House Governmental Affairs Committee, March 2, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1169661964 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1169661964#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-02/house-governmental-affairs This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:25:00] All right, y'all ready? [0:25:44] Okay, I apologize for our little bit of a delay. As you can see, we're still trying to get, we got some members conferring in the hall. We're still trying to get our quorum present in the room. Uh, we're gonna go ahead and, uh, uh, get some of the formalities out of the way. This is the House Governmental Affairs Committee meeting today. Uh, we are planning to have multiple meetings this week. At the present, we have meetings scheduled for today, tomorrow, and Wednesday. Uh, and what we get through, we'll have agendas each day. We have an agenda today. We'll get through as much as we can. [0:26:14] Today, there is a Rules committee meeting at 5:00. Our legislative council has to, uh, go to another meeting at 5:00, so we will have a hard cutoff at 5:00. So I'll ask everybody's cooperation. If so, presenting bi- excuse me, presenting bills and, uh, uh, in our discussion, it'll be very helpful to try to get, get as many, uh, things in as we can at this point. Uh, I'd like to get us started if we can with a, uh, word of prayer. If y'all will bow with me, please. Dear kind and heavenly Father, God, we thank you, Lord, for, uh, each and every day you give us on the face of this earth, God. [0:26:50] We thank you for the opportunity to stand here, God, and, and, and work with your thoughts and processes in mind, God. On behalf of the people of Georgia, we ask that you'll be with us and give us wisdom, discernment, and moderation in this, uh, endeavor. In Jesus' name we pray, amen. [0:27:04] Amen. [0:27:05] All right, before we get to our first, uh, hearing, with the, uh, at the risk of, uh, verbal and possibly physical retaliation, I'd like for, uh, to, to recognize the First Lady of the 10th District, my wife, who's sitting in a corner over here. [0:27:26] It's gonna be a long ride home now, so. [0:27:32] So, and her name is Kim, so. [0:27:35] Thank you. [0:27:35] Welcome, Kim. Thank you. I'm gonna ask, uh, Representative Al Williams, if you would like to come on, we'll, we'll go ahead and, uh, let you present House Bill 1177, and I do believe we have a sub to that. So if you will, Representative, uh, give us the LC number on the sub. [0:27:53] Your Honor, I came to present this bill. [0:28:02] Proceed. [0:28:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'll be working from LC47-4107S. [0:28:13] When we presented this bill, there were a couple of suggestions made, and we've come up with a constit- with a substitute. The only change to the original bill that I discussed is that it's moving from 80% of the federal poverty level to 175%. That was per recommendation of Representative Monahan. [0:28:41] And that's it in a nutshell, and a peanut shell at that. [0:28:46] Okay, sir. Uh, we're gonna start, recognize Representative Sanchez. [0:28:51] Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify, it was, it was 80% area median income before, and now it's 175% poverty level, correct? [0:28:58] That is correct. [0:28:59] Okay. Great. Thank you. [0:29:00] All right. [0:29:02] Okay. Representative Oliver. [0:29:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Representative Williams. This is a bill that is brought forward to give more opportunities for more purchasers of more homes. We need more doors, and we need more opportunities totally within the discretion of local development authorities to decide whether or not they want to invest and uh, finance single-family homes. Uh, I think we all have a recognition that we need, uh, more options of housing, and particularly perhaps maybe more so in rural areas, this may be an opportunity for development authorities. [0:29:43] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us attention on this bill, which is part of a package of bills coming forward to produce more doors, more options. [0:29:52] Thank you. All right. R- Representative Mary Frances Williams. [0:29:57] Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the proper time, I'd like to offer a motion. [0:30:04] Okay, let's see. Nobody on this. Okay, we have no one signed up to, uh, speak to the bill, and there's, uh, no more committee questions, so now would be the proper time. So we have a motion to pass. [0:30:15] Second. [0:30:16] We have a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. [0:30:20] Aye. [0:30:21] Any opposed? Motion passes, bill moves forward, sir. [0:30:25] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:30:26] Thank you. [0:30:30] Oh, man. [0:30:35] Okay, now we're gonna let Chair Lady, uh, Leesa Hagan come up, and we'll present 1260, House Bill 1260. [0:30:49] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I have to follow that incredible, uh, Representative Williams and his perfect bill. [0:31:01] Uh, I have, uh, House Bill 1260. It is the same that, that we had as subcommittee, no changes. LC443449S. And, um, just as a reminder, in Georgia Code currently, local elected officials must take, newly elected officials must take, uh, some required training that is, uh, provided mainly by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government in cooperation with ACCG and, uh, the Municipal Association. [0:31:36] I've worked with all three of those entities to put some teeth into that section of our code. Currently, there's no penalty if, if, uh, one does not opt to take that training. So that is simply what we've done here, is add the penalty, um, that you see in sections one and two for counties, and three and four for municipalities, that, uh, they have a period of time where they can get their, get their training completed, and if they choose not to do that, then they would not receive, um, salary, compensation, or, um, reimbursement of it- of expenses until they do so. [0:32:22] Okay. [0:32:22] That's it. [0:32:22] Any questions on the part of the committee? Seeing none. We have no, uh, no speakers signed up for this bill. Do we have a, uh, a motion? What's the will of the committee? [0:32:33] Move to pass. [0:32:35] Move to pass. [0:32:35] Move to pass. Do we have a second? [0:32:36] Second. [0:32:38] Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say, "Aye." [0:32:42] Aye. [0:32:42] Any opposed? Motion carries. [0:32:44] Thank you. [0:32:44] Bill moves. Thank you. [0:32:45] Thank you very much. [0:32:48] All right. Next, we're gonna invite, uh, Chairman Jaspers to come up and present 1299, House Bill 1299. [0:33:11] Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the committee. I'm glad to be before you today on this fine afternoon. For many years, I was the vice chairman and then the chairman of the Rural Development Council. It was a great honor, and I enjoyed it a lot. One thing we always worked on were ideas and concepts that help rural communities and their hospitals. We had a lot of different bills, and I think many of them helped rural Georgia a lot. The bill before you today, House Bill 1299, comes from the Georgia Alliance of Community Hospitals. [0:33:44] House Bill 1299 would allow hospitals operating under the Georgia Hospital Authority Act to be able to create a joint venture with physicians who would like to partner with the hospitals to operate a group practice with the hospital. There are about 48 hospitals that operate under the Georgia Hospital Authorities Act. The only way to do a joint venture is to corporate, is through corporate restructuring, which is very expensive. Currently, that's the only way to do it. [0:34:14] This bill would allow them to do so without the legal, legal expense to restructure. This bill will allow rural hospitals another opportunity to pick up income and provide first-class medical care in their s- community. I will say, the first time I looked at it, I had a little confusion of what it did, but it's a very simple ho- little bill. It will allow those 48 hospitals to work together with physicians in their community, and I appreciate the opportunity to let you, you to allow them to do so. There was a question someone asked me a moment ago, what the, um, Hospital Authority Act was. [0:34:49] This is an act that allows cities and counties to create public nonprofit entities to operate hospitals and healthcare in their areas. That's my bill, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to answer any questions. [0:35:00] Okay. Uh, any questions on the part of the committee? [0:35:06] All right. Seeing none, uh, 1299, we have no one signed up to speak to the bill, so, uh... Oh, we got a, got a taker. Representative Olaleye. [0:35:17] Thank you, Chairman. Uh, if it's the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion to pass. [0:35:22] Okay. We have a motion do pass. Do we have a second? [0:35:25] Second it. [0:35:25] All right. We have a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say, "Aye." [0:35:30] Aye. [0:35:31] Any opposed? Motion carries, bill passes. [0:35:34] Thank you. [0:35:34] Thank you so much. [0:35:39] Okay. We're gonna, gonna move down the agenda just a little bit right now. We're gonna take up, uh, House Bill 1447. Uh, Chair Lady Beth Camp, if you'd like to come present your bill. [0:36:19] You may proceed. [0:36:20] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Today, I bring to you House Bill 1447. I'm looking at LC620437. This bill simply says that, um, every 10 years, any taxing body, whether it be a county, city, or school board, um, has to look to see if there are ways to improve the administrative cost, um, and other things that involve the taxing. What it costs the, the consumer, what it costs the taxpayer, to see if there is some way that they possibly could reduce up to 5% of their administrative cost. [0:36:59] And, um, in the event they don't do this once every 10 years, so this is just once a decade, then, um, ultimately they could lose grants through the Department of Community Affairs for failing to do so once every 10 years. [0:37:17] Okay. Do we have any questions on the part of the committee? See, oh, we do have one here. Uh, Representative Sanchez. [0:37:25] Thank you, Chair. Thank you for this, uh, legislation. Just a quick question. When you talk about the evaluation of current administrative costs and employee headcount, does that include all personnel of a local school system or just the taxation administration? [0:37:38] Well, um, my understanding is the taxation body for the school board, for example, I mean, all employees are privy to the taxation body. Um, and furthermore, I mean, 99 counties in our state actually have a shrinking population- [0:37:52] Mm-hmm [0:37:52] ... versus a birth rate. So there are some counties or some cities and some school districts it's gonna impact more over time. Um, you know, or maybe not. We're gonna have to just look and see. Uh, I would love for rural Georgia to have a great resurgence in those 99 counties, get back some of the population, so you wonderful folks that live in Metro Atlanta wouldn't have your traffic situation. Um, but