House Transportation Committee, March 2, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1169580925 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1169580925#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-02/house-transportation This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:11:33] Oh, I'm about to get set. [0:11:39] No, I'm, I'm the one. [0:11:42] Is that your bill? [0:11:43] Yeah. [0:11:43] The one that you got me in person. [0:11:45] Oh, in person. That's the one I want. Yeah. [0:11:47] Yeah, you in person. I'm sure that you have one. [0:11:50] Yeah, I know. I'm sure of that. [0:11:52] Hey, Cliff. [0:11:53] Oh, you got the new 10 that I did? [0:11:54] Yeah. [0:11:55] Thank you so much. [0:11:56] All right. Okay, let's go ahead and get this show on the road pretty quick. I know there's lots of meetings going on, and I appreciate your members' attendance. And, uh, we've got two bills in committee this morning that we need to hear. First, we're gonna go with, uh, Chairman Carson's 1377. If you'll go ahead and come to the... And I think, uh, you wanna come with him, Vice Chairman Gaines, up there just 'cause you got part of it. [0:12:27] You look on your desk, you have LC 394994s, the substitute for the committee. [0:12:41] Gentlemen, if you'll go ahead and present your bill. Thank you. [0:12:45] I'd rather do it electronically than if I use chair. [0:12:46] Oh, wait one second. We do have a sign-up sheet that just Danny has. If anybody hasn't signed that needs to, just come to the end here and we'll get you hooked up. Thank you. Go ahead, Chairman. [0:13:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This is House Bill 1377. Um, what this does is puts in place an eight-year waiting period, uh, as, um, as you can see on lines 32 and 40. This puts in a, a, a, an eight-year waiting period from which a county who held a transit referendum would, uh, be able to conduct another transit referendum. Uh, I've heard from a number of you and a number of people in the hall. [0:13:31] A- I feel like it's important to kinda level-set expectations of where this is coming from. Um, I don't know if you, you... I've got, uh, black and white copies, Mr. Chairman, but basically there have been, uh, since the 1970s, there have been five failed transit referendums in Gwinnett. There's been one failed transit referendum in Cobb County. As a matter of fact, it went down 37% versus 60-- I'm sorry, 38% to 62%. Five failed, and that's in Cobb. Five failed transit referendums in, uh, Gwinnett. [0:14:04] The most recent three was a 2019, uh, transit referendum for going into MARTA. That was in 2019. There was a 2020, uh, transit referendum as a result of our House Bill 930 in 2018. I'm, I'm moving around with dates. In 2020, there was a Gwinnett County referendum. That failed as well, and that vote count was 49.8% yes, 50, uh, a little bit more than 50% no. In 2024, Gwinnett County had another transit referendum, as they are allowed under House Bill 930. [0:14:38] That also failed, as my friend from Gwinnett knows. That also failed 46 and a half to 53 and a half. Five failed transit referendums failed in Gwinnett, one in Cobb. What this does is put, puts in place an eight-year waiting period for a county such that, like I said, if they have a failed transit referendum, they'll wait eight years to do so. And I, one thing that we talk about, uh, quite a bit here at the Capitol is in regard to local control, and I fully understand that and respect that. What I would say is the reason that we're looking to do this is because the county has pretty valuable resources in regard to taxpayer education or transit education and what have you. [0:15:22] But that's not really the case for the other side that does not have a mobilizing force because there's no money there, because what they wanna do is defeat the transit referendum. That's the genesis of the bill. There's also language on, um, lines, uh, 18 in regard to excluding, uh, transit, uh, revenues for purposes of providing f- uh, free or reduced fares for, uh, public transit services. I believe that's an issue for, uh, that, um, Representative Gaines has, and that's the language he requested, so. [0:16:00] Go ahead, Chair. [0:16:01] And I'll just be real brief in explaining what, uh, the language we added does is, uh, TSPLOST and, uh, is, is really designed for capital improvements. And one of the things that we've seen, um, a couple of jurisdictions or particularly one jurisdiction do is, is using TSPLOST revenue to pay for free buses, and that's not the purpose of TSPLOST. Um, and so this just clarifies, uh, what the purpose of TSPLOST is, is, you know, for, for actual capital improvements, not for, uh, providing free bus service. [0:16:35] Okay. You have some questions. We'll just kinda go in order. Chairman Corbett, number 27. [0:16:42] Uh, I think you might've just answered my question. I was gonna ask about regional TSPLOST. That would, this would apply to that as well? [0:16:48] No. [0:16:49] No, it would not. [0:16:50] It would not. So there's j- if I may, Mr. Chairman. [0:16:53] Yes, please. [0:16:53] There, there's four, four buckets in regard to it, 'cause this is a very sensitive issue. My county benefits from a, of a transit spl- a transportation SPLOST. There are f- I, I would put it in four buckets. One is transportation SPLOST that's individual county by county. Second, we have regional transportation SPLOST via the TIA that was passed, I believe, in 2012, or yeah, I think it was 2012, or maybe 2010, actually it was. And those, that's where a collection of counties, as defined in the TIA in 2010, can get together and adopt a one-cent SPLOST. [0:17:24] I believe there's three or four of those, uh, in practice. There's also the MARTA one penny. This doesn't affect any of those three buckets of transportation to- dollars. What we're talking about is a fourth bucket of transit, and this is for buses, bus rapid transit, potentially rail The things where you have mobility and transit. We're not talking about roads, bridges, intersections, airports. We're not talking about any of that. Thank you. Sure. [0:17:55] Next. Thank you, sir. Next up, Representative Smith. [0:18:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Representative Carson. What, what kind of conversation did you have with the local officials, and what kind of input? Were they for this, against this, or what was their comments? [0:18:15] I have, uh, not had direct conversations with them. I've had conversations with our friends in the hall here. And obviously it's a, it's a mixed bag. What I have, uh, discussed more so is with voters, and there is, um, there's a SPLOST fatigue, and what they don't like is being put forth a referendum every two years, every four years. Uh, again, our, our county, uh, Gwinnett County, several others, many counties around the state have a one cent sales tax for transportation, or they have a regional, uh, sales tax under the TIA. [0:18:54] And but those SPLOST typically last for four to five to six years. The reason we're putting in a waiting period is because the resources are on the county's side to be able for, uh, taxpayer education, and that this tax, Representative Smith, as you know, is for up to 30 years. And I, I, I'm in finance and as you know, it needs to be up to 30 years because we're talking about huge capital improvements, and this, which they need to go out and do, uh, tax-exempt bonding. I can fully understand that. [0:19:24] I would just like to put in a reasonable, what I think is a reasonable waiting period for a 30-year tax. [0:19:31] Follow-up? [0:19:31] Yes, sir. Please. [0:19:33] So, uh, [0:19:37] uh, you know, I was, had talked to you earlier about a four-year window instead of an eight-year window, 'cause you have, um, new officials coming in. Maybe their hands are tied. Uh, they may come in two years after this eight-year period starts, and they may only serve for four. They'd be in and out before they get a chance to even put that out there. So I just have that in the form of a comment, and I may come back later with a question. [0:20:04] Okay. Thank you. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I, I fully respect the, the gentleman and his, uh, expectation, uh, ex- expertise on transportation. I will say, will say this is, uh, something that's supported by a number of our, uh, majority party, uh, that represents Cobb and Gwinnett. As a matter of fact, I believe I have just about every signer from those two counties except for one, the governor's, uh, floor leader. One of the governor's floor leaders. [0:20:31] Good. Thank you. Chairman Prince. [0:20:35] Thank you. [0:20:35] Oops, sorry. Thank you. [0:20:38] Two? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, uh, uh, Chairman, uh, Smith's question, uh, because my... The eight years was, was my question because of local leaders changing in and out, um, not having any, I would say, input into, uh, what they are buying in, well, what they got elected into. And if a vision changes, i.e. a new mayor, uh, what- whatever, county com- director, count- county commissions, he or she, uh, basically are handstrung to eight years. Or, I mean, up under this right here. [0:21:09] I just wanted but you explained- [0:21:10] I understand [0:21:11] ... why you did that. [0:21:11] I understand. And I, I would just- [0:21:13] I just- [0:21:13] I understand the standpoint of the county commissioners. I've never served in local government, but I do understand that point. What I am saying is that as much as we're tying the hands, if you will, I don't think that's the ca- I, I wouldn't characterize it that way, but I would say we're tying the hands of ta- we're, we're tying the hands of taxpayers for 30 years, and we need to be very careful that we're doing it and doing it right as opposed to coming back every two or four. That, that's what I would say. [0:21:40] Okay. Thank you. Thank, Representative McCollum. [0:21:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I probably should know this answer, but so if eight years, can they put it on, uh, into, so they can essentially put it every two years to... or does it have to be in the four-year cycle? Uh- [0:21:59] I would defer to legislative council, but I believe they can put it up at, at, at least every two years- [0:22:05] So they essentially- [0:22:05] ... if they so desire. Now, counties strategically are probably not gonna put a transit SPLOST alongside a county SPLOST, right? It, it, it, politically that might muddy the waters. [0:22:17] But can they... I guess my question is, can they put it on a, say, a mayor's race versus, I mean, in two years? I mean, could they essentially put it every two years or- [0:22:26] On an off-year election? I, I would- [0:22:28] Right [0:22:28] ... I would, I would defer to legislative council in regard to the timing of, uh, transit referendums per ni- HB 930 or what is now the statute. [0:22:36] But essentially this is just saying you have to wait two cycles, four-year cycles. I mean, it's not a long period of time, correct? [0:22:42] Uh, upon a failed referendum, exactly. [0:22:45] Okay. [0:22:46] It's, yeah. So if, if a county that's eligible for this wanted to hold a referendum and never held one before, they could hold one in the fall of '26 if they wish. [0:22:56] Okay. Thank you. [0:22:57] Oh. [0:22:58] Thank you. [0:23:00] Okay. Next up, Leader Strachan. [0:23:03] Thank you, Mr. [0:23:03] There you go. [0:23:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Chairman Carson, for your presentation. Sorry I was a little late arriving today. So the concern or the feedback I've received from constituents is they're upset that they feel that these referendums come with regularity, and that local government, Gwinnett County in my circumstance, just keeps calling these referendums over and over and over again hoping to get a desired result. And when they don't get it, they just call it again. And it's my recollection to the representative's question a moment ago, legislative council can correct me if I'm wrong, but these can be called in what I consider off-year elections. [0:23:43] So if there's a special election in an odd year- Um, as opposed to the regular in an even year, that they could be called at that time. And so does your bill take a step to address the concern that my constituents have sent to me, that it feels like these referendums just keep coming until, uh, the county can get the desired result, not really listening to the will of the voters? [0:24:09] It absolutely does. And thank you, Leader, for, for that and for signing on. That, um, that it, it, it, I would argue it directly addresses that, where it'll ... It, it asks the county to take a pause and say, "Look, if we've had a failed referendum, let's- let's reconsider and come back with a new proposal," but after time as opposed to every regularity, uh, e- every regular interval, uh, to your point. [0:24:39] Thank you. [0:24:40] Clerk? Okay. Next up, Representative Earhart. [0:24:45] Thank you, Chairman, uh, for bringing, for bringing this bill. Um, just to clarify, when you talked about citizen education as related to, uh, when these referendums come up or these ... Um, would you say that, that ... So the onus is on the county to embark on this sort of education of the constituency or voters so that they understand what they're gonna be voting on. Is the, is the purpose of that to present an un- sort of an unbiased both sides, the pros and cons of this? D- d- do you find that to be the case most of the time? [0:25:17] As we ... You and I share a county, and I, I would not call it a bias. Now, it, it is ... What has been put forth is, uh, arguably taxpayer education, but I would not call it, uh, unbiased. [0:25:29] Okay. So then, uh, and, and I can only speak for my constituents and what I heard, um, as we walk through something like this in, in 2024, is that, um, really the onus ended up being on the voters to sort of rally and raise funds to mount an educational campaign, um, uh, perhaps against ... Could be for or against- [0:25:48] Mm-hmm [0:25:49] ... um, something like this. Um, so what I had heard from my constituents at the time was, um, you know, to have to go through that every couple of years. But particularly when it's the constituency that's making the decision on this. If it was overwhelmingly defeated, my constituents have a hard time understanding why they then two years later need to go through it again. [0:26:08] Completely agree, ma'am. [0:26:09] Okay. [0:26:09] Thank you. [0:26:10] Thank you. [0:26:13] Okay. Next up- [0:26:15] Whoops [0:26:15] ... [0:26:19] Representative Smith. [0:26:25] Um, Chairman Carson, is it, does this just, um, affect one or two counties, or is it every county in the state? [0:26:33] I know it affects two. It could potentially impact others, I believe. I would defer to legislative council on that. [0:26:40] Could leg's council answer that? Would that affect all ... Would this legislation affect all- [0:26:44] The transit slots is available to every county, so it would impact any county that has f- they failed to get the vote the first time it was taken. [0:26:54] All right. And, uh- [0:26:55] I- [0:26:56] Second part if I could, Mr. Chairman. [0:26:57] Yes, sir. Please. [0:26:57] Um, would it make sense to just word it so that it only goes on the ballot when there's, uh, another election taking place? That way you don't have a special election just for the referendum. Just have it when, uh, county officials are elected, cities are elected, and that way it wouldn't be independent by itself. [0:27:19] So you're ... If I'm understanding you correctly, you would want to make sure that this i- these are not considered in off cycles? [0:27:27] Right. [0:27:28] Okay. I'd, I had not thought of that. I'm, I'm open to that conversation for sure. [0:27:35] Okay. Thank you. [0:27:36] Thank you. [0:27:39] Caucus Chairman Williamson Levin. [0:27:42] Thank you, M- Mr. Chairman. And, uh, Chairman Carson, thank you for ex- explaining this bill. But if it, if it does apply statewide, I understand the problem that you have in, uh, in, in, in Cobb County, in Gwinnett County. But if it's a pretty close election, it's gonna apply ... I mean, uh, if the previous, uh, vote failed and it was really close, I have a concern now that, uh, growing counties like Walton County where we, we now have a history of, uh, of this going on, m- call it an abuse or a, a, of the, um, of the bringing it every, every time. [0:28:21] Um, I do have a little bit of hesitation about that. Could we consider some language, like, on the second failed one, um, some kind of moderating language here that, uh, it basically stops the repeated abuse, but ... Or, or maybe a, a shorter timeframe. For, for example, why did we pick eight years and not- [0:28:45] I ... There was nothing magical about that. It ... What I would ask is the committee's understanding is that some of our counties are coming back to us every, every few years and wanting a 30-year tax. [0:29:00] W- what ... Well, the, the follow-up question then. W- w- what about if we said, um, upon the second such failed, uh, have some sort of flexibility in that, um- [0:29:11] I, I, I would leave that to the will of the committee. [0:29:14] Thank you. [0:29:16] Thank you. Thank you, sir. Number 19. [0:29:19] Thank you. Sorry, I apologize. I walked in late. But I, I ... And this may be a question for leg council as much as you. But I feel like Representative Ridley had some legislation a few years ago to make sure these kind of votes happened at, only on, at, at the big election to, to address the issue over there. I don't know that to be the case. [0:29:38] It's a special election for the transit- [0:29:41] Yeah, but- [0:29:41] ... that occurs that- [0:29:41] Are those ... Didn't we set parameters around those to make sure that those were at important election times? No? [0:29:48] the train that's lost, it's a special election- So it can occur in March, it can occur in May, it can occur whenever. Yeah, I mean, I think that's, uh, I thought we addressed that with, with SPLOST, but apparently- It might have been a single county. We might have done it for a single county, but not the transit, the 30 year. I gotcha. Yeah, I mean, I, I would think that's definitely something that, that needs to be addressed, 'cause you, that, the last thing you want is so- one of these to occur when it's just a few, few voters. Um, and I understand the frustration, right? I mean, you, you guys, you just keep ... It, it keeps failing, it keeps failing, it keeps costing people money. [0:30:21] But do we have a, do we have a list of how many communities in the state? 