Senate Finance Committee, February 11, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1163407602 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1163407602#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-11/senate-finance 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. [0:22:28] Everybody's attention here. Um, we're- we have a quorum plus one, so let the others come filtering in. I know, uh, my vice chair, uh, Senator Albers, is still getting back from New York. Uh, extended family, uh, situation he was helping out on. And I believe, uh, our appropriations chairman is testifying in court. I thought they knew how to get out of that stuff when they were in session, but, uh, may- maybe not. I don't know. [0:22:59] So, uh, Senator, um, Harbin, will you do the prayer for us today? You're number what? 10? [0:23:06] 11. [0:23:06] 11. Okay. Go ahead. [0:23:07] Get up. If you will, let's pray. Well, Lord, we thank you for this day. We thank you for freedom, liberty and Father, for our families. We pray, oh Father, that we would have wisdom if we deal with the issues of the people of Georgia, and ask that you would just give us wisdom that only you can give. Thank you for the day and for the time. In Christ's name. Amen. [0:23:25] Amen. Amen. All right. Well, thank you for that. And, um, our first bill up here is by the, uh, president pro tem. It's extending some sunsets. And, um, uh, you may... Well, we probably with, with two hours, we might have enough seats here, but you maybe come up here to do it- [0:23:46] Yeah [0:23:46] ... if you would. [0:23:54] All right. The floor is yours, Mr. President. [0:23:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. I appreciate you all allowing me to present this measure to you today. I am working off of LC610395S. It's a committee substitute, I guess you'd call it, because we had a scrivener's error on numbering of one of the sections. We had two sections numbered three- [0:24:21] Okay [0:24:21] ... instead of three and four. So that's the only, only change on the substitute. But it's LC610395S. Uh, since 2003, the university system of Georgia has been able to, uh, carry forward a limited percentage of funds from one fiscal year to the ne- to future fiscal years. And, and I believe it was maybe 2026, maybe, I don't know. [0:25:00] At some point in time, the Technical College System of Georgia was added to where they could also carry forward, uh, a percentage of funds. And one of my earlier leadership roles in the community was to chair the Technical College System board in my area. It was at ti- at the time it was Middle Georgia, uh, Technical College. It's now Central Georgia Technical College. But back when I was chairing, uh, the president of the college was very adamant and made sure that we spent every dime of s- of state appropriation before the end of the fiscal year, whether it was, uh, really prudent or not. [0:25:48] He wanted to spend all that money 'cause he, he wanted to get the same amount appropriated the next year if, if not some more. So this measure is a... One reason I think it's a good measure is that, that it's allows for more better stewardship of s- state taxpayer money, where you're not having to use it or lose it before the end of the fiscal year. And the other primary reason is it allows for more long range planning. [0:26:19] It allows for, uh, taking care of unexpected, uh, emergencies. If you had a major system failure at your school, like a, you know, $150,000 HVAC replacement, or you had a, a roof, uh, fail on you, that kind of thing. So it, it makes a lot of sense from a fiscal, being a good fiscal manager standpoint. This measure, as I said, was started in 2003. [0:26:50] Uh, it was extended in 2005, again in 2007, and that's when the Technical College System of Georgia was added in 2007. Extended again in '09, extended in '13, extended in, in '15, and then extended in 2021, and it expires at the end of this fiscal year, June 30th '26. So all the bill does is, uh, extends that sunset and as the practice of the Senate has been since I've been here, it extends the sunset for five years. [0:27:27] Um, so section one extends the sunset for the university system of Georgia Institutions, section two for the Technical College System of Georgia. Section three speaks to their ability to write off uncollectible amounts due the school from a, really from a student for tuition. Uh, primarily, uh, if it's less than $3,000, they can, uh, write it off after they've made diligent attempts to collect it. [0:28:01] Um, section four makes the bill effective upon the signature of the governor, and section five repeals all conflicting laws. Um, Chancellor Purdue and Commissioner Dozier are here, if you all have more specific questions. Uh, th- they are, part of the legislation requires an annual report to be prepared explaining, um, detailing the carryover funds and where they came from. [0:28:31] Um- So this is the last report that was done October twen- uh, 2025. I'll go through that in great detail if you'd like me to, Chairman. You might not get a, a vote if you do. Um- [0:28:45] Well, let's- [0:28:46] So the, the limit is 3% on, uh, on tuition for the USG, uh, system and 15% on the technical college system. And I'm told the reason for the difference in those percentages is the university system has a lot, um, uh, greater, uh, outside grant funding than the technical college system does. Mm-hmm. But before I talk it to death, I'd, um, be happy to answer any questions that- All right. [0:29:19] Now, I'll just add to, to your story. When I was first, um, dating my wife, and I guess that's 40 years ago now, she was the assistant to, uh, the director of a, of a agency that dealt with juvenile, uh, problem children, I guess you could say, and it was her job at the end of the fiscal year to spend all the money. Because they wanted to get it spent. As you know, they take it, and then they cut your budget, was the, was the logic back then, and which isn't a, a good plan, and I think this is better. Number two, the, uh, the sunsets, we started, um, in 2017 trying to get them on everything. [0:29:55] We don't always get them on everything, but we certainly try to because we think it's always good to have a look back and make sure nothing's changed from, from five years ago, and I think it's a good policy. So, uh, we appreciate your testimony, and, uh, if there's no questions, we'll bring up the star of the show here, or one of them. I see a couple of questions. Okay. S- Senator Harbin. [0:30:19] Yes, sir. [0:30:20] Yes, sir. [0:30:20] Mr. President, just curious. How much money are we, are we, I'm assuming, sitting on right this minute, uh, in, in total that this is going to allow us another five years? I was just won- uh, do you have a number for that, uh, amount? [0:30:34] So it, it's, um, you know, it is some big, big figures, but we have a big state and a lot of, uh, ins- lot of facilities. Um, I'm told, the information I was given for all the University System of Georgia institutions, it's $504 million, $504,914,163. For the Technical College System, it's $76,647,174. [0:31:10] Oh. [0:31:11] Um, it's interesting to note that of the USG strategic reserves, um, 85% of that figure is held at the six