House Ways & Means Committee, February 26, 2026

Transcript

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

1. 0:18:29

   Representative Holcomb, our members here, and we have a little bit of an agenda to get going. There are some additional groups will be here right after that. But we'll go ahead and call the Ways and Means Committee meeting to order. Um, Chair Stephens, would you please read the prayer as well

2. 0:18:57

   as we do?

3. 0:18:57

   Bless us, oh Lord, most God, gracious heavenly Father. Thank you, most God, for that, uh, place to love God and serve others in many ways. And for all of these things we ask, God, in the precious name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus.

4. 0:19:04

   Thank you, Chair Stephens. Um, Representative Kendrick, you have a bill that we passed out last year in this exact form, as a matter of fact, with multiple hearings. So we went ahead and put you on full today. You want to tell us just a little bit, remind us what it does?

5. 0:19:19

   I want

6. 0:19:24

   to

7. 0:19:28

   thank the committee for taking up HB 720. This is a bill that we passed out twice, uh, the last two years. I think it was SSHB7, um, that would provide a $1,000 income tax credit to our workforce program through the Department of Labor, um, in high-tech jobs, um, in specific counties.

8. 0:19:59

   Um, and it really is to make sure that we are reaching our low-income counties with high-tech jobs and careers. So I guess we're another favorite of this commission.

9. 0:20:10

   We, uh, we may need to adjust the, the dates on when they met, but, uh, but I think we probably can make that work. I think I have a question

10. 0:20:23

    for you. Oh, well, I don't see any questions. If you'd like to make a motion, we have a motion and a second. Representative Kelley.

11. 0:20:34

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to amend.

12. 0:20:40

    Mr. Clerk.

13. 0:20:42

    On lines forty-five, forty-eight, sixty-six, and sixty-seven.

14. 0:20:50

    I'll go line by line on forty-five. Strike six and change to seven. So it reads by January 1st, 2027. On forty-eight, we'll strike six and replace with seven. So it'll read January 1st, 2027.

15. 0:21:11

    On line sixty-six, we'll strike five and replace with six. So that the effective date will be July 1, 2026. Then on line sixty-seven, we'll strike six and replace with seven. So it'll just read 2027. In fact, we're just moving all the dates back a year consistent with the increased retention of the legislation.

16. 0:21:33

    All right. So those, those are amended.

17. 0:21:36

    Yes.

18. 0:21:37

    An amendment.

19. 0:21:38

    Amendment adopted.

20. 0:21:46

    Chair Stephens.

21. 0:21:46

    All right. That was a good catch. Sixty-seven. Fifty-three. That's it.

22. 0:21:56

    All right. We have a motion to amend those dates. Uh, do we have a second?

23. 0:22:05

    Representative Davis is, um, I see the time's here.

24. 0:22:12

    We're running a few minutes. Thank you. Um, we have a motion and a second on the amendment A for the legislation. All those in favor please say a firm steady aye. Um, all right. We have a motion to, to pass on the table as amended. All those in favor please say a firm steady aye. Opposed, opposed that's aye. That passes. Thank you very much for that. That's one hundred and twenty. Let's see here. Uh, let's skip around. If I was to, uh, Representative Vest, HB-

25. 0:22:43

    Representative Scott, are you, are you ready?

26. 0:22:46

    HB 1035. I think we've had two hearings on this, and you've, um, I've received your notes approval from the subcommittee. So, uh, give us some patience on this. This is Representative Scott. This is the action we take.

27. 0:23:16

    Um, good

28. 0:23:19

    morning all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the committee. Um, this is House Bill 1035, the Georgia Homeowners Protection Act of 2026. What this bill, uh, does is it prevents infinite interest on a line of credit. Um, if it's not a tax, it is not a mortgage or a rent, and it should not cost a family their home. Uh, what it simply does, um, it is a non-tax service charge must be corrected to a simple judgment, not through a full sale of the home, on what the homeowner forgoing to Disney or Six Flags or wherever they get out of Francisco.

29. 0:24:01

    And so what this bill really does is stand up for families, their names, their payments, their loans, and their homes against assessments that is in excess of what a family is paying for those loans and those assessments.

30. 0:24:13

    Thank you, Representative Scott. I thank, uh, our former chairman, Terry Cummings, for bringing legislation. Um, and

31. 0:24:35

    ... a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by stating aye. Aye. Those opposed, lights on. Well, thank you very much. Congratulations. Thank you.