'Cause there's a lot of concern about statewide issues. But how many communities are doing T-SPLOST at this point? What is the, what's the number of counties besides Cobb and Gwinnett? That are doing the transit SPLOST? Yes. I honestly, I don't know of any. I mean, I, I find it hard to believe that the majority of the counties in the state would have a T-SPLOST vote now or in the next hun- 50 years, besides the ones you're talking about, Dennis. [0:30:52] Well, to be clear, you're not talking about transportation SPLOST, you're now talking about T- transit. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Transit. That's what I'm saying. Man- trans- Tr- uh, a transit SPLOST. Right. How many communities do you foresee in the future that are gonna be actually doing this? Maybe two, besides the two you're talking about? [0:31:09] I have no idea. Okay. [0:31:15] Chairman Williamson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Chairman Carson, I apologize. I thought that we were talking about dragging in all T-SPLOST, but this is only transit, basically, uh, running over- Yes. I, I, I, I, I apologize if I failed to mention that, but Mr. Chairman- I think you did. It just went over my head. Okay. I apologize. I, I, I, my apologies if I misspoke. W- the way I see it, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Jaspers and Chairman Williamson, what I see is basically there's four avenues for funding transportation with SPLOST dollars in our state. [0:31:49] One is tran- uh, transportation SPLOST by an individual county. That's something my county does, something other counties do. A second is the regional TSPLOST that was passed in 2010 via the Transportation Infrastructure Act, Infrastructure Act 20- yeah, 2010. Uh, and it went in place in a number of different counties, and I think, uh, Chairman Corbett mentioned that as well. So that's the regional TSPLOST. Then you also have the MARTA penny. So you have a single county, multiple county, and MARTA. [0:32:22] This does not affect any of those whatsoever. This only affects this fourth bucket of transit referendums. Typically, again, because we're not a- talking about three, four ... or we're not talking about four, five, or six years. We're talking about up to 30 year, uh, sales taxes, which is needed if we're, if we're, if the voters approve that, because this is large capital projects. They're gonna need bonding. It's gonna be taxes and financing and so forth. It does not affect single counties or regional or MARTA. [0:32:53] Thank you for clarifying that. [0:33:00] Chairman, I've just got a question for you real quick, just to make sure this is crystal clear, that in section two, line 26, where it describes the code section 48-8-269, that is addressing only this type of SPLOST? Yeah, there are two ... So there's t- two transit SPLOST. There's non-attainment and there's attainment with, so metro versus non-metro. Um, but there's still tr- both of, section two and three are both transit SPLOST, 30 years. Yeah. [0:33:30] Okay. So hopefully that clears that up just a little bit. 15, Representative Cox. Uh, thanks for bringing the bill. Um, is there a way, and this may be leg council or also to you, um, that we could keep this to the counties that we're actually talking about instead of all the way statewide, that this is affected in? Leg council, is there ... Um, section two is outside non-attainment areas, so you could just remove section two, and section three would be inside non-attainment, which is the, I think we're at 13 counties for non-attainment. [0:34:17] I'm sorry, I was- Okay. Did everybody get that? Ginny, you might wanna move to a microphone, please. Sorry. Somebody can make space for her right there. Chairman Powell's got it. Oh. [0:34:34] So if, if you wanted to limit it to your question of, um, just the, the metro areas, um, 30 year SPLOST, it would be remove section two, because that's, um, outside non-attainment. And section three deals with in, within a non-attainment. So within non-attainment would be the metro 13, I think 13, 18 counties. I forget exactly which one those are. Um, so removing section two would allow the 8- a county in South Georgia that wanted to do a transit 30-year, um, tax, they wouldn't have to wait the eight years if it failed the first time. [0:35:12] Is there a follow-up question, Chair? Please, go ahead. I- is there some unintended consequences if that were to happen? Do you ... I don't think so. I, I, I think [0:35:28] that, that would, that would solve the, the immediate concerns of my voters and my taxpayers. Okay. [0:35:40] Thank you. Okay. A- as I ... I'm sorry. A- in addition to the people that have been supportive of this measure, um, I, as I understand it from legislative council, if we remove section two, that would still r- [0:35:55] Address the issues of the people that are with me in support of this, that have signed on to this and so forth, as I understand it. [0:36:05] Okay. We've had a very lively discussion. I think we have one person who would like to speak to the bill before we move. Matt Yarborough with Council for Quality Growth. [0:36:20] Did he chicken out? Yeah, he's definitely not working the room. Oh, there he is. I didn't see you moving. I'm sorry. Come on up. He was gonna catch a bus, but he- I was gonna say, he can't pass up a conversation on SPOS. Said he was gonna try to catch a bus, is that what you said? Uh, g- good morning, committee. Good morning, Chairman. Thank you for having us. Uh, my name's Matt Yarborough. I serve as the Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs with the Council for Quality Growth. Uh, we are a regional, uh, trade association of folks in the growth and development industry here in Metro Atlanta. Um, we represent not only a number of the regional transit planning companies as well as a lot of the CIDs that do a lot of the transit and transportation work across our region. [0:36:57] I'm joined by Michael Paris, our President and CEO, who is intimately familiar with a lot of the work, uh, that went into House Bill 930 that enabled this trans- this SPOS, uh, back in 2018 now. Um, wanted to talk a little bit about our perspective on the bill. Um, we do have concerns about the bill, uh, and would ask for some further considerations or at least edits to the bill in order to kind of make it more tangible. Um, first and, and more kind of specific, I wanna speak specifically to, to the Cobb and Gwinnett question, which I think are at hand. [0:37:29] Um, Cobb, as mentioned, gained the ability, uh, along with Gwinnett, to host a transit SPOS as a part of House Bill 930 that went into effect in 2019, and the county was actually quite slow and deliberative about this process. Chairman Boyce was still the chairman in '19. He ultimately did not place this on the ballot during his chairship. Uh, it cycled for several years. We didn't end up actually putting it on the ballot till 2024. It was a six-year process, um, w- which reflected the county being quite deliberative and thoughtful about what they wanted to put into their transit SPOS. [0:38:00] Ultimately, to Chairman's point, it did fail. Um, and to, to this point in time, I have yet to hear any word out of Cobb County or any of Cobb County's commission, uh, about putting this on the ballot anytime soon. Um, I think there is some overarching fear of what this would look like in the future, but with a pending regular SPOS for Cobb County in the coming cycle, uh, the concept of putting a transit SPOS on top of that anytime in the near future is not, uh, to my public discourse sense, being discussed in Cobb. Um, Gwinnett's kind of a unique-er- or situation, and, and the chairman correctly noted some of its history. [0:38:35] Uh, when Gwinnett got the ability to do a transit SPOS in 2019, um, Chairwoman Nash, who many of us know is kind of the grandmother of infrastructure in the region, uh, did immediately put it on as a special election in, I believe it was March. Um, so it was kind of an off time for a special as well. Um, it did fail. Um, and the county did decide based on their feelings and pushback about having put it in a low turnout special to re-put it back up in '20. [0:39:06] Um, interestingly, we