Senate Finance Committee, March 18, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1174562327 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1174562327#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-18/senate-finance This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:16:35] Committee, um, being, meeting this late was certainly not our choice. Um, but here we are. And if the House didn't send so many bills over, I wouldn't have to be trying to have all these meetings, but, you know, that's another day. Uh, Senator Anderson, would you do the invocation for us? [0:16:51] Let us pray. Dear Heavenly Father, once again, you bless us so much each and every day. Thank you for this beautiful day you've given us, dear Lord. Now I want to thank you for giving us this evening for us to have this meeting. Dear Lord, we just ask you to give us the wisdom and knowledge to make the right decision for the great people of the great state of Georgia. We just want to thank you for your love and your mercy and your grace. We want to always thank you for loving us. Forgive us all our sins and thank you for wonderful blessings. [0:17:23] In your name's sake, amen. [0:17:25] Amen. [0:17:27] Amen. [0:17:27] So I've been told some people were gonna be here, a couple of more that aren't here. If not, this could be a very short meeting. Um, because we do need one more for a quorum. But in the meantime, uh, Senator Albers, I think you had a presentation. [0:17:42] Uh, I did. Actually, uh, if I could get, uh, Joe Snowden to come up and maybe just stand over here to the side for a moment if you would, Joe. Thank you. I need to read this aloud so everybody can hear while we're waiting for a quorum. Uh, this letter, uh, is to Mr. Joe Snowden and the Department of Revenue. We, the undersigned friends, coworkers, citizens, and members of the General Assembly feel comp- feel compelled to address a matter of great public interest that has quietly captured the attention of many throughout the Capitol and beyond. Let the record show that we appreciate Joe's dedication, professionalism, and service to the State of Georgia. [0:18:16] However, it would be a disservice to the public if we did not acknowledge that his mustache has grown to something of a significant distraction in its own right. The mustache is described by some observers as historic. Remarkably uncommitted. And possibly eligible to run for its own state office. Some have even wondered if the mustache itself has been quietly filing paperwork for the Department of Revenue. Visitors to state office have known to pause and ask questions such as, "Is that mustache part of the official uniform?" "Does it come with seniority or has it been grandfathered into state law?" To be clear, this letter is written with concern for the general welfare of Joe and the state at large. [0:19:01] Maintaining a mustache of this stature requires confidence, commitment, and a certain disregard for modern grooming trends- ... and other qualities too numerous to list. That said, we res- respectively propose the following options for Joe to consider. Number one, a voluntary mustache removal initiative. Number two, a pilot program for moderate-to-full mustache reduction. And number three, or at minimum, official recognition of the mustache as a Georgia historical landmark. [0:19:34] Until such action is taken, we acknowledge that Joe Snowden is a proud owner of the most recognizable and hideous mustache in state government. We, the undersigned, in all due re- request, uh, immediate action be taken. Warmest regards to us and all of your friends- ... throughout the Capitol who have signed this. Joe, well done. [0:20:05] I saw that one [0:20:09] coming. [0:20:12] First letter I've seen you handle that since I've been here. [0:20:14] Oh, I- [0:20:15] Excuse me. [0:20:18] Mr. Chairman, I apologize. We forgot to put a five-year sunset on that. I'd like to amend it. [0:20:26] Good get. [0:20:36] All right. We'll wait a, a couple more minutes and see if the people who claim they were gonna be here are actually here. We do need one more. [0:20:47] Want me to text anybody or... [0:20:49] Um. [0:20:50] Oh, here's Rhett. [0:20:54] All right. So we're gonna go ahead and, um, and hear House Bill 459 again. 439. 439. I'm sorry. 439 if you wanna step up here. Um, we did this sort of, uh, quickly yesterday. Had, had taken another bill and there was one section in there that shouldn't have been in there regarding the, uh, 18,000 homestead exemption. So the sub we're working off of today is LC 474254S. [0:21:29] Um, you're in agreement that's the correct language? Yes, sir. Okay. That is absolutely correct. So we- we're actually just deleting that one paragraph that... I'm, I'm sorry to have your mic going out there. That, that one paragraph that, uh, shouldn't have been in there. So if there's not any questions on this. Move to pass. We'll, we got a motion and a second from Senator Tillery and Senator Albers. Any discussion? All in favor say aye or raise your hand. [0:21:56] Aye. [0:21:56] All right. And opposed? Did... I'm sorry, Senator Halpern, did you vote yes or no? [0:22:07] Yeah. [0:22:07] Okay. Sounds like it's unanimous then. Thanks a lot. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. All right. Then let's, uh, move on to, uh, Representative Hagan, can you come up? We, uh, the committee had, had looked at this and there was a lot of concern over this and we haven't done a study. One of the reasons we hadn't done a study is we looked at some of the bigger impact bills. So what the sub in here is- Is that, uh, we would continue this for another year. [0:22:38] We'll put it out for a study. We put, we put those out actually in April of each year. And, um, then we'll come back again next year. There- there's, I think this, this sub makes nobody happy on either side of it. I'll s- I'll say that. But it's kinda the best thing I could work out if- if you're agreeable to extending this to January 1 of 2028, and then coming back again next year. Well, who knows who will be here, but, uh ... [0:23:04] Well, Mr. Chairman, I do thank you for your consideration and for, um, for you being willing to work with us on this sub, and I definitely agree with the sub. [0:23:16] All right. So, um, is there, uh, any questions or is there a motion? [0:23:22] Motion. [0:23:22] We've