y- y- m- balancing it out, sometimes it doesn't make a lot of sense for a county of 15,000 people to have five cities- [0:38:24] Mm [0:38:24] ... that operate. So looking at that and making sure we're doing what's right for the taxpayer, I think, is where this bill comes from. [0:38:31] Got it. And so you said every 10 years, so the first review would be in 2037? [0:38:36] That would be correct. [0:38:37] Okay. Thank you. [0:38:39] Okay. Chairman LaHood. [0:38:41] Thanks, Chairman. Uh, [0:38:45] on line, uh, 13 it says the local, a local taxing body shall conduct a comprehensive review. Will they be reviewing them- themselves or will the, are you- [0:38:54] Nope [0:38:54] ... would you, are you asking for a third party to do the review? [0:38:56] No, they'll be reviewing themselves. And so, um, they need to assess the current, um, if you look on 16, current administrative cost, employee head count, and technology usage compared to other similar sized jurisdictions in the state. Um, and then number two, have an evaluation whether consolidating any specific operations with neighboring or overlapping school, I'm sorry, local taxing bodies would result in a reduction of at least 5%. And then third, to determine whether, um, to initiate a formal consolidation feasibility study. [0:39:27] So they're reviewing that themselves, but they have to turn this in and submit it to the Department of Community Affairs, so they'll be overseeing. [0:39:36] And so is your intent for all, uh, 500 plus cities and counties to review themselves every 10 years? [0:39:44] Yes. [0:39:44] Okay. [0:39:44] And 180 school districts, yes. [0:39:46] Gotcha. All right. How'd you pick 10 years? [0:39:50] Well, 10 years is how often we do a census. Um, 10 years is just kind of a, a benchmark. I mean, that's, there are other states that are successfully doing this and, and quite honestly, this is where this information came from. [0:40:03] Okay. I like the concept. Um, curious, have you coordinated any of this with GMA and ACCG or are they in support of this? [0:40:13] Um, I have heard that they are still getting feedback. Um, ACCG is still getting feedback. I have not been specifically approached by GMA or the School Board Association. [0:40:23] Thank you. [0:40:24] Thank you. [0:40:28] Thank you. Uh, Representative Mary Frances Williams. [0:40:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I also like this bill. My only, actually, my question is very similar to Chairman LaHood's. Um, did you consider, um, having these reviews done by an independent source? Um, because I, that's my only, that's the only thing that catches my eye, that they're reviewing themselves. And, um, it, it looks like, I'm looking, I'm looking on page two at, um, well lines 21 through 27, and it, it looks like a report is done kind... [0:41:07] I'm trying to figure this out. So a, a report is done by Community Affairs or- [0:41:12] Well- [0:41:13] ... or the local taxing body? I mean- [0:41:15] Well, the local taxing body, I'm so sorry, but the local taxing body, what taxation body would be putting this together. And again, they're having to look at the similar sized jurisdiction. So if it's a school district that has 3,000 children, for example, then what are other school districts with 3,000 children, what are their cost? And so that's, that's kind of, they'll have to determine that. Um, I guess DCA will be the one looking most closely at it. Um, but they'll have to do the review themselves. We don't have a third party, but that certainly could be added. [0:41:47] I'm just not sure who it would be. [0:41:48] Yeah. So, well, and then you say the local taxing body. So, so in Cobb County, that, does that mean that the Cobb County Board of Commissioners would, would make this available? And I'm just- [0:42:01] Yeah [0:42:01] ... I'm trying to figure out, um, I'm trying to figure out where the authority is. [0:42:06] Well, the taxation body, w- the Constitution of State of Georgia or through code, we've given the taxation bodies, which are schools, school dist- I mean, sorry, school districts, counties, and cities. Um, those are the taxation bodies. [0:42:19] Mm-hmm. [0:42:19] So they would be doing it themselves. It wouldn't be up to the county commissioners to look at the schools or the cities. It would be up for each to do their own review, and that review would be sent to the Department of Community Affairs. [0:42:32] I like your bill very much. I think some systems are more transparent than others with their expenses, and that is my only concern, that, um, that they're gonna do their own review. And, um, I don't, I don't, I don't necessarily have a rec- I wish there was a way to have a, a third party review, um, for some of those systems that are less transparent. Um, but, um, I don't have a specific recommendation, but, but I do like the bill very much. Thank you. [0:43:02] Thank you. [0:43:02] Okay, I see no other questions. We do have, uh, one person signed up to speak to the bill, Mr. Noah Renets with, uh, GMA. If you will come to the podium, introduce yourself. [0:43:14] Thank you, Chairman Anderson, members of the committee. My name is Neil Reyes with the Georgia Municipal Association. Representative Camp, thank you for being here presenting the bill today. We were able to have a very brief conversation, and I think in the middle of last week, regarding this legislation as it potentially related to service delivery strategy negotiations. Um, when we talked about kind of the 10 years, a question was offered in committee about why 10 years. Well, 10 years stands out to us at the local government level because it's the timeline under which cities and counties across the state of Georgia have to go through negotiations about services that are provided, um, to ensure that there are no duplications of services, to ensure that revenues that we are generating at the local level are being distributed in a fair and equitable manner to provide those services. [0:43:52] When I first read this bill, I thought this would be something that could potentially be a p- a part of that process itself and would make a lot of sense. I think hearing what we've talked about a little bit in tod- a, a little bit about today in committee is that there would be some concerns that we could potentially augment the language, that these reviews are being conducted in silos, right? Every lo- entity of local government, the cities and the counties, are asking to do an assessment of their own administrative costs or headcounts or technology uses. And then a further evaluation about whether consolidating with any specific operations with neighboring jurisdictions, right? [0:44:27] So is every single city expected to look at every single neighboring city within its county and even external to its county to see if there's the potential for overlap or provision of duplication of services? I'm not sure. I think there could be a little bit of clarity that we could seek there. Um, tying this to service delivery strategy negotiations makes sense, but, and, and Chairman LaHood is here today. Um, he is well aware of the work that we've done over the past two years to really fundamentally rewrite a lot of SDS law. Um, two years ago, we had House Bill 513, which was the first major overhaul to SDS law in multitude of years, and we had follow-on legislation. [0:45:05] What does SDS stand for? [0:45:06] Service delivery strategy. Um, service delivery strategy negotiations. So tying this into that may be a little bit of a precluding factor because us and ACCG, we tightly negotiated what that bill would look like and what those powers would look like, but that may be a better place for this. Um, I'm not speaking here today in support or against this legislation. Maybe just speaking to some potential amendments should the bill move forward and conversations we're happy to continue to have. So thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you, Chairman. [0:45:31] And I apologize. I had completely forgotten he spoke to me as I was leaving a committee meeting. [0:45:37] No problem. Thank you. [0:45:39] Thank you. [0:45:39] All right, no questions. All right, that's everyone who signed up to speak to the bill. Uh, we've, uh, been through the committee questions. What's the will of the committee? [0:45:47] Move to pass. [0:45:49] We have a motion to pass. Do we have a second? [0:45:50] Second. [0:45:51] Okay, we have a second. We're in discussion. We'll recognize Chairman Thomas. [0:45:56] At, at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I, I'd like to offer a small amendment to the committee. [0:46:01] This is the appropriate time. [0:46:03] Um, I'd like to add one more, um, between lines 17 and 18. I'd like to add, uh, an evaluation of a utilities bond structure. Um, if I did that, that would also require me to change the number two to the number three on line 18 and the line, um, or the number three to the number four on line 21. [0:46:29] Okay, uh, so the motion to amend is to add a new, uh, line two between 17 and 18. And how, how is that to be worded exactly? [0:46:47] Okay. An evaluation of a utilities bond structure- [0:46:53] Okay [0:46:54] ... would be exa- the exact words that would be used. [0:46:55] Okay, so we're adding a new line two, uh, which will state an evaluation of a utilities bond structure, and then renumbering two and three to three and four. [0:47:09] And for those that, that don't, might not know, that's the type of revenue bond, uh, that's used to finance public infrastructure projects. And, uh, the, in this case, they would look at, like, refinancing bonds possibility, ways of saving some, some money. And so that, that's the reason why I'm asking for the amendment. [0:47:26] Okay, we have a motion on the amendment. Do we have a second? [0:47:31] Nobody seconded me. [0:47:33] Second. [0:47:33] Okay, we have a second on the amendment. Do we have any discussion on the proposed amendment? [0:47:40] I, I see no, no lights discussing the amendment. What's the will of the committee? All in favor of the, uh, amendment, say aye. [0:47:51] Aye. [0:47:52] Aye. [0:47:52] Any opposed? No opposition, so now we're back to the underlying bill as amended. Uh, no further discussion showing on the screen. What's the will of the committee? All in favor, say aye. [0:48:04] Aye. [0:48:04] Aye. [0:48:04] Any opposed? Motion carries, bill passes. Thank you. [0:48:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. [0:48:14] Okay, now we're gonna move on, and we're gonna ask, uh, uh, Representative Scoggins to come up and present, uh, House Bill 1384. [0:48:26] And guest. [0:48:27] New guest. [0:48:28] Just, uh, if you don't mind, when you get to the table, introduce yourself and proceed when you're ready, sir. [0:48:38] Members of the commi- committee, my name's Keenan Rogers. I'm with ACCG here. We're in full support of this bill. I just wanted to thank Representative Scoggins for bringing it, as it's a, uh, it's a, one of our members' top three legislative priorities this year. So I will let him start, but thank you for having me today. [0:48:54] Okay, thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. Uh, this is House Bill 1384. Uh, we do have a sub. Uh, hope everybody got a copy of