Transcripts of meetings, 1977-1981, v. 11. Article VII

STATE OF GEORGIA SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
Transcripts of Meetings 1977-1981

COMMITTEE MEMBERS
GEORGE BUSBEE GOVERNOR CHAIRMAN
ZELL MILLER LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
THOMAS B. MURPHY SPEAKER. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ROBERT H. JORDAN CHIEF JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
J KELLEY QUILLIAN CHIEF JUDGE. COURT OF APPEALS
MICHAEL J BOWERS ATTORNEY GENERAL
MARCUS B CALHOUN SENIOR JUDGE. SUPERIOR COURTS

\

SELECT COMMITTEE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
ROOM 23H 47 TRINITY AVENUE ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30334
404/656-7158

COMMITTEES MEMBERS:
AL HOLLOWAY SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
JACK CONNELL SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
ROY E. BARNES CHAIRMAN. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
WAYNE SNOW, JR. CHAIRMAN. HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
FRANK H. EDWARDS SPECIAL COUNSEL
J ROBIN HARRIS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MELVIN B. HILL JR. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MEETINGS HELD ON CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VII

COMMITTEE
Full Committee Full Committee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Full Committee Subcommittee Full Committee

DATE
October 9, 1979 June 26, 1980 June 26, 1980 June 26, 1980 June 26, 1980 July 16, 1980 July 18, 1980 August 1, 1980 August 4, 1980 August 12, 1980 August 15, 1980 September 5, 1980 September 10, 1980 September 11, 1980 September 24, 1980 September 24, 1980 November 13, 1980

# OF PAGES
162 30 65 60 44 73 58 87 54 94 74
III 9
92 145
36 39

\
PAGE 1

2

3

STATE OF GEORGIA

4

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VII

5

OF THE

6

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

7

8

9

10
'z"
11 I..or..r-..:
@;I 14 ~ I'" ::c 15 '"rr: ;:) 16 .~.. Q Z ~ 17 :

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PURPOSES AND METHODS OF TAXATION

18

19

20
21 Room 402 State Capitol
22 Atlanta, Georgia
23 Tuesday, August 12, 1980 10:00 a.m.
24

25

PRESENT:

2

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

3

CHAIRMAN JAMES F. MARTIN

MRS. CONSTANCE HUNTER

4

MR.. ROBERT NASH

MR. W. E. STRICKLAND

5

MR.. LYNDON WADE

REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE WILLIAMSON

6

ALSO PRESENT:
7

MICHAEL HENRY

8

DAVID KANE

PETE HACKNEY

9

CHARLES TIDWELL

STEVE RIECK

10

SAM OTT

ROB SUMNER

DAVID LOHLA

DAVID GODFREY

DOROTHY TRACY

KEN JONES

\
PAGE 2

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PAGE 3

PRO C E E DIN G S

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let's go ahead and get started.

3 I'm sorry for the delay, I was trying to get something ready

4 for another meeting that's going on right now over at

5 Department of Human Resources.

6

Let's begin by -- what 1 1 11 do is I'll call the roll

7 of the members of the subcommittee so that our court reporter

8 will know who we are, and then we will pause and let everyone

9 else in the room identify themselves so that the reporter can

10 make notes on his pad.

CzJ
11 i=
Io..X....
@;I

I am Jim Martin, the Chairman. Mrs. Constance Hunter, the Vice Chairman. MRS. HUNTER: Here.

! 14 ol-n :r 15 ol)
CJ
IX ~
16 .~.. oz 17 ~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Represantative George Williamson. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Here. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Robert Nash . MR. NASH: Here.

18

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Jim Davis is not here.

19

Senator A~ Holloway is not here.

20

Commissioner Strickland.

21

MR. STRICKLAND: Here.

22

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Lyndon Wade.

23

MR. WADE: Here.

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And Dr. Charles McDaniel -- he

25 has had a representative here in the past. Is anyone from

PAGE 4

the Department of Education here?

2

Okay. Let's begin in this corner, and everyone

3 identify themselves.

4

MR. JONES: I am Ken Jones, Georgia Municipal

5 Association.

6

MR. RIECK: Steve Rieck, Department of Community

7 Affairs.

8

MS. TRACY: Dorothy Tracy, League of Women Voters

9 State Board.

10

MR. GODFREY: David Godfrey, Department of Natural

11

"z
j:
..~....

Resources.

@ ; j MR. LOHLA: Resources.

David Lohla, Department of Natural

14 ~ $
:z:
..15 011
":)
16 ;~
=z:
17 Office.

MR. SUMNER: Rob Sunmer, Georgia Farm Bureau, MR, OTT: Sam Ott, Georgia Farm Bureau. MR. HACKNEY: Pete Hackney with Legislative Budget

18

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And Charles Tidwell is here. with

19 the Governor's office.

20

Before we get started let me see if we can agree on

21 an agenda. We have Mr. Pete Hackney. the Legislative Budget

22 Analyst from the State of Georgia here who is going to give us

23 some information concenlinv the practical aspects of the 24 provision we're going to be discussing today.

25

We also have a request from the League of Women

PAGE 5 ,.--------------------------------------,
Voters to be able to make a public statement, and we have

2 of course always the opportunity for other people to make

3 whatever statement they feel appropriate for us to consider.

4

After we get through with that information. those

5 presentations, I guess we need to then get down and consider

6 at least two staff recommendations for language and some

7 alternative language I guess and try to come up with some

8 language for the section that we're considering today which

9 is Article VII, Section II. Paragraph 3, that provides that

10 revenue is to be paid into the general fund.

zCJ

... 11 Ioa-: 0-

Does anyone have any suggestions about how we ought

12 ~ to proceed?

~@r~"

Let me suggest. then. that we will adopt our minutes

! 14 I-

then we'll hear from Mr. Hackney. and hear whatever public

'"

:r

15 ~ comments people want to make. including the League's state-

Ca:J

;)

16 .~.. ment. and then discuss as a subcommittee the alternatives we

Q

Z

17 : might have.

18

Is that acceptable?

19

The first item that we need to do is to adopt the

20 minutes. I guess all of you have received in the mail a copy

21 of the minutes of the last meeting which I was very pleased

22 with. I think it was a very productive meeting.

23

Are there any changes to the minutes? In those

24 minutes was a copy of the Section II. Article VII, Paragraph 1

25 that we adopted as a subcommittee at the last meeting. Are

PAGE 6

there any questions or comments about that?

2

Okay. We have already received some information at

3 our first meeting from John Key.s with the Tax Reform

4 Commission about the earmarking, it was a good presentation.

5 I presume those remarks will be part of the Select Committee's

6 records. Is that right, Mike?

7

MR. HENRY: Yes.

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. If you remember, at our

9 first meeting we also adopted a work plan, and we're down

10

"z
11 j:
.'o"..
@;IIII

! 14 t;

<l( %
15 ol)

16

i"'l"l
;%

Z
<l(
17 ~

essentially to the second point at this point which is action on the provision for payment of revenues into the general fund, and we had identified at that meeting two alternatives. One is to clarify the current provisions so that the cur1~ent practices are either prohibited or excepted from that section, or in another alternative would be to add additional revenue sources to this requirement.
In sort of considering that work plan or those

18 items of our agenda which we're going to be talking about

19 today, Mr. Pete Hackney has been kind enough to agree to

20 come and try to answer some of the questions that have been

21 prepared by staff about Paragraph 3.

22

Pete, have you received those questions?

23

MR. HACKNEY: Yes, sir.

24

Having read the questions, Mr. Chairman, I sure am

25 glad that you said we'll try to answer them,

PAGE 7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Good. If it's all right with the

2 subcounnittee, let's go ahead and hear from Mr. Hackney and 3 see--

4

MR. HENRY: Do you want to read each question into

5 the record as we come to it?

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Fine. Mike suggested I read the

7 questions as we go through them or, Pete, you could do that

8 if you wanted to in your presentation, whichever you feel

9 more comfortable with.

10
Czl 11 i=
o..".."..
~ 12 ~
~F~14 ! lo-n :J: 15 .:l Cl :">" 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

MR. HACKNEY: You go ahead, Mr. Chairman. You read better than I do.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Do you want to come around here, Mr. Hackney, or do you want to sit there?
MR. HACKNEY: I'll speak up, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Fine. This is a list of issues that Mike and I talked about the other day to give us some information on which to

18 base our decisions.

19

The first question that we have asked here is:

20 "What are the primary sources of the taxes, fees and

21 assessments, authorized by general revenue measures enacted

22 by the General Assembly which are required to be paid into

23 the general fund?"

24

That essentially is the language from that

25 constitutional provision.

PAGE 8

MR. HACKNEY: Yes, sir. Well, as you know 95 to

2 96 percent of it comes from Bill Strickland, and the other

3 four to five percent comes from other sources.

4

The primary other sources are the Comptroller

5 General's office and the interest earnings of the Department

6 of Administrative Services.

7

While we are on this particular question, Mr.

8 Chairman, I would like to point out that even though the

9 constitutional provision says from taxes, fees and assess-

10 ments for state purposes, that's not the only thing that gets

"z
11 i=

appropriated.

.'~"..

12 ~

For example, I just alluded to interest earnings,

@ r l and you might call that a fee I suppose, interest fee, and

! 14 certainly this is anticipated in the Governor's revenue l:;z;:

15 .: estimate each year. This year it's over $75 million for the

'""
;;)
16 ~... year just ended, kind of an impressive amount .

Q

Z

17 :

At the time the constitution, this provision of

18 the constitution was adopted the state really didn't receive

19 any interest, this was prior to 1970 as you know, and it

20 was -- excuse me, prior to 1960, and it was as late as 1961

21 as I recall the state still didn't draw any interest on its

22 deposits, but then it started through the State Treasurer --

23 and not trying to be critical, but anything we got was better

24 than what we had, and we were getting interest on perhaps a

25 fourth of the state's deposits in effect at that time.

PAGE 9

At the present time we are actually getting interest

2 on more than the state's deposits in that I think they're

3 utilizing a little bit of float time here and there which is

4 -- we certainly don't endorse, but we sure are glad for the

5 money.

6

There is another source, though, that is appropriate

7 and I'll give you an example of it, and it's a rather

8 impressive amount. The federal government here in late

9 fiscal 1979, perhaps fifteen, sixteen months ago, elected to

10
..,
z 11 j:
0.."..".. 12 ""
@rl 14 ~ I." :r 15 ...:,I "":) 16 Iz..I.I Q Z "" 17 III

repay the state some money for advance interstate construction. We didn't get it all at that time, but we got 105 million which is certainly an impressive amount.
This amount was used by the Governor to increase his general fund revenue estimate 105 million.
Now, I don't see how you could call that a tax, I don't see how you could call it a fee, I don't think the federal government will let us assess them, but it not only

18 was reflected in the revenue estimate but it was sure

19 appropriated, and for an extremely worthwhile purpose I

20 might mention. It was appropriated to defease some $257

21 million worth of bonds, including interest.

22

So all I'm saying is we may not be in comp1aince

23 with the constitution at the present time insofar as the way

24 it's written. At the time it was written obviously no one

25 contemplated, you know, we would be in this sort of business

PAGE 10

with the federal government.

2

So I'm not suggesting any change in particular. but

3 rather indicating to you that we may not be in strict

4 compliance with it anyway.

S

As you probably are aware. the sources which Mr.

6 Strickland accumulates and remits to the treasury each month.

7 the income tax. sales tax and motor fuel tax account for

8 between 75 and 80 percent of what he takes in. not in equal

9 proportions although income tax and sales tax run pretty

close together right now. a little over a third each of the

..!i
11 j:
..o....
@"2~ ..~r~ 14 !
l-
ll>
x~
..lS ~
"::>
16 .~.. Q Z ~
17 ~

total, Your second question. what are other -CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Pete, before you continue let me
see if there are any subcommittee members who have questions. I know I've got one or two, just on that point,
Does anybody have any questions? The question I have is what's the difference between

18 the money that was paid by the government, federal government

19 for the -- to repay us for money we spent to advance the

20 interstate system, what's the difference between that and

21 federal grants that we receive?

22

MR. HACKNEY: All right, sir. Normally when

23 federal grants are received well, let's use a different

24 department, the Medicaid. The Department of Medical AssistancE,

2S their federal moneys as received are not -- they're appropriatEd

PAGE 11

by the General Assembly, but are not included in the revenue

2 estimate and, therefore, of course, as you know that is

3 neither a tax, a fee nor assessment, it is appropriated for

4 budgetary purposes, but it is received directly by the

5 department and is spent directly by them, by letter of credit

6 and this sort of thing.

7

If the state had not elected to embark upon the

8 advanced interstate construction program, then this 105

9 million to which we referred earlier would have gone what we

10 call the agency fund route. In other words, it's not general

.11

"z
j:

fund money but rather goes directly to the Department of

'o."..

~ 12 ~ Transportation and would have been so regarded for budgetary

~F~ purposes, but the fact that we did get into this advance
! 14 construction thing with a promise by the federal government lll> :r

15 .o.:,l that they would just give us the money back or at least a

'";;;) 16 .~.. portion of it, ninety percent in this case, 135 out of 150

Q
Z
17 ~ million, it sort of created a new class of critter I suppose

18 you could say that's not really contemplated in the language

19 in the constitution.

20

There are such things -- as you know, there are

21 references in the constitution that all federal funds are

22 hereby continually appropriated and so forth. Did they

23 contemplate this? Apparently not, because if they had been 24 continually appropriated there would have been no need for the

25 General Assembly to reappropriate this money, particularly

PAGE 12

since it was not appropriated, the 105 was not for a federal

2 program. Quite the contrary, it was appropriated to payoff

3 a bunch of bonds, not even the same bonds that had been sold

4 for the advance construction.

5

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I guess the purpose of that

6 question

That's very helpful, Mr. Hackney.

7

The purpose of that question is it seems one

8 alternative we might have is to add the word "interest" into

9 this list of things that are paid into the general fund, but

10 I have a little trouble defining what those federal funds

11

~"
'o.D".o.

were,

or

I

guess

the

first

question

is

should

there

be,

);I @.;.(.

should we include in this paragraph some language that deals with those types of federal funds, ensuring that they are paid

. ... 'J I

14 >~

into the general fund.

~

15 ~

MR. WADE: Let me ask you a question. The General

ill:
f" 16
i

Assembly had appropriated those moneys

in the

first

place?



17:

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let's ask l-fr. Hackney.

18

MR. HACKNEY: Had appropriated which moneys?

19

MR. WADE: This advance expenditure of state money

20 for the interstate system.

21

MR. HACKNEY: The General Assembly did appropriate

22 those moneys through authorization of bonded debt.

23

MR. WADE: Through bonded debt.

24

MR. HACKNEY: The 150 million J yes, sir.

25

MR. WADE: It seems to me that simply should have

PAGE 13

gone back to pay that debt.

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I guess there may be --

3

MR. HACKNEY: It should have. but it didn't.

4

MR. WADE: I'm just saying. you know. it wasn't new

5 money necessarily.

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Maybe to focus on the issue

7 before the subcommittee. and maybe Mr. Strickland has a

8 question. the problem with this section or the point of this

9 section is that this requires that there not be any ear-

10
zCI 11 l-
@;i."oe.<". ! 14 I':z": 15 ~ CI '";;;) 16 ~... oz 17 :

marking of funds. that they go into the general fund and that the legislature annually appropriates those funds.
.There are a few types of funds where when they're collected they automatically go to the department. and in addition to the motor fuel funds and certain workmens compensation funds there are other agency type funds that don't go through that process .
This provision ensures that the legislature will

18 have an opportunity on an annual basis to make major

19 decisions about the budget. and I guess the basis of this

20 question is what are the funds that now go into the general

21 fund and what other funds should we add to this provision to

22 ensure that if that~ the policy decision that we go with

23 that th{t's maintained.

24

Mr. Strickland has a question.

25

MR. STRICKLAND: Well. I want to bring up another

PAGE 14

point that's slightly related to that.

2

Pete, in reading this paragraph you're talking about

3 all the money collected from taxes, fees and assessments for 4 state purposes. I guess what I'm looking for a clearer 5 definition in here is on fees and state purposes, What I'm

6 getting to is I know in the Revenue Department, and I would

7 suspect in virtually all the state agencies there are moneys,

8 small amounts of moneys that are collected that do not go to

9 the state treasury.

10

MR. HACKNEY; Yes, sir.

MR. STRICKLAND: That are debits to certain

expenditure type --

MR. HACKNEY; Yes, sir, that is correct.

MR. STRICKLAND: Like printing, for example.

MR. HACKNEY; Depending on the agency we find that

some agencies I can't say how widespread this practice is

at present time, but I recall in the Public Service 18 Commission many years ago -- remember Bob Fellows, Bob was

19 running it -- Bob had a Xerox machine and a lot of people

20 came by the PSC and wanted copies of either pieces of

21 legislation or the minutes of meetings, things of this sort,

22 and Bob charged them a nickel a sheet, and then he used that

23 money as a credit to his Xerox expense.

24

Certainly this sort of thing goes on.

25

I'm sure the largest thing that goes on, of course,

PAGE 15

is the federal money that comes to agencies which never

2 really gets into the general fund, but rather is spent in

3 compliance with federal and state regulations directly by

4 the agency.

5

TIle most widespread I suppose -- that would be the

6 biggest dollar amount, but the most widespread would be at

7 least prior to the last fiscal year, fiscal 1980 would be

8 moneys which agencies earn such as the parks division of

9 DNR. DNR leases cabins and charges admissions and so forth,

10 or rents cabins and charges admissions, they have little

Czl

11

j:
..'o"....

grocery stores,

they have income from that.

These moneys

~ 12 ~ are retained by the department, they never go into the

~r~ general fund unless at the end of the fiscal year they took

! 14 I-

in more money than they anticipated and could not obtain

'"

:r

15 .:J budgetary approval to spend it.

Cl

'";;;)

16 ~ Q

Obviously it is not a question of whether they need

z

17 : it or not, they always need more than they have, but they

18 couldn't obtain budgetary approval to spend it from OPB.

19 Consequently this lapses to the general fund, but only in

20 the same way that, you know, your excess state funds lapse

21 to the general fund if you don't spend all your money for

22 whatever reason.

23

MR, STRICKLAND: We have quite a bit of revenue,

24 of course, particularly in tax returns, the income tax filed,

25 making copies for taxpayers.

PAGE 16

MR. HACKNEY: Yes, sir.

2

MR. STRICKLAND: It seems to me that from a

3 management standpoint, accounting standpoint it's much more

4 effective to handle it that way. I mean you've got an

5 audit on, you can have 10,000 accounts, you mow, you can

6 have--

7

MR. HACKNEY: The point you raise is certainly a

8 valid one. I know for many years it has been debated between

9 turkeys like me and some folks in the Attorney General's

10

III

11

Z j:

<II'

2...
,....12 ~ @(,"vi

! 14 I'<"l 3:
IS .:.

16 i.z. Q Zc
17 Ii

office as to whether or not these agency receipts by people like Game and Fish and Parks and so forth, whether or not these receipts should be paid directly into the state treasury, and I like to use Parks as an example because if Parks' income is up their budgetary requirements are up. If the weather is nice there's increased usage and consequently they have an increased demand for funds; if the weather is lousy in the summer, they don't have as much

18 usage and don't need the funds.

19

In this particular instance we can build a great

20 case for letting them retain thier income which is what they

21 presently do.

22

Commissioner Tanner has felt this way up until

23 perhaps twelve months ago. He got burned a little bit, he 24 had a good year, but he anticipated agency funds of even 25 more and he almost didn't make it. You know, missed it by

PAGE 17

just a few thousand dollars to go in the red. It kind of

2 shook him up, and for good reason.

3

As you know, in the '79 session the General Assembly

4 adopted legislation which required for the first time, al-

5 though the AG's folks felt that the constitution may have

6 required it right along, which required that patient pay from

7 patients in our various state institutions -- Central,

8 Augusta, so forth -- that these moneys be remitted to the stat.

9 treasury.

10
..,
z 11 j:
.'o."....
~ 12 ~
@r~
! 14 I':z":
15 .~., '"::>
16 .~..
az 17 :

This is also happening now with the market, the farmers market operation in the Agriculture Department. These moneys have to be remitted directly to the state treasury.
We have always liked the motivation or the incentive perhaps created by an agency having to hustle to get. its out s ide income, keep it up to this, don I t let it slack off, you know, "If you're going to keep all your folks on the payroll your folks are going to have to work."

18

Now, with this new law where is the incentive for

19 Tommy or Joe Edwards and so forth to do it?

20

Well, the General Assembly has built a device in,

21 and I suggest to you all you shouldn't ever let this be a

22 deterrant or a constraint in how you want to write your

23 constitutional language, the General Assembly can always

24 come up with a device to keep that incentive.

25

At the present time what they're doing is saying

PAGE 18

HAll right, we're going to budget this money to you as agency

2 funds just as if you were going to get to use it," then they

3 put a like amount in the back of the bill, a like amount~ and

4 say "Now, for every dollar you collect like you're supposed 5 to we'll give you a dollar out of the back of the bill, but

6 only if you collect it." It's pretty effective so far, now

7 everybody is doing their job.

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The question that Commissioner

9 Strickland asked really got us into the second part of that.

10 Maybe if we discuss that issue we can also fill out some

decision or recommendation on that, which is r~at are other

revenue sources received by the state which are not paid to

the gen.era1 fund?"

Essentially that was the Commissioner's -- the fees

are a type of --

MRS. HUNTER: The section as it's written says

taxes, fees and assessments as authorized by revenue measures

18 enacted by the General Assembly. That would really leave out

19 federal government funds anyway since they're not revenue

20 measures enacted by the General Assembly.

21

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Maybe to --

22

MR. HACKNEY: I think she's got a good point.

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: To focus on this, maybe one way to

24 do that is to look at this Attorney General's opinion that 25 lists the five different categories. Pete, are you familiar

PAGE 19

with that one?

2

MR. HACKNEY: Item 3, yes, sir. I say familiar with

3 it, I'm familiar with the question. I read through it last

4 night.

5

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All right. That ~ist really is

6 sort of helpful in dealing with agency fund issues, and it

7 lists five different categories as being agency funds, there-

8 fore not paid to the general fund, and one of those is the

9 one Commissioner Strickland just mentioned.

10
Czl 11 ;::
...o<'
lL
~ 12 ~
@ ~r~14!... ':"r 15 .:I Cl <' ::;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

It lists gifts and grants, and I presume that's the type of exception to this paragraph that allows federal grants not to be paid to the general fund.
MR. HACKNEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Secondly it lists property sales where an agency sells some property. Third it lists certain types of judicial branch revenues like the funds that go to pay the court reporters,

18 licensing boards and those things.

19

MR. HACKNEY: Yes, sir.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Fourth it lists transfers between

21 agencies, funds obtained directly or indirectly from another

22 agency of the state government as being an agency type fund.

23

The final one really is what I guess we have just

24 finished talking about, funds that an agency generates without

25 specific statutory premise, and I presume what you were saying

PAGE 20

is that once a statute is passed that says these funds will

2 be paid to the general fund then that's a statutory

3 requirement that they be paid to the general fund. Absent

4 that it's the opinion at least of the Attorney General that

5 those are agency funds and not subject to this paragraph.

6

MR. HACKNEY: Yes, sir.

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That helps focus. I don't know

8 where that directs us.

9

Do you have any comments about that, about those

10
.."z
11 f=
@);:i..o.... ! 14 I'" =!t .15 ~ "::> 16 .~.. Q Z <l 17 :i

exceptions? MR. HACKNEY: I thought you described it much
better than I was getting ready to describe it, Mr. Chairman. Certainly the proceeds of property sales. although
not required perhaps to be paid to the general fund generally are, and are appropriated therefrom. Generally they are placed in there .
MR. NASH: This has been one problem in that you

18 take like property down in Griffin. it gets into the general

19 fund and it's never used back in that area. it might be used

20 in another area completely, and they never have any way of

21 getting back to using the funds where the property is sold

22 from. This is one of the real problems of that.

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any funds other than

24 agency funds that are not paid into the general fund

25 currently?

MR. HACKNEY:

._------- ------

PAGE 21
--------- ------,

For all practical purposes we feel

2 that any money that well, I say for all practical purposes

3 -- as you know, any budgeted funds that are not used or

4 committed or obligated lapse at the end of the fiscal year.

5 This applies to such things as park receipts and so forth.

6

There's nothing wrong with agency funds lapsing.

7 Even the Board of Regents incredibly lapses agency funds as

8 well as state funds when they don't use them. They didn't

9 for an awfully long time, but the state auditor over the

10
Czl 11 j:
'o.."....
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 I'<"C( :I: 15 0:1 Cl '":::> 16 .~.. Q Z <C( 17 ::;

years turned the thumbscrew one more half turn each year until he got them to that position. which I think is in accordance at least with the intent of the constitution.
As I say, regardless of the source nobody is supposed to spend money without prior budgetary approval. That happens now and then. but nothing of usually any great magnitude. and if it's budgeted and is not spent it lapses .
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I guess this provision just means

18 that the money stays in the department as opposed to being

19 paid into the general fund. I mean from a budget point of

20 view you're still budgeting the department where the money

21 is retained. Is that the distinction, this provision allows

22 the department to --

23

MR. r~CKNEY: If it's not used or obligated and

24 if it's in the hands of the department it lapses.

25

Now. obligation can be such a flaky thing as tlWell.

PAGE 22

we've got this obligated to match federal funds which are not

2 available until next year, II you know, produce a contract of

3 some sort. You'll see things like that, the old LEA grants,

4 I think a grant like that --

5

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But your park receipts, for

6 example, those stay within the Department of Natural Resources

7 as opposed --

8

MR. HACKNEY: Not after the end of the fiscal year.

9

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But during the fiscal year they

10 stay in as agency funds. If there was a statute that

..zc.:I
11 j:: required those to be paid to the general fund, then they ..o.....
9;1 would be paid to the state treasury? MR. HACKNEY; Yes.

! 14

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike?

l;;

~

..15 ol) c.:I

MR. HENRY: If these agency funds collected without

I 16 ... a specific statutory premise, for instance the park receipts,

zQ

17 i on what basis does the DNR collect these if they have no

18 specific authorization to collect them?

19

In other words, if I were a citizen of Georgia and

20 I wanted to enter a park and they said I had to pay a fee

21 and I challenged that action and said "You don't have any

22 right to charge a fee II

23

MR. HACKNEY; I'm sure they have some statutory

24 authority to charge fees, but I believe in that AG's opinion

25 he says that funds collected by an agency without specific --

PAGE 23

No, he doesn't, does he. I didn't read as care-

2 fully as I thought.

3

MR. LOHLA: May I clarify, if I can just answer

4 from DNR, there is no

5

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Would you identify yourself for

6 the record7

7

MR. LOHLA: Jerry Lohla from Department of Natural

8 Resources.

9

There are no fees to enter state parks, only to use

10 facilities, cabins, campsites and so forth.

~

"z
11 j:
'o."".".
12 ~

MR. HENRY: Say I wanted to use a cabin -MR. LOHLA: It's the argument that you pay for a

@r~ service that you get.

! 14 I-

MR. HENRY: But the state could say that -- the way

U>

:<zC:l

15 ~ I understand it, Pete, the state could say that fees collected "'~"
16 .~.. for cabin rentals shall be paid into the general fund .

Q
z

17 ~

MR. HACKNEY: I would hate to see them do that, but

18 yes, they could.

19

MR. HENRY: They could. Okay.

20

Now, in the last session when we were revising the

21 constitution there was a group that wanted to earmark

22 hunting license and fishing license fees specifically to DHR.

23

MR. HACKNEY: DNR.

24

MR. HENRY; DNR, 1 1m sorry. If the General Assembly

25 took away the statutory basis of collecting the hunting or

PAGE 24

fishing license fee could they still, number one, require it 2 as they do with cabin rentals?

3

MR. HACKNEY: Not being an attorney I wouldn't know.

4 I know that in that particular instance they wouldn't be doing

5 the DNR any favor because DNR's budget for game and fish is

6 more than they take in from license fees, so if they're ear-

7 marked and gave them nothing but what was earmarked it would

8 be a rather sizeable reduction in their existing budget and 9 would have been in previous years as well.

10

MR. HENRY: My point is that the General Assembly

has more -- I mean possibly not dealing with a great amount

of money, but they do have discretion to either place a

specific statutory basis for the fee and therefore bring it

into the general fund or delete any statutory basis and

therefore have it in effect earmarked.

MR. HACKNEY: I didn't think the constitution

permitted that. I thought the constitution said in this same

18 article, although not necessarily this same section. I thought

19 the constitution says that you shall not in essence earmark

20 funds except as provided in this constitution, and then they

21 talk about Tom Moreland's money,

22

MR. HENRY: What I'm saying is in effect they could

23 effectually earmark funds by taking away the statutory basis

24 for collecting those funds and have them go into the agency

25 funds under this agency fund without a statutory basis.

PAGE 25

MR. HACKNEY: I see what you mean. I suppose

2 something like that could be done, but of course there would

3 be a commensurate reduction then in the direct straight

4 appropriations the same way that other agency funds are used

5 as a reduction of state appropriated funds.

6

The General Assembly puts together a budget and

7 says it Is this much money, "Now, how much money do you think

8 you Ire going to collect yourself, agency?" ''Well, we think

9 it will be so much." Some of them lie, most of them make a

10 good guess, most of them make their best guess.

"z

11 i=
...o<r:
0-

That amount is then deducted from the budget and

12 ~ their balance if you will, or the remainder becomes the state

~r~! (~,

~
appropriation. So if you did this thing that you've described

14 ... like on license fees and so forth it would just -- it would

VI

:I:

15 ~ provide incentive I suppose on the part of the department to

"<r:

:>

16 .~.. raise fees, but --

Q

Z

17 ~

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Jim, if I might ask,

18 do we have any state agencies that bring in more money than

19 they spend with the exception I guess of the Revenue

20 Department, the Comptroller General being the only two I can

21 think of?

22

MR. HACKNEY: DOAS does now with 75 million in

23 interest, yes, sir.

24

MR. STRICKLAND: The Comptroller General.

25

MR. HACKNEY; He mentioned that.

PAGE 26

There are a couple of others, but they take in such

2 a small amount more, the Banking Department for example.

3 The Banking Department sets its fees or assessments on the

4 basis of their appropriation, then if it looks like they

5 can't spend all of their appropriation try as they will, and

6 Jack is pretty good at it, but when he gets down to March or

7 April then he makes his best guess on what his expenditures

8 will be for the remainder of the year and starts putting his

9 fee schedules together. As a result, he almost always brings

10 in a few thousand dollars more thanhls actual appropriations.

Czl 11 j:
'o"
Go
@;~~

This is also true of the workmens compensation excuse me, workers compensation. They changed the name. Therbring in a little bit more than you all appropriate to

! 14 I-

them, but not much.

'x"

15 01)

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Nash?

Cl

:'":.

16 ~ 1ozM

MR. NASH: I have a question. Now this last year

17 = the Commissioner of Agriculture was collecting, had been

18 collecting some fees at certain markets. In previous years,

19 this last year because the legislature -- I don't know whether

20 it was statutory or otherwise said to him "You've got to

21 collect X more dollars to supplement your budget with," so 22 he automatically put fees on additional markets, and I 23 don't know whether it was by statute or legislative action 24 or what, but he started doing it, and then when they had a 25 hearing they agreed they would not collect them after a while

PAGE 27

during the year until next year they appropriated enough

2 money to run those markets with.

3

MR. HACKNEY: Yes, sir.

4

MR. NASH: They are collecting off some markets, and

5 some they are not.

6

MR. HACKNEY: That's correct.

7

MR. NASH; Where are those funds going to? Do those

8 funds go directly to the general fund, or does he use them?

9

MR. HACKNEY; What precipitated that situation was

10

CzJ

~

11 l-
."ot.<".
12 ~

~F~ ! 14

I-
'"
:r

15 .:>

CJ
t< ;;;)

16 .~..

Q

Z 17 :

this, not the part about Tommy raising the fees but the fact that this whole area surfaced. As long as we had market authority bonds outstanding, and we've had them for well in excess of twenty years -- as long as we had market authority bonds outstanding the properties of the authority belonged to the authority -- the Atlanta Farmers Market, for example, this was authority property .
Authorities by virtue of their characteristics

18 don't have to lapa money at the end of the fiscal year. For

19 many years they weren't even required to budget their funds, 20 they were excluded from all the Governor's recommendations, 21 and so whatever money they got was theirs to spend as they 22 saw fit, and all the state did was spring for the debt 23 service each year on the bonds outstanding, but the bonds 24 had provisions in them that once the indebtedness was 25 satisfied one way or another that the ownership of the

PAGE 28

markets would revert to the Departrr~nt of Agriculture.

2

Well, our present Governor got interested in paying

3 the state out of debt here three or four years ago as you

4 know, and this was one of the ones that paid out. They were

5 getting close, and he was able to sweep together two or three

6 million dollars that was lying around in this fund and that

7 fund and pay them off, so the Agriculture Department suddenly

8 became the owner of all the farmers markets in Georgia.

9

MR. NASH: Including the Atlanta market?

MR. HACKNEY: Including the Atlanta market,

This being the case, all of the funds that they take

in at the market are fees or assessments and, as such, had to

b~ budgeted and had to be remitted to the general fund, so

we were placed in a position then of having to make estimates

as to how much revenue would be generated by the agency and

thus remitted to the general fund.

It was something the General Assembly had no choice

18 on, it was simply a process of the bonds paying off or being

19 defeased, some of them, so the Agriculture Department had 20 made its -- in the past had made its estimates a little high

21 I think on what they thought their agency income would be to

22 m~ke sure they had flexibility within their budget so as not

23 to require fiscal affairs transfers and so forth.

24

Well, this was fine in the authority itself. We

25 didn't have any objection to the Governor, and the OPB didn't

PAGE 29

have any objection, the General Assembly didn't seem to mind,

2 but once it came into the Agriculture Department per se, I

3 think they had had this history of estimating the fees high,

4 OPB made a higher estimate than they did I think, and no one

5 has been critical of them, I'm sure they had good reason for

6 making that estimate, but the General Assembly didn't go with

7 the high estimate, it took the position of moderation, one

8 between Agriculture's and between OPB's, and this is all

9 easily documented from the Governor's budget document itself,

10
..,
z 11 i=
o.'0."..
12 ~
~@r~ ~ 14 .~.. '" :I: 15 .., '";;;) 16 .~.. Q
Z
17 ::i

and it just so happened that Tommy and his folks realized that they probably were not going to be able to put this kind of money together and sought about for some way to raise the amount of money they thought they needed and, of course, as you know it hasn't all bee quashed, but the new fees I think have been,
Now, where the increases were brought about we didn't really receive any objections from individual

18 legislators, but we sure did where they put new fees on

19 where there had been none before, and the Commissioner has

20 agreed to remove those. I say remove them, he agreed not to

21 ever impose them on June 1st as I recall, By legislative

22 suggestion he decided not to do it at this time, I think

23 there was only about 45 or $50,000 in question, really,

24

MR, NASH: Farmers think that's quite a bit of

25 money,

PAGE ao

MR. HACKNEY: Yes, sir, it is. Out of better than

2 a $2 million agency fee budget for the year, though, I think

3 you will agree that's rather modest.

4

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Maybe to continue with your

5 explanation, Pete, there is about a one or two-sentence

6 explanation of each of the five categories in this Attorney

7 General's opinion that describes the authority by which

8 they're not -- why they're not subject to this subparagraph

9 or this paragraph.

10

Let me go through those explanations, and then I'm

going to ask you the next question on this list which is

"Should we add any new revenue to those sources that are

required to be paid into the general fund, or how should we

change this provision to include or to add other funds to

that, or to remove funds?"

This may help us to focus on why the agency funds

we've been talking about legally are not considered to be the

18 subject of this paragraph.

19

He first points out that gifts and grants are not

20 taxes, fees or assessments, so that is how grants and gifts

21 are excluded from this paragraph.

22

Second he points out that the property sales are not

23 the proceeds of taxes, fees or assessments, but he goes on to

24 point out as a matter of statute those are generally paid

2S into the general fund.

PAGE 31

Third he says that funds transferred between agencie

2 or non-agencies may be retained by the department because this

3 paragraph does not speak to internal receipts but really

4 controls receipts trom outside the state government.

5

The judicial branch exception is based on the

6 separation of powers concept that there are certain things

7 inherent in the judicial branch that are within its control

8 and not legislative or executive control.

9

The fifth is those funds that we talked about where

10 there is no statutory premise; for example, the Department of

Czl

11 io..c=..o.. Human Resources might have the responsibility of providing

~ 12 ~ health care services, and as part of that they employ people

@r~ and require people to live on the premises, and those people

! 14 to-

then pay the department some fees, that's all inherent in

'"

:I:

15 that operation but there's no specific statutory requirement

Ccol

:>

16

~ Q

that

those funds

be paid into

the general fund.

He bases

z

17 : that exception on the fact that the agency funds generated

18 without specific statutory premise are not revenue measures

19 enacted by the General Assembly.

20

Do you have any thoughts about those observations,

21 or is that a fairly concise statement of the basis on which

22 agency funds are --

23

MR. HACKNEY: The only one I was curious about

24 before was the part about the judiciary, but as I say, he's

25 the Attorney General and his opinion counts, and I'm not and

PAGE 32

mine doesn't. You know, it~s just a matter of curiosity to

2 me, nothing more.

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The question then is that we have

4 on our outline '~at in your opinion should or should not be

5 added to this provision, what funds that are currently not

6 being paid into the general fund by virtue of this provision

7 in your opinion as the budget officer of the legislature

8 should be subject to this provision, should be paid into the

9 general fund?"

10

MR. HACKNEY: Well, I only have one general thought

"z
11 I-
'2."..
@;I

on that, Mr. Chairman, and that's this. It has been our observation in the past that frequently agencies could if they saw fit, and I believe most do now, but I don't believe

! 14 all -- agencies could if they saw fit draw federal money in I'" :I:
15 ol) advance of utilizing state funds which are appropriated for
"'";;)
16 .~.. matching federal money for programs -- Medicaid for example, Q Z
17 : you\e got approximately a two for one match. It occurs to

18 me that the more money, regardless of the ownership of it,

19 the more money that we can get into the general treasury for

20 purposes of earning interest the better off we are.

