Senate Finance Committee, March 2, 2026

Transcript

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

1. 0:13:21

   present here, so we're gonna go ahead and get started. Um, I'll ask, uh, Senator Tillery, would you lead us today? You're number three, five there. Okay.

2. 0:13:31

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you'd bow with me. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for, uh, the safety of letting us get here. Thank you for the nourishment of lunch, and, uh, thank you for just a safe place to be. Lord, we, uh, ask you protect our men and women overseas as they're engaged in this conflict, to protect American lives at home. We ask you give us wisdom as we deliberate, and that we would pass policies that would only help Georgians and not harm them. In your name we pray, amen.

3. 0:13:55

   Amen.

4. 0:13:55

   Amen.

5. 0:13:56

   So for the first bill, I'm gonna... I think I'll go down here and present.

6. 0:14:13

   All right, ladies and gentlemen, you'll find Senate Bill 566 from Senator Hufstetler in your folders.

7. 0:14:23

   Chairman Hufstetler-

8. 0:14:23

   All right

9. 0:14:23

   ... we're looking at LC 443502S, is that correct?

10. 0:14:30

    That, that's correct.

11. 0:14:31

    All right. We'll turn it to you.

12. 0:14:32

    Thank you, Chairman. All right. So, uh, first of all, let me get you to look in your folder, if you would, and you're gonna see something like this sheet right here. So we worked with, uh... And I guess James is here. Are you-

13. 0:14:47

    Yes, sir.

14. 0:14:48

    Okay. Maybe you can go ahead and sit up here, too. Um, we worked with the Paulding County Assessor, who sometimes takes the lead on stuff at the state level, on this issue. And basically, we wanted to clean this up and have it... And I know you're gonna say, "Well, it looks pretty wordy now," but it, it was and has been a lot worse. We wanted to clean this up. And so we, we, we kind of got together and said, "What is a good way for it to look?" And after that got designed, then we backed the legislation into it, instead of writing legislation and seeing what, what happens later on.

15. 0:15:25

    So what the intent of this is, is, um, to focus, um, the notice of assessment on its intended purpose, the value of the property, and which exemptions have been applied. So, um, I think this will be simpler for taxpayers, and, um, hopefully give them the information that's there. I'm not saying it doesn't still look a little complicated, but I, I feel like this is the best we could do on it, um, to, to clean this up and sort of try to clean up some stuff that maybe was ambiguous back from House Bill 581.

16. 0:16:01

    So let me go to section one first, um, on that bill. And basically what we're saying there is that if there was a mistake made on this notice, you know, we send out three notice. If there's a mistake made on the notice, and it's not the county or the city's fault, it's, uh, something that maybe the font wasn't right, or the size of it wasn't right, or whatever, and, and they had provided the correct information, that the clock doesn't reset.

17. 0:16:33

    We have to get the corrected one out there, but we're not resetting the clock. And in some counties, we have, um, maybe, uh, papers only once a week. And so then they're delayed a, a week getting it out. Um, I will say, uh, talking with, uh, Reagan from the newspaper, he thinks this is covered another way, but my request was, um, that we look at that in the House side, and, and we'll continue to work on that in the meantime.

18. 0:17:06

    But, um, we don't wanna delay the process of getting it out if it's through no fault of the county's own. And there's always the argument, "Well, whose fault was it?" But I think clearly it has to be with the... But the issue is the DOR is rejecting these. Um, there's a dispute over whether they should reject them if it's, if it's something that minor, but, but they are. They feel like they're following their rules in rejecting it. Section two, um, breaks out the tax amounts by cities.

19. 0:17:39

    And, um, this is the part that I will tell you I've got to watch in the process. And I'll, I'll explain why, and I, I would prefer that we go ahead with this. But we are assuming that the opt-out is taken out in this process. I feel like it's gonna be. But I'll have to watch and make sure we don't agree to anything if for any reason the opt-out is not taken out and applied statewide. Then we need to look at this language before final agreement to it.

20. 0:18:11

    Um, but it cleans up a lot of stuff that would not be necessary there. Section three deals with, uh, substantial property change so that, um, we're taking into account, we've had, you know, I guess it could be from a hurricane or anything else, destruction of real property. And then you've got to, uh, you've got to rebuild. And, um, we didn't really have a good mechanism on how to deal with that. Um, and so that's what we're dealing with in section three.

21. 0:18:48

    Section four is really gonna close the language where a tax paper, payer can file for homestead exemption before their April 1st deadline, but then cannot file again until after the 45 appeal window opens up when they get their notice of assessment. And so if they file for the homestead exemption during this gap, some jurisdictions have been interpreting the law as saying the application cannot be accepted and the taxpayer must wait. This is gonna give them more time and flexibility by allowing homestead exemption applications anytime between January 1st As it is now April 1st, but any time before the end of the 45-day appeal period, I think that's very taxpayer-friendly.

22. 0:19:28

    It's also a requirement that taxpayers notify the Board of Assessors if they're ineligible for the homestead exemption, and that language is reflected on the front of the sheet there. Um, and in addition on that, I believe this is the section, let me be sure. Um, we're, we're basically putting it on there, but, but saying, uh, as it is right now, they're actually gonna have 100% penalty. This would make it be a 50% penalty if they have incorrectly applied for it.

23. 0:20:00

    But we're also, I think, putting it on this notice that, you know, we're, we're giving them written notice. If you lose your homestead exemption, if you rent the house and then come back years later, it doesn't reset to that original value on it. So I think that makes that pretty clear. Um,

24. 0:20:24

    Section 6, um, it's gonna require some coordination between and among the local tax officials, Department of Revenue, to make sure that there's only one homestead exemption given out. You know, their, their Department of Revenue's gonna maintain a list of homestead exemptions granted or denied throughout the state, um, which local officials shall review prior to approving a homestead exemption. I'm sure you've heard stories of people getting them in multiple jurisdictions in the past. That usually only seems to come up and be highlighted when somebody's running for office, but, you know, it, it, uh, still should be there.

25. 0:21:00

    And then, um, Section 7 just basically, you know, is focusing on this net of assessment. What's the previous year value? What's the current year value? What's changed? What exemptions are available? If you look down the side there, it's what exemptions are available. We clearly put on there who the taxpayer should contact about possible other exemptions that they might be eligible for. They're listed there. And, um, how they appeal. It lists all the different ways on the right side over there how they can appeal.

26. 0:21:36

    And lastly, there is a provision authorizing the Department of Revenue to make additional changes after consult- consulting with the House Ways and Means and the Senate's Finance Committee. So, uh, with that, um, somewhat thorough, but y- at the same time, not completely thorough of everything in there, I'll entertain questions, and I'm sure James has been an expert around the state on this as well. Um, Dante from ACCG I think is out sick today, so, uh, we won't have him here to testify.

27. 0:22:08

    I told him to stay home.

28. 0:22:10

    Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, first off, thank you for bringing this bill forward. About seven, eight years ago, several of us, uh, started I think part of this process in, uh, Fulton County, where we had, uh, capped all of our tax rates and actually re- reset everybody's value back to the lowest amount it was in 2016, '17, and '18, and put that 3% escalator in, or the CPI, whichever was lower. So some of the same stuff that I believe you did in your local area and then ultimately drove statewide. One of the challenges we still face all the time, though, and I think this will address part of it, is we are showing what the previous value and the new value is.