32. 0:24:51

    I see, uh, Leader Gamble is here. You have HB 1000.

33. 0:25:10

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It's good to be with you today. And, um, I have, uh, the House Bill 1000, HC59-0225, uh, with me today. This is the Governor's State Income Tax Refund. Uh, it's something that you all are familiar with already because this is a repeat of three pieces of legislation that we've passed. We did this in 2022, 2023, and in 2025.

34. 0:25:42

    The value of this tax refund is approximately $1.17 billion. The funds w- uh, will be included in the amended budget. And again, it will be a benefit of 250 for individual filers, 375 for heads of household, and 500 for those married filing jointly. So that, in essence, is, uh, what this, what this bill does. And of course, as we talk about tax relief and rising costs, uh, that Georgians are facing, uh, w- this is another measure that we're taking, hopefully to, uh, ease those concerns for our citizens.

35. 0:26:15

    So with that, Chairman, I'm happy to answer any questions.

36. 0:26:19

    Well, thank you very much. We have a question. You be a little kinder to him this time than you were last time, Mr. Chairman.

37. 0:26:25

    I misunderstood.

38. 0:26:26

    All right.

39. 0:26:26

    It's a different bill, Mr. Chairman.

40. 0:26:27

    Uh-huh.

41. 0:26:27

    Hey, th- thank you, Leader Gamble, for bringing this bill. And just as a, a point of reference, is it not true that this, the funding for this bill was included in the governor's budget?

42. 0:26:36

    Yes, sir. That's correct.

43. 0:26:37

    Uh, the, the budget was passed out by the House, uh, yesterday, and, and agreed to by the Senate. Is it not further true, or, um, let me... W- please remind me of including this tax refund to the citizens of the State of Georgia, what's an approximate aggregate, um, give back that this, the, this legislature and the governor have sent back to taxpayers to the State of Georgia over the last four or five years?

44. 0:27:02

    Altogether, we've committed to saving Georgians almost $9.4 billion over the past few years, with 7.3 billion in surplus revenues returned to taxpayers in the last four years.

45. 0:27:16

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

46. 0:27:17

    Okay. Thank you for the question.

47. 0:27:19

    Appropriate. I think we have a motion and a second on the floor, it sounds like to me. Uh, do we have any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Those opposed, lights on. All right, thank you very much.

48. 0:27:33

    Thank you.

49. 0:27:34

    We have one more guest today. I was gonna go ahead and jump, uh, to, uh, Chairman Bonner if H.R. 400.

50. 0:27:51

    Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to, to present today, presenting House Resolution 400. Uh, this measure would, uh, put the question to, uh... It would propose as a constitutional amendment to put a question on the ballot to provide a 100%, uh, homestead exemption for our disabled veterans.

51. 0:28:13

    That's the bill.

52. 0:28:14

    Have to keep it simple.

53. 0:28:15

    Keep it simple.

54. 0:28:15

    I know you're the second signer on this, and, uh, so thank you.

55. 0:28:17

    That's correct. Yeah, this was originally proposed by, uh, a colleague of ours, Lynn Hefner, who, uh, resigned. Uh, this was very, uh, uh, this was a, a passion of hers, and I, it's, uh, an honor to continue to carry this on her behalf.

56. 0:28:30

    Uh, uh-

57. 0:28:30

    We appreciate it

58. 0:28:31

    ... you, you and her are both service members, as I understand.

59. 0:28:33

    That's correct. That's correct.

60. 0:28:35

    Um, Representative Holcomb.

61. 0:28:37

    Question.

62. 0:28:38

    Yeah.

63. 0:28:38

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you have a sense of the cost?

64. 0:28:42

    St- so what, what I can, uh, the way I can lay it out is in the, in who we expect that it will impact, okay? So there is currently, uh, up to about 121,000, uh, exemption available to 100% disabled veterans in Georgia. Um, we don't know exactly how many are taking advantage of that. We do know that the disabled, the 100% disabled population in Georgia is roughly 37,000.

65. 0:29:12

    Um, what we don't know is out of that population, how many the homestead would actually apply to based on, you know, their living situation. Some, some, some may own property, some may own, some may rent, some may be in a, a nursing home, that kind of thing. So, um, the, the actual cost on that is a little more challenging to, to get down to based on those dynamics.