21

Now, I know in some instances the federal govern-

22 ment says that we have to send them back the interest that we

23 earn.

24

I think if we negotiated with bankers, and I'm

25 certain that Mr. Milsap negotiates with bankers, we would find

PAGE 33

some way for the state to get the hog's share of that. Dick

2 is good at this type of thing I know, and so is his

3 predecessor, Gene Copeland, but in others we don't have that

4 to worry about.

5

For example, federal revenue sharing, we're

6 permitted to keep all the interest on federal revenue sharing,

7 so generally I think that all the money we could get to the

8 general fund just for interest earning purposes if nothing

9 else the state would benefit, but I don't know that the

10 monetary benefits of it would necessarily outweigh perhaps

Czl

11

I-
'o.."....

some operational difficulty.

~ 12 ~

We find, for example, and we don't have this problem

~r~! with the Revenue Department and certain other departments, we 14 I- find in a lot of departments, though, no real concern on the

'<"t

::I:

15 part of the people drawing the money for the interest earnings

Cl

'"::>

16

~ Q

of

the

state.

z

<t

17 ~

An agency, for example, with an eleven and a half to

18 $12 million budget does not need to maintain an average non19 interest bearing demand deposit in its checking account of

20 over a million dollars through the year. You don't need this

21 kind of balance. The instance I'm thinking of, the low was 22 something like 600,000, and the high was something pushing 23 $2 million, so this being the case any state funds that we 24 could get into the hands of the state treasury where as I 25 mentioned earlier they invest 100 percent -- we talked to them

PAGE 34

two weeks ago and he was singing the blues because he had

2 two hundred and thirty or forty dollars that somehow didn't

3 get in to draw interest. and it really shook him up because

4 it was that way over the week end. and he likes for it to be

5 zero or less.

6

So all I'm suggesting is the more money that you can

7 get into the hands of the state treasury presumably through

8 the general fund there is a decided and measurable, very

9 tangible benefit to the state from this sort of routing.

10
CzI 11 i=
IX
.2..
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 !... '<"C l: 15 CI IX 16 ! ~ 17 i

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Could you just not send that agency the money. just tell them "As long as you've got $2 million in your checking account, or a million dollars in your checking account we're not going to send you any more money for a while"?
MR. HACKNEY: Mr. Williamson, we went through this back in '69, we looked for -- we were told -- I was in the executive budget then, we were told that the General Assembly

18 would come down on us, you know, mightily. that these people

19 are special interest and they'll do all this, that and the

20 other. I never got the first call from a member of the

21 General Assembly, house or senate. I did get some from some

22 board members of executive branch agencies around the state

23 who happened to sit on, you know, a board of directors of this

24 bank and that bank and the other bank, and they didn't care

25 for it worth a durn, but we never did hear anything from the

PAGE 35

General Assembly nor from the Governor, but it has apparently

2 kind of slipped away again now. It came down hard in '75

3 right after Governor Busbee came in, he was interested in

4 this, it came down hard again. but it's kind of slipped away.

5

I might mention to you that a recent conversation

6 with Milsap. he's very interested in DOAS getting back into

7 this thing, you know, turning the thumbscrew again. There's

8 money in it.

9

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I'll be glad to mention

10
.."z
11 I-
oQ....
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 I'" J: ".15 .:l :> 16 ~... Q Z 17 ~

it. assuming I get reelected. I'm not beyond going down the well .
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike. you had a point? MR. HENRY: Is there any problem. do you foresee any problem of an extreme instance I guess where say the people in Washington decide they want to, they determine education as a high priority where you have federal funds and state matching funds, and all of a sudden they just determine they want to

18 fund a uroch greater amount of funds to the state which would

19 require commensurate state increases in their funding where it

20 could perhaps upset a very delicately balanced budget, could

21 the agency accept those funds without first coming to the

22 state and saying '~e're going to accept more funds, therefore

23 you've got to provide us with more state funds"?

24

MR. HACKNEY: No. sir, they can't but the do.

25 They can't really do that, but we find that they do, and I i l1

PAGE 36

give you a specific example.

2

The appropriations act as well as the budget act of

3 1962, as amended, it is very clear on the point that state

4 agencies cannot increase the scope of their budget without

5 prior budgetary approval. Of course, if it requires more

6 state money, then you go back to the General Assembly mid

7 year or prior to the coming year or something.

8

We learned in 1976, or we learned in 1977 that in

9 1976 the Department of Human Resources had signed a contract

10 with the federal government promising a state match in that

year that was well in excess of the state appropriation for this purpose, and we're not talking about $20 million, the amount is $376,000. Once we learned this had been done, they had signed a contract which enabled them to hire people

I won't say beyond what they thought their requirements would

be, but certainly far in excess of what the General Assembly

had authorized for them -- they just did ft, had no 18 authorization, they did it. They had that same $376,000 19 appropriation, this is the fourth year now. OPB and the 20 Governor apparently felt the same way that we and the General 21 Assembly did, and that was they shouldn't have done this; 22 we know we've got to have this program, someone acted either 23 improperly or in error or something, but we've held them at 24 that precise level of funding ever since. I wouldn't be 25 wanting to try to get them an extra $10.

PAGE 37

Even when the pay increases come along, the General

2 Assembly writes in provided, however, these people are not to
,,~
3 get any of the money from the back of the bill for the pay

4 increase.

5

So yes, it happens from time to time even though

6 budgetarily it's not permitted either by the appropriations

7 act or the general budgetary statute.

8

MR. HENRY: So absent an erroneous conduct or mis-

9 conduct of the type you've pointed out there is a sufficient

10
'z"
11 l-
oe....<..
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 lo-n :J: 15 ~ 'e"< ;:) 16 ~ iz:i 17 ~

either statutory or constitutional check on an agency just contracting to receive a great amount of funds which would require state matching funds?
MR. HACKNEY: I'm not going to say it's sufficient, but there certainly is more than abundant indication of stated legislative intent in the appropriations bill. Now, it's not binding. Some of the language is a little garbled, but I think the intent is abundantly clear. I'm happy to say

18 that most major agencies at the present time and for the past

19 couple of years have been extremely concerned with legislative

20 intent.

21

I can tell you the new Commissioner of Human

22 Resources is certainly concerned with legislative intent, and

23 we're delighted, just delighted.

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Nash?

25

MR. NASH: I'm a little concerned. We passed over

PAGE 38

the thing of these bonds that were sold to raise revenue to

2 do highway construction, and when the federal funds came in

3 they did not retire those bonds. I'm a little disturbed that

4 we would have a system that would allow something like that to

5 happen.

6

MR. HACKNEY: Well, in that particular case the

7 funds were used, at least the first 105 million was used to

8 retire bonds. It's like this

9

MR. NASH: They were used to retire bonds?

10
III Z
11 ~
.."o.."..
~ 12 ~
~r~14 ! t;; <i( :z: ..15 o!) III ::l 16 .~.. oz <i( 17 :Ii

MR. HACKNEY: They were used actually to defease them. In other words, the funds were placed with a trustee. The trustee by prior arrangement bought indebtedness of the federal government or agencies thereof in adequate amount and sufficient yield to satisfy the trustee that all the bonds and all the interest could be paid.
A lot of those bonds won't mature for another fifteen years, but we no longer have to appropriate to it

18 each year because the bonds are in essence defeased.

19

So if we had taken the specific issues that were

20 sold, the $150 million, if we picked out 105 million, for one

21 thing we would have been buying bonds back that we were

22 paying six percent and better interest on on the average.

23 This way we were able to buy back bonds that we were paying 24 much less, and you say ''Why buy back the ones where we got

25 the lowest interest?"

PAGE 39

For two reasons. For one thing, some of them we

2 bought for less than 75 cents on the dollar. For another

3 thing, it relieved the state of lots more of its annual debt

4 service than would have been the case if we had picked up thes~

5 specific bonds which were very new and had a long time to run.

6

In other words, the annual impact was greater, but

7 probably more importantly it freed up in excess of $50 million

8 in some reserve funds that no one could figure a way to get at

9 The Governors and state auditors had been trying for years to

10
"z
11 j:
o.'0"....
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 ... '<"l: :I: 15 01) ":'>" 16 .~.. Q Z <l: 17 :

figure ways. George Busbee finally figured out a way to get hold of the money, and he paid the bonds off and the money falls out.
MR. NASH: What I'm concerned about, if any agency. DOT or any of the rest of them go out there and make some forward obligations this way, go ahead and do construction or something else. and did I understand you to say those bonds came back into the general fund?

18

MR. HACK1~Y: The first 105 million did. Now. there

19 is another --

20

MR. NASH: Now what I'm getting at, what's to keep

21 those agencies from going out and doing this and making new

22 issues and all out there, and these funds come back into the

23 general fund and are not used to payoff bonds -- maybe

24 they're short of funds or something, this money goes in to pay

25 for something else and not retire some bonds. It looks to me

PAGE 40

like there's a loophole in there that --

2

MR. HACKNEY: There's nothing to keep them from it

3 I suppose. I seem to recall a provision i.n the constitution

4 that says any time we sell state property that's to be used

5 to reduce the -- or real property owned by the state it's to bl

6 used to reduce the bonded debt. but I don't believe that's

7 ever been done either. That's in a different section of the

8 constitution.

9

MR. HENRY: There's a bonded debt limitation as well

10
"z
11 I-
'o"
~
~~r~12 ~ ! 14 r;; :r 15 ob III 16 :.'~".a. Q 17 gZ

that's tied into an annual budget. MR. HACKNEY: There's a fifteen percent limitation
if that's what you're talking about, fifteen percent of the prior year's revenue collection. Of course, no new bonds can be issued without specific appropriation by the General Assembly insofar as bonds which the General Assembly or the state of Georgia can be held accountable for .
Of course, that's not true of GRFA, they can issue

18 bonds with no appropriation, but there's a ruling from the

19 court of appeals, I think maybe the supreme court, I'm not

20 sure, but that there is no way the General Assembly can even

21 appropriate money to those things if they wanted to. Those

22 are not obligations of the State of Georgia.

MR. NASH: Is that regards to this last one that 24 passed this last year for agriculture?

25

MR. HACKNEY: I'm not familiar with the one to which

PAGE 41

you make reference, sir.

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Family farm bond issue in the

3 GRFA.

4

ME.. HACKNEY: Oh .

5

MR. NASH: There's no obligation under those bonds?

6

MR. HAC~~Y: There's no obligation on any Georgia

7 Revenue Finance Agency bonds on the part of the state of

8 Georgia, and the Supreme Court or one of the appellate courts

9 has ruled, and they did it at the time of the friendly suit,

10
CzI 11 ...
.'ol1"...
~ 12 ~
~r~! 14 ... '" J: 15 .:. CI '::"> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ::;

in other words the bond validation proceedings. They just sort of threw that in free.
I was delighted to see it personally, but they just sort of threw that in that not only were these not obligations of the state but it would be unconstitutional for the General Assembly to attempt to appropriate funds for the discharge of that obligation .
MR. NASH: Where do we stand, George?

18

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: We've got some of those

19 and Georgia don't stand behind them.

20

MR. NASH: How can they sell them with the Georgia

21 guarantee?

22

MR. TIDWELL: Jim, I think by Bob's question there

23 is perhaps maybe a misconception that state agencies incur 24 debt, and they do not do that. In other words. those were not

25 Department of Transportation bonds, Bob, the

Georgia

PAGE 42

State Finance Investment Commission is the only agency that

2 incurs debt. The General Assembly has to sign off on it. so

3 you don't have willy-nilly state agencies running around

4 incurring debt; they cannot do that.

5

MR. NASH: I figured there was some restriction. but

6 still the way he was stating it. it sounded like that we had

7 additional obligation in bonds and that money come in and was

8 used elsewhere until he explained it paid off other bonds.

9

MR. HACKNEY: The point I was attempting to make

10 was that regardless of what the General Assembly's intent is
11 0,- at the time that bonds are issued they may feel that if like a
f...
12 ~ federal repayment is to be forthcoming, that the intent at the
@ r l time the appropriation for debt service is made, the initial 14 ..~.... appropriation for a new bond issue that that isn't binding <I: :E: 15 .: apparently on anyone, that the when said repayment occurs that ~ 16 Ii it be used to retire bonds, and as evidence of this in the z 17 ! 1980 regular session it was contemplated that there would be 18 another $28 million worth of this payback for advance inter19 state construction; that money was not used to payoff bonds, 20 it's being used with approval of the General Assembly to
21 construct the Appalachian Highway, although it was their
22 original intent at the time the bonds were sold that the bonds 23 be paid off, but always that's at the discretion of the 24 General Assembly, so there is no automatic or any built in 25 mechanism for that.

PAGE 43

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Pete, I believe that kind of

2 brings us into really an opinion question that we have here

3 as Number 2.

4

What i.mpact does this provision have on the

5 budgetary process from a practical standpoint? What can the

6 General Assembly do and what can't it do as a result of

7 this provision being in the constitution1 What effect does

8 it have as a practical matter?

9

MR. HACKNEY; As a practical matter I have never see~

10

~

"z
11 I-
.'"o".".
12 ~

~r~14 !

I-
'<"t
J:

15 ~

":'>"
16 ~

Q z
17 ~

this provision mentioned or worried about particularly in the appropriations process. Budgetarily neither we nor OPB apparently, nor the Governor has any problem with it.
As I say, the payback from the federal government is neither a fee, a tax nor an assessment, but we appropriate it anyway. Then there are a lot of constitutional provisions th~appear to say one thing and we behave in a different fashion.

18

I think about the one on supplementary appropnations

19 As you know, supplementary appropriation says that they can be

20 paid either from surplus or no supplementary appropriation may

21 unless there are adequate funds in surplus or from a tax laid

22 for the purpose collected and paid into the general fund,

23 general treasury. My first year in state government Carl

24 Sanders was Governor, and Governor Sanders had some new taxes

25 in a supplementary budget -- I know, we helped put it

PAGE 44

together, and the taxes had not been paid and collected into

2 the general treasury, but that was all right, we appropriated

3 them and spent them anyway, you know.

4

Is that what the constitution meant? I don't really

5 think so. I know some folks on the AG's staff don't think so

6 either, but it was done.

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I guess the purpose of that

8 question is our task is to see what the current practices are

9 and to see if this provision needs to be changed so that it

10 conforms as well as possible to the actual practice, so that

it's not a meaningless provision.

MR. HACKNEY: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Your comments have been real

helpful. I guess the question is should we change this in any

way.

You have suggested, maybe not suggested but implied

that we ought to add interest there for one thing to this list

18 of things that's paid to the general fund.

19

There has been some discussion about the federal

20 funds, there may be some real trouble with that.

21

MR. P..ACKNEY: Maybe earnings and repayments or

22 something.

23

MRS. HUNTER: The language of the statement in no

24 way prohibits other funds being paid to the general fund. it

25 just specifies that these must.

PAGE 45

MR. HACKNEY: Yes.

;.:

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Pete, there is one other area

3 I know we're taking a long time, but it would really be

4 helpful to us if you could give us some ideas this is not

5 the ea11marking provision which is in Article III that you

6 mentioned earlier, but it does funds that are earmarked are

7 not subject to this provision. Obviously they're not paid

8 into --

Well, maybe we need your comment on that as to the

9 effect of earmarking or at least as far as the Department of

10 Transportation and the workmens compensation funds and other

CzI

11

j:
0.'<".>..

areas where there is earmarking, what the interrelation

S@Jr~~12 '" between that and this paragraph is. MR. HAC:Kl-l"EY: I think one of the bes t arguments that

! 14 I-

can be used against any earmarking is shown by what has

'"

:I:

15 .:. happened to the constitutionally earmarked -- I know

CI

'::">

16 III Z Q

technically they say these are not dedicated funds because

z

'" 17 III they're funds collected, they are not the funds which are

18 appropriated -- the constitution says an amount equal to the

19 prior year's collections and so forth the lawyers I guess

20 could get in discussions about that, but for all practical

21 purposes they're earmarked.

22

One of the best arguments I think against the ear-

23 marking of funds comes from the fact that as you know once

24 the motor fuel tax became clearly inadequate to support the

25 level of activity of the Department of Transportation, and
-------~ -~--~-~

PAGE 46

they sure were inadequate -- we had the fuel crunch, we had

2 a volume oriented tax and still have, seven and a half cents,

3 had a volume oriented tax rather than price oriented which

4 would grow with inflation, the General Assembly came forth

5 with impressive sums of additional general fund appropriations

6 because it was necessary, or they felt it was necessary, I

7 think they were correct.

8

These appropriations ranged up to 70, 80 and more

9 million dollars per year. In regard to DOT's budget at that

10 time this was as much as forty percent in excess of what they

were taking in that was earmarked, constitutionally designated

for them. So I infer from that that the General Assembly

understands better than some provision perhaps in law that

was passed ten or fifteen years go, the General Assembly

better understands and is in a better pcsition to understand

what the current needs of any and all functions and activities

of state government are, and that they will provide the funds

18 as near as they can determine necessary to maintain some sort

19 of a balance.

20

I daresay there are a lot of folks in DOT that

21 don't agree with that, and I'm certainly not advocating

22 striking the provision that earmarks funds for DOT. They were

23 able to, as you know, sort of broaden the provision, the

24 interpretation a little bit, get a couple of statutes through

25 which really have got for them now an earmarking of sorts

PAGE 47

that as near as we can determine is equal to or less than the

2 General Assembly probably would have been providing to them

3 anyway, so I just don't see that the Department of

4 Transportation has benefitted from the earmarking proviso in

5 the last ten years.

6

Quite the contrary, when this thing first started

7 going down, James Earl Carter, Jr., was Governor at the time,

8 when we could all see that they were hurting and hurting bad,

9 and when this took place there were no general funds coming

10 in because people had lived for a long time in the General

"z

.11

I-
o.'.".

Assembly with the belief that "Well, Highways gets their

~ 12 ~ money earmarked, and this is theirs, and that's all they

~r~ need." It wasn't all they needed.

! 14 I-

After a few years, 1975 they became aware of the

<It

<:r

15 ~
"='">

fact that Highway was hurting and hurting bad, and they did

16 ~ Q

something about

it with general revenues over and above the

z

17 :<:i earmarking, and so all I t m saying is when you do earmark

18 funds the people who appropriate the money are inclined to

19 assume that earmarking takes care of it, and it doesn't

20 necessarily do it. I think we've got proof in the last four

21 or five years that it does not take care of it.

22

MR. STRICKLAND: You mentioned not specifically,

23 but I think alluded to it, they do get earmarking now for

24 sales tax.

25

MR. HACKNEY: Yes, they've got two other sources now

PAGE 48

by virtue of the broadening of the base. They get now sales

2 tax plus the interest earned.

3

Incidentally, that 75 million, almost half of it

4 is dedicated -- of interest earned, almost half of it is

5 dedicated in a sense to the Highway Department.

6

HR. STRICKLAND: That gives them about $100 million

7 outisde the seven and a half cents per gallon.

8

MR. HACKNEY: 110 or something, yes.

9

MR. NASH: They also have other ways of getting

10 revenue in there too. Does it go into the general fund, or

does it stay with the agency?

Right now they're fixing to try to start levying a

licensing fee on all signs on the highways of $50 a year, a

$25 renewal, no matter whether the sign has been there or

has not been there. Where are those revenues going? Are

they going to stay in DOT, or do they come into the general

fund?

18

MR. HACKNEY: Is this authorized by statute?

19

MR. NASH: Apparently the legislature run one

20 through right at the last minute to give them the authority

21 and set up a statute by regulation -- they're setting the

22 fee, I guess it is statute, but by regulation they're running

23 the fee up which is a tremendous cockeyed fee.

24

MR. HACKNEY: Hy answer to that is I don t t know, I

25 haveB't read the statute and I don't know

PAGE 49

MR. NASH: There's a hearing on it at 1:30 this

2 afternoon, but this is what happens to you when you do some

3 of these things, then the agency goes out there and collects

4 fees and all, and where does it go, back in the general fund

5 or do we just keep on appropriating to them and they have a

6 right to go out and get other revenues that never get into

7 the general fund.

8

MR. STRICKLAND: What was the Attorney General on

9 those five points -- if it was not authorized by statute?

10
CzI 11 ~
.'oQ"...
~ 12 ~
~Fi ! 14 ~ ':<z":l 15 0:1 CI '"::> 16 ~ Q z <l 17 ~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If there wasn't a specific statutory provision saying these funds will be paid into the general fund --
MR. STRICKLAND: Then what happens then? It does no go in the general fund if there's no specific statute?
CHAIR}~N MARTIN: The fifth exception which is by nature more general than those that have been discussed deals with funds an agency generates without specific statutory

18 premise. The basis for this exception lies in the

19 constitutional reference to revenue measures enacted by the

20 General Assembly, which is echoed by reference to the budget

21 act to funds the collection of which is imposed by law.

22 Therefore, if the collection of funds does not depend upon

23 statutory premise, a statutory command or authorization to

24 collect the funds, then the funds may be retained by the

25 agency concerned. That's what the Attorney General said.

PAGE 50

MRS. HUNTER: Can the agency assess fees without

2 being authorized to do so? I can't understand --

3

MR. NASH: The General Assembly can pass something,

4 say "Yeah, we can give that department authority to control

5 those signs out there," so they come up and say ''Well, it

6 costs us X number of dollars to do this, so we're going to

7 put a licensing fee or some kind of a way of collecting for

8 everyone of these signs that's up and down the highway on

9 certain highways," and they're probably trying to tie it in

10
.,
%
11 j:
..'o"....
@;I

I haven't read the whole thing, but trying to tie it in that "In order for us to get federal funds we've got to control these signs out here, so we're going to put a fee on there that you've got to come in and register that sign with us,

! 14 ... we're going to charge you $50, then each year we're going to

'x"
15 .~, charge you a $25 renewal fee on it."

""::l

16 ~...

MRS. HUNTER: Is that statewide?

Q

Z

17 :

MR. NASH: On any state federal type highway, so

18 it's going to be a tremendous income to somebody to use.

19

Now, what I'm saying is, those funds, do they stay

20 in the agency or do they have to be -- is there a statute by

21 the General Assembly that they have the authorization to

22 collect X number of dollars for them, or do they have the

23 liberty to do whatever they please?

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The answer to that question

25 depends upon the statute that authorized them to levy it in

PA(~E 51

the first place or to control the signs.

2

MR. NASH: These are the ~inds of funds that

3 disburb me out there that maybe never get to the General

4 Assembly -- I mean to the general fund, and they're collected,

5 and yet we keep appropriating and they keep collecting in

6 addition to it.

7

MR. RIECK: Steve Rieck with Department of

8 Community Affairs.

9

An example of what we're talking about is an agency

10 collecting fees or charging for certain services might be in

"z

II

I-
oQ.'."..

our agency, we have the old State Building Advisory Board

~ 12 ~ which is charged with promulgating voluntary codes, building

~J~ codes for heating and air and so forth. Each of those code

! 14 I- books is printed up and is available to local governments and

':z":

IS ~
":'>"

to private contractors and so forth who is interested in

16

~ Q

looking at

the

state's

code.

We charge a fee for those

z



17 ::; books, and there is no statutory provision either, number one,

18 that authorizes us to charge for them, we do it anyway, but

19 the charge is to defray the cost of printing those books.

20

However, as Mr. Hackney pointed out, at the end of

21 the fiscal year if we haven't spent all the money that we

22 collect on those books in reprinting either revisions to the

23 code or new code books, then that money reverts back to the

24 treasury at the end of the year, so it ultimately goes

25 unspent and agency funds do end up in the general fund.

PAGE 52

MR, STRICKLAND: We do the same thing with copies of 2 income tax returns and things like that.

3

You can look at it another way too. You provide

4 service to a certain taxpayer and don't charge them, and

5 other taxpayers are paying for it; you know, it's being

6 subsidized.

7

MR. HENRY: It may be a gratuity in fact.

8

MR. STRICKLAND: That's right.

9

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Pete, we're not going to let you

10
!l
e . .-I11 .~~..... 12 ~
14 ~ I:zII: 15 ~
"cr:
;:)
16 ~
% 17:

get out of here before you give us some figures. MR. HENRY: Can I ask him one question? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Go ahead, Mike. MR. HENRY, The motor fuel tax. I think somebody
alluded to the fact that the General Assembly passed some statute this last session --
MR. HACKNEY: The 1979 session, effective July 1, 1980.

18

MR. HENRY: -- that did something like say that the

19 three percent statewide sales tax on motor fuel sales would

20 be the motor fuel tax and therefore would come under --

21

MR. HACKNEY: They call it the second motor fuel

22 tax under the law.

23

MR. HENRY: So the General Assembly really has the

24 discretion to expand and call anything a motor fuel tax?

25

MR. HACKNEY: I'm not sure anything, but certainly

PAGE 53

they could have gone further than they did.

2

MR. HENRY: By the same token they could also

3 reduce, they could take -- they could call the motor fuel tax

4 something else.

5

MR. HACKNEY: You've got a motor fuel tax statute on

6 the books. r think the only way ,you could adjust that would

7 be to reduce the rate.

8

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: What you're saying,

9 you're saying we could un-earmark it in a real hurry by

10 saying we're not going to charge seven and a half cents per

11

"z
j:::

gallon and charge it to motor fuel, we're going to charge it

.'o"".-.

~ 12 ~ based on price and all of a sudden it is the first sales tax,

~ri! paren, used to be known as the motor fuel tax and therefore 14 it's not earmarked any more.

I-

UI

<:rl::

15 ~

But I think the broader question is has anybody

"'";;;)

16 ~ challenged the second motor fuel tax.

Q

z

<l:

17 :

MR. STRICKLAND: That was brought into the motor

18 fuel tax law, thatis not a sales tax, that is under the motor

19 fuel tax law.

20

MR. HACKNEY: They call it a second motor fuel tax.

21

MR. STRICKLAND: It is a motor fuel tax, not a

22 sales tax.

23

CHAIRMAN ~~TIN: For all practical purposes it's

24 a replacement of the three percent sales tax.

25

MR. HACKNEY: As a practical matter.

PAGE 54

MR. STRICKLAND: That's right, but it is a second

2 motor fuel tax.

3

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I'll ask the

4 commissione.r, you don't think some court somewhere might not

5 say that's sort of a sham?

6

MR. STRICKLAND: I don't know what the court might

7 say about anything.

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Pete, we had some figures that we

9 had asked on this last thing, and I hope you may have some

Q...

io idea about these.

~

11 ~

The amount of funds that the Department of

..o....

. . . 1 12 ~ Transportation receives from its earmarked fuel tax, not this three percent sales tax. Do you have a figure on that 1

14 ~I

MR. HACKNEY: I can give you a horseback on it.

'<"l
:t

.15 ~ All this money except the interest earned is collected by III

16 1~: Bill as you know, the Commissioner of Revenue. I was in the

% <l
17 l:i State Auditor's office yesterday attempting to get a bottom

18 line on it, and they are still not ready, it's just not time

19 yet for them to release their data, they're still reviewing

20 it. They will review it the final time next week they've

21 assured me, but it looks like we're talking somewhere in the

22 general vicinity of 360 to 365 million.

23

Now, this is one of the Governor's better revenue

24 estimates. As I recall, he estimated a total for them of

25 $361.5 million, and if he comes up being right on this one

PAGE 55

I'm not going to get in any poker games with him, that's for

2 sure, This one is just fantastically close.

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What state general revenue funds

4 does the department receive this year?

5

MR. HACKNEY: Well, they're receiving in current

6 year -- let me get these straight in my mind -- there was 28

7 and 19 --

8

MR. STRICKLAND: You mean projected? You're talking

9 about the current fiscal year, the one that began a month and

10
CzI 11 j:
"o."."-.
~ 12 ~
~r~14 ! lv:>r 15 ~ CI "~" 16 .~.. cz 17 ~

a half ago? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right, the current one. MR. HACKNEY; Okay. It certainly is going to be
less than thirty -- it seems to me it's 19 and nine, that would be $28 million from two sources, the 19 being an interest payback from the federal government, and the eight being the remainder of the advance interstate construction payback. If it's not 28, it's going to be within spitting

18 distance of it.

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Now, the 360 million is

20 both the motor fuel tax, the original motor fuel tax plus

21 the three percent sales tax or the ~cond level motor fuel

22 tax?

23

MR. HACKNEY: The 360 we mentioned 1s the whole

24 schmear.

25

CHAIRMAN ~~TIN: How much of that is the sales tax

PAGE 56

as well?

2

MR. HACKNEY: Let me put it this way. The motor

3 fuel tax collection, the seven and a half cent portion is

4 probably what, 250 --

5

MR. STRICKLAND: 250.

6

MR. HACKNEY: About a hundred, 110 million on the

7 other.

8

MR. STRICKLAND: You're talking about separating

9 that. We don't separate it at all, it's all motor fuel,

10 you know, all dedicated.

MRS. HUNTER: Also those funds can only be used for

roads and bridges, and the Department of Transportation does

a number of other things which cannot be funded by those

funds.

MR. HACKNEY: In that amount we're just talking

about the dedicated or earmarked. Now, there is as you know

a $9 million municipalities grant, 9.317 million, and there 18 is money for airport construction, there's money for the

19 operation of the Division of Air Transportation and those

20 other folks out there, and I guess probably maybe $20

21 million

22

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Have you got any MARTA

23 money in there yet?

24

MR. HACKNEY: No ,

25

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any other questions of

PAGE 57
".------------------------------------------,
Mr. Hackney?

2

Pete, you havebeen real helpful. Thank you for

3 coming.

4

MR. HACKNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

5

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We had tried to contact the

6 Office of Planning and Budget, and I guess we weren't able

7 to get them to come.

8

Charlie, do you have anything from the Governor's

9 office about this particular provision or concerns that you

10 all might have?

Czl

11 t-
..'o"....

MR. TIDWELL: Jim, we live with it as Pete has

~ 12 ~ indicated. I know of no general dissatisfaction with the way

~F~ the constitution is structured in this area.

! 14 ot-n

Insofar as the function there is concerned, we live

:~:z:

15 .:l with it, we sort of know how to handle it. On policy issues

Cl

'":::>

16

~ Q

of what ought

to be or not

in there,

we have no position.

z

<l:

17 :

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I know we have the League of

18 Women Voters who have a statement they want to make.

19

Does the subcommittee want to proceed now with the

20 public comments?

21

Okay. Mrs. Dorothy Tracy is the spokesman for the

22 League I believe. You may just come up here and sit down.

23

~m.s. TRACY: Thank you.

24

First of all, thank you very much. The League of

25 Women Voters appreciates your giving us the opportunity to

PAGE 58

be able to speak to y,ou, and this is brief, succinct and to 2 the point.

3

First,of all, the League of Women Voters is state-

4 wide, we have polled our members and we do not speak unless

5 we have concurrence and consensus from our members, and this

6 concurrence is indeed very recent. We have had the stand a

7 long time, but we felt we should go back to the members and

8 ask them, and the League of Women Voters opposes the alloca-

9 tion of taxes.

10
Czl 11 I-
..'o"....
9;1 ! 14 I'-"c( % 15 .:l Cl :':"> 16 .~.. czo -c( 17 :

We do not oppose, as some people have thought, the Department of Transportation or Mr. Moreland or anything; we oppose the concept of the allocation of taxes, and I will be very brief in precisely why we oppose it.
The real question we feel is larger than the tax question. The real question goes, and I can speak with some feeling on this, to the members of the General Assembly and their relationship to the citizens of Georgia.

18

By allocating a tax the legislature is removing a

19 basic ingredient of its own responsibility and its

20 constitutional power, especially because -- I'm proud to see

21 two members of the House here because the revenue bills and

22 the tax bills do originate in the House.

23

Now, there are sound reasons for opposing allocation

24 of a tax. By abdicating a decision in this matter the members

25 of the legislature remove what we feel is inherent in good

PAGE 59

government, and this is a flexibility.

2

I know, as Mr. Williamson has also mentioned

3 already, that this is an election year. Every two years you

4 go back to the voters, and I am sure that you know they can

5 be very vocal in what they like and what they don't like,

6 and this is a very precious constitutional function of the

7 legislature, but when you give a tax, the revenue that the

8 citizens pay to a department head the power passes from you

9 to that agency, and we feel very, very deeply that the

10
..,
z 11 I-
'o.."....
~ 12 ~
~Fi ! 14 lV> :r 15 ..:.,. :'"> 16 .~.. Q
Z 17 :

constitution especially speaks to this point, and by abdicating this decision making ability you are giving to an agency a power which the legislature should have.
This agency -- and I think that sometimes I've been down here at the legislature too long, but I have seen that power once accrued to agencies is very difficult to take back, and when you give the power of the purse strings you have indeed given the power of running a great deal of what I

18 feel is certainly the responsibility of the legislature.

19

The power over tax, of course -- just like our

20 constitution is based on the U.S. constitution it is the

21 power given to elected representatives, the allocation of

22 taxes is not only uneconomic because it cannot be as flexible,

23 it is often much more difficult to monitor. but it also 24 creates -- and I was delighted to see that Mr. Hackney 25 played precisely into the next section. and I have right

PAGE 60

here -- an insatiable demand for more funds. That is Q.E.D.,

2 there is nothing more we can say about that.

3

Therefore, let's return to the sound constitutional

4 basis that we originally had for taxation with representation.

5 It is responsible, it is efficient. We believe in our

6 elected legislature, the tax distribution as well as tax

7 raising should be in their hands, not in a remote agency.

8 This is bureaucracy at its worst.

9

Thank you.

~"
:

10

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you, Mrs. Tracy.

"Z
11 j:
f'."..

Do any membersof the subcommittee have any

@ r12 ;u'": questions of Mrs. Tracy?

j:

'.Z.. U...

MRS. TRACY: If you will excuse me, I'm going to

I
l4 ..>...-. the meeting that you're not at.

~

15

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All right.

Cl

:'":.

16 .Iz.I.I

MRS. TRACY: Thank you. I appreciate it.

I:l

%

17 '"III

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any other comments from

18 anyone else who is here?

:....

19

Okay. Now we're down to what we do.

20

George?

21

REPRESENTATIVE loTILLIAMSON: Let me make one other

22 comment just for the record, and now that Mrs. Tracy is gone

23 I guess I can make it.

24

I know the League of Women Voters is very strong for

25 a new constitution, but I think we all in this room realize

PAGE 61

that when we start messing around with the DOT that they will

2 put the word out, Mr. Moreland will mash the button and these

3 folks will bad-mouth whatever effort we turn out, no matter

4 what else is in the whole document.

5

I think some of us -- I know Mrs. Hunter and I trave

6 the state with the Tax Reform Conmission. we have seen what

7 happened when the Commissioner is on the other side; people

8 just come out of the woodwork like you cannot imagine. They

9 are leaders, they are not just people. they are effective

10 people.

"z
11 le-:

MRS. HUNTER: I couldntt agree with you more. It

o

Q.

12

~ u

just reinforces her argument right down

the line, when you

@ r l give this power you have abdicated your power through the

! 14 constitution -- I'm sure you didn't do it yourself.

I-

'~"

~

15 .:I

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I might add that my personal

"e:
;;)
16 .~.. feelings are probably the same as the League's. I do see some c Z ~
17 ::i problem in fighting the general budget with the Department of

18 Transportation. but I think the major area of real trouble is

19 the fact that those earmarked funds were limited to roads and

20 bridges, and that to me is even more important than the

21 problem of whether department gets its funds from allocation

22 of motor fuel tax or by the general appropriations act.

23

There is a theory that I've heard Senator Holloway

24 ascribe before, and I don't know if he still has it. that for

25 other agencies and other type state activities the best thing

PAGE 62

possible is for the Department of Transportation to be out of

2 the general budget, of the general funds, which is the other

3 side of that same issue. It's a difficult one.

4

What is the pleasure of the subeommittee on that

S particular point? Maybe we can talk about that first and

6 then--

7

Mike, do you have some language you want to explain

8 to us?

9

MR. HENRY: It has nothing -- as you know, the

10 earmarking of the motor fuel taxes is in Article III,

Section X, Paragraph 7(b), and therefore really not included

in this draft provision.

If you wanted to address that issue first, then I

could explain what I have done.

MRS. HUNTER: Just to reinforce what George has

said, even just a minor change to "all transportation

purposes" was vigorously opposed by the Department of

18 Transportation. It is of course a hopeless task at this

19 point.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I guess we have several options.

21 We can decide not to do anything on that issue, we can

22 decide

23

MR. STRICKLAND: That's several options, isn't it.

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's right.

2S

(Laughter.)

PAGE 63

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We can make a reconunendation to

2 the full committee, we can make a recommendation to the

3 Article III people having studied this provision and the

4 principle behind the earmarking, or we can add something to

5 this section. There may be other options.

6

MR. NASH: I think as long as you leave some of

7 these options open that we'll see other agencies or other

8 people come for earmarking very similar to this.

9

MR, STRICKLAND: Tell them to look at Alabama if

16 they want to see the problems a state can have with

Czl

11 j: earmarking.

'o.0"...

~ 12 ~

MR. NASH: I think it's political money, and that's

~ri! where you're getting all your flak from is the political end 14 ..:..r.. of it, the Tax Commissioner, all this type thing; the only

15 ~ way they're going to get their share out of it is to have it

Cl

'";;;)

16 .~.. earmarked. There will be others come as long as it's

Q

Z

17 ::; allowed in the constitution, there'll be others come to it.

18

MRS. HUNTER: A position which is clearly

19 unsubstantiated by the funding of the Department of

20 Transportation during the years when they have been having

21 trouble.

22

MR. STRICKLAND: You may be right. The only thing

23 I've heard on these two thoughts, you know, leave it like it 24 is or having nothing earmarked.

25

I have never heard anybody express any thoughts that

PAGE 64

you might expand earmarking. Have you all?

2

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I don't think so. I

3 think the only thing we've done is with the motor fuel.

4

MR. STRICKLAND: That's what I'm talking about.

5

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I don't think thereis

6 any other agency in government that's powerful enough to do it.

7

MR. STRICKLAND: To expand it to anything other

8 than transportation.

