House Governmental Affairs Committee, March 5, 2026

Transcript

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

1. 0:14:37

   Okay, if everybody wants to get, uh, get settled in, we're gonna get started. This is the House Governmental Affairs Committee. We do have a quorum here at the moment, so we're gonna get going. Let me kind of give you a real quick, uh, notice of run of show. Uh, we suddenly have a rules committee meeting at 11:00, so we're gonna get through as much as we can, and then the committee will go at ease until we get members back from that, because we'll have not only members of our committee, we'll lose quorum at that time because we got members of our committee and, uh, uh, who are either on rules or presenting in rules this morning.

2. 0:15:11

   So we, uh, we're gonna be a little flexible unfortunately. Uh, the way things have kind of worked out this week has thrown a monkey wrench in a lot of things. Uh, like to ask if we could, uh, Chairman Gullett, to start us off with a word of prayer.

3. 0:15:25

   Thank you. Bow your heads. Father God, we come to you today just so grateful, uh, for your love, God. Uh, we, uh, we don't deserve it, but we're so appreciative of it. Uh, Father, just bless this committee, bless those here presenting. Uh, give us wisdom and guidance, and do everything in your favor and honor. In your name we pray, amen.

4. 0:15:42

   Thank you, sir. We're gonna start out with, uh, uh, House Bill 467, and I believe this is a committee sub. This is a bill that was actually passed out of committee last year. So, uh, we're gonna let, uh, Chairman Powell go ahead and present the bill, sir, and we'll go from there.

5. 0:16:02

   Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen of the committee. Uh, House Bill 467, I'll give you a brief background on this. Last year, this was the, uh, add-on to the Monument Protection Act that we'd passed a few years earlier. We have continued to have problems dealing with monuments, uh, with the monuments in this, uh, in this state. A lot of the counties, a lot of the cities, uh, and a lot of areas, they still wanna do away with the monuments. And I'm not here to argue the position of monuments or, or that type of stuff, but the fact is that monuments are what they are.

6. 0:16:40

   They have historical significance. Uh, they have artistic significance. You also have the claimants in most of these cases. They're historical groups that were established for the preservation and the memory of their ancestors and the such, and they have an emotional bond to that. And what we had passed a few years ago, we thought that it was a, uh, pretty good move about monument protection. Well, because of litigation and because of dealing with the courts and things like that, that it just appeared that there was still a lot of problems that were at hand in that.

7. 0:17:17

   So last year, both myself and Senator Williams over in the Senate dropped in identical bills, and we started working on them. We moved this bill out of this committee in its original form, but since then we've still been working on some, some solutions to all of the litigation that, that surrounds all these monuments and the monument protection issue. Uh, quite frankly, what we'd looked at was that, uh, the changes in the different groups we'd met with and the government groups and things like that.

8. 0:17:52

   Uh, we were gonna let the Senate pass it because for those of y'all who've been here long enough to know that sometimes we'll pass a House bill and it somehow just mysteriously disappears over in the State Senate, um, and they, that nothing gets done. So the mode was gonna be to let the Senate move this bill, uh, and I understand they're asking for it in rules over there today. But I've been asked to move it forward into the House, and that's what I'm doing today. What you're gonna see is a pretty straightforward bill, and this is creating some solutions to deal with these issues in a logical manner.

9. 0:18:29

   If you look on section one, uh, what we've done is we have, uh, clarified the definition of, of, uh, the claimants, uh, in this case, or in a lot of cases they'd be called the agencies as the local government entities. We're still protecting, uh, the private monuments on private properties that they have their, uh, they have their, uh, right to look after these. But the public monuments, um, we put definitions about the damage and destruct- destruction and, and the losses of these monuments that are being taken down.

10. 0:19:05

    When you go to page three, uh, you'll see some language in there that defines claimants. Um, if you'll go down on line 65, this defines claimants. Claimants are any citizen, whether it be a member of a historical society or a historical group like the UDCs or SCVs or whoever it may be. This defines that they have standing on these. And the reason for that is, in a lot of cases, the judges have thrown this out by saying that you don't have standing.

11. 0:19:36

    So we're defining who the claimants may be in this case. Uh, when you look through it, there's some, uh, damages in here. If a monument is destroyed or damaged or whatever, then it allows for, for damages to have those repaired, and that would be at any judge's order. Um, that damaged part's on line 78, and of course any damages would go to the restoration if those monuments have been destroyed or whatever.

12. 0:20:10

    Uh, probably one of the more important sections is on page five. This sets forth a solution. This is where some of the local governments have been working with, uh, Senator Williams and the such on this, and this is a pathway For those local governments who want to get rid of monuments for whatever the reason may be, it sets forth a pathway that if a local government wants to remove or change the location or relocate a monument, they give 90 days notice to be advertised in a legal organ, at which time there can be discussion on this with no action being done until after that.

13. 0:20:50

    Uh, after the expiration of a 90-day period that'll be tolled from any litigation, then they can move forward with that. It set forth a right of action for these, for the claimants in this case, and then they can move forward. Hopefully, what we're going to see is that in jurisdictions that want to get rid of the monuments, then they can then turn these over to these other claimants to be erected on their property or whatever else, and the cost will be split for the movement of those monuments.

14. 0:21:22

    Um,

15. 0:21:30

    the Department of Community Affairs will establish a registry of all the monuments in the state, uh, no later than December the 31st of the passage of this bill. And so that the courts can actually hear who has standing in this matter, uh, the General Assembly ex- explicitly waives sovereign immunity, which has been a course of action at the courts. The reason this has not been able to be dealt with by the courts. So quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, it's just a, this is just a logical way of moving forward.

16. 0:22:01

    If a local government wants to get rid of a monument, then advertise it. They deal with the claimants in the case, and then they can turn that over to them and have it relocated at whatever they want to do. And that, quite frankly, is what this bill does. It just gives that, uh, a s- a solution to deal with the problem.

17. 0:22:24

    Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any questions on behalf of the committee? Representative Burnough.

18. 0:22:30

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, uh, when I was listening, are you saying that we, that the c- city would have to run a ad in the paper to get rid of the monument?

19. 0:22:40

    In the, if a city or a county wants to get rid of a monument, they run the ad for 90 days. They give notice for 90 days in the legal organ that they, it's their desire is to get rid or, or to relocate a monument. At that time, someone with standing, a claimant, can come forward, and after negotiation, then it can be decided if it's in the best interest to turn it over, those monuments over to a particular claimant, such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans or the United Daughters or any of these type, or the American, the Sons of the American Revolution, whoever.

20. 0:23:16

    Then they can turn those over, and then split the cost and have that monument relocated or moved. It's a peaceful way of doing it instead of just the, the arbitrary system that's been in effect now.

21. 0:23:29

    So just make sure I understand. So the city or the county would have to run a ad for 90 days, and then if nobody complains about it, then they can take it down and then donate it to another organization, or an organization can come to them and say, "If you take it down, we'd like to have it."

22. 0:23:54

    The way this works is that local governments, if it's their desire is to get rid of a monument, they run it in the legal ad. They post it to the world that we're gonna do this. Then there can be discussion, there can be action, it can be anything. But if it's that determination in the best interest of the city and county, they want to get rid of a monument, relocate it or whatever, instead of destroying it, instead of putting it in some warehouse somewhere, then they can deal with whoever comes forward and says, "We would like to have this monument." And that's the decision that can become, uh, between those local governments.