29. 0:22:47

    The question we have all the time is people see the value change, and they think their taxes went up. And I usually have to have them take out their last couple years of tax bills and put them all next to each other to show the actual amount of their tax bill hasn't changed. Uh, I don't see it on here, but would it actually show them what their prior year or year before's actual tax bill was on this new version?

30. 0:23:08

    This, this, this one doesn't. Um, and, you know, one of the issues we ... The schools, the cities, the counties all have different numbers, and I think it seems to have confused everybody on it. So I'm not saying this is a perfect one. But, um, it does list the exemptions that they've got over there, and it would list, you know, their, their, uh, floating homestead exemption is gonna be over there. That will show what it is.

31. 0:23:37

    I don't wanna slow you down, but perhaps as this continues through the process, maybe you'd consider looking at something like that just to clear the confusion up for folks, so they can see if last year they paid, you know, plus or minus, uh, a few percent, that they would feel better about not understanding the difference-

32. 0:23:52

    Yeah

33. 0:23:52

    ... in the value change versus what the floating homestead potentially affected.

34. 0:23:54

    The problem is we don't know the millage rate either that's gonna be applied. It seems like all these estimated amounts are always wrong.

35. 0:24:02

    That is true.

36. 0:24:02

    At least in, in my area. And so that's ... Uh, they're gonna see that when the, when the tax bill itself comes out. This is just a notice of assessment. I, I, I, I understand your point. Um, it's, uh, it's been a struggle to get accurate information out that is simple enough for people to understand.

37. 0:24:22

    Yeah, certainly. Thank you. Questions from the committee members to the bill's author?

38. 0:24:28

    Question from the majority leader.

39. 0:24:30

    I don't really have a question. I just wanna first thank Chairman Hufstetler for all his work on this. I mean, this has taken a lot of time. And then I do wanna say thank you to, uh, my tax assessor in Paulding County, Mr. James Stokes, and for, uh, his collaboration and working with so many of the assessors across the state to try and change this so it is more taxpayer-friendly and our, um, citizens have documents in front of them to really understand kind of what they're paying for, especially as we've seen so many local governments increase taxes and the changes in law.

40. 0:25:03

    Um, I think whatever we can do this year and then even into the future to bring clarity to the taxpayer I think is, um, is really important. So I just wanna thank both of y'all for, for taking this up, doing it, and, uh, look forward to getting this across the finish line once and for all. So thank you.

41. 0:25:23

    Thank you, Leader Anavitarte. Other questions from the committee members? Seeing none. Uh, James, uh, why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself, uh, for the committee, and if you wanna say anything additional.

42. 0:25:36

    Yes, sir. My name is James Stokes. I'm the chief appraiser in Paulding County. I'm also the legislative director for the Georgia Association of Assessing Officials. So we've got about 1,700 members scattered across about 150 counties. We've been working on primarily the notice of assessment for years. Ever since they started adding the estimated tax on that assessment notice, property owners really started coming and appealing tax. You're appealing value, and you're appealing the denial of exemptions and things, so our world started blurring of what you're actually appealing.

43. 0:26:13

    Uh, we work with our homeowners constantly on trying to get a notice that the majority of your everyday citizen could understand what you're actually appealing, what does the process look like moving forward, and simply who do I, who do I contact to address questions. Um, getting a r- rid of a lot of the, pardon me, legal mumbo jumbo, uh, that a lot of people just simply do not understand, and trying to get this in the hands of property owners and help them make the best decision that they feel is right for them.

44. 0:26:50

    Uh, we're addressing questions in the legal advertisement for the digest submission. Um, that news- newspaper ad requires 30 square inches, and sometimes when we submit that to the newspaper, what is submitted even with it's got to be 30 square inches and not in the legal section, whoever put it in the newspaper, when we finally get it, doesn't meet the Department of Revenue's standards. And so the digest is automatically denied, and this just gives the Department of Revenue a little bit of flexibility if we can prove that, hey, we did everything right, it's just for whatever reason the newspaper-

45. 0:27:29

    Mm-hmm

46. 0:27:29

    ... uh, didn't have, didn't get it right. So, um, we're putting, we're asking for a few more guardrails on homestead exemption. Um, the state's homestead exemption is becoming stronger and worth more to the individual property owners, so are local exemptions. Um, we, there are, there are a several instances of people claiming multiple homesteads in multiple jurisdictions, and there's not a re- readily, relatively available, uh, source for us to bump up against a list to see if James is claiming one in Paulding County and in Cobb County.

47. 0:28:09

    Um, so I think the bill overall as far as property owners is, is very pro taxpayer. Um, and I think it, it really does kinda clarify some of the, uh, the issues that we may have seen since, uh, 581 came into, to play, and it's addressing some of the questions that at the county level. And I'll be glad to address any questions.

48. 0:28:31

    You do have a couple questions. I'll call on Senator Hickman.

49. 0:28:35

    Yes, sir. Thank you for being here. Um, nothing about what we're talking about here, but you know, we're seeing a lot of these small counties. The, the newspaper, which is legal organ, is slowly going out of business. Now, I, I'm sure y'all are addressing that or thinking about what's gonna happen going forward to protect these citizens though.

50. 0:28:52

    That's, uh, above my pay scale. Um, that's an issue I think the legislator has tried to address before. Um, right now is the way the, the law is written, um, it just gives the Department of Revenue a little bit of flexibility to take a look at our information to say, "Hey, they did the right thing. It was just the newspaper that for whatever reason it, it came out wrong. The ad came out wrong."

51. 0:29:15

    Well, no, I, I'm actually talking about some of these smaller counties that may not even have a newspaper.

52. 0:29:20

    Right.

53. 0:29:20

    Or, or, or, or like a county joining me, Evans County, the, the, the newspaper may be going out of business.

54. 0:29:27

    Right.

55. 0:29:27

    So what, what happens then for, for legal notices?

56. 0:29:34

    This does not really address this. Um-

57. 0:29:36

    Yeah, I think that's g- that'll be on a, on a separate, separate bill. All right. I got a question from Senator Anderson.

58. 0:29:43

    On the same, on the same line of thought. I know about four or five years ago we did a bill, and I don't know if it passed or not, to where if a county put it on their website-

59. 0:29:58

    Right

60. 0:29:58

    ... and they didn't have a local paper.

61. 0:30:03

    The way I understand the bill is written today, it requires the notice, the, the 30 square inches to be on the, in the local newspaper and to not be in the legal section of the newspaper. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see where it gives us flexibility or put it in the news- or put it on the website. We do have everything... Everything is automatically on our website. I don't know how other jurisdictions are doing it, but from my understanding, that's, that's, that's not an option with this legal advertisement.

62. 0:30:41

    There has to be part of that digest-

63. 0:30:43

    Can't recall whether it got passed or not. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

64. 0:30:47

    Question from Senator Still.

65. 0:30:50

    Thank you, Chairman. Um, how many counties did you say that you represent with what you're doing?

66. 0:30:55

    About 150.

67. 0:30:56

    What are the other nine doing differently?

68. 0:31:00

    Off the top of my head, tho- they're, they're sporadic. They're counties that we just really don't have any activity. They're smaller counties.

69. 0:31:07

    Got it. Okay.

70. 0:31:08

    They-

71. 0:31:08

    So not, not major metro-

72. 0:31:11

    It's not Fulton, it's not Gwinnett, it's not Cobb.

73. 0:31:14

    Small rural.

74. 0:31:15

    Yeah. Yeah.