66. 0:29:36

    Uh, do we have a sense of where they're located? My sense is that they're probably clustered because many will retire near, like, Fort Stewart or Fort Benning or-

67. 0:29:46

    Well, I th-

68. 0:29:46

    ... their last place of duty.

69. 0:29:48

    Right. I do think that there, I do think that you're correct in that there's more likely a higher concentration of, uh, disabled veterans around our military communities. However, I, I do know that in, in, in my case, down in, in District 73, that's, you know, Fayette County, Coweta County, that we do have a lot of retirees based on, you know, the previous installations of, um, uh, having Fort McPherson, uh, and Fort Gillem there. So we've got a pretty robust veteran population as well.

70. 0:30:19

    So I imagine there'll be other places like that. But yeah, to your point, it certainly could be, uh, clusters, um, in that, um, but I, I couldn't pin it down for certain on that.

71. 0:30:30

    All right. Thank you.

72. 0:30:34

    Uh, Chairman Martin.

73. 0:30:35

    Ah, Chairman Byrnes, isn't it true that th- there's a lot of local, um, homestead exemptions that, that exist and do this already? People have, have recognized this, and what you're trying to do is just make it statewide so that ... Ah, I appreciate, um, Representative Holcomb's concern about the c- the cost of it, but isn't it true that many local governments already provide some exemption toward disabled veterans, and what you're doing is just making that, um, blanket across the state so that we treat all these folks with the, the dignity and respect they deserve?

74. 0:31:04

    Yeah, that's correct. And, and, and to Representative Holcomb's point, I, I would, I would say that, uh, that, that's more likely the case as well, that a lot of these, uh, military communities probably, you know, most likely already offer that at the local level.

75. 0:31:19

    I don't see any more questions. What's the will of the committee? Oh, Chairman Prince.

76. 0:31:23

    Yes. Thank you. Uh, sorry about that. Uh, and thanks for bringing the bill, uh, or Representative, uh, Representative Heffner. Uh, my question though is, uh, what we're trying to do now, some other things in the, uh, General Assembly right now, especially in the House as far as, uh, property tax relief and things like that, how would that, um, impact what we're trying to do? How would this, I guess, uh, impact or possibly impact on what we're trying to do? Because we're trying to lower it for everyone now. Um-

77. 0:31:50

    Right. Well, I think the only difference between this and, and what we're doing collectively in the, in the House is that this would, this would accelerate that 100% homestead for disabled veterans in that it would go on the ballot at, you know, the next opportunity. Whereas what we're, the proposed legislation from the House is gonna be a phased in approach over time, uh, to get down to that 100% homestead. So, uh, at a certain point, yeah, it, if, if the, if we're able to do what the House is proposing to do, at some point this, this resolution would become s- somewhat obsolete.

78. 0:32:29

    Uh, the, the impact would be that if we pass this and it gets approved by the, by the voters, it would be enacted much sooner than the, the five-year glide path that we have now, uh, for the proposed legislation.

79. 0:32:42

    Yeah, and I tell you, that would be my only concern because of that glide path that we're trying to glide on the path, uh, if we jump out too far ahead, it may hurt those, uh, those small counties and communities.

80. 0:32:53

    Well, I would say that with the current, um, exemp- the current homestead exemption in place that is, you know, up to about $121,000 I believe it is, um, I, I think that that impact would be fairly minimal across the board.

81. 0:33:12

    Uh, I don't see any more questions. So-

82. 0:33:14

    Move to pass.

83. 0:33:15

    Second.

84. 0:33:15

    A motion, second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of passage please signify by stating, "Aye."

85. 0:33:21

    Aye.

86. 0:33:21

    Those opposed, like sign. Thank you very much.

87. 0:33:25

    Thank you.

88. 0:33:28

    Um, HR 250. You can stay there. You, you can present it from right there. Representative Washburn. You, what, 12?

89. 0:33:39

    Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, House Resolution 250, uh, LC number 280648. This bill, uh, provides counties, uh, with an option relative to, uh, property tax assessments. And, uh, the significant, uh, reasons why it's a good bill are on lines 15, uh, through about, uh, 30. Um, we believe that, uh, this is just an option for them, and the option is they can choose a system in which the purchase price becomes the assessed value, and it's on all types of property, not just homestead.

90. 0:34:19

    And, uh, that does not change until it is sold again. And, uh, it is an option, and I think that's the key word here. It's an option. We believe it's a pure way to assess value, and we believe the digest will rise steadily, uh, if you allow the free market to work to set the values of the property. But that's the bill, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to entertain any, any questions.