23. 0:24:28

    There's some groups that you naturally don't want to have access to those monuments, but the hi- truly historical monument, uh, people who believe in history and believe in honoring their dead or whatever it may be, then if they turned over to them, then they can relocate that monument. They can be given that monument and relocate it.

24. 0:24:47

    Do they have to come through us to do legislation for that?

25. 0:24:52

    That's what this bill's about.

26. 0:24:54

    Okay, so they don't have to come to their state representative and ask, and say, "You know, we want this to happen." So, so if this-

27. 0:25:03

    No

28. 0:25:03

    ... if this pass, then they don't need for us to come down and do local legislation or anything like that?

29. 0:25:09

    No, ma'am.

30. 0:25:10

    Okay, thank you.

31. 0:25:11

    This is a pathway to finding a solution to this thorn that's been in a lot of sides.

32. 0:25:17

    Okay, thank you.

33. 0:25:18

    Yes, ma'am.

34. 0:25:19

    Okay, Representative Sanchez.

35. 0:25:23

    Thank you, Chair. Uh, thank you for your presentation. So I'm seeing, I know we did this last year, but this is, um, some new language here. Um, so this bill instructs the courts to say, "No claimant shall be required to show a particularized or personal concrete injury to make a claim for damages." Um, it even says that any interested person shall have standing. Is it not true that this language is only necessary because traditional judicial princil- principles of standing require a distinct injury to rule for a plaintive, plaintiff?

36. 0:25:56

    So doesn't this distort the usual methods that courts use to rule on cases and create a distinct bias?

37. 0:26:02

    I'm not sure, not being a lawyer, but I know that there's been a lot of litigation that has been filed on behalf of the historical groups. In a lot of cases, the courts have said you don't have standing because you don't directly own that monument. And remember, a lot of these monuments were put up by historical groups, the United Daughters of the Confederacy after the war. A lot of the monuments that you spread across the South

38. 0:26:28

    They weren't put up there to incite anything. They were put up there to memorialize the dead since there were a lot of generations that were lost. So naturally, those people who took the donations at the time to erect these monuments and such, you know, they're long since been gone. But other people have a vested interest. So this basically says that if you want to be a claimant, you have a vested interest, so you can go to court. A lot of these cases have been thrown out the courts by courts who are saying, "You don't have any standing." And then what winds up happening is just kicking the can down the road again.

39. 0:27:01

    "Let's take the monument down. Let's create more animosity. Let's put it in a, put it in a building or something to be forgotten forever." This is a pathway to allow the local governments to deal with a third par- or to deal with a, a party of the claimants to transfer that ownership and just get it erected at whatever point on their property and out of wherever, and they have that choice on who they can pick. I mean, I would argue the original source of the animosity is the people who put up the statues, because I would disagree with your assertion that it wasn't meant to incite.

40. 0:27:33

    But regardless, um, I think it's very clear to hear that you're trying to disincentivize these violations. I, my understanding is that you're very much a supporter of the Constitution. I don't really understand why you're trying to undermine First Amendment rights, um, in this piece of legislation by allowing people to sue people for simply defacing a monument, which to me doesn't seem to be something that people are really asking us to do. I feel like there's other issues to- If I understand what you're, if I understand what you're saying, then you're saying it's a First Amendment right to deface a monument.

41. 0:28:05

    I mean, I think the people of the Boston Tea Party would say that defacing property was an important part of the American Revolution, so yes.

42. 0:28:15

    Okay. Uh, Representative Bazemore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleague for bringing the bill. However, I have s- a couple questions. Um, why did you set it for 90 days in the local community? If there's discussion that goes on, 90 days is not an unreasonable time to, to post notice to the public that it's our desire that we want to relocate or, or take the monument off of wherever public property it may be.

43. 0:28:46

    If it's on private property, that's a whole different issue, but if it's on public property, to give 90-day notice does not seem to be unreasonable. Okay. And follow-up, Mr. Chair. What type of monuments are you referring to? Any monument. It could be- Can you give me an example of something? It could be a monument to, uh, like one that was taken down in Decatur, uh, that was to the dead of the Confederate war, the Confederate dead. It could be, uh, a monument in, uh, the cemetery over here at, uh, here right down the road from us.

44. 0:29:24

    Mm-hmm. Uh, it could be Martin Luther King's statue. It could be any statue of significance, of historical significance that honors any person or cause. So but the ones that you know of have been Confederate, uh, monuments? Predominantly, that seems to be the issue today. Okay. Thank you.

45. 0:29:47

    Okay. Thank you. Uh, Representative Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I remember this bill last time. I'm, I may have asked this, I can't remember. You've got, "Or privately owned." Can you remind me, uh, this is to prevent monuments in public locations being taken down in a way that you don't, or destroyed in a way that you don't like. But are there privately owned monuments on public property?

46. 0:30:17

    Yes, believe that or not, and it's an interesting situation. In a lot of the cases we've found around the state where there may be a courthouse, uh, a historical group like the Daughters of the American Revolution or the, uh, UDC, those groups took up donations. And in some cases, what we've found is that they actually own the spot of land, that the county deeded it to them 140 years ago or so, that spot of land.

47. 0:30:51

    So if it's to be moved, and if it's the desire of the local officials, if they want to move a monument, this gives them that pathway to move forward. But, may I follow up? Um, but if it's on private land and they own the, the monument, why do you need this? Well, because of that very fact that even though in some cases, and I'm sure it's not a whole lot of cases, but in that, that particular case, the citizens of that county who are represented by their local elected officials, if they decide they don't want it on that courthouse, that's surrounded by the courthouse, then they can move it.

48. 0:31:33

    Now, that's a very remote case, but it's really about creating a pathway so that they can move forward to get rid of these or to move these statuaries and not be destroyed. It would seem like it would be theft if it's on private property and they own the statue. So this seems like it's- Well, again, you also have a lot of those folks, nobody's around that even rememb- remembers how those statues were put up. We're talking about something that goes back 150 years, probably, 140 years, something like that.

49. 0:32:07

    Um, okay. And then I- I do, I guess, have issues with we're waiving sovereign immunity for local governments. We're, um, putting standards that aren't typically in, um, cases like this. So I, I don't always agree with my colleague, but I agree with him that this feels like, um-

50. 0:32:35

    And I, I don't know. I'm s- I'm struggling with the d- draconian, like, procedures that are put in here that are not typically in lawsuits, especially when we in this chamber say that we want to reduce the number of lawsuits. So thank you.

51. 0:32:51

    Well, I wish I could give you a better answer. I'm not an attorney. I know that, uh, through all of the litigation that's being filed and continuously, I think this is what the attorney said was the best option.

52. 0:33:04

    Okay. Uh, Chairman Gullett.

53. 0:33:07

    I'd like to move do pass.

54. 0:33:11

    Okay. We got, uh, um, I do have a couple of others. If we can keep the comments very short, I'll recognize you in just, just a moment if we can. Uh, Representative Burnough.

55. 0:33:21

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this does not include, um, monuments on state property. Is that correct?