major, uh, institutions, Augusta University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University, University of Georgia, Georgia Southern University, and Kennesaw State University. [0:31:34] Okay. So almost half bill- half a billion dollars on the first one. [0:31:37] Yes, sir. [0:31:38] Okay. Wow. Okay. Thank you, sir. [0:31:40] All right. Thank Senator, uh, Hickman was next. [0:31:44] Thank you. Mr. Pro Tem, would you agree that USG and TSG, these colleges and all are, is, are really big businesses? [0:31:55] Yes, sir. [0:31:56] Okay. Would you also agree... That's pretty cool, isn't it? Would you also agree that, that a business like yours or like our accounting firm is very prudent to have reserves in case something happens down the road? [0:32:11] I, I certainly agree, and of course, the State of Georgia has, uh, reserves, uh, for that same reason. [0:32:17] Same, same reason that these- [0:32:19] Yes, sir [0:32:19] ... that they need these reserves. Okay. Thank you, sir. [0:32:22] All right. Senator Hodges, I think you were next. [0:32:25] Um, um, thank you, Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Pro Tem, for bringing this. Just one question. The, do you have any idea of the age of this lapsed, uh, income? I mean, um, I can see income, I can see appropriated money flowing from the end of one year into the next year, but it, it wouldn't flow much longer than that, would it? I mean, you wouldn't have any that's two or three years old. [0:32:52] You know, I don't really have that data. Um, but I do know, for example, I have some examples of what the money is used for. Um, the, they're a- they're allowed to carry over some technology fees, and for example, um, Kennesaw State used, uh, technology fee carryover money in this fiscal year to allocate $647,000 to replace multiple aging 3D printers, implementing software updates, and supporting a student government association mobile app. [0:33:31] Um, as you know, when you go to changing software or updating systems, a lot of times it takes longer than, uh, one fiscal year to get that implemented, so that was a- [0:33:44] Sure [0:33:44] ... gave them some flexibility to do that. Um, uh, Georgia Tech gets a lot of grant, uh, money, gets a lot of revenue from the Department of Defense where they have contracts with the Department of Fen- Defense, and they use that to fund lab build-out, specialized research equipment, um, and cost sharing of unfunded, uh, portions of research projects. So they're able to use some, a lot of this money. [0:34:14] If they're good fiscal managers and good stewards, then they are able to do some things that are needed that they don't have to come back to the legislature and ask for appropriations. But- [0:34:25] Do you, do you know if they keep up with the age of the, of the carried over money? [0:34:31] That would, maybe- [0:34:32] Okay [0:34:32] ... the chancellor would know, but- [0:34:34] Okay [0:34:34] ... um, I imagine they're like the State of Georgia. They try to keep- [0:34:41] Sort of a reserved kind of full, and then money of course is fungible and they're using it- [0:34:48] Okay [0:34:48] ... and replenishing it as they go along is what I would think. [0:34:51] Okay, thank you. [0:34:53] All right. Well, let's go ahead and get, uh, Chancellor Sonny Perdue up at this point, if you- [0:34:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman [0:34:57] ... come up and testify. Thank you. You can stay there if you want to- [0:35:00] Okay [0:35:00] ... but they can move to the next one. [0:35:04] I was o- over at the, the Mullis today, and- [0:35:07] Me too. [0:35:08] And, uh- [0:35:09] Me too. [0:35:10] I was at the Mullis today and somebody said, "What's in your committee?" And I said, "Well, the governor's coming." And then I said, "Wait a minute, I said that wrong." It's the chancellor now. And they said, "Well, actually I work for the Board of Regents," and I still call him governor occasionally. I forget as well. So, uh, we're glad to have you here. [0:35:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I guess you all can really blame me for this back in 2003 when it all started. Um, I'd come in as governor, you know, the first Republican governor, and, uh, we were like to say, "Let's run it like a business." Well, government's not like a business, but it does have some business principles that matter. And frankly, this was recommended by, for our commission for new Georgia, various CEOs across the, across the state about the use it or lose it mentality, which we didn't feel like was used very well. [0:35:55] So that, that's how it all began in 2003. I appreciate the extensions, and honestly, it has helped, uh, overall. I want to thank my senator, your President Pro Tem, for, uh, agreeing at my request to introduce this legislation again for the extension. Uh, uh, I think it makes good ec- economic sense. Uh, to Senator Hodges' per- uh, question, these are rolling balances. It's been about 500 million for the last five years during this period of time. And as, uh, President Pro Tem waved up, you got all you want to know in here. [0:36:30] So this is a report that we do every October for all of you. It tells you where the money came from, it tells you where it's going, what it's being used for. And I think the good thing about it is, uh, over the last five years, you all have been able to save $260 million of direct tax money that was used for this carryover for, uh, things like, uh, various things that the senator mentioned of, uh, uh, buildings and others. I've got an example of that, of, of those that go in, in various ways, but they're all in here about where they, w- where the money went from. [0:37:05] But it is really a good, uh, a good example of avoiding the use it or lose it. The- these are small cities. I think, uh, Senator Harbin talked about sometimes, you know, with, uh, 50,000 students there, faculty, staff, and other things, these are major cities. You wouldn't, you wouldn't ask your cities and municipalities or counties to drain their reserves just like we do at the state. Our state cap is 15% of budget. These, uh, accumula- is about 4.8% cumulatively across all of our, all of our appropriation budgets, all of our expenditure budgets across USG. [0:37:40] So we think it's a wise use of funds and a good way to do that. And I believe from the reporting, uh, you all can make sure that it's not being used unwisely. And, uh, certainly if you see that it is, you've got, uh, obviously evidence to call out and, uh, and, and challenge the, uh, Board of Regents and the staff and me, uh, over those things that it's used for. So that, uh, we would recommend, and I'd be happy to answer any questions, but we'd recommend and appreciate your positive vote on the bill. [0:38:12] And two things on that. If you look at the bill, basically you're just seeing 26 struck and 31 inserted. It's the same thing we've been doing. [0:38:20] Mm-hmm. [0:38:20] And to give some perspective to the 500 billion, our public school systems in Georgia's reserves right now are in excess of 14 billion. So I, I hate to bring that up or he's gonna mo- wanna make it higher, but, uh- ... I, I don't wanna do that. But I believe that's our, uh, Senator Cowsert, is that