got a motion. Do pass a second. Um, all in favor of this, raise your hand. Looks like four, four. And all opposed. Two opposed. Motion carried. You better be glad a couple of friends showed up over here. [0:23:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:23:38] All right. And who's your, uh, Senate sponsor? [0:23:41] My friend, Senator Gooch, will carry it. [0:23:43] Ah, okay. [0:23:45] Senator Gooch. [0:23:46] All right. Thank you very much. [0:23:47] Thank you. [0:23:53] Now let's move on, uh, [0:23:57] to, um ... Let me make sure I got the numbers right here since I said it wrong before. We're gonna move to, uh, Representative Seabaugh's bill. That's House Bill 1129. If you wanna come forward. [0:24:13] It looks like you got a friend with you, too. [0:24:15] That's my friend, Calvin. [0:24:16] Calvin, if you'll introduce yourself as well. [0:24:20] Calvin Sorbe, Deputy Director of Policy for the Governor's office. [0:24:28] All right. So y'all wanna do a presentation for us on this, this bill dealing with, uh, enterprise zones? [0:24:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tonight I bring you House Bill 1129. I'm working off LC443521ECS. [0:24:47] I bring this bill on behalf of the Governor to provide some guardrails for enterprise zones for local governments. This legislation builds on the work from multiple updates made to the Enterprise Zone Employment Act of 1997 over the past few years. This legislation makes the following changes to the enterprise zone provided for under subsection G of code section 3688(6). First, it clarifies the s- specific authority of the DCA commissioner that has to designate a nominated area that meets the criteria as an enterprise zone for the purpose of exempting any local sales and use tax. [0:25:25] Second, it provides for executive branch approval of a state sales and use tax exemption in the enterprise zone. And third, it limits the number of enterprise zones under subsection G that can simultaneously exist in a urban redevelopment area to a maximum of four. And finally, it clarifies that the principal amount of a revenue bond pledge for a redevelopment project within an enterprise zone must not be used to return the capital investment made for the redevelopment project to investors. [0:25:57] Uh, that is the bill, and I'm happy to take any questions. [0:26:01] So th- so these projects, um, reading on line 16, 17 there, they've gotta be at least 400 million in capital investment. [0:26:11] That's correct. [0:26:12] And then is it that the, the sales tax in that zone, the, the state and local both go towards paying off the bonds? Is that how that works here? And, and, and Calvin, you're welcome to answer on these, too. [0:26:27] So spe- specifically, the, the sa- and local sales and use tax is waived, and then an enterprise zone infrastructure fee will be added to the tax, um, for that business in the same amount of what is being waived, and that infrastructure fee will go to the local government for paying off that revenue. [0:26:44] So mathematically what I said then. [0:26:46] Yes, sir. Yes, sir. [0:26:46] Okay. [0:26:46] I just wanted to specify. [0:26:47] Clarify the difference. [0:26:48] Yeah. [0:26:48] I appreciate that. [0:26:49] Yes, sir. Yes, sir. [0:26:49] Um, you- you're right, it's a, it's a fee in lieu, which happens to equal what the sales taxes were. And these are, um, pretty long-term bonds, aren't they? [0:26:59] Yes, sir. [0:27:00] Um- [0:27:00] 30 years [0:27:01] ... 30-year bonds typically. Yes. So it's, it's a significant amount of it. Um, [0:27:12] any, uh, any questions on this bill? Um, any ... Give everybody a minute to look it over and whisper and whatever they need to do here. [0:27:28] Do you want to amend it after you finish? [0:27:31] Yeah, it'd be. [0:27:34] Okay. [0:27:34] Be afterwards, I guess. S- Senator Tillery. [0:27:38] Thank you, Devan. Um, two things. One, an area, for an area to be eligible, it just, I mean, the commissioner just has the power by law to designate it? There's, is there any other requirements? [0:27:50] Yeah. So the, the property has to be, uh, in, what do they call it? Disrepair for over 20 years. [0:27:58] Mm-hmm. [0:27:59] Then it has to be a capital investment of over $400 million. [0:28:02] That's in the, that's in the 12. [0:28:05] Mm-hmm. [0:28:07] Mm-hmm. [0:28:07] All right. [0:28:10] So this is really for transformational projects, right? It's not, you know, it's not an enterprise zone, uh, for an area that's developed and they just wanna develop a couple vacant lots next to it. It's, uh, has to have been there for over 20 years, I believe it is. And, uh, really would be transformational change, like Centennial Park. I think that's what this was really put together. [0:28:35] Yes, sir. [0:28:36] Centennial Yards project [0:28:40] All right. And I, I know there, Senator Orrock, go ahead if you want to. [0:28:45] Oh, oh, thank, thank you so much. And I apologize, I have to play catch-up here. Where, where is the, um, description of the property, the, the state of the property that you just referenced, uh, representative? Have it has to be- [0:29:01] Starting on, starting on line 13 it talks about it a little bit. [0:29:04] Okay, uh-huh. In a redevelopment area. [0:29:11] Chronic underdevelopment for a period of 20 years or more. So, so that is within, that is in the current language. [0:29:17] That's correct. [0:29:18] That's right. Thank you. [0:29:20] Mm-hmm. [0:29:27] All right. Um, I know there's been some concerns and discussion from the committee about that these do go, do go on in perpetuity. And, you know, typically we, we like to visit these every once in a while. So I think you'll probably have some discussion or amendments on that from the committee looking at some sort of a sunset on this like we typically do on everything. [0:29:52] Any questions from anybody else? Um, if not, we can have a motion first is- [0:30:00] So nobody's testified from- [0:30:02] Oh, do we have to... You know, I don't have anybody that's wanting to testify on this. Nobody signed up on the sheet. [0:30:11] I have a question. [0:30:12] Okay. [0:30:14] I've heard that these are, that the limit on these is there's only a certain number of them. Is that in, I'm just wonder- It doesn't appear on our sheets. I'm just wondering if that's somewhere else. Do I