hit COVID in '20, and all of a sudden the concept of funding transit was not a high priority of anyone in the region, um, and it failed again. Um, the county kind of, again, spent some time thinking through it. They spent four years before they brought another proposal to the voters, and I actually think that four-year, two-year time window would be much more, uh, amicable to a lot of the, the commu- business community that works on transit SPOS and broader T-SPOS as well, um, that gives the counties time to reassess, figure out where they need to be, and then bring forward a new opportunity four years later. [0:39:44] Um, I do wanna echo, uh, Representative Smith's comments as well. Uh, I'll pick on Gwinnett as a good example of this. If the original House Bill 930 had put this language in place, uh, Chairwoman Nash's referendum in '19 would have bound Chairwoman Hendrickson now from ever considering doing a transit SPOS. She would've, uh, her entire eight-year term would've been bound by Chairwoman Nash's failed referendum in '19. So, um, the eight years just binds a lot of different moving forces across the region and impedes a lot of the regional planning exercises that, uh, Council for Quality Growth and other local governments are engaged in. [0:40:23] Um, I just wanna close, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak, but I do wanna highlight given where we are as a, a legislative session right now, um, with the State House considering broader homestead property tax relief. Uh, part of that conversation the business community and local governments have been having is how to look at sales tax and fee structures for opportunities to fund infrastructure. This is an important tool within that. Um, and, and we are still just kind of struggling as a, uh, growth and development bus- industry with how to adapt both to possible changes to, uh, to homestead taxes, um, to provide relief to, to residents, but also further restrictions on the ability to bring these SPOS. [0:41:06] So, uh, on my testimony here today, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Mr. Yarborough, you have a couple of questions. Sure. Number 20, Representative McCollum. Thank you. Uh, one question is, so 30 years, that's a lot of money, right? I mean, um, would ... If you had a community and they were just gonna put in buses, uh, uh, um, Representative ... Chairman Carpenter had just kind of jogged my memory. So if they're just gonna put in buses, would you need this just to have buses 30 years? [0:41:36] Uh, I mean, uh, this would be for rail or for [0:41:40] Uh, so- something large, correct? [0:41:43] So I'll speak to Gwinnett and Cobb more specifically to answer your question. So Gwinnett's model was a 30-year. It mainly focused on BRT funding with some funding tied to bus and microtransit. Uh, but BRT was the core, uh, of that. Um, you're already seeing the county adapt to the lack of passage of transit SPOS by finding other ways to fund their microtransit and bus systems, and basically the BRT side is on hold. Um, on- [0:42:09] BRT, I'm sorry. Um- [0:42:10] Bus rapid transit. [0:42:11] Okay. [0:42:12] Um, on Cobb's side, Cobb actually went back and forth quite a bit on doing a 15-year or a 30-year. They had the option. Um, the legislation just says they can do up to 30 years. Um, so that gave them the opportunity to consider both. Uh, they brought both proposals to the commission, and they settled on a 30-year. Um, but again, I... They were also proposing building two new regional transit centers as part of that infrastructure funding, and that was gonna be a big part of that. [0:42:38] Follow-up, Mr. Chairman? [0:42:39] Please. [0:42:40] So, um, would... Is that included... I know I'm getting off topic, but is that a fee structure? Is that free buses, or how does that normally work in, in different counties? [0:42:51] So the big selling point, at least with the new microtransit service, which is a big part of where that was pushed for, is there is a fee structure. You do pay for rides. Um, it is supplemented by the county, but, uh, you do pay for- [0:43:03] Okay [0:43:03] ... for those services. [0:43:04] Thank you. [0:43:06] Thank you. Chairman Efstration, right here. [0:43:11] Uh, number three. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Yarborough, for your, um, comments. And what I'd like to do, if it's all right, is just ask you maybe three points that I regularly hear from my constituents, and then just give you a chance to respond. [0:43:24] Sure. [0:43:25] Um, so the first is that there's concern that these, um, ballot initiatives have been brought in Gwinnett, 2019, '20, and '24, as you said, um, while the Gwinnett transit buses, which is out, which are out there operating, according to my constituents and certainly from my personal observations, are empty. Appear to be empty. And, uh, the question is, why would, uh, our constituents be bound to a 30-year tax under those circumstances, where it's, um, to the representative's point, already these buses, I guess, can be paid for because we're seeing out there they're not being utilized, and yet the county continues to request that the voters approve this, uh, three times in a row. [0:44:11] The, the second question that I had or just, you know, thought in response, you talked about if, uh, Chair Lady Nash, with whom I spoke about this issue many times, had been, um, had been, uh... You know, if this law was in place, it would have bound the subsequent chair lady's, uh, ability to bring this. But isn't it true that a 30-year tax binds subsequent commissions and chairs as well in the, in the same kind of way or in a, in a similar kind of way? [0:44:45] And I guess my, my third question is this. Um, if, um, if counties are opposed to binding subsequent, uh, administrations, wouldn't it make more sense then to restrict the law such that any past referendum would only be in place for, say, four years? [0:45:05] Mm-hmm. [0:45:05] So, uh, just following your, the line of thought of your argument, then, um, wouldn't it, wouldn't it make sense to really restrict the abilities of counties to, to bring these kinds of things so you can actually see, are these buses empty? And I appreciate your... Mr. Chairman, thank you for the indulgence. Let me just share some thoughts because this is a hot topic in the district I represent. And, uh, sir, I'd invite any response you have to that. Thank you. [0:45:31] Sure. Um, uh, so on the first question about w- why would we fund kind of the, the concept of an empty bus, um, I'll just speak from personal experience. Uh, I live in Marietta. I've lived in Cobb County for the last decade. I spent most of my working career in Gwinnett County, as you know. Um, I think we are moving away from bus systems. I highlighted microtransit has become kind of the, the hot topic, I think, in regional transit planning, um, doing point to point and finding opportunities to move away from fixed route. Um, so I think that should be a part of the conversation on planning any future referendums. [0:46:04] I think the local citizens are, are certainly able to, through their government, advocate for that. I served on the Cobb SPOS Oversight Committee for five years, helping craft the project lists for Cobb County. So I, I think citizens have an opportunity for that. Um, in terms of the, the binding subsequent commission side of this, um, I recognize that a 30-year SPOS does indeed bind future commissions. I, I think to Representative Vance's point, there, there's bonding reasons that we, we have to consider that. [0:46:36] Um, but I certainly welcome residents who say, "I, I'm not supportive of the 30-year tax. I, I have concerns with that," and voting it down. And if voters vote it down, then it doesn't go into place. And that's, that's kind of the beauty of SPOS, is if voters don't buy into a 30-year vision, then they just fail it. [0:46:52] And Mr. Chairman, if I may, very quick. I appreciate, uh, this. So, um, so my final question is, has there been input... This microtransit, which is county transit employees to drive short distances, it's effectively the government attempting to replicate Uber or Lyft, as I understand it. Has there been any discussion around, we're not going to take this very super expensive option, and instead, if transit's the will of the voters, to just subsidize trips from the private sector which are otherwise available? [0:47:24] In other words, why is it necessary to incur such substantial costs, a sales tax that will be paid for the next 30 years by even the next generation, as opposed to more cost-effective options which may be available for actual mobility? [0:47:41] So ultimately I'm gonna, on this one, defer to, to the transportation planners, uh, and I know there's plenty that are around here. I, I don't... I, I'm not a, a deep transportation planner enough to know the, the true ins and outs of what makes micro better than, uh, just an Uber or Lyft system, so I'll leave