you? [0:38:38] Yes. [0:38:38] Oh, yes. [0:38:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chancellor, pleasure as always to see you here. I, I wanna make sure that everybody's clear. My understanding is this is not money that's appropriated from the state. These are tuition fees, uh, different technology fees, and income received by the universities, not from our taxpayers. It's your share of running the operation, right? [0:39:03] I appreciate the question, Senator. You're exactly right. In fact, you all do limit the amount of tuition reserved to 3%. [0:39:10] Right. [0:39:11] That's, that is the one that's limited, so we can't ... That didn't make the Board of Regents run wild and raising tuitions. In fact, I gave your, my affordability report at the joint committee, but tuition is limited. But the other things are technology fees, indirect cost recovery, which is where most of the money comes from. It's where the big research, University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, and our others are getting research awards. There's a portion there called indirect costs that they can, again, uh, put down for their, for their management and their administration of that. [0:39:42] And then department sales and services, continuing ed, those kind of things. And then the, uh, just, uh, that- that's where the money comes from. So there's no state appropriated money, uh, in that, uh, in this at all. [0:39:56] I just remembered that was different. We don't lapse state funds- [0:39:59] That's, that's correct [0:40:00] ... and this was a little distinguished 'cause it's not like we're putting in the budget and you guys are hoarding it and keeping it. This is indirect money, not from the state. It's earned from the different programs that the university system has. [0:40:12] Good point, Senator. I wish I'd have thought of that. [0:40:15] I think you did actually in 2003. [0:40:20] Thank you, Chancellor. [0:40:21] All right, I don't see any other questions. [0:40:23] There, there's a second component I might want to address, I think- [0:40:25] Sure [0:40:25] ... that Senator Walker's asked me, and that is really our, our write-offs over our accounts receivable. [0:40:31] Oh. [0:40:31] Now, when I first got to be chancellor, I said, "Why do we have accounts receivable? They don't have to pay for tuition up front." Let me tell you how this accounts receivable gets there. On a Pell Grant- If an award and a student gets, stays there long enough to get the Pell amount and then leaves or a government loan or whatever and leaves, guess who's responsible for paying that back? The federal USDOE claws back from the Board of Regents, the university system, we have to pay that money back. [0:41:01] And then we got the opportunity to go try to get that money from the student that's no longer in school. You can imagine that's a challenge, and that's where the, that is where the, uh, uh, the accounts receivable will come from. And that's why we are continuing to ask for the, uh, uncollectible to r- write off. I know most of you in business, your accountant wouldn't let you take those accounts receivable much longer than a year, 18 months, they're gonna write them off the books so it, it get, it doesn't show an insurmountable amount on our books. We are, however, still trying to collect. [0:41:31] We, once we write it off, we don't stop trying to collect that money i- in that way. So it is written off the fiscal accounting for, uh, fiscal purposes, but we are still trying to collect that amount, uh, with varying degrees of success, you might imagine. [0:41:49] All right. Appreciate that as well. I don't see... Well, one other question. Are you- [0:41:55] Mr. Chancellor. [0:41:56] Yes, sir. [0:41:57] Sorry. It didn't, it didn't hit on. Go to the, go to that one over there. [0:42:04] Thank you, Mr. Chancellor. Thank you for the awesome job you do. I still wanna call you Governor. [0:42:09] I bet. We got one of those. [0:42:13] Um, this money, it, uh, we've been able to, uh, while we're not using it, have we been able to draw any type of interest on it? [0:42:22] It, it is a, in a trust account with the state treasurer and, uh, uh, and, uh, draws interest certainly in return. [0:42:30] Awesome. [0:42:30] Yeah. [0:42:31] Thank you. [0:42:32] Thank you. [0:42:32] All right, I don't see any other questions. We've got one more that wants to talk on this. Uh, Commissioner Dozier, if you wanna come up. I need to tell y'all, I met Commissioner Dozier in 2013 for the first time. We spent some time together in Chattooga County in Hayes Prison. Now, maybe I ought to clarify that better, but I'll just leave it at that. [0:42:54] It was a memorable day, wasn't it, Mr. Chairman? [0:42:57] Yeah. [0:42:57] Very memorable. Um, thank you for this chance, and thank you for considering this legislation. Appreciate you carrying it. Uh, while our balances are much lower than USG, they're just as vital to our operation. I appreciate the chancellor and his, uh, co-partnership in leading the way on this. Uh, our balances, as was mentioned, is 76 million. It's the same category as tuition. It is 15%. Uh, the other area that's really is, is technology fees as well as services. So you're right, Senator, on how those monies come in. [0:43:29] Uh, the only thing that hasn't been mentioned, I'd echo everything that the chancellor mentioned and, and has been discussed here. I'd just say the importance of the cash flow for our colleges, uh, when you look at academic year versus fiscal year and you think about flow of funding for personnel, uh, for example, as we transition fiscal years and we're waiting for Hope dollars to come in while we're still running a semester where we're, we're waiting on those to come in, this gives us colleges that flexibility in operations that keeps it very fluid. [0:44:00] So cash flows are very important when it comes to grants and with, with those type of, uh, changes in academics. The other thing is just a reminder, uh, our, our formula, which we're very thankful for, it lags behind about two years. So the nimbleness of our system's really important for, for these reserves, meaning if we have an uptick in enrollment, uh, the, the colleges will not receive that funding for two years. And so as they adjust until the founding, funding formula catches up, this gives them that nimbleness. [0:44:32] Uh, so, uh, once again, while our number is much smaller, it's, it's just as important to us, and it really gives our colleges that ability to meet the needs of your communities and you guys equally. Um, thank you for considering it. Obviously, I'd be happy to answer any questions, but this is a, a very near and dear thing to our colleges and their day-to-day operations. [0:44:54] All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner. I don't see any questions. Um, so appreciate your testimony. [0:45:00] Thank you. [0:45:00] Did you have one? You just wanted... [0:45:01] No, I didn't have one. [0:45:01] Okay, sure. And no, he, he's just, he was at, and I, I do like to always add at this point, um, how proud we are of the public universities in Georgia. We've got two that are ranked in the top 15 or so in the country in public universities. 