gotta go to the code? I got the code pulled up if I need to. Tell me. [0:30:29] So- [0:30:29] Where do I need to go? [0:30:30] ... we put in, uh, a limit of four enterprise zones per urban redevelopment area. Uh, and that'll be on lines 48 through 51. [0:30:50] Help me. No area shall be nominated. [0:30:59] And no enterprise zone shall be designated. [0:31:07] Help me track with that language. Maybe I'm trying to work on the wrong thing. [0:31:10] It's under the board and guidelines. [0:31:11] Yes. Term is defined. [0:31:13] So it's saying you can't nominate an area and you can't designate such areas. So neither, neither the local government could nominate or the state could designate such an area that... Because if you look at the beginning of the bill, it does already require that an enterprise zone has to be in an urban redevelopment area. And so using that language we said that, uh, as such term is defined in 3661(2) talking about the urban redevelopment area for which four zones, and so it's, it's capping that within the urban redevelopment area at four zones. [0:31:44] So is the urban area, urban redevelopment area the whole state? [0:31:48] No, sir. So a local government has to certify a area as a urban redevelopment area, and there's some language in code that already, uh, lists criteria for what can be certified as, as such a zone, and I can go through that for you. [0:32:02] Can I, well, my question is, can you have four enterprise zones in each urban redevelopment area, or you can only have four in the state? [0:32:08] Four per each urban, uh, urban redevelopment area. [0:32:13] Okay. I, I was under the impression that we could only do four statewide when we first started talking about this. [0:32:18] I, I guess that's my, my understanding too. I must, I missed that as well. [0:32:23] No, sir. It's, it's four per urban redevelopment area. [0:32:28] Okay. Do you know how many urban redevelopment areas we have statewide? [0:32:33] I don't have that number off the top of my head. But I know that there's, there's very specific criteria in code- [0:32:37] Gotcha [0:32:38] ... for what could even be considered. [0:32:39] So this is a lot bigger than I thought it was. I thought we were talking about four things statewide. [0:32:42] So- [0:32:42] I'm not trying to, not trying to cross you up here at the end, but- [0:32:45] Yeah. Um, I'll say that there- [0:32:46] ... that's what I was looking for- [0:32:47] Yeah, yeah [0:32:47] ... is where's that state limitation? I can't- [0:32:48] Um, I'll say that there's only three existing enterprise zones in the state currently. So- [0:32:53] That's what I was led to believe there were only- [0:32:55] Yeah, there's only three in the state, and all three of them are in the city of Atlanta. Um, but Atlanta's not the only city that could take advantage of this. Uh, we've looked at it and there's a potential for making Columbus and Augusta to also, uh, receive that designation. But, um, a lot of the smaller cities just don't meet the, the 400 million capital investment or 20 years- [0:33:15] Totally get it on that. I think I was led to believe that this was just four statewide, and now I'm realizing it's not your fault. Maybe I understand poorly that now it's gonna be a lot more statewide than four. [0:33:27] Yeah. Well, we're, I mean, currently there's no cap on it at all. So we're, we're placing a cap per each urban redevelopment area. [0:33:33] Mm-hmm. [0:33:35] So we're, we're trying to place some guardrails on, on these. [0:33:38] Just [0:33:43] 31. [0:33:43] Yes. [0:33:43] All right. Senator Orrock again. [0:33:45] No, no. Halpern. [0:33:46] Oh, Senator Halpern, sorry. Go ahead. [0:33:48] At the, at the right time, I'd like to make a motion. [0:33:51] Okay. Have you got a question over there, Senator Anderson? Let me get, have him first. [0:33:55] I know you mentioned, um, Augusta and Columbus. What about Savannah? [0:34:03] So we've, we've looked at it and the, Savannah doesn't really meet the criteria for the 20 years of, uh, chronic, uh, underdevelopment, um, along with the 400 million capital investment. There's no really two areas that, that overlap for that for Savannah. You know, I, I believe they've, they've wanted to use it for some undeveloped land a- across the river in Savannah but, I mean, they can't, they can't use it for undeveloped land. It has to be underdeveloped. So- [0:34:31] Okay. Okay. [0:34:33] All right. We're back to Senator Halpern. [0:34:36] Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a motion do pass LC 44-3521 ECS HB 1129 [0:34:49] Okay, we've got a, a motion due passes. Is there a second? [0:34:53] Second. [0:34:54] Got a motion to second. Now, uh, amendment Senator Albers. [0:35:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this is a great bill. Very excited about what it can do for Georgia. But in, uh, our Senate, uh, uh, posture, we always like to put a sunset on everything. So I'd like to add, uh, a sunset that this bill, uh, would end on July 1st of 2031, uh, as described by our legislative council. [0:35:18] So let me, let me ask a question that re- regards to leg council. I assume you're not wanting to impact any of them currently- [0:35:26] Correct [0:35:27] ... in operation. They can go on for 30 years. [0:35:29] Yes. [0:35:30] So do we need to have any additional language to, to clarify that? Um, sh- except that no current project would be affected under the bonds or something like that. [0:35:44] I, I can craft language to that effect with the committee's permission. [0:35:48] Okay. We'll, we'll, we'll authorize leg council to craft legislation and make sure that at the end of that five-year period, if the amendment passes, at the end of that five-year period, that none of those that are currently, um, approved, would that be the right word? Mm. [0:36:07] In process. Yeah. [0:36:08] In, in process, approved, or what would be the- [0:36:11] Yeah, I mean- [0:36:12] I, I'm not saying you're for it, I'm just saying what would your, what would you think is the appropriate language? [0:36:17] Um, I mean, if, if that's the direction that we would move to, which I, I wanna be clear that, you know, we would not prefer to have a sunset on this, um, due to the fact that some of these designations take a while to, to get through the process. Um, and but, I mean, to answer your