91. 0:34:44

    So, uh, permissive market assessments. Is that fair to say?

92. 0:34:48

    I'm sorry?

93. 0:34:49

    A permissive market assessment-

94. 0:34:51

    Yes

95. 0:34:51

    ... resolution.

96. 0:34:52

    It does. I should point out that there is a provision that if value increases because of major renovation or addition, if it increases over $50,000, it opens the door for a reassessment of the value. It can be assessed higher.

97. 0:35:08

    Representative Kelly.

98. 0:35:09

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Washburn, I appreciate what you're, you're trying to do here for our taxpayers. Uh, and I, I understand the, uh, desire certainly to spread this across all property owners, uh, as well as, uh, not only just homestead properties. Um, one concern I, I have, or maybe just a question to ask is, uh, individuals who own property as their main residence, those can be, you know, more transient in nature.

99. 0:35:41

    They, they will have multiple transactions that, uh, that will end up with the market dictating that value over time. I have a concern based on something we've seen in our state recently, where you're having these institutional investors come up and buy whole neighborhoods that don't have as much of a transient nature. They hold them as part of a, of a investment portfolio. Do you have any concern about the fact that they're not as transient in nature on their portfolio, and what that would do to the individuals who are owning property just for a personal residence, that they could feel some of the burden instead of those institutional investors?

100. 0:36:22

     I do not have that, uh, concern. I think it's a valid point to make. Um, we believe if you let the free market work, that values will, that, that there will be transfers of all types of property on a regular basis. That point is, um- Well made if they are, excuse me, going to hold that for a long, long time. Again, the purpose of this is to see the digest as a whole and to allow the free market to work to set real values. One of the reasons we're doing this is I did a study committee three years ago on property taxes.

101. 0:36:57

     One of the continuing concerns by all property owners is the fact that they feel like they're being, their taxes are being increased constantly by reassessments and that the appeals process doesn't work very well. So, uh, I believe the good outweighs the bad relative to any concerns, uh, you might have about, uh, neighborhoods being bought up.

102. 0:37:18

     Just to follow up, Mr. Chairman. Had you considered limiting just to homestead properties?

103. 0:37:25

     Well, I-

104. 0:37:26

     Or to limiting the, uh, the dollar amount or the amount of institutional properties?

105. 0:37:31

     I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm following your question.

106. 0:37:33

     Like, had you thought about either limiting to homestead or in an alternative to an entity that owns no more than so many properties to get to my concern of BlackRock enjoying this benefit in a greater way than necessarily a first-time home buyer?

107. 0:37:50

     Mm-hmm. Mr... Uh, I'd do, prefer to leave this bill like it is. If the committee has concerns about it and doesn't want to pass it, I understand. But I think it's good the way it is, and that the water doesn't need to be muddied, uh, by start- by exempting, uh, certain, certain, uh, property, property owners and taxpayers.

108. 0:38:16

     All right. I'll try to get in order here. Um, Representative Holcomb.

109. 0:38:21

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and it looks to me like that there are, um, safeguards in that the local government has to pass either an ordinance implementing or revoking, and then that also needs to be adopted by a majority vote of the citizens that would be impacted. Correct?

110. 0:38:39

     Um, it is written so that the local government can do it without a referendum, but allows them to be able to do a referendum to either impose it or to reverse it if they don't like how it operates. I think the word option is the word we should focus on here. We're giving them an option to do this this way,

111. 0:38:59

     not forcing them to do it.

112. 0:39:03

     All right. I, I hope I'm doing this in order. It was, uh, 15. All right. Chair Lady Camp.

113. 0:39:10

     Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Representative Washburn. This is an interesting bill, and I think we've had this conversation before. Um, just looking at the mechanics of the bill, there's really nothing stopping any local taxing body from going to their legislators now and asking for local legislation to put this referendum in front of their voters. Is that correct?

114. 0:39:31

     I'm under the impression it requires a constitutional amendment to be able to do an alternative system.

115. 0:39:38

     Okay. Okay. I mean, but doesn't Muskogee County already do this?

116. 0:39:41

     No, they do it with homestead only.

117. 0:39:43

     Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification.

118. 0:39:45

     And there is a big difference in doing it with homestead only and with all types of, uh, property.

119. 0:39:51

     Thank you.

120. 0:39:53

     Representative Frye.