it. It's LC560637S. [0:49:14] Okay, you good? Okay. Um, this is about, uh, ladies and gentlemen, this is about franchise fees. I don't know if y- I brought a copy of my power bill from my, uh, electrical service provider, which happens to be Georgia Power. But if you look on your bill, it has municipal franchise fees on your bill. Everybody gets that, or most everybody gets that. No matter who your, uh, service provider is, it could be an EMC, it could be Georgia Power, any others. Um, s- several of the towns have MEAG corporations, which they, they don't send out a franchise fee. [0:49:50] But this is a franchise fee that's, the amount is pretty much set by the PSC, which is set at 4%. And that means that the city people who live inside the city, no matter who their provider is, gets a fee of 3%. The people who live outside the city in the rural areas like I do, they get a 1% surcharge or franchise fees. So after this was brought to my attention by my county commissioner, I got to looking at it and trying to figure out how it went and why I was getting a municipal franchise fee on my utility bill. [0:50:30] And the reason is that they started doing that from what I can understand back in an agreement, uh, in 1962. Uh, so this is a pretty old law, uh, that has been in, uh, in place for a good while. And, and the thing is, is that I live, in my, uh, place of dwelling, I live 17 miles from the city. Uh, I get no city gas. I doesn't get city water. I don't have streetlights. [0:51:01] They don't pick up my trash. Any of that. So I don't get anything from the municipality, but yet my 1% of my franchise fee goes to the cities in my county. And I just couldn't and had at... haven't had anybody explain to me what benefit I get out of that by that 1%, me being a rural county person, uh, gets on my utility bill, what, what benefit I get out of that, and nobody has been able to explain that to me yet. [0:51:31] Uh, so this is a short bill. It's pretty complexed in nature because a lot of the cities have contracts with whoever their service provider may be. Uh, you're probably gonna heal, uh, hear from municipalities that they use that money to mow the right of ways and keep up the poles and all of that inside the city limits of, of whatever town that may be. But if you think about it, the cities don't go out and help mow the right of ways in the county where the poles are coming from the power plants or other places that go into the city. [0:52:05] They just concentrate anything that's done inside municipality. So this bill is basically giving the county 1%, which is 25% of the 4% that they're allowed to do under the Public Service Commission. And, uh, that's pretty much what the bill does and... [0:52:24] Yes. Thank you, Representative. I wanna highlight kind of what he said. Um, our members' main concern is the disparity surrounding this. Like he said, that 1% does not go toward, back towards the counties. It's local dollars with no local benefit. Kind of one example of that is, uh, the city of Gainesville currently maintains about 160 miles of roadway, yet they receive about $5.1 million in franchise fees. Um, Hall County maintains 1,050 miles of roadway and receives $0 in franchise fees. So we're just looking to align, uh, revenue with responsibility here, especially with a lot of large load customers coming on. [0:53:01] That's going to affect our unincorporated areas as that industry grows and the utilities are built out on that. We just want our piece of the pie. [0:53:10] Okay, we got a couple questions here. [0:53:12] Questions. Yes. [0:53:12] Representative Sanchez. [0:53:15] Thank you, Chair. Thank you for this legislation. Um, so quick question. Does this apply to, um, municipalities that have public utilities as well, or is it just ones that don't? [0:53:25] You're talking about that have municipal electrical? No, they don't. If they had a franchise fee, they would basically be charging themselves. [0:53:32] Got it. [0:53:33] Okay. [0:53:33] Makes sense. Just making sure. [0:53:34] Okay. [0:53:34] Uh, thank you. And then I'm assuming, so lines 30 to 35 are in a new sub. I'm assuming that was to... Does this apply-- What counties does this apply to, the 75% incorporated area? [0:53:45] That would be the, the larger metro counties- [0:53:48] Right [0:53:48] ... that, that have, uh, at least 75% of their municipalities that cover the whole county, so that wouldn't apply to them. [0:53:55] Got it. Yeah. That, that was one of the questions I had on the original bill, so I'm glad the sub has this. So thank you for this. [0:54:00] Okay. [0:54:00] This is a good bill. Thank you. [0:54:01] Okay. [0:54:02] Okay. Thank you. Uh, Chairman Thomas. [0:54:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I, I just... On lines 32, 33, um, uh, I wanna make sure I'm reading this right. I actually do have a munici- a mun- a municipality that falls between Cherokee County and Fulton County, and from my understanding, with anyone that lives in that area would not be subject to this, um, exchange on the 1%, correct? [0:54:30] Well, that, that- [0:54:30] I mean, that's, that's... I, I just wanna make sure 'cause I like my Cherokee money staying in Cherokee County. [0:54:34] I, I do too. Thank you very much. Um, no, it would not apply. [0:54:39] Okay. Thank you. [0:54:39] And, and in no way, form, or fashion does this raise a utility bill. The franchise fee amounts would not change. The only thing we're asking is how we divide the pie. The county should get their 1%. I'm okay with the city getting their 3. [0:54:56] Okay. [0:54:57] Thank you. Uh, Representative Oliver. [0:55:01] Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but do we have a dollar calculation as to how much money this is gonna shift from the cities to the counties? [0:55:11] It, it varies on the size of the cities that, uh, um, how much electricity they use. [0:55:16] Mm-hmm. [0:55:17] So it varies. There's not a dollar amount. [0:55:19] Y'all haven't done an, uh... Georgia Municipal Association hasn't said this is gonna cost me X billion dollars or? [0:55:25] I haven't heard from anybody about that. [0:55:28] There's a, there's a transfer of money here from- [0:55:30] It is [0:55:31] ... and I'm just trying to figure out who benefits the most. [0:55:34] It's, it's hard to put the amount on there because it changes monthly based on the usage. So there's n- no way. I mean, you could look at previous years to see how much was, uh, paid to the municipalities. But the thing we're, we're not wanting to take away from the city, but we're wanting the county, uh, residents to get the benefit from their franchise fee being on their utility bill, and it stay in the county and not go to the city. [0:56:01] We've talked about this a lot over various years in various contexts. [0:56:04] Heard a lot of stuff about it. [0:56:05] Yeah. This may be a good move. I'm just curious, where do the dollars go? How much and where? [0:56:10] It would change year to year. [0:56:14] Thank you. [0:56:15] Okay. Thank you. No other questions showing on the board. Uh, we do have one speaker signed up to speak to the bill, uh, Mr. Jim Thornton with GMA. If you'll just come forward to the podium and introduce yourself and proceed, sir. [0:56:31] Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Jim Thornton with, uh, the Georgia Municipal Association. Um, I appreciate, uh, Chairman Scoggins' concern over this issue and was glad to actually spend some time with him in his office last week talking about this bill. Um, I'm sure it will not surprise you, uh, to know that GMA is opposed to this bill. Um, franchise fees are, are basically rent for the use of city-owned streets and right of way. Cities own, control, and maintain those streets and those right of way, and utility companies, uh, use that right of way to, to hang power lines, poles, et cetera, to generate revenue. [0:57:09] Um, in exchange for that, uh, use of the right of way, uh, the, the p- utility companies, not just power companies, but utility companies generally, pay a, uh, a rental charge, a franchise fee for the use of that right of way. Um, that could be negotiated in a number of different ways, but the way that, um, over the, as Chairman Scoggins mentioned, over the course of, of the last few decades, uh, the cities and the electric companies, so this includes Georgia Power Company as well as all 41 EMCs, they have, um, in working with the Public Service Commission, which regulates the rates for Georgia Power Company, um, they have agreed upon, rather than doing some type of per pole or per, you know, foot rental, to just say 4% of the sales as an approximation of, of that, of that rent. [0:57:58] I think it's, I think it's important to know that how a utility company chooses to recover that cost from their customers, from their ratepayers, is their decision. The cities don't dictate that. And in the case of Georgia Power Company, which was referenced, their r- cost recovery is regulated by the Public Service Commission and reviewed, um, on an annual or, or biannual basis. This bill would redirect a portion of that locally negotiated revenue to counties that do not own that right of way, do not, did not negotiate the agreements, are not responsible for maintaining that property. [0:58:39] So the result is basically a windfall to the counties from the use of city-owned right of way. And, and I think there are coup- two points I wanna make, and, and I'll, I'll be glad to answer questions and go into some more detail as well. But I think it's critical to know that this is not a simple bill. The, this is an incredibly complex bill that affects about $250 million of annual m- revenue to the question on a statewide basis. Now, with the carve-out that has been placed in the sub of 75% municipalized county, we believe that only applies to Fulton County. [0:59:16] There are no other counties that we're aware of that the land area is 75% municipalized. And so that would basically carve out the ci- the Fulton and the cities of Fulton, but it would apply to everybody else. So it would apply in Decatur, Woodstock, Marietta. It would apply across the, across the s- the, uh, the state. And the impact is significant. Even carving out the 15 cities in Fulton County, we think you're probably approximating $200 million that's left. Um, but, but the other point I wanna emphasize is we're talking about two totally different transactions here. [0:59:53] We're talking about the fact that the city has negotiated for a franchise fee for the use of that particular city's right of way, and they only receive 4% based on the sales that occur in that city. So the City of Decatur only gets 4% franchise fee from the sales that occur in the City of Decatur. The City of Marietta only gets 4% from the s- sales that occur in the City of Marietta. That's the negotiation that's taken place between Georgia Power, the 41 EMCs, and the various cities. [1:00:25] It's compensation to the public for the use of public right of way. But then once that transaction occurs, there's a totally separate transaction where the EMC boards, there's 41 of them, and Georgia Power Company, in negotiation with Public Service Commission, decides how they want to recover that cost