question, I would say, you know, maybe in the process of being approved, but like I said, um, we were not really in favor of- [0:36:41] I, I, I understand that. Yeah. And, um, the, and obviously when we, many times when we do sunsets, we routinely continue with them, but we just take another look at them in that time. Okay. Senator Orrock. [0:36:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, as I understand it, uh, the, uh, there's, this does not ha- have any negative impact on the state budget. This does not, this is not, uh, the, the, the, there's nothing that the state is giving up for this, the sales- [0:37:13] I don't think I would agree with that. [0:37:14] Well, explain to me then. And, and again, I came in after, uh, mid-discussion, but I thought that the, uh, uh, the way it was summarized, that, um, it's, uh, it, the, the bill clarifies redevelopment projects, uh, qualify for an exemption from any local sales and use tax levied by a local governing body. Such projects cannot qualify for an exemption of any state sales and use tax. [0:37:42] But if you go down to lines, um, 27, 28, 29, that's where the state sales tax comes in. [0:37:51] If, if I can clarify, I'll, I'll say, so currently the law, um, if certified by the DCA commissioner, that enterprise zone exempts state and local sales and use tax. What we decided to do was, uh, keep the local certification with the DCA commissioner, but add in that to exempt state, uh, sales and use tax you'd have to get a executive authority approval, um, just because, you know, that's a state tax and we wanna have a, a little extra guardrail around that. [0:38:21] Right. It is in two different sections. You're right. So the first one just, just say local, so you would've just seen that. Senator Halpern. [0:38:29] Just a clarification. Um, so with the amendment, you are saying that any new pro- any current projects already approved or new projects that are approved by July 1st, 20- 2031 would be fine to have the designation and be approved by the department. [0:38:50] Right. [0:38:50] But any projects beyond 2031 will not have the opportunity to classify as a enterprise zone. [0:38:59] Well, unless we, unless we extend to the sunset. [0:39:02] Unless you extend the sunset. [0:39:03] We would look at it in five years. And those that in 2031 were in approval, they would still be good for the next 30 years. [0:39:11] Right, I understand that. [0:39:12] Yeah. Does that make sense? [0:39:13] That was good clarification. [0:39:14] Okay. So, um, we did have an amendment. Did, was there a second to the amendment? [0:39:20] I'll second. [0:39:21] We've got a motion to second for an amendment. Um, so first of all, are there any other amendments, any other discussion? If not, we'll vote on the amendment first. All in favor of amendment one, raise your hand. Okay. Uh, one, two, three, four. And those opposed to amendment one, raise your hand. We've got five and three. Okay. So the amendment passes. Now we're back to the underlying bill. All in favor of, uh, the underlying bill as amended, raise your hand. [0:39:54] All right. Um, looks like some hesitation. Did you vote yes or no? [0:39:59] I did not vote. [0:40:02] You gotta either vote or leave the room. [0:40:03] I'm voting. I'm voting. Um, I will, I will vote against. [0:40:08] Okay. [0:40:09] Because I do not want that. [0:40:10] Okay. So there's, uh, the vote's seven to one in favor. Motion carries. Who's your Senate sponsor? [0:40:19] Senator Hatchett. Bo Hatchett. [0:40:21] All right. Thank, thanks for the presentation. [0:40:25] Thank you. [0:40:28] Yeah, let me, he wants me to read out the LC number on this, and that's LC 443521-ECS. [0:40:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:40:42] Thanks a lot. [0:40:43] Thank you. [0:40:43] All right. Last bill we're getting to is, uh, House Bill 1085. [0:40:55] Give me the LC number you're reading from, if you would, Representative Petrea. [0:40:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. This is Substitute House Bill 1085. It is LC 443536S that you should have before you, sir. [0:41:11] I think that's correct. [0:41:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, um, uh, just to begin here, uh, what we're trying to do is to fix, um... I think everyone here is well aware of the importance of the forestry industry in this state. Uh, we're number one in timber, number one in pulp, have been for many years. Uh, the timber industry, long before we had, uh, auto manufacturing and film industries, we had timber, and it helped to build this state. And, uh, we call this bill the Keep Georgia Forested Act. Two-thirds of this state's covered in standing timber, and it is for only one reason, and that is because we have a demand for wood. [0:41:49] And we have the supply. We're the wood basket of the country, but we have to have the demand. Recently, as everyone, I think, is well aware, we have had a cascade of negative events in the forestry industry. We're up to now 13 mills that we've lost all across this state. And, uh, and so this is having a huge impact, um, to our, uh, economy and to communities all across the state in a very diverse way. And so what we intend to do here, um, there are, you know, there are new mills going up across this country and new mills with new technology going up across this country. [0:42:28] But, um, oftentimes they're going to other states. And so what we, what we do in this measure in 1085 is take existing tax credits for job creation and existing tax credits for investment that already exist, and we do something that we did with the film industry that built, uh, that industry, and that is we simply make those tax credits that already exist transferable. When we make them transferable, they can be immediately monetized by industry. [0:43:00] We have researched this deeply, and what we've learned from the industry is if we're gonna get them back in the most efficient, most expeditious manner, this is what they need. And so, uh, this measure very simply, Mr. Chairman, does that. It t- basically takes forestry manufacturing alone, real important that I say several things. First of all, this is only for forestry manufacturing. It's defined in this measure very precisely but, um, very broadly. [0:43:30] Basically, anything we use Georgia wood in the manufacture of almost anything, it's