40-something states have zero. We've got two. So, um, they're, they're something to certainly be proud of, and we appreciate all the people that are making that happen. Um, Senator Cowsert, you're recognized for a motion. [0:45:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move due pass to committee substitute to Senate Bill 432, that is LC 61-0395S. [0:45:44] Second. And we've got a motion by Senator Cowsert, a second by Senator Still. Any discussion further on this? Senator Dolezal. [0:45:53] Thank you, Chairman. Um, I wanted to publicly thank Chancellor Perdue for reaching out to members of this committee prior to this bill being here. Um, thank you for that, 'cause that, that, and for those of you in the room that are in the business of lobbying, that was very helpful. Um, but Chairman, I did have a question. We passed an important bill out of this chamber. It's hung up in the House, uh, last year, and that is to name the legislative office building, uh, after the good chance. So I'm wondering if we should tack an amendment onto this bill- ... since this will be engrossed and send it across the hall- [0:46:23] Wait. Wait [0:46:24] ... to f- to finish our, uh, our work on that. 'Cause that building's coming along pretty well, but it's still unnamed. [0:46:30] We'll, we'll, we'll have to work on that, but maybe not on this bill. [0:46:33] Fair enough. [0:46:35] All right, uh, no other discussion. All in favor of this bill, raise your hand. All right, and any opposed? Seeing none, passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. Thank you- [0:46:46] Thank you. Thank you, Chairman [0:46:46] ... Chancellor, and, uh, Commissioner Dozier, thanks for coming to our meeting today. Thank you, committee. Thank you. [0:46:52] Thank you, guys. [0:46:55] You now have three committees. Yeah. [0:47:12] All right, we're gonna move on to, um... [0:47:19] Go ahead and move on to, uh, Senator Dolezal's bill here. [0:47:25] Move on to a bill by, um, Senator Dolezal, SR 668. If you, if you wanna do it from there or from up front. [0:47:36] From up here. [0:47:36] Okay. [0:47:40] Uh, members of the committee, I've been before you Senate Resolution 668. I'm working off of LC501290. I'm doing this here 'cause this'll be pretty quick other than questions. Um, this essentially allows local municipalities to create a separate class of property for industrial property, uh, manufacturing property, I should say more accurately manufacturing property, and data centers. Uh, they can then apply a separate millage rate to that class of property. Um, and that would, would be used to reduce the burden of taxation on other tangible property. [0:48:15] So this is a constitutional amendment. Uh, if this were to pass, we would have enabling legislation that would get into the details, that would spell out the specific mech- mechanisms that they would need to use to lower the taxes. But essentially, uh, the vision here is to put us in a posture where localities are allowed to charge their residents less property taxes, uh, because you are able to charge other industries, specifically manufacturing and data centers, which was my primary impetus for the bill was the data centers, to allow a mechanism to create a separate tax digest with subclasses if necessary, to maintain a currage- current millage rate, um, on manufacturing for a data center, and then perhaps eliminate or at least reduce property taxes for other classes of property in the municipalities. [0:49:06] That's what the constitutional amendment would do. It would, of course, need to be followed up with a, with some enabling legislation. But we wanted to start here and see what the, what the, uh, temperature was of the Senate on this idea. [0:49:20] All right. Uh, questions, Senator Still. [0:49:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Chairman Dolezal, um, asking for understanding on this bill, 'cause I didn't get a chance to talk to you about it earlier. If we are successful in eliminating tax credits to future data centers, and they're taxed at a different rate within the digest, presumably at a higher rate, um, and when we look at the town of Forsyth, not the county in which you and I preside- ... [0:49:55] uh, there is talk about building a 10-million-square-foot data center facility on 900 acres down there, and the, the talk down there is that this data center could potentially eliminate property tax for local residents. How, how do we reconcile, like, the enabling legislation that would go with this would explain it potentially, but as a CA, like, in, in your own words, without getting into the, like, just the legalese of it- [0:50:25] Yeah, I would say don't assume that- [0:50:26] But, like, how, how do we communicate this to, to our constituents? [0:50:29] Y- the way that I would communicate this would be to say that rather than charging universal millage rates, you now have the ability in Forsyth to charge... It doesn't need to be higher. You could have a one mil rate, perhaps, I'm making this up, but you could have a one mil rate charged to that data center via a subclass that would be allowed under this constitutional amendment, and that could cover potentially all of their expenses, and then you could drive the millage rate to zero, uh, for other classes of property. So that would be the- [0:50:54] Mm [0:50:54] ... the, the possibility. Of course, I don't know how the numbers would work out in that specific scenario. I just wanna clarify that you said higher. It would be higher than the other classes. But what, what we're not envisioning here is necessarily some sort of tax increase that would be ne- necessitated by this bill. The, the, the desire would be to be able to bifurcate the tax digest and lower the, the taxes for other, other classes of property. [0:51:16] Understood. Thank you. [0:51:17] Did you subscribe to David's channel? All right. Just, uh- Senator Harbison, I believe you were next. As long as you mention it. [0:51:23] Yes. Senator Do- Dolezal, quest- question is this, I think the, the, uh, the idea is f- is, is great, but how do we, or how does this, or does this bill in any way give us the ability to make sure that if there are additional funds coming into a county or city, that they're used to reduce property tax rather than just to be able to spend it? Would that be something in the enabling legislation that would be considered, where we could say, "You cannot do but X to reduce taxes"? Uh, I just see that as the part that... [0:51:53] Yes, I would point you to line 19, which- [0:51:55] Okay [0:51:55] ... again, this, this would go into the Constitution, where it says, "In order to reduce the burden of ad valorem taxation on other tangible property." [0:52:05] Okay. [0:52:06] We then, in the enabling legislation, can spell out the metrics and the rules as to how they would be required to do that, but we, we would be putting into the Constitution that the purpose of bifurcating the digest and create, and creating, or creating subclasses would be to reduce the burden of ad valorem taxation on other classes of property. [0:52:24] This could be a office building, could be a, an airplane, could be other things where we see ad valorem taxes charged. That's where this would be done in enabling legislation, or is that a county-by-county