75. 0:31:16

    Okay. Thank you.

76. 0:31:17

    Thanks. All right, uh, oh, we got a late arriving question from Senator Orrock.

77. 0:31:23

    Thank you so much and, and th- th- there may be more detail to this that you can provide, uh- To, uh, on the side, but, uh, the connection between commercial assessment and, and the residential properties, um, are, are, are you assessing both?

78. 0:31:43

    Yes, ma'am.

79. 0:31:43

    That's right. And, uh, d- is there a reason why commercial assessments are so radically, uh, uh, uh, lower than, than, uh, what the property's been selling for? Uh, and, and I, I, I raise that because it, you know, when you're, when a, when a county's looking at its whole budget and its millage rate and putting all those pieces together, it makes a difference about whether you're as- assessing commercial property, uh, appropriately and, uh, as, as opposed to these, uh, individually-owned homes.

80. 0:32:16

    I would say at its core is the lack of information that's provided to the tax assessors.

81. 0:32:21

    Uh-huh.

82. 0:32:21

    Um, these commercial properties sell or purch- they sell and are purchased based on a income stream. We simply do not get that income stream provided from, uh, the parties that are involved. Um, just like where you have your listing services, your MLS, your FMLS, we know everything about the sales. Um, we send sales verifications out, we request infrom- come information. We get nothing.

83. 0:32:51

    I, I, I would, uh, underscore that. I mean, I mean, that, that's, that's important information for us to understand when we're trying to put together the, uh, appropriate, uh, policies at the state level that, that, that are required. So, so actually, actually the, the, the commercial property owners don't comply. They don't provide the information that is needed to make a, uh, you know, the full, full disclosure or to get, to get an ac- accurate estimate-

84. 0:33:21

    It's-

85. 0:33:21

    ... or assessment?

86. 0:33:22

    It's, it's not required.

87. 0:33:24

    It's-

88. 0:33:24

    And I appreciate the line of questioning, Senator, but that's not really germane to this bill.

89. 0:33:27

    Well-

90. 0:33:27

    Probably a separate conversation.

91. 0:33:29

    Well, I s- uh, and I, and then that was the first thing I said-

92. 0:33:31

    Sure

93. 0:33:31

    ... that there's a, there's a conversation-

94. 0:33:32

    Uh

95. 0:33:32

    ... to be pursued elsewhere, but-

96. 0:33:34

    Absolutely

97. 0:33:34

    ... but it, but it's connected. It's all connected-

98. 0:33:36

    Sure

99. 0:33:36

    ... when a county's putting its budget together.

100. 0:33:38

     All right, James, if you could make way, we're gonna bring Mr. Nathan Corbett up from ACCG, last person who has signed up to speak on this bill.

101. 0:33:45

     Thank you.

102. 0:33:46

     Thank you.

103. 0:33:50

     Good afternoon. It's always a pleasure to be in the Georgia State Senate, and I appreciate your time. I'll be very brief. ACCG supports this bill. Cleaning up confusion around the notice of assessment has been one of our legislative priorities, and we are thrilled that this is moving forward. We appreciate the chairman bringing this bill. We also appreciate, uh, the opportunity to have worked with G AAO, with James who just spoke, um, in support of this bill. Also, very briefly, I'd like to say that, uh, we appreciate, uh, the Department of Revenue for working with us, particularly on the language in section one, which provides necessary revisions regarding publication and notice, and, um, thank you all.

104. 0:34:32

     Thank you for your comments. Okay. Seeing no ev- no one else signed up, uh, Chairman Hufstetler, would you like to make any final comments?

105. 0:34:39

     I don't have anything in, in particular, but I, I do agree the commercial assessments are an issue. They're an issue in Bartow County, and that's a separate thing we, we do need to deal with. Um, um, we're, the county's outmanned on that, but that's for another day.

106. 0:34:55

     All right. Any further discussion from the committee? Seeing none, what is the will of the committee?

107. 0:35:00

     Move to pass.

108. 0:35:00

     Move to pass from the majority leader. I got a second from Senator Hickman. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please raise your hand. Looks unanimous. Uh, congratulations, uh, Mr. Chairman, and good luck in the rules committee.

109. 0:35:13

     Thank you.

110. 0:35:27

     All right, uh, we'll move on back to the top there with Senator Hickman.

111. 0:35:44

     We had a, um, bill presented before that, um, had a couple of issues with it. One was it was, um, the way it was done, it wasn't going to sunset the other one. They were actually gonna run simultaneously. So I met with the chairman and ledge council and worked on that issue. Um, and, um, I also looked at the sunsite da- sunset date as well. So with that, if you guys wanna present.

112. 0:36:13

     Well, yes, sir. Thank you, and I, I cannot thank you enough for working with. You were very cooperative and, uh, and, um, we got it done. And I thank you for that. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee members. Um, Mr. Chairman, with your help, we have cleared up a couple of items, um, in the bill that you had questioned on, and I'm sure the other, other me- members did. We did change the sunset to five years, um, which is on page eight, page nine, uh, participating teachers on or after January 1 of 2027 with $500, $2,500.

113. 0:36:44

     And then on page nine also, participating teachers, since this bill originally sunset at 12, will sunset 12/31/26, so teachers that were involved at, before 12/31/26 will still maintain the $3,000, and then once effective 1/1/27 will be $2,500. However, on your guidance, Mr. Chairman, uh, we put the most important part, line 2007 through 2010, said under no circumstances would a credit, would a credit exceed $3 million a year.

114. 0:37:17

     'Cause, uh, Senator Still, you will have some carryover a little bit, and that's what the chairman was, uh, concerned about, at, that you made through the carryover from one, one $3,000 credit to, and $2,500 credit, you may have, um, more than $3 million. And we've corrected that by putting it in the bill. It said you, said in no circumstance would the credit be any more than $3 million a year. And then the act, the, uh, bill does b- become effect 1/1/27. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for helping us out on that, and, um, if you got any questions, we'd be glad to entertain some questions.

115. 0:37:50

     Just a comment.

116. 0:37:51

     Sure.

117. 0:37:52

     Just a quick comment. I appreciate all the work y'all are doing on this, but I just want to let you know in advance, um, no new tax credits from, from me. So when you see my no vote, nothing personal. I just, uh, think it's time we, uh, stopped doing, uh, onesies and we helped everybody. Thanks.

118. 0:38:06

     Yes, sir. I'll respect that.

119. 0:38:10

     All right, any other questions? Yes, Senator Orrock.

120. 0:38:13

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question to, uh, uh, Chairman Hickman. Uh, on page eight, uh, line 182, a q- qualifying public schools in a rural territory. I've never seen that in a bill before. Is there a definition of rural territory somewhere?

121. 0:38:31

     Well, yeah, I think that, that-

122. 0:38:32

     Okay

123. 0:38:32

     ... it, it, it, uh, it, filled in the bill, it, it basically says it's a 25% school.

124. 0:38:38

     Uh-huh, I see on line 57.

125. 0:38:40

     57.

126. 0:38:40

     Yes, ma'am.

127. 0:38:40

     Uh-huh. Defines.

128. 0:38:41

     Yes, ma'am.

129. 0:38:45

     And I've, and I've shared many stories with y'all as why we chose the 25% schools.