covered. And, uh, and you can see there that includes whether it's paper mills, saw mills, pulp mills, pellet mills, cabinets, biofuels, hardwood floors. You name it, we wanna stimulate that demand for wood for the supply we have here in Georgia. Uh, very important that I, uh, mention, Chairman, there is a five-year sunset on this. [0:44:00] Five years only to, to, uh, you know, spawn this, this reinvestment in Georgia. And it's very important that I mention that there are some, as you look through here, you will see, um, there are, uh, there's, there's a cap on here of 250 million. And you'll see the specifics of the job tax credits and the investment tax credits and the percentages thereof are itemized in here and that they, they vary based on the tier that that county is in. [0:44:33] Obviously, where you have the least distressed counties, you have a little less robust. In the most distressed counties, you have more robust, uh, percentages there. So all of that is here. I'm glad to answer any questions, Chairman. Uh, we believe this could be the salvation of, uh, of, uh, the, the, the real catastrophe we're facing in the forestry industry in this state, and I hope y'all can support it. [0:44:57] So, so obviously in, in this, you're not just looking at paper mills. You're looking at, uh, like things in there like kitchen cabinet manufacturing, things like that? [0:45:06] Yes, sir, and we're actually interested in a lot of new technology, whether it's, um, you know, uh, mass timber like they built Ponce City Market nearby here for, uh, biofuels. Uh, great interest in- [0:45:18] Mm-hmm [0:45:18] ... biofuels. So there's a lot of new things we hope we can bring here, uh, with these tax credits. But yes, also those pulp mills and wood cabinets and hardwood floors and chips. Uh, you know, uh, all of these things we want to, uh... Obviously working in different fronts. There's a lot of folks working on our chip, uh, exports and some trade barriers we have there. But, um, this measure is very broad in the definition of, of forestry manufacturing. Yes, sir. [0:45:48] All right. Um, I know that there's been work by this committee on, um, changing the credits and, uh- [0:45:58] Yes, sir. A lot of good work. A lot of, uh, beneficial help and support from your members, uh, to date. Yes, sir. [0:46:03] All right. Senator Tillery, you wanna go first here? [0:46:05] I sure will. Uh, first of all, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Petrea, thank you for working with us on this. I wanna tell you, I think you did a darn good job. [0:46:12] Well, thank you. [0:46:13] There is not very many times that I feel supportive of credits 'cause of how they distort the market. But you, one, heard us on a t- on a sunset. Thank you. Put it in here before we even had to get to committee. Two, the way you've taken and tailored it to make it such that it really was tailored towards those counties that have lost mills- [0:46:31] Yes, sir [0:46:31] ... with the benefit of the credit going towards Tier 1, Tier 2 counties. I think you've got that at 15%. [0:46:37] Yes, sir. [0:46:37] And then it, uh, tiers back to 3% in the, um- [0:46:43] 3% in the, in the Tier 1. Yes, sir. [0:46:46] Gotcha. I- [0:46:47] Yes, sir. [0:46:48] Thank you for tailoring it to what you're trying to do. And with the sunset on it, that sets up for if this works- Great. And if it doesn't, then it's not something that we're sitting here talking about, uh, five years and six years and 10 years as to why it's going on later on. Uh- [0:47:07] Yes, sir [0:47:07] ... so I appreciate the, the work you put into it while, um, and heard us before we even got to this point. Thank you. [0:47:13] And, and I appreciate- [0:47:14] Looked forward to it [0:47:14] ... the expert advice you gave. And I misspoke, uh, Senator, about the tier three and four is the 3%, so- [0:47:20] Yeah [0:47:20] ... the least distressed counties. But yes, sir, thank you for all your good help in helping us to, uh, craft it in a, in an improved way. [0:47:30] Senator Anderson. [0:47:32] Thank you, Representative, for bringing this bill. This is very important to us, and it's crucial we need it right now. My question is, in my district, I have a mill that is, it's in the middle of being built right now. [0:47:47] Mm. [0:47:48] So would, if this passed, can he go back and get some credits while he's already in process of building a mill? [0:47:59] Yeah. Senator, so, um, first of all, I'd say you and I both have lost mills in our area as well, and you've got some new growth coming. That's a great thing. My understanding is yes, with anything they do going forward after this passes, they might could benefit from this. It might be better that I look back here to my Georgia Forestry folks to see if they can better answer that question if you- [0:48:20] I, I think this says new- [0:48:21] Am I correct though? [0:48:21] ... new jobs in the bill, right? [0:48:22] Yes, sir. That- [0:48:23] Anything going forward. [0:48:24] Yeah. Sounds like that's the correct answer, sir. [0:48:26] So if they're 50% through building the mill, then they can get some type benefit. [0:48:31] Well, new, new jobs when they hire people. [0:48:33] I, I don't know that if they're- [0:48:34] You would have to. [0:48:36] Let's get the director up here. [0:48:38] Sure. [0:48:39] Former, former or- [0:48:41] I mean, I'm the former director and now president of GFA. [0:48:45] I think my understanding, uh, great question, uh, Senator, uh, Anderson, on that. Uh, if he already has filed for tax credits, he would be eligible the way this bill is written. But if he has not, he would, uh, parti- I, I don't know the timing of when he files for the credit, if he does that before he builds the mill or if it comes after the mill. Um, we, we are aware that some, uh, folks build, uh, facilities in this state without taking advantage of tax credits, period. Uh, we think that may give him an opportunity to take advantage of this. [0:49:18] So it depends on the timing of when he has applied for those credits. [0:49:22] Okay. [0:49:23] A- a- and Senator, if I could add one thing to that. So and it may encourage them indeed to do more. So I've, I've spoken to, uh, I personally spoke to a provider, a, a, a wood manufacturer between you and I, a- actually, my good friend, and, uh, who, uh, told me himself, "If