decision? [0:52:36] It would be, it, it would depend what we did in the ena- enabling legislation. I would envision it being a county-by-county decision. [0:52:42] Okay. [0:52:42] And, and again, I think that that's, and I didn't, I failed to say this in my introduction. None of this would be mandatory. This is just giving the, the municipalities a tool in their toolbox should they wish to employ it. [0:52:53] Okay. Thank you, sir. [0:52:57] Senator Cowsert. [0:52:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, I'm, I'm ... If this is aimed just at data centers, I think it's a broader swath that you're hitting there on line 13. [0:53:10] It is. I said that the, the original i- impetus for me was data centers. We wrote the bill to capture, I, I would call it broader industrial pieces of property, including manufacturing, and I think that the idea there is if you think about large scale manufacturing plants that may come to a municipality, you could have the same benefit to your municipality that a data center may have in terms of being able to lower property taxes for other classes of property. [0:53:38] So they could gouge manufacturing facilities and car plant, assembly plants, and big business if they wanted to, to reduce residential taxes? [0:53:49] One man's gouge is another man's, uh, tax collector. But yes, you could have separate classes of, of taxation. [0:54:01] Okay. [0:54:01] All right. We, um, you know, w- I think there's a lot of people trying to look out and protect the homeowners, and I'll, I'll give an example of a different way that we're looking at it in Bartow County in the city of Cartersville. Um, due to industrial growth, uh, we're gonna have local legislation this year at, with the full support of the city of Cartersville to raise their homestead exemption from $2,800 to $100,000. [0:54:32] And so, um, the, the feeling being, you know, you can help the homeowner out that way, too. So I, I think both these meth- methods look at, at helping the homeowner out from, from, uh, pr- protecting them from cost. And you know, the, other thing that happens a lot of times is you get a home and it appreciates, and I had a business, and, um, it depreciated. I, I was bringing it down, you know, equipment. You can't depreciate the land, buildings, and stuff. So it is a little bit of an un- unlevel playing field for businesses and homeowners, uh, that I, I think he's addressing here, um, in this legislation. [0:55:11] Yeah, I would say that the, um, Chairman, the ability to levy kind of additional homestead exemptions, uh, to get to Senator Cowsert's, Chairman Cowsert's question could be construed as, well, you're g- by doing that you're gouging other rate payers because you could lower it for everyone. But I think that the, in, in the same vein that I would not say that a floating homestead exemption is gouging businesses, it's protecting homeowners, I would say that this, that that's the same intent of this language. [0:55:36] All right. Any other questions? I've got one more from, uh- [0:55:40] Yeah, just, just in, in the gouging side is this, though. Many of these industries are getting tax incentives to come, so it's not as if they're not being ... They're g- We, we're giving them something for that, so I don't see it as gouging, but I think it's making sure that the tax revenues go to help offset those people who are already there, who've already paid their taxes from that standpoint. 'Cause as I would understand, these classes that I'm seeing already have gotten some kind of credit or some kind of, um, concession in order to bring them there. [0:56:10] Would I, would I be correct in that? [0:56:13] I, I, I don't know that you'd be universally correct, but I, I certainly know in many cases you would be correct- [0:56:18] Right [0:56:18] ... if you're not universally correct. [0:56:19] Right. [0:56:21] All right. Did you ... [0:56:23] I think I'm good. [0:56:24] Okay. Well, I thought we were gonna hear from a former county commissioner there last- [0:56:28] I at least have an opinion on a couple of those things, but I think it's already been said, but. [0:56:31] Okay. [0:56:32] I'll, I'll say it anyway. [0:56:33] Go ahead. [0:56:34] So I, I feel like we have a lot of tools in the toolbox already to help homeowners. We're working on that now in several pieces of legislation. The House has made it a priority. You can increase homestead exemptions as, about as many times as you want down here through local legislation county by county. To breach the uniformity clause in the Constitution, which is basically what we're doing here, gives me a great concern as well. So, um, I think if we get rid of all the tax credits that we're talking about doing tomorrow to lower the income tax, there's winners and losers in that method. [0:57:07] Uh, and then to come back and do this to tell the industry out there that we're trying to keep in our small rural areas, that there may be a different taxing level on your industry depending on the will of the county commissioners, to me sends a s- a signal that we're not open for business. And so I'm concerned about where this, what gates this may open down the road and what doors it may open, and it's hard to close that door once you've opened it. And so I would cautious us not to, to move too fast on, on bills like this till we hear more from the industry people in the room. [0:57:39] I'd love to hear from Pat Wilson at economic development, how this may impact his recruitment potential around the state. And so I'd love k- for us to focus on lowering property taxes on homeowners through a homestead exemption, but not to get too far out into the weeds in our industrial and other commercial developments. Just, just a thought, not a question. [0:58:04] All right. Um, well, the, the measure's before the committee. I'd, I'd ask the, the sponsor, do you wanna get a vote? You wanna- [0:58:13] Let's get a vote. [0:58:14] Get a vote on it? Okay. [0:58:15] I'll make a motion to pass on my own bill. [0:58:17] Okay. We've got a motion. [0:58:19] 'Cause I can do that. [0:58:20] Um, Sen- [0:58:22] I second the motion. I'll second it. [0:58:23] All right, we've got a second from Senator Still. Any further discussion from the committee? Senator Hodges. [0:58:32] Chairman Dolezal, if we pass this, we'll still get a chance to look at the legislation to decide whether or not we like it or not. Is that not correct? [0:58:43] That is correct. [0:58:44] Thank you. [0:58:45] All right. No other discussion? [0:58:48] What is the ... [0:58:49] I think it is 11. [0:58:50] Okay. Go ahead. [0:58:51] Um, Senator, does this bill help the people? And I'm gonna give a example A data center comes in and they buy or get on, get on, under contract close to 40 houses that touch the property that they buying. [0:59:17] Mm-hmm. [0:59:20] And they're giving them unreal four and five times more the value of the going rate. How does this protect the people just across the road, their value of their property? [0:59:37] And you, I- I assume what you're saying then is their fair market value goes up, their assessment goes up, their taxes go up. This would provide a mechanism to lower the millage rate. I don't think that it provides any protection on the actual fair