that question. [0:47:59] One, one more then we gotta keep moving. Representative Earhart. [0:48:04] Thank you. Thank you. Um, I think it's also important we talk about the 30-year, uh, T-SPLOST, um, just to understand what that means in terms of real numbers. I'm familiar with COB's. Um, that 30-year T-SPLOST had a projected, I think it was a projected cost of, was it... Do you recall, was it $12 billion? [0:48:21] It, it was significant. I don't remember the number. [0:48:23] I don't recall what Gwinnett's... Do you recall what G- what Gwinnett's was? [0:48:26] I, I don't recall. [0:48:27] Okay. And then, and you did mention that you had... Now, of course, our, our SPLOST failed in, in 2024, so it's been, what, a little over a year and a half- [0:48:34] Yes, ma'am [0:48:35] ... since that. And I know that you did say that you haven't heard anything from COB, or you haven't heard that they're gonna be bringing it back again anytime soon. But would it surprise you to know that I have heard from some county officials that, that would be very much interested in bringing that T-SPLOST back again, and certainly sooner than in eight years? [0:48:51] Uh, I, I trust that I think everyone is talking about the options on the table. People recognize there's a core need. Um, I have not seen any sort of procedural processes that the county moved place that would suggest they are beginning that timeline process. [0:49:04] Right. And when you say core, core need, could you explain, could you elaborate on what you mean by core need? [0:49:09] Uh, I just think, uh, that the overall, uh, ATL tr- transportation and transit regional plan, uh, that has been put in place for all of the metro counties has recognized there are mobility needs that the county needs to invest in. [0:49:22] Right. [0:49:22] And transit SPLOST is one utility to address those mobility needs. [0:49:26] Right. But, but at the same time, you do recognize a, a, a, a majority rejection of that concept in COB as a result of the last... As, as, as shown in the last vote. [0:49:36] They, they definitely did reject that referendum. I'm not denying that. Yes, ma'am. [0:49:39] Thank you. [0:49:42] Okay. Thank you. I think we exhausted... W- thank you. Exhausted the questions. [0:49:46] Thank you, Chairman. [0:49:46] Had a great discussion about the members. So- [0:49:50] Mr. Chairman? [0:49:50] W- sure. Chairman, go ahead. [0:49:53] I, um, I, I'd like to propose something to the committee. Uh, I don't know the procedure we're doing, so. I'm a member of the committee, but I would propose maybe an amendment, uh, and more or less a promise as well. Um, based on, uh, uh, what has been mentioned to... Can I use this? On the sub. Um, if I understand correctly from legislative council, if we were to s- make an amendment to strike section two, if we were to make an amendment to strike section two, that would affect, uh... [0:50:27] The, the impact of that would basically remove the, any of impact of this bill, which again is only for transit SPLOST, remove any impact to outside to, uh, uh, would, it would... Uh, I'm not saying that correctly. It'd remove any impact for outside the metro Atlanta area. I- is that my understanding? [0:50:48] Yeah. To only cover the attainment area, the [0:50:50] So I would, I would enter- I would entertain an amendment, um, as offered- [0:50:56] We'll get, we'll get to that in a little bit. [0:50:58] Okay. [0:50:58] We gotta get to the first part first. [0:51:00] Okay. All right. Sorry. [0:51:02] Okay. What's the will of the committee? Motion to pass. We have a motion to do pass. A second? Second. Okay, now we're at the amendment, so I'll recognize, uh, our member, Chairman Carson. [0:51:14] Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would, uh, humbly like to ask the committee to strike lines, as I understand it, 25 to 32. We would strike lines 25 to 32 as unnecessary. [0:51:29] Second. We have the second. Any discussion on striking lines 25 through 32? See none. All those in favor of it, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hear none. Okay, that was done. Okay, any other amendments proposed? See none. We'll vote on the general bill, on the, uh, substitute to LC 39 44 94 S as amended by the committee. [0:52:00] All those in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nope. You got your bill. Thank both of y'all. [0:52:04] Thank you, sir, very, very much. [0:52:08] Okay. Well, now we, we are going to take a moment. Uh, Representative Jenkins is in judiciary right now sitting on the stand with a bill. And you know, so we're gonna take, like, a, just a reset, just a pause, 'cause I know rules is going on in, uh, in just a few minutes. But if I need to have seven of y'all... But let me just... While we're waiting on... Yes, sir, Chairman Carson. [0:52:35] Are, are we good? Yeah. [0:52:36] Yeah, we're good. [0:52:38] Thank you. [0:52:38] The, um, Representative Jenkins has been working with, um, all affected parties on House Bill 1434. And I want you to just take a minute. You know, I don't know where he's at, where he's co- you know. We've been trying to text him, but it's kinda hard. And, uh, what I'll probably do is just go ahead and let both the, the advocates for this speak. But if you'll look at it, we're gonna make an amendment to the last section. [0:53:08] And you know, really what this is doing is trying to protect what we call that invisible area that we all discussed in a couple of meetings as we landed and, um, for our airports. And if you look on your desk, we passed out an amendment. It's on a piece of white paper. If you'll look at it, that would be for the [0:53:31] lines 67. [0:53:39] Because what, what we knew is, when we were doing this, that if we did not- Create a penalty. What would, as you heard in the committee testimony, what would cause, what would happen? And we know nothing. So we, we battered, battered back and forth, uh, uh, Representative Jenkins and myself and others, a number of different penalties. We came up with line 67, that if they did not do this, they would not get LMEG funds. Uh, working with the GMA came up with a, a similar idea as you see on the, in the amendment on this sheet you've got right there. [0:54:18] And, um, it's where an airport fails to enact or enforce an airport-affected area. You know, what we'll do is have GDOT hold their money for three years. Instead of just declining it, they'll hold it. And at this point, which they don't do it, they've got to give it to the airport. And 'cause this is a, a very, I, I think, a subtle, and we'll let, uh, GMA talk about it as they come to. But I'm just kinda killing time as we wait till Representative Jenkins, 'cause I wanna give him the floor. [0:54:52] 'Cause the committee, he has worked for the last two or three weeks tirelessly in trying to figure this out, which we thought was a pretty much unsolvable issue, and I think he's done a good job. So I've got some people who wanna speak to the bill. Edward Lindsey, and then Noah with the GMA. [0:55:16] Mr. Chairman, um, let me... E- Edward Lindsey. I, I'm here representing the Georgia Airport Association. We have spent, uh, two years, uh, in your office and around the state working on this issue. We are one of only three states in the country who don't, do not have a bill similar to this, uh, that, uh, puts at the front end, uh, the issue of, of protecting the airspace around airports. Um, we've, we've looked at how the other 47 states have done it. [0:55:49] We've worked with you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of this committee, particularly, uh, Representative Jenkins, and we thank him, and we'll thank him again when he gets here. Uh, I have here today, uh, several of the folks from GAA, uh, who have worked tirelessly on this, including, uh, Dawud Stevenson, who is the chair of the Georgia Airport Association. Jim Marquardt, who is the, uh, chair of the legislative committee that has worked so hard on it. Andrew Wiersma, who's a former president of GAA, who has, uh, tirelessly worked on this and looked at, uh, various issues around the country. [0:56:26] Uh, and, uh, and we wanna simply thank the committee for its work. This will be the third hearing. I'm not gonna add anything more to it in terms of the testimony, unless you wanna hear from any of our experts that I've just mentioned. I will also add that we have seen the proposed amendment by, uh, Georgia Municipal Association, and we are in support of it. And we thank GMA for coming to the table and working with us. I believe they are, with this amendment, neutral, if I may characterize that correctly. And, uh, and that's very important to us because, uh, GAA is made up of, I believe, around 75 of the 105 airports in this country, in this state, including general aviation airports and commercial airports. [0:57:09] And quite frankly, we are owned by either counties or cities, so we want to be on the good side of them as well. And we thank the chair, and we