9

MR. NASH: I think some earmarking within agencies,

10 for example the funds that are put up for the colleges and

research work and things like this, much of that is people

are saying '~e've got to have it earmarked in order to ever

get it put into that particular part of it," otherwise it

goes into the hands of the regents, and they don't want it

earmarked because they're going to use it any way they want,

and we have a big problem in agriculture of getting some of

these funds ever down to where they were intended for by

18 the General Assembly, because once they get into those hands

19 there''"; lot of people hollering "We need it earmarked for

20 that particular thing," and I think we'll see the legislature

21 probably earmarking some themselves.

22

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: That's not in the

23 constitution, it's in the appropriations bill.

24

MR. NASH: I know it's not in the constitution, but

25 this is one way of appropriating funds.

PAGE 65

MR. HENRY: The Board of Regents has a unique

2 position in that their funds are not subject to any type of

3 line item by the General Assembly, they just get a lump sum.

4 That may work

5

MR. NASH: They've been having problems with it.

6

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I think you're seeing

7 part of the political process, groups that don't get their

8 fair share, you know, that will do anything they can do to

9 get more. I think that's just the political process.

10
.,

~

z 11 ....
.'oQ"...
12 ~

~r~ ! 14 .... UI <l J:
15 ~.,

:'>" 16 ~...
c
Z <l
17 ::i

}1R. NASH: Well, this other, this fuel tax was a political process at the time it was done too.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I think it was probab ly sort of a unique situation.
MR. NASH: Could you -- let me ask this question could you vote a tax and earmark it, say increase the one percent sales tax or one percent tax and earmark it to a certain agency, or --?

18

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I think it would take a

19 constitutional amendment.

20

MR. NASH: I know it does, but that's part of the

21 constitution. Are we going to continue having constitutional

22 amendments for those type things?

23

MR. HENRY: The General Assembly could do it, but

24 they couldn't bind future General Assemblies to appropriate

25 say that one percent to education. They could do it as a

PAGE 66

matter of an informal agreement on a year to year basis~

2 raise the state sales tax and then as a matter of fact

3 appropriate one percent of that tax to education just as an

4 informal process, but in order to bind future legislatures

5 they would have to have it in the form of a constitutional

6 amendment.

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Of course that was precisely one

8 of the proposals last session was a constitutional amendment

9 which would raise the sales tax one percent and allocate it.

10 There was a lot of agreement about that being a good idea.

..~
11 I-

~r~0 0w-
@~.12

! 14 I..-.

:t

..15 .:.
"::>

16

III
%

I

%

'" 17 liO

the allocation. Well~ what is the pleasure of the subcommittee on
the issue of earmarking? REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I would like to see as
restrictive language as we could have that would not affect anything that's already earmarked, but would not allow any future earmarking.

18

MR. NASH: You're reelected, I see.

'~....

19

MRS. HUNTER: As a point of inquiry, Mr. Hackney

20 mentioned some other provision with regard to earmarking~

21 but this paragraph at the beginning of his series of questions

22 is the section that earmarks. It doesn't say earmark.

23

MR. HENRY: It prohibits earmarking. True it covers

24 that subject, and there's no other section that speaks to

25 this.

PAGE 67

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: No, that's not quite true.

2 That's not true.
01

3

It's Article III is the provision that says that

4 the proceeds of tax might be allocated for a particular

5 purpose, and then lists motor fuel tax

6

MRS. HUNTER: As an exception?

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is the workmens compensation

8 provision also in that Article III?

9

MR. HENRY: It's in Article III, yes.

10
Czl 11 ~
12 o~.'"".".
~~ F~ ~
! 14 ~ '<"C( :z:
15 .:l
Cl
'":::> 16 .~..
Q Z <C(
17 ~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: How we get to this is that this provision is somewhat related in that it requires moneys to be paid to the general ftmd, but then goes on to say "and shall be appropriated therefrom as required by this constitution," so that it incorporates the earmarking provision in Article III.
MR. HENRY: Actually I think that -- and I'm not sure about this, but in the 1945 constitution this

18 prohibition came in against the earmarking of funds. At

19 that time you had a lot of statutory, statutorily earmarked

20 ftmds, and I haven't been arotmd the state government as long 21 as some people, but as I understand it, for instance, the 22 Department of Transportation at that time had three tax 23 funds statutorily appropriated their department, and when 24 they -- this was a compromise position, it took away two of 25 their taxes and left one and placed it in the constitution,

PAGE 68

and in Article III you have the earmarking of the motor fuel

2 tax as an amendment I guess subsequent to the adoption of 3 the 1945 constitution, and it just says -- and I think it

4 would be more clear if it said notwithstanding any other

5 provision in this constitution to the contrary. which does

6 not say -- it just says that an amount equal to that derived

7 from the motor fuel tax shall be annually appropriated. so

8 that it's really not clear because it does not take into

9 consideration the Article VII prohibition against the very

10 practice which we're putting into the constitution in

Article III.

MRS. HUNTER: Well. actually that's what happens.

The money goes into the general fund and it is appropriated.

they just can't appropriate any less than that,

MR. HENRY: It's not strictly an earmarked fund.

it's just

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: As I have thought about this

18 provision actually, and as Mrs. Hunter points out, the money

19 although earmarked is paid into the general fund according

20 to this provision; it's the other part "shallbe appropriated

21 therefrom as required by this constitution."

22

MRS. HUNTER: It is actually appropriated, it just

23 can't be any less. It just has to be at least that much. so 24 it doesn't really violate this particular section.

25

MR. NASH: The League of Women is really not right.

MRS. HUNTER:

PAGE 69
~------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
Right about what?

2

MR. NASH: In that the constitution -- in that the

3 legislature did not give up their right.

4

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: The legislature controls

5 it . I mean if we want to build a road from here to Savannah,

6 we tell them to build a road from hel.'e to Savannah, they Ire

7 going to build a road from here to Savannah, and I think the

8 General Assembly has got plenty of power to run the DOT.

9

MRS. HUNTER: They cannot use motor fuel taxes for

10

"z
11 i=

~

'oa"-
w
12 ~

~F~ ! 14

t-
'<"l
:I:

15 0))

"'~"
16 ~

a

Z

<l
17 ~

anything other than roads and bridges, and if it turned out that the priorities were other than roads and bridges there would be nothing they could do about it, they money would have to be spent for that purpose, nor do those funds lapse. Is that right? I mean they keep that money?
MR. STRICKLAND: I'm sorry. MRS. HUNTER: Their motor fuel tax funds do not lapse like others? Is that right?

18

MR. TIDWELL: That's correct.

19

MR. NASH: If they did, they would be spent.

20

MRS. HUNTER: I don't suppose it's a problem.

21 Actually that's an argument for earmarking. I hate to even

22 raise one, but they do contract on a long term basis, and

23 this gives them the ability to do that.

24

MR. WADE: If this committee recognizes that as a

25 shame, why should we go along with it? I mean really --

PAGE 70

MRS. HUNTER: This is my favorite fight.

2

MR. WADE: Nobody should be above the best interest

3 of all the people of the state.

4

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: At times, inequitable

5 as it may be. it must be overlooked.

6

MR. NASH: George. I think the constitution should

7 say -- and if you all want to earmark it. let the General

8 Assembly earmark it and not earmark it through the

9 constitution as we've done here.

');

10

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I'm going to point you

11

"z
i=
..0a..:..

over to discuss

that with Mr. Moreland.

12 a:

MR. NASH: The legislature is going to earmark it

@ r l anyway, and in a way you have gotten around to doing it, but

14 .~.. why have it one way in the constitution and other way --

'"

:r:

15 oll

MR. WADE: Make the legis lature go through an

.."a:
::I

16 .z.. annual process of flogging themselves, you know. of dancing

.0z
17 ~ in front of Tom .

18

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: You know, I don't

19 disagree with what you're saying, I'm just talking about the

20 political realities of Tom pushing the button and having

21 every county cormnissioner saying "You cannot vote for the new

22 constitution." I mean that is the political reality.

23

MR. WADE: That's the easy way out, though.

24

MR. HENRY: This is by no means the last step where

25 this provision will be given scrutiny by any number of

U-

_ _ ~

~~

~

~

__'

PAGE 71

groups. so a lot of committees have gone under the presumption

2 that they were going to do what was best state policy as they

3 determined it to be, and then other groups would try to weigh

4 political realities as they cropped up, and therefore you can

5 have the option of taking either position because I can

6 assure you this provision will be given a closer look in about

7 four or five more steps, one of which Representative

8 Williamson will get to take his shot at it.

9

MR. WADE; They mi.ght do the same thing this

10 committee might be heading for.

CzI

11 Ia:-.

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I have got no objection

...o
Q.

12 ~ to what Lyndon is talking about doing, but I think Connie and

~@F~' I both realize that that step is going to be reversed. It's

! 14 I-

just a question of whether it's reversed in the full

':z":

15 .:. committee or whether it's reversed on the floor of the

Ca:.I

:::>

16 ~
Q

legislature and,

heaven forbid.

should it make it all the way

z



17 ::i through then I can just see all these county commissioners

18 coming out of the woodwork and saying "Vote against the,!

19 you know. the document that we're trying to perfect.

20

I'm trying to get us, you know, to the logical end

21 of where we're going to end up in the least amount of time.

22

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If in fact -- yes. I agree with

23 you. George -- if in fact it's unrealistic to assume that 24 we can do anything about the earmarking of mot,:n' f'.lel taxes,

25 is there something less than that that somehow is 'unsistenr:
--------- --------------_._----'

PAGE 72

with the intent of this provision coupled with the provision

2 of Article III that we can defend, maybe not ultimately win

3 on, but is not a quixotic venture in constitutional drafting?

4

I'm thinking, for example, of the issue that you

5 and Connie have already raised about if funds are earmarked

6 and not then appropriated in the general budgetary process

7 that to the extent that motor fuel taxes are used by the

8 Department of Transportation that the issue that they be used

9 for transportation purposes as opposed to roads and bridges.

10 Is that a position that we can take as a subcommittee or

z~

11 j:: IX

MR. STRICKLAND: We're supposed to assume what the

0A....

@-~12 IX winning plan will be and go with that.

. I)';!,

MR. WADE: Yes .

14 ! I-

(Laughter . )

'~"

15 .:I

MR. RIECK: Mr. Chairman, I think as a practical

~

IX

::>

16 .0z..) matter the General Assembly -- you know, even though those

Q

Z

<t

17 IX 0)

funds ostensibily are earmarked for roads and bridges the

18 General Assembly has a shot at reviewing and in a sense

19 approving Commissioner Moreland's priorities from year to year

20 in the budget. That is number one.

21

Number two is that even that $360 million worth of

22 revenues doesn't cover his annual operating expenses, so 23 you've got -- the General Assembly does have a chance to look 24 at those incremental changes in the Department of Transporta25 tion's priorities from year to year.

PAGE 73

I think where the problem comes, as long as there's

2 at least a $365 million a year demand for roads and bridges

3 you don't really have that much of a problem. Where the

4 problem comes is when Mr. Moreland has paid for the last

5 square mile of Georgia and there isn't that demand for roads

6 and bridges. Then suddenly he has a pot of money there that

7 he can use at his discretion, and he may start building a

8 bridge across the Atlantic.

9

MR. WADE: I'm just naive about this, I haven't

10 been this close to government before.

Czl

11 t-
o."o.<".

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I think it's important

~ 12 ~ to also note, though, that this isn't necessarily Mr.

~F~ Moreland's budget; it goes through the Governor, it's really

! 14 t-

the Governor's budget some of the time,

Right, Charlie?

V>

:E:

15 ~

MR. TIDWELL: Motor fuel tax?

Cl

0<

:;)

16 .~..

MR. NASH: I think what we're addressing, George,

Q

Z

17 ::i is whether or not the constitution should say that it be up to

18 the legislature to earmark that rather than the constitution

19 doing it.

20

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I'm with you all, I'm

21 not against you. I think earmarking is bad.

22

MR. STRICKLAND: You're with us, you're just going

23 to vote against us.

24

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I'll vote with you if

25 you all want to, and away we'll go. You know, we'll come

PAGE 74

back here about March and we'll see how it ended up.

2

You know, if you all want to go that way, that's

3 fine with me. I have no problem at all in doing that. I

4 wanted to vote against the earmarking the first time; they

5 came around and said they would tear up the pavement that they

6 had just put down in my district.

7

(Laughter. )

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Does anyone else on the sub-

9 committee have any observations or thoughts?

10

MR. WADE: Let's just take the high road.

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What we can do is to go ahead and

vote on that. and what we can do is either try to draft

language after we make the other decision on this provision

today. or we can come back and review the language as proposed

by staff. We had not scheduled another meeting.

MRS. HUNTER: Why don't we press on with these

proposed alternatives. What we're discussing now is really 18 not in our~ction and we could come back to that. but it 19 doesn't change what we need to do with regard to the section.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I think for a point of decision.

21 though, I would hate to -- unless you want to avoid the

22 decision and come back to that after we go through the other.

23

Is there a motion that we act one way or the other?

24

MR. STRICKLAND: I think we need to have another

25 meeting, Jim.

PAGE 75

CHAIR}~ MARTIN: Before we act on that provision?

2

~ffi. STRICKLAND: Yes.

3

MR. NASH: I think itls very important, a very

4 1n~ortant part of the constitution. If we're going to try to

5 get this thing and get a lot of these things out. turn it

6 back to the General Assembly to act on wevre going to have to

7 write the constitution to where it gives them authority that

8 prevents it from having to come through the constitution to

9 get it done.

10

MRS. HUNTER: True, but when we say in this section

we'll change Article III, Article III itself has to be changed.

MR. KANE: Jim. I think what we draft here -- I

think we can make a recommendation to the Article III

committee to change the appropriations process. but anything

we put here does not affect the earmarking as affected by

Article III. effected by Article III, does it?

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: ! guess it depends on how we do 18 it. If we adopt language that would affect the earmarking and

19 say that Article III ought to be changed accordingly --

20

MR. KANE: This provision requires anything collected

21 within those categories be paid to the general fund. and motor

22 fuel taxes is still paid to the general fund. but then by

23 reason of Article III they're specifically appropriated out

24 of that fund so that there is no conflict as was pointed out

25 earlier.

PAGE 76

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Strickland?

2

MR. STRICKLAND: We're getting dOWll to th2 point

3 here, Mr. Chairman, where we're really talking about DOT,

4 we're talking about dedicated -- that is about the only thing

5 we're talking about, and I'm inclined after seeing what has

6 happened in Alabama, basically I'm inclined to think that,

7 you know, everybody ought to go to the same source to get

8 their appropriations. I'm inclined to think that; however,

9 I have heard, and I can't recall now, some pretty good

10
cz.:I 11 I-
'oQ."...
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 ~ lV> < J: 15 ~ c.:I :'>" 16 ~... c Z < 17 ~

arguments for having this dedicated fund for DOT, I think it would be premature to take any action on
anything like that without hearing from them. I know I said last time I think we should do it.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I agree. MR. STRICKLAND: I don't know -- like I say. I really think that we probably -- I think that everybody should as I said before go to the same source for their funds and

18 present the same type arguments, you know --

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I agree with that.

20

MR, STRICKLAND: -- but there could be other things

21 that I'm not aware of.

22

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: A posture we could be in is to go

23 ahead and instruct our staff to begin working on a draft of

24 language that would accomplish the purpose we decide and to

25 communicate that with the commissioner, Commissioner Moreland,

PAGE 77

and invite the department to face this issue straight on.

2 If we're going to raise the issue, then we ought to face it at

3 our next meeting with the Commissioner before we act.

4

It seems to me that we ought to get his side of the

5 argument onto our record, and then we have done our job of

6 focusing the issue and we will have completed our work as a

7 subcommittee.

8

Is that what you're suggesting?

9

MR. STRICKLAND: I would hate to think that if he

10 had to go to the same source that I did, the Revenue

Iz-' 11 j:
."'o".".
12 ~
~@F~' 14 .~... ~ :E: 15 ~
Io-r:'
::>
16 .~.. Q
Z <l:
17 ~

Department, to get hi.s funds he might get some of ours. you know.
MR. HENRY: Do you want to ask whoever administers the subsequent entry of workmens compensation funds to appear as well?
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I think so, any other sources of earmarked funds. I think those are the two we have identified

18

Do you know of any others?

19

MR. TIDWELL: Other than the penalty assessment

20 fees.

21

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: What's the homeowners'

22 insurance that goes to the Firemens' Fund; is that eal."marked?

23 That's earmarked, isn't it?

24

MR. TIDWELL: Yes. That's the retirement thing,

25

that ear~arking provision.

PAGE 78

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: One possibility would be to have 2 the staff contact th~" ~rkmens compensation people and the 3 firemen, the issue of 'the firemens' retirement and make a

4 report back to us so that we don't have to have a long

5 meeting at the next -- well, so that the Department of

6 Transportation issue which is a major one can be discussed

7 without having to have a lot of people waiting around if

8 that's the will of the subcommittee, unless you particularly

9 want to have these other people.

10

MRS. HUNTER: Would it be possible to have a rundown

on the nature of those funds, where they come from?

MR. NASH: It's necessary that we -- because it's

getting to be a pretty good sized fund I would think --

MRS. HUNTER: Of course, the motor fuel tax of

seven and a half cents a gallon is dependent on the basis of

user tax, the general -- the old sales tax which is now the

second motor fuel tax was not originally intended to be a

18 user tax, it was just a tax on consumption per se.

19

MR. STRICKLAND: Everybody uses the highways whether

20 you get on them or not.

21

MRS. Hl~~ER: True.

22

MR. STRICKLAND: What you eat, what you drink, what

23 you wear, everything.

24

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Is truck brought.

25

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Maybe the way to proceed is to

get a motion that we amend -- aSkthe staff to develop

2 language for Paragraph 3 which would prohibit the earmarking

3 or the designation of or appropriation of qny tax for any 4 purpose.

5

:'HR. HENRY: You know, Jim, you can do that but you

6 can't preclude the General Assembly from amending the

7 constitution.

8

CP~IRM~ MARTIN: That's right.

9

MR. HENRY: I would think that this language would

10
Czl 11 I-
.'lo>"...
~ 12 ~
~F~14 ! lV> c( :I: 15 ,:, Cl '"::> 16 ~ Q z c( 17 ~

state it as succinctly as possible. You know, I will be more than happy to look at it, but --
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any earmarked language that incorporates the decision we seem to be moving toward, at least thin~ing about, is not in your draft; right? The issue of earmarking is not inyour draft?
MR. HENRY: No. MRS. HUNTER: I was under the impression the

18 Article III committee was in favor of expanding the uses

19 without taking away the earmarking, and they didn't get any

20 further than we did with that proposal.

21

MR. TIDWELL: They addressed each a nd everyone of

22 those issues. It was resolved to leave it as is.

23

~ffi. WADE: Let me ask for one point of clarification

24 When the constitution was amended to allow for the earmarking

25 of flmds for highways and bridges, was there a great swell of
-----------------

PAGE 80

support through the state for this? I mean what kind of

2 groups came in and --

3

MR. HENRY: It was a compromise position as I

4 understand. Is someone here who's been in state government

5

MR. STRICKLAND: That was the constitution of '45 1

6 wasn't it?

7

MR. TIDWELL: It was effected in 1960, the ear-

8 marking. The Highway Department 1 s amendment came in

9

MR. STRICKLAND: They had some type of earmarking

10 before that. though. back before, didn't they? That's when

.. 11

";z:
.'o"..

you were

talking about when they had other --

~ 12 ~

MR. HENRY: I was under the impression they had

~J~ three statutory taxes earmarked for them before '45. Now.

! 14 I- what happened between '45 and '60, I guess they just depended

'"

:J:

15 ~ on the good will of the legislature.

"'=">

16 .~..

MR. TIDWELL: Back in those days there were several

Q

Z

17 : statutory earmarkings. Game and Fish had' the hunting and

18 fishing license revenues statutorily allocated to the old

19 Game and Fish Commission. and in fact the General Assembly

20 appropriated those fees every year, they observed it although

21 it was constitutionally prohibited by these very same things

22 we're talking about, and I think in fact maybe the legislature

23 was appropriating the motor fuel tax to the Highway Department

24 but they could not do it constitutionally until 1960.

25

MR. WADE: If you could just trade, if you could

--------------------------'

PAGE 81

just twist it a little bit and make the earmarking for broad

2 transportation purposes, I mean it might give George and

3 others a fighting chance. I think rather than just. being

4 that point, you've got more concerns now than just roads and

5 bridges, the state has just changed.

6

MRS. HUNTER: The department itself has been

7 reconstituted from a Department of Highways to a Department of

8 Transportation that has a lot of functions.

9

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Wade, do you want to make that

10 in the form of a motion that that be the action we take?

"z

11 I-
'o.a"....

MR. WADE: I would be willing to do that, yes. I

~ 12 ~ would so move.

~r~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: As I understand the motion it is

14

~
I-

that

our

paragraph be

amended

to

include

language which would

'<"l:

J:

15 .:) say that where the motor fuel tax has been allocated to the

":':">

16 ~ Department of Transportation that the proceeds of that tax

c

Z

<l:

17 :ii can be used for any transportation purpose. Is that it?

18

MR. WADE: Yes.

19

CHAI~~ MARTIN: Is there a second to that motion?

20

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I second that.

21

MR. NASH: Does that really come under this part?

22 I'd like to do it, but I mean --

23

MR. STRICKLAND: There again aren't we getting back

24 to the same issue when I say we should hear from them on this

25 thing?

PAGE 82

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I'm sorry, to get the staff to

2 draft this language. As I understand, that is the motion,

3 it's not to adopt it.

4

The second part of that motion would be that we

5 invite the Department of Transportation to our next meeting to

6 discuss that issue with us.

7

Does your second still apply to that motion, George?

8

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Yes.

9

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor say aye,

10

(Ayes. )

"z
11 l-

MR., HENRY: Do you want them to speak, number one.

...lol<
<L

~ 12 ~ on the issue of whether they should have this continual

~r~ appropriation in the constitution and, number two. if they do

! 14 want it should it be expanded?

I-

':z":

15 ~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: No, I think the motion was limi.ted

"ll<
::J

16 .~.. to the second part which was the transportation. We can ask

Q

Z 17 ~

them that question, but I

think the motion was that the

18 allocated funds be used for transportation purposes.

19

MR. WADE: Transportation purposes.

20

MRS. HUNTER: All we would like is a justification

21 for earmarking of transportation. If they feel one. that's

22 what we need.

23

~m. HENRY: That's two separate issues there.

24

MR. WADE: Roads and bridges are included as far as

25 transportation.

PAGE 83

MRS. HL~ER: Why do they need dedicated funds. and

2 why should it be limited to roads and bridges. which is their

3 position.

4

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It's twelve o'clock. Do you all

5 want to go on now through this. through the other language?

6 What is the pleasure of the subcommittee?

7

MR. STRICKLAND: I have about fifteen more minutes.

8

CHAIR..l.fAN MARTIN: Why don't we go for about fifteen

9 more minutes then and see how far we get. if that's all right

10
zCJ 11 I-
...o0<
Q.
~ 12 ~
(@)r~
! 14 lV> :t:
15 .:.
CJ 0< ::>
16 ~ Q z
17 ~

with the rest of the committee.
Mike. would you explain to us what you haveklone? f
MR. HENRY: This on the front page here. what I
have done is I have taken the present provisions and just
editoria.lly redrafted them.
I want to point out that in the Paragraph 3
CI~IRMAN MARTIN: Excuse me a second. Mike. Does
everybody have a copy of this?

18

MR. HENRY: On the next to last line where it says

19 the general fund of the state treasury and shall be appointed

20 therefrom. that should be appropriated therefrom.

21

Then I have taken out the sentence which says for

22 the purposes -- I have taken out the sentence which says for

23 the purposes set out in this section and for these purposes

24 only. since you have deleted the purposes from this section.

25

l~en I have taken the same language from the

PAGE 84

exception providing for the training of law enforcement and

2 prosecutorial off~cers and then on (b) I have taken -- I have

3 pulled out of Paragraph 2 the authorization giving the

4 General Assembly the authority to earmark funds collected

5 from -- for agricultural promotion programs, I have just

6 lifted this sentence of earmarking out of there and left the

7 rest of it out.

8

On the second page is a very preliminary draft that

9 I drafted for your consideration. It does change things in

10 substance a little bit, but I think it provides for a little

..zCI
11 j: bit greater flexibility, which from the discretion of the ~...
@;i subcommittee you may not want to give the General Assembly more flexibility to provide the specific funds go for specific

14 .~.. purposes .

'<"l
:I:

..15 .:l CI

I also noted that if Paragraph 2 is reduced in size

~
16 .~.. to only incorporate into the constitution the authority to o

Z

<l

17 : earmark or the authority to not have those funds come into

18 the general fund you also need to transfer to the section I

19 committee of Article VII a request that the uniform require-

20 ment which is apparently violated by the Agricultural

21 Commodities Commission Act be somehow some notice needs to

22 be taken of it in their section.

}~. NASH: Run that by me again, Mike.

24

MR. HENRY: As I saw it, Paragraph 2 on the

25 promotion of agriculture and other products had two main

PAGE 85

constitutional limitations, were put in to overcome two

2 constitutional limitations.

3

One of them was the prohibition against earmarking

4 or prohibition against collection of fees, not putting them 5 into the general fund, and number two the uniformity

6 requirement that the fees be assessed against all agricultural

7 products across the state as the uniformity of taxation

8 provision mandates, and in fact the last sentence in the

9 present provision says the uniformity requirement of this

10
"z
11 I-
o.'l".L.
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 lV> :J: 15 .:> :"':"> 16 ~ Q z 17 :

constitution shall be satisfied by the application of a program upon the affected products.
The rest of it I feel could probably be done by statute, although that's certainly open to debate.
MRS. HUNTER: Are we generally in agreement we should add interest earned by the state to taxes, fees and assessments? It's being done. Do we want to specify that sizeable amount of money will be considered?

18

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Do you want to make that in the

19 form of amotion?

20

MRS. HUNTER: This is a draft at this point anyway,

21 Mike is going to have to redraft, aren't you?

22

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are you speaking of funds in the

23 general fund?

24

MRS. HUNTER: Yes, included in the funds that should

25 be paid to the general fund would be interest income that is

PAGE 86

earned.

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We might be able to go ahead and

3 act on that even though it is a draft, that 'tvould help Mike 4 in deciding.

5

At least my understanding is that's a fairly general

6 consensus. Does anyone have any objection to that?

7

The subcommittee has adopted putting the word

8

MR. NASH: You're speaking on the issue

9

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Why don't we go ahead and vote on

10 that?

.."z
11 I-

Mrs. Hunter, would you make that in the form of a

..o....

~ 12 ~ motion?

~J~

MRS. HUNTER: All right. I move that interest

! 14 l-

earned be added to the all money collected from taxes,

fees

V>

:l:

.. 15 o!) and assessments for state purposes.
":::I

16 .~..

MR. WADE: Seconded .

l:l

Z

17 ~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor say aye.

18

(Ayes .)

19

MR, HENRY: Would that be interest earned on the

20 general fund?

21

MR. NASH: That's what I was asking.

22

MR. STRICKLAND: You know, of course if we start

23 enumerating all those things, anything that might be out there

24 now that's not enumerated in here --

2S

MRS. HUNTER: They ought to be enumerated.

PAGE 87

MR. NASH: For example, on --

2

MR. STRICKLAND: Of course, interest is -- I

3 don't have any problem with it, it's part of the revenue,

4 it's earned from taxes collected.

5

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I think you might have

6 an administrative problem if you've got say a local tax

7 collector that doesn't have to pay over the money for thirty

8 days and maybe they're earning some interest, and then if you

9 try to get that interest in to the state it might

10
Czl 11 lce-:
.oQ...
~ 12 ~
(~ @)r14~~ I'" :r 15 .:> Cce:l ~ 16 ~... cz 17 ::i

MRS. HUNTER: Would interest on general funds take care of that problem?
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS: I think it would. MR. NASH: I think it would help because you've got
"
interest on these moneys that sit over there outside of the general fund that are invested in
MR, STRICKLAND: As they say, if it's not broke don't fix it.

18

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Maybe what we could do to be

19 consistent with our other decision would be to direct staff

20 to look into that language and come back with a proposal --

21

MR. STRICKLAND: I'm a little bit concerned. I

22 think we ought to look into that,

23

MR, TIDWEL~: I think you need, Jim, to do that, to

24 have OPB if you will look at that to see what sort of problems

25 you might create and not really solve anything,

PAGE 88

I cannot speak to that because I don't understand

2 all the intricacies of how they shuffle money around, but

3 this is a pretty sensitive area here, and I think most of the

4 agencies as Pete just described to you, it is considered and

5 it is appropriated t but it could create some problems.

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mrs. Hunter, would you accept an

7 amendment to the motion we just passed that would direct the

8 staff to develop language to include interest on the types of

9 moneys that are paid into the general fund and some appropriatE

10 language, and to consult with OPB and other people about that?

MRS. HUNTER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor say aye.

(Ayes .)

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Connnissioner, we have seven

minutes. Is there anything you want to --

MR. STRICKLAND: You might ought to -- you're

talking about the OPB, and you're talking about who to

18 consult with, you might ought to include the DOAS treasury.

..:.

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are we at a stopping point?

20 Is that what you're suggesting?

21

Before time runs out we need to decide on a meeting

22 time.

23

I would like to propose to the subcommittee that we

24 not set a time until I can talk to Senator Holloway and the

25 other members of the subcommittee and try to have a full

PAGE 89

subcommittee present if we're going to face Tom Moreland at

2 the next meeting, unless there is a need to go --

3

When do we have to have our report back tofue full

4 committee?

5

MR. KANE: The 15th of September.

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I guess we could go ahead and

7 tentatively set a meeting and not make it formal until I talk

8 with the other members.

9

Let's try to clear a date for the ones that are here

10
Czl 11 Ia-:
o
0.. w
12 ~
~~ r~ ~ 14 ~ I'" :I: 15 .:> Ca:l :> 16 ~ azw 17 ::i

MR. NASH: And maybe we can clear that date for others.
MRS. HUNTER: One other question along with this, we've got two other paragraphs in here. Are we going to dispose of them next time also, or are they taken care of, 4 and 57 Are they included in those other purposes?
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We have the author of one of the paragraphs here, the industrial development commission

18 paragraph and, Charlie, you were telling us some information

19 after the meeting last time about that provision.

20

Would you mind sharing that with the subcommittee?

21

MR. TIDWELL: That particular paragraph came about

22 in the early 1960s when Abit Massey was the director of the

23 old Department of Commerce, and at that particular time in

24 history these industrial development authorities that have

25 become so popular in all of the various counties and

PAGE 90

municipalities were just beginning to be heard of in other

2 states, and Abit was trying to develop something to take

3 advantage of what other states were doing, and that paragraph

4 that you see now before you reprsented that work product,

5

It never was implemented and didn't prove to be an

6 effective way to do what Abit had in mind, and it has

7 subsequently -- we had individual local constitutional

8 amendments authorizing those types of authorities, and now a

9 general statute that authorizes those entities to be created

10 where they want to, and it's my best judgment that it has

11 C~zt served no purpose and you would do no violence to the
o
0.
~~. I 12 ~ constitution if)Ou took it out now. MRS. HUNTER, By the same token. would the grants to

14 ~
'<"l:
:I:
15 .:t
Ct
'";;) 16 .~..
o
Z <l:
17 ::i

municipalities be covered by the same genera 1 statl':F'ET'-, wh<lL(~"lTC~ ;-11<:' legislature authorizes and whatever is in the constitution now?
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Connie, I think wha t we migh t want

18 to do is to go ahead and act on this industrial development

19 commission provision and ask Mike to have --

20

Do you have a provision, can you tell us nowmat

21 your understanding of the action that we took last week.

22 whether it's necessary to have the grants to municipalities

23 provis ion?

24

MR. HENRY: To the extent it may constitute a

25 gratuity it could be retained. I haven't really given it

that much thought.

PACE 91
----~~------------~---

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I would feel more comfortable if

3 Mike looked at that before our next meeting, had the

4 Commissioner of Transportation and the Georgia Municipal

5 Assoction

6

MR. HENRY: Would you like to invite the GMA back?

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let's decide what we're going to

8 do first, that's my idea.

9

Do we want togo ahead and dispose of Article VII,

10 Section II, Paragraph 5, though, the industrial development

CzI

11

j:
..'o"....

commission?

12 ~
@~ r~ ~

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I move we delete it. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a second?

14 ~ I'<"l :J:

MS. HUNTER: Seconded.

15 .:l

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor say aye.

CI

'":;)

16 .~..

(Ayes. )

Q

Z

<l

17 ~

MR. HENRY: I can draft that.

18

(Laughter. )

19

MRS. Ht~TER: There's no end to your talents.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let's try to set a meeting date.

21

What I was going to suggest is we try to come up

22 with a meeting date and not make it a final date until you

23 have corresponded with the members of the subcommittee aft~r

24 I talk with Senator Holloway, and I guess hes the only one

25 who is --

PAGE 92

MR. KANE: And Charles McDaniel, and Mr. Davis.

2

MR. HENRY: Davis was transferred to Subcommittee 1,

3 James R. Davis.

4

MR. HENRY: Jim, I didn't bring my calendar. Do

5 you think that staff and you could get together after I get

6 my calendar and the staff could contact everyone and we could 7 also contact Senator Holloway?

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Why don't we do that, make

9 it contingent upon yours and Senator Holloway's calendar.

10 Go ahead and set a date, then we will try to work it out with

"z
11 I-
e ; j'..o"....

the changes. Does anybody have a date that is good? MR. NASH: the week of Augu*t 25th is nearly an

! 14 I-

impossibility for me.

'"<C(

:I:

15 ~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What about August the 18th, next

"'";;)

16 ~... Monday?

zQ

17 ~

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I've got a meeting in

18 Unicoi next week. You're supposed to be going to that one

19 too.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's right.

21

Okay. September the 1st? No, that's Labor Day.

22

MR. NASH: What would be wrong with the Tuesday

23 or Wednesday the first week in September?

24

MR. WADE: That 's okay with me.

25

MR. STRICKLAND: What was that?

PAGE 93

MR. WADE: The first week in September right after

2 Labor Day, to try.to get a date during that week.

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I am going to be training people

4 for the Silver Haired Legislature the first two weeks in

5 September across the state. so that is going to be a --

6

MRS. HUNTER: We really can't go much beyond that

7 first week.

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let's try to do it during the

9 first week in September after Labor Day. Labor Day is the

10
..,

first day .

z

11 i=
o""

Shall we set tenatatively the 2nd?

0..

~F~! 12 ~
~~

MR. STRICKLAND: I can't be here. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The 3rd or 4th I'm going to be out

14 ... of town I know .

'<:"rl

15 ~..,

The 5th at 10:00 a.m,?

:":>"

16 ~...

MR, STRICKLAND: This is tentative?

Q

Z

-<

17 :

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Tentative. right. The purpose is

18 to have as many members of the subcommittee as possible here.

19

MR. HENRY: What was that?

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: September the 5th tentatively

21 set.

22

Do I have a motion that we adjourn?

23

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: So moved.

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you all.

25

(Whereupon, at l2~20 p.m. the subcommittee meeting

was adj ourned . )
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
III Z
11 j:
'o" 12 "~"
9r l 14 ~ ~ OIl :r 15 olI III '"::> 16 .~.. oz 17 :l!i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

+++ ++ +

PAGE 94

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VII Subcommittee Meeting Held on Aug. 12, 1980

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 8-12-80

Proceedings. pp. 3-7

SECTION III: PURPOSES AND METHOD OF TAXATION Paragraph II: Revenue to be paid into general fund.

pp. 7-88

Presentation and Comments on Paragraph ~ Mr. Pete Hackney, Legislative Budget Office. pp. 7-57 Ms. Dorothy Tracey, League of Women Voters, State Board. pp. 57-60 Industrial Development Commission (Deleted). pp. 89-90 Paragraph III: Grants to counties and municipalities. pp. 90-91

ARTICLE III: LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
SECTION IX: APPROPRIATIONS
Paragraph VI: Appropriations to be for specific sums. pp. 45-84 (Earmarking - DOT)

'. '~

PAGE 1

2

STATE OF GEORGIA

3

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VII

4

OF THE

5

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

6

7

8

9

10
1:1 Z
11 j:
'o.."....
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 ~ lV> :r 15 .:I 1:1 '"::l 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :::

SUBCOMMITTEE ON POWER OF TAXATION

18

19

20
21 Room 133 State Capitol
22 Atlanta, Georgia
23 Friday, August 15, 1980 9:30 a.m.
24

25

PRESENT:

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

VICE CHAIRMAN LARRY BLOUNT JAMES R. DAVIS ABIT MASSEY GEORGE L. 0' KELLEY
ALSO PRESENT:

I:l Z
11 j:::
.'"0".".
~r~ @~12 ""
! 14 lV> 2:
15 .:I
I:l
:">" 16 .'z.".
Q
Z
17 '"""
18

MELVIN B. HILL, Jr. MICHAEL HENRY DAVID KANE
CANTER BROWN JIM NEWMAN JIM KITTRELL CLINT SWAYZE
JAY RICKETTS ED SUMNER ROB SUMNER KEN JONES DAVID GODFREY RICHARD BRAY
STEVE VAUGHN BONNIE SELLERS

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PAGE 2

,: ....

PAGE 3
rr------------------------------------,
PRO C E E DIN G S

2

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: We will spend a few moments

3 talking about procedures for the closure of our work, and 4 then we will turn it over to Canter for some substantive

5 dialogue on the language of the revised draft, and after that

6 Mel will discuss a proposed revision of the freeport language,

7 and we will do whatever pleases the body after that point.

8

Does everyone have a copy of -- I guess it would be

9 the two working tools we'll have today are computer coded

10 LC 5 4144 with a note of 7/28/80 at the top of it, and the

stricken through and underlined version is LC 5 4145. Is

that correct?

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir, and I do have extra copies of

both of them on the way down here.

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I was about to ask, how

many people do not have those two documents?

(A show of hands.)

18

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Okay. We will hold up with

19 our work until we get those, and I guess they're on the way.

20

Let me propose something in the area of process

21 regarding the remainder of our work.

22

It seems to me if we have a productive session

23 today we can possibly work our way through the revision and

24 provide the staff with some concluding assignments, the hope

25 being that if we can get through with our work today we

PAGE 4

won't need another meeting, we can rely upon them to pull

2 together the final proposed document and circulate it to all

3 of us for review and comment, and if at that point there is no

4 need for reconvening we will just forward the work product

5 to the chairman of the full committee where it must go for

6 final action in any case, and just await further instructions

7 from the full committee regarding any additional work of our

8 committee.