56. 0:33:29

    You know, I don't know that the state's ever had a case, uh, that anybody that a monument's ever been wanted to be moved. You know, in the case of the state, and I can only think of a few, there used to be a, uh, statue of Tom Watson that stood outside the house chamber between the House and, uh, Trinity Church. And, uh, when they decided to move that under, uh, Governor Deal's administration, it was moved across the road, uh, in that little park where there's several statues over there.

57. 0:34:01

    So there was no, no question to that. There was no litigation. It was just done because the state owned it. And what we're trying to do is we're trying to create a pathway for those local governments to get rid of the litigation so that if they wanna move a statue or get rid of a statue, this creates that pathway to do so.

58. 0:34:21

    Okay. Thank you.

59. 0:34:22

    Thank you.

60. 0:34:24

    Okay. Thank you. And, uh, uh, one, one final, if we may. Uh, Representative Bazemore.

61. 0:34:33

    Well ...

62. 0:34:34

    Oh, I thought he had his ...

63. 0:34:35

    Yeah, go for it.

64. 0:34:36

    Is it me?

65. 0:34:37

    Okay. Your, your light was blinking.

66. 0:34:39

    Okay, it was.

67. 0:34:39

    Okay. Representative Adesanya had turned his off, so Adesanya.

68. 0:34:43

    Okay. Tha- thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you, um, Chairman Powell. Um, I argue against, uh, this, um, measure. Um, there's a lot of controversial figures that still have their monument in the South. Um, uh, I'm not ... And I understand your perspective may be different, but, um, it reminds many, many, many, many people of times and situations they don't wanna be reminded of.

69. 0:35:17

    Um, but I'm also confused when you presented the bill, if a monument is on a private property, why are we holding counties liable to advertise within 90 days? I mean, if it's a private property, why, why going at the county?

70. 0:35:37

    As I had explained a minute ago, some of the ... And there were some cases that some of the historical bro- groups put up monuments, and it was considered to be on their property or on a spot, the footprint of that monument. But it's actually on the county's property, so the county has, has taken control of it. So if they wanna get rid of it, then they can get rid of it, and this sets forth that, that process.

71. 0:36:01

    No, that's not what I'm asking. If it's on a private property, do we still hold counties liable if ... I mean, why would county take it down if it's on a private property?

72. 0:36:12

    Because as I'd said, a lot of those cases, you don't know who is the owner of that property. But there was actually a lot of cases where that footprint of that monument was belonged to a private entity, and they put up the monument.

73. 0:36:26

    Well, um, I would say, Chairman Powell-

74. 0:36:28

    But this side steps that and allows the county to go ahead and take, or the city to take, to start the pathway to get rid of that monument.

75. 0:36:37

    I, I would say respectfully, this is not the sort of measure that we need now at this time or should be talking about, so I would not be supporting it.

76. 0:36:46

    Well, I'm not surprised in that. I mean, this is only a pathway to a logical way of getting rid of, uh, or giving the local governments a way of-

77. 0:36:54

    Okay. One, one final quick question. Representative Bazemore.

78. 0:36:57

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to my colleague again, quick question. So we've debated Stone Mountain and the carvings. Does this fall into that?

79. 0:37:08

    There's no changes to that status. Stone Mountain-

80. 0:37:12

    So this-

81. 0:37:12

    ... belongs to the state, but it was created as a memorial park.

82. 0:37:15

    Okay.

83. 0:37:16

    So that belongs to the state.

84. 0:37:18

    Okay. So we did discuss state statues and memorials.

85. 0:37:23

    The state ... Stone Mountain-

86. 0:37:25

    So this will not allow for removal?

87. 0:37:26

    Stone Mountain is already covered under the current statute. This deals with how to remove, that local governments can actually remove a monument.

88. 0:37:38

    Thank you.

89. 0:37:40

    Okay. I'll recognize, uh, Representative Gullett.

90. 0:37:43

    Pass.

91. 0:37:45

    Second.

92. 0:37:46

    We have a motion and a second, uh, do pass. Uh, do we have discussion on the motion? Uh, Representative Sanchez.

93. 0:37:56

    Thank you, Chair. Um, so, you know, I talked about this the other day on the floor. You know, it's the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and once again, we have more bills that are here to strike at the core of what the Founding Fathers wanted, which was the core of the American Revolution, was the right to protest and the right to free speech. Um, once again, we're seeing legislation to attack that right. Um, you know, I think that clearly we ... I don't understand why we need to go back to honoring people who were slave owners, who wanted to support the idea of slavery.

94. 0:38:35

    Um, so at the appropriate time, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to amend.

95. 0:38:42

    We are in discussion. If you have an amendment, please, uh, express it quickly.

96. 0:38:49

    Let's see. Okay, yeah. I'll, I'll waive. Or actually, no, uh, my motion to amend, I'm sorry. My motion to amend, I would like to add in section one, uh...

97. 0:39:04

    Add a new section one, um, let it, the title of this act shall be Protect the Integrity of the Slave Owners Act.

98. 0:39:20

    Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Yeah, second. Second, I second. Okay, there is a second. Any discussion on the motion?

99. 0:39:35

    No, I just motion. Okay, no discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion as presented by Representative Sanchez, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. Okay, in the opinion of the chair, the noes win. The motion is voted down. Now we're back to the, uh, original, uh, bill as presented. We have a motion and a second. I'll recognize Chairman Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I just wanna make a couple, couple comments about the American Revolution, 'cause that seems to be coming up here a lot today.

100. 0:40:08

     Um, the American Revolution was about a tyrant king who, uh, taxed the, the people, uh, here in the colonies of the United States, and provided them no representation whatsoever. So I do not believe that in any way that the, the member or the, our, our, our forefathers who were fighting for the freedom of this country ever thought it was okay to go around and destroy public property. There is a significant difference, and to co- commingle the two, I think, is, is, is just not in line with the values o of the, the American, um, you know, the tr- traditional American values.

101. 0:40:46

     With that being said, I was the second. I do feel like that was worth saying. And, uh, um, that's all I have to say discussion-wise, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman- Okay. Tha- ... if I might- If I might make one comment. Yes, sir. One quickly, please. You know, I heard the discussion, and this discussion continues to concern me about people who wanna, who wanna continue to fight the race wars. These monuments weren't put up there to ins- to reignite the Civil War at that time, if that's what you're talking about.

102. 0:41:18

     And yes, slavery was a terrible institution, but it was what it was because we were in an agrarian society. And it was so far ago, there wasn't computers, there wasn't even mechanized machinery, but it was what it was. And it was a terrible institution that was eventually done away with. It would've probably been done away with anyway with mechanization, but that doesn't make any excuses, nor do I make any excuses for the institution.

103. 0:41:49

     But it wasn't just in this country, but it was around the world. It was around the world at that time. You still have slavery that exists in some quarters of this world today, and it is a terrible institution. But this continually fighting the race war on this thing, it is what it is. There are monuments that are put up today, and this is a pathway to take these monuments, to move them to a location or whatever for their artistic or their memorial purpose or whatever it may be.