market value side. Yeah. [0:59:55] All right. I don't see any other discussion. Um, we've got a motion on the floor for, uh, Senate Resolution 668. That's LC 501290. All those in favor, raise your hand. I see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Okay, opposed? All right, eight to four in bipartisan fashion, which is kind of good sometimes to- ... [1:00:26] see. Motion carries. Um, bill's passed out of the Finance Committee and will go on to Rules. All right, Senator, uh, Dixon is here, um, without a tie. Man. [1:00:42] I would've thought that was- [1:00:43] Wow. Wow. [1:00:45] What a move. [1:00:47] What is this, slow- [1:00:47] Are we in slow motion, Chairman? [1:00:49] Make a motion to ... [1:00:52] You might want to hear about the bill first. [1:01:01] All right, the floor is yours. Um, we've got [1:01:07] a little out of order here. Let's see. So we've got LC 49:2559. Is that what you've got? [1:01:14] That's right. Yep. [1:01:15] All right. You've got a summary of the bill in your folder, um, right ahead of the bill, and then the, the bill's in there as well. So floor is yours. [1:01:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, and I did lose the tie. This room gets stuffy in the afternoons. Hope that's okay. Um, committee members, uh, thank you for allowing me to bring, uh, this bill before you today. Uh, it has to do with a federal tax program for scholarships for, uh, students, and it was created by the Big Beautiful Bill this year. And basically, the, the program, the governor per each state has to opt the state into it, but by doing that through an executive order, it has to be renewed every year. [1:01:54] Uh, this bill would codify it, uh, in state law so it wouldn't have to be renewed. Um, the program, uh, is a permanent program, and essentially what it would do would, uh, single filers could, could contribute up to $1,700 and then couples could contribute up to $3,400 a year and get a dollar for dollar tax credit, federal, federal tax credit back. And the money would go into a scholarship program, which could be used for students for tuition, books, transportation, um, a number of items, uh, that, that it could be used for. [1:02:27] And eligibility of it, the, the simple, the main factor is that the family has to make less than 300% of the average income for the area. [1:02:39] So these are, these are federal tax credits, or is this- [1:02:42] It is. It's federal. Zero dollars from the state. [1:02:45] Okay. [1:02:45] It's all federal money. [1:02:46] All right. [1:02:50] Questions of the committee. Senator Dolezal. [1:02:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, I know there's been some discussion around, um, I guess upcoming regs from the feds or something around this. I was stopped in the hallway. I'm curious if you got clarity on that. I think the concern would be maybe with the way that we're defining student in here, the way it affect our existing goal scholarship. Yeah. [1:03:13] I know you've been in discussions on that. Can you just help us kind of know the latest on that? [1:03:16] Yeah, and great question. Thank you, uh, Senator, for asking that question. I met, uh, with the lieutenant governor's office. This is a lieutenant governor, uh, priority bill. I failed to mention that. Uh, and essentially the way that the bill is done, it's mirrored off the federal language. Um, I did hear that concern, but it, it does... The way we're codifying is exactly how it is set at the federal level. [1:03:38] So I think what you're trying to do here, 'cause Governor Kemp opted the state of Georgia in. We're one of, I think, 20 plus states that have opted in- [1:03:44] That's correct [1:03:44] ... to the federal program. Um, I think that the goal here is to get this into our code as well, um, so that we're, we have coverage in the actual code. And I guess if, if there is federal regs, then we can make adjustments to- [1:03:58] Mm-hmm. [1:03:58] But there, there's... You have not discovered anything that would too narrowly tailor this definition such that it would in- it would restrict, uh, the goal eligibility for students at all on, on the, on the state tax credit. [1:04:10] That's correct. [1:04:11] Is that correct? [1:04:11] Yeah, yeah. It mirrors exactly what, what came from the federal government, so that would- [1:04:19] Okay. All right. Um, Senator Orrock. [1:04:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thanks to the gentleman from Gwinnett for bringing us this bill. I had some questions, if I could. Uh, an, uh, number one, why would we, uh, have language, uh, calling for permanently participating, uh, as opposed to, to pa- participating on an ongoing basis of transparency, scrutiny, you know, what's reported, what the outcomes are? [1:04:54] Is that a fair, fair question? [1:04:56] Yeah, I mean, it, it's a permanent tax credit program at the federal level. Uh- [1:05:02] I mean, it, I mean, it's overseen and all that. I don't know what... You're talking about, like, a sunset or- [1:05:09] Well, I, I don't know what it means to say that something's a permanent, uh, a, a permanent program at the federal level. Uh, w- the administrations come and go, uh, and, uh, policies differ based on, uh, who's holding o- o- office in, in Washington and the makeup of the Congress. And so, uh, I, I, I, I s- just, uh, I, I'm b- I'm just curious. It's just a q- almost curious language about permanently participating. [1:05:41] If something goes awry, w- we, w- w- w- that, that means, permanent means y- you know, are, are you not, are you locked in? That's, that's what- [1:05:51] Yeah, I mean, it's a federal tax. It's $0 from the state, and it's, if couples wanna contribute to it or single filers wanna contribute to it, it's their choice. [1:06:01] Well, w- w- where, where, where's the opportunity for the state to, uh, ha- have any oversight and, uh, uh, ability to, uh, a- assess the program and, and d- determine if the outcomes are, uh, what's been promised, uh, or not? And, uh, uh, that's just, that, that, that, uh, I, I, I would think s- you know, taking the permanently language out would make more sense to me. [1:06:33] All right. Let's, um- [1:06:34] And I have one more question. [1:06:35] Okay. Try to... We, we got one more bill we're hoping to get to, so- [1:06:38] Exactly. On, on, uh- [1:06:39] ... we're cutting into Russ's time [1:06:40] ... the, uh, l- line 72 through 76. Uh, this, uh, this, uh, describes qualified school or program, uh, means a non-public elementary, secondary school located in the state, satisfies requirements, adheres to the provisions of Civil Rights Act, and is accredited or in the process of becoming accredited. Why would we want to include, uh, schools that are in the process of becoming accredited? My concern is s- uh, students, uh, uh, at the, in that school, if that, if that accreditation does not occur, th- then they've not earned credits that are gonna, that they're gonna be able to, uh, uh, uh, use, uh, going forward. [1:07:22] So I, I, I would think that, uh, we, that is far too loosey-goosey, if, a school being in the process of becoming, uh, accredited. Because, you know, we were heard, we heard a bill today earlier that we passed in the Senate around, uh, types of schools, uh, that