9

Is there any reaction to that, or any need to

10 modify that at all?

I guess we should accommodate my good friend and

ask that first the committee members sitting around the table

-- well, those sitting around this table first identify
themselves, starting with Dr. o'Kelley , and then those around

the outside.
DR. o'KELLEY: George O'Kelley.

MR. KANE: David Kane.

18

MR. DAVIS: Jim Davis.

19

MR. HENRY: Mike Henry.

20

MR. HILL: Melvin Hill.

21

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I'm Larry Blount, and Canter

22 is right here.

23

MR. KANE: Abit Massey is sitting right here.

24

MR. NEWMAN: Jim Newman.

25

MR. KITTRELL: Jim Kittrell.

PAGE 5

MR. SWAYZE: Clint Swayze.

2

MR. RICKETTS: Jay Ricketts.

3

MR. SUMNER: Ed Smnner.

4

MR. JONES: Ken Jones.

5

MR. SUMNER: Rob Sumner.

6

MR. GODFREY: David Godfrey.

7

MR. BRAY: Richard Bray.

8

MR. VAUGHN: Steve Vaughn.

9

MS. SELLERS: Bonnie Sellers.

10

~

z~ 11 l-
l..ol..<..
12 ~

~F~14 !

I-
'"
:r

15 ~

~ ll<
::>
16 ~...
az 17 :

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Any other procedural or detail matters that we need to take up while we're waiting on those copies, or did they arrive?
MR. BROWN: They haven't yet. They should be here any moment,
VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Any other announcements or suggestions regarding our work this morning that we can take care of while those are coming?

18

I hate to get you all geared up then put you on

19 hold, but if we could go off record until those documents get

20 here I think that would be the best thing to do.

21

(A brief recess,)

22

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I guess we are about ready to

23 get started.

24

I'll turn it over to Canter at this time.

25

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr, Chairman, I appreciate

PAGE 6

that.

2

I just have had a chance to talk with Chairman

3 Castleberry on the phone, and he asked me to please extend

4 to you his apologies for not being here; he had some surgery

5 on Tuesday and he's still in the hospital although he's doing

6 very well, and he did ask me as we go through this to

7 mention some of his feelings on various issues to you, and

8 just as Chairman Blount said a little while ago he feels like

9 with any luck the subcommittee ought to be able to tentatively

10 wrap up its recommendations today, although he certainly

would leave it to the subcommittee as to whether they felt

another meeting was in order.

If I could, the first thing I would like to do --

does everybody now have a copy of this LC 5 41457 This is

the same draft that we discussed at the last meeting, and we

do have some changes that we want to recommend to you for

your consideration, and there are a number of issues which

18 were raised at the last meeting to which I think you'll want

19 to address yourselves today.

20

The first thing I'd like to do, if you would turn

21 to page 2, lines 19 through 25 -- this is as we discussed at

22 the last meeting only one sentence of five lines, this has got

to be the most complicated and confusing provision in the 24 whole constitution.

25

Myself, looking at the language, I recommended to

PAGE 7

you last time -- I have decided quite honestly I'm not sure

2 what my language recommends any more than I know what the old

3 language meant. and I would like to recommend for your

4 consideration today that that one sefttence which is from

5 lines 20 through 25 be put in your draft exactly as they now

6 appear in the constitution.

7

Believe me, it hurts me to make that recommendation,

8 but I'm afraid that because of the complexity of interpreta-

9 tion of this provision that any language you could recommend

10 after only a short amount of time you've had to look into it

Czl

11

...Ioa-:
Go

may just contain.

may be

the precursor of just tremendous

~ 12 ~ amounts of litigation in the future, and there is some case

~F~ law now on the meaning of this, and I think that you would

! 14 I-

just be well advised not to take my first recommendation, but

':r"::

15 ~ just leave that language, that one sentence exactly as it now

Ca:l

;;;)

16 .~.. appears in the constitution .

Q

Z

17 ~

If you did that, the language would be the same is

18 it is at present, except for one change that I'll explain to

19 you.

20

What I would recommend is that the new language read

21 all taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws,

22 and all taxation shall be uniform upon the same class of

23 subjects within the territorial limits of the authority

24 levying the tax.

25

The only change that would make from the existing

PAGE 8

law would be to delete the words "and for public purposes

2 only."

3

I don't feel you need the language "for public

4 purposes because Section II of this same article provides that

5 taxes have to be levied for public purposes.

6

The subcommittee that is considering Section II has

7 tentatively decided however to change that somewhat to specify

8 that taxes are to be levied for the purposes provided for by

9 law, and I think that by leaving this language in you would be

10 expressly limiting theoretically the recommendation that the

@;;11

"z
~
..'o"....

other subcommittee has made,

and I

think its

appearance here

is only redundant of what's already in Section II, and I don't

feel like you would be harming the provision to delete that.

14 .~..

Mr. Chairman, that would be the first thing that I

':"c

15 ol) would like for the subcommittee to consider if they would,

"'";;;)

16 ~... and I would be delighted to answer any questions on that .

Q

Z

17 ::

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Dr. O'Kelley?

18

DR. o'KELLEY: Canter, in simple lay language that

19 I may understand, this Pandora's box of litigation that you

20 referred to and is continually referred to, what is it?

21

MR. BROWN: The problem stems from the qu.stion of

22 -- well, the most confusing problem is on line 21 the words

23 llunder general laws," what that means.

24

Nobody really knows, to be honest with you, what that

25 means. The court, the Supreme Court on at leasttwo occasions

PAGE 9

in the late 1800's interpreted that language to mean not a

2 general law as we normally speak of it which is a law of

3 statewide effect, but to mean a law that is applicable

4 generally within the jurisdiction levying the tax.

5

Now, it was upon that basis that municipalities were

6 authorized to grant, to levy taxes pursuant to their charters, 7 which was a very important thing particularly for munici-

8 pa]ties as you might suspect.

9

On other occasions, however, the court has

10 interpreted that to mean that unless the tax itself was

cz.:l 11 ;:
oa.Q.:.:.
~ 12 ~
~ri ! 14 lo:nr 15 .:I
ac.:::l
:;)
16 .~.. o Z <l:
17 :

authorized, certain types of taxes by general law, it could not be levied under the authority of any special or local law. I know it's confusing for me to put it that way, but literally that's the situation we're in in terms of the court decisions. I had tried
DR. O'KELLEY: I will accept that. Let me just ask another question and see if I can get it in my own mind.

18

Then that is a concern rather than the words "and

19 shall be uniform to the same class of subjects"?

20

~m. BROWN: Yes, sir.

21

DR. O'KELLEY: Why are we so determined to not

22 permit any flexibility, whereas in many other places there is

23 an opportunity for the General Assembly to make some decision,

24 but here they're bound?

25

}ffi. BROWN: Well, really my comments were addressed

PAGE 10

just to the change that I had recommended. I wasn't really

2 going to the issue of say classification which would be the

3 natural outgrowth of eliminating the uniformity requirement.

4 I really think that's a substantive issue just for the sub-

5 committee to face.

6

DR. O'KELLEY: I do too.

7

MR. BROWN: But I was really addressing it only to

8 whether I felt --

9

DR. o'KELLEY: I was trying to clarify. Then your

10 concern is --

"z
11 j:
'o.0"....
~ 12 ~
@r~ 14 .~.. oxn 15 ~ "'":;) 16 ~... Q Z 17 :

MR. BROWN: Then you would be better advised to utilize the old language if that's going to be retai.ned rather than what I had subsequently suggested to you.
VICE CHAI~N BLOUNT: This classification question keeps coming up, and now is the time for us to satisfy ourselves regarding it unless Canter can suggest a more convenient time within the context of his work that we could

18 do it.

19

MR. BROWN: If the subcommittee wants to address it

20 now--
21

DR. o'KELLEY: Mr. Chairman, let's think about the

22 issue. I have a lot to do today. but I figure this is the

23 last opportunity I'll have to discuss this issue. I spent

24 two years trying to get somethi~g done about this statement

~5 right here. because every concern that people like myself.

PAGE 11

property owners and people interested in the support of the

2 public schools, every problem we have relative to taxation,

3 the raising of funds to support public education and the

4 effect that it has on the taxpaying public comes back to that

5 sentence right there, and it's amazing to me how many

6 situations can be determined to be controlled by that

7 particular wording, yet every time it's brought up we cannot

8 get anything done about it.

9

Now, in the Tax Reform Commission we finally got the

10 issue out, and the counties as I recall one day the recommenda-

..11

"z
i=

tion was

that

the report would recommend a

change in that

o......

~ 12 ~ respect, but with some parliamentary maneuvering I think we

~r~! had a telephone surv:ey the next day and they got one more 14 vote, so we're right back where we were.

1;;

:<r:l:

..15 .:l Cl

I wonder if the members of this committee are

::>

16 ~... intersted in looking at that problem and the possibility of

Q

Z

<l
17 ::i not changing the present laws relative, or the present

18 policies and procedures relative to property tax, but merely

19 to make it possible for the legislature to take action on a

20 problem that would lead to some kind of classification system.

21

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Jim?

22

MR. DAVIS: The first meeting we had of this

23 subcommittee I brought this up; however, I think what I was

24 talking about, we had a discusmon today, Dr. O'Kelley, was

25 not ~aling with the words uniform upon the same class.

PAGE 12

I think whatever the classes are any type of

2 taxation should be uniform on that particular class. It's

3 further on down where it limits in our constitution to taxa-

4 tion of property to one class of tangible property,

5

I think where we want to address the sentence in

6 the language, he's talking about right now where it says

7 taxation shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects,

8 I don't think we need to change because I think that really

9 opens up a hodgepodge

10

DR. o'KELLEY: To me I'm not interested'in creating

l.7

Z

@~ ;i~ 11

j:
.o.'."...

more problems.

but every time the issue is raised instead of

going back to the constitution it goes back to the court's

interpretation of this. Is this right. Canter?

14

MR. BROWN: I think in terms of classification that

ot:z-n:

15 ~ the constitution is pretty clear, that the real source of

l.7

'";:)

16 .~.. litigation is the question of how the General Assembly can

Q

Z

17 : grant the power of taxation to local governments. and what

18 powers it can grant.

19

As you will see there on the bottom of page 2 the

20 constitution is clear that the tangible property and in-

21 tangible property are the classes of property subject to

22 taxation. with the exceptions --

23

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Maybe this will focus the

24 issue a little bit more. It appears constitutionally

25 obliged that we have only one class of tangible property.

PAGE 13

it permits one or more classes of intangible property, but

2 all tangible property has to be of one class, and that's all

3 inclusive, so that all subjects will be governed by only one

4 applicable type of tax law with respect to tangible property.

5 Would it provide the flexibility that you're suggesting is

6 needed to add the language "one or more classes of tangible

7 property"?

8

DR. O'KELLEY: Well, I'm not going to take upon

9 myself the capability to state this thing in legal phrase-

10 ology. I have presented a point of view and I'd be perfectly

CzI

11

j:
'o"

willing

for

those

of you who

are well versed

in

this

thing

to

e ; i0w do it, but I really think we've got a problem here and I just
don't think that Georgia is treating its taxpayers fairly

! 14 ... as the other taxpayers throughout the nation are treated .

'"

:J:

15 o!)

Someone reported here at one of these meetings

CI

'"::l

16

~
w

I

think,

what

is

it,

48

of

the

states

have

the

--

they

can

deal

Cz

17 ::; with this problem and have done so.

18

Now, I do not defend what they have done. They have

19 created problems, but at least they have come to grips with

20 the prob lem.

21

Now, Georgia has copied many things from other

22 states and improved on them, and I just don't know why we

23 can't do something about this.

24

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Other comments?

25

MR.. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as a factual matter,

PAGE 14

although I've heard the same statistic that Dr. O'Kelley

2 mentioned, I would like to point out to the committee that 3 Georgia is considered one of those states that allows 4 classification of property within those lists because we do

5 classify motor vehicles for instance as a different class of

6 property, we do classify mobile homes as a different class,

7 we classify property of utilities as a different class. I 8 think that statistic should be interpreted only to mean that

9 there are one or more exceptions to a general and uniform

10 taxation of property.

1.7

Z
11 j:

I think if you attempted to find states that have a

@;;..'o."... classification system that that is normally discussed, which would be a comprehensive approach to classifying different

! 14 forms of property based on different levels. You will find

I-

'-"

:I:

15 ~ relatively few states that have implemented a comprehensive

1.7

'"::>

16 ~ system.

lz:l

17 ~

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I think the essence of Dr.

18 O'Kelley's concern is, not to speak for him, might be that

19 the only way to get a separate classification of tangible

20 property is by constitutional amendment.

21

MR. BROWN: That's correct.

22

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: And he may be suggesting a

23 case, or at least some consideration of creating in the

24 language that we presently are considering the constitutional

25 authority for General Assembly classification.

PAGE 15

DR. O'KELLEY: That's all I want.

2

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: And I gues s what I need to

3 get is some guidance from the subcommittee members or others

4 in the house as to where we go from here.

5

It seems to me we might have some dialogue on it

6 today or make it part of our report that this is a serious

7 concern and it's something that may want the full committee's

8 attention, but I'll be guided by the body.

9

First, Dr. O'Kelley.

10

~

CzI 11 I-
o.'l".L.
12 ~

~r~ ! 14

I-
':z":

15 .:I

CI
'":::> 16 .~..

Q

Z 17 :

DR. O'KELLEY: Larry, some states have approached it by classifying the kinds of property, residential, business, whatnot. Others approach it by land use or property use valuation, use values as to how you arrive at the value to make your assessment, but in Georgia you can do neither. Farm property, residential property, business property, whatnot, except utilities are governed by the same procedures .
VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Mr. Massey?

18

MR. MASSEY: I think we might pursue this point with

19 Jim. Canter spoke to it, it apparently says one class of

20 tangible property and one or more classes of intangible,

21 and then the mobile homes and utilities are exceptions to

22 the one class, so maybe that language could be eliminated.

23 In other words, saying one or more classes of tangible

24 property.

25

I think we ought to follow that down the line a

PAGE 16

little bit.

2

MR. BROWN: In terms of permitting what it's my

3 understanding Dr. O'Kelley would like to permit, what you

4 would want to do is simply delete paragraphs (b)(l) and

5 (b)(2). I think that would authorize everything you want

6 authorized.

7

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I think that is the essence

8 of it. Is the subcommittee prepared or even inclined to --

9 I think we ought to have some dialogue on it. I think this

10
CzI 11 i=
...oQ:
a.
Gl"~~i ~J~ 14 !... V:rI 15 ..:.,l Q: :) 16 ~.oz.. 17 ~

day we ought to do something to at least attempt or begin resolution of this, even if it takes the form of nothing more than a recommendation to the full committee.
Other thoughts or comments regarding this? MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to you, and I hesitate to appear to enter this in a partisan way, but this is not by any means a new issue; it's an issue that's been debated in the General Assembly every year since I've

18 been in the state of Georgia. It is an issue which was

19 debated for two and a half years by the Tax Reform Commission,

20 and in every instance a classification scheme has been

21 defeated.

22

It was defeated most recently in the House Ways and

23 Means Committee this past year. It is an extremely

24 controversial subject and, as I say, it's one that has been

25 considered and defeated time and again in the General Assembly

1
!

PAGE 17

and the Tax Reform Commission.

2

I think you want to be extremely cautious in

3 proceeding as a subcommittee to make a change of that nature.

4

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I have referred to my notes

5 of our July 18 meeting where we had a good deal of discussion

6 on this subject and several questions and answers regarding

7 it, and the note was made then at that point that although

8 intended ultimately the Tax Reform Commission did not

9 recommend classification and the matter is before us again

10 this morning, and I don't know that rehashing the issue here

Czl
.. 11 ... will get us much further, but if there is some need for 'o."..

~ 12 ~ further discussion from members of the committee at this time

(@!)r~ we of course will be guided by the pleasure of the body on it.

! 14

I think the report should note that this was a

1:z;:;

15 01) matter that commanded a good deal of the subcommittee's

Cl

'"::> 16 .~.. attention, and I think it is one of those notes that we should

Czl

17 : make to the full committee to provide it guidance regarding

18 the resolution of all of the Article VII work.

19

I'm at a loss for any feel of what we can do further

20 this morning other than be guided by Dr. O'Kelley's suggestion

21 that we give the matter some thought.

22

MR. DAVIS: I want to go on record and state without

23 question really why I brought this up. My interest in talking

24 about revision that deals with one class of tangible property

25 was strictly in reference to the difference in my opinion

PAGE 18

between real property and tangible personal property. I was

2 not interested in pursuing a preferential assessment system,

3 i.e., classification system.

4

The difference in what I'm talking about and

5 classification is that classification deals with breaking

6 down real property within different classes for different

7 assessment percentages. I'm not proposing that at all, but

8 I do think from an administrative and a practical standpoint

9 at the county level or the city level there is a difference

10 in the method of assessment of real and personal property.

IzII

11 I-

Now, continually I see court cases where we're

'0.."...

12 '" running into problems because of the different methods of

@ r l assessment of real and personal, and year after year I'm

14 ~ involved in litigation in my county right now, going to be, IIII :I:
15 .:l and that's going to be one of the issues, but the method of III .'":)
16 zCD assessment is not the same, it's not the same because you
az
17 '"CD cannot in my opinion treat real estate and personal property

18 exactly the same because they're not the same type of

-

19 property.

20

Therefore, what I was simply trying to bring before

21 the subcommittee and possibly propose was to show personal

22 property not necessarily as a separate class of property, but

23

\
treat it just as if we have treated motor vehicles, mobile

24 homes, et cetera. In other words, don't open up the thing

2S about the uniformity of taxation. I think it's a tremendous

PAGE 19

responsibility to throw on the General Assembly every year to

2 allow them to have the authority reclassify or classify

3 property depending on their particular feelings that particula'

4 year. I just don't think personally they ought to have that

5 authority with no limitations, but I would like to see some

6 effort given towards looking at personal property if not as

7 a separate class as an exception, because it's just like motor

8 vehicles and mobile homes, the other exceptions listed.

9

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Okay. Duly noted.

10

MR. KANE: Are you proposing then that the committee

11

CzI
I-

consider the issue of separate classification of personal

~

.''o""..
12 ~ property and act on the issue?

~r~

MR. DAVIS: I don't know. I think the way this is

! 14 worded -- obviously grammatics makes a lot of difference -- to

l:;z;:
15 ~ say a separate class of property --

"'"::>

16 .~..

MR. KANE: What 1 1m talking about, do you want the

Q

Z 17 :

subcommittee to consider the issue and make a recommendation

18 on it?

19

MR. DAVIS: Of course I can't speak for the whole

20 committee, but I did bring it up.

21

MR. KANE: You had that notion to do that?

22

MR. DAVIS: It had to be considered; I throw it out

n for discussion.

24

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I think now is the time, and

25 if I can attempt to restate your proposal for consideration

PAGE 20

you would like constitutional, express constitutional

2 language regarding personal property --

3

MR. DAVIS: Tangible personal.

4

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Tangible personal property

5 as a permissible class of property.

6

MR. DAVIS: In other words, the present language.

7 Paragraph II says. subject to conditions and limitations

8 specified by law each of the following types of property may

9 be classified as a separate class for ad valorem and property

10
CzI 11 I-
o0....<..
@;I 14 ~ IVI <l :I: 15 .~., :'>" 16 ~... III Z <l 17 ::

tax purposes. Currently you have A, B, C. I'm proposing adding a fourth type.
VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Let me ask you, would adding a provision that permits classification of tangible personal property pretty much absorb all of the preceding language?
MR. DAVIS: It would A and B, probably; VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: A and B clearly . MR. BROWN: Jim. could I suggest a possible way to

18 do what you're doing a little different than what you've done

19 it?

20

MR. DAVIS: Yes.

21

MR. BROWN: If you want to accomplish what it's my

22 understanding you are trying to do, I think what you could do

23 on line 29 on page 2 which says subjects of taxation of

24 property shall consist of tangible property and one or more

25 classes of intangible, where it says tangible property you

PAGE 21
r r - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - -.. ----------------.-------~
replace that with real property. tangible personal property

2 and one or more classes, and then add a sentence at the end

3 of this subparagraph 1 that would say tangible personal

4 property shall be taxed at the same basis of value and rate

5 as for real property.

6

I think that would give you complete latitude in

7 your administrative handling of personal property, but would

8 require that it be taxed the same unless there was a specific

9 exemption or exception as other types of real property, the

10 same percent, the same assessment level and the same rate.

I.!l

Z

11

~
.."o.."..

I

think that would accomplish it.

~ 12 ~

MR. DAVIS: That accomplishes what I'm looking for.

@r~

To give an example, a specific example, and you tell

! 14 !;; me if I'm wrong, if it was changed in the manner you just



:I:

15 0:1 described, and assuming that Senate Resolution 282 doesn't

I.!l

"";;)

16 ~... pass. with this change personal property would be looked upon

cz

17 : differently for factoring purposes than real property;

18 correct, in your opinion?

19

MR. BROWN: I think assuming it was provided for by

20 law.

21

MR, HENRY: SR 282, will that only allow for purpose

22 of factoring for the Revenue Commissioner to differentiate 23 between real and personal, or can he go ahead and classify 24 real as well?

25

MR. BROWN: What Mike is referring to. I think as

PAGE 22

most of you know the General Assembly proposed this year a

2 constitutional amendment which will be on the ballot in

3 November which permits the State Revenue Commissioner to

4 factor a county tax digest to establish one or more classes

5 of property for purposes of applying his factoring so as to

6 more closely arrive at a true forty percent assessment level

7 across the digest.

8

It does not permit the General Assembly to classify

9 property~ it only authorizes the Commissioner for purposes of

10 applying his factor to establish the equal class. I think

11

z"
j:

it would permit for purposes of factoring discrimination

'oa."....

between personal and real, but it would also permit sub-

@ ; j classification by --

! 14

MR. HENRY: Isntt tangible personal property, at

lo-n

<l:

:J:
15 ~

least homeowners have it all just about exempt?

In other

'"";;) 16 ~... words~ they don't really report it any more~ do they?

Q

Z

<l:
17 ::

MR. DAVIS: Except for boats and airplanes.

18

MR. HENRY: It's only the business community that

19 has to report

20

MR. DAVIS: Inventory and machinery.

21

DR. OtKELLEY: Jim, what is the exact nature of the

22 problem that is generated by the present language and practice~

23

MR. DAVIS: There are several, one of which is the

24 present factoring problem where you have a county digest that

25 is projected by the Revenue Department and sent back to the

PAGE 23

county with a factor. ;This factor itself is devised or

2 derived as you say strictly from real estate sales and

3 studies, however, with almost no exceptions the same factor is

4 applied across the board to inventory, machinery, equipment,

5 leased equipment, boats and airplanes which mayor may not

6 already be on the books at a hundred percent of market value,

7 and from an administrative and an equity standpoint at my

8 level it's just almost absurd when you've got people whose

9 books are being audited and their inventories are put on

10
zCI 11 i=
9 ; ;..'o".... .! 14 '" :I: 15 ~ CI '";;;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ~

exactly what the law requires, and then you come along and tack on a fifty percent factor. That's one of the big problems.
The other problem is from a practical standpoint the actual way that it's being done in every county in the state as far as the application or interpretation of the current laws by taxation of personal prop~rty, it's not being done exactly the same as real because you don't value machinery the

18 same way you do a building because they're not the ssme

19 animal in my opinion. This is all my opinion.

20

Real property in general appreciates in today's

21 market, personal property, a machine wears out, so I think

22 they are different animals, and for these two reasons is why

23 I for a long period of time have thought the constitution 24 should not limit and confine the application of these laws to

25 real and personal property as being the same because what

PAGE 24

I'm seeing is that the courts and the people in my profession

2 are just skirting and working around the best way they know

3 how the way the constitution reads.

4

I think what's actually happening both in the courts

5 and in the administration of the tax la'w's it's being treated

6 as if real and personal are separate classes, and I'm just

7 trying to say the constitution should reflect that.

8

DR. o'KELLEY: It evades the issue I would think to

9 this extent. The tax return is made yearly, so if it

10 appreciates or depreciates it's corrected as of January 1,

11

zCI
j:

Now,

are you saying there; is

a significant change between

@;;.'o..".... January 1 and the time the factor comes back to the county? Is that the appreciation you're talking about?

! 14

MR. DAVIS: No. I'm saying that -- let's just take

t-

'"
:r
15 01) a particular company somewhere in any county, and this company

CI
'";:) 16 ~... has a substantial amount of inventory, and this particular

Czl 17 :

company turns in their inventory at a hundred percent,

and

18 one of its competitors does not, turns it in at fifty

19 percent and that happens, by the way.

20

Now, this particular county is factored by the state

21 let's say at twenty percent factor against real estate because

22 the real estate digest is not up to the forty percent level

23 as required by law. Currently this factor has to be applied

24 to the man's inventory too of both companies, so what you have

25 is a situation where one company is paying on a hundred and

PAGE 25

twenty percent of its inventory, but yet the other one is

2 fifty percent plus the twenty percent factor.

3

Basically what I was talking about, the factoring --

4 I wasn't talking about appreciation or depreciation, that was

5 a separate matter -- I said when you factor inventories and

6 machinery that have been valued as personal property, they're

7 being factored currently on the assumption that they are valuec

8 at the same level as real estate, which mayor may not be

9 true. Maybe they need to be factored.

10

This proposal I'm bringing up would not preclude theD

zCJ

11

i=
a:

from being factored if they are judged to be under-assessed,

.lo.L.

~ 12 ~ but if in fact the personal property in a county is properly

~ri assessed it should not be factored because the real estate is

! 14 not. You understand what I'm saying?

~

'"

:E:
15 .:l

DR. a 'KELLEY: (Shook his head.)

CaJ:

:;)

16 .~..

MR. DAVIS: Canter, do you see what I'm talking

Q

Z
17 ::; about?

18

MR. BROWN: I do. Let's take the Revenue CommissionEr

19 factors the digest, it applies across the board to all real

20 estate, the same factor.

21

DR. a 'KELLEY; I understand the factoring process,

22 I did not understand the logic.

23

MR. BROWN: He's just saying that the percentage of

24 a factor is determined based upon real property, and real

25 property of course tends to appreciate over time. consequently

PAGE 26

the factor would magnify any increase or any level of

2 assessment of personal property because it's not relevant to

3 it, it's not determined at all based upon any change in value

4 of the personal property in the county, and consequently it's

5 not fair to penalize personal property taxpayers because the

6 real property has appreciated more rapidly which is the effect

7 of the factor as it's presently utilized.

8

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Let's have closure on this

9 one if we can be clear on the nature of the proposal. As

10 Canter is suggesting, I'm inclined to agree it might be more

Czl 11 ;:
oc....=..
@;i

appropriate to impact the language at paragraph 3(b) (1) on line 29 on page 2 to suggest that the language read property shall consist of tangible real property, tangible personal

! 14 property

I-

'"

:I:

15 .:l

MR. BROWN: All you would need is real, because real

Cc=l

::::>

16 .~.. is tangible .

Q

Z

17 :

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Yes, we could save a word

18 there, real property and then tangible personal property. and

19 then one or more classes of intangible property, and I guess

20 you're suggesting another little bit of language in saying

21 unless otherwise provided the rates for the two will be the

22 same.

23

MR. BROWN: What I had suggested was, I don't belieVE

24 Jim had been intending at all to get into different rates of

25 taxation, and what I'm suggesting is a sentence just added

PAGE 27

-

to the same subparagraph I which would read tangible personal

2 property shall be taxed at the same basis of value and rate

3 as is real property.

4

DR. O'KELLEY: What is that now?

5

MR. BROWN: Tangible personal property shall be taxed

6 at the same basis of value -- that would be the same assess-

7 ment level -- and rate as is real property, which is presently

8 the case.

9

DR. O'KELLEY: That's what is says now, isn't it?

10

MR. BROWN: Now he is required by the administrative

11

"z
j:::
'0."".".

procedures in reviewing,

assessing and reviewing the assess-

12 '" ments for tangible property is mandated to be the same as for real property, this would permit different approaches to
9 r l! 14 ... assessment and review, particularly review of assessments,

':z":

15 ~ discrimination between real property and personal property,

":'>"

16 lZ.D.. but it wouldn't permit it to be taxed at a different basis

Q

Z

17 '"lD of value or rate, but it would still be taxed at forty percent

18 and it would still be taxed at the same mill rate as would be

19 real property.

20

MR. HENRY: You would then be able to submit under

21 this two separate digests to the commissioner if that was

22

MR. BROWN: It would be according to how it was

23 established by law.

24

MR. DAVIS: You can call it a separate digest,

25 they're currently printed out separately right now. You could

PAGE 28

have one stacked up physically. and as a rule at least from

2 my county there's a separate book of personal property. Now

3 whether or not this provides for a separate digest I don't

4 know.

5

MR. HENRY: It would seem to me when you sent your

6 digest to the Commissioner you would have to send it as one

7 digest of intangible property.

8

MR. BROWN: Under present law as Jim is pointing

9 out. under present law you are required to have one digest.

10 and as a physical matter you've got two different things

already.

MR. HENRY: Right .

MR. BROWN: If the law was amended to allow you to

call one a separate digest. you could I think except it's

going to be taxed the same way. If it wasn't amended it would

still all be called one even though it continued to be two.

It would just be according to however the law would read.

18

MR. DAVIS: The way it's set up it has to be a

19 differentiation between the two because you have R codes and

20 P codes; R codes would be real estate and P codes for your

21 P-l, 2 and 3 for your personal codes on the way it's listed

22 by law now or by regulation of the Revenue Commissioner it

23 has to be separate to identify them for freeport purposes

24 and things like that.

25

I certainly wouldn't want this to require, youknow,

PAGE 29

a bureaucratic thing where people would begin to have to bring

2 two separate digests up here. That's not my intent at all.

3

Do you think this would require that?

4

MR. BROWN: No. it would be however it was provided

5 for by law.

6

MR. HENRY: My thought was that it would codify what

7 is presently going on. In other words, it's a fiction to say

8 that you have -- that the Revenue Commissioner considers only

9 one digest, isn't it?

10

MR. BROWN: Well, it's not all intermingled in the

CzI

11

i=
'o.Q"...

same book, and increasingly you're not even talking about

@;I books, you're talking about computer tapes, so you know, you really have to get beyond the old terminology in terms of

! 14 ~

already

'<"l

%

15 ~

MR. DAVIS: What it really comes down to, what they

CI

'":;)

16 ~... consider the digest for approval purposes is purely the real

Q

Z

<l

17 ::i property, but it's also the tax base of a county made up of

18 real and personal and public utilities and motor vehicles, 19 and I don't know of any case where they have really studied 20 the personal property and motor vehicles to determine whether

21 or not the digest is approved or not approved. I think it's

22 purely the real property pprtion he looks at to either reject

23 or approve the entire digest.

24

MR. HENRY: So he could apply a real property factor

25 and then under this, and then also apply a personal property,

PAGE 30

tangible personal property factor?

2

MR. DAVIS: Or none.

3

MR. KANE: As a conceptual matter, though, if you

4 have the same base, and the basis is determined to some

5 extent by the factor, isn't it -- I mean the value on which

6 you assess the rate? Aren't you in effect at least

7 establishing different bases by not applying the factor to

8 one set of properties and then applying it to another?

9

MR. DAVIS: No.

10

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I think he's suggesting

that's the practice now.

MR. DAVIS: The practice now is they're assuming

real and personal are at the same base before the factoring

goes in. The theory is if everything is at the same level,

let's say everything is at twenty percent of market instead

of forty percent, they're assuming that real and personal

both are at the same level, therefore if you apply the

18 across-the-board factor everything remains the same level of

19 market value.

20

MR. KANE: That's the way it should be in the

21 present constitution, something you just described. You're

22 saying it's different in fact?

23

MR. DAVIS: I'm saying when you apply an across-the-

24 board factor it does not necessarily make real and personal

25 end up at the same level of market, and that's what I'm

PAGE 31

trying to allude to.

2

MR. BROWN: One thing, I think Jim has made an

3 impression here too that as a general matter across the state

4 that personal property is more accurately assessed than real

5 property, and I think you'll find that every single county in

6 Georgia is different in that regard.

7

You may well, if you adopted this suggestion, find

8 some county which was being factored more on the personal

9 property digest than on real property. You know, it would

10 just depend on according to how good a job was being done.

..Czl
11 j:

MR. DAVIS: It brings up the opposite situation

..0
Go WI
12 that if the real property was at forty or maybe just a little

@ r l bit below, the personal was real low, you shouldn't penalize

! 14 ... the real property, you should be able to treat each type of

':~"r

..15 .:I property on its own merits or demerits is really what I'm Cl

:>

..16

'z"
Q

trying to address.

z

~

17 '"

MR. KANE:

The base upon which the rate is applied,

18 how is that determined? By applying the factor; is that

19 right?

20

MR. BROWN: It's determined through the use of what'l

21 called a sales ratio study. What I'm saying is --

22

MR. KANE: You've got certain elements which go into

23 the equation that finally comes up with your tax due, and

24

MR. BROWN: The total value of the digest. You

25 don'tuse the forty percent valuation necessarily to determine

PAGE 32

the mill rate, you use the total dollar amount of the digest.

2

MR. KANE: You use the same rate, the millage rate.

3 The forty percent was

4

MR. BROWN: The question is in equalization of terms

5 of assessment between identifiable classes which you cannot do

6 now, it is required to that any factor -- say you've got, oh,

7 homes assessed at forty percent, you've got commercial

8 property assessed at 35, farms at thirty, and say it's roughly

9 divided a third, a third, a third in the county. At that point

10 a five percent factor is going to be placed on the digest

CzI

11

j:
'o.."....

because the

overall

level

of assessment

is

thirty-five

percent

~~\ri~ to bring it up to forty. Obviously your homeowners at that 12 point are being penalized because they're going to pay a 45

! 14 percent level of assessment, the property that was assessed

~

'"

:I:

15 o!) at thirty is still getting the advantage because they're at

Cl

'";;;)

16 ~... 35, and you've really only equalized one class and that was

Q

17 gZ; the commercial property, they're the only ones at forty.

18

What he's saying is that as a practical matter you

19 can already identify the fact that real property and personal

20 property discriminate against each other in the factoring

21 process, and they should be handled separately, but they ought

22 to be handled so that both are brought to the forty percent

23 level rather than it being just a combination of the two being 24 brought up to forty percent.

25

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: So in your hypothetical you

PAGE 33

factor the farm at ten, factor the commercial and personal at

2 five, and you leave the real where it was originally?

3

MR. BROWN: Under the constitutional amendment that'

4 on the ballot this year you would be able to do that, that's 5 right.

6

Under his proposal all you would be able to do is

7 identify personal property and real property separately, and

8 then factor them separately to both be arrived, or bring both

9 to forty percent. That's what his proposal is.

10

MR. HENRY: To perhaps take care of Dr. O'Kelley's

11 "~z problem, if it does at all, you may want to incorporate that
e -~.o... . 12 ~amendment that is on the ballot in here which will allow the COIIIlIIis sioner to do what you just said as far as the three

14 ~classes of real property, where you would factor a farm up ten

'"
:r
15 oll and residential up five and something else five. That would

"Ill:
:;)
16 ~ probably be the least intrusive way to get at this problem

Q

17

z :

rather

than

allowing

the

General

Assemly

to

come

up

here

every

18 year and determine that farm property needs to be reassessed

19 or something like that.

20

MR. BROWN: I think probably that had been brought

21 up at one of the earlier meetings, I think Mr. Castleberry was

22 talking about it, I think his idea was to wait andsee if 23 that's approved, and if it is he'd just as soon that it be 24 incorporated in the draft, but I don't think he really wanted

25 to presuppose what the voters wanted to do about that.

PAGE 34

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I think that's a burden that

2 we have labored under throughout our work here, the reality

3 being that whatever we do here is going to have pass a good

4 deal of political scrutiny. If we want to be successful. the

5 Chairman of the committee has suggested that we kind of play

6 a wait and see game on this one. That doesn't please as least

7 two members of the subcommittee that I can identify, but it's

8 probably not necessary.

9

I invite some guidance from the body. My sugges-

10 tion might be to note the vote and let's proceed. If there is

11 "~ further real need for dialogue

.'o."....
~ 12 ~

MR. MASSEY: I think that's the thing to do .

~ __ ~ Something you s aid earlier ab out trying to finish today. but

! 14 in view of both of these comments and the situation on the ... <II 15 ~ amendment I would like to see us take it under advisement and
16 ".'~".. have an opportunity maybe later to look at some other language Q
17 z~and not take any formal action on this paragraph at this

18 moment.

19

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: If that pleases the body,

20 then that will be it. We will ask the staff to provide some

21 commentary and possibly some proposed language on both the

22 issues we have discussed the last several minutes, and we will

23 take it under advisement and reconvene at some time.

,

24

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman. if I could. given that

25 I would still like to ask for the subcommittee's permission

PAGE 35

on Paragraph (a) there which this language -- if either of the

2 two proposals was adopted this language would not be changed,

3 all that would be in (b), and I would like the subcommittee

4 to consider and hopefully agree to going to the language I

5 had suggested which essentially is the current language in the

6 constitution.

7

What I'm specifically suggesting is that (a) read

8 as follows: All taxes shall be levied and collected under

9 general laws, and all taxation shall be uniform upon the same

10 class of subjects within the territorial limits of~e authorit'

levying the tax.

As I say, if you adopt that language even tho~gh it

is confusing I think it would potentially cause less 1itiga-

tion than a:iopting my language.

I also think that if the subcommittee decides in the

future to adopt either Dr. O'Ke11ey's suggestion or Jim's

suggestion that that would not be effective, that that would

18 all be handled under (b).

19

MR. MASSEY: I would like to move we accept the

20 language Canter has just read with the understanding we come

21 back to the rest of the paragraph.

22

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Is there a second?

23

MR. DAVIS: Second.

24

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I1:;'s been moved and seconded.

25 Is there any need for any further discussion?

PAGE 36

All those in favor of the motion indicate by saying 2 well done.

3

(Ayes.)

4

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Those opposed?

5

By consensus it carries.

6

Moving right along.