104. 0:42:24

     But this gives a pathway to move these monuments so that we continue to get out of this continually fighting over this through litigation. And that's qui- quite frankly what it does. Uh, I heard what your comments was to the gentleman, you know, and I hate to say this, but I do adamantly oppose your idea that it being a violation of a second amendment by saying that you can't deface a statue or anything else. If you take it in that train of thought, then you would think that it should be fine to use your Second Amendment right to physically assault someone.

105. 0:43:02

     This isn't what the Second Amendment's about. So that being said, thank you very much. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, at this point, I see no other comments, so we're gonna go straight to the question. All in favor of the bill as presented, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. No. Any opinion of the ch- Can we have a hand vote? Well, sure, we can have a hand vote. All in favor, raise your hand.

106. 0:43:35

     One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. He's on the committee. He's on the committee. He is on the committee, yes. Wait, wait, wait, hold up. I'm sorry. Record that vote quickly. No.

107. 0:43:48

     Okay, six, six in favor. Okay, all opposed, raise your hand.

108. 0:43:54

     One, two, three, four, five. Five. Okay, motion carries, bill passes. Thank you, sir. And hopefully we'll get you to your meeting with very little delay. All right, uh, Chairman Martin,

109. 0:44:10

     we're gonna proceed now to, uh, House Bill 1482. And Chairman Martin, you may proceed when you're ready, sir. Chairman Powell, do you need your water, sir? No, I'm out of water. Okay. No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If, uh, you had simple on your bingo card this morning, I got a simple bill for you. Uh, Hou- House Bill 1482, um, in, in, um, lines 12 through 16 basically identifies the At- Atlanta jail, and, and the, um, lines on the back page say that, um,

110. 0:44:44

     The, if, if asked by the sheriff in the county where that jail exists, that'd be Fulton County, that the, um, the, the city of Atlanta has to make that facility available, uh, to the county to help with the overcrowding situation, and the county has to pay them for, for that process, the, the, the actual cost of operations of the jail. As context, Mr. Chairman, um, the, the city in which I live, Alpharetta, has had an IGA with the Fulton County, um, since 2022. It was recently, um, terminated by the county because the sheriff needed to bring the, um, deputies, um, back down to, um, his jail, uh, for manpowers issues, so Alpharetta took over the operation.

111. 0:45:23

     But their IGA said that the Alpharetta jail would be ge- uh, uh, made available to the county, county would operate it, and the City of Alpharetta actually paid for the inmates in the jail. So we're not asking the City of Atlanta to do anything but work with the county. Mo- most- I think over 80% of the taxpayers in the City of Atlanta also pay tax in Fulton County. So we're just asking them to work in good faith with their county sheriff to make capital assets that have been paid for by the taxpayers of Atlanta and Fulton County, to make those capital assets available so that we can properly, um, incarcerate tho- those that need to be incarcerated.

112. 0:46:00

     We all know that there's an issue with overcrowding at the Fulton County Jail, um, so we're just, we're just trying to provide them a path to work together, uh, and encourage that collaboration. Mr. Chairman, it's, you know, we hear it all the time, but it's just that simple.

113. 0:46:17

     Okay. Representative Burnough.

114. 0:46:19

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you- there was no way for you to work this out with the City of Atlanta without coming down here for legislation?

115. 0:46:28

     Well, I, I actually, um, they've been trying to work that out for years.

116. 0:46:33

     Thank you.

117. 0:46:33

     And some- sometimes it, we can help them, um, collaborate a little bit, bit better, and I, I hope we did. A- again, this does not require the sheriff to do it. This does not, um, require Atlanta to be out of pocket. It makes them whole, and, and I think if we keep this moving along during this legislative session as we approa- cross- approach crossover, um, I, I really hope it encourages the two governments, again, where 80% of their taxpayers pay tax to Fulton County and the City of Atlanta, to make best use of the capital assets that the taxpayers have paid for.

118. 0:47:08

     I'm, I'm, quite frankly, Representative, um, and I hope you would agree with me, I'm disappointed they haven't done it already. Quite disappointed.

119. 0:47:16

     Okay. Representative Sanchez.

120. 0:47:18

     Thank you, Chair.

121. 0:47:19

     Yes, sir.

122. 0:47:19

     Thank you. Um, so I know that the people of the City of Atlanta have, for a very long time now, have been very much advocating for closing down this jail and turning it into a community center for the community. Um, I'm curious why you want to go against the will of the city of F- people of the City of Atlanta with this legislation.

123. 0:47:40

     I, I'm, I'm unclear, can you, is, is there a, a process under, un- ongoing to do that? The, the jail exists, as in my understanding, is empty today. It's a capital asset that was paid for as a jail by the taxpayers of Fulton County and, and the, the City of Atlanta. Um, and it, as it sits empty, I think it's an underutilization of resources, and, uh, I, I believe it, that there should be a conversation, um, ongoing. I think we would all agree that we've heard about the overcrowding in the Fulton County Jail. Fulton County Jail has to take inmates from the City of Atlanta just like they do the City of Alpharetta and, and other cities in the county.

124. 0:48:15

     So I'm just trying to look for them. You know, this, this may not be the long-term solution. I would suggest to you it's not. In fact, Alpharetta had their IGA that could have lasted 10 years. The county needed to come back, so Alpharetta's operating their own jail now. So I'm not suggesting that this is a long-term solution, but I think we would all agree that the county is, is in a, a bit of an emergent situation. I'm just encouraging them to, to try to help solve this, uh, until that time, um, that, uh, the, the Fulton County, um, Commission is able to work with the sheriff and, and get a, a different facility in place.

125. 0:48:48

     I, I do believe that there is a p- way for them to do that without us, uh, intervening ourselves from the state level. In fact, just yesterday, the Fulton County Commission approved, with decisive support from both Republicans, a plan to reduce the jail population. And so I think there are actually currently ongoing process on this, and I don't think that we need to be meddling in those affairs.

126. 0:49:07

     Well, and, and if I, if I might, Mr. Chairman, to answer this, this doesn't require the sheriff to do this. This, this says if the sheriff needs to do this. So it is very possible that this goes forward. Number one, it's possible that they would work together to do it without this legislation. The second thing is the sheriff may decide that even if this went into statute, that he doesn't need that facility. And I say he now because it, it is a male. It could be he or she is the sheriff. But, um, the, this just puts in place, um, a, an opportunity for them to work together to make the best, um, use of capital assets that the taxpayers have paid for.

127. 0:49:40

     I appreciate the gentleman's question.

128. 0:49:42

     Okay. Thank you. And, uh, Representative Adesanya.

129. 0:49:48

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, Representative Martin, um, wh- while you're proposing a short-term solution, um, I want you to give this, um, committee clarity if, um, an inmates gets injured or somebody gets killed in the city's facility while it's under the Fulton, um, the county control, who is liable for that?

130. 0:50:14

     This requires an intergovernment agreement. I, I trust the City of Atlanta would enter into... They, they, it's, it's silent to what the requirements are, so I would trust the City of Atlanta as they enter into the agreement. The only thing that's required here is they pass along the, the cost of running the facility. It doesn't speak to the indemnification the City of Atlan- of the indemnification, uh, for the City of Atlanta if, if the county is running the jail. So I would leave that to the, uh, learned attorneys for the City of Atlanta to represent them properly in the intergovernment agreement.