130. 0:38:56

     All right, so the, the potential in my mind when I left the meeting the other day was that 3 million, you go to 6 million for a few years. Um, and so that was important to, to make sure we keep the $3 million cap on there, whether, um, whether it goes on or not. The, the last thing I wanted was a long sunset and a long-

131. 0:39:16

     Yes, sir

132. 0:39:16

     ... you know-

133. 0:39:17

     Yes, sir

134. 0:39:17

     ... basically a double, double credit on there. So I think those have been, been worked on, but then you get back to the other underlying issue of the tax credits. And so, um, any other questions from the committee?

135. 0:39:35

     Senator Still.

136. 0:39:36

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, while I, uh, always agree about no, uh, no new tax increases, I don't think we can do enough for our teachers. So if it's the appropriate time, I'd like a motion to do pass.

137. 0:39:49

     Well, I don't see any other questions, so this would be the time.

138. 0:39:52

     All right. Motion to do pass SB 515 LC 4927 to 5-0. S.

139. 0:39:59

     Second.

140. 0:39:59

     I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, raise your hand. All right, any opposed? All right, we have, uh, one opposed.

141. 0:40:13

     I think we know who he is.

142. 0:40:15

     All right.

143. 0:40:16

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

144. 0:40:17

     Thank you.

145. 0:40:17

     Thank you, committee members.

146. 0:40:18

     Head on to rules.

147. 0:40:19

     Thank you, sir.

148. 0:40:24

     All right, um,

149. 0:40:28

     we've got, uh, Senate Bill 410. That's, uh, Chairman Brass, if you want to come up. Um, go ahead and tell the committee a little bit of some stuff that's going on here.

150. 0:40:43

     Ooh.

151. 0:40:43

     We had a, uh-

152. 0:40:47

     That's not a trick, Chair.

153. 0:40:48

     Thank you.

154. 0:40:48

     As you know, we had a, uh, session that ended with, uh, no action on Thursday. Personally think there should've been action taken in will of the committee and democracy, but it wasn't. And so I was asked if I would look in the spirit of democracy at doing something here in this committee, and I will. So we've got a bill and I'll let you... Well, why don't you address it first-

155. 0:41:15

     Sure

156. 0:41:15

     ... Chairman Bra- Brass.

157. 0:41:16

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for hearing SB 410. And, um, to your point, I think you and I and many others kind of know the, the backstory of all this, but I think it's important for the public to understand the backstory of what happened on Thursday. So, um, so what came out of committee on SB 34, uh, is, well, it's not your original language. We all know that. There was a, a disagreement on various parties on, on what the language did, the effect of it, uh, and I think the overall intent for everyone involved was the same.

158. 0:41:59

     And that was to ensure that our residential and our retail customers were not bearing the brunt of cost and upgrades for our large load customers, i.e. data centers. I think we all agree on that. It was how we get there and what the words on the page mean. And so, um, so where we've landed with SB 410, we have taken SB 34, the language that came out of committee, uh, that was to be voted on Thursday.

159. 0:42:30

     We have incorporated that into SB 410. My original, the original SB 410. And we have added language, um, prior to that. So if you look on lines 12 through 14, in this it says, "It is the intent of the General Assembly that the marginal cost of providing electric service to new large load customers will be borne by such customers and not residential or retail electricity customers." So we are being very clear on the intent of the law that we all agree on.

160. 0:43:10

     Now, as we, we all know this, but again, it's, it's important for the public to understand that language will not be in the law. It will be in the notes to the code, and the notes to the code can be used by the courts to help guide the court's interpretation of our law. So our overall intent is covered with that language. And then if you continue on through part one on page two, that is SB 34 as it came out of committee, uh, that was to be voted on last Thursday.

161. 0:43:48

     So that language is there. The intent is there. And, um, I've, I've- I don't know how it could be more clear on what we're doing. Um, you know, again, there was a lot of, a lot of confusion on, on what we were doing, but I think we all agreed what we were trying to do. And so I think this lands us there. Getting into part two, this was the original SB 410 with one addition. Uh, the first sub that you presented, uh, you wanted to add in, um, 68, and that's the computer equipment.

162. 0:44:27

     We already had 68.1, which is the high technology data center equipment, meaning, uh, there's no new certificates of exemption on those equipment for any future projects. So, um, all that has been captured. Anyone that is currently here, they are grandfathered in, uh, just as we've discussed, uh, on the original bill. So, um, the sunset still remains, and, uh, it remains at its current date, which I believe is 2031, end of the 2031.

163. 0:45:03

     So that all still exists. And, uh, and 410 is back in its, pretty much in its original form with the addition of your suggested adding that computer equipment.

164. 0:45:15

     And the, the 68.0, I believe, ends January 1st of '28. And I, I think you're correct.

165. 0:45:20

     Yeah, I, I believe you're, that's correct.

166. 0:45:21

     The other one's January 1st of '32.

167. 0:45:24

     Correct.

168. 0:45:24

     So the, the sunsets are not affected in this bill. The intent of the legislature is here. It's not codified into law, which would be my preference, but, um, it's, it's basically what's been worked out.

169. 0:45:39

     That's correct. I didn't get everything I wanted and-

170. 0:45:44

     That's what you call compromise

171. 0:45:44

     ... that's what we call compromise, which I know is a bad word in today's world, but-

172. 0:45:49

     I make a motion to appropriate then.

173. 0:45:51

     Any questions? If not, go, go ahead, Senator Albers, with a motion.

174. 0:45:55

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move we pass the substitute to Senate Bill 410, LC 590402S.

175. 0:46:01

     Second.

176. 0:46:02

     Have a second by Senator Still. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your hands.

177. 0:46:09

     Hold it. Hold it. I have a question.

178. 0:46:09

     Okay, let me do the question first then.

179. 0:46:11

     Okay.

180. 0:46:11

     You gotta hit your light thing if I'm gonna do that though.

181. 0:46:13

     I, I, yep, yep. Uh, so, so j- so j- so just clarifying, when, uh, uh, uh, when the, uh, the, um, when the, is the expiration date, uh, of data centers that are already-

182. 0:46:27

     The, the, it's not there because-

183. 0:46:30

     Uh-huh

184. 0:46:30

     ... it's not being affected, so there's no new law.

185. 0:46:33

     Okay.

186. 0:46:33

     But I can tell you it is, uh, January 1st of 2032 they are no longer-

187. 0:46:40

     Right

188. 0:46:40

     ... there unless the sunset is extended. The computer equipment is January 1st of 2028-

189. 0:46:46

     Yeah

190. 0:46:46

     ... unless those are extended.

191. 0:46:49

     Thank you.

192. 0:46:50

     All right. Senator Halpern.

193. 0:46:51

     Thank you. I, um, appreciate the compromise. I will vote for this bill. I do wanna just say that I do have some concerns about the elimination of those tax credits, and I know that they're... Hopefully, we will come back and have conversations before those sunsets, 'cause I know that those tax credits have been really instrumental in allowing us to have some of our biggest corporate Fortune 500, Fortune 100 partners actually, you know, enjoy the business environment that we are creating here in Georgia.

194. 0:47:26

     So I'd, I, I would, I would love to see us come back and talk about those before we get to 2028 and 2032. But for the moment, I appreciate it.

195. 0:47:37

     I hope I'm not here for that discussion in 2032 anyway, but-

196. 0:47:40

     Did, uh-

197. 0:47:42

     Senator, uh, Hodges.

198. 0:47:43

     Yeah, one quick question. The, you said that the intent of the law is not codified, but it's in the, the notes-

199. 0:47:52

     My understanding-

200. 0:47:53

     ... that a judge may use in, in formulating an opinion. Is that-

201. 0:47:56

     That is c-

202. 0:47:56

     Would some lawyer help explain the practical effect of that to me?