7

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the next thing I would like

8 to do, and your suggestion that we take under advisement the

9 two proposals really assists in this, you had instructed your

10 staff and Jack Morton and I to get together on the specific
cz:J
11 I- langauge of this banking provision, and I've got to be honest
..'o".. with you, due to conflicting schedules we've not yet done
@;; that, and I would like to note the -- I think we all continue ! 14 to want to look at very carefully what this specific language IIII :I: 15 ~ is; I'm going to ask for your permission to take this c:J '";:) 16 .~.. additional time before your next meeting to do that and make a Q Z 17 : report to you.

18

VICE, CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Unless there is some other

19 comment or observation of someone present today, we will do 20 just that.

21

MR. BROWN; Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

22

I think at that point we can go through pages 2

23 and 3, and on page 4 I would just like to note that at the

24 last meeting under public utility property there on lines 3

25 through 10 you had tentatively agreed to delete the language

PAGE 37

relating to different methods and time of returns, payment,

2 et cetera, and to incorporate any difference between that

3 and the language contained on line 11 through 13 in lines 11

4 through 13.

5

We had looked at that at the last meeting if you

6 recall, and Jack Morton had suggested that as a practical

7 matter there is no difference between that, and you had

8 decided it was redundant and tentatively told us to do that,

9 and I just want to point that out again since it is different

10
"z
11 I-
e ; j...IoX l>.
! 14 I'" :I:
15 ~
"IX
;;;)
16 .~..
az 17 :

from the language in the draft I passed out. VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Any reaction? I think Canter's recollection is correct, and if
that is the will of the body by consensus we will say so be it.
Okay. MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think the next general matter, and there are several sub-issues involved with this,

18 relates to the method of handling exemptions from property

19 taxation, ad valorem taxation.

20

Your subcommittee decided they wanted to have a

21 period between the last meeting and this meeting to assure

22 themselves as to the general approach, which as you recall

23 was to take the granting of property tax exemptions out of

24 the constitution but subject to limitations contained in the

25 constitution require that it be approved by referendum, which

PAGE 38

essentially was writing in the statute the same process as is

2 now required, it just simply wouldn't be in the constitution.

3

I had suggested to you that that procedure would as

4 a practical matter in drafting the constitutional limits save

5 the constitution from being inundated with great deals of

6 administrative and procedural details which would be better

7 handled by statute, and that although theoretically you could

8 keep them in the constitution and not do that, as a practical

9 matter the members of the General Assembly just don't like

10 that, they like it all in there and they want to grant it.

Czl 11 j::

Mr. Castleberry has asked me to tell you two things

'o.."....

~ 12 ~ in that regard. The first is that he personally approves of

~~r~~ handling the granting of exemptions in the manner that has 14 been suggested to you in this draft. He does feel as a

~

':<"rl

15 oll practical matter it will facilitate the consideration and

Cl

'";;;)

16 ~ handling of property tax ~xemptions and will particularly

~

Z

<l

17 lli improve the way we can deal with the details of administration

18 and procedure.

19

He has asked me to put one caveat in therethat you

20 discussed at the last meeting, and that is that he notes or

21 noted to me that under the present method of granting property

22 tax exemptions in the constitution the proposal of an amend-

23 ment by the General Assembly is not subject to veto by the

24 Governor, and he has as you discussed at the last meeting.

25 he continues to feel that the provision should be written so

PAGE 39

as to provide the laws proposing these amendments which are

2 subject to referendum not be subject to the Governor's veto.

3

And then one further large issue combined with that,

4 then we can just take them one by one -- I had suggested to

5 you at the last meeting that almost all of the major property

6 tax exemptions in Georgia are permissive in the constitution,

7 and I had drawn a comparison between those and the four or

8 five which are not permissive but are mandated and suggested

9 to you they are relatively minor, and had suggested you

10 consider combining all of the exemptions in this one provision

or the two provisions, one authorizing it be granted by law

subject to referendum, and the other grandfathering all the

present ones into the constitution, and Mr. Castleberry

agrees with that proposal and would request that you consider

combining all of the exemptions in one proposal and deleting

the mandated exemptions contained in the constitution.

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Let's take them as you

18 introduced them.

19

MR. BROWN: The first one I think would be the

20 general question as to the procedure outlined here for future

21 granting of constitutional or granting property tax exemptions

22

As you know, the last paragraph in this article

23 automatically would grandfather into law all of the current

24 exemptions; no one who has an exemption now will lose that

25 exemption because this constitutional provision is adopted.

PAGE 40

The granting of future exemptions, however, would

2 be outside the constitution but subject to a referendum.

3

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: That's your reference to

4 paragraph 5?

5

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. It's found on page 22.

6

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Do you want to pull the pin

7 on that one and have a little dialogue about the effectiveness

8 of that when we get to that, but let's go further with the

9 general approach regarding exemptions, property tax exemptions

,~'
1:.

10 Reactions? Comments? Observations?

I:l Z
11 I-
@;;'o.."....

Yes. MR. HENRY: On the grandfathering in, Canter, for the onesthat are not permissive, could they be enlarged later

! 14 I-

by law?

':z":

15 ~

MR. BROWN: I don't think any exemption can be

Cl

'":::l

16 .~.. enlarged later by law unless it's subject to a referendum .

Q

Z

17 : I do think the procedures, the administrative handling of the

18 exemption could be handled jus t by regular law, but any law

19 that has the effect of granting a new exemption, and I would

20 include in that an increased exemption, would require a

21 referendum. I think that is currently the case as we handle

22 it in the constitution.

23

MR. DAVIS: Would that be handled by the language

24 you currently have in here now?

25

MR. BROWN: I think so. I'm going to suggest one

PAGE 41

small change in that language in paragraph 5 when we get to

2 it, and I think Professor Blount probably is going to do the

3 same, but for right now just the question is the handling of

4 future exemptions, and I was suggesting to you the adoption

5 of language similar to that in this draft.

6

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Any problems with it?

7

MR. MASSEY: To which language now, Canter?

8

MR. BROWN: The language contained in paragraph 2

9 on page 4 and 5.

10

As I say, Representative Castleberry has asked me

11

"z
j:
"..o....

if you do agree to that approach for you to consider the

~ 12 ~ inclusion of a sentence which will provide that laws proposing

@ r i exemptions which are subject to a referendum as provided in

! 14 that paragraph would not be subject to the Governor's veto. IV:zI:

15 .:I

MR. HENRY: Is this on 2(a)(1) we're considering

"";;;)

16 .~.. right now?

Q

Z

17 :

MR. BROWN: It would be 2(a) generally, yes.

18

MR. HENRY: On the local homestead exemptions as

19 well?

20

MR. BROWN: We can break that down if you would like

21 to, su:re.

22

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Let's take it by steps.

23

MR. BROWN: Okay. (a)(l) I guess is where we are at

24 that point.

25

MR. DAVIS: Basically what you're saying in layman's

PAGE 42

terms is the constitution just allow for the General Assembly

2 to enact a statute --

3

MR. BROWN: Subject to a referendum,

4

MR. DAVIS: Requiring two-thirds of the people who

5 vote on it?

6

MR. BROWN: That I s right.

7

MR. NEWMAN: Is that a change from present law?

8

MR. BROWN: I think as far as the actual granting of

9 exemptions it's almost identical. The difference is that

"

10 we'll be able to deal with details of the exemptions. the

Czl

11

i=
.'"0".".

procedure and administration just by regular law whereas now

~@r~ ~12 '" most often we have to amend. go back and amend the constitutioI . Again. I think it would just provide a streamlined

! 14 process while maintaining the same safeguards as are now built

I-

:'"r

15 into the constitution.

Cl

:':">

16 .lzD..

MR. HENRY: Do you think Chairman Castleberry would

0z

17 'lD" think that the Governor should not have the right to veto

18 even the local homestead exemptions? In other words, he feels

19 by policy neither one would be subject, but there would be the

20 option. the committee would have the option of saying as to a

21 general law. exemption the Governor could not veto, but as to a

22 local law option he could?

23

MR. BROWN: That would certainly be within the

24 prerogative of the subcommittee.

25

I do believe, although I didn't ask him that

PAGE 43

question specifically, I do believe his comment to me about

2 the veto related to any law proposing a property tax exemption

3 but certainly you could discriminate if the subcommittee so

4 desires. That would not change the current method of doing

5 this; constitutional amendments, local or general, are not now

6 subject to the Governor's veto, so it would not be taking any

7 power away from the Governor that he presently has.

8

MR. DAVIS: Don prefers it that way? Is that what

9 you're saying? The veto would not be permissible on this?

10

MR. BROWN: Yes.

CzI

11 j:
..'o"....

MR. KANE: Canter, I believe we probably discussed

~ 12 ~ it, I want you to confirm it, that your feeling is that a

~F~ legislator who wanted to have an exemption added would most

! 14 ... likely go through the statutory route rather thaIl the

'"

:I:

15 ~ constitutional amendment route because he --

CI

'";;;)

16 .~..

MR. BROWN: I believe they would .

zQ

17 ~

MR. KANE: Because the process is exac~ly the same?

18

MR. BROWN: As we discussed before, you know, you

19 cannot tell what any individual member of the General Assembly

20 is doing, and I do not believe there's any way you can

21 prohibit or limit him in the constitution from proposing

22 another amendment.

23

I do think that at least as long as the present

24 leadership of the Senate and House is there that certainly if

25 this language was adopted they wo~ encourage as strongly as

PAGE 44

they could that this procedure be followed.

2

I think once it had been tried and proved workable

3 that the tendency would be just to utilize this.

4

MR. MASSEY: The referendum I assume would be in

5 the--

6

MR. BROWN: That is a change that this does not

7 require that the referendum be held at the general election

8 held every two years. Most states don't even require their 9 constitutional amendments be voted on that way. This would 10 permit a special referendum.

I had suggested to you that I personally felt that

would make it more difficult to get an amendment approved by the voters because it would tend to isolate that amendment

and draw more attention to it.

MR. MASSEY: Each act would specify when the

referendum would be? Is that the way it would be?

MR. BROWN: It's the process as I know you know,

18 and most of the other members of the subcommittee when we

19 already handle numerous matters by local law subject to

20 referendum there's stock language that has already been used

21 and it's been tested for years to establish the mechanism for

22 the referendum.

23

MR. DAVIS: When you specify in 2 about the local

24 amendments, jurisdictions may be granted by local law, you're

25 not requiring a two-thirds vote?

PAGE 45

MR. BROWN: Right. I'll explain.

2

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Let's hold that one, Jim,

3 if you will, until we

4

MR. DAVIS: Somebody was talking about local. I

5 thought we were on that.

6

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Okay, Let's see if we can't

7 get beyond (a) (1). Is there any problem with that?

8

All right. Let's assume that one is all right and

9 go on.

10
;'

MR, BROWN: If we could, you might want to consider

1:1

11

Z
...~ooc:
Q.

at that point the question of the veto,

~ 12 ~

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I guess we would have to to

~Fi ! 14 I'<"l :J: 15 ~ 1o:c1: :;)
16 .~..

get beyond it. Is there any problem with leaving it like theway it
is regarding the Governor's veto? I won't ask if there's anybody present opposed to

Cl
Z
17 :<:li giving the Governor more power, we won't phrase it that way,

18 We'll just say is there any need to consider a modification

19 of the present situation?

20

Okay.

21

MR, HENRY: Professor Blount, did this committee want

22 to go ahead and approve as you go along the recommendations?

23

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I guess this is all very

24 tentative. We may get to something below there that requires

25 us to undo all this, but I'did want to kind of keep it step by

PAGE 46

step as we go.

2

MR. HILL: Larry. the present way we operate pro-

3 hibits the Governor from vetoing. That's that you intend to

4 incorporate in here? That's what you meant?

5

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: That's right.

6

Jim. you had some question?

7

MR. BROWN: The question of the two-thirds vote.

8

MR. DAVIS: Was that required for a local --

9

MR. BROWN: I didn't do that in this draft for two

10 reasons.

1.7 Z
11 ;: a: .oa...
@;i

One, by permitting it to be all done by local law you're adding a requirement, and that is that the proposed amendment be advertised prior to its introduction in the

! 14 General Assembly. That is a requirement generally applicable I:'"r
15 ,l) to local legislation. The requirement is that it be published 1a.7: ::J
16 ~... once a week for three consecutive weeks within sixty days Q
Z
17 : prior to the date of introduction. That's just done with all

18 local legislation now other than local constitutional

19 amendments.

20

I believe that unless you change the language that I

21 suggested that that advertising requirement would be applicabll

22 to this.

23

On the other hand. local constitutional amendments

24 and local laws are handled in the General Assembly different

25 from other types of legislation; it's handled by a rule known

PAGE 47

as the local courtesy rule, that is that if a local delegation

2 agrees to a bill affecting that local delegation almost

3 without exception the General Assembly just simply approveS

4 it; it's handled on a special calendar at special times, and

5 it just goes through.

6

Now, there tends to be two exceptions to that rule

7 at times. One is the question of annexation at times,

8 particularly if related to the City of Atlanta; the other is

9 alcoholic beverage legislation. But as far as I know-all, or

10 almost all other forms of legislation on a local basis are

11

"z
~

handled by

local

courtesy.

'..o"....

@;I I'm not aware of any delegation rule that requires a two-thirds approval of the delegation be -- Now, if the

! 14 majority plus one of the local delegation approves it, it's

1;;
:z:
15 01) going to pass, and I just felt like the two-thirds vote

":':">

16 ~... requirement was really superfluous because of that, but as I a

Z 17 :;

say,

even though you're eliminating that you are adding one

18 relatively minor additional requirement which is the require-

19 ment of advertising.

20

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Any other - -?

21

MR. HENRY: I would like to bring up one thing,

22 it's just a concern I've beard expressed in my work on local

23 constitutional amendments, and especially with respect to

24 the property tax exemptions, it's that if you make the

25 procedure easier which I think you're doing that it's easy

PAGE 48

for the local delegation to grant the homestead exemption,

2 and I certainly don't want to speak for the county

3 commissioners, but then the county commissioners have to live

4 with that erosion of their tax base and have to raise taxes

5 in other ways to get the same amotmt of money, and you're

6 really putting the burden at the local level, and the

7 legislators look good because they have granted this exemption

8 and then the local government people have to come back and

9 raise taxes in order to take ~- to make up the loss of

10 revenue that they have realized from that exemption,

CzJ

11 I-
.'o"
<L

MR, BROWN: The only problem with that, Mike, is

~ 12 ~ that members of the General Assembly, the local delegation are

(@}J~ not granting anybody an exemption, the voters are granting it

! 14 I-

to themselves.

That's presently the case, and under the

':"r

15 .:l proposal that I've made to you that would continue to be the

CJ
'":;)
16 ~
Q
z

case,

17 :

In either event it's still the local delegation

18 that's proposing it, and I'm not aware of anything you could

19 do in the constitution that changes that, tm1ess just local

20 amendments are generally prohibited, they always have the

21 authority to come back and propose an amendment subject to

22 a referendum to do that. This language I have suggested 23 doesn't change that at all, and in the final analysis it's 24 the voter that's granting that exemption to himself.

25

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Let me ask a question about

PAGE 49

whether this subparagraph 2 could in effect erode the state

2 tax base for the general state tax purposes.

3

MR. BROWN: If you will look at the specific language

4 there I attempted to avoid that by limiting the language to

5 taxes levied by local taxing jurisdictions. It would not

6 apply to the state quarter mill.

7

Currently if a proposed local constitutional

8 amendment does purport to apply to state taxation it is

9 required to be voted on statewide.

10

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I understand expressly it

11

zCJ
j:

doesn't,

directly

it

does.

..'0"....

12 '" it may have that effect?

Is there any way indirectly that

@rl

MR. BROWN: On local homestead exemptions or local

! 14 ... exemptions from taxation you do have an indirect affect upon

15

':"r
.:

the state financial posture,

and that is through our

CJ
'"::> 16 .'z".. educational funding formula.

zCl
17 ''""

If you tend to have local exemptions since we key

18 the participation to the mill rate and certain other factors

,.

19 you tend to be rewarded for giving yourself exemptions.

"

20 I honestly don't know how you can handle that as part of this.

21

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Anything else?

22

MR. DAVIS: I really wonder why Mike considers this

23 language to make it easier than currently. You know, just

24 personally it seems to me the same procedure is really to be

25 carried out as is currently, it's just it would be a law

PAGE 50

you would be voting on as opposed to a constitutional

2 amendment. Is that difference alone why you think it's

3 easier?

4

MR. HENRY: It does go through by local couresty,

5 t understand you still require two-thirds vote on it.

6

MR. BROWN: That vote is automatic.

7

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: But it is required.

8

MR. BlOWN: Yes, it is, as with any constitutional

9 amendment.

10

MR. DAVIS: What I said, as long as they're going to

practice the focal courtesy rule it's going to be easy any way

you do it unless the Governor can veto it, or the only other

option I can see is to increase the approval requirement from

a majority of the electorate to something else. You know,

fifty-point-one-percent of the peo~le or forty-nine-point-

nine percent of the electorate can not want it but they get

it anyway when you talk about a majority of the people.

18

MR. HENRY: Who is going to object to having their

19 taxes lowered, though?

20

MR. DAVIS: The people they're going to be shifted

21 to, like you said earlier. An exemption is not a reduction,

22 it's a shift. All of them are.

23

DR, o'KELLEY: And the governing bodies would have

24 to raise it, the money to support the budget, and that means

25 it's put on someone else.
-~---------------

PAGE 51

MR. DAVIS: Like I said, it~ a shift.

2

He asked who would vote against it. Depending on

3 how it's worded, most peop!e would vote against it if you

4 were talking about an exemption, but somewhere along the line

5 this requires education which doesn't happen very often to 4n

6 adequate level locally, and you're voting on exemptions, and

7 really the majority of the populace that are voting on it are

8 probably going to be the ones that's getting the shift

9 because most exemptions are through a minority of the

10 population unless it's a general homestead.

"z

11 ~
'o.."....

MR. BROWN: Again I think you have to look at the

@;I context in which you discussed it. Is there anything you can do in the constitution to prohibit it from being done in

! 14 .... exactly the way it's done now, and there isnlt. There is no

':"r

15

.:l
":'")

way.

16 .~..
az

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I guess the only thing --

17 ::i Go ahead.

18

MR. RICKETTS: We appreciate your concern, Mike.

19 It's true local governments aren't wild about exemptions, but

20 comparing what is being dlscussed to what we have now in terms

21 of practical considerations there really is no difference.

22 I mean it's the same process.

23

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: It would be your opinion that

24 the presence or absence of a General Assembly requirement 25 doesn't make much difference because if it's required it's

PAGE 52

going to be automatic?

2

MR. RICKETTS: I'm saying as Ed Sumner pointed out

3 you could have a requirement for a unanimous vote under local

4 courtesy rules and, you know, if you have ever watched that

5 proces. up there the vote is made up -- you know, it's 123

6 to 14.

7

MR. BROWN: I think there is a small advantage to you

8 local officials, county officials in the new process in that

9 by requiring it to be advertised they're at least on notice

10 that it's the intention of the local delegation to do that.

11

'z"
l-

There

is no requirement now.

...oe<
0-

@ ; j In fact, I have known of instances wh~re legislators for one reason or another preferred the local officials not

! 14 to know until it already happened. I'm sure all of those.

I-

'"

:J:

15 people are not now in the General Assembly, but --

'e"<
:>

16 ~...

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Yes?

Q

z

17 ~

MR. DAVIS: I would like to havesome reaction to

18 what I mentioned about changing it from just a majority of

19 the qualified voters.

20

MR. HILL: The only problem with imposing a higher

21 standard here than we already have, and that would be raising

22 the approval rate to say two-thirds of the people voting or

23 to allow the Governor to veto these is that if the General

24 Assembly has a harder time on this way they go back to local

25 amendments, and they're more or less locked in to what's here

PAGE 53

to prevent them from -- you know. they may anyway even though

2 it's the same process. there's nothing to prevent them unless

3 we can in some way tackle that local amendment problem some

4 other way. but at least for now we have to assume that local

5 amendments are going to be allowed. so to impose any higher

6 standard here would just take you back to the local amendment

7 route.

8

MR. DAVIS: Even though the General Assembly members

9 would still have the authority at their level to provide their

10 voters this opportunity to grant themselves exemptions you

11

"z
j:

think they would balk at requiring the electorate themselves

'o.G".o.

(

~ 12 ~ a higher standard?

~ri14 ! I'"

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: That's a good point. MR. HILL: They've still got the right to provide

15

:J:
~

for their people, you know, we're going to raise them from

"'"::;)

16 ~... 2,000 to 12.000 for Bibb County.

oz 17 :

MR. DAVIS: Do you think they would balk in saying

18 but two-thirds of Bibb County voters have to want it. not

19 just 50.1 percent?

20

MR. BROWN: Very seldom in Georgia would you get a

21 turnout of fifty percent of the registered voters anyway,

22 and I think I can guarantee you that if the legislator is

23 faced with the almost near certainty that he's going to

24 propose something or a majority of those voting are going to

25 approve it, that only 49.8 percent turn out. he's going to

PAGE 54

propose a local constitutional amendment, he just doesn't 2 need to go through the hassle.

3

We've already had the requirement of him having to

4 advertise to do this anyway, he's just going to say '~ell,

5 hell, it doesn't matter to me, I'm going to take the easy

6 way, I'm going to take the credit for that exemption, I'm

7 not going to let my opponent come back and say 'Well, you

8 got' to choose which way you did it,' II he's just going to take 9 advantage of it, so we'll have all this stuff put right back

10
Czl 11 i=
@;;'o" <L '"

in the constitution. MR. HENRY: What about two-thirds of those voting? MR. BROWN: Again you've got a local constitutional
amendment, you need fifty percent of those voting. He is not

14 ;... going to opt for a process that requires him to have a greater

'"

:I:
15 .:I

or more strict level I don't believe.

Cl

:':">

16 ~

Generally people who propose these amendments

Qz 17 :

consider themselves to be in line for a great deal of

18 popularity at home, and they're not going to make it any

19 tougher on themselves, I can promise you that.

.1
20

Again, I defer to Jay Ricketts and Ed Sumner who

21 have had a lot of experience with this, but I think they

22 would agree with me.

23

MR. DAVIS; I agree with you too, but that was

24 one -- I just thought maybe there should be something that

25 makes it a little tougher.

PAGE 55

MR.. BROWN: Again I think the way to handle it, I

2 think there's a lot of sentiment in the General Assembly for

3 a more coordinated approach to granting these exemptions,

4 but that is better addressed as a procedural matter of how

5 they are handled in the General Assembly and, you know,

6 you've always got this alternative in Georgia of local

7 amendment, and as long as you've got that any other process

8 you create in the constitution needs to be as streamlined as

9 possible while still providing the same safeguards.

10

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Dave, did you --?

CzI

11 j:
...oa:
0..

MR.. KANE: I have a fundamental question I hope is

~

12

~

not too fundamental,

realizing we're drafting a
!

constitution

and not a binding indenture where we have to define terms
@ ~r~14! precisely, but I know there has been some difficulty in

~

'"

J:

15 ~ understanding or at least interpreting what a general law is

Ca:I

:::>

16 .~.. under Paragraph III of the present constitution. Is there

oz

17 ::: any similar, or will there be any similar difficulty in

18 interpreting the term local law?

19

MR. BROWN: The constitution specifically addresses

20 itself to

21

MR.. KANE: Where is that, Canter?

22

MR. HILL: In Article XII establishing the heir-

23 archy.

24

MR.. KANE: Okay.

25

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Anything else on this

PAGE 56

subparagraph?

2

MR. BROWN: One of the practical effects of this

3 would be that the cost of the referendum would be shifted to

4 the local government rather than the state.

5

MR. HENRY: Because you're not having a local

6 constitutional amendment?

7

MR. BROWN: Not necessarily. I think that generally,

8 you know, there are a bunch of provisions like this all

9 through the constitution now changing the method of selection

10 of the school board, the number of people on the school board,

changing a lot of things to do with the county commission.

As a practical matter what they're trying to do now

is to schedule it with another election that's already going

to be held.

MR. HENRY: I see.

MR. BROWN: And, you know, they don't like to go

home and be bawled out for causing a special election. This

18 would just permit some flexibility, if they want to handle it

19 in the primary they can; if they want to face the criticism

20 of having the expense of a special election they can, but it

21 gives them that flexibility rather than just requiring it

22 every two years in a general election, but there are a lot

23 of provisions already in the constitution that are the same

24 as that.

25

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I think from our perspective

PAGE 57

we're working with a trade-off. We're trying to do what we

2 can to buy our way out of this local amendment process,

3 youknow, and I think we can keep that in mind as we go.

4

Anything else on Subparagraph (2)?

5

All right.

6

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, again on that (2), just

7 very briefly, you have the question of the Governor's veto.

8 Now, as I mentioned earlier it's my understanding that

9 Chairman Castleberry would prefer for the status of the

10 Governor's veto to remain the same as it presently is, which

11

"z
l-

would be that these laws so long as they're subject to the

.oe...<..

~ 12 ~ referendum requirement not be subject to the Governor's veto.

~F~! VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Any reaction to that? Is 14 there any need to change the present practice regarding it?

l-

on

<

J:
15

I think by consensus we will proceed.

"e<
::>

16 .~..

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman .

Q

Z

< 17 ::;

In Paragraph III here you will note that I have

18 specified that bills that are subject to referendum proposing

19 exemptions may originate in either the House or the Senate.

20 The reason for that again is to maintain the same posture as

21 is presently the case.

22

The constitution in Article III prohibits the

23 origination of bills relating to the raising of revenue or

24 making appropriations in the Senate, bills may not be

25 introduced there; however, proposed amendments to the

PAGE 58

constitution may, so this language would just maintain the

2 present posture which is that these particular types of bills

3 could originate in either house. I think it's a safeguard in

4 terms of getting the proposal through the Senate and it's very

5 important.

6

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Any reaction?

7

Let's go on.

8

MR. BROWN: Okay. We have a problem -- Georgia has

9 traditionally not done a very good job of codifying its laws.

'.,'

10 For the last 27 years, for instance, we haven't had a re-

zCl
11 I-
.'l0>"...
~r~ @~ 12 '" 14 ! lV> :<rl 15 .:>
Cl
:':">
16 zlD
Q z
<l
17 '"lD

codification of the Code of Georgia. We're in the process right now of doing that, it will be considered at the same special session this constitution is considered at. It's anticipated that periodically thereafter the code will be officially recodified and maintained.
I didn't believe that you would want every time we recodify the code to require a new referendum on these

18 exemptions, so I included a provision here which would say

19 that as long as all the law is doing is codifying or re-

20 codifying and the amendment has been previously authorized

21 then it's not subject to referendum requirement.

22

I think that really is important, it will save a lot

23 of prob lems in the future.

24

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Any reaction?

25

We're moving right along.

PAGE 59

MR. BROWN: Okay. Subparagraph (b) there is just

2 the general language, the same type of language we use all

3 through the constitution to make sure we can implement these

4 exemptions by law, a set of procedures and limitations,

5 administrative details by law.

6

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: All right. I guess we had

7 some dialogue on that one before. Any reaction?

8

Okay.

9

MR. BROWN: Mel has suggested on that Paragraph (b)

10 that we add where it says shall be subject to the conditions

Czl
11 j: and limitations -- add some language which would say ..'o."...

~ 12 ~ conditions, limitations and administrative procedures just to

~~@r~ make it clear that you can deal with it administratively.

14!

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Any discussion? Any problem

I-

U:z>:

15 ~ with that addition?

Cl

:':">

16 .~..

Okay .

Q

Z
17 ::i

MR. BROWN: Okay. All of this language that you see

18 struck now on pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 are

19 all exemptions that will be grandfathered in on our last

20 paragraph and they will no longer be necessary in the

21 constitution.

22

Now, on page 16 the new Paragraph III there attemptec

23 to deal

24

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Canter, let me stop you for a

25 moment. There may have been a couple of people as I recall

PAGE 60

who might have had some special interest with respect to some

2 of these in there -- maybe not. I might be thinking about

3 Massey's concern about farm products and --

4

MR. MASSEY: This may be a good point to mention

5 that. You may have some idea my concern was about the type

6 of--

7

MR. BROWN: It would be handled the same.

8

MR. MASSEY: I want to be sure that this Paragraph

9 V, you know, doesn't lock it in the '76 way. One way might be

10 since you're going to mention homestead exemptions might be to

11

Czl i=

say and farm products

in that provision or something, but I

.'oQ"...

@;I want to be sure we get some language in that will relate back to the '45 constitution and not the '76 constitution, which I

! 14 think is very important.

I-
UI
<l: :l:
15 .:I

MR. BROWN: Before we get into the specifics of

Cl
'";;;) 16 .~.. that, if I could make Chairman Castleberry's recommendation
o

Z

<l:
17 :

to you,

I

think based on your comments at the last meeting if

18 that suggestion is adopted it will solve your problems, put

19 them on an equal footing, and as I mentioned earlier in

20 comparing these very few exemptions which are mandated in

21 the constitution with those which are permissive I had

22 recommended to you, and it was Chairman Castleberry's personal

23 feeling that these mandated exemptions should be put on the 24 same footing as all other exemptions, that would be that they

25 be grandfathered into law but not maintained otherwise in the

PAGE 61

constitution.

2

If you did agree with that, it's my understanding

3 that that would solve Abit's concern as well, it would put

4 both the agricultural exemption on the same footing.

5

MR. MASSEY: I'm not sure it would though, Canter,

6 with the '76 language unless that can be corrected.

7

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I think we would have to

8 impact the language as we grandfathered it in. Is that not

9 right?

10

MR. BROWN: As we discussed at last meeting, I think

11

"z
i=
...oa:
Q.

that can be handled with a

technical amendment in the revenue

~ 12 ~ code provisos.

~F~

MR.. HENRY: And also your concern is that if we

! 14 adopt, if this goes into the constitution as it's stated in

I-

V:zI:

15 ~ here with that comma where it is it would distort the meaning

"a:
::>

16 .~.. of that provision, and the official version I think does not

cz

17 ::i have that comma in it in the Georgia laws.

18

MR. MASSEY: The laws don't, the '45 constitution

19 don't, but the '76 constitution does, and I want to be sure

20

MR. BROWN: I think if you'll adopt this the way

21 the revenue code is written now, if that's a problem that

22 can be technically revised. I think you're taken care of in

23 the revenue code. We're automatically --

24

MR. MASSEY: If that could be done -- it may never

25 arise, but if that could be done and the records of the

PAGE 62

commission or something would show that that was the intent 2 I think that's

3

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: If that pleases you, Abit,

4 we will go ahead.

5

MR. BROWN: As I say, Mr. Chairman, Chairman

6 Castleberry would like to recommend to you that Paragraph III

7 be deleted with the understanding that all of these exemptions

8 would be covered in the grandfather clause, and that there

9 simply would be no section on mandated exemptions, state

10 taxation.

CzI 11 j:
.'o.."...
e);~j

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Reaction to that? All right. So be it. MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr, Chairman.

14 .~..

We're down now -- we're getting very close, we're

'"

:I:

15 .:I down to freeport.

CI

'":::l

16 .~..

Earlier Mel distributed to you a one-page legal

Q

Z

17 : size draft, a proposed revision of the freeport law. At your

18 last meeting you had instructed your staff and I to get

19 together with representatives of the Georgia Municipal

20 Association and the Association of County Commissioners of

21 Georgia to study the possibility of eliminating language which

22 could responsibly be handled by statute while maintaining the

23 important guarantees that are now in the freeport law.

24

We did hold a meeting and we did review the

25 provision. I think it was the general consensus at that

PAGE 63

meeting that there were three fundamental things contained in

2 the present freeport amendment which for one reason or another

3 should be maintained.

4

One was the general grant of authority to local

5 governments to grant these exemptions rather than permitting

6 them to be granted by law. That is very important to the

7 local governments.

8

The second important principle was that the

9 exemptions be granted by the local officials, but only subject

10 to a referendum.

1.7

Z

11 l-

The third was the present protection for those

ol..l..<..

~ 12 ~ industries who are granted exemptions, being that after an

~ri! exemption is approved a referendum cannot be held for five 14 years to repeal that exemption, and if it is repealed that

l-

ll>
:z:

15 oll the repeal itself cannot take effect for an additional five

1.7

ll<

::l

16 .~.. years .

Q

Z

17 ::i

What we have done in the draft which is here listed

18 as Paragraph IV is to write those three principles into the

19 constitution and permit the General Assembly to handle every-

20 thing else by statute.

21

You notice that here again we have added a provision

22 automatically writing into statute everything that's in the

23 constitution, we have done that with this language, and this

24 is found at (a)(3) there right in the middle of the page,

25 the second sentence, "Until otherwise provided by law, the

PAGE 64
grant of the exemption shall be subject to the same conditions, limitations, definitions, and procedures provided for the grant of such exemption in the constitution of 1976 on June 30, 1983."
As we previously discussed, that date is the date immediately preceding the effective date of the new constitution, and we feel that if the subcommittee is amenable that this will protect the fundamentals upon which the granting of freeport is based. It will also permit a great deal of flexibility by law to provide for implementation and administration.
VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Mel, did you have any additional thoughts?
MR. HILL: No. ~m. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, one additional thing I would like to point out. I had not meant to say that either the Association of County Commissioners or the Municipal Association had committed themselves to this language. Their representatives I bhink were initially satisfied with the language. It certainly was their right at length to review it and make comments. VICE CHAIm-1AN BLOUNT: Jim? MR. DAVIS: Canter. do you think Subparagraph (3) that you just read wholly contains and will put into law the current mechanics as the constitution now outlines?

PAGE 65

MR. BROWN: I do, and it would be my intent if it

2 appears as though this is going to be approved prior to the

3 effective date of the constitution to have already written it

4 into law in a general proviso to the revenue code to implement

5 all this new article in the revenue code, so as I say I think

6 the understanding was that this would already be in place in

7 the law pnor to the effective date of the constitution.

8

There is at present nothing in the general law

9 dealing with freeport, it's completely handled in the

10 constitution.

CzI 11 I-

MR. DAVIS: My main concern goes back to the fact

.'o."....

~ 12 ~ the constitution, all you refer to is inventories, goods in

~Fi! process and inventory of finished goods, and it doesn't really 14 delineate like the current constitution does what you're

I-
'-"
:r
15 ~ talking about.

CI

:':">

16 .~..

MR. BROWN: As you know, those terms are specificall~

Q

-Z 17 ::;

defined in the constitution.

We had intended by the inclusion

18 of the word definitions in that grandfather provision to make

19 clear that every term that's defined in the present freeport

20 amendment would continue to be defined in that way until it

21 was otherwise provided by law.

22

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Anything further?

23

Does it please the subcommittee that we would

24 substitute this language for that which was originally

25 proposed to us for consideration?

PAGE 66

So be it.

2

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, there is one other

3 paragraph in this proposed Paragraph IV. We have a provision

4 authorizing local exemptions for solar energy heat and

5 cooling systems and equipment used in the manufacture of them.

6 That exemption is presently scheduled to expire July 1st,

7 1986, which unless changed would mean it would only be in the

8 constitution for three years, and consequently I suggested

9 in Paragraph (b) there that we just simply grandfather it in

10 and then automatically repeal it as of the same date. I

zCI

.11

i=
.'o"..

think it saves

a

little space in the constitution and will

e;~

serve the purpose just the same. VICE CHAIRMAN BLOu~T:

Is there any need to

! 14 ... consider an alternative approach regarding that?

'"

:I:

15 .:>

MR. HENRY: What was that again. Canter? You're

CI

'"::>

16 .~.. going to put it in, then repeal it the day it's approved?

13

Z

17 :

MR. BROWN: As you will note in Subparagraph (b)

18 there. the last sentence itself automatically repeals it.

19

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: It requires no affirmative

20 action.

21

MR. BROWN: Just in terms of organization. that's

22 why I put it at the end so we can add a new (b) if we ever

23 need to. It will just be gone after that date.

24

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Any further questions?

25

All right. So be it on that one.

PAGE 67

MR. BROWN: Hr. Chairman, we are down to the final

2 paragraph in the draft, and I think it's one that you had

3 indicated you wanted to possibly suggest some changes to,

4 and one that I did as well. This is our grandfather provision.

5

It was my intent in proposing this langpage to make

6 clear that every single e~mption from ad valorem taxation

7 that is presently contained in Article VII of the constitution

8 of 1976 be continued until otherwise provided by law. It

9 would be continued under the same conditions, limitations,

10 procedures or whatever until otherwise provided by law.

"z
11 i=

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I think I wanted to jus t

o..'"....

@;I assure you and caution the committee that if for some reason Paragraph V comes unglued in the minds of people who have to

! 14 ... react to this, then everything we have done prior to this is

':~"r

15 ~ effectively unglued as well.

1:1

'"::;)

16 .~..

}~. BROWN: That's true .

Q

Z

~

17 :

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I wanted to make sure that

18 we had full appreciation for that fact. I don't personally

19 have a problem with the utility or the effectiveness of this

20 paragraph, I just wanted everyone to understand full well that

21 if for some reason there was a problem with it, it would

22 undermine critically everything we've done to this point.

23

MR. BROWN: The one change I had wanted to suggest

24 to you, in looking at this language as it's presently written

25 it says property which is wholly or partially exempt from

PAGE 68
/
ad valorem taxation on the effective date of this constitution

2 including but not limited to homestead property, shall continuE

3 to be so exempted until otherwise provided for by law.

4

It appeared to me that you might could argue on that

5 language that it addresses not only types of propertYt but

6 also specific parcels. For instance, something that's used as

7 a home right now is exempt partially. Say it was converted

8 into a business, it would cease to be exempted and should be

9 taxed. It appeared to me you could argue here that that

10 property related to that specific piece of property, and I

would like to suggest to you that the language be changed to

read types of property, and that the singular "is" on the

second line there be changed to "are." I think that will

clear up any question that you're not referring to specific

parcels of property. you're referring to types of;1property

which qualify for exemption.

MR.. MASSEY: I think that's a good change. Let me

18 ask you this. since you're covering fifteen or twenty pages

19 or whatever in here, why single out homestead property?

20 Could that be dropped? Is there some reason that needs to be

21 in there?