131. 0:50:45

     Thank you. But I would add this, it can really get murky, so just keep that in mind.

132. 0:50:52

     Thank you. And, uh, Representative Bazemore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Um, thank you, Representative. Um, you are a member of the Fulton County delegation, correct? I am, yes, ma'am. Um, is there a reason why this bill is, is general and not local, and that it didn't come before the Fulton County delegation? Um, it's the, it was b- brought to me as a general law. It maps after Senate Bill 7 that's, that's been passed out of Senate committee, so I mapped it, um, a, exactly after that law in hopes of getting one of those.

133. 0:51:23

     It's not a local bill over there. Over, I'm sorry. In the Senate. Senate Bill 7. This reflects the language in Senate Bill 7 by, uh, Senator Albers that was introduced in 2025. And, and again, to the, uh, Representative Burnough's question, you, you would hope after the encouragement for over a year now that they would work together on this, but that's why I mapped this after general law as the senator had, had done and passed committee. I, I didn't hear any objection to that in the Senate. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Representatives, uh, Chairman Sainz. Uh, thank you, Mr.

134. 0:51:53

     Chairman, for bringing this forward. Two quick questions. Uh, the way I understand it, you, this, uh, bill will assist in the adequate treatment of inmates, many who have not been adjudicated and are assumed innocent, correct? My, my hope is that this would provide the, the sheriff of Fulton County Sheriff opportunities to p- p- provide better housing for inmates while they wait, uh, their adjudication. Yes, sir. And just for quick clarity, any local bill that doesn't have delegation support would then be treated as a general bill, correct? It, it could be, but that, that's not the... In, in this case- In this- ...

135. 0:52:24

     we, we weren't trying to go around the local delegation. I was just trying to map the- Absolutely ... the general bill out of the Senate. Thank you. I, I respect the lady and then, and local process. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Representative Olaleye. Thank you, Chair, Chairman. Um, I, I, I don't wanna beat a dead horse, but I, I just, I'm trying to understand how we, how can we think that legislating partnership and cooperation at the state level is actually gonna help the goal, the intent, which would be to support those inmates?

136. 0:52:58

     I, I, I'm... The, the, the home rule piece, so many times in this committee we have trumpeted home rule and allowing local decision-makers to decide for themselves how best to use resources, assets. They are on the ground and know best, and yet we're pushing local leaders to the side and saying, "No, we know best here at the state." Um, I'm just trying to understand why not go through a local process, why not engage the, uh, county delegation to take this ball and run forward with it if we are truly trying to solve the problem of overcrowded jails.

137. 0:53:43

     Um, taking this tact, in my opinion, is not helpful. It only hurts the cause that you've mentioned. Um, w- why did you not treat this as a local legislation and engage the local delegation versus taking this general bill route? Let me, let me answer that again. This was a Senate bill. It passed Senate committee as a general bill last year. It was brought to my attention, um, and, and quite frankly, with, with some of the, um, the politics that are going on in a- in Atlanta, um, I think it, it's tough for them to, um, make a deci- it's obviously tough for them.

138. 0:54:22

     They, over a year they've been, they've had this bill before them in the Senate to encourage them to assist with a vacant facility that could make the detention of inmates pre, uh, court, um, pretrial, uh, could m- could make their life a- as incarcerated individuals better by refusing to have that. As far as the resources for the city, again, this is not costing the city any resources. The, in the IGA I pointed out with the city of Alpharetta and Fulton County, Alpharetta actually paid the county to do this.

139. 0:54:55

     They, they actually paid the, the city came out of pocket for their IGA. In this case, it's going the other way, where the county would pay the city. So the city would actually be in a financially better situation than having a, a vacant facility. Um, so to answer your specific question, it's a general bill because it was a general bill in the Senate, and I'm ma- mapping that. Um, and, and as far as you mentioned something about why are we, um, taking or having anything to do with the city of Atlanta resources, if anything, we are providing them the opportunity to have revenue on a facility that is getting no revenue today.

140. 0:55:28

     I, I just think that- Answer that first question ... I just think, Chairman, that, that the bill just sets a, a terrible precedent that we can go into your backyard and tell you what to do and how to use, uh, your public amenities and, and assets. If, if, if asked the question to the gentleman, I would answer, I feel really good about encouraging our political subdivisions in this state to make good use of the capital resources of which the public has entrusted us at all levels of government. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'm gonna recognize Chairman Thomas.

141. 0:56:00

     Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd, I'd like to make a motion we table this bill, and I'd like to continue to work on it in subcommittee. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to table. Any discussion? Uh, there's no s- discussion on a motion to table. Sorry. All in favor of tabling, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're gonna lay this on the table. Thank you, sir. All right. Next we're gonna try to, as I mentioned, we got rules coming up very soon. I know the presenter of this bill, uh, has to go to rules to present a bill, so we're gonna see if we can, uh, deal with this one as quickly as possible.

142. 0:56:32

     Um, I'll ask Chairman Lumsden to come up and let's, uh, discuss House Bill 868. We have, uh, discussed this in subcommittee, so, uh, there is some... Let me get my glasses right here. There is some, uh, uh, discussion that's already been had. I think we may have a, uh, an amendment to be motioned here related to this. So Chairman Lumsden, go ahead.

143. 0:56:59

     Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I bring to you, uh, House Bill 868, LC number 520853. This is a bill that comes as a request from the Constitutional Officers Association and addresses a retirement benefit for the four constitutional officers serving at the local level, those being the sheriff, clerk of courts, tax commissioner, and probate judge. Now, these offices were created by an act of the state legislature, and their salaries and responsibilities are likewise determined by an act of the state legislature.

144. 0:57:37

     The salaries and benefits, however, are the responsibility of the local government, and they vary from county to county based on population. They're elected officers, and they must stand for election every four years. This bill addresses an issue some of these long-serving officers face when they have served at least 16 years and reached the age of 55. Many have served much longer than that. For them, this is more than public service. It's been their livelihood and their career.

145. 0:58:07

     House Bill 868 would make it possible for these constitutional officers, once they've served 16 years and reached the age of 55, to retire and keep their health insurance till they reach the age of 65 and go on Medicare. Currently, if they retire before age of 65, they lose their health insurance and much, must get health insurance through the marketplace. The true cost of health insurance in the marketplace runs between $12,000 and $15,000 annually, depending on whether they have individual coverage or family coverage.

146. 0:58:40

     Most of these officers will continue to serve because the cost of health insurance keeps them from being able to retire. While it is true that they must run for office every four years, it is highly unlikely that they will lose their office unless they do something to turn the voters against them. House Bill 868 can give some of these long-serving officers an option to retire. However, many who qualify will not choose to do so because they need to build more years into their retirement plan. To understand what this bill does, you must consider the practical implications.

147. 0:59:12

     Every time one of these constitutional officers is reelected, he or she receives a 5% increase in their salary. Uh, a constitutional officer who has served 16 years is making 20% more than a newly elected officer would make. If they have served 20 years, they'd make 25% more. This bill would require the county to apply the difference between what the newly elected constitutional officer makes and what the retiring constitutional officer makes, would apply that toward the cost of health insurance provided by the county for the retiring constitutional officer.