from their ratepayers. My understanding is that many EMCs do not recover that cost from all of their ratepayers, but they simply say, "If you're in the city of, if you're in the city of Woodstock, and you're an EM- a Cobb EMC customer, then you pay on your bill the 4%," and that's the, a direct transfer. [1:01:04] Georgia Power Company, back in the day, and you, you would have to ask them to explain the history of all of this, but back in the day, Georgia Power Company di- they socialized the entire municipal franchise fee across all of their ratepayers. So it didn't matter if you were in the city or in the unincorporated area, you all paid the same share. They treated it just like if you're paying property tax to Bartow County and you pay property tax and sales tax to Bartow County on the plant they have in Bartow, that, that cost is paid by residents of Cherokee and Floyd and everybody else because they take that as a cost of doing business. [1:01:43] If Georgia Power Company rents a building in Downtown Atlanta, they, they take that cost even though it's in Atlanta, but they take it across their entire rate base. That's what they used to do with municipal franchise fees. But beginning in 2007, they decided, "Actually, we want to split it, and we want to have some of that cost recovered from our municipal ratepayers and some from our unincorporated ratepayers." And on an annual basis, they negotiate that with Public Service Commission. It right now is I think about 1.18% is charged to unincorporated and 3.07% is charged to municipal residents. [1:02:24] Now, that is not something that any city in Georgia has any control or authority over. That is something that Georgia Power does in consultation with the Public Service Commission on how they're going to cost recover for that cost of doing business, the municipal franchise. That is a totally separate transaction. But to the, to the point that was made about Hall County, if a, if a large, if a large manufacturer locates in unincorporated Hall County, Gainesville, Georgia does not receive one penny more from that, from that project locating in unincorporated Hall County. [1:03:03] If that unincorpor- if that project located in the City of Gainesville, then the 4% franchise fee would apply, and that's what Gainesville would receive. So Gainesville and Hall County or any other example you might pick have no control over how Georgia Power then recovers that cost. If, if that's a large load customer, for example, then Georgia Power and the EMC prob- Is that Jackson EMC or I'm not sure who covers that here, but the EMC and Georgia Power, they could compete for that load. [1:03:35] Well, guess what? Georgia Power Company has chosen to split the recovery between municipal and unincorporated customers. Jackson EMC hasn't. So Jackson EMC's rate is completely determined by that, by, by who, by whether it's in the county or in, or in the unincorporated area. So I, I think, I think we need to understand this is significant revenue. This is significant revenue to 400 and something cities across the state, even if you carve out Fulton. [1:04:06] It's compensation to that city for the use of their right of way. I understand that ACCG and the counties want to be compensated for the use of the right of way in the counties. That is a totally separate discussion because if they wanted to impose a franchise fee in the unincorporated area, that's something the legislature could authorize them to do. Historically speaking, when power companies started hanging up poles and running power lines, they didn't wanna buy right of way in the cities. They wanted to use the existing right of way. [1:04:38] That made sense. They agreed to pay the public for the rental use of that right of way. That is, that is, uh, the historical an- um, analogy. We have worked, we've talked with ACCG, we've talked with the counties. If they wanted to bring a bill that would allow, uh, them to impose a franchise fee, my guess is it's possible that Georgia Power Company might, if they agreed to pay Bartow County a franchise fee for customers in Bartow County, Georgia Power might very well want some of the municipal ratepayers to recover that cost as well. [1:05:09] I, I, I'm, that's, that's a discussion between Georgia Power and the Public Service Commission. That's not something that GMA or the Georgia cities have any control over. So we, we just think you should recognize that cities are exercising their lawful authority to control their right of way. Not only do they have to mow the grass and all of that that was, that was referenced, but they're also liable for the u- for that right of way. If an accident occurs on city-owned right of way, the cities are potentially responsible for the, for the, uh, for the damages. [1:05:44] I know some of y'all have heard about the litigation in the Milton case. Um, Georgia Power Company and Georgia EMCs both filed briefs in support of the City of Milton because they're concerned that, they're concerned that if liability becomes a big factor for cities, they might, they might go up on that charge, or they might try to renegotiate, or they might try to have some other, uh, some other response because ultimately cities are responsible for that l- for the liability for that right of way. But this, this fee that I wanna go back to, my, my final point is this fee only applies and cities only receive money for the customers that are located in the city. [1:06:23] The City of Cartersville has no authority to collect any revenue outside the city limits of Cartersville. They collect 4% for the sales that occur inside Cartersville. They do not apply a franchise fee to anything outside of Cartersville. But then Georgia Power Company has chosen to split it, saying that, "Part of this is related to Cartersville. Part of it is to the fact that we, Georgia Power, and all of our customers benefit from being able to cross power lines through the City of Cartersville." Um, and, and this is, this is revenue that would be redirected without any, uh, without any comparable re- uh, response from the county of, of what are they going to do, um, uh, to, to, to justify that. [1:07:08] If they wanna talk about county, uh, franchise fees, that's a different discussion, but this is a straightforward matter of cities managing their public right of way and r- and how the cost recovery is done I think is a different discussion for a different day. With that, I know I said a lot. I tried to get through it quickly 'cause I know you're, I know you're, uh, limited on time, but, um, certainly be glad to answer any questions from the committee. [1:07:30] Okay. We do have a few questions, uh, Mr. Thornton. Uh, Chairman Thomas. [1:07:33] Th- th- thank you. Um- I, I do, I do have, I, I've been very confused about these, um... You're, you're saying that a franchise fee is basically to pay rent for... But, so, okay. And it, that- [1:07:47] Mm-hmm [1:07:47] ... that you had nodding, so I'm gonna take that as a yes. [1:07:49] Yes, that's correct. [1:07:50] But the cities don't own that land. The, the people that live in the city owns that land. They're the taxpayer. The taxpayer holds that, that owns that property. But what I find weird, and this is where I kind of get stuck in this circle, is the, the EM- We'll, we'll say the, the, the power provider has to pay rent to the city to pay the taxpayer, but then the, they, that taxpayer then through a pass-through has to pay as the ratepayer, then turns right back around and, and are paying themselves. [1:08:26] I, I'm just, I- [1:08:27] So- [1:08:28] It just seems like kind of a, a really convoluted way to raise taxes without just putting it on a millage rate. And that's been kind of my heartburn about this whole thing anyway, but am I wrong? [1:08:38] I, I, I apprec- I appreciate the question, and I think you're, you're absolutely right in the sense that the franchise fee is actual revenue that comes to the cities, and it, if it wasn't there, it would be supp- it would have to be supplemented by property tax. There's prob- You know, that's the, that's the alternative. The distinction is do you want the, do you want the cost for maintaining and the liability and all of that and the ownership of the right of way to be apportioned on an ad valorem value, or do you want it to be apportioned on a valuation of the actual use, right? [1:09:09] The actual electric use. And this comes into play particularly, I know several references were made to, uh, to, to, you know, to, to MEAG cities and so forth. Even inside MEAG cities, franchise fees are paid because they're paid if the customer is a Georgia Power or an EMC customer. And a lot of times those are large industrial loads, and so those large industrial customers are, are paying their 4% of that franchise fee. So it's not just the residents. Those, those large industries are paying as well on the franchise fee, and that actually inures to the benefit of the residents because the residents of the, of the, uh, community are having their property tax value lowered essentially because of the offset of the franchise fee revenue. [1:09:52] If that... Uh, it, I realize, I realize- [1:09:54] That's, here's what, here's what I'd say [1:09:55] ... it's complicated. Yeah. [1:09:55] I don't think we're gonna solve this today, but I'd love to talk to you about it a little bit more offline if- [1:09:59] So, so, so Mr. Chairman, to that point, I mean, last year the Senate actually appoint- uh, the Senate, uh, passed a resolution for a study committee to look at franchise fees. It was one of six or eight, uh, study committees the Senate created. They did not staff it. I'm not sure exactly why. But, but certainly- [1:10:17] Oh, I guess [1:10:17] ... I, I think this is, I think this is a, an incredibly complicated discussion. I think I was, uh... I think I've probably seen five or six different iterations of franchise fee, uh, draft bills over the last six months. I recognize that the counties have a, have a right or, uh, to receive compensation for the use of their right of way, but, but that's not what this bill does. What this bill does is give them 25% of the, the rent that cities have negotiated with Georgia Power and with all 41 EMCs. [1:10:52] And, and I think that's important to note because this bill does not distinguish there. So the 3%, 1% distinction that was made, that only applies to Georgia Power Company. The EMCs, because their rates are not regulated by the Public Service Commission, they can recover or not recover the costs in their board's discretion. In fact, I was talking to, uh, one of the EMCs, and their board used to do very similar to what Georgia Power does and spread the cost across their entire rate base, but a few years ago decided that they would just apply it only to the municipal. [1:11:28] That, that is a, that is a different conversation- [1:11:31] Well, the- [1:11:31] ... than what this bill does. [1:11:32] And for the, the sake of time, I, like I said, I'd like to talk about that with you maybe a little bit after session- [1:11:37] Certainly [1:11:38] ... or what. But, and this is the House committee, so we'll make sure we get something done. Okay. [1:11:43] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:11:43] Yeah. [1:11:46] Okay. Thank