121. 0:39:56

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think that this is a great, uh, opportunity to offer some homestead, um, some relief to our property taxpayers. Um, to the Representative Kelly's statement, um, it's my understanding that the institutional investors, at least the ones that I've spoken to, once their depreciation and their tax shelter starts to diminish, then those properties will be turned over as... It's not gonna be, they're not long-term holds necessarily.

122. 0:40:27

     They might be about a decade. And so they're not gonna keep the house for 30 years, at least the ones that I've spoken to. And, um, again, that this would be if there's a community like in Southwest Atlanta that has a number of these institutional investors, then that they could choose not to freeze property taxes because of the amount of investment in their community. Is that correct, sir?

123. 0:40:51

     Yes.

124. 0:40:52

     Thank you.

125. 0:40:55

     Yeah. I, uh, let me get Representative Carpenter his next, first question.

126. 0:41:01

     Thank you so much.

127. 0:41:02

     Chairman Carpenter.

128. 0:41:02

     Yes, sir. Uh, Representative Washburn, w- now, the lo- there's nothing in this legislation would permit the locals to provide people with homesteads a more advantageous, uh, homestead exemption in their community with this legislation. Is that correct?

129. 0:41:18

     I believe that would be correct.

130. 0:41:20

     So that you could, you could separate your institutional investors from your homesteaders with a higher exemption locally. Is that, is that, am I reading that correctly?

131. 0:41:29

     I believe so, yes.

132. 0:41:30

     And then my next question is, in the dy- uh, you know, how, in practice, what happens if you build your own home and you don't sell it, you just build your own home? Is there, would the, would they come out and appraise it at that point? You see what I'm saying? How does that-

133. 0:41:44

     Yes

134. 0:41:44

     ... if it's not a sale, how does that process work?

135. 0:41:47

     My assumption is they would use the permitting cost to probably set the first value, but there's certainly still a role for the tax assessors here to, uh, handle new construction, to handle situations where there is a renovation or an addition that increases value by more than 50,000. And also, too, I believe that there'll be some policing of being sure that all transactions are not, um, that are arm's length, uh, transactions.

136. 0:42:16

     Sure.

137. 0:42:16

     We believe it is, Mr. Chairman, if I might, if I might, um, I've been in the real estate business 50 years, and, uh, true value is what the market will step up and pay for a piece of real estate. Somebody that can get the money or borrow the money will pay for a piece of real estate. Our people are victimized by continuing to feel like their taxes are increased constantly by assessments of which they, they have little control.

138. 0:42:47

     And we believe this is a pure system that, that is an option, and that, uh, first of all, it would give needed relief to our property owners. And we also believe that the digest will rise at about the same level it would rise anyway, possibly, because of the free market working. And the idea that somebody pays whatever price for any piece of real estate, that they would come back and argue about their value is, is, uh, is unlikely.

139. 0:43:19

     So we think it's a great bill. Again, the, uh, it is an option, and, uh, we believe it is ... And, and I should have pointed out, we had 42 co-signers. A number of members of Ways and Means co-signed the bill, including Chairman Blackmon. And so I ask for the committee's favorable consideration on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

140. 0:43:44

     Representative Kelley.

141. 0:43:45

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, I think I signed the bill as well, and I, I did it 'cause I felt like it's an important conversation for us to have. I guess I would ask you, when we're talking about fair market value for a individual's residence, I understand certainly the buy and sell transaction for you, but do you also think fair market value for a rental property could be determined based on the rent that they're collecting?

142. 0:44:07

     It was already asked.

143. 0:44:09

     It can be. I've done that many, many times, and I could give everybody here a course on how to do it, with either a gross rent multiplier or a net, uh, income applied to a cap rate.

144. 0:44:20

     So in that, following that line of thinking, would you consider it a friendly amendment, and maybe some other colleagues would too, that a property could be a reassessed not only just on a substantial improvement to a property that would increase its fair market value, but should these institutional investors raise their rent to a point to where, uh, it has substantially increased their fair market value?

145. 0:44:46

     I, I would, uh, consider that. I would like to know what capitalization rate we're gonna apply to that. Um, but I certainly would consider that.

146. 0:44:55

     Well, what do you think a fair number would be?