148. 0:59:46

     Now, you may argue that this, that if, uh, the long-serving constitutional officer retires, that would be a savings to the county. But the practical implication, without this option, the long-serving constitutional officer would not retire, and upon reelection would receive another 5% increase, costing the county even more. This is a revenue neutral option, and in a number of counties it would represent a savings to the county's budget. Yes, this is a mandate, but it's not an unfunded mandate. Yes, ACCG opposes any mandates, but I would point out that these constitutional officers exist because we, the legislature, created them and determined their salaries and responsibilities.

149. 1:00:27

     I believe that a revenue neutral option for the long-serving constitutional officer that is able to retire makes for good public policy, and we, the legislature, set those policies. So Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, that's the bill, and I would appreciate your favorable consideration. Okay, we have a question from, uh, Representative Burnough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, um, I know that you brought this bill up in a subcommittee. And, um, I just want to know why is it that these individuals deserve to have health insurance paid by the county when there are so many other people that don't, if they lose their job or something happens, then they have to pay for their, uh, insurance.

150. 1:01:14

     I know that when I decided to run, I never forget, um, somebody did, they asked me, they said, "What you gonna do about your health insurance?" And I never really thought about it, but, uh, you know, my husband is a veteran, so, uh, he's at 100%, so I didn't have to really concern myself with that c- because I have, uh, TRICARE. However, to say that because I decide to run for office and then I decide that I don't or I lose, then I should be entitled to free healthcare, I don't really understand why they should be.

151. 1:01:51

     Well, these are long-serving officers. This has been their career, in essence. That's where they spent the majority of their working life, and these are full-time jobs. They're not part-time positions, they're full-time jobs. So it is their career. And they exist, as I pointed out, because we, the legislature, created them and determined their salaries. We set the formula in place for their salaries. So this is just one other benefit that we can provide, and I think it's something that we should provide, and b- based on how the system works, it's not costing the counties.

152. 1:02:27

     It's, it's, it's revenue neutral to the counties that choose to do it. It gives the retiring individual the option. It doesn't require that, um, you know, if, if the, if the individual decides to take advantage of it, it's his choice. But there's many that would not be able to take advantage of it because they may need to build more years into the retirement system. But there are some that would be in a position and would want to take advantage of it. And since it doesn't cost the, uh, counties any more than it would otherwise to, to keep that individual, um, you know, if, if that individual ran for reelection and was reelected, it would continue to cost the county more.

153. 1:03:04

     So I, I just see this as a win-win situation. In many counties during the, um, um, public testimony, we heard from many of the counties where this would actually save those counties a good bit of money.

154. 1:03:17

     Um, one more question. But we didn't hear from any counties in the metro area to see what their, um-

155. 1:03:24

     Ac- actually-

156. 1:03:25

     ... feelings

157. 1:03:25

     ... for the counties in the metro area-

158. 1:03:27

     Mm-hmm

159. 1:03:27

     ... because of the population, uh, they are, um, uh, they make more. Those constitutional officers make more. So if they were to take advantage of it, uh, they would actually save those counties even more money because the higher the salary the individual makes, the, um, um, more savings it would be to the county should they take advantage of it. Because the cost of the insurance, as I said, runs between 12 and 15,000. But for those counties where the individual is making a higher salary, uh, and they're still paying, uh, the, the individual's still paying 25% of his, um, uh, of, of the cost for the insurance.

160. 1:04:01

     It's, it's not that the county's covering the whole part of it, but the, the individual's still paying 25% of that, uh, cost of the healthcare even if he retires.

161. 1:04:10

     And is it not true that it is our choice to run for office?

162. 1:04:14

     It's true that it's our choice to run for office.

163. 1:04:16

     Thank you.

164. 1:04:16

     And it is a, um, a public service. But as I pointed out, if they've served fif- if they've served 16, 20 plus years, um, that's been their career. That's been their livelihood. And, um, I, I think it is good public policy when we can provide that for them at basically no, no, no, no additional cost to the taxpayer.

165. 1:04:41

     Okay. Thank you. Representative Adesanya.

166. 1:04:45

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, I believe I heard you mention that ACCG, um, are opposed to it. Can you share why they are?

167. 1:04:53

     Well, ACCG, uh, I was a county commissioner for six years. I've carried legislation for ACCG. Uh, I know that, as I said, this is a mandate, and, um, most governmental entities don't like mandates, pure and simple. Now, there may be some other reasons that they have, but, you know, to me, that is the, uh, seems to be the overarching reas- reason is. And going back to, uh, what, uh, Representative Olaleye was mentioning in the previous discussion about local control, we, the legislature, we do believe in local control until we don't.

168. 1:05:29

     That's the simple version.

169. 1:05:31

     And-

170. 1:05:35

     Um, a quick follow-up, um, Chairman. So, um, you s- served as a commissioner.

171. 1:05:41

     Yes, sir.

172. 1:05:41

     Um, and, um, you, the local governments don't like mandate. Um, should we be forcing... If they don't like it, it's probably because it puts a constraint on their budget. Now, knowing that, why are we still forcing it?

173. 1:06:00

     A- as I said, these four constitutional officers were created by an act of the state legislature. We control their salaries, the s- the, the, uh, formulas that is used, uh, to provide their salaries. We also mandate that they receive a 5% increase every time they're reelected. So we, the legislature, are, uh, we're the entity that has that control.

174. 1:06:26

     Thank you.

175. 1:06:30

     Okay. Uh, Chairman Sainz.

176. 1:06:33

     Mr. Chairman, if, if I'm not incorrect, there's a meeting following up, and I know a lot of folks have to go. And I, uh, would like to call to question on this bill, if appropriate.

177. 1:06:44

     Okay. Well, there's no question to call at this point. We'd have to have a motion first.

178. 1:06:47

     Make a motion due pass, if appropriate.

179. 1:06:50

     Second.

180. 1:06:50

     Okay. We have a motion and a second due pass. We're in, uh, discussion. Uh, Representative Fleming.

181. 1:06:56

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Chairman, thank you for the bill. I think, uh, I appreciate you presenting it. I know we heard a lot of testimony in subcommittee, and I know we've had some conversations offline. And, um, Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I'd like to add, um, offer two friendly amendments to the bill.

182. 1:07:10

     This is the proper time.

183. 1:07:13

     Okay, Mr. Chairman. Um, amendment one would be on line 21, striking between collector and clerk, striking or. And after Supreme Court, after clerk of Supreme Court, adding or and adding county commissioners as well to this piece of legislation.

184. 1:07:33

     On line 21, after clerk of court, add or county commissioner. So we're, basically what we'd be doing is adding county commissioners to this piece of legislation as well.

185. 1:07:44

     Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

186. 1:07:50

     That's correct.

187. 1:07:53

     We have a motion for amendment. Do we have a second?

188. 1:07:55

     Second.

189. 1:07:56

     We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? I see none. All in favor of the amendment say aye.

190. 1:08:03

     Aye.

191. 1:08:04

     Aye.

192. 1:08:04

     Any opposed? Amendment is approved. Okay. Now, and I think you said you had a second.

193. 1:08:10

     Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. And a- after having discussions with the author and other organizations, I would move to strike lines 31 through 47 of the bill. Basically, this removes the reference to ACCG to administrating the coverage, and allows counties to go out to the private market. And they could also go to ACCG if they wanted to, but it just offers counties additional options for this potential coverage.