thank the committee for its hard work on this, and we simply ask for your favorable consideration. [0:57:21] Well, thank you, Ed, for being very persistent in helping us move this bill along. Uh, Representative Jenkins is now on his way, but- [0:57:30] Yeah [0:57:30] ... thank you for being nice hand on doing this. [0:57:33] Yeah. [0:57:33] Noah? [0:57:37] Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you. My name's Noah Reyes with the Georgia Municipal Association. Um, wanted to echo some of, uh, Ed's comments. Um, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your leadership on this over the past two years. I know we had a conversation almost two years ago to the day about this matter, and, hey, this is something we're gonna have to look at and address. And we've had the opportunity to work with Representative Jenkins, who's, uh, unfortunately not here, but he'll be speaking to you shortly about it. And I believe that this bill and what we have in front of us, um, gives the proper definitions to everybody that needs to be involved. Not just the airport-owning authority, the airport-owning jurisdiction, but also the affected parties. [0:58:09] Um, I believe it brings the Department of Transportation to the process in a meaningful way that's gonna be helpful. And I would, again, appreciate the committee's favorable, uh, acceptance of the amendment we offered. I believe that that maintains some of the teeth you're looking for in this bill, while also making sure that local governments, when maybe there are some issues between city or counties on the enforcement of these regulations, that once we get those ironed out, those necessary local transportation funds are approved and, uh, given back to the local government. So with that, Chairman, I appreciate your work on this. I'll pause for any questions. [0:58:39] Okay. We have no questions. Wait a minute. 24 popped up there. [0:58:46] Uh, I- [0:58:47] Gary [0:58:47] ... I do have a question, and I, and I understand the plan, putting it out there and all of that. But still, how do we address the private property owners that are outside, that are being affected by whatever the plan ends up being? [0:59:02] So I believe under the current legislation, um, what we would have to... And m- maybe Representative Jenkins can speak a little bit better to this. But, um, the airport-owning jurisdiction is to notify the local governments that have control over the zoning or land use powers of what the affected airspace is, and that's that 14 CFR port, Part 77. That's basically a geometric-based regulation. Um, if there's infringements upon that, um, whether it be through height of development or through height of vegetation, those are constituted as, um, obstacles within the imaginary airspace. [0:59:35] From that point in time, the local government would then work to kinda notify the affected property owners of the issues, right? Um, that could be something that they could potentially apply for variances for underneath this bill. That's something that Representative Jenkins and I noticed was very important, was that there needs to be an opportunity for variances here. Because while those appeals do go back to the FAA, oftentimes they do make note that, hey, this is an obstacle within the airspace, but it's one that we can note and we can move forward with. [1:00:05] It does not necessarily need to be remedied. Um, but there may be others in the room that could speak a little bit better to that process, but that's my understanding of it, and the Representative Jenkins as well might be able to speak a little bit better to it. So. Or Mr.- [1:00:19] Mr. [1:00:19] Mr. Chair, if I, if I might [1:00:23] The surrounding property owners are already s- restricted under FAA. This is simply a matter of putting at the front end, uh, of, of trying to regulate the, the airspace rather than the back end. FAA leg- uh, authority only comes at the back end after, after a restriction has taken place in terms of restricting the, the ability of the airport to fully function. All we're doing here is putting this issue at the front end so that everyone is aware of the issue, everyone takes care of that issue, and everyone, uh, complies with the requirements of FAA. [1:00:58] It, it doesn't enlarge FAA's, uh, authority or, or what FAA has done. It simply ensures that, that that which FAA would do to a local airport on the back end, we take care of it on the front end so that all the property owners are in compliance from the very beginning. That's all it does. [1:01:19] A- and I understand, but, but from the previous meeting or the one before, I can't even remember now, there was discussion about heights of trees and, and going in and, and, and, and taking, cutting or trying to cut or, or whatever, and that's the part that I still don't have clarity of. [1:01:39] Yeah. It simply creates an orderly process from the very beginning at the front end, rather than dealing with the punitive nature of FAA's abilities at the back end. We're trying to avoid that, those kind of punitive situations, and simply getting all the, everybody affected from the very beginning to be working together. That's, that's all this bill really does. Thank you. [1:02:00] Let's let our bill sponsor speak now. [1:02:03] Okay. [1:02:04] And I think this, this is questions about, uh, private property rights. [1:02:08] Yeah, I got you. [1:02:09] Thank you. [1:02:09] So I hope I don't re-say some things that have been said, but I do wanna kinda start, um, and, and just talk about the purpose of this bill. So, uh, Georgia's home to over 100 general aviation airports. Um, and above every single one of those airports, there's protected airspace, uh, defined by 14 CFR Part 77. Just like any other federal rule, um, we're, we're, we're subject to it. It's, uh, it is, uh, emotionless. [1:02:41] It's black and white. I- it exists. Um, the airspace protected by that rule is really unaffected by this bill. Uh, it exists today. Uh, if we pass this bill, it will still exist. However, this is just a method, uh, to ensure compliance, uh, with the federal regulations, just like so many others that we do. Um, the reason why we're bringing this is 'cause ultimately, the federal government, you... [1:03:12] Our, our airports are largely, uh, uh, funded by grants from the federal government and, and GDOT. And, uh, when we, when an airport receives that grant money, they agree to, uh, abide by the federal safety regulations or, or, uh, or forfeit that in the future. Uh, so that's what happens. Uh, the FAA comes back and they, they, uh, con- confirm that FAA safety regulations are being complied with. And if the airport has failed to comply with them, they lose their grant money. [1:03:42] Uh, the problem with that sanction is that you're sanctioning a body that has no control, uh, over, typically over the area that may be violating the airspace. So what this bill seeks to do is move sanctions out to the people that are violating, uh, the airspace. So this problem was brought to us by two organizations that virtually represent all of Georgia's general aviation airports. Uh, legislation like this exists in 47 of 50 states. [1:04:17] It exists in all states that, uh, border us. The discussion that we had the last time we talked about this, that was primarily a Georgia law, or excuse me, a Florida law that we looked at, and we all decided, I think the airports as well decided that that wasn't a Georgia solution. But it definitely brought some very good discussion, uh, on this problem and, and led to, to what we have here today. So what we have here today, um, basically section one, um, and we obviously, we have all the definitions. [1:04:50] It starts with all the definitions. Uh, it defines, um, the, um, airport imagery surface, which is essentially 14 CFR Part 77. That's defined by the federal government, not by the State of Georgia and not by the airport. Uh, on line 32, it begins the meat of the bill. It tells basically that every airport sponsor in the state shall identify that, that area and notify, identify and notify. [1:05:21] So then the people that govern that affected area know that they have that area to govern. Um, then it requires, uh, each governing area to, uh, to basically enforce, uh, essentially zoning. If they have zoning, it goes in their zoning regulations. If they don't, uh, they have to enact regulations to protect this area in accordance with federal law. Um, and then basically, uh, starting at, uh, line 45, it directs the Department of Transportation to assist the local government in defining this area because ultimately they may or may not have the, um, the skills, uh, to do that. [1:06:10] But it's, you know, again, it's defined by federal regulation and, and GDOT or probably the airport could certainly, uh, map it or assist in mapping so that it can be protected. Um, and then starting on line 54, um- Let's see. Uh, basically, it, it, it, it, it instructs the, the, the, the