203. 0:48:04

     You're the only one.

204. 0:48:04

     No, I volunteer.

205. 0:48:06

     Unless, unless-

206. 0:48:07

     Oh, we got one, two.

207. 0:48:08

     Unless Senator Brass wants to practice law.

208. 0:48:11

     Your attorney, your governor's attorney already on the docket.

209. 0:48:14

     Okay.

210. 0:48:14

     Or your lawyer, you still got.

211. 0:48:16

     Huh? Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It goes to legislative intent if you look at it. There's some courts that say legislative intent doesn't matter. It mat- what matters is the words on the page, but if they did look at legislative intent, they'd go back and they'll look at our bill and they'll look at the preamble.

212. 0:48:29

     So it might matter and it might not.

213. 0:48:31

     That's fair.

214. 0:48:31

     Okay. Thanks.

215. 0:48:34

     That's fair.

216. 0:48:36

     All right, any other questions by the committee? I don't see any. All in favor, raise your hand. Uh, looks unanimous. Motion carried. Thank you.

217. 0:48:47

     Thank you.

218. 0:48:48

     Um-

219. 0:48:48

     I'll be carrying this bill.

220. 0:48:52

     Best of luck in this.

221. 0:48:55

     Um, we've got-

222. 0:49:04

     We've got one more here, um, in your folder there. It's Senate Bill 576 by Senator Tillery. You can do it from here or there, whatever your preference is.

223. 0:49:12

     I'm good right here, Mr. Chairman.

224. 0:49:13

     Sure.

225. 0:49:14

     Senate Bill 576. You know, we've talked about affordability and we've talked about housing, and one of the things that we've seen is the attacks on that

226. 0:49:24

     has been the, uh, attack on... We're talking about housing, 576. The, the attack on, uh, one of the attacks on the cost of housing we've said has been, uh, big institutions buying up the housing, uh, market and bidding against, uh, families when they're in that process. Senate Bill 576, uh, there's, there's been se- several ways that folks have attacked this. Some have capped it and said, "Hey, you, you, an institutional investor can't own more than 2,000 houses," and I think the 2,000 number was kind of arbitrary.

227. 0:49:54

     Instead of capping it or saying, you know, making it illegal to own some, so many houses, all, all that 576 does is makes it be more costly to own more than 2,000 houses. As you know right now, when property is assessed, we assess it at 40% of the market value Um, Senate Bill 576 just says, "Hey, if you own more than 2,000 of those houses, we're gonna assess it at 100% of the value." Uh, trying to use a dollar, um, approach rather than a outright ban.

228. 0:50:24

     Doesn't know.

229. 0:50:26

     If you, if you own more than 2,000.

230. 0:50:30

     It's an arbitrary number. I mean, is that a question for...

231. 0:50:33

     Are we, are we still talking about the formula?

232. 0:50:37

     Um, she could be.

233. 0:50:38

     Let me... Do, do you have, do you have a question for Senator Orrock? Is that Senator Allison?

234. 0:50:42

     I have a question. I may be reading this wrong. It says on lines 15 and 16, "That does not own in excess of 2,000."

235. 0:50:53

     Correct. So-

236. 0:50:53

     It does not say, "That does own in excess of."

237. 0:50:56

     So that is the definition-

238. 0:50:57

     So I thought we were targeting-

239. 0:50:57

     ... of a community housing provider, and what we said is a community housing provider who owns less than 2,000 homes, they are assessed the way property's assessed right now, 40%. If you're more than 2,000 homes, then you are defined on lines, uh, if you'll-

240. 0:51:13

     26, 27

241. 0:51:14

     ... Correct. Housing provider, and that's someone who owns more than 2,000, um, single family residences. They would be assessed at 100% of the value rather than the 40% value.

242. 0:51:27

     I, I-

243. 0:51:28

     I agree it's a little confusing at first 'cause it's, it's setting a definition, not who it appli-

244. 0:51:33

     It defines it in the negative.

245. 0:51:34

     It's, it's, yes, defining who it doesn't apply to really. Uh, Senator Hodges. I'm sorry, wait a minute. Let me... Senator Albers was first. Let me get him. Sorry.

246. 0:51:44

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Chairman Tillery, I like your bill. I think it's, it's addressing something important. What would prohibit a company from simply just splitting up another company and having 1,999 houses in a separate entity?

247. 0:51:57

     Yeah. We, we tried our best to do that in lines 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. Tried to think through all those things, but, but you're right. Look, and there's gonna be actors in this that, that play around the edge of the rules. Does it make it more expensive for them to then have to jump through the hoops of another corporation, another filings? Honestly, when you file a corporation in Georgia, it's $100 to renew a year. I think they might have just jumped it to $200 a year. That's, that's not going to stop this. What might stop it though is the accounting and filing the tax returns.

248. 0:52:28

     Those are a lot more expensive than, than the, just the annual filings themselves.

249. 0:52:33

     Thank you.

250. 0:52:34

     Now, uh, go ahead, Senator Hodges. Ma'am.

251. 0:52:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Chairman Tillery, I also like the bill. Just very quickly in reading through the definitions, if I incor- if I own 10 rental houses, and I want to own them in Michael Hodges Incorporated, just a corporation-

252. 0:52:53

     Yes, sir

253. 0:52:53

     ... not a sub chapter or just... That works?

254. 0:52:57

     You can still do that.

255. 0:52:57

     A corporation can be... As long as it's the 2,000. I didn't see the word corporation.

256. 0:53:05

     Yeah. We tried to define it through as many times through as we could, but we... Again, the point is if you wanna own 10-

257. 0:53:15

     Right

258. 0:53:15

     ... if you wanna own 100-

259. 0:53:16

     Yeah

260. 0:53:16

     ... and Senator, I think, uh, Senator Orrock brought this up. The 2,000 is completely arbitrary. I grabbed it to say-

261. 0:53:24

     Yeah, I have time with the 2,000

262. 0:53:25

     ... we're not trying to grab people. I'm not trying to get small owners and, and I think the argument could be made that small owners have a lot less than 2,000.

263. 0:53:32

     Yeah.

264. 0:53:32

     But the point is, if you own them and it's less than 2,000, your te- tax-

265. 0:53:36

     Okay

266. 0:53:36

     ... is the same way as it is now. But if you own more than 2,000, we would provide some type of a financial incentive or disincentive rather for you to buy more.

267. 0:53:45

     Regardless of the way in which you own them.

268. 0:53:48

     Correct.

269. 0:53:48

     Okay. That's fine. That's what I needed.

270. 0:53:50

     Yeah.

271. 0:53:50

     Thank you.

272. 0:53:50

     We've, we've got a few other questions, but a couple of points I wanna clarify. Is this is at the option of the local government? Is that correct?

273. 0:54:02

     The option of the local government, it actually goes to a question that came in earlier that you heard Mr., uh, the tax assessor from Paulding County. Um, oh gosh. Can't think of his name.

274. 0:54:14

     James.

275. 0:54:14

     James.