you. Uh, Representative Sanchez. [1:11:50] Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And I understand where you're coming from, where it comes. It's not necessarily the city's fault that unincorporated residents are being charged for this. However, um, they are still being charged, and so I, I do un- I do feel like there has to be some s- something to help remedy that. I'm not sure, um... [1:12:09] To me, it ma- it makes more sen- This is, the, the 25%, if, to me feels like it's coming from the fact that they pay 1% and the others pay 3%. If, um, but I understand that there's certain EMC- you're saying that there's certain EMCs that do not charge unincorporated folks anything, correct? [1:12:23] That's, that's correct. [1:12:25] Okay. [1:12:25] That's correct. And that, that one in three split is something that has been negotiated between Georgia Power Company and the Public Service Commission. And, and, you know, so, so, so I, I understand, I understand where you're coming from in terms of, yes, that they are treating it not as a municipal tax or a municipal fee. Georgia Power is treating it as just another cost of doing business, like buying bucket trucks or like buying, you know, renting buildings or buying coal. [1:12:53] Right. [1:12:53] They're, they're treating it as a cost of doing business, but that's something on, that's something they're doing. That's not something that Marietta or Smyrna- [1:13:00] Right [1:13:00] ... or anyone else has done. [1:13:01] Yeah. As usual- [1:13:02] Yeah [1:13:02] ... Georgia Power ends up being the bad guys in this situation. But regardless, um, I do wonder if it might be better to do something around, like if they are being charged, then they would be re- you know, remitted. But I don't, I don't know if that's something that we can do in this time, but thank you for your presentation. [1:13:18] Sure. [1:13:20] Okay. Uh, Representative Olaleye. [1:13:25] Thank you, Chairman. Jim, uh, thank you for your remarks. I, I'm trying to, on one hand, I, I can understand the sentiment of not wanting unincorporated residents to have to pay that fee. I, I keep circling back to the question that Rep Oliver asked, uh- feels like 30 minutes ago. Um, I- I'm trying to- [1:13:45] Did I get that wrong? I'm sorry [1:13:47] ... I'm trying to wrap my hands around the, the, the, the size and the scale of that remittance transfer. Um, you know, I've, I have some numbers for the City of Atlanta, um, which would lose roughly $13, $14 million. Um, how you fill that hole, either through an increase in fees or an increase in property taxes, I don't know. But across the board statewide, do you have a rough estimate of- [1:14:14] So- [1:14:14] ... what that transfer would be? [1:14:15] So the, the number, the number that I have is from 2024, so it's dated. But the, but the number I have from 2024 is a total statewide impact of, of $257 million. Now, Atlanta is the largest, by far, component of that. Um, but, but just some examples, Marietta receives 4.4 million in franchise fee. Marietta, of course, is a MEAG city, but they also have Cobb EMC and Georgia Power customers inside Marietta. [1:14:49] Um, Valdosta receives 3.5 million. Uh, Brookhaven and Dunwoody are both around 3.2. Pooler receives $2 million. Um, Suwanee, 1.6. I mean, I, I've, I've got the numbers here, um, that, that... A- and, and what we don't have, we'd have to drill down deeper, is we don't have how much of that is coming from Georgia Power customers and how much is coming from EMC customers, and that distinction matters. But EMCs, the 41 EMCs actually have more customers, I believe, than Georgia Power on a, like, a per, per-residence sort of basis. [1:15:26] But a lot of their customers are in unincorporated areas. But they do have very much, uh, customers in cities as well, particularly in some of the newly created cities, the, that are primarily formerly EMC customers. So that's, it's a big number statewide, and I, I feel like that this is, um, this is an incredibly, uh, incredibly, uh, blunt way to solve what may be, what may be an issue worth talking about. But talking about it by just a simple- [1:15:57] It's, it's, we definitely gotta talk about it [1:15:58] ... a simple transfer. A simple transfer is not the, uh, solution. [1:16:01] We definitely gotta talk about it. The, the mandated transfer is where I'm getting, uh, where my kind of antenna is, like, p- perk up, uh, because I do live in the city of Atlanta, and giving that impact to the city and city services, it's something that I've gotta pay attention to. But I appreciate it. Thank you. [1:16:19] Okay. Thank you. We do have one more speaker. I'm just gonna, just, just for the benefit, uh, because there are a lot of questions regarding this bill, we're gonna do this hearing only today. We will have a couple of more meetings, uh, this week, uh, if needed. So, uh, if we can, if we can work out some things. [1:16:34] Can I respond to- [1:16:35] Uh- [1:16:36] ... to him? [1:16:37] Y- y- let's... Chair- Chairman Sainz, what, what was your question for, for- [1:16:42] Really to both the cities and the county, but I can hold for the author, of course, whatever your desire is, Mr. Chairman. [1:16:46] Okay. [1:16:47] Okay. [1:16:47] Thank you. [1:16:47] Yes, go ahead. [1:16:49] Okay. Um, you know, as, as our friends over in GMA stated that, uh, the cities do own their own right of ways in their, in their cities and towns, and, uh, but the county owns their right of ways, too. If you ride up the road, the power poles and the, and the power lines don't stop outside the City of Cartersville. They stop when they get to the county line, as far as I'm concerned, because of the fact that the county taxpayers, and he has yet to explain to me what benefit that my little franchise fee that I get on my power bill every month benefits me. [1:17:28] Nothing benefits me from that, not one thing. And I agree that, that, you know, there was a study committee that was supposed to be formed over in the Senate last year that didn't get manned up. So, um, I understand that. But the franchise fees were a way for the service providers to get around having to get a business license every year. That's what they were originally done for. But these, uh, service providers, they do business out in the counties just like they do the cities. [1:18:00] That's the thing that's not fair about the whole thing. The whole thing's not fair because county residents, everybody in my county, and we're all Georgia Power people in my county, we get that franchise fee on our power bills, but it all is divided up among the cities in Bartow County, and that's what's not fair about it. Okay. [1:18:22] Okay. Thank you. Uh, Chairman Sainz, did you... Yeah. [1:18:26] I'll be- [1:18:26] I recognize you. Yes. [1:18:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, it's been a long day, but it's an interesting, uh, circle. Uh, just to clarify, uh, the, the county's positions, uh, position with a, a different bill related to revenue sharing of, uh, trooper, uh, tickets is that revenue should stay as it currently is in place, primarily because that's how we've been doing it. I don't know if that, the author might not be aware of that, but ACCG might. Is that ac- an accurate depiction? [1:18:56] I, I don't know. [1:18:57] I know we had another one of our members speak on that this, this morning. That's not my policy area. I definitely don't wanna put words in their mouth, but we just know that we like our piece of the pie in our pockets. [1:19:08] Thanks. [1:19:11] Everybody wants their piece of the pie. All right. Thank you very much. [1:19:15] Appreciate it. [1:19:15] Well, I, I would encourage a little off, off, uh- [1:19:17] Did you have one more speaker, you said? [1:19:19] Uh, no, no. That was, that was everybody on the bill. [1:19:21] Thanks. [1:19:21] That was it. Yes. Thank you. [1:19:22] Appreciate the committee meeting. [1:19:24] All right. Now we're gonna move on to, uh, House Bill 1386. We're gonna invite, uh, Representative Dawson to come to the table. [1:19:42] Yes. [1:19:45] Representative, you may proceed when you're ready, sir. [1:19:51] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [1:19:55] Uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, colleagues, thank you for having me here today. Um, you all should have a handout with letters of support and also with a map infographic that explains the simple mission, the simple mission of this legislation. We are, we're here to talk about a fundamental pragmatic principle that everyone in this room understands. That's local control. [1:20:25] Last year, I sat in this very building, and I co-sponsored a bill with our speaker pro tem Jan Jones. We gave the northern cities in Fulton County a simple, powerful tool. We said, "If you want to be the primary architect of the development in your own backyard, you can." Today, this bill, HB1386, is being heard to finish the job we started last year. [1:20:57] Speak- speaker pro tem Jones is back as a co-sponsor because she knows, and I know, that's what, that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. [1:21:12] We have 15 cities in Fulton County. Why should some have the power to protect their tax base while others are forced to watch from the sidelines? Also, I wanna be clear today about what this bill is not, what this bill is not. It's not an appropriation. There's zero state money moving here. This is not a mandate. We aren't forcing a city, a single city, to do a single thing. We are lawmaking conservatively with fairness in mind. [1:21:46] This doesn't even require a fiscal note. [1:21:52] What this bill is, this is a bill about choice. It's about optionality, right? Right now, Invest, Invest Atlanta and our municipal authorities in the south and central parts of the county are watching their tax dollars get abated by a countywide authority that doesn't always share their local vision, right? They've seen the success of this legislation last year in the north, and now they've come to us and said, and said, "We want that same tool in our toolbox." And it's just a tool. [1:22:26] This bill will allow all 15 cities, not the s- just the six that are already having this right, the other nine, a total of 15 in Fulton, if they choose to pass a resolution to opt out of the Fulton County Development Authority oversight. It gives them the final say on property tax abatements in their backyards. And with everything we're doing with property taxes in Georgia, this is gonna become increasingly more important. [1:22:56] And think about the impact of this. When a city can manage its own deals, it ensures that every tax break is a surgical investment in schools, roads, and the community's future. It stops the race to the bottom, where developers play one authority against the other. So this is just a clean-cut, common sense tweak to the law to ensure synergy across the entire county. It's a legislative cleanup, great legislative cleanup for the biennial as well. [1:23:28] Let's give our local leaders the agency they deserve to build stronger cities. So that's succinctly what this is about. I'm asking for your favorable consideration. If there's any questions or points of clarifications, I'm more than willing to discuss those. Would love to discuss them. And there may be some people to speak to the bill today. Okay. Thank you. Representative Sanchez. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Representative Dawson. Uh, so I understand that currently it's just North Fulton that is applied to this, correct, 'cause of legislation last year? [1:24:00] Yes. And so you're expanding this to the whole of Fulton. Is there a reason that it's just Fulton County and this is not a statewide bill? Yeah, if you, let's go to line... This is what you c- what's called the bracket bill. It's a general bill, so it didn't go through local legislation, so the legislative council to designate Fulton County, if you look at line 12, it, there's the term massively municipalized counties. Say that three times fast, right? Massively municipalized counties. [1:24:31] What that means, this is a county where you have two or more cities that take up over 95% of the land mass. Right now, Fulton County is the only city that meets that. And no time soon, or county that meets that, no time soon will there be another county that meets that. Maybe if, uh, Leader Efstration creates another Mulberry, they'll get close in Gwinnett. But until then, this is really a Fulton County thing. And a follow-up on that. Yes, sir. Uh, so is there a reason this is not local legislation? [1:25:03] Is, does the local delegation approve of this, or...? I, you know, I've socialized this to the Fulton County delegation, the Atlanta delegation. It's the general bill. I'm not introducing new, uh, legislation. I'm tweaking the legislation that already exists, so there's nothing to, uh, introduce. You see the line strikes on page two. We're just saying we're striking out the northern, opens up for the central and for the southern cities, and then it makes it, uh, active upon those municipalities passing a resolution. [1:25:33] Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I see no other questions. Uh, wait, hold on. We do have one. Representative Bazemore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, to the author, question, has all of the mayors in the cities that this would affect, do, have they received the initial bill? And I understand there's a sub. [1:26:00] Um, there's no sub from me. It's just this bill. I'm not offering a sub. There are lobbyists who offered, uh, amendments that I rejected, um, as, um, not germane to the legislation. So there's no substitution. This is the legislation to answer that first question of yours. Your second question was, have all the mayors been made aware? Um, I've, we've had the conversation, and you'll hear from some of them today and their representatives. Invest Atlanta is here. [1:26:32] They're the largest development authority in Georgia, one of the largest ones in the United States of America. You have their letter of support here. And then also the City of South Fulton, which is the second-largest city in Fulton County, their development authority is here in support as well. And I have talked to all of the mayors. I, and invited them if they had any reason to speak out to be here. I haven't had any opposition on my record. So, so thank you for your answer. Um, as the chair of the City of South Fulton delegation, I, I was not aware of the bill until couple days ago. [1:27:08] I had not seen it. Um, so that was my concern. And then today, I found out that many of the mayors are not even aware that there's a bill. So that's my other concern. Yeah, well, uh, I don't, a couple days ago, I know I socialized this in the delegation meeting, in the Fulton County meeting, and the Atlanta meeting over two weeks ago, so you should've been aware. And regarding those mayors, again, I've talked to them. I, I don't have anyone in opposition, and I, they're all invited here. [1:27:39] They all have a copy of the legislation. I c- think if they would, were in opposition, they would be here. I think we have some speakers signed up. I'd love to hear from them. And I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I, I just wanted to answer. So, um, heard about the bill, was not given the bill to even read or see until a lobbyist presented it to me on the ropes. As the chair of the City of South Fulton delegation and the vice chair of the Fulton County delegation, I had no clue. [1:28:14] And then understanding today as I talk to many of the lobbyists, finding out that many of the mayors which this is going to affect, they don't even know about the bill. So that's my concern. [1:28:31] Okay. Uh, speaker t- speaker Pro Tem Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, uh, thank you, Representative, for the bill. I had a, a question. Would you agree that the bill, um, is purely permissive, and that if any city, including the City of Atlanta, which, uh, visited me and definitely wants the bill, but that if any of the mayors or, and city councils in South Fulton, um, did not want to exercise the rights that the bill would permit them, that it would be completely within their control to not pass a resolution adopting the provisions in the bill? [1:29:14] Um, Madam Pro Tem, I think you summed that up well. I- it's just a, this is just a framework. This is not a mandate. It's giving you a tool, giving every city in South Fulton a tool. If they wanna use it, they use it. But that's up to them. If they use it, they have to pass a resolution. So we're not dictating anything. I think it's fair. I think it's good government. I can't wait to hear from, uh, some of these speakers as well. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Oliver. Are there any joint development authorities in Fulton County? [1:29:47] There are not. And this bill also wouldn't, um- This bill would allow- ... be subject- ... joint development authorities. No. No, it's not the subject of joint development authorities. So like Macon County- Tell me how it prohibits the development of joint development. It's, it's expressly in here. Let me find the line. [1:30:15] Saying Invest Atlanta is the largest in the United States, I, I'm thinking about the joint development authorities that are now being created that seem to be taking over positions of power across the state that exceed, um, individuals. I'm trying to figure out, put that together in my mind. If all the northern part of Fulton County wants to d- to create a joint development authority, we're, we're in a new wo- we're in a new world. Yeah, but this, this bill expressly disallows that, so- Tell me where it disallows it. [1:30:49] Let's find that line. I, I had it here. [1:30:54] Here it is. It, it, it's, it's, it's, only relates to a massively municipalized county, first of all. So, uh, there's no joint development authority in our county. Then further, without, there's it, line 13. There it is right there. It's jumping off the page. Line 13. Without a consolidated or unified government. So to have a joint development authority, you have to have a consolidated and unified government. [1:31:26] So y- the, to be subject to this- I'm not sure of that. I'm not sure of that. No, I'm positive. Respectfully. [1:31:36] It's a new world of joint development authorities, and I'm trying to- And legislative counsel is here if we wanna hear from him, but I'm 110% certain, 100% you can't have a joint development authority under this legislation. I'm trying to think of anything where I'm 110% certain in this building. [1:31:59] Okay, thank you. Uh, Representative Olaleye. [1:32:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Dawson, thank you for bringing the bill forward. I'm, I'm caught in between this hard spot of the substance of the bill, which I, I can't even begin to wrap my head around because I have not yet looked at, um, what the option to those, uh, northernmost cities in Fulton County, whether that has been a, a net positive or a net negative to the county. Um, that's neither here nor there. Uh, to the point that Madam Pro Tem made, it does provide the option. [1:32:37] It's not a mandate. And I am a big believer in terms of, uh, fairness. Uh, if there's certain cities that have the option to choose, uh, i- it's hard for me to sit here and preclude other cities and community leaders and duly elected officials to do what they feel is in their heart in the best interest of their communities and their residents. Um, I'm, I'm interested to hear more from both sides. This has been a hot topic of the day. [1:33:10] I've heard from many, many people on both sides and I'm educating my- myself on the fly. But, um, I, I, I, I am someone who's been a, a big proponent of home rule and, uh, preserving the right and choice and decision-making power of individuals, uh, to be able to determine their own fate, uh, versus it's not my, I, I, I don't live in South Fulton and so it's hard for me to say what's best for you all. Uh, I'm hopeful that during this conversation we're able to flesh out a more accurate picture of what the actual impact, um, from a developmental standpoint will be, not only to South Fulton but to the county writ large. [1:33:52] And let me add that this is only, this, this only pertains to property tax abatements. That's the issue. So in my city, South Fulton, where I live, we've had $34 billion and, um, uh, $34 million in tax abatements, 34 million just this year and those were negotiated by the Fulton County Development Authority. So it just gives us, we just got a huge, uh, Amazon $500 million deal, half a billion, billion with a B, deal to come down. [1:34:29] So if, if they, if Fulton County wants to say to Amazon, "Hey, we'll give you 10 years tax abatement," and it's gonna cost me $15 million a year, this is what we're trying to give the city a say in. Just those property tax abatement. That's it. So that's, it's really simple if, if we talk about it. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Speaker Pro Tem Jones. Yes. I, I just, uh, wanted to just make a, uh... Share my perspective on the, the Joint Development Authority. [1:35:02] It, certainly when I wrote the portion last year, I did not intend to go into the, um, redevelopment powers or a- any of that and touch joint development authorities. All I sought to do, and I think this bill does the same for the rest of the county, um, Atlanta actually brought this to me, uh, the Atlanta Development Authority asking to extend the same ability for them. All the bill does, merely, is permissively allow the rest of the cities in Fulton County to choose, particularly if they have their own development authority within their city limits, to opt out of the countywide development authority, which by the way, is appointed by people who do not live in the city. [1:35:55] And so, um, for example, in North Fulton where we, uh, passed this last year, several of, a couple of the cities have passed, uh, resolutions, you know, exercising the rights the bill gave them and others have not because they don't have a city municip- they don't have a municipal development authority so they prefer to utilize the county development authority. Alpharetta, um, uh, wants to have the ability to utilize both, their municipal development authority and the county development authority, because the county development authority is larger. [1:36:31] I see it as just giving more options to the cities respecting home rule, uh, but it doesn't take anything away from anyone and it do- in my opinion, it doesn't go into the joint development authority, um, code. Yeah. And that's a great point of clarification. And to your question again, if they decide, you know, on a Microsoft warehouse, "Hey, we're gonna pass this resolution. We're not gonna hold hands with Fulton County," that doesn't stand for the rest of time. [1:37:02] The Amazon comes and, or a football stadium, certainly the cities can't handle it. Most of them can't handle it. Most of the cities aren't even in a position to execute this resolution. We wanna hold hands with Fulton County, but it's just in those cases where it becomes a dangerous property tax abatement issue for our budgets that we say, "Hey, we have it from here." So great clarification and great question from you as well. Okay. Uh, Representative, uh, Mary Francis Oliver. [1:37:37] Williams. Okay. You know? Okay, sorry. I don't know. My mistake for the day. Mary Francis Williams, you are recognized. You're not the first. Um, so thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, um, um, I think there are so many other people that we need to hear, so many other entities that we need to hear from at this point, um, so many ans- unanswered questions. I, I move to table. [1:38:04] Okay. I'm going to, uh, rule that out of order at this time. The, the purpose of that motion is to, uh- [1:38:10] To, uh, stop discussion, so that's not in order. We're gonna proceed with the speakers that have signed up to speak. So. All right, the first, uh, first speaker we have signed up is Councilwoman Linda Pritchett. If you'll please introduce yourself. And I do, I, I must apologize to you. I sent you to the wrong room earlier today, so I'm glad someone corrected me. [1:38:33] It's okay. I try to stay in the loop, so I found, I found the right room. [1:38:36] Okay. Proceed. [1:38:36] But it's been a pleasure meeting you earlier. Um, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Councilwoman Linda Pritchett from the great city of South Fulton. And I do wanna first off start out making a clarification. I can attest to personally speaking to my mayor, Mayor Carmelita Gums, I spoke to personally Mayor Teresa Thomas from the city of Palmetto, I personally spoke to, in the parking lot when I was walking in here, to the new mayor of Fairburn, Hattie Portis Jones, I spoke to Mayor Vince Williams from the city of Union City on Saturday, and last night I spoke with Mayor Bianca Motley Broome from the city of College Park. [1:39:16] Those, so those are five mayors, which out of eight in our region that I've spoken to, and that is over a majority of mayors that are very aware of this. As well as last week, I spoke at, um, the South, uh, the Fulton Delegation Meeting, in which I spoke specifically on this topic. So the great city of South Fulton is eight years old. We're the last city of Fulton County. We have over 120,000 residents. We have over 94 square miles. [1:39:46] We have over 70% home ownership, which is above the national average. We have 60% underdeveloped land. That means 60% of our land is raw land, ripe for developers. We have two major industrial corridors, Fulton Industrial, uh, Fulton Industrial, which is the largest industrial corridor this side of the Mississippi, and Oakley Industrial Corridor that I happen to represent and share with the city of Fairburn and a small portion that Union City has. [1:40:20] We started off as a city with a $94 million budget, and now we are over $430 million. We have two development authorities. Um, some of our development authority may, uh, members are here today with me. Um, I support this bill because in the last 90 days, Fulton County Development Authority has approved over $35 million in tax abatement that I was not aware of. I found out about it on Newsbreak. [1:40:51] I'm not saying that that is a bad, a bad thing, but how it affected us is we were not, we did not get any say so or any, um, opportunity to negotiate a community benefit for our city. We work, work well with Fulton County, but at this time, we would like to have the opportunity to have the first approach on development that's coming to our city. And so, uh, for those reasons, I support this. Um, I appreciate this bill. [1:41:23] What's good for North Fulton, I'm sure is certainly good for South Fulton, and, um, I will be open to answering any questions if anyone should have some. [1:41:33] Okay. Uh, thank you. Yes, we have one question. Representative Bazemore. [1:41:38] My phone. I'm sorry. My phone is doing its own thing. I apologize. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for your testimony and your remarks. And I appreciate that you have done the work as a city council person and gotten information. However, when we are not aware of it, that's what creates an issue with us, because we are not aware, and we're the ones that have to vote on these bills and get them passed. [1:42:08] So thank you. [1:42:09] Thank you. And, uh, Representative Bazemore actually represents part of the district, uh, the, I represent District 7, and she represents some communities in the district. Thank you. [1:42:20] Okay. Thank you. Uh, let's see. We do have one more question. Representative Adesanya. [1:42:26] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you for your remarks. Um, and I listened. Um, from what I infer, it doesn't sound like it does any harm, right? If cities doesn't want it, they can elect not to participate in that, correct? [1:42:40] Absolutely. But the harm that it does if we are not given this option, when I say that $35 million was abated in tax revenues in our city, what that means is that our city is not going to receive $35 million in tax revenues for development that is happening with our, within our city limits, and these are developers that these zoning cases, they come before, uh, the city council and the mayor for approval. [1:43:10] And so just imagine, we're imp- We're, we want businesses to come in our city. We're growing by leaps and bounds. But if we don't get any of the benefit of the tax revenue for having them come, and in some situations, cities have to give incentives or there are deals that there need to be incentives made to attract businesses. But if there's a situation like these situations where we were not even able to negotiate a city benefit, and for the education of, um, this committee, a city benefit could be where a traffic light is warranted, where sidewalk is warranted, where, um, a acreage of land for a community building or some other type of, um, investment that the community who sometimes is opposed to development so that they can feel, uh, that the inve- that the developer is investing in our community. [1:44:06] This is the ty- These, these are the reasons why we would like to be able to have the communication, be at the table, and make sure that this works for everyone, that our city doesn't just get- The, the, the development and does not get the tax revenue to operate. [1:44:24] Oh, and a- and as you mentioned, South Fulton County was 60% of untapped land, and it sounds like a win for y'all. [1:44:32] Yes, it, it would definitely be a win for us. We are the, we are the largest city of the eight cities on the south side, outside of Atlanta. [1:44:41] Thank you. [1:44:42] Thank you. [1:44:43] Okay, no more questions. Thank you very much. Next speaker is, uh, Dana Tucker. [1:44:51] Good afternoon. It's actually Dana Tucker Davis, and while I'm an attorney, I'm here because I sit as the vice chair of the South Fulton Development Authority. Our city has two development authorities, and I am here with my co-board member, September Cooper. Um, we are here because we wanna speak in support of this bill. And so, um, I took off from my job to come down here to tell you guys how important it is for this bill to match the prior bill. I feel that the prior bill was a great opportunity for the northern cities, and it will also be a great opportunity for the southern cities. [1:45:25] And so I've listened today, and it came up, "Well, the other cities don't know about this." And so, um, as far as the other cities, if they don't want to participate or they don't mind the Fulton County Development Authority, um, abating taxes in- within their cities, then they don't have to do this. So they, their presence here today in support of or opposition is not as important as it is given those of us who want the opportunity to, um, to pass a resolution to impact this. Um, so our job as the development authority is to promote our cities. [1:46:00] And so for City of South Fulton, we just launched our website, and our, and our tagline is, "Choose South Fulton." But unfortunately, if developers go to the Fulton County to seek abatements, then we're asking people to choose South Fulton and we have no say so. And I feel like the, the taboo term for the last two years is data centers. There are data centers that are being approved within our city, and they're getting tax abatements, and those things are being approved by the county without our elected officials and without our development authorities actually being aware of it. [1:46:36] So what does that mean? That means that they're getting the benefit of not paying toward the, um, th- the franchise fees or whatever else is going on for our city, but they're approving these. And as someone said, a lot of the members of these individual counties, particularly Fulton County Development Authority, do not live in our cities. They do not live in our cities. They not, they're not impacted by what we're dealing with. And so that's why I'm down here, um, to speak about this. And I heard the option about tabling this. [1:47:08] Um, I think we have the right to choose, and we should be allowed to choose that. And if we table it, then it may not make it to, um, crossover day, which means that it's a whole nother year before our southern cities can benefit from what the northern cities are, are, are benefiting from. And while we don't have statistics and data today, um, there have been success stories that we've heard about where the city councils are just in the loop and they know what's going on. They can answer and respond to their constituents. Development authorities, when someone comes to us and seeks a tax abatement, we say, "What is the reason why our citizens are gonna benefit or our city's gonna benefit from this tax abatement?" Whether that's bringing, making them have jobs from businesses that are within our cities or, um, hiring people within our cities, um, to, to man and do the work, or long-term contracts or whatever. [1:48:02] We don't get that opportunity to do that when the county comes in and gives these tax abatements without our knowledge. And all we're asking for is the right to allow our city council to decide if they want to have, um, a resolution or not. That would require some input and conversations between our development authorities and the county development authorities. And so that's my position on it. [1:48:28] Thank you. Okay, Representative Bazemore. [1:48:33] Oh, sorry. [1:48:33] That's