22

MR. BROWN: I think it could. I'll tell you why I

23 included that. I was just afraid somebody was going to

24 misunderstand what this article was doing and tell voters

25 that you can take away their homestead exemption. and I put

PAGE 69

it in solely for the purpose of pointing out that that wasn't

2 the case. That's the only reason.

3

MR. MASSEY: I would hate to see us list one when

4 you're referring to whatever large number, mention one and not

5 others. I would rather see it come out.

6

MR. BROWN: The only reason I put it in was the one

7 I mentioned to you, just to have something in there to make

8 clear to voters you're not takingaway their homestead

9 exemption, and it serves no purpose other than that.

10

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Further reaction on Abit's

"z

@;;11

~
..'o"....

point?

It does kind of stick out there with the prominence

that might suggest more than actually is the case,

On the other side there is the reality that some-

14 .~.. body who wants to run against this thing could raise that red

'<"I(

:I:

15 ~ herring.

":'>"

16 ~ ~z

MR. MASSEY: I think it also lends a tendency

<I(

17 :; somewhere down the line to add something else to it, you know,

18 "I'm concerned about something else in there, let's put mine

19 in there," and I think you would be more apt to get changes

20 with one in there than

21

MR. HILL: Canter, it's a matter of drafting, I

22 guess.

23

MR. BROWN: I don'tthink it would harm the integrity

24 of the article to delete that language at all. Again, the one

25 and only reason, I just didn't want people to think you would

PAGE 70

take away their homestead exemption.

2

MR. HILL: I was wondering why we don't use the term

3 all tax exemptions existing on the effective date. I know it

4 probably says the same thing here, but if we use some all

5 inclusive term that the average person when they read it would

6 feel more comfortable with it. maybe that would help.

7

MR. BROWN: What I had originally been trying to

8 draft is I was trying to do it from that approach, and the

9 problem I ran into was how to phrase it for partial exemptions

10 In other words, homestead exemptions are not an exemption from

11

"z
j:
'o.Q"...

property

tax,

they

only

exempt

up

to

a

specified amount

of

~ 12 ~ value. and I just had problems working in that concept.

~FI

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Why don 1 t you simply say all

! 14 exemptions in whole or part from ad valorem taxation?

~

':<"rl

15 .:.

MR. BROWN: That would be fine.

"'";;)

16 .~..

MR. KANE: You see, an exemption of property refers

Q

Z

<l

17 :; to the net defined property which is exempt, and I don't see

18 what's the problem with saying all exemptions now in effect

19 will continue in effect. I don't see why you need to qualify

20 that.

21

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I think it would preclude

22 altogether the problem you had with the use of the word

23 property as opposed to taxable property.

24

What is it, just say all exemptions in whole or in

25 part from --

PAGE 71

MR. HILL: From ad valorem taxation.

2

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: I think you need the whole

3 or part. I don't know whether we need to --

4

MR. KANE: I don't think you need that.

5

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: -- to bog the committee down.

6

How do you want it to look, Dave?

7

MR. KANE: I think Mel's suggestion was

8

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOu'NT: Let's have it, Mel.

9

MR. HILL: All exemptions from ad valorem taxation.

10

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Yes.

',>
"z
11 j:
.'o."....
9;1

MR. BROWN: In effect on the MR. HILL: On July 1, 1983. MR. BROWN: In effect on July 1 --

! 14

MR. HENRY: Didn't you want to use the date prior to

!;;

<I(

%

15 .:l the effective date?

"'~"

16 .~..

MR. BROWN: Yeah, that's right, June 30th .

az

<I(

17 :

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: It should be June 30th.

18

MR. HILL: We sure do.

19

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Thanks, Mike.

20

MR. BROWN: It would read all exemptions from ad

21 valorem taxation in effect on June 30th, 1983, shall --

22

Again, I'm worried there, here a guy has got an

23 exemption on his house, and you're saying that exemption

24 should remain in effect.

25

MR. DAVIS: What you're trying to address is the

PAGE 72 provisions for exemptions that are currently in effect shall continue; you're trying to turn them into law.
The way we're wording it it can be construed to mean my personal exemption that I qualify for on June 30th, '86, and I may not qualify for a year from now, but according to this it's locked in forever.
MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, could I make a reconunendation here that you instruct your staff and I and David and whoever else to look at this long and carefully and recommend some revised language to you at your next meeting?
VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Yes, We're going to have to have another meeting, and this is important enough I think
MR. BROWN: This is the key as you pointed out. MR. HENRY: Maybe we can get a declaratory judgment on this as well. MR. KANE: Effectively we're going to adopt the old constitution and let it -VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Yeah, that's it. We don't want to take anything away as a matter of stylistic editing from the people. I think that is the best approach regarding that one, and I guess it seems now that we have got a need for another meeting to consider the two issues related to classification of property that Dr. O'Kelley and Mr. Davis pointed out; also the Paragraph V here, Something tells me there was one more matter that

PAGE 73

we made note of.

2

MR. BROWN: The bank taxation.

3

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: That's right, the bank shares

4 tax.

5

Those four issues I think we need to reflect upon a

6 little more, we need to direct the appropriate~affs and

7 interested individuals to come back with some direction for

8 us, and also some proposed language.

9

Now we need to schedule the date. Apparently

10 August 22 is not a good date, and that was the reason we

Czl 11 j:
@;;..Io..X..

changed it to the 15th. Is there a suggestion? Let me suggest the 29th. Will that work? MR.. HILL: That is the Friday before Labor Day

! 14 ... which is all right with us, but I don't know whether the

'"

:r

15 ~ committee would agree.

Cl

IX

;;;)

16 .~..

MR. DAVIS: We could move it up in the week .

cz

17 :

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: The 28th or the 27th,

18

MR.. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have already got two

19 meetings on the 27th.

20

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: The 28th?

21

MR. BROWN: That would be okay with me.

22

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: Would the 28th work with

23 everyone? Thursday, August 28th, 9:30 a,m,

24

I guess the room will be announced with the notice

25 of the meeting.

PAGE 74

MR. HILL: It, will be this room.

2

VICE CHAIRMAN BLOUNT: It will be this room.

3

Anything else?

4

Thank you. We are adjourned.

5

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the subcommittee meeting

6 was adj ourned . )

7

8

9

',.

10

\:l Z
.11 I.'0"..

12 '"

erl

14 ~

lv> <l :I:
15 ~

\:l

'"::>

16

III
.Z..

Q

Z <l
'" 17 III

18

+++
++
+

"

19

20

21

22

23

24-

25

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VII Subcommittee Meeting Held on Aug. 15, 1980

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 8-15-80
Proceedings. pp. 3-5
SECTION I: POWER OF TAXATION Paragraph III: Uniformity; classification of property, assessment of
agricultural land; utilities. pp. 5-37 Uniformity. pp. 5-10. 34-36 Classification of prpperty. pp. 10-34 Public utilities. pp. 36-37
SECTION II: EXEMPTIONS FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION Paragraph II: Exemptions from taxation of property. pp. 37-62 Paragraph III: Exemptions which may be authorized locally. pp. 62-67 Paragraph IV: Current property tax exemptions preserved. pp. 67-72

PAGE 1

2

3

STATE OF GEORGIA

4

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VII

5

OF THE

6

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

7

8

9

10
Czl 11 I-
.'oQ"...
~ 12 ~
(@)/~
! 14 I'-"0( :z:
15 ~
Cl
:'>" 16 .~..
Q Z -0(
17 ::i

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PURPOSES AND METHODS OF TAXATION

18

19

20

21 Room 402 State Capitol
22 Atlanta. Georgia
23 Friday. September 5. 1980 10:00 a.m.
24

25

PRESENT;

2

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

3

CHAIRMAN JAMES F. MARTIN

SENATOR AL HOLLOWAY

4

MR. ROBERT NASH

MR. W. E. STRICKLAND

5

MR. LYHDON WADE

REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE WILLIAMSON

6

7
8
9
10 Czl
11 j:
.'o0"...
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 ~ IUI :~z: 15 .:J Cl '"::l 16 .~.. Q Z ~ 17 :

ALSO PRESENT:
MELVIN B. HILL, Jr. MICHAEL HENRY VICKIE GREENBERG EMORY PARRISH JERRY GRIFFIN SAM OTT ROB SUMNER HOWARD N. VICTRY KEN JONES JOHN KEYES

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PAGE 2

.~ .

PAGE 3

PRO C E E DIN G S

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We will come to order.

3

I am Jim Martin, and I am the Chairman of this

4 subcommittee.

5

We have present today other members of the sub-

6 committee: Representative George Williamson, Mr. Robert

7 Nash, Senator Al Holloway whom we're glad to see with us

8 at this very difficult meeting, Commissioner Strickland,

9 Mr. Lyndon Wade is not here, and is there a representative of

10
"z
11 i=
.'o"..
12 ~
~(~r) ~14 !~ l':z": 15 .:l "'::"> 16 .~.. cz 17 :

the Department of Education? Dr. McDaniel is not here either. If it is all right with the committee, I would like
to propose an agenda for us to follow today, and we can change it if the need arises.
First to approve our minutes from our last meeting, and then to discuss where we are at this meeting, what we are going to be doing at this meeting.

18

Mike has put together a draft of some language that

19 focuses on the issues that were identified at the last

20 meetingj he will explain that, and then Mr. Parrish, the

21 Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, will make a presenta-

22 tion concerning some of the questions that were raised at

23 the last meeting and we felt like we needed the department's

24 input on before we took any action.

25

Then any public comments from anyone in the room

PAGE 4

who would like to speak to anything, any of the things we are 2 considering today, and then to take whatever action we are 3 going to take, if any, after that.

4

Is there any change in that, or suggestions about

5 ways to proceed other than that?

6

Okay. Do all of you have copies of the minutes

7 that Mike sent out after the last meeting? They were dated

8 August the 19th, 1980.

9

Do I have a motion that we approve them as they

10
"z
11 ~
.'oQ"...
e);~1 14 ~ I'" :I: 15 ~ ":':"> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

were sent out as our minutes? REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS: I move they be approved, MR. NASH: Second. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor say aye. (Ayes. ) CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. The minutes are approved. For the purposes of getting started this morning,
the minutes are a pretty good outline of where we are today.

18

We have under consideration Article VII, Section II,

19 Paragraph III of the constitution of 1976, and that reads

20 all money collected from taxes, fees and assessments for the

21 state purposes as authorized by general -- as authorized by

22 revenue measures enacted by the General Assembly shall be

23 paid into the general fund of the State Treasury and shall 24 be appropriated therefrom as required by this constitution 25 for the purposes set out in this section, and for these

PAGE 5

purposes only.

2

At our earlier meetings we have dealt with the

0-
3 provision in our section that deals with the public purposes

4 of taxation, and we have made a suggestion, approved a

5 suggestion to the full committee that we greatly reduce the

6 length of that provision by allowing the legislature by law

7 to define what a public purpose for taxation is, and then

8 we turned to this section, and at the last meeting we

9 discussed it, heardmme public comment from the League of

10 Women voters and others about some concerns about the ear-

Czl 11 I-
'0."".". 12 '"
@rl 14 ! Ilit :r 15 0:1 Cl '":::> 16 .z'.". Q Z 17 ''""

marking of revenues, and decided to consider that provision today.
At our last meeting we instructed the staff to look into several areas, and to also contact the Department of Transportation. Those questions are listed in our minutes from the last meeting.
We requested the staff to prepare a draft proposal

18 that would require that interest earned on the general fund

19 be paid into the general fund. That apparently is a

20 development that occurred after the constitution was drafted

21 of 1945, and something that at he last meeting we discussed

22 as maybe needing to be added to our provision;

23

To draft language to prohibit the earmarking of

24 funds or the dedication of specific revenues to particular

25 purposes.

PAGE 6

And then we also decided or acted to request the

2 Department of Transportation send someone -- I am glad that

3 Mr. Parrish is here because I know he's very able in 4 describing these issues -- to talk to us about the situation 5 of the Department of Transportation in terms of their

6 special constitutional status in terms of the funds that they

7 receive and the earmarking of those funds.

8

We also instructed the staff to draft language that

9 would say that those earmarked funds may be used for any

10 transportation purpose and would not be earmarked solely for

the purpose of roads and bridges.

That is sort of where we are.

Does anyone have any questions about that?

Okay. Mike, do you want to explain to us the

research you've done in this proposed draft?

MR. HENRY: First I would like to state that I

attempted to draft what you asked me to draft. and this is

18 the result.

19

The first sentence basically tracks the present

20 provision which says that all money collected from. except

21 that I changed it to revenue so as to make it easier to

22 include interest. but I did include interest earned on such

revenue shall be paid into the general fund of the state

24 treasury. That basically tracks the language there.

25

In trying to prohibit earmarking in a self-

PAGE 7

contained provision without taking into account Article III

2 which prohibits the earmarking and then provides for an

3 exception to it, I kind of nailed the -- it could be

4 considered an overkill -- I drafted two sentences which do

5 that, although I retained staff prerogative to question the

6 effectiveness of attempting to bind or attempting to negate

7 consitutional provisions from bearing on the operation of

8 this conltituti.onal provision since all constitutional

9 provisiomhave equal status, but basically the second

10 sentence is the prohibition against earmarking which says:

z~

11 j:

No revenue-raising measure shall mandate the

.'o<.">..

~ 12 ~ allocation or appropriation to any object the proceeds of

~Fi the revenues collected thereunder or a part thereof, nor

! 14 shall any law or constitutional provision -- that's a

I-

'"

:E:

15 0: question there -- bind future legislatures to the allocation

~

'"::>

16 ~... or appropriation of any particular revenue or any part

Q

Z

17 : thereof to a particular purpose, but the General Assembly

18 shall be authorized to appropriate revenues in the general

19 fund of the state treasury from year to year for purposes

20 consistent with with the wellbeing of the state and pursuant

21 to this constitution.

22

I spoke with Pete Hackney of the Offi~e of

23 Legislative Budget, Clark Stevens of the Office of Planning

24 and Budget, Dick Milsaps of the Department of Administrative

25 Servic~s, and asked them whether there would be any problem

PAGE 8

with including interest earned on the general fund to be

2 paid into the general fund. They said that not only would

3 there be no problem, but that is what's currently done and

4 we would be simply codifying the situation as it exists

5 today.

6

I did find that in the 1979 legislature there was

7 a provision passed which provided that interest earned on

8 the investment of motor fuel tax revenues shall be defined

9 as motor fuel tax and shall be appropriated in conformity

.','-

10 with or pursuant to Article III, Section X, Paragraph VII,

.. 11

"z
t-

Subsection

(b) which does mandate that motor fuel

taxes

..o....

@;i collected in the immediately preceding year -SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I have a question.

14 ~ t:'z":
".15 ,l) ;;)
16 ~... Q Z
17 :

Emory?

MR. HENRY: Yes, sir. SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Who invests those funds now,
MR. PARRISH: The Finance and Investment Commission.

18

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: They handle the investment of

19 the funds?

20

MR. PARRISH: Yes, sir. They invest it; we simply

21 draw the interest.

22

MR. HENRY: So it may have an affect on that. I am

23 not certain that it would. It would appear to me it would

24 still be in compliance as long as it was paid into the

25 general fund.

PAGE 9

Are there any questions on that initial provision

2 before I move on?

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Go ahead, Mike.

4

MR. HENRY: Okay. I drafted, redrafted the excep-

5 tions to the general fund requirement in the alternative and

6 for the committee to consider on there merit as to whether

7 there shou~d be an exception to the general fund requirement.

8

I contacted the administrators of the various funds

9 and spoke with them. I researched the statutes to find out

10
Czl 11 j:
'o.Q"...
e;~ 14 ~ I':"r 15 01) Cl '"::l 16 ~... Czl 17 :li

the statutory authority and the procedures by which the funds are raised and spent.
The first one appears at Article VII, Section II, Paragraph II, which is under consideration by this subcommittee specifically, and that is for the promotion of agriculture and other products.
I felt that in this entire paragraph there were two concepts that needed to be retained, and that was that

18 the assessments on the certain agricultural products need not

19 be paid into the general fund, and then the last sentence

20 says that the uniformity requirement of this constitution

21 shall be satisfied by the application of the program upon

22 the affected product, so that violation of the uniformity

23 provision would also have to be retained somewhere, and I 24 have put that at the bottom of the proposal under Need to

25 Transfer.

PAGE 10

It needs to be transferred if you are -- to the

2 subcommittee considering the uniformity requirement.

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike, could you maybe just stop

4 just a second so we'll all be clear about what's involved

5 with that.

6

That is Paragraph II of our section that deals

7 with the agricultural commodity commissions, and in our

8 section those commissions are allowed to pass or levy a

9 special tax which is then earmarked and not paid into the

10 general fund which is used for

zCI 11 l-
oe.".<".

MR: HENRY: It's not so much earmarked as it is not

@:I paid into the general fund, and if you will recall on July 3rd a memo of July 3rd that I sent out giving you the background

! 14 I- of Article VII, Section II, Paragraph II, it was in direct

':<r

15 o:l response to a Supreme Court decision in Agricultural

CI

e<

;:)

16

~ Q

Commodities

Authority

versus

Balkham

at

215

Georgia

107,

z

<l

17 : it was a 1959 case in which they held that the 19 -- well,

18 I think it was the 1951 act

19

MR. NASH: '51.

20

MR. HENRY: -- the '51 act unconstitutional because,

21 specifically because it was in violation of the uniformity

22 provision because it didn't affect all agricultural products

23 throughout the state, but only affected certain ones.

24

The basic procedure -- The Agricultural

25 Commodities Commission is codified at Georgia Code Annotaed

PAGE 11

5-2907. and it ratifies and continues eight commodity

2 commissions for milk. eggs. peanuts. sweet potatoes. peaches.

3 tobacco. apples and cotton.

4

Okay. Now, simply stated, each commission which is

5 composed of all the producers, handlers. processors of a

6 particular agricultural product band together. form, a

7 commission, and in certain instances will assess against

8 themselves fees that they collect. pay to the Commissioner

9 of Agriculture. and the Commissioner of Agriculture disberses

10 these funds by order of the commission for certain purposes.

"z

11 l-
o..e..<..

The basis for these assessments are what's called

~ 12 ~ marketing orders. Marketing orders are set up after required

(@)r i notice to all the affected producers. handlers and processors

! 14 I-

throughout the state.

they have to agree to them in a

':"r

15 0:1 referendum vote --

"e<
;;)

16 ~...

MR. NASH: Michael, just a minute now .

"z

17 :

The processors and the handlers do not pay any fees,

18 they merely act as agents for the collection.

19

MR. HENRY; Okay.

20

MR. NASH: They do not pay any fees. Only the

21 producer pays a fee on it.

22

MR. HENRY; Okay. producers.

23

MR. NASH: They do not pay any fees. Only the

24 producer pays a fee on it.

25

They are required as handlers and processors to

PAGE 12

make these collections and turn them to the commissioner.

2

MR. HENRY: Okay.

3

But the marketing order is the basis for an

4 assessment if an assessment is to be made. An assessment is

5 not necessarily made on the basis of a marketing order. A

6 marketing order can have eight separate, eight defined

7 provisions in it; can provide for grading standards and

8 uniformity inspection; it can provide for advertising, sales

9 and promotion; it can provide for the prohibition of unfair

10 trade practices; provide for the carrying on of research

Czl 11 ~
9 ; ;'o.0"....

studies; provide for educational programs designed to acquaint persons with the product and its handling; provide for the marketing of surplus commodities; provide for the

! 14 establishment of a stabilization fund to compensate producers I'<"l :I:
15 ~ of peanuts for diverted peanuts which fail to qualify.

Cl

:'">

16 ~...

So it is only on a few of these, which would be

Q

Z

<l
17 ~

advertising, sales and promotion, research studies and

18 educational programs in which an assessment would be made,

19 because they're necessarily the only ones that would require

20 money to administer.

21

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Let me ask you a questio

22 so that I can understand exactly what the

Does every

23 producer of that product that is covered, whether it's

24 apples or cotton, they have to participate in the program?

25

MR. HENRY: Yes.

PAGE 13

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Once they've gone

2 throug the process, then the commission -- It's basically

3 just a trade organization representing their interests, but

4 everybody has got to participate?

5

MR. HENRY: Yes.

6

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Okay.

7

MR. HENRY: SO the state has set up these

8 commissions and authorized these assessments. They have

9 provided that a violation of a marketing order shall be a

9

10 misdemeanor, and that assessments shall constitute personal

11 "z5 debt of the person assessed.

o
"-

--I12 :

It is my understanding that the principal reason

for this type of situation or this procedure is so that if

14 ~ a marketing order is adopted and it provides for an assess-

15 '~ ~:"r ment, if you did not have the state's taxing power backing

"or:
:;)

16 ~ you up you could not enforce that against all the producers,

+ Q
z
17 ::1 but that some of them may decide

"Well, lim going to

18 drop out of this," but they're going to gain the benefit of

19 the advertising, promotion, educational programs and research;

20 they're going to get the benefit of the people who have paid

21 wi thout having to pay for it.

22

That seemed to me to be the principal reason why

23 this was a good setup and why it was needed.

24

I'll turn it over to Mr. Nash to further elaborate

25 on the merits.

PAGE 14

(Mr. Wade joined the meeting.)

~

2

MR~ NASH: I think Mike has explained this thing

3 very well. The eight items that he mentioned there, it's

4 only the first one for education, research and promotion is

5 the only three that any of the orders are working under right

6 now. The others are there, but none of them are using them

7 and they never have, so really the one that covers these

8 three items is all these funds have been collected for.

9

I think he has explained very well as to how these

10
"z
11 j::
..'o."...
@;I ! 14 lv> :r 15 oll "'"::J 16 ~... Q Z 17 :

funds are collected, why they're uniformly collected from everyone and, as I pointed out, the processor and all is merely required by law to make these collections and turn them in to the commissioner because this is the point of sale on them.
I think this is the reason why it was rewritten in the constitution in order to designate these points that in generality you could not do without pinpointing it into the

18 marketing orders, and every person knows the marketing order

19 when they vote on it.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike, one of the things we asked

21 you to do in addition to the research was to contact the

22 Commissioner of Agriculture to find out what his position

23 was about this language. Can you report to the subcommittee

24 on that?

25

MR. HENRY: I contacted Lanny Williams who

PAGE 15

administers I think the agricultural commodities commission,

2 and after talking with him the Con~issioner contacted me

3 and was very concerned about any change we may make in this.

4

I told him that Mr. Nash -- He informed me that

5 Mr. Nash was an ex officio member of every committee on the,

6 of every commission and a voting member I assume, and I told

7 him that Mr. Nash would be here and would be present, and

8 his fears were -- he no longer had any fear of what we may do.

9

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So it's the position of the

10 commissioner that that ~anguage is important, and he said

11

"z
j:

in a capsule form it's a difference between a voluntary trade

.'oa"....

~ 12 ~ association assessment and an actual tax levied, that it

~F~ becomes a personal debt of the individual producers as a way

! 14 ... to market them and other types of activities for commodities .

'."c

:r

15 ~ Is that a fair statement?

"'"::l

16 ~...

MR. HENRY: Basically for promotion, advertising,

Q

Z.c

17 : research and education.

18

In any event, I have taken this provision like I

19 said earlier and reduced it down to what I felt was the

20 meat of the cocoanut, this is what has to be retained if you

21 are going to continue to allow this.

22

You have to retain the exception to the general fund

23 requirement. I dm't think that all of this other language is 24 needed because it doesn't appear that anything else in there

25 other than the general fund requirement and the uniformity

PAGE 16

requirement is excepted from, and I would think that the

2 majority of this could be covered by statute, and if you

3 choose after deciding on the merits whether this is a good

4 program, then you would need to retain these two concepts.

5

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike, would this be a subparagraph

6 of the general paragraph dealing with payment of the funds

7 into the general fund?

8

MR. HENRY: Yes. These were drafted in the

9 alternative for you to consider on their metit, each one.

10
Czl 11 ...
..oc..o..:
~ 12 ~
~r~! 14 ... ':z": 15 .:J Cl co: ::> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

I'll move on to the -CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let me recognize the fact that Mr. Lyndon Wade is here now, and Vickie Greenberg with the staff of the Constitutional Revision Commission. Okay. Mike. Are there any questions from the members of the subcommittee about that? Okay. Mike, go ahead, please . MR. HENRY: Okay. The second one on the list is

18 the subsequent injury workmen's compensation trust fund, and

19 it's found in Article III, Section IX, Paragraph VI, and it is

20 an exception to the requirement that all moneys be paid into

21 the general fund.

22

If you will notice, there was handed out a paper

23 entitled Nonlapsing Status of the Subsequent Injury Trust

24 Fund that was drafted by the administrator of that fund and

25 forwarded to me for my better understanding.

PAGE 17

Basically this is a

The General Assembly has

2 implemented the provisions of Article III, Section IX,

3 Paragraph VI at Georgia Code Annotated 114-9. They ,provide

4 for the creation of a perpetual non1apsing fund for the

5 purpose of making payments where --

6

Well, first let me tell you how the fund is created.

7 The fund is an assessment against insurers doing workmen's,

8 writing workmen's compensation insurance and self-insurers,

9 and it is based on a formula tied to the assets in the fund.

10

In the first year that the fund was made effective,

Czl

11

i=
...ofZ
Go

which was

JU~y 1,

1977

--

I

think it was

1977

there was a

~ 12 ~ five percent assessment against all, against the premiums

~Fi collected by -- a half percent, I'm sorry, .5 percent against

! 14 ~

all these insurers and self-insurers.

':"r

15 .:I

The fund is there to provide

The fund is

Cl

fZ

::J

16 ~... there, the legislative intent of the fund is to encourage the

Q

Z

17 : employment of handicapped by protecting employers from excess

18 liability for compensation where a subsequent injury -- in

19 other words, where a person is hired by an employer who has

20 a pre-existing permanent impairment or some type of handicap 21 and while on the job that handicapped person becomes reinjured 22 and under the terms of the workmen's compensation act the 23 payments would be much greater, so this is to encourage the 24 employment of handicapped persons by assuring the employers 25 that if they do hire handicapped employees that in the event

PAGE 18

that that employee is injured on the job his payments will

2 not be so excessive that it would prohibit him from otherwise

3 hiring that employee.

4

The basic feature of this fund is that it has a

5 nonlapsing status. I believe it is written into the statutes

6 that the fund shall not lapse, and if at the end of the year

7 the assets in the fund are sufficient by an actuarily defined

8 report that they have enough funds to ~eet their liabilities

9 then there will be no assessment against those insurance

10 companies in the year to come, so to the extent they retain

CzJ

11 i= these assets the insurers would not be assessed.

'o."".-.

~ 12 ~

The nonlapsing feature is what allows that, the

~r~ funds not being required to be paid into the general fund

! 14 ... and necessarily would have no place to lapse, so they are

':"r

15 .:. retained in the fund.

CJ

:':">

16 ~

I'm referring to this report now. The nonlapsing

a

Z

17 ::i feature of the fund is imperative for the following reasons

18

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That is on page 2 of the document

19 that has been submitted by the subsequent injury trust fund.

20

Mike, do you have another copy of that for Mr, Wade?

21

~m. HENRY: I will read these reasons into the

22 record, and then I will let Mr. Victry supplement my report

23 if that's okay.

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: This document will be part of the

25 records of the constitutional revision committee?

I.L-

~

~

PAGE 19

MR. HENRY: Yes.

2

The fund is extremely broad in nature in that it

3 covers any preexisting permanent impairment;

4

The fund receives claims from insurers and self-

5 insurers that generate an ongoing liability which extends in

6 80me instances years into the future;

7

This feature enables the fund to meet ongoing

8 liabilities generated as a result of long-term disability

9 claims filed against the fund;

10

The net assets remaining in the fund at the end of

CzI 11 i=
o.'"".-.
@;I

each fiscal year are used as credits against assessments, thus reducing the assessments or potentially eliminating assessments for a particular year;

! 14 lo-

By not lapsing funds and with the statutory

U>

:r

15 ~ requirement that the trustees apply the remaining net assets

Cl

'="'

16 .~.. against the next assessment, industry is assured that the fund

Q

Z

17 : will not build up any unnecessary or large reserves of funds

18 inconsistent with the fund's needs. This is a legal safe-

19 guard that prevents unwarranted or unnecessary assessments

20 by the fund;

21

By not lapsing funds at the end of the fiscal year,

22 any funds in investments are not disturbed, thus the fund is

23 not deprived of maximum interest income;

24

Industry in Georgia has supported the development

25 of the fund and was willing to finance the fund provided

PAGE 20

moneys generated through the assessment are used solely for

2 the purposes of the fund.

3

I hope I have explained adequately the statutory

4 procedures, and if there is any question I can't answer, ~rr.

5 Victry can.

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Senator Holloway, do you have a

7 question?

8

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I don't understand this number

9 one feature. It's extremely broad in nature in that it covers

10 .., any preexisting permanent impairment .

z

11 i=
.'oQ"...

What does that mean?

~ 12 ~

~~. VICTRY: The statute defines permanent condition

~r~ that would be considered covered under this provision or this

14

~
1;;

section of the workers'

comp law as any condition that pre-

x

15 ..:.J, exists a subsequent injury .

~ '"
16 ~
Q
z
17 : it?

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: You mean they're paying him for

18

MR. VICTRY: No.

19

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: That's the reason I don't under-

20 stand what you're saying.

21

MR. VICTRY: Let me give you an example of \hat

22 we're talking about. I think 1_ can best explain it

23

Let me define it first and then I'll give a couple

24 of examples.

25

A preexisting impairment under this law is any

__________ ~

____J

PAGE 21

condition or impairment or handicap that is permanent in

2 nature and a hindrance or obstacle to employment.

3

For examp1e t we have an employee that is diabetic t

4 or we would have an employee that has a degenerative back

5 disease t we would have an employee with a cardio-vascular 6 disease. These conditions and many, many other conditions t 7 permanent impairments t permanent disabilities when kno~~ to a 8 potential employer who may potentially hire an individual t 9 these conditions would interfere or would in effect prejudice

10
Czl 11 j:
.o'0."-.
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 I':<"r 15 .:> Cl '::"> 16 .~.. Q Z <l: 17 ~

the employee's ability to -SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I just want to ask you one
question. I understand what you're talking about. MR. VICTRY: Okay. SENATOR HOLLOWAY: The preexisting permanent
impairment does not set up a liability t so what would:it have to do with a nonlapsing fund?
MR, VICTRY: All right. If an employer hires a

18 worker with a preexisting condition, and if that worker is

19 injured on the job t and if that new injury either aggravates 20 or merges or combines with that prior impairment to cause the

21 employer to incur substantially greater workers' compensation

22 costs by way of an aggravation of the prior impairment or a

23 combination of the two conditions working together producing

24 an overall greater disability, and if the employer is held

25 responsible to pay workers' compensation benefits because

PAGE 22

of that combination, then the employer would file a claim

2 against the fund.

3

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: It seems to me that condition

4 exists with any employee whether he has a preexisting injury

5 or not.

6

Are you telling me that this fund is going to pay

7 for preexisting injuries, or simply any increased agitation

8 or problem with it? That's all it's intended to do.

9

MR. VICTRY: Under the workers' compensation laws

10 of Georgia, if an employer hires a worker with a preexisting

Czl 11 i=
@;;'o.."....

condition, and if by way of a new occupational injury that preexisting condition is aggravated to produce a disability that would be compensable under the workers' compensation

14 ~ law, the employer, the insurer for that employer is obligated

l-

V>

:l:

15 .:l to pay benefits in accordance with that aggravation.

Cl

'";:)

16 ~
Q

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: If a man is fifty percent

z

17 ~ disabled and you hire him, another injury would have to

18 increase his disability beyond fifty percent for him to have a

19 claim. Is that what you're saying?

20

MR. VICTRY: In effect, yes. If the employer --

21

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I still don't know what that has

22 to do with the nonlapsing feature of the fund, but that's all

23 right.

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Does anyone else have any

25 questions?

PAGE 23

Representative Williamson?

2

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I have a question about

3 how much money is taken in by the ftmd and how much is paid

4 out, how many people you've got drawing on the fund right

5 now, and whether we've got a surplus, how big the surplus is.

6

MR. VICTRY: The subaequent injury fund was created

7 in 1977. There are provisions in the law to require the

8 employer or insurer pay the first 104 weeks of benefits

9 before the fund ever gets involved in the case in terms of

10 making payments.

Czl 11 I-
'o0."....
@;I

In addition, in terms of medical reimbursement by the fund, the employer or insurer must assume in effect the first 7,500 dollars in medical costs before any relief to the

14 ~ I-

employer from the fund would start, so you've got in effect

'"

:I:

15 ~ approximately $18,000 worth of overall liability that the

Cl

'":::J

16 .~.. employeror insurer must incur before the fund becomes involved

Q

Z

17 ::i in paying out benefits or reimbursing benefits to the insurer.

18

Now, secondly, the fund does not pay directly to the

19 injured worker. That is a responsibility retained in all

20 instances by the employer or the employer's insurer. The

21 fund is a reimbursement concept, it reimburses the employer

22 or insurer.

23

REPRESE~ATIVE WILLIAMSON: So John Smith, injured

24 worker, he doesn't have any idea that you all even exist,

25 you all are just irrelevant to him; right?

PAGE 24

MR. VICTRY: That's correct. In other words, we're

2 getting away from your question -- I want to come back into

3 that. but you brought this point out.

4

It was set up this way to prevent the employee from

5 having to make two separate claims for workers' comp benefits.

6 The employee continues with one claim. one source.

7

It's the employer's or the insurer's responsibility

8 to come back to the fund for any relief if the case meets the

9 standards set forth in the statute.

10
Czl 11 i=
e ; i'o.0".... 14 ~ I'<"I % 15 ~ Cl '":;) 16 ~ Q z <I 17 :

It's because, number one, of the newness of this program; number two. because of the statutory provisions, the sizeable deductions that the employer must absorb before we get into the fund payments that our activity since 1977 to the present time has been relatively small in terms of payout.
For example. in 1977 there were no payouts from the fund. In 1978 there was no payout.

18

In 1979 we started making payouts from the fund.

19 At the present time --

20

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: That's because of the

21 l04-week period?

22

MR. VICTRY: That's because of the deductible

23 period. We've got to build -- the fund has to in effect 24 mature in terms of cases filed against the fund that

25 ultimately will qualify, and then ultimately must go through

PAGE 25

that period of waiting in terms of benefit payout by the

2 employer before reimbursements will be made.

3

At the present time our total payout in the fund

4 is approximately $275,000. The initial assessment that Mike

5 referred to back in 1977 was one-half a percent of the

6 premiums written by industry or hypothetical premiums that

7 would have been written by self-insurers. That amounted to

8 in excess of $900 ,000.

9

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Is that per year?

10

MR. VICTRY: No. That was the initial seed money,

11

"z
j:

initial assessment.

There have been no subsequent assessments

@;;I..oX.... made by the fund because of the net asset feature, by retaining the fund in its nonlapsing status.

! 14

In other words, if that money had been lapsed, then

I-

'~"

J:

15 ~ we would have had to have gone back and reassessed again.

"IX

;;;)

16 ~... By keeping the money in the nonlapsing status it is applied

az

~

17 : as a credit, and when our disbursements do not exceed the

18 assets, then no assessment will be made.

19

Now, right now we have approximately 500 open files

20 that have been generated during this period of time. It has

21 been an educational problem bringing insurers and employers

22 into the fold to understand and know what this program is

23 about.

24

At the present time the assets in the fund amount to

25 $1,376,837. Now, you can obviously see there has been an

PAGE 26

increase.

2

Now, where has that increase come from?

3

There are several other provisions provided in the

4 statute that allow for collateral incomemto the fund.

5

Number one, interest earned by the fund is deposited

6 into the fund.

7

Number two, in a compensable workers' compensation

8 case involving the death of an injured worker the insurer

9 will pay an assessment into the fund not to exceed $10,000,

10 That generates -- that, for example, generated $266,000 of

income into the fund during the last calendar year -- no,

last fiscal year.

In addition, there is another source of collateral

income that any penalty fines levied by the workers'

compensation board against an employer or insurer for

failure to comply with the provisions of the workers'

compensation law, the rules and regulations of the workers'

18 compensation board, these penalty fines are deposited into

19 the fund.

20

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Why is that?

21

MR. VICTRY: Well, that was a provision that was

22 put into this law when the law was created back in 1977.

23

Really what they're doing in effect if you look to

24 the bottom line is a fine is levied against those individuals

25 within the industrial business community that aren't complying

PAGE 27

with the workers' comp law, and it's turning around and really

2 putting that money into a source that would go back and :,..
3 benefit those employers and relieve those employers that hire

4 handicapped workers in an effort to prevent that employer

5 from being saddled with excessive catastrophic liabilities

6 on a case by case basis.

7

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Why shouldn't it,

8 though, go back and help all the employers that are partici-

9 pating under the workers' compensation law?

10

I mean what I hear you saying is you're taking all

Czl

11

i=
0..'"....

the money from the penalties and it's just benefitting

~@J~ ~12 '" probably a relatively small group instead of going back to reduce the cost of everybody who's participating in the

! 14 workers' comp program.

I-

."

:~r

15 .:I

MR. VICTRY: To me that -- You know, personally

Cl

'";)

... 16 zIII I have no preference one way or the other.

Q

Z

'" 17 III

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: The revenue department

18 is saying if you've got a penalty like that you're going to

19 take all the money and benefit one certain seg~rn.ent of the 20 society.

21

MR. WADE: Was this probably an industry effort?

22

MR, VICTRY: Yes.

23

MR. WADE: It minimizes the amount that industry

24 has to pay in premiums into the fund because there hasn't been

25 a payment by the industry since it started.

PAGE 28

MR. VICTRY: That's right.

2

MR. ~E: If those penalties go in there, this

3 protects it.

4

MR. VICTRY: It just prolongs the next assessment.

5

Now, I still have some other comments to address to

6 your question.

