that, that sort of need. [0:53:23] Uh, and thank you. And one more question. So how far back do you all request for bank statements? [0:53:28] So in pr- in practicality, the, the amount of time just kind of depends on the issue. By statute, you're required to maintain bank records in a two-year seat for your previous three calendar years. Four-year offices would be five calendar years, and we have a couple statewide six-year terms. So basically, your term of office plus one year is the amount of time you're already required to keep those records as financial records. [0:53:52] Mm-hmm. [0:53:52] And that would be the maximum amount we would have access to. But I can just tell you from practice, generally it's, it's, it's several months depending on the issue at hand. [0:54:03] Thank you. [0:54:05] Okay. Uh, Chairman Thomas. [0:54:08] Yeah, I, I do have one, one quick question. And I know that you've, you've actually, I guess, uh, stated what security expenditures mean. But, uh, my big thing is, uh, lines 48 through 50, um, "Be used to pay a member of the family or campaign's staff member," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, "for the equipment provision s- of monitoring service," but what about, like, actual security services as well? Like, so can I just hire, you know, my, my big cousin who's a lot taller and bigger than me and, you know, a- and y- pay him for security services? [0:54:44] Like, d- do you see what I'm, I'm saying on, on this? It, this is kind of limited to monitoring services, but, like, what about physical security? It... I'm just not really... I don't really think it's great to be hiring your family with your campaign funds, um, you know, for physical security. Can, can you hit on that at all for me? Or was that a- [0:55:03] Yes. I, I don't know that this directly addresses physical security. But I think in the past, you know, several fundraising campaigns require you to hire a off-duty police officer to be on site or a professional security services to be on site, and I think those are, uh, legitimate expenses, uh, in relation to your legislative duties or your campaign duties. [0:55:29] Okay. [0:55:30] So I don't think those would come into question. [0:55:32] To, uh, to, to, to the question, uh, Chairman Thomas, of, of family member, so that is defined in code already. [0:55:39] Okay. Thank you. [0:55:39] And it is limited. But it is limited... It, it is more narrow than sort of the colloquial, "That's my family member. It's a cousin or, you know, a brother-in-law." That, that necessarily wouldn't be... I just wanna be clear about, you know- [0:55:51] Mm-hmm [0:55:51] ... what the definition is and isn't. But there is a definition in code as to what family member would, uh, encapsulate. [0:55:58] And I think you've done a good job. I mean, lines 18 through 20 is really pretty narrowly written. It means, like, physical security equipment. I, I was just... That just caught my eye, so I thought I'd ask the question. But, but thank you. [0:56:09] Yeah. Good question. And, and Mr. Chairman, I did not introduce our direct- state director of ethics, David Ahmahi. So for those- [0:56:17] Thank you. Thank you [0:56:18] ... who might be perusing online, I just wanted to make that, that clarification. [0:56:22] Representative Sanchez. [0:56:24] Thank you so much, Chair. Actually, my question does pertain to the same section that Chairman Thomas was asking about. Um, very, uh, niche question, 'cause I n- I actually do have... I believe the definition of f- member of the family in campaign finance law is spouse and all dependent children, if I'm not mistaken. [0:56:40] Correct. [0:56:41] And so does the... That means that this bill would not allow for paying for security for a partner who lives with you, but they're not married. [0:56:50] Yeah. Well, sorry, say that again. [0:56:52] Like, if you lived with your partner but you're not legally married, uh, does that mean that the payments would, this would not, this bill would not apply, correct? [0:57:01] Yeah, I, I guess if you, you live with a partner who you're not legally married to, this bill would not prohibit you from hiring them or their company to engage the security, um, measures. [0:57:14] Right. [0:57:14] I, I think that you would be correct. [0:57:16] But this is n- this is... Oh, I'm sorry. This is for hiring, not for, um- [0:57:19] Yeah, yeah [0:57:19] ... providing security. [0:57:20] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. [0:57:21] Right. [0:57:21] So, so to be clear, the, the, the... when we're talking about this member of family, we're talking about who can the flow of campaign money not go to. [0:57:29] Got it, got it, got it. [0:57:30] It's not, it's not to say that, um, you know, someone living with you doesn't enjoy the benefit of the security of the same house that you're in. [0:57:36] Okay, okay. [0:57:37] Yeah. [0:57:37] That makes sense. [0:57:38] Yeah. [0:57:38] Thank you. [0:57:41] Okay, I have no other questions. And, uh, I see we have no one signed up to speak to the bill. So what's the will of the committee? Do pass. We have a motion to do pass. Do we have a second? Second. Any comments? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries, bill passes. [0:57:58] Thank you. [0:57:59] Thank you. [0:57:59] Thank you, colleagues. [0:58:03] Okay. Next, we're gonna ask Chairman Dickey to come up and present 1133, House Bill 1133. [0:58:27] Go ahead, sir. [0:58:27] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Um, we're working off LC443381. Um, as some of you know, uh, I'm very concerned about the loss of, uh, farmland, our crop land in our state through the development and, uh, solar developments. And, um, so I came across, uh, came to my attention that some other states are, uh, incentivizing and directing some solar to go on some alternative type sites. [0:58:58] And, um, uh, some of our neighbors, uh, have some- put solar on closed landfills. And so that is what this bill does. Uh, it would a- allow, uh, a Georgia Environmental, uh, Finance Authority to finance, um, to municipalities and counties who own these closed landfills, and, uh, there are 35, uh, now, uh, in the State of Georgia and more coming, to site solar on these, uh, landfills. [0:59:36] Um, would allow them to loan low interest money, uh, as they do water and sewer projects and now natural gas, will allow them to, um, uh, borrow money to incentivize, uh, solar companies to put these on there. It costs more to put them on these closed landfills, uh, just for the, uh, infrastructure, uh, more than it would some flat, say, crop land. And so, um, this is a really would be a drop in the bucket from what, um, solar really needs in our state. [1:00:10] Uh, this is, you know, very... would, uh, even if we did all of them or just some, it'd be very few acres. But I think it sends a good message for us in our state to, uh, take advantage of these, um, uh, landfills or brownfields or wherever things. We might have some other places that we wanna look at, uh, to put solar. And so I think it would be sort of a win-win, uh, for everyone, for, uh, increasing solar, for our local governments to, uh, uh, to get these loans repaid and have a source of income back to the municipality or the county over a long period of time, as long as these, uh, things are run- running, uh, and generating electricity. [1:00:55] Um, I made the program very, uh, uh, scope, uh, narrow, um, you know, just for local governments, um, and for G- for, um... It's come to my attention, uh, Alabama's got two of these, Florida, four, North Carolina, four, South Carolina has two, uh, and Tennessee has seven, uh, going. So I just, um, thought that this would, uh, be kinda innovative, uh, for our municipalities and counties to do this if they had such a facility, uh, there. [1:01:27] Um, we could go through the bill, but that's really, uh, basically what, uh, what this, uh, bill does. I'd be happy to answer some questions. [1:01:38] Okay. Representative Momtahan. [1:01:40] Thanks, Chairman. And, uh, Chairman Dickey, I know that over the last three or four years, or isn't it true that over the last three or four years, even in the time that I spent on, uh, EUT with you- [1:01:51] Mm-hmm [1:01:52] ... you have been concerned with the proper disposal of these solar panels and, uh, in facility improvements they've, they've, they've been putting out there. Um, and I know your heart. I know that, uh, you want nothing but the best for Georgia's land. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call the question, and with a motion do pass. [1:02:14] We have no other lights blinking, so we have a motion do pass. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Bill passes. [1:02:25] Thank you, committee. [1:02:26] Thank you, sir. [1:02:26] Appreciate your consideration. [1:02:28] Okay. Last bill on our list. Uh, we're gonna ask Chairman Clint Crowe to come to the table and present House Bill 1180. [1:02:41] And guest. [1:02:57] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. I, um, have House Bill, as you stated, House Bill 1180, LC620301. Uh, also with me today is, uh, Deputy Commissioner of Department of Community Affairs for Homeownership, Wesley Brooks. Um, this bill simply is a, um, continuation of some work we started last year. As many of you may remember, we had a, uh, bill that raised the limit, uh, on the issuance, um, of mortgage revenue bonds from $3 billion to $6 billion. [1:03:35] During discussion of that bill, um, several discussions were had, uh, in the Banks and Banking Committees, which it was in at that time, about removing the statutory limit altogether. Uh, the reason being is that these bills are backed by the f- credit of the Georgia Housing and Finance Authority only, not the State of Georgia. They are not, uh, backed