147. 0:44:58

     Well, that is an interesting question, because depending on the market, depending on what their in- other investments are doing, um ... And I was just hit with this this morning, of course. Uh, I expect about 8% would be fair. That is, uh, that is a, that it ... No, I, I, I want to change that. I think about 12%, because these are, any residential real estate that's owned is higher risk than any commercial property that's done on a triple net lease basis.

148. 0:45:33

     And so, um, I think, uh, if, if you insist on doing that, if the committee insists on doing it, you should apply a 12% capitalization rate to the net operating income. The other way you could do that is keep that simpler and use a gross rent multiplier to do it. The two things equate, uh, but you, you have to, I'd have to have a chalkboard here to explain that to, to some folks with no, with no, uh, intention to, to insult anybody's intelligence here, but it's very complicated.

149. 0:46:09

     I taught real estate licensing for 20 years, and that concept is very difficult for people to grasp. Uh, so, um, I would say the simpler way to do that would be to apply it to a gross rent multiplier rather than a capitalization rate dealing with expenses. And, um, I would, uh, I would suggest a gross rent multiplier of five if you're gonna do that.

150. 0:46:38

     Okay. Thank you.

151. 0:46:45

     Representative, would you like to get with Representative Kelley? We have a couple other bills, and we can revisit this, or, or do you want-

152. 0:46:53

     You all do whatever you wanna do, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to get the bill out and, and get it on-

153. 0:46:57

     Okay

154. 0:46:57

     ... on the floor. I think it's a good bill as it is.

155. 0:47:01

     All right.

156. 0:47:01

     Um, so-

157. 0:47:02

     Well, there, there, there's several other questions. We have a couple more bills, and I know we have a, a, you know, some, some other things going on today. Um, I, I, I'm gonna take one more question. Um, um, 26.

158. 0:47:19

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just sort of a question and a comment about the, the assessment on the rent property. Uh, one concern I would have with that is that properties can change status fairly rapidly, can go from being owner-occupied to a rental property, uh, back and forth. So I don't know how we would police that, uh, or keep track of that if we were gonna do it. Um, and then secondly, more to Representative Kelley's point, there's some other legislation that has been put forth that is gonna maybe change the way, uh, some of these build-to-rent neighborhoods or large institution- institutional investor-owned properties can be assessed or what, uh, amount they can be assessed at.

159. 0:48:04

     Would that ... How would that work with the ... I'm curious as to how that would work with this legislation if it could be the value of the individual piece of property could be based on the sales price, but then be assessed at 100% rather than 40%, like some other legislation has, has been put forth.

160. 0:48:22

     Uh, okay. Listen, we asked a couple of questions. We're gonna try to get those answered. Chairman Williamson.

161. 0:48:29

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh-

162. 0:48:31

     To ... I'm sorry. I'm a little off.

163. 0:48:35

     Sorry about that. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, to the author of the bill, I, I support your, your resolution. I, however, I would like to point out to-

164. 0:48:46

     Representative Kelly, that, uh, we're, we're ... A- a- and I fully agree that we probably, we need to keep a hard eye on these institutional investors because they only represent le- way less than 2% of all the real estate transactions in Georgia. And this measure that you're proposing would open up every single real estate investor, moms and pops, uh, that are not part of this institutional investor universe. And, and that would be something I don't believe that the, the citizens of Georgia that, uh, made the effort to invest in, um, uh, you know, invest in two or three rental houses or one for retirement and all that, you're dragging them into it in, in our efforts to, uh, get our arms around this investor universe.

165. 0:49:32

     And to, uh, Chairman Crowe's point, uh, I believe we have other, uh, measures moving forward in this general assembly that can adequately and targetedly address that particular concern of yours. So, uh, the only thing I would consider, uh, uh, being, voting in favor for maybe as an inflator that, uh, that, um, let this, if this measure passes as is, um, in- in- include a let it float with inflation, uh, because at the end of the day, our firefighters and, um, uh, every- all our people that are servicing our local governments, they, they need that, um, inflation increase.

166. 0:50:13

     We don't want the digest to sit there stagnant. Uh, but that's ... I- I'm against any kind of amendment to that effect.

167. 0:50:22

     Representative Kelly.

168. 0:50:24

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clear up, I, you know, Chairman Williams, I, if I were looking to do an amendment, I would make sure that we did something certainly to protect our mom-and-pop investors, and would think that we would need to look at some kind of qualifier. And I understand they're only 1% of the transactions across our state, but in Paulding County, where I represent, we have, I think, two or three of the top 10, uh, build-to-rent communities or, or, uh, house districts in the entire state.