are, uh, it was, it was actually Senator Burns' bill that, that we voted on, and there are bad actors. And there are schools that take money and then, uh, you know, dis- disappear into the night. [1:07:53] I mean, he, he cataloged that for us today from the well. So, so, uh, I w- I would think that, uh, that, that's such a broad description. And if they're in the process b- of becoming accredited, uh, it, it, it, it would seem that should be, that should be struck. You should, you should be accredited if you're gonna be getting, uh, tax credits. [1:08:18] All right. One- [1:08:18] Okay [1:08:18] ... one thing I did get some clarification- [1:08:20] Mm-hmm [1:08:20] ... on the permanently from leg council, that that doesn't codify it into state law that it's permanent. So it's, it's language, it doesn't, doesn't make it permanent just because we say it here. But since it's not a constitutional amendment, it's what my leg council is telling me. [1:08:36] Uh-huh. [1:08:38] All right. [1:08:38] Well, well, this, so that, l- let me just focus on that question of why would we, why would we, uh, adopt language that, that opens the door to schools that are in the process of becoming accredited? And we've seen examples in our own state of schools that don't get through that process. [1:08:56] All right. Um, Senator- [1:08:57] Is there any answer to my question? [1:08:59] I, I don't, I don't know that there is. [1:09:01] Yeah. [1:09:01] Um, s- uh, I thought it was rhetorical, but maybe- [1:09:04] No, no, it's not. It's, it's not rhetorical at all. It's out here- [1:09:07] Okay [1:09:07] ... in black and white in the bill. [1:09:08] All right. Um- [1:09:09] That ain't rhetorical. [1:09:10] S- Senator Hickman. [1:09:12] Um, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Uh, I, to me, on this line 11 and 12 on, uh, page one, you know, the goal and the rural hospital tax credit, all those are state own- that you take on your state income tax return. This reads like the, this is a federal credit you can take on a federal credit, but the state will, state will identify these same type of credits, the goal credit, the rural hospital tax credit, that you can funnel that money to. And so you, in my opinion, you probably get a bigger benefit taking it on a federal return 'cause you're in a higher tax bracket than you are in a 5% or 499 or whatever our number is now. [1:09:51] So I think that allows, that would allow me as a taxpayer to take it on my federal return, my, my rural hospital tax credit, I can take it on my federal return and get greater benefit out of it than I could on my state return. I think that's all. [1:10:04] All right. Sen- I don't know the answer to that, but that's- [1:10:08] Was that rhetorical? [1:10:11] That's been thought. Senator Dolezal. [1:10:13] I just wanted to add, Mr. Chairman, I spent the morning at Cristo Rey, uh, school, which is just down the street here about seven minutes away, and, and they told me they're about 30% dependent on the Goal Scholarship program to provide for their students. This morning, those students heard from, uh, a gentleman who they do an internship with, and this particular gentleman created the primary antiviral that's used to treat HIV and AIDS. And at the high school level, uh, these students have access to having an internship with this, uh, individual who's doing orga- organic chemistry work at Emory University. [1:10:43] And, uh, the reason I make, make a motion that we do pass on this at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, is they also told me that the Goal Scholarship, which is currently capped at $120 million a year, is overprescribed the first day by about 2X, so they're only able to get about 47% of the money that is allocated to them. This is a great way, without costing the state a dollar, to put rocket fuel behind- Schools like Cristo Rey and ensure that these kids get an education opportunity that, uh, propels them into a life of prosperity. So with that, Mr. [1:11:13] Chairman, at the ap- appropriate time- [1:11:15] All right, I'll- [1:11:15] ... I'd like to make a motion to pass [1:11:15] ... I'll hold on that motion just a minute. Senator Halpern. [1:11:19] Um, just one question. It's my understanding that in the federal bill, there's a prohibition for the contributions to count unless they are made to a scholarship organization that funds scholarships for students solely within the state in which the organization is listed, but that provision does not seem to be included in this Georgia version. And I'm wondering, is that an oversight or was that intentional? And if so, why would we not wanna require it to be for Georgia? [1:11:55] We let that be rhetorical, too. [1:11:57] Yeah, I'd have to get back to you on that one. [1:12:02] Okay. [1:12:02] All right. Um, [1:12:07] let me, um, stop here just a second. I, I, I mi- Mikaela, I know you wanna testify. I'm gonna give you about a minute. I'm sorry 'cause- [1:12:14] Um, that's okay. I can address a couple of things real quick. [1:12:16] Okay. [1:12:23] Thank you so much, Chairman. Um, Chairman, members of the committee, hello. Uh, my name is Mikaela Arciaga. I'm the advocacy director for IDRA. We are an independent, nonpartisan education policy and research nonprofit. We are here in oppos- I'm here to speak in opposition to SB 446. Um, I have a plenty long speech to tell you about what our issues are with it, but the first is that this program has no cap. Um, I heard that we've said, uh, that it's not gonna cost the state any dollars, um, but conservative estimates about the cost of this program have fallen between $21 and $51 billion. [1:12:57] Um, we know, and I believe the body knows, that these dollars are a finite resource. Our public schools have already been subject to o- over $100 million in federal cuts, and we're anticipating more for our most vulnerable communities. Those are dollars that the state is going to, the state could and probably should make up for in our budget because it's things like rural schools, kids living in poverty, um, kids with disabilities that would otherwise have received those dollars. Um, uh, another thing is that this decision to opt in and now permanently commit to this program was made unilaterally. [1:13:32] Um, and if, and again, we're talking about potentially billions of dollars in public tax revenue, and if we're going to make an election into a program of that magnitude, we should require meaningful public input, we should require your legislative review, um, and rigorous evaluation of the fiscal impact and student incomes before we commit to something every single year. Uh, and again, I just wanna emphasize, this body, this specific committee, has worked very hard to increase accountability and transparency for the program, which is identical to this the state already runs, which you have referenced. [1:14:04] Um, this pro- the way the f- the federal program is organized would allow these, these SGOs to collect 10% of the admin fee off the top of all of their donations. You all currently limit that to 5%, and you and both the, and the House have passed amendments in the past which would attempt to limit that to 3%, which is even lower. You would not have the oversight to regulate this