we have this, I would immediately expand." So that's somebody personally I talked to. [0:49:45] Mm. [0:49:45] That was just a conversation. But I th- so, so I think that's correct, and I think it, it could be they do more than they had planned based on having the benefit of this. I'm just not certain. [0:49:56] One more question. Also right beside him, he has a wood trust, builds wood trust. So if he wanted to expand that, then he would be eligible for tax credit? [0:50:10] Yes, sir. [0:50:10] All right. [0:50:11] Yeah, with, with new jobs, he would be eligible for it. [0:50:14] Yes, sir. [0:50:14] Senator Albers. [0:50:16] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for bringing the bill. I, I do like a lot of the things that you've done here, especially with your Chairman Hufstetler and Tillery. My concern I always have with tax credits is transferability. [0:50:27] Right. [0:50:27] Uh, because we end up playing a shell game of money, and a lot of people are making money off the state's money, and it's not always the people who are actually supposed to get the money. [0:50:35] Yeah. [0:50:35] Um, so- [0:50:36] Or the organization [0:50:36] ... I guess that's, that's a, that's a concern that I see as we get toward the latter part of this bill, is transferability. I'd like to talk about that and get your thoughts on that. [0:50:44] Yes, sir. On the transferability piece, so the transferability is really the whole, is, is, is really the whole bill. Because what we've seen, and I guess the, the best example of it is, uh, you know, when you look at, uh, the, the, the very few people we've provided transferability to, you look at the film industry. And we're, you know, we're putting a billion dollars a year into the film industry still. It's long been stood up. That pump's been primed, right? We're still doing that. [0:51:14] But what we do know is those film tax credits worked. This is, and here's my view. This is an industry that built Georgia long before any of that existed, and now it's really struggling. For five years, this, we believe, will reinvigorate it in such a way that it continues. You know, I lost a mill. Uh, my granddaddy was a pipe fitter at, at Union Bag, which became Union Camp, which became International Paper in Savannah. It was the largest paper mill in the world at the time, and it built Savannah when we had very few jobs, uh, and that was where my granddaddy worked. [0:51:52] That mill closed, but it was 90 years old. And if that mill, if, when we build a new mill, it's gonna probably be there working for another 90 years. And the reason they left there, it was just an o- o- old, outdated mill. So I believe, I hope I'm answering your question, Senator. I believe that it's worth it. I understand, uh, the interest in, uh, you know, the desire to maybe not make most of these credits transferable. I myself agree with that. I think when we target it to this specific manufacturing with the specific circumstances we're under, we limit it to five years, I believe it's very reasonable. [0:52:28] A- and I do think this is different. I mean, I- [0:52:29] Yes [0:52:30] ... the film tax subsidy, 'cause it's not a tax credit, it's a subsidy when you do it that long. [0:52:34] Mm-hmm. [0:52:34] Um, yeah, it, it goes on forever. [0:52:36] Yeah. [0:52:36] And, uh, of course- [0:52:37] And- [0:52:37] ... as soon as somebody, somebody else gave a better solution, they just left us anyway. But in this case, I do agree this is long-term and better and different. My only concern, again, with subsidies is the individual who's getting tax credit never gets all of it, because the people who are buying that are, are gonna get a discount, because that's the only way they're gonna get a tax credit to begin with. So it- [0:52:57] We're, we're giving up some amount of state tax dollars that's actually never getting to the individual. There's gonna be at least probably 10% taken right off the top, if not more. And when you add the administrative fees, might be 15 north of that. That's my concern. I just wonder if there's a better way to get the help because I, I understand with what came with Hurricane Helene has been horrible, probably one of the greatest disasters to ever hit our state, and I appreciate you saying. I'm just wondering if there's a better way to do that where we can get all the dollars- [0:53:21] Yes, sir [0:53:21] ... uh, to those that need it. [0:53:23] And Senator, while we're- [0:53:24] If there is, we- [0:53:25] Let me, let me state to you- [0:53:26] Yes, sir [0:53:26] ... I'm a film minister, before you respond. You know, our studies show that there's about a 16 cents return on the dollar. It's a really poor return. I would say if somebody took my business and said, "We're gonna pay 30% of your production costs," I could do very well at it. [0:53:39] Yep. Amen. [0:53:40] So why do we pick winners and losers? So I'm not in favor of that one, I'll be honest. Now, I know we've got problems in the forestry industry, and we're trying to address them here. [0:53:49] Mm. [0:53:50] And, but I, I couldn't let that go without a comment. [0:53:53] Well, and I wasn't being supportive of them, Senator. Please help me. I, I, I guess my point was we've done it for that new fledgling industry. How much- [0:54:02] Mm-hmm [0:54:02] ... more important is this industry, in my opinion? [0:54:04] All right. Thank you. You, you finished. Senator Orrock. [0:54:08] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, uh, for this bill. And I, uh, you may have already answered my question, but, uh, in your opening remarks, you talked about this loss of, of mills across the state. [0:54:20] Yes, ma'am. [0:54:20] Uh, and, uh, and then you explained in the one where your grandfather originally worked that, that it was, it, it, it aged out, so to speak. [0:54:29] Yes, ma'am. [0:54:29] It did not have the new technology. It did, uh, uh, a- and it be- became a better business proposition to close it and start anew than, than to, than to try to fix what was there. Is, is that, has that been the, the, the underlying, uh, reality that's led to all these closures of the mills is, is, uh, aging out, or are there o- other dynamics at play? I, I've, I've, I've wanted to be, be able to- [0:54:53] Yeah [0:54:53] ... get an answer to that question for some time, so