194. 1:08:34

     Okay. Can I suggest a little clarification on that? On line 31.

195. 1:08:38

     Sorry. 31 after, after where it says 48-5-183., start with A, county governing authority, on line 31 all the way through line 47.

196. 1:08:52

     Okay. And for further clarity, I think we would also make a part of this motion that the, uh, the initial paragraph be adjusted to reflect that change. Is that correct?

197. 1:09:02

     Yes, sir. You'd have to strike line, all of line six and line seven, and replace it with related matters.

198. 1:09:11

     Okay. So we have a motion. And just to kind of quickly restate the motion, the motion is to strike from- A county governing authority on line 31 through the end of line 47, and to adjust the, uh, the initial paragraph to reflect that. Is that the correct, uh, statement of the motion?

199. 1:09:34

     Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

200. 1:09:35

     Okay. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Oh- Aye. Hold on.

201. 1:09:46

     Representative Burnough.

202. 1:09:47

     I just wanted to clarify that we're not just paying for the person who has the job, but we're paying for their spouse and their children's insurance up to that time. Is that correct?

203. 1:09:58

     The-

204. 1:09:58

     Thank you.

205. 1:09:59

     It's my, my understanding from this, that is an option. It is not a requirement, but it is an option under this, so.

206. 1:10:05

     Okay. Thank you.

207. 1:10:06

     Thank you. Okay. Now, back to the, uh, the, the question. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And that was on the amendment. So now we have the underlying bill with the two amendments proposed by Representative Fleming. No further discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries, bill passes. Thank you, sir. All right. Now I'd like to, uh... It's 27.

208. 1:10:40

     Chairman Gullett.

209. 1:10:42

     I'd like to move House Bill 1482 off the table.

210. 1:10:46

     Okay. We have a motion and a second to remove House Bill 1482 from the table. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay. The ayes have it. We are removing that bill from the table. It is, uh, now eligible for consideration. Uh, Representative Sainz.

211. 1:11:06

     Like to motion do pass.

212. 1:11:08

     Second.

213. 1:11:08

     We have a motion do pass and a second. Any discussion? Which one was it?

214. 1:11:17

     Representative Roberts.

215. 1:11:18

     Mr. Chair, there were people here that wanted to, from the public that wanted to speak on this bill. And was there public testimony in subcommittee that-

216. 1:11:28

     Nope.

217. 1:11:29

     Did this go to subcommittee?

218. 1:11:30

     Nope.

219. 1:11:30

     Uh, this, this bill was not presented in subcommittee. It was only presented today.

220. 1:11:34

     So we're not gonna accept any public's testimony on a bill?

221. 1:11:37

     At the moment we have a motion do pass with a second, so we're in the posture of discussion on that-

222. 1:11:43

     Wow

223. 1:11:43

     ... at the moment, so.

224. 1:11:45

     Okay. Well then I have discussion.

225. 1:11:50

     Um, it's my understanding, and since we can't get testimony from the people who could answer these questions, um, that the city currently, the City of Atlanta currently has a contract with Fulton County for 400 inmates, and the county is only using 200 of those beds. They also house for Marta and Georgia State. I w- was hoping we could ask those questions of the people who know. Um, my other discussion is, um...

226. 1:12:24

     Well, first of all, the posture that the sponsor took about, um,

227. 1:12:32

     going around the Fulton delegation because it was brought in the Senate this way seems, last I checked, we're all members of the House, not the Senate, and there are processes set up in place, and so, um, that fell hollow for me. Um, I also have a question about we can require the, we can ask the sheriff to take over, but the City of Atlanta could still be held responsible, um, if something were to happen. The Fulton County Sheriff has already demonstrated that he cannot ensure the safety of the people housed at ACDC or any other facilities, unlike the robust court enforceable agreement between the DOJ and the county.

228. 1:13:13

     This bill does not address the underlying causes of the unconstitutional and inhumane conditions of the Fulton County Jail and the DOJ connected under staffing at the jail to the failure to protect incarcerated people, the excessive and unreasonable use of force, and the failure to maintain hygienic and safe facilities. Um, so all of these things are, are a major issue, but circumventing the delegation is one more example of how this body is so disrespectful to our processes.

229. 1:13:45

     Thank you.

230. 1:13:47

     Thank you for your comments. Uh, Chairman Sainz.

231. 1:13:52

     Mr. Chairman, I think, uh, members of this committee, uh, represent all around the state and have adequate information of, of both this local issue and the public safety need of both those incarcerated in our local, uh, uh, jails. Um, and with that, I'd like to call to question on this bill.

232. 1:14:13

     Okay. The question has been called. Uh, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay. Any opinion-

233. 1:14:22

     And vote.

234. 1:14:23

     Yes. All in favor, please raise your right hand.

235. 1:14:25

     One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

236. 1:14:31

     Okay. All opposed, like sign.

237. 1:14:35

     One, two, three, four.

238. 1:14:36

     Okay. The motion carries, bill passes. Thank you. We're gonna be at, uh, ease until we determine what the, uh, the Rules Committee will do to our quorum here. So, uh, we'll be at ease until we have a quorum back or until, uh, say, 10 minutes after Rules Committee adjourns. Thank you.

239. 2:04:48

     Okay, if I can get everybody to take their seats. We, if my count is correct, we have a quorum, which I was a lit- I'm a little surprised that rules finished as quickly as they did. They expedited their work as quickly as we're about to expedite ours. So thank you everyone for, uh, coming back in. We're gonna jump right into this. Uh, Chairman Tyler Paul Smith, if you'll proceed with House Bill 613. And before you start, I'll just make a mention. I believe this is a bill that we passed out of committee last year, uh, and-

240. 2:05:20

     It is

241. 2:05:21

     ... it, it, it got recommitted when it didn't make it out of rules. Is my recollection correct?

242. 2:05:26

     The chairman is correct, and the substitute that y'all should have before you does this. It would require the State Workforce Development Board to make sure that on their website, that those who have attended an apprenticeship program at our technical college, a list of those apprenticeship and employer sponsors, uh, that have been awarded these complete contract awards, they're listed on that website. So you can pull it up, as well as being able to access those individuals if they consent to it, obviously, uh, to have their names, uh, placed on the registered apprenticeship program.

243. 2:06:07

     This is different than last year because we had a preference in the previous version. We have not passed a preference piece of legislation since 1922 or '23, so that's why we changed it.

244. 2:06:23

     Okay. And if I notice also, this, uh, has a sunset that's extended out to 2030. Is that-

245. 2:06:28

     That is correct.

246. 2:06:30

     Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh, Chairman Thomas.

247. 2:06:33

     Appropriate time.

248. 2:06:35

     Uh, I have no comments, questions, so this is the appropriate time. We have a motion to do pass.

249. 2:06:40

     Do pass.

250. 2:06:40

     I have a second. Any questions for the chairman? All in favor say aye.

251. 2:06:45

     Aye.

252. 2:06:46

     Any opposed? Motion carries, bill passes. Thank you.

253. 2:06:48

     Thank you, Chairman and members of committee.