7

It has been my experience in working in this type

8 of program in other states, and it's also been my experience

9 in following the development of young programs like this in

>

10 other states that it takes several years from the first

"z
11 i=
'0Q."... 12 '"
@rl

assessment, the initial seed assessment, it takes several year for the caseload and case activity to develop before the next assessment will go out to replenish the fund, and it's been

14 ~ I-

also my experience in working with and starting a fund and

:(

:r

15

.:l CI

working with a fund like this

in South Carolina from the very

:':">

16

lEI
.Z..

beginning that,

true,

there was an initial assessment and

Q

Z

<[

'" 17 lEI during three, four, five years before the next assessment

18 went out the fund did actually increase, but once it matures

19 and once you get a constant flow of activity against the fund

20 then you're going to see the assessment will generaTIf go out

21 each and every year. This is just an anomoly that's peculiar

22 to the system during these fo~~tive years.

23

If you have any further questions on that --

24

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Let me ask you one other

25 question, then I'll let some other folks ask.

PAGE 29

Who makes the investment decisions on where your

2 fund goes? Is that handled like all other investment 3 decisions?

4

MR. VICTRY: The board of trustees of the fund has

5 the responsibility to do that, the board of trustees as we

6 have defined the board of trustees and their origin in ,the

7 paper that I presented to Mike and he of course presented to

8 you today; the trustees have appointed an investment

9 committee that oversees the investments of the fund.

10
CzI 11 I-
"0......
@ ~r~ ~12 "
14 ! I':"z:
15 .:
..I.'l
";:) 16 .z..
Q
..Z
17 "

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I just wondered, you know. Maybe I ought to ask -- It seems ridiculous, you've got one fund, you've got $1 million and I don't know how much you can have invested at anyone time, then we've got the state treasury with I guess probably a coup1ebundred million at anyone time, maybe more than that. Just on its face it would seem to me we would be better off if we just had the DOAS or whoever makes those investment decisions making them .

18

MR. VICTRY: The option is in this statute that

19 the board of trustees can appoint the state's financial

20 officer to administer the investments of the fund; it wouldn't

21 change the status of the fund as an independent fund.

22

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I understand that.

23

MR. VICTRY: The options are there. You would have

24 to address that question to the trustees, and I was not part

25 of that. 1 can only explain to you the decision they made,

PAGE 30

and I think if you wanted more information as to their

2 rationale, you know, I could get the trustees to address that

3 question.

4

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Senator Holloway.

5

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Who sets your budget and who

6 approves it?

7

MR. VICTRY: The board of trustees, with the advice

8 and consent of the --

9

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Does it ever come before the

10 General Assembly?

"z
11 i=
..'o"....

MR. VICTRY: No, it does not. This is provided for

@;~ in the statute. MR. HENRY: It says the board of trustees shall

! 14 submit to the Office of Planning and Budget the proposed

I-

'-"e(

:I:

15 .:l budget for comment prior to approval.

"'":::>

16 .~..

MR. VICTRY: Now, the operating budget is paid out

zQ

17 : of the fund itself.

18

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: That's what concerns me, the

19 fox guarding the henhouse.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Nash?

21

MR. NASH: I would like to ask a question. Who

22 determines whether these people come under this fund or whether

23 they're just covered under workmen's compensation?

24

You mentioned diabetes. You know, there are a lot

25 of people who have diabetes and on a job you could say it

PAGE 31

aggravated it or didn't aggravate it, but you mentioned that

2 particular one. That's the one that -- Who is going to make

3 these determinations whether -- who is going to cover the

4 legal aspects of this thing and determine whether or not who's

5 going to pay those costs?

6

MR. VICTRY: Procedurally speaking, a claim is

7 filed to the fund or against the fund by the employer or

8 insurer. It is reviewed, investigated as to whether or not

9 the claim meets the standards or the requirements set forth

,

10 in the code section.

z~

11 j:

Once that is done, then I make a recormnendation to

..'0"....

12 '" the board of trustees as to whether the case should be

@ r l accepted or not. The board of trustees reviews the case,

.14 ! reviews the statutes, and determines whether or not the case

VI

:I:

15 o:J qualifies for reimbursement by the fund.

~

'":::l

16 .Iz.I.I

If the fund denies the claim made by an employer or

Q

Z

'" 17 III an insurer, then the employer or insurer would then file a

18 claim against the fund through the workers' compensation

19 board.

20

They would have an individual hearing before the

21 single administrative law judge to determine whether or not

22 the fund should be liable for reimbursement in the case.

23 And,cf course, the same standards in all litigation procedures 24 apply to the relationship between the insurance industry or

25 the claiming insurer and the fund as do those rules and

PAGE 32

regulations pertaining to litigation between the injured

2 worker and the employer.

3

MR. NASH: If you deny it, then does it just go

4 back against workers' compensation and that's the end of it?

5

MR. VICTRY: That depends upon the course of action

6 that the employer or insurer wishes to take.

7

Furthermore, something else I think should be

8 clarified here.

9

The existence of the fund within the workers'

10 compensation setting does not increase the overall cost of

the workers' compensation program.

If the fund were not in existence, the cost would

essentially be the same. t~at this is doing is protecting

individual employers against catastrophic losses for

individual cases. The same cost, the same liability would be

a burden on the workers' compensation system without the

fund, but this is an approach that is practiced in every

18 workers' compensation law in this country, it is designed to

19 encourage employers to hire the handicapped or to retain

20 workers that are injured on the job who then have a disability

21 who the employer would otherwise be reluctant to retain 22 because they would be fearful of the employee's sustaining a 23 new injury further complicating the disability and further 24 increasing the employer's cost for that worker and for that

25 injury.

PAGE 33

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Senator Holloway?

2

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I think most of the questi6ns

3 we're asking now are addressing themselves to the statutory

4 cure.

5

I'm still concerned about this number one statement

6 here which indicates that this fund has to set up a reserve

7 for preexisting injuries. I mean that's what it says whether

8 you mean to say it or not,

9

I think number two should cover one without any

10 reference to preexisting claims, because the only thing that

11 5CzI this reserve is for would be aggravation of the existing --

o...

9-112 ~

MR. VICTRY: I think you're correct. SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I think this implies something

..14 ~ that might be a little

<:z:

15 ~

MR. VICTRY: What I simply was :trying to do was to

CrrI:
::>

16 ~ say to the committee that the fund covers a very broad array

Qz

< 17 :

of situations involving aggravations of preexisting conditions

18 that generate increased liability against the industry in

19 Georgia and against employers in those individual cases.

20

Does that clarify that, sir?

21

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I think if you left one out and

22 just stood on two it would clarify the whole situation.

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr, Victry, do all other states

24 -- you say every state in the union now, and Georgia I guess
;
25 was the last; is that correct?

PAGE 34

MR. VICTRY: Yes.

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Do allother states provide for the

3 nonlapsing feature and the non provide for the nonlapsing

4 feature like we have in Georgia?

5

MR. VICTRY: Yes and no, to be quite frank with you.

6 There is a perfect explanation for that.

7

All states have a fund of this nature; however, all

8 states do not have a fund of this scope. Approximately fifty

9 percent of the states have what we call broad coverage funds,

10
Czl 11 i=
Io..X....
~ 12 ~
@F~ 14 ~ ~ '" :I: 15 .:I Cl IX ::> 16 ~... az 17 g

such as what we're talking about here today. Many of those states such as New York, South
Carolina, Louisiana generate special funds or create special funds of this nature that are not deposited into their general fund, and they have set up special committees or special boards of trustees to oversee and to administer those funds.
Now, of course, the operation of all of these funds is subject to audit by state government, audit reports are

18 reported to the legislature, so there are checks and balances

19 and controls and opportunities to see what's going on, to

20 examine what's going on in terms of how the fund is handled,

21 how it's administered,how the moneys are spent out.

22

REPRESENTATIVE WILLAIMSON : Let me ask you this.

23 On a year to year basis, though, what check does the General

24 Assembly have other than coming in and substantially changing

25 either the statutory law or the constitutional amendment?

,.---------------_ _---_._._

PAGE 35
--- _ -~-----_._-_.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

From what you say I got the impression that you

2 jus t send OPB a copy of your budget and that's it. I mean

3 once you've done that, then your trustees are free to approve

4 any budget you want, and the trustees decide on the assessment

5

MR. VICTRY: No, the trustees don't decide on the

6 amount. Well, this thing is all governed, it's all automatic.

7

You look at the disbursements of the fund at the

8 end of each fiscal year, you look atthe net assets of the

9 fund at the end of the fiscal year,

10
CzJ
11 i=
'o0."...
@r:j
' g 14! I'<"l :I: 15 .:I CJ '":::> 16 .~.. o Z 17 g<l;

Now, in the narrative material on page one, last paragraph starting with "Subsequent fundings will consist of periodic annual assessments against insurers and self= insured empkfers, this assessment will be equal to 175 percent of the fund's annual disbursement less net assets,"
If our annual disbursement is, times 175 percent is less than our net assets there's no legal wayan assessment can be levied against the industry; it is only when we end up

a 18 with positive figure rather than a negative -- this thing

19 is just pretty well controlled by the statute itself.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I guess that gets to the reason

21 that Mike was studying this and where we're coming from.

22 Maybe that's one of the places where we're having a little

23 bit of trouble in the conversation that's going on fairly

24 long, and that is our concern is the constitutional provision

25 that says all funds will be paid into the general fund, and

PAGE 36

we're looking at each of these areas where that's not the

2 case and trying to determine whether that provision, Number

3 one, needs to be in the constitution, whether we need to have

4 a long provision that deals with the subsequent injury

S workmen's compensation fund in the first place, and secondly

6 whether it makes from a policy point of view good sense to

7 allow these funds to be an exception to the general principle

8 that all funds are paid into the general fund.

9

Do you have any response to that, number one, about

10 do other states have a constitutional provision like this in their constitutions and, number two, what would happen if the

funds -- I think I know the mswer, but the question we're asking is what would happen to these funds if they were

subject to this constitutional provision or to the trust fund itself?

MR. VICTRY: Alllight. I cannot answer your questio

insofar as do other states have a similar constitutional

18 provision.

19

I know South Carolina, for example, does not have

20 such a provision. I was with that law from the very

21 beginning, and that law was -- that fund was created in 1972.

22 These laws are almost identical. There are some major, but

23 very few maj or differences.

24

In that state the funds do not lapse back into the

2S general fund. I know that, as I indicated, other states do no

PAGE 37

lapse. Most states that create a special fund like this do

2 not lapse them, the rerr~in separate, and they're there for the

3 specific purpose to be used specifically for the intent of the

4 law.

5

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a contractual obligation

6 between the fund andthe workers' compensation insurance

7 companies so that, for example, if there were no money in the

8 fund and there was a subsequent injury, is there an obligation

9 of the state or the fund to make up that difference, a legal

-

10 obligation if the money is not there? Does the state or the

Czl
11 i= fund have any obligation to seek it from some other source? ..'0"....

12 '"

MR. VICTRY: I would say that there is a legal

e r l obligation for the fund to meet its liabilities until the

! 14 ... legislature abolishes the fund .

':"r

IS ~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But it can abolish the fund, for

l.:J
'~" 16 .zlD.. example?

Q

Z

17 'lD"

MR. VICTRY: The legislature?

18

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right. There's no ob ligation

19

MR. VICTRY: I would say if the legislature can

20 create it can take away.

21

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Only if there is a contract or somE

22 other obligation they couldrlt do that.

23

MR. VIcmRY: I don't know about that, to be honest

24 with you, but let me explain this.

25

If, for example, during midstream or toward the end

PAGE 38

of our calendar year, our accounting year in terms of

2 assessments are concerned and the fund was depleted because

3 of reimbursements -- we had this happen in South Carolina --

4 when the first assessment rolled around it took four or five

5 years, four years for the assessment to develop. We simply

6 notified the insurance companies that your case qualifies,

7 you will have to wait until the assessment is made in order

8 for the fund to pay the lia1i1ity that it owes you -- no

9 problem .. That is what we would do here.

10

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Nash.

"z
11 ~

MR. NASH: Let me ask a question. Maybe Mike can

'o.."....

@;I answer it. Maybe I don't understand it right, but this five-

! 14 ... tenths of a percent was levied against workmen's compensation

:'z":
15 .:I premium tax that was already collected; is that correct?

"'";:)

16 .~..

MR. VICTRY: No ,

Q

Z

17 :

MR. NASH: It's not? It's in addition to?

18

MR. VICTRY; The workers' compensation tax that

19 you're referring to, the general tax every year is levied by

20 or assessed by the workers' compensation board to finance

21 ,.the funding or the op~ration of the workers' compensation 22 . board.

23

That tax as I understand it is basically consistent

24 with the board's needs. It may fluctuate from year to year

25 as I unders tand it.

----~-_._---------'

PAGE 39

This was a separate special tax, one time only to

2 generate the seed money to get this fund started, this one-

3 half of a percent. That five percent is my error. In the

4 paper it says five percent. That should be one-half or .5

5 percent.

6

That was a one-time assessment, one time only simply

7 to generate the seed money to start this fund, and was

8

MR. NASH: And was put in a seprate fund for such

9 purpose?

10

MR. VICTRY: Yes.

CzJ 11 j:
...oIll:
l>.
9;1

MR. NASH: Not in the general fund? 'MR. VICTRY: That's correct. MR. NASH: Mike, does this stay within the authority

! 14 of taxation? IU> <l

J:

15 ~

MR. HENRY: The non1apsing feature is what --

CI Ill:

;;;)

16 ~ We have a constitutional provision in Article III, Section X,

Qz

<l
17 : Paragraph 5(c), that provides that all appropriated funds

18 remaining unexpended and not contractually obligated at the

19 expiration of the appropriations act shall lapse.

20

This fund as I understand it, not being required to

21 be paid into the general fund, essentially has no place to

22 lapse.

23

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Let me ask you one

24 question. Could we have in statutory language and out of the

25 constitution some statutory language that would do the same

PAGE 40

thing they're doing now?

2

MR. HENRY: Well. you have to require, you have to

3 except from the general fund requirement in the constitution

4 if you're going to retain and mandate that all taxes. fees

5 and assessments be paid into the general fund. You see. that

6 ~ould trigger the lapsing part of it, so you would have to

7 retain that exception as I understand it.

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Senator Holloway?

9

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Well. this language doesn't lock

10
I!l Z
11 j:
.'o.."...
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 ... on :J: 15 .:J I!l '";) 16 .~.. oz 17 I:

this thing into the constitution when it says the General Assembly may provide for the disposition of funds without the need to place said funds in the general fund of the state treasury.
With that language by statute you could go to the general fund. could you not?
MR. HENRY: You could do it right now. It's all permissive. The present constitutional provision is

18 permissive.

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Commissioner Strickland?

20

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: It really makes me wonder why

21 it's in, you really have it now. If it goes into the general

22 fund, it would lapse.

23

MR. HENRY: The General Assembly is given the

24 authority to either require that it be paid into the general

25 fund or not be paid into the general fund by this.

PAGE 41

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Why do we need this in the

2 constitution?

3

MR. HENRY: Because you need that permission in the

4 constitution.

5

MR. HILL: That authorization gets around the other

6 provision in Article III that says that it all shall lapse.

7

MR. STRICKLAND: How does this relate tothe fund

8 we had for loans to counties for tax reevaluation, the

9 revolving type thing?

10
III Z
11 ~
".oa...
@;j 14 ~ IU:r> 15 ~ III ";;;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ~

MR. HENRY: Loans to counties? MR. STRICKLAND: For tax reevaluation. You're familiar with that. They were paid in and didn't lapse, the moneys were appropriated for that purpose. It seems to me that would be in violation of -SENATOR HOLLOWAY: It's under contract, though, isn't it? MR. HENRY: I would have to look at the law to find

18 out.

19

MR. STRICKLAND: They would have to contract for it,

20 that's right.

21

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Once it's contracted for, that

22 would take care of it.

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We're going to need to go on.

24 We've got a few other items were going to need to discuss.

25

Mr. Victry, are you going to be here when we talk

PAGE 42

about what we're going to do about the provision? Can you

2 stay for the rest of the meeting?

3

MR. VICTRY: Yes.

4

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is it all right we go ahead with

5 the rest of the meeting and we can hear from Mr. Parrish who

6 has been very nice to wait.

7

Mike, would you complete your report to us on these

8 other provisions quickly and --

9

MR. HENRY: Do you want me to speed read through it?

10
"z
11 j:
..'0..".. 12 '"
@rl ! 14 ~ ':<"rl: 15 olI CI '":::l ... 16 zIII Q Z <l: '" 17 III

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Not speed read, but we need to move along.
MR. HENRY: Okay. The next one is the firemen's pension system.
There is a provision in Article X, Section I, Paragraph IV I believe which provides that the powers of taxation may be exercised by the state through the General Assembly and the counties and municipalities for the purpose

18 of paying pensions and other benefits and costs under

19 firemen's pension system or sytems, the taxes so levied may

20 be collected by such firemen's pension system. This is

21 permissive, this has been exercised by the General Assembly,

22 this has already been exercised to allow for the pension

23 system itself to levy and collect a tax on the gross

24 premiums of every fire insurance company doing business in the

25 state in orderto provide for a pension for firemen.

PAGE 43

This is a secondary pension. The main pension that

2 the firemen get, of course, would be from the local

3 governments.

4

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: May I ask a question about that?

5

MR. HENRY: Yes, sir.

6

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Have you checked the language

7 in the rewrite of Article X which has been passed at one time,

8 it just wasn't ratified?

9

MR. HENRY: Yes. I've spoken with Harvy about that

10

..,

~

z 11 I-
.'"o".".
12 ~

~F~ 14 ~

I-
'<"l:
J:
15 ..:.l,

:'>"
16 ~... c Z

<l:
17 ::i

and he told me that this was where they substantially revised Article X, but that this feature was retained in it.
SENATOR HOLLOWAY: What do you mean revised it? We J:ut it all in statutory law except for a few political situations.
MR. HENRY: This is one of those political situations SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I just wanted to be sure you coordinated your language with the rewritten article because

18 we were reducing that in the same --

19

MR. HENRY: This would be an exception to the genera

20 fund requirement in that the General Assembly has exercised

21 this power and has provided that the money definitely gets

22 paid into the general fund, but is paid into the system itself

23

The merits of this setup as best as I could under-

24 stand was that it is self-sustaining, it needs no appropriatio

25 from the General Assembly, the board is authorized to set up

PAGE 44

minimum standards for the firemen in that they must go

2 through a minimtml amount of training in order to come within

3 the pension fund, and that as a result of this mimintml traini.n~

4 the fire insurance premiums paid by the public have been

5 reduced, and the fire departments throughout the state have

6 been upgraded, and it's a sound system and it's well managed.

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike, what you just said is what

8 you found out when you contacted the people at the firemen's

9 pension system?

10

MR. HENRY: Right.

CzI 11 f=

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Their suggestion to us was that

.'o"
""

@;I that needs to Stay in? MR. HENRY: Yeah. The law is that '78 Georgia Code

! 14 ... Annotated '78-1002, and it creates a board of trustees for

'"<C(
:z:
15 .:l this system and sets up the eligibility for retirement and

CI

.'":::l
16 ~ payment of the fund .

Q

Z

<C(
17 ::;

As Senator Holloway said, Article X has been

18 substantially revised and a lot of this material has been

19 placed in the statute under a broad grant of authority to the

20 General Assembly and to local governments, but that this was

21 one of the, quote, political areas that was not taken out of

22 the article X as revised.

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Wade.

24

MR. WADE: Mike, let me just ask a layman citizens'

25 question. Why is a secondary pension system necessary for

PAGE 45

firemen if local governments provide the pension?

2

MR. HENRY: I think under the secondary system

3 it would set up a mechanism whereby you could require state-

4 wide standards of training and education, and that it would

5 tend to any firemen or any fire department v!ho wanted to come

6 within the system would have to meet those requirements, and

7 he was saying that the Georgia fire departments average a

8 grade 8 or 9 or better, and that the premiums to the consumer

9 are reduced.

10

MR. WADE: Let me ask this. Couldn't the General

~

zl.7 11 i=
..oa....:
12 ~

~r~ ! 14 I.'" :z: 15 ~

l.7 a:
;;;)
16 .~..
oz 17 ~

Assembly just simply mandate, have a state law that says these are mininrum standards for training, you know, and impose that upon the counties and cities that operate fire departments, because it seems to me that at some point that people who are paying for fire insurance -- and I'm beginning to understand why my rates go up -- are going to end up paying for this, and that's an incentive it seems to me that's not necessary.

18

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: The problem I have is

19 why don't we do the same thing for policemen?

20

MR. HENRY: Why don't we do the same thing for

21 government employees?

22

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: That's right, you know,

23 the h 't.... ole world.

24

CHAIR}Uili MARTIN: Mike, is it true that really

25 what's happening here is a statewide tax is being levied on

PAGE 46

fire insurance premiums and the proceeds of that tax are then

2 being allocated for firemen's pension?

3

MR. HENRY; That's the statutory setup, yes.

4

SENATOR HOLLOWAY; What's the amount of that?

5

MR. HENRY: The amount of the tax?

6

SENATOR HOLLOWAY; Annually.

7

MR. HENRY: I have a percentage, one percent of

8 gross premiums. I'm not sure of the actual amount.

9

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: In the rewrite of Article X

10

~

CzI
11 oaI."."-:.
~a:
12

@r~

! 14

I-
'"
:r
15 o!)

Ca:I
;;;)
16 .~..

Q
Z 17 ::;

under the present constitution we've got the most ridiculous setup you've ever seen, we've got pages of statutory law written in it which we took out.
Every time you dot an I in a pension system now it takes a cnnsitutional revision which is absolutely ridiculous. We took scholarships -- the medical association agreed with it -- the medical scholarship program is written in the constitution of Georgia, four or five pages, it's just as

18 important for them to want to change without going through the

19 constitutional process as it is anybody else, and they realize

20 this, but this was one group that politically said "We want to

21 stay in the constitution," and you put that together with the

22 farmers and a few other things and we figured it wouldn't

23 pass, so we put it in there.

24

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I think the reason they

25 want to stay in is --

PAGE 47

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: That's purely a political

2 decision, I can tell you that for sure.

3

The original subcommittees all wrote the most

4 beautiful constitution you've ever seen in your life, but

5 when it got to the final writing for political reasons some

6 things were put back in, and if we've made the decision that

7 we're going to pass a new constitution which is extremely

8 better written we're going to have to put up with some of

9 this kind of stuff.

10
CzI 11 j:
...oa:
0.
~ 12 ~
~F~ 14 .~.. ':"r 15 .:. Ca:I :) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ~

}fR. HENRY: This, as I said again, is totally permissive and the General Assembly could abolish that statute tomorrow.
SENATOR HOLLOWAY: That's right. That's why I can't understand why they --
The only way I can see we get it out is if we also put the benefits in the constitution so they can be changed .
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: What you've got now is

18 you've got the source of funding for the benefits in the

19 constitution, the benefits can be changed by the General

20 Assembly and are changed often and regularly. I think

21 mlllually you come through an update.

22

MR. WADE: Are there some fire departments in the

23 state, local government operated fire departments that do not

24 have a pension fund and this substitutes for it?

25

MR. HENRY: I would think so.

PAGE 48

MR. WADE: That's a kind of an unfair burden on the

2 rest of the state, isn't it?

3

REPRESENTATIVE wTJ.LLIAMSON: There may be some --

4 I think the volunteer firemen are covered under this also.

5

MR, HENRY: They do pay a fee into it. The firemen

6 pay a yearly $5 fee I believe.

7

MR, STRICKLAND: The benefits are in relationship

8 to different salaries according to different areas of the

9 state across the board.

10
"z
11 j:
.'o0"....
@;I 14 ~ I'<"l :J: 15 ~ "'";;;) 16 ~... Q Z <l 17 :

MR. HENRY: This is secondary, supplementary to any local that you would have.
MR. WADE: But it's primary for some, isn't it? It's all that some have?
MR. STRICKLAND: That's what I say, it depends on what your primary is.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Does anybody have any more questions about this provision? Then we can discuss what

18 we're going to do with it when we get down to acting on it.

19

Mike, would you continue on, and after you get

20 through with the next part I think I'm going to call on ~x.

21 Parrish. He's been very kind to wait. We will let him have

22 his say on that.

23

MR. HENRY: I want to say I wish I could have made

24 a more vigorous defense of the merits of this, but I provided

25 you with the information I was given.

PAGE 49

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But you did contact the system,

2 and that's where you got most of the information?

3

MR. HENRY: Right.

4

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay.

5

MR, HENRY: In fact, I'll skip to (b) here, and

6 then I will finish up so Mr. Parrish can speak.

7

The General Assembly may provide for the proceeds

8 from additional penalties imposed under law: to be allocated

9 for the specific purpose of funding, in whole or in part, the

10 cost of law enforcement and prosecutorial officers' training.

Czl

11 I-
..oD..O..

This was a 1978 amendment to Article VII, Section II,

~ 12 ~ Paragraph III. It has not been implemented; it has proposed

~r~ implementing legislation which would -- really this isn't the

14

~
I-

right place because

it's

an earmarking

rather

than an exception

':"r

15 .:I to the general fund requirement because the funds are paid

Cl

DO

::>

16

.~..
zo

into

the

general

fund-,

but

they're

earmarked for

training

17 : peace officers and lew enforcment personnel, so they don't

18 have any implementing lfgislation, but it is an earmark, and

19 then

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: As far as that's concerned that

21 is not currently in operation?

22

MR. HENRY: Right. That's just a -- it's been

23 introduced, it was introduced in the '76 I think, then again

24 in '78, and it's failed to be passed in both sessions.

25

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay.

PAGE 50

MR. HENRY: And then another exception to the 2 prohibition against earmarking is the motor fuel tax which

3 is contained in Article III, Section X, Paragraph 7(b),

4

Pursuant to the request of the committee that I

5 substantially broaden the exception. I attempted to do that

6 and I made it permissive on the General assembly to provide th~t

7 any amount equal to any money derived from motor fuel taxes

8 in the immediately preceding physical year be appropriated.

9 and I've dropped it from roads and bridges to transportation

10 purposes.

CP~IRMAN MARTIN: In all fairness to Mr. Parrish,

let me just state why this. subcommittee is considering this

issue, and that may help Mr. Parrish in his camnents.

The original provision dealing with earmarking was

in fact in the taxation article, and in the constituti.onal

revision of 1976 it was moved to Article III.

It seemed in our discussion in the committee in our

18 last couple of meetings that the obligation to pay the funds.

19 taxes, assessments and other revenues into the general fund

20 and the prohibition against earmarking were related.

21 You know, from a conceptual basis before exceptions were

22 added to the constitution you could say that first to pay the

23 funds into the general fund, and then the General Assembly

24 appropriates those funds.

25

Since we have uneer our consideration that first

PAGE 51

step, the provision that says that the funds will be paid

2 into the general fund, and since we had some public comment

3 at our last meeting urging us to take into consideration the

4 Department of Transportation's financial earmarking provisions

5 in the constitution, the committee decided to do that, at

6 least to have the staff draw up language which Mike has drawn

7 up, and also ask you all to appear and, frankly, what we have

8 done through our course of our deliberations is to try to put

9 into the record the reasons for and against these different

10

~

"z
11 I-
'o."".".
12 ~

(~@r1~4 ~

I-
'.."a;

:I:

15 .:I

"'::">
16 ~...

Q

Z ..a;
17 ~

constitutional provisions so that as part of our work this will be a record of the pros and cons and the policy decisions that go into our new constitution, and it's important that we have that information in the record as is what action this subcommittee takes since it's going to be a long way between this subcommittee's action and the final passing of any constitution in the legislature .
Mr. Parrish.

18

MR. PARRISH: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the

19 opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. Of course,

20 the item that you are going to be discussing today does

21 change the constitutional allocation of motor fuel taxes from

22 roads and bridges to allowing a statute for the appropriation

23 of motor fuel for that purpose. This puts it back the way it

24 was prior to 1960.

25

Of course, during Governor Vanderver's term the

PAGE 52

department agreed with the governor that they would forego the

2 motor vehicle license fees, provided the motor fuel tax was

3 constitutionally allocated to the department.

4

This was really done while I was here in Atlanta

5 during the time, I was simply interested in it and was not

6 involved in it, but it was done for two purposes; for the

7 purpose of really trying to get the department a more standard

8 appropriation so that they could plan a long-term program

9 within the department,.

10

We currently operate on a five-year construction

11

"z
i=
""o..'"".

program.

The way it was prior to 1960 you operated with an

~ 12 ~ annual construction program, that's all we had.

(@))r~

We have the opportunity now to look really at the

14

;
~

overall needs

of

the

department,

because we

know

from year

to

'"

:I:

15 olI year how much money we're going to receive.

""":;)

16 ~...

Now, the General Assembly may sweeten the amount of

Q

Z

17 : money that we get, but we know what the bottom dollar is going

18 to be.

19

Of oourse, also it's allowed the department -- this

20 kept us out of a lot of politics -- it's allowed us to become

21 more professional.

22

Then really two things in the constitution, the

23 constitutional allocation of motor fuel taxes and the 24 constitutional state transportation board elected by the 25 members of the General Assembly has probably done more in my

PAGE 53

thirty years of working life in the department to make it more

2 professional than anything else I know of, and certainly you

3 can tell that the department is not in favor of changing the

4 constitutional allocation of motor fuel.

5

This proposal would also broaden the use of motor

6 fuel to other forms of transportation. Motor fuel taxes are

7 a user tax, it's the fairest tax that I know of.

8

You pay an income tax, you know, it's used for

9 whatever purpose, but from a motor fuel tax you only pay that

10

~

"z
11 ~ a: ."o.".
12 ~

~ri 14 ~

~
':"r 15 .:)

"a:
::>
16 .~..

Q
Z 17 :::

tax if you use the roads. If you use motor fuel to propel your car on the road you're going to pay motor fuel taxes.
If you use it, however, on the farm you do not pay, it is only on public road usage, so it's the fairest tax that I know of.
It's also, however, decreasing in pppularity. The number of gallons of motor fuel that are sold each year is on the decline rather than increase. The more fuel efficient

18 automobiles and really some decrease in travel is causing the

19 motor fuel tax gallonage to decrease.

20

As a matter of fact, last year the number of gallons

21 of motor fuel decreased by 4.4 percent that was sold in the

22 state. The high for one month was 11.7 comparing one m9nth 23 to another, and I don't know that one month and one year to thE 24 same mauch in the previous year

25

Now, I don't know how much the state's total budget

PAGE 54

increased, but what, Mr. Strickland, probably 16 percent

2

MR. STRICKLAND~ 18 or 19.

3

MR. PARRISH: 18 or 19 percent. Motor fuel usage

4 went down 4.4.percent, so this even though the three

5 percent motor fuel tax applied at the pump on the retail

6 price has helped some, of course, as inflation gets the price

7 of gasoline and the Arabs get it, the price of motor fuel goes

8 up, but it has not even approached meeting the inflation

9 that's happened to us in our construction pro~ram, so in effect

10 if this proposal were enacted you simply divide a decreasing

III

Z

11

j:
.'o."....

f\md

that

there's

not

sufficient money

there now

to meet

the

@;i needs of transportation in the state, highway transportation in the state, and divide it between roads, trains, airports

! 14 I- and water.

'<z"l

15 o!)
III

Now, with all those items other than highways, of

'"::J

16 .~.. course, we present to the public our five-year construction

Q

Z

<l

17 : program for highways, so you know what is going to be done.

18

For those ite~ now financed by general funds, they

19 are presented to the General Assembly in a package. If the

20 General Assembly wants to spend money to improve the Savannah

21 Port, they vote that as a package and they finance it.

22

We think it has worked quite weU. There has been

23 a steady increase in general funds appropriated to the

24 department, and Representative Williamson and Senator Holloway

25 can attest to that, but these are for special programs that

PAGE 55

the General Assembly feels after they're presented to them

2 they feel the need for and they have financed them.

3

There is another test that motor fuel taxes are

4 paid into the general fund. They are not given directly to

5 us, they are paid into the general fund and they are

6 appropriated by the General Assembly.

7

Now, the current provision in Article III says if

8 the General Assembly does not appropriate at least the amount

9 that was collected in the previous fiscal year the department

,-

10 can go to court and get it, you know, but the General AssemblJ,

1:1

Z

@;;11

j:
'oa."....

isn't

that

right,

Senator,

the

General Assembly has

--

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: You all didn't read that one too

good, did you?

! 14 ...

MR. PARRISH: The General Assembly does appropriate

':z":

15 motor fuel taxes to our department just like they appropriate

CI

'"::>

16 .~.. funds to all the other state departments, including the line

o

Z

<t

17 ::; items that they require, what is it, eleven line items, so

18 they are paid into the General fund and they are appropriated

19 by the General Assembly.

20

I would like to wind up, Mr. Chairman, by saying that

21 last year the same issue was addressed four times, twice in

22 the tax revision commission, twice in the constitutional

23 revision commission, it appeared before the Select Committee,' 24 the Constitutional Revision Commission, they acted to leave

25 it strictly as it currently is in the constitution.

PAGE 56

Of course, that was under Article III. You're

2 addressing Article VII, but it appears to me that the select

3 Committee in that discussion -- in the General Assembly last

4 year I think it was pretty well stated that the expression

5 was that it's in there and it should stay in there as it is,

6 so we would certainly recommend that Article VII not address

7 that issue, that it's in Article III, and for it to remain in

8 Article III as it now is.

9

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Parrish. I have

10 got a couple of questions, and it's for the purpose of getting

@;;"z 11 i= ."~.".

some of these thin~into the record.

My personal feeling is that ultimately this

provision will be changed, but it probably won't be changed

14 ~ I'"-e( :z:
15 ol)
"'";;;)
16 .~.. Q
Z
-e(
17 ::

in this constitution. There's just Qome questions about some of the
comments that you have made . I agree that the motor fuel tax is a fair tax or

18 a fair user tax. I wonder why, then, the motor fuel tax is

19 not increased so that for the purposes of roads and bridges

20 and their construction all those funds that are used for

21 those purposes by the state come from the motor fuel tax as

22 opposed to from the general fund.

23

One of the ideas I understand with earmarking the

24 funds is that you take the user fee, the motor fuel tax and

25 use that to build roads and bridges, and that by doing that

PAGE 57

then there won't be the politics, the fighting among other

2 agencies forfunds from the general fund. That has not been

3 my experience over the past couple of years, and I understand

4 the department now has a very large general fund request in

5 its budget for this year.

6

Have you contemplated raising the motor fuel tax

7 or --

8

MR. PARRISH: Well, the department has made a couple

9 of public presentations on what is the future of motor fuel

10
z
" 11 j: IX ..0..
~r~ @~12 IX 14 .~.. '" :I: 15 .: "IX :;) 16 zIII Q z 17 IX III

taxes. What it appears to us is going to happen, and we think they're on the decline and will continue on the decline provided the price of gasoline continues up, and I think the General Assembly and the state is going to have to address sonle modification in motor fuel tax, whether it may be a ton-mile tax for the trucks or some other additional revenues are going to have to be developed.
Let me address one more time, Mr. Chai~Bn, the

18 idea of roads being financed with general funds. I guess

19 the outstanding examples of roads financed by general funds

20 has been the LARC program which was completely financed with

21 general funds for local roads and streets, not state roads.

22 It was required that they all be spent on county roads and
...
23 city streets.

24

That was presented as a package to the General

25 Assembly, and in talking I suppose with their local

PAGE 58

constituents they felt that it was an important program and

2 they did fund it.

3

However, last year -- the current year's budget

4 last year's budget it was financed by motor fuel tax this

5 year, so we are now financing the LARC program with motor

6 fuel taxes. Next year our proposed budget will, if the

7 General Assembly wants to continue it, it would require some

8 general funds for LARC.

9

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I guess my concern there is there

10 are two LARC roads in my neighborhood, I live here in Atlanta,

CzI 11 j:
"o0....
@;j

that were paved under the original LARC program, and if I were choosing I would have chosen to spend that money on other state needs.

! 14

You point out that transportation uses would be too

I-

':"z:

15 ~ broad, that you need to make the roads and bridges, or to

CI
":) 16 ~... limit it to roads and bridges, and I know that the Tax
Q
z

17 : Revision Commission in just initial reports has suggested

18 expanding it to transportation, and a number of things that

19 have been written nationally suggest that that is a movement

20 the departments of transportation should be making.

21

I want to ask for clarity, is your position that

22 the money needs to be earmarked a.nd used only for roads and

23 bridges, and that to expand it to mass transit would cause

24 problems for the Department of Transportation? I'm not quite

25

MR. PARRISH: Let me point out to you -- you say

PAGE 59

there is a movement nationally -- there is a National

2 Highway Trust fund financed with motor fuel taxes, with

3 taxes on tires, with taxes on oil, and until three years ago

4 excise taxes on automobiles. That is the program for roads

5 and bridges nationally.

6

There is a trust fund for airports nationally, Mass

7 transit is funded with general funds through the nation, so

8 while there are minor states in the nation that have a unified

9 trust fund for transportation, Maryland being one, then

10 Maryland does not build roads inside cities, the cities

Czl

e ; ;11

I-
...o0<
0..

themselves build the

roads

in the state of Maryland,

the

state of Maryland does not do it,

The state of New York has a unified trust fund, but

14

~
I-

they are

a very

small number

of states

that have a

trust

fund

'"

:I:

15 .: for all forms of transportation.

Cl

0<

::l

16 ~ Q

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's all the questions I have.

z

17 ::i

MR.. NASH: I would like to ask Mr. Parrish a

18 question, Is it under statute that you all derive authority

19 to levy other taxes or get certain percents of fines and

20 assessments?

21

For example, this new road sign situation that is

22 fixing to collect tremendous amounts of money for the

23 department, are those all under statute?

24

MR., PARRISH: Yes, those are under statute.

25

MR, NASH: How many of those do you all have as

PAGE 60

resources of funds?

2

MR. PARRISH: I believe there's three.

3

One. fines or forfeitures and permit fees for

4 overweight trucks, over dimension or overweight trucks is

5 used to administer that particular office in our department.

6 Any funds in excess to their needs for that purpose is put

7 into maintenance of roads, since the overweight vehicles 8 are what damage the roads in the first place. That is one 9 fund.

10

The outdoor advertising permit fee is used to

11

z"
j:

administer that office and,

of course,

this will be to --

.'oQ"..,

@ ; j the next fiscal year wilT' be the first time we will have any of those funds within the department.