anything- [0:54:56] Y- yes- [0:54:56] ... new on it, Senator? [0:54:56] ... that's an excellent question, as all of these questions have been. Uh, Tim may be better able to answer that. I will tell you, I think it's a, it's a multitude of, of factors, but I will let him answer that. [0:55:06] And, and, I'll, I'll jump in there and say that a large part of it is the recycled mills that have come in. Australia has brought in a lot of recycled mills. [0:55:14] Yes. [0:55:14] There's a lot of product coming from Brazil. [0:55:17] Yes. [0:55:17] Um, so recycling is good, um- [0:55:22] Yep [0:55:22] ... but it, it has taken a big bite out of, of the, uh, need for additional timber. I'm sorry. I didn't wanna- [0:55:30] Yes [0:55:30] ... take an answer ahead of you, but- [0:55:31] No. [0:55:31] You're dead on. [0:55:31] Chairman, you, you, you, you're dead on. And, um, it, recycling mills have expanded, and the need for virgin mills, like what has closed in Savannah and Riceboro and Cedar Springs, has been the, you know, uh, that's been at the demise of those, those types of operations. I think you're exactly right. They're old assets. They were under, under-capitalized. Uh, we've got, uh, imports of material coming in, uh, as the chairman spoke of, from, um, from other countries. We also have a growing recycled business, uh, in this country, and then we also just have a lack of demand. [0:56:07] Um, we've been talking about in our space for a while now, people are gonna figure out right-size packaging, and we're seeing that now. Uh, and as a result of that, uh, there's two things going on in the packaging world. They're getting the boxes and the packaging right for the, what they're trying to package and for export, I mean, for moving around the country. That's happening. And then also they're using less fiber in the board or in the paper that they make because technology's allowed them to do that. And they can make, uh, a board or a paper or cardboard, liner board material that uses less fiber. [0:56:42] Mm-hmm. [0:56:43] And when you start spreading that across the entire fleet of mills that you have, you begin to easily see how you see a lack of demand for the product. [0:56:52] Mm-hmm. [0:56:52] So we've had, those are the four things that come to mind when you ask that question. It's a great question, uh, answered partly by the, by the chairman who, who's well-educated on, on the topic. [0:57:02] Mm-hmm. It's, I'm, I'm not sure that... I mean, they're not all coming back. But if they don't come back, we don't have a tax credit. [0:57:10] Correct. Yeah. [0:57:11] So- [0:57:11] And I think that's the real value of this, uh, the way that, um, uh, representative has, uh, chairman has put this bill forward, is that this will benefit any wood-using facility which will create potential, uh, will come in and create a significant investment. We're talking about a couple hundred million dollars worth of investment. If you build a sawmill today in Georgia, it's a $350 million investment. [0:57:34] Wow. [0:57:34] Um, so we're not talking about a, a, an insignificant amount of capital that's going into a community that really would need it or could benefit from it. Uh, we also see opportunities in small diameter wood, uh, mills, which is what we really need to replace the pulp mills that have left. Those are the mills that are using the smaller diameter trees. [0:57:54] Oh. [0:57:54] Um, we, we see opportunities, as the chairman talked about, with new technology coming online, fuels, biofuels, biochar, uh, OSB, oriented strand board. Um, Georgia had significantly been off limits because we were the wood basket of the world and we had robust markets, which is why we have so much timberland. That changed in 2025 in our state. We lost markets. Um, and now what we have is a opportunity to create and attract new investment in this state where we really didn't have an opportunity to attract investment in 2025. [0:58:33] Um, we think this bill accelerates Georgia to the top of the decision-makers who place capital. When they are in the forest products business and they see this bill pass by this body, this will put Georgia at the top of their list to place capital. Um, I'm confident of that, uh, based on conversations we've had. So that's why we believe, uh, the bill that you have in front of you is so needed- [0:58:57] Uh, and will accelerate investment back into Georgia. 'Cause as the chairman said, it's happening in other southern states- [0:59:03] Mm-hmm [0:59:03] ... who lost mills before we did. [0:59:05] Mm-hmm. [0:59:05] And so they had a jumpstart on investment. [0:59:08] All right. Senator Hodges, I believe you were next. [0:59:10] Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Representative Petrea, uh, appreciate the bill very much. Um, go back to, uh, Senator Albers' comments about transferability. With all the natural and economic hardships that's been visited on the forestry business, a tax credit doesn't do you very much if you're not making any money, does it? [0:59:34] No, I don't. That, that is accurate. [0:59:35] And the, so the ability to transfer it, the ability to get money for it, um, helps the capital stack for new investments, and that's what you're trying to do. [0:59:47] That's the focus. [0:59:47] And the only other alternative is, I mean, that I see is, you know, direct appropriation, which you can't do. So- [0:59:53] Mm-hmm [0:59:54] ... I mean, this does kind of make sense. [0:59:56] All right. [0:59:56] Thank you, sir. [0:59:57] Thanks for the comments. Senator Rhett. [1:00:00] I was just looking at lines 97 through 102, and I was wondering if that provided an adequate check and balance on the transfer of tax credits. [1:00:12] Um, [1:00:14] say again, Senator. Uh- [1:00:16] On line- [1:00:16] I'm, I'm on nine- 90- 97? [1:00:18] Through 102. [1:00:19] Okay, gotcha. [1:00:20] I was just wondering if that provided an adequate check and balance on transfer, because I think there was a question about that. [1:00:28] Um, yeah, so what we, so what's required here, so on, uh, on 92 it meant- it, it allows the transferability. [1:00:36] Mm-hmm. [1:00:37] And then there's some... It's subject to these two conditions, the first of which only goes to a single tran- it, it's only transferred to a single, uh, one time in a taxable year. And then, um, I think so, Senator, because, uh, they