by the full faith and credit of the state. The issuance of them, uh, is subject to, uh, an issuing authority by, uh, GFIC, the Georgia State Finance and Investment Commission. [1:04:09] I think I got all that right. A lot of acronyms in this. Um, and that is made up, uh, their, their governing board is made up of the governor, the lieutenant-governor, the speaker of the house, the attorney general, the state auditor, the, um, commissioner of agriculture. And I believe that's all. So there is some, some oversight there. But, uh, quite simply, the concern is, is that these bonds are used to fund the Georgia Dream program and other homeownership mortgage programs that DCA employs. [1:04:41] And, uh, to have a statutory limit could create a burden for folks that are utilizing those programs. Um, I would hate for us to get into a situation to where they are short of funds and don't have it available, and they are unable to get us to come back and change the, uh, statutory limit on that because we're not in session or because we're unable to get a bill through. Uh, again, this is not anything that the state is responsible for. It is a program that is employed by them that, uh... And if I may, Mr. [1:05:12] Chairman, a story I told yesterday to some of the members of the c- subcommittee that were there. Back in the fall, uh, we had a young couple that were buying a home in my district. It's a young fireman, uh, I've known most of his life, and, uh, his wife is a young school teacher whose mom is also a school teacher at the school my children go to. They were buying their first home and, uh, had all the things ready to send their package in to USDA. They were utilizing USDA Rural Housing, uh, Loan. And the federal government shut down. [1:05:44] And they were, um, in quite a quandary because the sellers needed to move, and nobody knew when this loan would be able to get done. We were able to move them over to their, uh, lender was able to move them over to a Georgia Dream loan instead, uh, able to expedite that through the process, and they were able to buy their home. And so now you've got a, a young family, uh, with a firefighter, a school teacher that were able to buy a home because of this program, and I wanna make sure that we continue to be able to do that. And, uh, I'm happy to answer any questions. [1:06:15] And, um, Mr. Brooks has some information he can share as well, if he would like to do that. [1:06:23] Okay. Did you wanna address? [1:06:24] Yes, sir. [1:06:24] Uh, just please introduce yourself and- [1:06:26] Thank you. [1:06:27] Yes. [1:06:27] Wesley Brooks. I'm the deputy commissioner for homeownership at, uh, the Department of Community Affairs, which is also the Georgia Housing Finance Authority, for which I'm the deputy executive director. Uh, m- much as was just stated, uh, we use these funds through, uh, really a, a, a lender network around the state, um, m- many of which are in your district. So I'm happy to report that about a third of all the business we did last year was in your districts, um, to put first-time homebuyers, veterans, uh, local protectors, educators, healthcare workers in their first home. [1:07:02] Uh, and, and by, um, removing this cap, it gives us the ability to continue to do that work in perpetuity. Thank you. [1:07:10] Okay. Thank you. Representative Momtahan. [1:07:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, uh, thank you, Chairman Crowe. You know, I followed your work on this last year. And seeing, I'll say that I know that you work hard to make sure that every Georgian can find a home. I know that's, that's where your heart is, and, uh, and this is just a continuous of that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, uh, make a motion do pass and call the question. [1:07:38] We'll, uh, hold that for just one second. Representative Oliver. [1:07:41] Did you exceed the doubling of the amount this yet? We have not exceeded it. Uh, but quite honestly, last year the original bill was to go from 3 billion to 12 billion. Mm-hmm. We settled at 6 billion to get it passed. Uh, and I think the expectation is that that would be reached in, uh, either '27 possibly, sometime next year. [1:08:03] Possibly in '27. Obviously, the market has a say in that. [1:08:07] Thank you. [1:08:09] Okay. Thank you. At this time, I'll recognize Representative Momtahan. [1:08:13] Make a motion to pass. [1:08:15] Second. [1:08:16] We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. [1:08:21] Aye. [1:08:21] Any opposed? Motion carries, bill passes. Thank you. [1:08:25] Thank y'all very much. [1:08:25] Thank you. Now, we do have a few people signed up, and I've got to apologize if Taylor Schindler is still here, uh, signed up to speak in favor of House Bill 1133. House Bill 1133 passed, but we will still make the mic or the, uh, podium available, uh, if you would like to speak to that. Okay. If not, [1:08:52] then