zoning, um, and requires them to enforce that zoning after 59. [1:06:43] It, uh, further, uh, allows a variance. So this airspace that's protected by 14 CFR Part 77 contains the air s- route structure that leads in and out of that airport. It is possible to penetrate that, uh, with an obstruction without, um, uh, affecting those airways. So this allows the airport to run this to the FAA, who will make a decision of whether or not that penetration is actually a, creates a hazard or if it's something that, that can be allowed. [1:07:20] So there is a variance, uh, uh, provided for. And then finally, there is a, uh, a provision, this is the enforcement provision that basically takes the LMIG funding from any, uh, government that fails to im- uh, to basically protect this federally established airspace above our, our airports. Uh, and there is an amendment that, at the appropriate time, that changes the language. [1:07:53] I think the way this bill is written, it makes it sound like they lose their LMIG, and I think we want the, their LMIG to be suspended until they, uh, till the, the obstruction is, um, is, is cleared. And again, the, the, the, the, this is, this airspace is being protected today. It's not a, it's not a question of do we wanna protect this airspace or not. That's not something this body can decide. I mean, what we can decide is do we want an airport there or not, or do we wanna change the, the infrastructure on that airport or the route structure? [1:08:25] But we can't decide to protect this airspace or not. That's beyond, uh, our ability. This is another, again, emotionless, black and white federal regulation that, that we are subject to. Um, but it's h- it's, the hopes it, with this bill is that we can be more, uh, intentional. Uh, right now, landowners are being jacked around. They're pulling permits and, and engineering projects that they cannot do because w- they find out, uh, that they would violate this protected area that they can't violate. [1:08:57] Um, so this puts it all up front. Uh, uh, it's a very permissive regulation. I mean, if you drive around any of our metro areas, you will see economic ac- activity all the way up to the airport fence. You can do most things. You just literally can't do everything. Uh, and a, a for instance is the, uh, uh, Calhoun Airport, uh, that lies in the county. If I'm getting this right, the city is north of the Calhoun Airport, and there was a building planned in the city, and they literally only had to move it about 12 feet to make it comply. [1:09:32] So again, if we can set all this stuff up in a clear structure, then, then we don't require re-permitting, re-engineering. You know, we don't, we, we, we take all that mess away, and we just, we do what we, uh, what we can legally do, uh, with intention. Uh, we don't inadvertently, uh, compromise our infrastructure 'cause again, it's, it's not a, s- it's not up to us whether or not we protect this air- uh, airspace. Um, I'm trying to think what else. Um, a- as far as the, the procedure for cutting trees and stuff like that, I know people that manage airports, uh, know that well. [1:10:12] Uh, j- living next to an airport at this point's almost like living next to a railroad track in that these airports are all mostly older than me, and they're not really moving. Uh, Paulding County is one example. 2011, uh, Griffin wants to move their airport. I don't know of anything else. Most of these airports are, are very old. They're not moving. Um, if, if there's trees that have to be cut, they've probably already been cut once. Um, so again, this is, this is, this bill really maintains the status quo. [1:10:45] It just creates a better se- procedure to do that. [1:10:49] Thank you. That, would you be able to looked at, uh, one word? This, this is proactive, this bill is, in, in notification of, of, of the area. I think it'll be very good. Okay, I've got a couple of questions for you. Representative Smith. [1:11:10] Oh, that, I thought I did. [1:11:11] My bad. [1:11:12] We're good. [1:11:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, is it okay to talk to the amendment now too or...? [1:11:19] Sure. Yeah, let's go ahead. Uh, we got the amendment. Uh, like I said prior to, the amendment's on your desk. There are some scrivener's errors on the, the amendment that, uh, we'll give Jenna when we get to that point the right, the, the ability to clear up. And I'll address those when we get to that. But go ahead. Yes, sir. [1:11:37] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I imagine, too, I know we were, had the benefit of having this laid on our desk. Some people in the audience may not have, so if somebody wants to have a question, are you okay? [1:11:47] Yes. [1:11:47] Yeah, okay. Uh- [1:11:48] Yes, sir [1:11:49] ... in, in the amendment, it goes, talks about holding funds, um, three years. Where did that number come from? Is that number the same in all the other states you mentioned, uh, or not? [1:12:03] So that is, uh, how long GDOT, and I'm, they're probably, somebody knows more about this than I do, is, is how long GDOT can withhold funding. So that, I, I guess under current law, they can't hold them anymore, so this allows them to up to three years, um, and then they don't have the ability to do it any longer than that. [1:12:24] Okay. So it's at, at, at the discretion of GDOT- [1:12:28] Yes [1:12:28] ... once they inspect- [1:12:29] Right [1:12:30] ... the aviation division. Okay. Um, so that was, that was my main concern if, uh- [1:12:36] If k- they come in compliance in a year. Right. Um, and withholding funds, this may be another GDOT question, but is that funds just for airports? 'Cause you mentioned LMIG, and LMIG is transportation funds, whether sidewalks or not. So are those funds being held just airport funds, or all LMIG? So the issue we have now is the sanction provided by w- that's provided by the FAA is to withhold funds from the airport. [1:13:06] And in many cases, the airport is, does not have control over the area that, uh, has violated it. For instance, an adjacent city. Um, so this basically transmits a penalty to the violator of the airspace that the airport may not have control over. As we were socializing this, I talked to an engineer that, that consults with about 11 airports, and, uh, he talked of, of course, we've talked about the adjacent jurisdiction story. [1:13:37] Uh, even some of the, you know, the smaller the county, the more direct a commissioners may run these airports. And, you know, there's elections every four years, so there's a learning curve after every election, and he's run into that where we get a new batch of commissioners that they have to educate. So setting up these le- regulations will be s- you know, some better guardrails for that as well. I think the direct answer is yes. That's g- that's a good answer. Sorry. Also, uh- Only for airport LMIG or not? [1:14:10] No, all. All LMIG. The way we have it is the all. And I think it's, I think you've got to send a message, uh, when we were, says he, the nice word, socializing it, that just airport LMIG is insignificant money, generally. This is, you know, it's significant money, but this is a significant issue. A- and again, uh, airport, airport LMIG is, again, you're sanctioning a body that may not be violating the airspace and have no control over the person violating, or the body, the, the government violating the airspace. [1:14:42] Number one is, uh, Mr. Holly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Thank you, uh, Representative Jenkins. Uh, you and I both are in that bin of, uh, bouncing between committees. But, uh, thank you for your work on this over the last three weeks. My question with regards to, um, that three-year penalty, um, what does the remediation process look like for a airport that actually has been found to be in violation and whose money is being withheld, um, in terms of them, if they come back online, um, what does that look like in, in terms of them being able to have that funding restored? [1:15:19] Right. So under current Georgia law, I think, uh, w- that would be better answered by, uh, one of our, we got a, an engineer here or an airport manager that can talk through that process. [1:15:33] If you will. A UAR and all that good stuff. Yes. So I'm Andrew Wiersma. I'm the, uh, airport manager up at the Dalton Municipal Airport. Um, I guess prob- probably GDOT would be able to speak to that better. Uh, but, uh, I would assume that once th- they comply with that regulation, they would then again be eligible for those funds. I mean- Yeah, I'm looking at the window of compliance. Like, if they get it done tomorrow, does that mean that the funds will be now available come Monday morning? [1:16:06] You know? Like, what does that window look like for someone who's actually, where that money's being withheld? Sure. So Josh, you, you may be able to speak to that one. Yeah, since it's sort of theoretical, I think once l- it's signed