276. 0:54:14

     James, uh, present, where he said, "Hey, one of the reasons why we're ending up with these weird assessments is folks really are valuing these based on the income approach." So what this bill does allow is that if a local assessor or local tax commissioner decides they're gonna take an income approach to these, that they can ask for the income streams to-

277. 0:54:34

     And that was gonna be my second point. If you look at line 26-

278. 0:54:37

     28

279. 0:54:38

     ... if you're not a community housing provider, you shall provide the tax assay- assessor the, the data necessary to use an income approach. So this gets to the point Senator Orrock was making. I was sitting over there thinking about it. We're gonna get to your point later on. That's why I made another comment about it at the time.

280. 0:54:57

     Right. Right.

281. 0:54:57

     All right. Um, let's see. I believe it's Senator An-

282. 0:55:00

     Jason Anavitarte

283. 0:55:00

     ... Senator Anavitarte.

284. 0:55:02

     I, I was gonna yield to, uh, my property assessor and see how he feels about this, if he's comfortable doing that.

285. 0:55:12

     Oh, you're still here, James. Sorry.

286. 0:55:13

     Sure. We'll let James come up.

287. 0:55:14

     Mr. Stokes.

288. 0:55:15

     You want me to come up?

289. 0:55:16

     Yeah.

290. 0:55:17

     Right.

291. 0:55:21

     So I would say he doesn't set the 100% value. I would assume that would be the county commission that would determine that.

292. 0:55:28

     I, I have glossed over the bill. Um, my understanding, there's a, there's a lot of, uh, bills going out with the, the large institutional owners.

293. 0:55:36

     Mm-hmm.

294. 0:55:36

     Um, and correct me if I'm wrong with, with any of this. Is this one, one of the bills where they're bringing in and we're making a determination if you're either at 100 or the 40?

295. 0:55:45

     Correct.

296. 0:55:46

     And they have the appeal rights. Okay.

297. 0:55:47

     Or they could be in between, if I'm reading this bill right. They could be at 80.

298. 0:55:51

     Right.

299. 0:55:52

     No more than 100.

300. 0:55:52

     It's also less than the, the-

301. 0:55:54

     At the local government's discretion.

302. 0:55:57

     Okay. So getting back to the ter- the, the terminology in there, if, if you are this specific type property owner, that the board of assessors can request that income information from them, and then they have to provide it to us.

303. 0:56:13

     Mm-hmm.

304. 0:56:13

     Um, it, that would, that would be in, a move in the right direction

305. 0:56:18

     Well, it doesn't say may, it says shall in Senator Tillery's legislation.

306. 0:56:23

     Yeah, yeah. That's what I think he wanted. But you said that.

307. 0:56:26

     Yeah, that's, that's line, starting on line 26 there.

308. 0:56:32

     If you wanna look at that.

309. 0:56:35

     Yeah, that's what I remember from it.

310. 0:56:37

     All right. Okay, uh, Senator Anderson, I think, was next, unless you had any more comments, Senator Anavitarte.

311. 0:56:46

     Uh, no, you can't always trust some of the commissioners out there, so we gotta do what's best for the citizens. Otherwise, we wouldn't be legislating on behalf of these local elected officials all the time. No offense to GMA and ACCG, but that's kind of where we're at.

312. 0:57:01

     Mm-hmm. All right, Senator Anderson, you're up.

313. 0:57:05

     If a, if a firm or business owned, say, 2,000 units in South Carolina and they own 1,000 in Georgia, and it's the same company-

314. 0:57:21

     I'm sure it happens. Yeah

315. 0:57:22

     ... have we got enough to say, is that enough evidence to be able to say that you would be taxed at 100%?

316. 0:57:31

     No, sir. It has to be 2,000 units in Georgia.

317. 0:57:34

     In Georgia.

318. 0:57:35

     Yep. And the way we prove that later is through an attestation, which is the same way we do homestead, that you attest that you own less. The penalty would be if you are found to own more than 2,000 in Georgia, then the penalty would be the back due taxes and the tax penalties that are assessed through any other means when you're found to attest falsely on your, uh, property tax returns.

319. 0:58:01

     All right. Um, Senator Dolezal, I believe you were next.

320. 0:58:04

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chair, for bringing the bill. I think you and I are both trying to tackle the same problem. Um, the White House put out their executive order since we passed our, uh, the bill that I had out of whatever committee it was in, I forget, um, economic development. And they're at 100 units on theirs. I was at 500 on mine. This is 2,000. I've seen 2,000 in the House. Um, I- as I understand it, 2,000 would impact, like, eight or nine institutional lenders in Georgia.

321. 0:58:36

     Is that correct?

322. 0:58:37

     I've got a list, and we're not trying to ta- go after them, so I purposely didn't, you know, s- say the list. Also, I want you to know that I'm not sure that we know the list is right. We think-

323. 0:58:47

     Yeah

324. 0:58:47

     ... it kind of looks low. I, I am open to amendments. We put 2,000 to start the conversation. I think the conversation's going pretty strong right now. We, we see where, where groups are going here. Um, what we're trying to tackle, and I think, Senator, you're trying to ta- tackle it, too, is you've got young families who are having to bid against corporations from Wall Street on whether or not they're gonna be able to own their first home, and they're never going to be out, able to outbid them.

325. 0:59:14

     That's right.

326. 0:59:14

     So if there's an amendment to take it smaller, please know that I will accept it as friendly.

327. 0:59:19

     So I, i- if you're l- if y- I'll let you make your own amendment on that, 'cause I don't wanna try, I don't wanna mess up your bill. I do think getting below 2,000 would be helpful. Um, my concern, or I, I more so want your thoughts-

328. 0:59:31

     Mm

329. 0:59:31

     ... 'cause you, um, I think you maybe even signed my bill. I don't remember, so I'm not saying that you're positioned against these two. But this essentially raises rent for people that are renting, right? So you're just gonna have higher, you're just gonna have higher property taxes, and there's nothing in here that either prevents the acquisition or has any sort of divestment. The divestment piece obviously gets dicey. The, the limiting further accumulation, though, does change the demand curve, I think, in a way that gets to solve your problem.

330. 1:00:00

     Mm-hmm.

331. 1:00:01

     W- what are your thoughts on, uh, essentially r- preventing the accumulation beyond 2,000 and doing more than just charging them extra, which in some percentage will just get passed on to a renter?

332. 1:00:12

     Yeah, I, I don't think it raises your rent. What I do is I think it, it changes the business decision of the structure of a business to begin with. They decide, do we invest in housing, or do we invest in other m- other opportunities? I think they're gonna decide they invest in other opportunities, which will then allow that housing investment to be able to be made by the single family, what we're hoping is the young homeowner. So I, I don't accept the premise that it raises rent. I will clearly accept any amendment. I hope it's clear. The 2,000 was a starter. Knowing where the conversations had started in other places of this building, I didn't want the fact that my number was so low to keep us from being able to get to this point in the room to have the discussion.

333. 1:00:51

     Um, so that, a, a lower number, happy to-

334. 1:00:55

     Okay

335. 1:00:55

     ... 100%.

336. 1:00:55

     Can I ask you one quick follow-up? It, and you may have answered this, I, I'm sorry if you did. Is, does the 100% tax kick in at, for the further accumulation, or if I own 2,001 today-

337. 1:01:06

     Yeah

338. 1:01:06

     ... when does that, where does that apply?

339. 1:01:07

     So the 2,000, so let's go to the, into the bill on some of the last pages, starting at, like, 137. And I think the chairman was trying to, to say this, but he's trying to preserve time, too. The 100% is not, um, that i- that in and of itself is somewhat negotiable, too, by the local county governments. So you see that it says it may be assessed up to one, to 100%. So if they wanted to say, "Hey, after 2,000, we're gonna do 50%," they can do that up to 2,001.