we're gonna proceed down. We've got a few others here on the list. Uh, Michael Beach [1:09:07] Thanks so much for letting me speak today. Uh, I'm gonna speak about 215. I know it was not, didn't happen through the agenda yesterday, not on today. But, uh, I'm a retired CDC employee who worked for years on development and use of national databases, and I'm urging you to not pass- [1:09:23] Mr. Beach, hold on just one second. [1:09:24] Yep. [1:09:24] Let me just clarify for the committee. This is open comment from the public. This is not necessarily related to what, just what's on the agenda. So I, I, we allow the sign-up sheet for open comment, so that's what we're doing right now. Thank you. Proceed. [1:09:36] That's right, so don't all leave, please. Anyways, um, I'm urging you to not pass 215. That will stop participation in the Electronic Registration Information Center, ERIC. As you know, no database is perfect, but before discarding one, we should ensure there's a better alternative. At present, there is not. Um, adding a 2027 date, and I looked at the latest version here, is still wish casting for some magical list maintenance organization to be created before the end of 2027. [1:10:08] Criticism of ERIC began after the 2020 election, led to a wave of red states leaving the system. In reality, ERIC was created by the Pew Charitable Trusts. It's controlled by state membership, and it's funded by state membership dues. Georgia also negotiated an exemption from certain ERIC outreach requirements, uh, such as voter registration. That's still in 215, but that's really not an issue. I think it's a distraction. Data security is always a concern, which is why having a national system with uniform data protection matters. [1:10:43] And yes, multi-billion dollar companies and banks use similar security measures, enterprise software to run worldwide banking, commerce, and even this state's government. So I think, again, we're, we're down the wrong track on the importance of this. You cut the wording requiring individual data share agreements. Thank you for that. I've tried those. 50 state-to-state agreements is nearly impossible, um, and very difficult, and increases risk of data breaches. So ERIC's the system that provides what we need, so pulling of, out of ERIC I see as a step backward. [1:11:17] I'm waiting actually for the more reasonable bill to come forward that stresses keeping membership in ERIC and encouraging the 25 states that are not part of it to join. Many of them are neighbors that we need in there, including Florida. Uh, let's join. It's in Georgia's best interest. Thank you so much. [1:11:35] Thank you, Mr. Beach. Mr. Beach took about three minutes, so we're gonna, if we can, we can kind of use this as a target. We got a couple of other speakers. Uh, Janet Grant. [1:11:43] I think I'm gonna pass until this bill comes before the committee. [1:11:47] Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, and then, uh- [1:11:52] Schaffer [1:11:53] ... David Schaffer. Yes, sir. And would you prefer the podium or the table? [1:11:58] Podium's good, man. [1:11:58] Podium. Okay, proceed. [1:12:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name's David Schaffer. I'm here for Common Cause of Georgia. And I won't reiterate everything Mr. Beach said, but we do, uh, oppose this bill in its current form. We have concerns about pulling out of ERIC, and we think that's gonna be the ultimate effect of the bill. Just a few things that we believe would be the negative impacts of coming out of the bill. We think it's gonna come at higher taxpayer cost than what is currently being paid for ERIC's data matches. We think that there's gonna be less complete and less secure interstate matching, uh, once ERIC is gone, and we think it's gonna be more administrative burden on Georgia's staff as well, especially those at the Secretary of State's office. [1:12:41] Ultimately, we think it could, uh, cause more voter-facing harm than we're currently experiencing, more confusion, more errors, and more provisional ballots. And we also think that ERIC has a pretty robust privacy and cybersecurity infrastructure right now, and it might expose voters to greater risk if ERIC were removed. Uh, at the end of the day, we think if the goal is to create er- accurate voter rolls and public confidence, the evidence from Georgia election administrators in the states that left ERIC suggests that the downsides are substantial. [1:13:14] The state of Georgia is gonna be looking at higher costs, less complete data, more staff burden, more privacy complications, and more voter-facing problems without clear proof that leaving ERIC does in fact improve security. Thank you. [1:13:29] Thank you, sir. And that's everyone we have signed up to speak today, so we will stand adjourned. Thank you. [1:13:36] You and I do. [1:13:36] Yeah. Okay. [1:13:38] I wanna make sure it's not pressing