program if we pass this in this way because we have to align with federal standards. Um, I also just wanted to address the last issue with Cristo Rey. [1:14:35] Um, on lines 89 and 90, uh, SGOs are limited to providing scholarships to 10 or more eligible students who do not all attend the same qualified school or program, so I do think you would have, you, you're not necessarily creating the same amount of access that, uh, I think some of you may be hoping for, and we definitely do not think that that imp- impact will be well-distributed. Um, I can share a map with you. We've mapped all of the participating private schools in the state right now, and overwhelmingly, these schools are concentrated in our metro and urban areas, and we are seeing funds being diverted away from our rural schools who are overwhelmingly dependent on state and federal funds as opposed to local funds. [1:15:13] Um, again, while this is not necessarily immediately or directly coming out of the state's coffers, it is the state who is gonna bear the cost of these needs for our, our schools and our schools' systems that are, do not have the same resources as our metro and urban areas. Um, so we would encourage you to certainly amend this, but ideally, just, uh, oppose it outright. Thank you. [1:15:35] All right. With that, thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Um, so we're gonna, we're goin'- going to the committee and entertain a motion. I think I heard Senator Dolezal wanted to make a motion. [1:15:47] Make a motion to pass on LC492559. [1:15:51] All right. We've got a second by Senator Hickman. All right. Further discussion. Senator Howard, it's taking a while. I'm sorry. [1:16:03] You're, you're, I've, I recognize you. [1:16:06] Y- you, oh, did you recognize me? [1:16:07] Mm-hmm. [1:16:08] Oh, oh, okay. Thank you. Uh, I- I- I would, uh, uh, like at the proper time to offer an amendment on line 75 to strike, uh, uh, or in the process of becoming accredited. [1:16:22] All right. We've got an amendment which takes precedence. Is there a second to the amendment? We've got a, a amendment and a second. Any discussion on the amendment? [1:16:31] Mr. Chairman, before I offer a friendly? [1:16:33] Sure. Your opinion. [1:16:37] It would not be friendly. [1:16:42] It's friendly personally. [1:16:43] All right. Um- [1:16:44] Yeah, it's a friendly amendment [1:16:44] ... so we've got a, we've got a motion- [1:16:46] That's unbelievable [1:16:47] ... and a second to amend it as stated by Senator Orrock. All in favor of the amendment, raise your hand. We've got three yes. Those opposed? [1:16:57] Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. [1:16:59] All right, so the amendment fails. We're back to the underlying bill. All in favor of the bill, raise your hand. And those opposed? That motion does carry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman- All right ... committee members. They're responsible. So, so Senator- Responsible ... Howard, you're, you're welcome to come up now, but several of us have to go to health in just a few minutes, or you can try to wait for the next meeting, whatever. Yeah. [1:17:25] Yeah, you, you probably have to go pretty quickly, but go ahead. All right. [1:17:33] All right. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Uh, I love the body of knowledge and, and wisdom in this room, so I appreciate the previous conversation. I'm here to talk about Senate Bill 436, uh, LC560498. Uh, the purpose of this, uh, bill is to do two things. So one is to make sure that there is, uh, information is available to the public about energy and water, uh, concerning the, the build of, uh, future, uh, hyperscale data centers. [1:18:06] And also, uh, recommending a one-year pause for hyperscale data centers for the purpose of strategic, um, planning, uh, around the state, um, and, and making sure that we can work cross-industries and have a strategic plan for such a monumental shift. Um, I'll first say that, um, I want to acknowledge on a very large scale that our, we are in an international, um, arms race with technology, and I think as a state, we should be, um, excited about being able to be home to such incredible infrastructure for AI technology. [1:18:43] Uh, we know that Georgia does not live in a vacuum. This is an international concern, and we have a president that has decided that, hey, we need to be at the forefront and not, um, not, uh, waiting. When it comes to infrastructure and supply chain, we know how important it is to make sure a supply chain for some of the most in- incredible industry when it comes to technology should live here in the United States. So I, I preface that, uh, preface this by s- uh, saying that. Also want to acknowledge that Georgia has been, uh, one of the best places to do business, uh, but we all know that when we have a major change in any industry, uh, there is an underbelly. [1:19:23] Uh, when, when our country wants to do something amazing like an interstate, uh, it, it is a wonderful thing on many levels, but we have to also acknowledge that there is an underbelly of concern, and we wanna make sure we discuss it and have a plan for that. Um, and that's why part two for the pause is not to stop progress, it's not to be anti-technology. I think everyone in this room, uh, uh, uses and appreciates, uh, technology in a major way. But I will tell you that I, I, I had the pleasure of, of being, uh, elected just, uh, two months ago. [1:19:57] And two months ago got a chance to speak to thousands of folks in the, in the city and in the suburbs of Atlanta, and folks are just now starting to wrap their heads around data centers. And when we say data centers, we're not talking about the ones that we know or the ones that we see in other states. We're talking about a new level, uh, hyperscale data centers. So I'll, I'll pause and just say thank you for taking a look at this bill. I know it's a, um, um, I know it's a hearing only, but the amount of water and, and energy that we're discussing, I mean, we know that the Georgia Aquarium is about 10, 11 million gallons. [1:20:35] Some of these new data centers are using that every day. And our ag community, our farmers across the state have worked tirelessly over the last couple of decades to make sure that we were using our natural resources very well. Um, I do believe that we should, uh, slow things down a little bit to appreciate technology, appreciate industry, but make sure we do it in a re- very responsible way. Thank you. [1:20:58] All right. Well, thank you for the presentation. And to summarize, you've got really two components there. One is looking at a moratorium, and the other is looking at that anybody that does this has to disclose their water and electricity. [1:21:09] To the public, yes sir. [1:21:10] Now, Senator Orrock has a bill that's been presented in committee. Uh, Senator Brass has a bill. So we're probably gonna look at all this together in, in the future. So we appreciate you coming to the committee. Sorry for the short time. [1:21:21] Understood. [1:21:22] Um, some people were filibustering and may not have helped you out. I don't know. [1:21:27] Okay. [1:21:28] Filibustering. [1:21:28] Thank you. Thank you for your time. [1:21:31] Meeting adjourned.