ha- it has to be submitted to the department, a written notification of transfer or sale. Um, I don't know that I can speak more fully to that other than our understanding was is that that has been used previously when in the, in the rare cases that transferability has been allowed, that this was how it was, uh, that the department of, uh, was notified. [1:01:17] So I, that's m- that's the best I can do there unless you have something else to add. [1:01:22] Okay. [1:01:24] All right. And then- [1:01:25] Thank you, Senator. Good question [1:01:25] ... Senator Halpern, I think maybe last comment here. [1:01:28] Yes. And it's just a comment. I, I don't have a question. I just wanted to remind, um, us that a few years ago, the Senate did a study committee on forestry innovation. [1:01:38] Mm-hmm. [1:01:38] And one of the things that we were looking at very specifically was, how do we create new markets, and what are some of the innovations that are happening in this industry, and how can we make sure that Georgia attracts those innovations and those manufacturers? At the time that we were doing that study committee, Hurricane Helene hit- [1:01:57] Mm [1:01:57] ... and it kind of shifted our attention more to recovery and how do we help the industry immediately. But part of that final report and part of the recommendations was trying to be creative and come up with some ideas that could help spur these new markets, and I think this bill right here is a, is a great example of that. It does have, as we've all said, that limited time period for us to test it, but it does give the industry an opportunity to start to attract new manufacturers that are doing different kinds of innovative things. [1:02:31] You said biomass. [1:02:33] Yes, ma'am. [1:02:33] I mean, we talked about biofuels, but there's a lot of innovation happening in that industry, and we've got to be able to pivot to those and find a way to convince people that we are the place to pivot to those new emerging opportunities if we're going to s- continue to sustain the industry. [1:02:52] Senator, thank you. Excellent. Well said. And as the chairman said earlier, recycling and all these other things are reducing demand in some products. We've got a multitude of opportunities with new products, with new technology. Thank you for your comment. [1:03:05] Senator Tillery. [1:03:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up on some of the comments of some of our, of the colleagues up here, you know I support 1085. Told you that already. [1:03:12] Yes, sir. [1:03:13] But the comment was made that we can't directly allocate. How we would directly allocate if we wish to do so is through a loan program. [1:03:19] Mm-hmm. [1:03:19] The reason we don't do it through a loan program is because you have to hit the, you have to come in underneath the revenue estimate. [1:03:24] That's right. [1:03:25] So what we do is we use tax credits- [1:03:28] Uh-huh [1:03:28] ... to avoid the revenue estimate. But let's remember that it, and this is one of the things that our chairman's been so, uh, adamant about, is it does hit the revenue estimate. It just hits the revenue estimate in the next year. So think about that. In the future, if you wanted to do this and you wanted to keep it from getting, from losing the 4%, 8%, 12% that Senator Albers thinks it's gonna lose, you would do a low interest loan program. We do it already in ag. You would do that, offer that out, but you would have to put that in the front end underneath the revenue estimate and come in with it beneath the revenue estimate for the budget to balance, uh, when you did it. [1:04:03] So if you're looking for future ways, that's, that's the way you would keep from losing the, the, I don't know what you'd call it, the gap, I guess, uh, that Senator Albers is referring to. [1:04:15] All right, last comment, Senator Hickman. Hit your button again. I must have, we hit it at the same time or something. Oh. [1:04:22] Is that- [1:04:22] Okay, go ahead. [1:04:23] Yeah. Thank you, sir. I appreciate you bringing this. Uh, you know, um, and I appreciate Senator Hodges' comments and everyone else comment. I think personally a little bit different on the, on my line. I, yeah, I've got a farm, 300 acres trees. Also my ballot sheet isn't what it was, you know, before Hurricane 10, but you know that, that, that's not what, that's not why we're here. I normally would not be in favor of a refund on tax credit, but the way I look at this situation now, it's a dire need. And, and to use an old saying, the ox is in the ditch. [1:04:55] Uh-huh. [1:04:56] The ox is in the ditch, and we have got to do something to incentivize, incentivize industry to come here and help us out with our forestry. In some of our rural counties where Senator Goodman is and some of these things, that's the only industry they got down there is pine trees. And so they've really been hit. So normally, sir, I wouldn't be, I would not be for a refund, but I am for a refundable tax credit here 'cause it do- as Senator Hodges said, that would then increase money to go back into the future development also. I appreciate you bringing it here and, and, and I support your bill. [1:05:28] All right, la- last question I've got. We've worked hard. We've given a lot on this bill. We've compromised. Is it your intention that if we pass this out, that you agree to it over in the House, or are you planning on- [1:05:44] Absolutely, sir [1:05:44] ... no, no further changes to it? [1:05:46] Absolutely. No, y- it's been improved. Uh, uh, it has honestly been improved here. [1:05:50] All right. [1:05:51] It has been improved here, sir. [1:05:52] Thank you. Don't see any other questions. We'll take a motion at this time. [1:05:56] Move to pass, Mr. Chairman. [1:05:58] Second. [1:05:58] We, we've got a motion. I think Senator Hodges was the second, first saying the second. Um, any other discussion? All in favor raise your hand. All right. Passes unanimously. Uh, who's your, uh, Senate sponsor? [1:06:11] Uh, uh, Senator Larry Walker will be carrying it in the Senate, sir. [1:06:14] Taking care of our friends. [1:06:15] Taking care [1:06:19] of our friends. [1:06:20] Taking care of- [1:06:20] Thank you all for being here. Sorry for the late date. Um, I'll go on to Health Committee. Some of you will go home. [1:06:51] Good luck to you.