254. 2:06:51

     Okay. Next is, uh, let's see. Chairman Gullett, would you like to present from your seat?

255. 2:07:01

     Sure, yes.

256. 2:07:02

     But, okay, I'll let you proceed to, uh, bring House Bill 1227. This is a bill we have heard in subcommittee, and, uh, go at, at your leisure, sir.

257. 2:07:12

     All right. Yeah, this is LC474109S. Uh, this is a bill we've heard a couple times in subcommittee. Um, it's really just best described as a, as a voter service bill, is what I would say. Um, it's not a new concept. Today, um, when you move from another state, you must, uh, or you... When you move into Georgia or from another state, you must, uh, let the state know or the, the county of jurisdiction know that you've moved. Um, what this does is just allows, um, you to opt in to the county, giving that information to the Secretary of State to let the state that you, that you left from know that you've now registered in Georgia.

258. 2:07:54

     Um, again, it's already current law. This is just really a voter service bill, um, to do that, and, uh, I'm happy to answer any questions.

259. 2:08:01

     Okay. I'll repres- uh, recognize Representative Fleming.

260. 2:08:05

     Chairman Gullett, thank you for bringing this bill. I think it's a great piece of legislation, and, uh, Chairman Anderson, the appropriate time.

261. 2:08:10

     Second.

262. 2:08:11

     I have no other lights posted, so this is the appropriate time. We have a motion to do pass, and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

263. 2:08:20

     Aye.

264. 2:08:21

     Any opposed? Motion carries, bill passes. Thank you. All right. Next on the list is House Bill 1442. Uh, Representative Washburn

265. 2:08:34

     is missing at the moment.

266. 2:08:37

     All right.

267. 2:08:40

     Okay, we're gonna stand at ease for just a moment, and let's see if we can round up the representative.

268. 2:09:35

     Okay, I'm gonna recognize, uh, Chairman Gullett.

269. 2:09:40

     This is a bill related to, uh, local, so moratoriums. Um, there happens to be a situation that, that brought this bill. There was a development going on. They had their permits delivered to them, or given to them. They were ma- they were grading the property, uh, and there was a moratorium put on by the county, and they got a stop, uh, a stop order. Um, so while they've already been approved, um, from their zoning and from their, their, their, um, ins- building inspection and their, the permitting, they began work.

270. 2:10:15

     They got a m- a moratorium was placed by the county, which gave a stop order, uh, which cost the developer seven, $7 million in this particular instance. So what this says is, um, that those moratoriums, um, are really only for developments that haven't started the process of...

271. 2:10:34

     There's the, the speaker to the bill.

272. 2:10:38

     Motion to do pass.

273. 2:10:38

     Motion to pass.

274. 2:10:41

     Okay, Representative Washburn, we've had a brief explanation, uh, of the bill.

275. 2:10:46

     He's like, "Oh, my God."

276. 2:10:48

     Uh, if you want to add anything, we do have a motion do pass. Uh-

277. 2:10:52

     Well, don't let me intervene at all, please.

278. 2:10:55

     Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a second. Now we're in discussion on that. Uh, I believe there was a, uh, an amendment proposed on this. Would, uh- I just, just need a member of the committee to, uh, to motion to amend, and then I think, uh, Mr. Morelli has the language of the-

279. 2:11:20

     Motion.

280. 2:11:21

     Okay, we have a motion to amend. Second?

281. 2:11:25

     Second.

282. 2:11:26

     Okay, who made the motion?

283. 2:11:27

     I did.

284. 2:11:28

     Okay. Chairman Gullett. All right, now we're gonna recognize Mr. Morelli for the language of this motion.

285. 2:11:35

     Okay, so actually it's fairly simple. We're just doing a lot of, uh, some striking. So on, uh, line 15, go towards the end of that line, um, starting with, "Or any officer," we're going to strike, "Or any officer or," and then pretty much all of line 16 going up to, "Has." So, "Or any officer or official of such local government who has the power to bind such local government," will be deleted from the, the language.

286. 2:12:07

     Um, and then on line 17, "Or support" will also be deleted, and the word or will be inserted between approval and confirmation.

287. 2:12:22

     Okay, was that the change?

288. 2:12:28

     My, my understanding is this was an agreement that the, the sponsor had with, uh-

289. 2:12:33

     Uh, yes

290. 2:12:33

     ... some of the, the local government advocacy groups.

291. 2:12:37

     Yeah.

292. 2:12:37

     GMA had suggested, uh, those changes, and, uh, we agreed to them.

293. 2:12:42

     Okay, so we have a motion, a second. The motion has been stated. We're in, uh, discussion on that. Representative Sanchez.

294. 2:12:51

     I actually have a question about the general bill, so I can wait till after the amendment discussion.

295. 2:12:58

     All right, so we're in the posture of, uh, the amendment to the bill. I see no other questions regarding the amendment. All in favor say aye.

296. 2:13:06

     Aye.

297. 2:13:07

     Any opposed? No opposition to the amendment. Now we're back to the underlying bill as amended. Uh, Representative Sanchez.

298. 2:13:15

     Thank you, Chair. Um, so just a quick question on this. So is this any zoning decision, even if it's not residential property? Would it be any commercial or industrial zoning as well?

299. 2:13:26

     It is any, uh, property in which a permit has been issued.

300. 2:13:30

     Okay. Got it. And so just for, for, for clarification, um, would this make it more difficult if a local community wants to stop something that they don't want in their community? Would it make it more difficult for them to be able to stop it?

301. 2:13:47

     Well, it simply says if a permit has been issued, then any moratorium that is in, th- that a moratorium can't be put in place after a permit is issued.

302. 2:13:56

     Correct. But I do th- you know, sometimes in the process, people find out about something late, later in the process than initially intended, and they might, there might be some pushback from the local community. Would this-

303. 2:14:07

     Well-

304. 2:14:07

     ... make it so that they can't do anything around that, at that, even after the permi- permitting process?

305. 2:14:12

     Well, my response would be that there's been plenty of opportunity in most communities for them to know what's being proposed, so I don't think that would be the case. But if there's a permit that has been issued after all process, all due process, all applications, all, uh, work has been done, then the moratorium cannot be issued after that.

306. 2:14:33

     Okay, one final follow-up. This is meant for affordable housing, I'm assuming, correct? Is it meant to help with that?

307. 2:14:39

     It is a private property rights issue, a balance of private property rights and local control. We certainly recognize home rule, zoning issues or home rule, uh, but it is a balance of those things and an issue of fairness-

308. 2:14:56

     Right

309. 2:14:56

     ... that if any developer of any type of property, not just residential, has gone through the process and done everything he's supposed to do, he or she or it, and then has had a permit issued, that a moratorium can't be imposed after that.

310. 2:15:10

     Would you be amenable to an amendment to say only residential and commercial and not include industrial?

311. 2:15:16

     No, sir. I would not.

312. 2:15:18

     Okay. Thank you.

313. 2:15:21

     Okay. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, all in favor of the bill as amended, say aye.

314. 2:15:28

     Aye.

315. 2:15:29

     Any opposed?

316. 2:15:30

     No.

317. 2:15:30

     Okay, the motion carries. The bill passes. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you.

318. 2:15:35

     Good job.