340. 1:01:42

     I, I'm okay with all those things. What I want to do is provide an opportunity for the local governments, us providing that opportunity, to say, "Hey, look, we're gonna pick families over Main Street, and we're gonna use dollars to incentivize that." So I didn't want, and that hard cliff at 2,000, I think, Senator, is where you were going. That hard cliff would be something that might consi- make businesses decide that they're gonna, you know, split, split into 1,999 owners and, uh, units and then split to another thing from there.

341. 1:02:14

     All right. Um, Senator Still, and then I've got three others that wanna take a second bite at this, so go ahead.

342. 1:02:21

     Thank you, Chairman. Um-

343. 1:02:24

     Chairman Tillery, I'm, I'm looking for the language in the bill. I'm trying to understand. So if, if we use 2,000 as a benchmark, we already have companies in Georgia that own many more than that number. So what happens to their inventory greater than 2,000?

344. 1:02:43

     A couple of things could happen. One, they could split, as you've already said, or you may see us truly begin to push the cost of housing, single-family housing down as they begin to divest. I think either one of those options is a possibility.

345. 1:02:59

     Does that create a housing crisis where we're gonna flood the market with an excess of inventory in a rapid fashion that may create unintended consequences?

346. 1:03:10

     You could flood the market. If you flooded the market, though, then you're gonna let single family homes move out of rental units, out of what they might live in. And I'm not saying all rental units are slums, but some of them might now, right now might be slums. They can move into a house that they own on their own. It's their largest personal investment. And as we know, the single-family home is the largest source of building not just family wealth, but generational wealth. I ... If that were to happen, I think at least in the short term, we see incredible surge in family wealth.

347. 1:03:41

     If they can qualify for a mortgage.

348. 1:03:43

     If they qualify for a mortgage, correct. But their mortgage, if, if what you say happens, their mortgage would be less than their rent, so they'd be ... Their business decision would push them into a single-family home. And we're doing that without doing something that otherwise, um, unfairly or unjustly, uh, moves the invisible hand of, of Keynesian economics.

349. 1:04:09

     Thanks.

350. 1:04:10

     I think Senator Halpern was next.

351. 1:04:13

     Thank you. Um, so this does say properties. You've been talking properties, you've also been talking units, and I have a question just for clarification. If you have an owner who has a 100-unit apartment building, is that 100 properties or is that one property?

352. 1:04:35

     So remember, we're talking about single-family residences.

353. 1:04:37

     So this whole-

354. 1:04:38

     So I'm not trying to go after the, the group necessarily that's building-

355. 1:04:42

     The big-

356. 1:04:42

     ... multifamily.

357. 1:04:43

     Right.

358. 1:04:44

     We're, we're talking about the, what we've seen in this country of Wall Street finding it to be a good investment to invest in single-family residences.

359. 1:04:54

     Yes.

360. 1:04:55

     And that, Wall Street for many years has inv- invested in multifamily residents, and I don't think we've seen that as a problem. We actually view that as a solution at times to our housing crisis. But when they're investing in single-family residences, then that young family is never going to be able to outbid Wall Street.

361. 1:05:10

     Right. Across that home. Right. I understand that. Okay. So

362. 1:05:17

     I think I see. So lines 128 through 133, when we define-

363. 1:05:24

     128?

364. 1:05:24

     ... housing provider there, and it says single-family residential property, that is the definition. I know. It's just not in the front.

365. 1:05:35

     Well-

366. 1:05:36

     So we define what it's not-

367. 1:05:36

     No, it's in the front

368. 1:05:37

     ... and we define what it is.

369. 1:05:37

     It's just the H. There's so many definitions, it's...

370. 1:05:40

     Yeah.

371. 1:05:40

     It goes all the way down to 133 for the definitions. So the, it is in the front, but just, they define community housing provider, fair market value, uh, those things first, and so you have to get to line 130 till you get to the definition of housing provider.

372. 1:05:57

     Okay. Well-

373. 1:05:57

     But it's in-

374. 1:05:58

     I, I'm following you on my, on page six now.

375. 1:06:00

     Yeah.

376. 1:06:01

     Um, okay. So the definition is specifically single-family residential property owners. Got it.

377. 1:06:07

     All right. Thank you. Senator Anavitarte.

378. 1:06:10

     Yeah, just a follow-up question, just kind of piggybacking on Senator Dolezal. So does this bill do anything for the housing provider that's a Tricon builder that's bu- building 3,000 rental homes in a county?

379. 1:06:22

     Does it do anything to them, for them?

380. 1:06:25

     What, how does this play in that situation?

381. 1:06:27

     Yeah, I don't know if I'd call it for them. If you, if you think that's beneficial. If someone's building 3,000 homes build to rent, they may wanna rethink that, because after 2,000 homes, they would be assessed potentially up to 100% of the fair market value rather than being assessed on 40% of the fair market value. Now, if they wanna take all those homes and build them and then sell them individually, perfectly fine. That doesn't affect them at all. But if they're building it for the purpose of build to rent, it likely is, would change at least the thought process in their business model.

382. 1:07:02

     Uh, I may disagree on that 'cause those guys and ladies can print money all day long from Wall Street, so I don't know about that. Are you, are you familiar-

383. 1:07:10

     I think I'm trying to address your issue, though.

384. 1:07:12

     Uh, maybe. Um, and what are your thoughts on, I know Senator Hawley in the US Senate just introduced a bill that on this situation with in- in- institutional investors, um, taking a little bit of a different approach, um, requiring that basically if you, you know, create $150 million valuation towards a situation, that maybe that's the route to go instead of, um, putting a number on whether it's 100 houses or 2,000 houses or whatever that's, you know, a little bit ambiguous.

385. 1:07:45

     I mean, what are your thoughts on that?

386. 1:07:46

     Uh, I, it, I understand Senator Hawley trying to address it from the national level, but remember, the powers of the federal government are limited. Coin money, common defense, things that are already enumerated in the Constitution. We've used the elastic clause of the, uh, um, the commerce clause to get to a lot of things. I, my concern would be, will he be able to make that constitutional, um, in a current court that seems to view original jurisdiction, uh, strictly? So if that's the case, then we're gonna have to be, use the state's police powers, which we clearly have under the Tenth Amendment.

387. 1:08:17

     And again, if 2,000's too big, more than happy to consider an amendment otherwise. Uh, but I do think our best way to attach it- Is through dollars, not through hard caps, which I think will be found to be unconstitutional.

388. 1:08:30

     Yeah. All I'll say for the record, I, I may support this bill, but at least in my situation in Paulding County, Georgia, and I have my tax assessor sitting right in front of me, so you know, I know later he'll keep me straight if I'm saying something that's not technically correct. But the 2,000 or 3,000 homes that live down, that are being built down the street from my neighborhood in North Paulding County that are rental developments, um, number one, I think undermines the American dream. Number two, I'm not sure that this bill truly addresses, um, what that means for infrastructure, the local community, and also in terms of, um, a money saver to the taxpayer, um, as we're seeing those kind of developments basically, um, do massive damage, um, in a community that is unfortunately a bedroom community.