169. 0:50:52

     Yes, sir.

170. 0:50:52

     And so it is much more than a 1% concern for me. And I, I do think that we're being a little, um,

171. 0:51:02

     narrow in our focus as to what drives fair market value of a property when we're talking about these institutional, uh, private equity backed, possibly foreign dollar-owned investment properties that are making rental properties unaffordable in our communities. And so I, I, I do share some, some concern about that. I, I, I know what the representative's trying to do, and I don't want to become a hindrance to him. So I know we're, we're looking at, at, uh, maybe moving this today, but as we, as we continue through the process, I do have some grave concerns.

172. 0:51:39

     I think, I think f- you know, for me, I know that, that there are, uh, some pros and cons here, uh, Mr. Representative. I know for, for me, the assessment component that, um, you know, really kind of becomes a much l- lesser issue. You know, I mean, now that, that is a, a, a, a very involved process, and, and this just, you know, puts, puts this on the market. And, um, so those assessments are, you know, basically what the price was. So I think that's the big, you know, advantage here.

173. 0:52:11

     I think the fact that it's permissive in a lot of the communities that are already being, uh, proactive and doing some things to help, uh, homeowners and property owners, you know, may not have the, the, necessarily the impact, um, that, that you'd want it to, but, um, I think it, you know, ha- has merit. And I, I'm gonna go ahead and ask for somebody to, uh ... I'm, I'ma call the question. We're gonna see, see, see ... Le- let's vote this thing.

174. 0:52:36

     Move to pass.

175. 0:52:38

     I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating, "Aye."

176. 0:52:43

     Aye.

177. 0:52:44

     Those opposed, like sign. Thank you, Representative.

178. 0:52:47

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

179. 0:52:53

     All right, uh, Chairman Martin, 1240.

180. 0:53:00

     Yes, sir. Um, we've presented this in, uh, committee twice. This is a bill just trying to, uh, make it clear that, uh, the tax allocation, the Redevelopment Powers Act was limited to 10% of a jurisdiction's tax base. There's some questions about whether the re-upping of that with a re- a new development plan, um, a new bonding and so forth, um, qui- must fit into that. It- it's clear, uh, I was involved in some of the original legislation, that 10% is the number. Um, so that's what this bill does. There's some discussions about this being a hindrance to folks.

181. 0:53:32

     I'm still having a conversation there, but I'd like to move it like this and continue those conversations. I don't wanna hurt, um, the, the ability for people to do things easier, but I do think it's state law that 10%, and we need to make that clear. That's what this bill does.

182. 0:53:47

     Uh, Representative Cannon.

183. 0:53:51

     Prime time, Mr. Chairman.

184. 0:53:53

     I don't see any questions. I think time is now.

185. 0:53:58

     Move.

186. 0:53:58

     Have, have a motion and a second. Do pass. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating, "Aye."

187. 0:54:05

     Aye.

188. 0:54:05

     Those opposed, like sign.

189. 0:54:08

     Aye.

190. 0:54:08

     So we have ...

191. 0:54:11

     Two, three.

192. 0:54:12

     Okay. Bill passes. All right. So finally, uh, HB 880. Uh,

193. 0:54:25

     we've already passed this out. I just would, would reference that the standard deduction increases if you, you know, have that copy. Move ...

194. 0:54:38

     I don't know why you have the wrong LC number.

195. 0:54:41

     Yeah, I have ... I do have the wrong LC number. So if you look at LC 590364S, the only change from, uh, passage prior would be that the, uh, standard deduction would track all the way up to 18,000. and the dependent deduction would track up to 6,000. And so that's double, uh, the amount that was in the, the previous, uh, version.

196. 0:55:06

     Move to pass and second.

197. 0:55:07

     I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating, "Aye."

198. 0:55:13

     Aye.

199. 0:55:13

     Those opposed, like sign.

200. 0:55:15

     Aye.

201. 0:55:17

     Who's that?

202. 0:55:19

     Can we show the hands, Mr. Chair?

203. 0:55:20

     Yeah, can we, uh ... All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand.

204. 0:55:30

     Okay, those opposed.

205. 0:55:35

     Thank you. Uh, Chairman Crowe, 1336.

206. 0:55:45

     26.

207. 0:55:47

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've, I, I was-

208. 0:55:49

     I'd like to stay.

209. 0:55:49

     I was wondering if you forgot about me, but that's, that's okay.