okay. Good afternoon, and thank you for your words. And I agree with everything you said. My only concern is, and I know it's been said several times, that the other cities are not here. If they don't know about it, they can't be here. That's my concern. [1:48:51] I guess my response to that is, if this bill passes and they were opposed to it because they didn't come down here today or they didn't come before you guys, then their city doesn't have to pass a resolution. And so therefore, their city won't be impacted from their absence today or, or, or their, um, failure to give their input on whether or not this bill is a good bill. Um, and so that's my position because my understanding is that all the mayors are aware, except for Palmetto because Palmetto has an inactive development authority. [1:49:23] So therefore, it's not relevant to the city of Palmetto because they don't have an active development authority. But all the rest of the cities are aware of it, and they could have sent a delegation. But even if they didn't- [1:49:34] Mm-hmm [1:49:34] ... they could just ignore it because they don't have to pass a resolution to actually require Fulton County to engage with them, and that's my position on it. So they were aware of it. How they found out the news or what, I'm a lawyer, so I have to kind of, kind of toe the line on that because, you know, um, how you get your knowledge about a lawsuit matters, right? But this isn't that. And so, um, I'm a firm believer that they could always opt not to pass a resolution, and that's putting it in the hands of the actual elected officials and not leaving these decisions to appointed persons in Fulton County. [1:50:13] Follow-up, Mr. Chair. [1:50:15] And, and again, I appreciate everything you're saying. I agree with everything you're saying. I talked to lobbyists earlier, and we had the same discussion. My only concern really is that- Those that are going to be affected possibly have not been informed, so they can't... And I've heard it several times, "They're not here." Well, if I don't know about something, I'm not gonna be there if I'm not told about it. And so we have conflicting, um, reports because some are saying they were told, you know, they were told this from this person and that person. [1:50:51] And so those are my concerns, just to make sure everybody understands and knows about the bill and how it can affect them possibly. That was it. So thank you again. I appreciate it. [1:51:05] Thank you. All right, next, uh, Andrew Long. [1:51:11] Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to speak today. I'm gonna make my comments very brief. Um, thank you, Rep-, uh, Robert Dawson, for bringing this legislation. Um, Andrew Long, AR Long Company. I am here representing, uh, the City of South Fulton. And, um, uh, I want to be very clear that the City of South Fulton is in favor. We are in, uh, very much support of HB 1386. I don't have to say things that have, um, already been said before, but, um, you should have two letters of support in your folders. [1:51:49] One from the City of South Fulton, um, or, I'm sorry, from the South Fulton, uh, Development Authority, and the other one from the South Fulton Downtown Development Authority, um, who are also in support of HB, uh, 1386. So, um, th- the reason why we are in support of this legislation is because, um, in the past, and you've heard this, but in the past six months, uh, Development Fulton has granted $35 million in tax abatements, and, um, f- for those decisions, we were not at the table. [1:52:25] Um, so w- we support development, but we would like to have a voice and a choice in what is being approved. Um, HB 1386 give the gov- gives the governing authority of the City of South Fulton the option of adopting a resolution to limit the county development authority from operating in our municipality. Additionally, HB 1386 gives all Fulton cities equal and fair government transparency when it comes to each municipality's economic development goals. [1:52:56] We are in support of HB 1386. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. I'm glad to answer any questions. [1:53:03] Okay, we do have one. Uh, Representative Adesanya. [1:53:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, um, Rep Dawson, did you mention that this is not the first time this bill was introduced? Was it, um, introduced, uh, at any time prior to this session? [1:53:20] Yeah, last year this bill passed for the northern counties, and now we're Excuse me. Now we're amending it for the southern and central s- parts of the- [1:53:31] And one quick follow-up. [1:53:33] Mm-hmm. Yeah. [1:53:33] Um, so [1:53:37] do you all know why that didn't go through the local delegation? Was it a general when it passed last year? Was it- [1:53:43] It, this is a bracket bill. It was already a general legislation when it first went in. So there's no new legislation for me to introduce. I'm just amending the legislation that's already there. So no need for local legislation. [1:53:56] And when it passed last year, um, for North Fulton, you said that that was- [1:54:02] General [1:54:02] ... on the general calendar. [1:54:03] General bracket bill. Yeah. [1:54:05] All right. Thank you. [1:54:06] Okay. Thank you. All right, we got three more people signed up, and we're getting short of time, so, uh, I wanna make sure everybody gets their, uh, point across, but let's keep it as brief as possible. Dr., uh, Elozia Clementich? [1:54:19] Eloisa Clementich. [1:54:20] Eloisa, sorry. [1:54:21] Thank you so much. No worries. Uh, you have a letter, um, that I submitted, so I'm not gonna repeat that. I will just highlight that per Title VIII, Ready offers guidance for housing authorities, so this is just also allowing economic develop- uh, economic development authorities to offer in the same legal framework. And with that, I'd like to support HB 1386. [1:54:44] Thank you very much. Okay. Uh, next, September Cooper. [1:54:57] Good afternoon. Um, just like to highlight, $35 million has been lost. [1:55:04] What's your name? I'm sorry. [1:55:05] I'm sorry. I'm September Cooper from the City of South Fulton. [1:55:09] Okay, September Cooper from the City of South Fulton. [1:55:11] Yes. [1:55:11] Thank you. [1:55:12] With the Development Authority. Um, just like to, you know, highlight the fact that $35 million has been lost to the Development Authority of Fulton County that could have gone to the City of South Fulton. It could have gone to Fulton County Schools. It could have gone to our police and fire departments. Um, you know, given that they've been given these 10-year tax abatements, it affects all of that. Um, it affects the property taxes for our constituents, um, the infrastructure, such as the roads that get damaged by the amount of warehouses that the, that the, uh, Fulton County Development Authority has approved, um, as well as air quality and other types of infrastructure, such as utilities, uh, for the data centers that were approved that our constituents had no idea were even done. [1:56:05] We found out after the fact. So instead of the two that we approved, we now have seven. There's 20-plus data centers that are in South Fulton at this point. Um, so it's a lot that we need to work out and get things figured out, and if we have, it's where it's home rule, then at least we know what's going on so that we can get back to our constituents and have what we'd like to have, not what the county would like to have. Thank you. [1:56:37] Okay. Thank you. Uh, and then our last speaker, Sarah Elizabeth Langford. Yes. Uh, good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. I am Sarah Elizabeth Langford, the Executive Director of DevelopFulton, which is the development authority of Fulton County. And we have become the best state in which to do business because of our speed, our certainty, our discipline, and this bill threatens to put that at risk. It will restrict us as a countywide authority and require additional layers of municipal approval. [1:57:15] Partnership with cities is essential. That is part of how we operate, our standard operating procedure. Last month, my board approved a $500 million project, and we have an extremely strong support letter from the mayor of the host city, and I would love to share that with anyone. So I think that is part of the issue. Companies that are looking at locating in multiple different states, Georgia, Florida, Texas, they want a countywide authority that appreciates city partnership, a countywide perspective, and a statewide perspective. [1:57:55] We work hand-in-hand with the state to keep us as the best state in which to do business. We have attracted projects like Boston Scientific, Alcon in Johns Creek, the largest contact manufacturer. These types of projects were looking at locating in many different states, and they appreciated an experienced development authority with city appreciation, county appreciation, and a statewide perspective. We've worked with the state to secure industries, life sciences, like Shriners Children's Institute, Duracell battery, R&D relocation, because a over 50-year-old development authority. [1:58:35] And again, partnership with cities is essential. Sometimes it's, there are municipal differing priorities within cities, mayors, city council, and that is why a countywide perspective is so essential to work hand-in-hand with cities, with the county, and with a statewide perspective. So again, we have so much appreciation for cities and for the perspective that cities want. And again, with the very last project, we have a strong support letter from the mayor of the host city, uh, the mayor of the city here that we've heard from representatives. [1:59:13] So we worked hand-in-hand. Um, if there are any questions, perhaps there is a better way. We want to hold hands, I think Representative Dawson said that, with the cities. So if there is a better process, then perhaps we can work out a better process to make sure a mayor of a city and council is aligned. Um, but I don't think we need legislation to do that. Uh, my board approved a $700 million investment, and that was a company that was looking at multiple different states. We won it in Georgia, in Fulton County, because we had an experienced countywide respected development authority. [1:59:50] There are other, uh, projects like Comcast, Global Payments, uh, Microsoft. They were looking at locating in Georgia across several different cities, so they came to an experienced countywide development authority. So thank you for allowing me a few words. If there are any questions, um, thank you, and we look forward to continuing to work with all cities. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. See no questions. All right. That's everyone who signed up to speak. What is the will of the committee? I move do pass. We have a motion do pass. [2:00:20] Do we have a second? Second. Second. We have a second. Any discussion? Uh, [2:00:30] okay, I see none. Uh, all in favor of the passage of [2:00:37] House Bill 1386 say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. All right. Bill passes. Thank you. Thank you. And that's all we have on our agenda, so this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.