389. 1:09:18

     I leave that at the feet of the local politicians to, uh, because of history in our county. Um, but that, that is my concern. In, in instead of I think, you know, the, the competing bill that I know Senator Dolezal's creating, I'm not... That he's carrying, I'm not trying to debate the two right now. We'll talk about that offline. Um, where I think it's, it's a very, um, different approach and I think sends a different message to our citizens in terms of, um, having an impact to slow down things so local governments and more so the taxpayer, um, you know, what is the long-term, um, uh, strategies in play for taxpayers so they won't get suffocated out of their own neighborhoods because of the rampant, um, rental neighborhoods that are being, um, built in Paulding County, Georgia.

390. 1:10:05

     Yeah. Can I respond to that? Sure. Senator, I, I would argue that mine actually limits the situation you presented more because it puts a financial decision onto that person who's developing that neighborhood of whether or not they think it's in their financial interest to do so any further. We did not exempt build-to-rent communities in this one. We left them in that because those are single family residences, and if they can be put into the market for young families to buy or older families who are looking to downsize to buy, I think that helps to better stabilize the market.

391. 1:10:39

     So thank you for your comments. Senator Hodges.

392. 1:10:45

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Chairman Tillery, I, I really like your approach to solving this, um, social issue, this policy issue. Um, as a longtime Republican and conservative person, I have a real problem with the state standing between a willing buyer and a willing seller, but we don't owe anybody a tax preference as a state. Our local governments don't really owe anybody a tax preference, and we should direct those, uh, toward, um, projects and, and, and, and people who will help our society and our state help us accomplish our aims.

393. 1:11:24

     I believe this does that a lot better than prescribing the number of units that someone can build. So, uh, I plan to support this. Thank you.

394. 1:11:36

     Thank you. I think you brought up a point that, that we're all concerned about. We don't want to stay, stand in the way of business, but we're actually not. Um, Senator Orrock, I believe you were only one left, and then we'll-

395. 1:11:47

     Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. The, uh, uh, the, this is going again to the income-producing property and what we heard, uh, from our Paulding County, uh, expert is that, uh, it's difficult to, to, it's problematic about getting, uh, uh, data to, to support the, those assessments. And is that, that's the, uh, uh, that problem is created by this language that's in the, the, the already in, uh, in law, right, on line 23, 24, 25, where it says, "The income approach, if data are available, shall be considered in determining the fair market value of income-producing property." Does, does that language create deliberately or, uh, inadvertently the, the, um, the loophole that's allowing the, the income-producing properties to ignore the request, uh, of the tax assessors?

396. 1:12:45

     Is, is, is, is, is, am I reading that r- right? That's li- li- page two, line 23, 24.

397. 1:12:56

     Are you asking me? I thought you were asking I thought, I apologize, Senator. I thought you were asking, uh, our expert witness.

398. 1:13:03

     It, if you're asking me, uh, there, there is no requirement, and I think that's an example of the law that, that specifically states that, uh, uh-

399. 1:13:12

     Uh-huh

400. 1:13:12

     ... you don't have to.

401. 1:13:15

     It's, it's not underlined, so that's current law right now-

402. 1:13:18

     I know, but that's what, that's my-

403. 1:13:18

     ... as it is

404. 1:13:19

     ... point. That's my point.

405. 1:13:19

     And, um-

406. 1:13:20

     That's what, uh, is-

407. 1:13:21

     And Senator-

408. 1:13:21

     ... operating right now

409. 1:13:21

     ... I would, I would, I-

410. 1:13:23

     Uh-huh

411. 1:13:24

     ... there's a n- novel concept here. If, if the rent were raised because you're moving to an income approach where these counties decide that's necessary, the tax is raised too. Remember, the property tax value's not gonna be left at the static number that it is currently.

412. 1:13:39

     Mm-hmm.

413. 1:13:39

     So I would argue that it actually creates a further disincentive to further raise rent.

414. 1:13:44

     A further disincentive to-

415. 1:13:46

     Raise rent

416. 1:13:47

     ... raise rent.

417. 1:13:49

     'Cause you're using the income now.

418. 1:13:50

     Well, what you, well, it, well, the, an income approach is, is being used now on commercial property.

419. 1:13:56

     Where they can get the information. And what we heard our expert witness tell us is that they cannot get that information in many instances. What this bill does say is that if they are that institutional investor, over 200 homes, single family homes, that that is no longer an option, that the i- information will be provided. All right. Again, trying to use taxes to direct policy rather than mandates. Senator Still.

420. 1:14:24

     Thank you, Chairman. Um-

421. 1:14:28

     Sorry, Chairman Tillery. I'm, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the difference-

422. 1:14:31

     That's fine

423. 1:14:31

     ... between this and Senate Bill 463 that we have on the floor tomorrow. So if this bill passes today, but we're voting on 463 tomorrow that has the 500 home cap, is this bill still necessary?

424. 1:14:49

     It goes, I, I do think it's necessary. I think there's, uh, 463, um, I don't remember the numbers of the bill. We're talking about Senator Dolezal's w- bill. Senator, I, I think yours had an exemption for the build-to-rent communities, did it not?

425. 1:15:04

     It did.

426. 1:15:04

     Maybe. The build to rent or the rent to, build-to-rent communities, was accepted in your bill?

427. 1:15:09

     Cor- it did not. Correct, it did not. If you're adding housing stock-

428. 1:15:14

     We did not

429. 1:15:14

     ... we did, we did not have that applied to the-

430. 1:15:16

     And then mine grabs that, and mine also requires that if the county decides to use the income approach that you've heard Senators Hodges, they will, uh, talk about, then they have to provide that information. So it would come down to, if there is conflicting language, it would come down to which one the governor signs when, I suppose.

431. 1:15:35

     Which one they sign when, yeah.

432. 1:15:36

     But I think there's gonna be an amendment based solely on my listening to this debate around the table that's gonna drop that 2,000 to 500 anyway, and I'm gonna consider that friendly.

433. 1:15:45

     I'll be ready to make that amendment.

434. 1:15:48

     All right. I don't see any other questions. So first, we would need to have a motion on the underlying bill to move forward.

435. 1:15:55

     Motion to pass, Mr. Chairman.

436. 1:15:57

     Do we have a second? Second by Senator Hodges.

437. 1:16:00

     Amendment.

438. 1:16:00

     So now we're open for amendment.

439. 1:16:03

     Mr. Chairman, I would move that on line 16 we make a very small little amendment. We just drop one of those zeros and make it 200 properties.

440. 1:16:15

     All right. Should we, uh, try to be consistent with the 500 over there, or is it 200? I guess, first of all-

441. 1:16:22

     For the, for the sake of, would you consider doing 500 just for the sake of consistency across the other boards? I, I'm looking at the eyes of the committee and the-

442. 1:16:30

     500 it is.

443. 1:16:31

     Is that 500?

444. 1:16:32

     Okay. We've got a amendment to drop the 2,000 to 500. Is there a second to that amendment?

445. 1:16:39

     I'll second it.

446. 1:16:39

     Okay, we've got a second. So first of all, any other amendments anybody wants to throw out there? I guess I should ask that. Um, on the amendment, any discussion?

447. 1:16:53

     All in favor of the amendment, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five. Could y'all stay up? I'm, I didn't catch this side yet. Okay. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. Okay, I think it's 10 opposed. We've got two opposed, so the amendment does carry. Now we're back to the underlying bill. All in favor of, uh, the bill as amended, raise your hand.

448. 1:17:23

     Uh, opposed? We've got, uh, one opposed, I believe. Motion carries. That ends our business for today. Appreciate the committee working through these issues, and we stand adjourned.