210. 0:55:53

     I do. I'm sorry.

211. 0:55:53

     No, it's, it's, it's certainly not the first time, won't be the last, I'm sure. Um, this bill, um, would simply require or, uh, have local jurisdictions that collects revenue from ad valorem tax on aircraft, uh, in their jurisdictions to, uh, dedicate at least 50% of those revenues to the maintenance operations of a local general aviation airport that's in their jurisdiction if they have one. Uh, the definition of airports in this code section, uh, does exclude, uh, airports that have a regularly scheduled, uh, commercial service.

212. 0:56:27

     So that would exclude our major airports. But this is, uh... It's really modeled after a fantastic, uh, uh, transaction that happened down in Moultrie, where they, uh, they got with, uh, their community there and, and did this in, in Moultrie, Georgia. So we're, uh, we're trying to move that statewide.

213. 0:56:49

     Thank you, Chairman. And, uh, the birthday boy is leaving the room here real quick. So I was just...

214. 0:56:56

     Happy birthday.

215. 0:56:57

     Man.

216. 0:57:00

     You're getting older, Mr. Chairman.

217. 0:57:00

     Uh, yes, sir. 39 tomorrow, right? Okay. Who is 18? Is that you, uh, Representative Frye?

218. 0:57:09

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Representative, do, do we know exactly what the cost of this will be to our local communities? 'Cause I'm imagining that those ad valorem taxes are already going in their budgets. And, um, and then a, a second question, I think you addressed that. I just wanna be clear. If the... And I'm specifically talking about the Athens Airport. If there is a commercial, um, if we get a commercial contract for regularly scheduled flights, then that would free that money back up into the budget?

219. 0:57:42

     Yes, so the way this is defined, um, it's based on the, uh, FAA certification type for the airport, and if it has a scheduled commercial air service, then it would exclude it from this legislation. Um, as to the cost, I don't have a number. But I would... Uh, I believe, um, in talking to a lot of folks around the state, a lot of the communities are already doing a lot of this. I mean, they're dedicating a good bit of this back to the airport. I know, um, where I fly out of at Henry County Speedway Airport, the county dedicates a good bit of revenue back to the airport out there.

220. 0:58:15

     Um, but this is just to ensure. There are some places that, that are really not getting the investment that they need. And I think that they would not have that income were it not for that airport. And so I think it's only, uh, it's only proper that that revenue be dedicated back to the, the source that it comes from.

221. 0:58:34

     And follow-up, if I may, Mr. Chair?

222. 0:58:37

     Yes.

223. 0:58:38

     Just real quick. Did GMA have any statement about this or anything?

224. 0:58:47

     I haven't-

225. 0:58:48

     And not to-

226. 0:58:48

     Sorry.

227. 0:58:48

     ... sound nervous.

228. 0:58:49

     I haven't actually heard-

229. 0:58:50

     I'm just trying to-

230. 0:58:50

     ... from the GMA, though I see Noah sitting back there. ACCG is here, and, and they have, uh, they have not been in favor, as you would imagine, because it's gonna, um, change some of their options and flexibility in how they dedicate revenue. But that's, sometimes we unfortunately run into that.

231. 0:59:09

     Sure. And, uh, does GMA have any comments on this at all?

232. 0:59:13

     No. Noah's over there behind the pole.

233. 0:59:16

     Oh, did-

234. 0:59:16

     I mean-

235. 0:59:17

     Hold on just a second.

236. 0:59:18

     Oh, sorry. I didn't-

237. 0:59:18

     Hold on. Hold on just a second. We gotta-

238. 0:59:19

     I didn't mean to do that. Sorry, Mr. Chair.

239. 0:59:20

     We had, at subcommittee, uh, uh... Be more than happy if you wanna give us a thumbs up or down, Noah. Are you?

240. 0:59:28

     Evaluating. We're still evaluating the bill.

241. 0:59:29

     Okay.

242. 0:59:30

     Okay.

243. 0:59:30

     Thanks.

244. 0:59:30

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

245. 0:59:37

     Yep. All right, I don't see any other questions. Let's will the committee.

246. 0:59:41

     Move to pass.

247. 0:59:42

     Second.

248. 0:59:42

     Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating, "Aye."

249. 0:59:48

     Aye.

250. 0:59:48

     Those opposed. All right, thank you very much. Um, nothing further for the good of the order, we stand adjourned.