into law, we would have to develop a process. Okay. So that's the sort of- So that, I don't know the specific answer. We'd have to see how that would work out. Okay. Josh, would you repeat? Excuse me. Would you repeat that? I wa- had a member asking me a question. So I'm, in terms of the timeline, I think we'd have to see, once the bill is signed into law, we'd have to spell out a process for when they're now back into compliance and then how quickly the funds. [1:16:46] I would assume once they are deemed compliant, it wouldn't be a matter too difficult to go ahead and get those funds turned, made, made available to them. You have no reason to keep them. That- Yeah. It's, yeah. Yeah. Representative, Chairman Carpenter. Sorry, Josh. So, so if we, in this amendment, if we put 60 days, is that enough time? Once, once you've proved compliance, 60 days, that'd give GDOT enough time to turn around? Cr- yeah, so there's a process whereby they make applications. So then, yeah, they would, they, they're deemed compliant. [1:17:18] 60 days might be, might be reasonable. Okay. If for some reason there'd be a challenge, I'll, I could follow back up, but I would think, 'cause presently today, when folks are on, uh, non-compliance for audits, we have to with- withhold LMIG as, as well as DC and some other funds. So we'd probably follow that same process. Okay. And how, excuse me, and how long is that process with compliance, to answer his question? Let me, let me follow up specifically on that. I would think that once we know they're on the good list, there's not a whole lot on the back end for us- Yeah ... [1:17:51] to make the funds available. Okay. I th- I think the key will just be- Once- ... once this process is in place, identifying on what day they are non-compliant and then the day that they become compliant. I think that process will have to be- Is there, is there any reason to put a time limit or, or the 60 days or 90 days to implement? Not necessarily. I think, again, once we know that they are compliant, it would be very similar to today when they become compliant, then they make, they're now, you're now eligible, make your application, which is all electronic now, so it's a fairly straightforward and quick process. [1:18:24] Okay. Thank, thank you, Josh. Representative Horner. Thank you, Chairman. Um, two questions. First- Sure ... on average, how big would a civil airport imaginary surface be? Well- I don't know the airport and the fed regulations, but- You know- ... what's the average? T- to be honest with you, that was beyond the scope of this bill and beyond, and, and as a result, beyond the scope of my presentation because, you know, that's, that's defined by federal regulation. Do you have that answer handy? [1:18:55] Go ahead. Thank you, Andrew. You're welcome. Yes. Um, so in general, um, for a non-precision runway, you're talking about 10,000 feet from the end of that, uh, runway. That can go out to 40,000 feet if it's a precision approach runway. And we have somewhere between 15 to 20, uh, precision approach runways. Sure. Thank you. Yep. And then my second question was, I just, can you walk through the zoning authority real quick for us? [1:19:26] Sure. Um, on in no way, shape, or form does it change local authority on zoning, correct? Uh, so it directs them to create zoning to protect the, um, airport imagery services s- surface, or, or airport imagery, um, area defined by 14 CFR Part 77. So they do have to incorporate that into their zoning. Uh, they can continue to make whatever other zoning regulations they wanna make, uh, as long as that is part of their zoning. [1:20:00] Perfect. And on enforcement, um, the enforcement still resides completely with the local governing authority, correct? The zoning, yes. They, they are to enforce their zoning, and if they f- if they fail to do that and violate this, uh, protected area, uh, they, they, they are, then that's what creates the sanctions from GDOT that, uh, that in- ensures that they do that. All right. Thank you. [1:20:32] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, David, for working so hard on this. I appreciate it. We have one speaker who would like to speak to the concept before we move on. Ms. Hope, would you? [1:20:54] Okay. Thank you. I'm Hope McAloo. So I'm with the Association of Georgia General Aviation Airports. Um, and we worked with, uh, Representative Jenkins on this as well. We, um, are fairly well satisfied with what's been placed in front of you. I just wanted to make absolute sure that it's not just the airport that is being penalized, and it is LMIG funds as well, because there are several airports in the state that have zero zoning power, so they have no way to protect themselves. So is that the case? [1:21:25] Is it penalties are for both? Uh, th- that's correct. I mean, your, your relationship with the FAA, uh, is unchanged, so if you, you know, if you lose funding or, or whatever because, 'cause the, the imagery surface has been violated, uh, that, that remains unchanged. We don't have the authority to do that, but we do have the ability to, uh, to sanction, uh, adjacent governments that do that, and that's what this bill does. The FAA does not enforce the, the zoning. It is up to the locals to enforce their own zoning, so it does assist us with that as well. [1:22:00] Um, and the three-year number, our funds expire with GDOT after three years. So we're able to roll over three years at a time, and after that, they expire. So that three-year number is an important number. So beyond that, I have no other comments. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. All right. Do any other committee members have any questions for their, our bill sponsor? And I just want, before we move on, to tell you thank you. I know you spent a lot of time on this, and, um, and you don't have your cast on today. I don't, yeah. I'm graduating. [1:22:30] Good for you. Good for you. I just wanted to notice that. Okay, what's the will of our committee? Motion to pass. Motion do pass. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. We're in motion do pass is second. Now we're in an amendment stage. So, you know, I'll make the amendment that you have in your hands. Um, at the very top, it says HPD 1434LC395001S. That needs to be an, it's a different, 05007S. [1:23:03] And it's, like it says, it's interjected. It's replacing B on line 67, just as you read there, as we've talked about. Now, in, in here, there are a few scrivener's errors, um, that with your thing, uh, as we vote on this, giving Ms. Jenner, our legislative counsel, the ability to fix those. There's, like, capital code section N. Uh, and they're, they don't really ch- change anything that's in the bill. They're just small scrivener's errors. [1:23:34] So I offer that in the, as a motion to accept this. Do I hear any comments or questions about it? All right. Nope. Whoop, there's another one. Clarification. The lesser [1:23:51] of three years or until. Should we suspend it to the lesser of three years, right? That's what I'm gathering from the intent. Oh, okay. So- Just make sure- I'm gonna add a little bit. And Jenna's, due to our discussion, if you'll look over on the fourth line down, you'll see shall be suspended for the lesser of three years or until- Then- ... they enact- Until such time the airport affected area, um, governing body enacts or enforces. Okay. Right. That's, I'm just making sure I understand the intent. [1:24:22] When I clean it up, it is the lesser of that, right? If that's- Yes, it is the lesser. Yep. Yes, ma'am. Okay. You want that back? We have question number 25. That's- Thank you, Chairman. Yeah. A real quick question on the amendment. Yeah. What is the process for the county to appeal it, the decision of you choosing not to do full LMIG? Well, I think the, I don't know that there is a process. I think it's either you're doing it or you're not. [1:24:52] I mean, I think if you're not, and then you've caused them to be out of line with FAA, you're out. And so that's the, uh, the way I understand it. Okay. I need to make a mo- have a motion for, uh, this amendment. Motion. Got a motion. Got a second. Any comments? All those in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay, now let's go on to the full bill. This is as amended by our committee, LC395007S. [1:25:26] Hear a motion. We have motion do and motion do pass. All those in favor, as this bill has been amended, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Thank you. David, thank you for working so hard on this. I know you still have a lot of work to do- Mm-hmm ... in the Senate and all that, but you've been a- Thank you ... great member. Thank you. This, this meeting is adjourned. Oh, one other thing. We will be in tomorrow. Hey, members. We will meet tomorrow at 1:00 or whatever time is directed by the speaker to do the road naming, so I will need seven of y'all to come then. [1:26:03] Thank you. Meeting now is [1:26:16] adjourned.