! 14 I':<z"l:
15 ~
'""::;)
16 ~... Q
Z <l
17 ::;

MR. NASH: In other words, you haven't collected on those before?
MR. PARRISH: No, sir . Let me see, there's one more and it's slipped my

18 mind. Rest areas on the interstate system. We have vending 19 machines in those rest areas, for which the profits -- they 20 have been very minor coming from them, is to be used for the 21 maintenance of the rest areas, but to my knowledge -~ now I

22 don't think I missed one, I believe that's all.

23

MR. NASH: What do you all anticipate in revenue

24 off this sign program that you apparently are fixing to put 25 into effect?

PAGE 61

MR. PARRISH: I think the first year legal signs

2 are about 5,000, which they are already permitted. For those

3 5,000 signs we receive $25~iece for those 5,000 signs.

4

There are currently about 16,000 nonconforming

5 signs, and for those the first year, those that remain on

6 the road -- some of them will be taken down, some of the junk

7 signs rather than paying the $50 the first year's permit fee

8 would be, they will be taken down, so you can figure about

9 what's that -- $50 for 16,000 signs, that's what, $800,000

10 from that particular

"z

11 I-
0..'"....

MR. NASH: All right. Then it's an annual renewal,

12 '" is that correct of 25?

@rl

MR. PARRISH: Yes.

! 14 I.:z":

MR. NASH: 25. The legal permitted signs, how do

15 .:I you determine your legal permitted signs?

..":':">

16 .z..

MR. PARRISH: It's stated in detail in the law, and

Q

..Z
17 '" I'm not sure that I can explain it to you, but it's based on--

18

MR. NASH: What I'm getting at, this is going to be

19 a pretty good sized- income which will be used to administer

20 the sign program.

21

MR. PARRISH: Yes, sir.

22

MR. NASH: This is an additional tax, I guess you

23 would call it a tax, or is it just a legislative

24

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: User fee.

25

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It falls under the category of

PAGE 62

agency funds we were talking about last meeting which really

2 wouldn't come tmder our general ftmd requirement.

3

MR. NASH: So these ftmds would never go to the

4 general fund; right?

5

MR. HENRY: If they had a statutory premise, they

6 would.

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Based on a statutory premise,

8 that's correct.

9

MR. HENRY: I think they are based on a statutory

10 premise.

11 u~z

MR. NASH: Are these funds going to be earmarked for

e -io 012 ~ these purposes if it goes into the general fund is what I'm
getting at?

14 ~

MR. PARRISH: It is included that way in the statute.

'"
:I:
.. 15 ~ The General Assembly passed the statute, I'm sure they can u

;;;)
16 ~ modify it.

Q

17 Z~

MR. NASH: If they earmark it, that's what I'm

18 getting at.

19

MR. PARRISH: That presently is in the statute. but

20 I might -- the cost of issuing a permit for an outdoor

21 advertising sign, whether we agree or disagree with the

22 program doesn't have anything to do with it because the

23 federal government has got a pretty good sized billy club in

24 that area, about 150 million a year.

25

Whether we agree or not, the cost of processing a

PAGE 63

permit for an outdoor advertising sign for which in the past

2 we received $10 was costing us nearly $13. apiece.

3

Now, the taxpayer in this state, the general tax-

4 payer, whether he agreed an outdoor advertising sign ought to

5 be up, was supplementing just a little bit the fee for those

6 signs, nearly seven times, so we feel that while the $50

7 doesn't even come -- approach what it costs us, it's still

8 better than what we had before.

9

MR. NASH: I would suggest the legislature go back

10 and look at the program. If it's costing that much money

III Z
11 I-
o..'"....
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 I':"z: 15 .:l
III
'":::l
16 .~.. Q
Z
17 :li

and you're not even going to fund the thing, you stop and

think of who's going to pay the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I'm not sure I -- I

really sort of have

If you've got 5,000 signs and you've

got to permit them, that's one number, but if you get some of

these 16,000 that are going to be permitted, then, you know,

the $73 number may not be valid.

18

MR. PARRISH: We think it will go down. As a

19 matter of fact, year after year -- our < estimate was it would

20 go as low as $38. Well, we're going to be getting 25.

21

MR. NASH: You're not really going to derive any

22 more funds for transportation, all you're going to do is go

23 into this sign program.

24

MR. PARRISH: Yes.

25

MR. NASH: Transportation gets nothing out of it,

PAGE 64

yet it's earmarked to their program,

2

MR, PARRISH: We have been talking with our

3 congressmen and senators at the delegation trying to get

4 changes made in federal legislation on outdoor advertising,

5 but there hasn't been much success nationally in changing

6 that program.

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: One of the things we have under

8 consideration, Mr. Parrish, is to add to the requirement that

9 funds be paid to the general fund, that interest be paid

10 into the general fund. Does the department have any trouble

with that?

MR. PARRISH: Without doubt. Of course, the statute

now says -- the constitution currently says motor fuel taxes

shall be allocated to roads and bridges,

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right.

MR. PARRISH: The statutes say what the taxes shall

be, they shall be 7 1/2 cents per gallon of gasoline sold.

18 they shall be the interest derived from the investment of

19 motor fuel tax funds, and they shall be three percent of the

20 retail price at pump, so currently the statute says that

21 interest derived from motor fuel tax funds are motor fuel

22 taxes and therefore constitutionally appropriated to the

23 department.

24

So yes we would, if the constitution were to change

25 that we would certainly have a little problem with it.

PAGE 65

MR. HENRY: But it really -- the way I see it, it

2 still wouldn't affect

You know, you're saying interest

3 is motor fuel, and we're saying all interest shall be paid

4 into the general fund and appropriated pursuant to this

5 constitution, aBd this constitution just happens to

6 appropriate all motor fuel taxes for roads and bridges, so

7 that, you know, you're in complete compliance with that

8 provision with respect to your interest.

9

MR. PARRISH: I agree with you. I'm not sure it

10 would chan~e.

MR. HENRY: 'My question is, and I'd like to ask the

commissioner, how can you say that interest on a tax is a

tax? How can you define it as a tax?

MR. STRICKLAND: I didn't know that I did.

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: You leave that to the Lieutenant

Governor.

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is that the only -- does anyone

18 know if that's the only case where interest is earmarked to

19 go back to --7

20

MR. HENRY: That was brought to my attention when

21 I started talking with Pete Hackney and them about it; they

22 didn't tell me of any other instance where interest has been

23 found to be --

24

MR. PARRISH: That's the only case I know of.

25

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Does anyone else have any

PAGE 66

questions?

2

MR. HENRY: On your outdoor advertising fees, that's

3 earmarked?

4

MR. PARRISH: By statute.

5

MR. HENRY: Then you have to define it as a motor

6 fuel tax in order to implement

7

MR. PARRISH: No, the statute simply says that the

8 funds derived from the permitting of these signs shall be used 9 to administer the program, so it's not earmarked in the

10 constitution, it's not defined as motor fuel tax, but only

in the statute says what it shallbe used for.

MR. HENRY: The General Assembly could transfer the

funds to administer the program to another department and it

would not

MR. t-JADE: When you say these funds administer the

program, does that include salaries of personnel?

MR. PARRISH: Yes, for those who are handling those

18 permits.

19

MR. WADE: All right. Does this mean those people

20 are not paid for out of the general fund, are not any way --

21 Are those employees in any way receiving any moneys from the

22 general fund, or do you have a special category of employees

23 who do that and this is a self-contained situation?

24

MR. PARRISH: Okay. Up tmtil we receive these funds

25 you know, from the new permit, these employees have been paid

PAGE 67

by motor fuel taxes. you know, out of our regular budget.

2

To answer your question. we operate two funds in

3 our department, one Being the motor fuel tax fund, and the

4 other being the general fund.

5

The motor fuel taxes do not lapse at the end of 1he

6 year; the general funds do lapse on June 30th. and no

7 employee that is to be doing a job on waterways, you can't

8 use motor fuel tax funds for waterways or airports. Any

9 employee working in those fields a~designated as general

10
I!I Z
11 l-
o..ll..<..
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 IUI :-<rl: 15 I!I ll< ::l 16 ~... Q Z -<l: 17 :

fund emp loyees and that's the way they're paid. We don't mix it up.
MR. WADE: But you're saying that there are no general fund employees administering this program, the sign program?
MR. PARRISH: Not purely general fund, that's right. They will be when we start getting this money in .
MR. WADE: They will be what?

18

MR. PARRISH: They will be general fund employees.

19

MR. WADE: What does the fund, what will it pay for?

20 Somewhere I'm missing this. It see~ to me --

21

MR. PARRISH: Well. maybe I'm misunderstanding.

22

MR. WADE: I'm trying to see -- There are two

23 categories of employees. You're saying that the money

24 collected from the sign program will pay to administer the

25 program. I want to know if the salaries of the people

PAGE 68

doing the work administering the program, will they come from

2 the fees collected, or will they be in part supported by

3 general funds?

4

MR. PARRISH: They will come from the fees collected

5 to the extent that cover the program.

6

Currently, as an example, in the enforcement

7 division where you're weighing trucks the money doesn't quite

8 cover the cost of administering the program, so in that area

9 we supplement it with motor fuel taxes, and this may be the

10 case too with the outdoor advertising program. They will be

zCl

11

j:
oa.".":.

paid with permit fees

up

to the

amount

of the

fund,

and then

~ 12 ~ anything above that we'll have to put motor fuel taxes in.

@F~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any other questions of Mr. Parrish;

! 14

Mr. Parrish, thank you very much for your comments.

I-

U>

~

%

15 .:l Those were very helpful.

Ca:l

:)

16 .~..

Are there any public comments or any statements

Q

Z

~

17 ::; anybody who is here wants to make before we start talking

18 about this paragraph?

19

Mike, you did a real good job with that report.

20 There were some difficult issues to look into.

21

What is the pleasure of the subcommittee?

22

MR. STRICKLAND: Mr. Chairman, you made a comment

23 about it, it's just not clear to me whether we should be

24 addressing this. It's not clear in my mind.

25

MR. NASH I guess the only issue we're really

PAGE 69

addressing is whether or not to earmark funds.

2

MR. STRICKLAND: A personal observation. I would

3 hate to compete with DOT for funds.

4

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Let me say this. It deals with

5 this problem of fuedism. First, we cannot write the

6 constitution thinking that the present personnel involved

7 will be there always.

8

I think the record of the Highway Department since

9 , 74 has been by far the mos t outs tanding record of any agency

10 in the government, barring none. They've cut employees. they

\:l

Z

11

...
.'o"".".

went

from

17,000

down

to

eight.

If you check their yearly

e;~ allocations whether constitutionally or a part of the general fund, they have increased less than any agency in government

! 14 ... I know of. including yours .

'-"<

::J:

15 ~

MR. STRICKLAND: Yes.

\:l

'":;)

16 ~...

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I don't know how many of you

Q

Z

-<

17 : ride Alabama and South Carolina highways, our neighbors, but

18 I don't apologize for our highways, and I think they're doing

19 a good job. I think they're doing an excellent job.

20

The main concern I would have about disturbing the

21 allocation would be competition with welfare. education, you

22 name it, and we have taken a lot of politics out of the

23 Highway Department in the last eight or ten years, no

24 question about that. They're allocating funds by regions.

25 they've got formulas that are fairly equitable, but if you

PAGE 70

get this highway department out really fighting for their

2 fair share of the total state dollar and they start talking

3 to a representative or a senator about a bypass around a city 4 or something. you have all the welfare workers, all the 5 educators you want to knocking on the door. they've got a lot

6 of clout. I hate to see them get involved in the limited way

7 they are in general funds for that reason.

8

I think the money is well spent. and I think it's

9 justifiable to a great degree. We've got an investment of

10 what, $50 billion in our highways, and you have got to up a

11

"z
j:

certain amount of money to maintain that investment before

'.lo".l..'

@;I maintenance gets out of pocket. I for one would like to allocate sufficient moneys

! 14 to the highway department, and I thought we had done that when IOIl <:rl
15 .:I we passed this bill. With the 55 mile,an hour speed limit
"'"';;)
16 .~.. plus the elimination of the gas guzzlers -- I've been two
zQ
17 ~ years just studying that trend of what we can expect in

18 highway funds. and it's that way (indicating), it's not going

19 to take care of the situation. This much allocation isn't.

20

I don't know what the answer is, but I for one would

21 be opposed to increasing the broadness of what the moneys can

22 be used for, because certainly the major need we have now is

23 highways and bridges. and it's inadequate for that. and I

24 would also be opposed to discontinuing the allocation.

25

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any other conunents?

PAGE 71

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I'll make one comment

2 just for the record.

3

I would like to see the -- you know, I would like to

4 see the language broadened. I don't feel terribly strong that

5 we don't have a way to do that in the General Assembly.

6

It's obvious I think everyone here that the Depart-

7 ment of Transportation is going to continue to come back for

8 additional general revenue funds. Now. if they want to take

9 the gas tax and put that with roads and bridges, the General

10 Assembly is going to have ample opportunity with every

Czl

11 j: appropriathns bill to say "In your general funds we want this

'o"

~r~ ~\

12

"~"
~

spent

on broader

defined transportation purposes."

I think

the General Assembly is going to have that authority really

14 ~ in the years ahead, and I think we can handle it that way

!;;



:J:

15 .:l instead of, you know, proceeding through language changes.

Cl

'~"

16 ~ It isn't going to make a lot of difference, but it's sure

Q

z

<l:

17 : going to make a lot of people over in the DOT real excited,

18 and I think we've got that language in there, I think there

19 is a chance we would destroy the opportunity to have the

20 document be ratified by the people.

21

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I think I agree with that

22 political observation. I am concerned that there is no

23 pressure on the Department of Transportation to increase the

24 gas tax as long as they're able to get general revenues.

25

I believe a user fee is a good fee, but --

PAGE 72

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I think you might see that

2 changed when we've got the election year by.

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any other connnents, or

4, does anyone want to make a proposal?

5

It might be appropriate, for example, to propose

6 that we leave the Department of Transportation like it is,

7 and everybody on the subconnni-ttee can vote one way or the

8 other, and that might then speed our work.

9

Would someone like to make that

10

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: So moved.

"z
11 j:
@;;'.o.".. WI

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I would like to second the Senator's motion.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor of that -- Would

! 14 you restate your motion, Senator?

~

'"

:I:

15 01)

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I move the committee not take

:'">"

16 ~ any action which would result in increasing the usages of

WI

13

Z

17 : the money to other than highways and bridges, and that would

18 in any way negate the allocation of motor fuel tax.

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Nash.

20

MR. NASH: At some time are we going to be asked to

21 vote on whether or not under the constitution it gives

22 authority for earmarking?

23

If we vote for this, then automatically we -- I

24 guess we all cast a vote -- I mean if this carries that we

25 do include in the constitution the authority for the General

__
~~_~ ~

--l

PAGE 73

Assembly to earmark funds.

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Senator Holloway can correct me

3 if I'm wrong. You could make that in the form of a

4 substitute motion to Senator Holloway's motion.

5

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: That's the intent of my motion.

6

MR.. NASH: In other words, this would give authority

7 for it in the constitution of earmarking certain funds?

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's right, for transportation.

9 You could change that motion to say do we want to change any

10 of the earmarking provisions in the state constitution as a

subcommittee if that was

MR.. NASH: Let me ask this question before we go any

further on it.

This firemen's fund and all, is that earmark:l.ng1

MR.. HENRY: No. No, that's the

Well, it has

MR.. NASH: This would be the only earmarking

provision?

18

MR.. HENRY: When you don't require something to be

19 paid into the general fund, it has the effect of an earmark.

20

MR.. NASH: That's what I'm trying to get clear in

21 my mind. If the pass the motion, the substitute motion as

22 I'm saying here, that allows the General Assembly the

23 authority to make earmarking of funds, then it would cover

24 the firemen's fund and so forth like that as to earmarking?

25

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let me see if I can state that.

PAGE 74

If you want to make a motion that we not change any

2 of the consdtutional provisions that deal with earmarking,

3 then Mike's report this morning dealing with all the

4 additional earmarking situations, plus the Department of

S Transpprtation earmarking issue would be resolved, and that

6 resolution would be that we would not consider those -- we

7 would not take action on that as a subcommittee.

8

MR. NASH: All right. Now one other question.

9 I'm willing to make that motion.

10

One other question. The agriculture commission

thing, since those are not coming -- those are not general

taxation on all people, in other words, specific. Would they

come under this same thing or not?

In other words, they're separate, they not collected

from --

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Strickland?

MR. STRICKLAND: All taxes are general taxes on all

18 people as far as I'm concerned, highway too.

19

MR. NASH: Those are, yes, but on this particular

20 item only those people that are producing are taxed.

21

MR. WADE: They're going to pass them on to the

22 people.

23

MR. STRICKLAND: That's what I'm saying, it passes

24 along.

2S

MR. NASH: Us people that buy them peanuts --

PAGE 75

MR. STRICKLAND: You can never get on the highway

2 and be a highway user, too.

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Actually there are several issues.

4 Mr. Nash, you're correct in pointing out only one of the issue~

5 is the earmarking; we can dispose of that.

6

MR. NASH: I just wanted to know whether that was

7 under earmarking or not. That's what I'm asking.

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Senator Holloway.

9

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I believe the law reads now, or

10 the constitution does on the allocation of motor fuel tax

.. 11

CzI
I-

that

they

shall be allocated.

I notice the word "may," the

o'."..

~ 12 ~ General Assembly may.

~F~ ! 14

What is the current law in these other areas? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike?

I-

'<"l

:I:
15 otI

MR. HENRY: Let me try and explain my proposal

CI
'";;;) 16 .~.. again .

Q

Z

<l
17 :::

The present language does sayan amount equal to all

18 money derived from motor fuel taxes received by the state.

19

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: It's self-enacting?

20

MR. HENRY: Right.

21

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: What about the category of the

22 commodities and the workmen's comp?

23

MR. HENRY: If you notice, I have distinguished the

24 first three as being exceptions to the general fund

25 requirement, which has the effect of an earmarking.

PAGE 76

The second two are not exceptions to the general

2 fund requirement, but are exceptions to the prohibition

3 against earmarking.

4

If you want to dispose of the motor fuel tax issue,

5 then you could move to delete subsection (a) under redrafted

6 exception to the prohibition against earmarking and leave it

7 as it is in the constitution, if you want to deal with that

8 issue alone first.

9

Then you would also in light of that -- well, no,

10 you just move to delete that --

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike, is there a way to say that?

If we want to dispose of earmarking the last two, (a) and (b),

the last paragraph, if we decide to do that, we want to

consider that, then we decide whether in the general fund

category the three issues that you had here, what we're

supposed to do with that?

MR. HENRY: And also the second sentence of the

18 main body of the first paragraph prohibits earmarking.

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's right. So we take out that

20 provision after the second sentence of our section,offue main

21 part of the section as well as the two (a) and (b) in the

22 last paragraph?

23

MR. HENRY: Right. If you do that, it will have the

24 effect of placing, of leaving the motor fuel tax in its

25 present posture; it will have the effect of deleting the

PAGE 77

authority of the General Assembly to earmark proceeds from

2 additional penalties imposed under law to be allocated for a

3 specific purpose.

4

MR. WADE: It gets more confusing instead of

5 simplifying it. It may be best to take each provision

6 separately.

7

Bill, let me just come back to you. You said you

8 would hate to compete with transportation for funds. I can

9 imagine as the Senator has pointed out, the great persuasive

10 powers and all kinds of things, but isn't there something

e;111

"z
j:
o~ .0.-.

inherently healthy to opening up this process and having it

before the people and having legislators, elected officials

who do run for elected office tighten up their sense of

14 ~ I-

relationship to their constituency in terms of the shifting

:Uz>:

15 ~ needs of the state?

"~

::>

16 ~...

I'm just an uninformed citizen who is beginning to

Q

Z

17 : look at how government operates. I just somehow find this

18 a little bit more than I can just comfortably digest, and I

19 am going to vote to oppose earmarking, I'm going to vote if

20 we have it to eliminate the secondary pension fund; I'm

21 going to ask my senator and my representative to do the same.

22 This is bad, very bad. I think it needs to be opened up.

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Senator Holbway?

24

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Let me add that I have seen

25 task forces that have nonpolitical people on it with an

PAGE 78

earnest desire to write a good constitution for Georgia, and

2 to do one of the finest jobs, and then it gets up before the

3 committee and politics gets into it.

4

Now, my vote on this -- say.for instance the

5 firemen's pension will be for the same reason it was when we

6 rewrote Article X which passed the General Assembly and got

7 a two-thirds vote, but I think we need to come out with

8 something we can pass in the legislature, and I believe for

9 those reasons these exceptions are necessary.

10

I agree with your statement completely, but I don't

I!l Z
11 i= know whether I can get elected on it.
@;;o0..0..=.. MR. WADE: Sure. I guess maybe that is what the system is all about, different interests, and somehow I just

! 14 don't see that these exceptions are in the best interest of t'<:z"l:
15 ~ the people of the state, and certainly I don't see -- because I!l 00= ::l
16 .~.. the insurance carriers as an example are going to pass Cl Z <l
17 : whatever rate increases on to the people who are paying for

18 fire insurance, and why should -- if local government has the

19 responsibility of providing a pension fund, why shouldn't

20 they do it? I mean the state can simply --

21

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Article X could be rewritten

22 based on the fact that the only thing the General Assembly

23 could do with a pension fund is vote safeguards for pension

24 funds, it doesn't name a single one, and any general law we 25 pass to maintain the stability of the funds would apply to

PAGE 79

all funds so that you wouldn't have to have a local

2 constitutional amendment every time you dotted an I in a

3 local constitution.

4

MR. WADE: Is it necessary, then, for all citizens

5 of the state to have to pay for the retirement program of the

6 firemen in --

7

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Some of them are not run very

8 good, like the Atlanta school teachers. I mean we had to

9 come in and save them.

10

I mean I think you need a broad protection at the

z~
11 .. state level to assure the soundness of any pension fund, but o'.."....'
@;I only in a broad area. Now, if they want to change their payments up to, increase it ten percent as long as they stay

!.14 within a certain actuarial format they could do it locally

'<x"ll

15 .:I without coming to the General Assembly.

~
:'">'

16 .~..

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike, let me ask you a question

az

<ll

17 : about this last paragraph here to try to clarify this so we

18 can vote one way or the other. I have a feeling I'm going

19 to go along with Mr. Wade, butwe need to have something to

20 vote on first.

21

Mike~ this last paragraph, if we decide not to

22 address the issue of earmarking, we don't need to do anything

23 about that last paragraph in your paper, the one dealing with 24 the allocation of fines for the cost of law enforcement and

25 prosecutorial training, do we? That's not in our current

PAGE 80

section?

2

MR. HENRY: Yes, it is.

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Where is that in our section?

4

MR. HENRY: It has amended the provision in 1978

5 which provides that all revenue be paid into the general fund.

6

Jim, can I suggest that you perhaps dispose first of

7 the motor fuel tax, and then consider each one of these one

8 at a time?

9

CHAIRMAN 'MARTIN: Is there a motion to that effect?

10 Does somebody just want to go down this list?

MR. NASH: We had two motions I guess we're

discussing.

MR. WADE: Neither one has got a second.

MR. NASH: The Senator's was seconded.

MR. WADE: Oh , you seconded his.

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any other motions or

seconds?

18

Bill, do you want to continue to talk about this?

19

MR. STRICKLAND: You mentioned my name, and you

20 didn't actually ask me a question, you mentioned my name and

21 made a remark,

22

MR. WADE: Yes.

23

MR, STRICKLAND:

reference something I had said.

24

I would like to say as far as what you have said

25 and Senator Holloway, and I said it the other day and I told

11

-------------------'

PAGE 81

the people at DOT.

2

I think the people in the state government ought to

3 have to go to the same source to get their revenue, I believe

4 that. But I also know as a -- and I have to agree with what

5 the Senator said as a practical matter about what has to be

6 done if you're going to get a new constitution, I agree with

7 that.

8

As far as the reasons for having dedicated funds in

9 the DOT, Emory mentioned -- and Emory, by the way, is one of

::,.

10 the few people that's been around the state government almost

CzI

11

I-
'0.a"....

as

long as

I have -- but I

don't really agree -- I mean I

12 '" think his reasons about having construction and long-term

@ r l programs, I don't really think that that is justification for

! 14 I-

it.

I think any agency in the state government that doesn't

'"

:I:

15 ~ do long range planning, doesn't have the need for funding for

CI

'";:)

... 16 zIII long range planning has got poor management.

Q

Z

17 '"III

I mean I can understand the construction part of

18 it, but every agency has that, so my position is that while I

19 think that everybody should go to the same source, I think we

20 do have to be practical and I see no chance of getting anything

21 changed in this area.

22

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike, I guess I'm having a little

23 trouble understanding that answer. Where in our current

24 paragraph is this last section that you have here?

25

MR. HILL: It's Paragraph III, the second

PAGE 82

unnumbered paragraph.

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Oh, at the end of the list of

3 public purposes.

4

MR. HILL: No, no.

5

MR. HENRY: It directly amended Paragraph III which

6 provides that all funds be paid into the general fund, but I

7 think that --

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I see what you're saying.

9

MR. HENRY: -- it's an improper amendment; it should

10 have amended the prohibition against earmarking, given the

11

"z
j:

nature

of

the

implementing

legislation.

..'o"....

@);~I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Which I guess proves the point that there are two sections that are really related.

14 .~..

MR. HENRY: Yes .

'"

:I:

15 ~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay.

"'":;)

16 .~..

MR. NASH: I've got one other question. Again I'm

Q

Z

17 : not clear. I can see earmarking of the fuel tax situation,

18 but it seems, though, that we -- it's unclear to me as to

19 what part of these other items are actually earmarked by the

20 consitution or earmarked by the General Assembly for such out

21 of general funds.

22

Some of these don't go to the general fund. Your

23 firemen's deal as I understand it doesn't go there, it's a

24 separate fund that's collected and put into that fund, it's

25 not a general fund item, so to me that is an earmarking of

PAGE 83

that thing, and it's whether or not you use one in the 2 constitution against earmarking of it or for earmarking of it,

3 and then turn around and vote the others against earmarking

4 or putting in the general fund and let the Assembly take it 5 back out. I guess that is what has been addressed here, that 6 this makes it more responsive to the General Assembly to do 7 this, yet we in the constitution here are trying to rewrite

8 this thing or trying to say we'll take one item and earmark

9 in the constitution and we want to take the other ones and

10 turn them over to the General Assembly for earmarking purposes,

11

"z
j:

and

can

the

General Assembly

do

this?

..o0..1..:

@;I Nash.

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let me try to answer that, Mr. I think that the way funds get earmarked is, one, if

! 14 ... it never goes into the general fund, then it is never in the

'"

15

:J:
~

appropriations

process

for

it

to

be

appropriated

and

therefore

"01:

:;)

16 .~.. it's earmarked.

oz 17 :

Those types of funds are the three types of funds tha

18 Mike talked about this morning as well as the agency funds that

19 we talked about at our last meeting that Mr. Parrish~was

20 referring to in the classifications of outdoor signs and

21 enforcement.

22

The other type of earmarking implies those funds that

23 are in fact paid into the general fund like the motor fuel 24 tax, but then are constitutionally appropriated back to the

25 Department of Transportation. That's where I understand the

PAGE 84

two situations where earmarking occurs.

2

MR. NASH: In other words, this is not earmarking

3 of the fuel tax, this is -- it goes into the general fund

4 and then it's earmarked by the General Assembly back out;

5 right?

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The Article III, appropriations

7 article requires the General Assembly to appropriate it.

8

MR. NASH: It requires them, okay. All right.

9

Now, on your outdoor sign deal and things like that

10
.."z
11 j:
.'o"..
~ 12 ~
~ri ! 14 t'x" 15 ~ "'";;) 16 .~.. oz 17 :

it'~ not required, correct? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: To be paid into the general fund. MR. PARRISH: It is paid in, and it's appropriated
out, yes, sir. You all appropriate both the permit fees and all those things back to us.
MR. STRICKLAND: There are things that don't go into the general fund .
MR. NASH: That's what I'm trying to find out.

18 Does that thing?

19

MR. STRICKLAND: There's not an agency of the state

20 government that doesn't have some type

21

MR. WADE: Even the sign money, the way it is set

22 up and the law is written it's just form. I mean that's all,

23 it's just form. It goes in, yeah, but you know it's going to

24 come out. I mean there's no need to write a separate program

25 to justify it, it's coming anyway.

PAGE 85

MR. PARRISH: Mr. Wade, not all of it.

2

MR. WADE: Sir?

3

MR. PARRISH: Not all of it.

4

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike, can you help us?

5

MR. HENRY: I'm going to try. The mandate that all

6 revenue collected from taxes, fees and assessments be paid

7 into the general fund of the state treasury and the prohibi-

8 tion against the earmark of any particular tax for any

9 particular purpose are in a sense mutually exclusive, except

10 that both have the effect of doing the other.

III Z
11 ~
'..o"....
@;I Mike.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I shouldn't have called on you,

14 ~

(Laughter. )

I-

'"

%

15 .:l

MR. NASH: It takes two hands to explain that,

III

'";;)

16

~
ow

doesn't

it, Mike?

Q

Z

17 :

MR. HENRY: I think if you delete -- Let me go

18 through this.

19

If you act on motor fuel tax first, and if you

20 delete this section you will go back to what you presently

21 have in the constitution which I think was the effect of

22 Senator Holloway's first motion.

23

You would also need to delete the second sentence

24 of the paragraph which has the effect of hammering the final

25 nails in the coffin of saying that you can't earmark, but

PAGE 86

there is presently a provision which prohibits earmarking,

2 so hand in hand with omitting (a} and letting it go back the

3 way it stands right now you might as well omit the second

4 sentence in Paragraph III,

5

Then maybe if you wanted to look at the authoriza-

6 tion for the General Assembly to allocate specific

7 additional penalties for specific purposes, and if you want

8 to -- that was a 1978 amendment, it's never been implemented --

9 if you want to consider on the merits whether that's a good

10 thing to do, then do it and retain that, and then go up here

to the general fund requirements, or the general fund

exceptions and say "Is this a fund that shouldn't go into

the general fund because it has particular merit for the

purposes for which it was established," but you could act on

it like that I think rather than trying to take the whole

thing in one foul swoop you could just act on each one alone,

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is that foul or fell swoop?

18

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I'll give you a motion,

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes, go ahead, Senator Holloway,

20

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Let's address ourselves to (a)

21 first under the redrafted exception to the prohibition against

22 earmarking.

23

I move that that recommendation be struck,

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a second to that motion?

25

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Would you read that

PAGE 87

again? What are we striking?

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Striking the (a) in the second

3 paragraph. Is that correct, Senator?

4

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: No. (a) in the last two items

5 on the sheet.

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's right, (a) that says

7 the General Assembly may provide that an amount equal to all

8 money derived from motor fuel taxes in the immediately

9 preceding fiscal year be appropriated for transportation

10 purposes.

Czl 11 ~
@;;'o.."....

Senator Holloway has moved that that be stricken. Is there a second to that?
SENATOR HOLLOWAY: The main thing I wanted to get

! 14 out of the thing is the transportation purposes. Isn't that

~
'"
:r;
15 ~ right, Mike?

Cl
'::"> 16 .~..
oz 17 ::i

MR. HENRY: got right now.

This will put you back to what you've

18

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: If we removed "transportatbn

19 purposes." not the whole paragraph.

20

MR. HENRY: Well. if you strike the whole paragraph

21 you would still be

22

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a second?

23

MR. NASH: I'll second that because I can see you

24 start earmarking for transportation you earmark for a million

25 and one things.

PAGE 88

MR. HILL: Wait. If you are --

2

MR. NASH: His motion is to take this out.

3

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: To leave the law like it is.

4

MR. HILL: To leave earmarking alone.

5

MR. WADE: He's striking the whole thing.

6

MR. HENRY: He's striking (a) under the category

7 redrafted exceptions to the prohibition against earmarking.

8 This will have the effect of putting -- of leaving Article III

9 alone, and in Article III there is right now in place a

10 prohibition against the earmarking of taxes, and right under

11

"z
i=

that statement there is

an exception to

it

--

e ; i'o.."....

MR. HILL: For the motor fuel tax.

MR. HENRY:

for the motor fuel tax.

That's the

! 14 ... '<"C( :I: 15 ol)
"'";;;)
16 ~... Q Z <C(
17 ~

only -MR. WADE:
eliminating it . MR. NASH:

If we accept the paragraph we're We're earmarking it all for transporta-

18 tion, leaving it as is. What you're doing is broadening the

19 uses from roads and bridges to all transportation. That's

20 the part I'm seconding the motion on.

21

MR. STRICKLAND: That's the only issue, it's not

22 earmarked for roads and bridges, all transportation?

23

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: That's right.

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's right.

25

That motion has been made and seconded. Is there a

PAGE 89

call for the question on that?

2

MR. STRICKLAND: Question.

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The question has been called.

4

All in favor of Senator Holloway)s motion that the

5 draft, that the proposal, the language proposed by the staff

6 under consideration dealing with expansion of the motor fuel

7 tax to be used for transportation purposes, all in favor of

8 the motion that that recommendation be deleted say aye or

9 raise your hand.

'.'-

10

(Ayes. )

"z

11 i=
.'0."....

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor of that motion

12 '" raise your hand. One, two, three, four.

@rl

All opposed to that motion raise your hand.

! 14 tOIl <Cl :I:
15 o:l
":'>"
16 .Iz.I.I

(Two hands were raised.) REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: strong constitution on that one.

You all have got a

Q
Z <Cl
17 '"III

MR. WADE: Just a citizen.

18

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I move, Mr. Chairman, that Item

19 (b) be accepted. I make this motion due to the fact that a

20 recent two-thirds vote of both legislatures and the people of

21 Georgia approved it, and so I would certainly not go against

22 those wishes.

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a second to that motion?

24

MR. STRICKLAND: What's that, all of Item (b) now?

2S

MR. HENRY: Under redrafted exceptions to

PAGE 90

prohibitions against earmarking, under that category.

2

MR. NASH: There's an exception to it now?

3

MR. HENRY: That is presently an exception, yes, but

4 it's not been implemented by legislation.

5

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: It's not been funded. It's been

6 voted on by the people in the last, what, two years or three

7 years?

8

MR. HENRY: It's not even been implemented; it hasn't

9 even been set up, not even the procedure.

10

MR. NASH: You've passed the amendment, but the law

zc.:J

@;;11

l-
oe....t..

hasn't

been

implemented.

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is the proposal that you-have,

Mike, that this be added to the Paragraph III that we are

! 14 l- considering, or that that be put into Article III?

'0"(

:J:

15 ~

MR. HENRY: It is presently under the Paragraph III

c.:J

et

::J

16

~
C

that

you're

considering now.

In my mind it Is properly

z

0(

17 : provides for an exception to the prohibition against

18 earmarking. If you would like to make a report that

19 traftsfers that over to that particular provision in the

20 constitution, in other words, then you would have a flat

21 statement that says you can't earmark, then you would say

22 except for motor fuel tax, and then you would have an 23 additional sentence which would say and except for that the

24 General Assembly can provide for the proceeds of additional

25 penalties imposed under law, you would have that over there,

PAGE 91

or you could retain it in your section.

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Senator Holloway, do you want to

3 specify in your motion which of those two alternatives you

4 want to use, keep it in this paragraph, or to suggest that it

5 be put under the --

6

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: If there is any question about

7 it clashing with another article -- Is that what you're

8 speaking of?

9

MR. HENRY: No, I'm just talking about proper

--'-

10 placement. It's really --

..CzI
11 I-

MR. NASH: Putting it over in the same place you've

....0
Q.
12 got your fuel tax right now,

erl

MR. HENRY: Right .

! 14

MR. NASH: It would just be another exception added

I-

'-"<

..::J:
15 ~

to that.

CI

16

...;;) .z..

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I think all exceptions should be

..c
Z
17 .<.l.: in one place, so I would move that direction,

18

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Senator Holloway's motion is we

19 accept the language that is proposed by staff in (b) in the

20 last paragraph of the paper that says the General Assembly

21 may provide for the proceeds from additional penalties

22 imposed under law to be allocated for the specific purpose of

23 funding, in whole or in part, the cost of law enforcement

24 and prosecutorial officers' training, that that language be-'

25 accepted and that our recommendation be that that language

PAGE 92

be included in the appropriate provision in Article III

2 dealing with the earmarking of funds.

3

Is that correct, Senator?

4

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Yes.

5

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a second to that motion?

6

MR, STRICKLAND: I second it.

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The motion has been seconded. Is

8 there a call for --

9

MR. NASH: Let me ask one question. Senator, why

10 was this taken this route rather than the Assembly just

appropriating the funds for this type of thing?

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Well, what wetre doing, if my

motton passes as I understand it, wetre leaving the law just

like it is and itts up to the General Assembly to fund in

whole or part of the cost, which they have not chose to do yet,

because of funds or whatever.

MR. NASH: I'm just questioning what's in the mind 18 of the General Assembly that they would feel like they had to

19 go the constitutional route to put funds in behind this.

20

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: They have already gone.

21

MR. NASH: I know they have, but it hasntt been

22 implemented. What was their thinking when they started doing

23 this? This is just another one of those many that comes the

24 same route.

25

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Are we going to vote

PAGE 93

twice on this, once to put it where it ought to be, then the

2 second time to decide whether we want to keep it?

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If you want to suggest we do it

4 that way.

5

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Let's--

6

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: One would be moot if the other

7 fails.

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: For clarity's sake, why don't we

9 vote on whether we accept that language or not and then decide

:,"

10 where we want to put it, if that's all right with you,

I:l Z

11

I-
'0.l".L.

Senator.

12 '"

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I call for the question.

@rl

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The question has been called.

! 14 I- All in favor of adopting that language raise your hand. ':-z"c:

15 0:
I:l

(A show of hands.)

:'>"

... 16 z1Il

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. That is three.

Q

-Zc

'" 17 1Il

All opposed raise your hand.

18

(A show of hands.}

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's two. Okay. That language

20 is accepted.

21

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I move now we place it in the

22 aforementioned provision.

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Second to that motion?

24

A MEMBER: Seconded.

25

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor of that motion raise

PAGE 94

your hand.

2

(A show of hands.)

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's six,

4

All opposed.

5

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Let me ask Mike -- now, I didn't

6 include the removal of that second sentence in my motion on

7 (a} . Is that necessary you think?

8

MR. HENRY: Oh, up here?

9

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Yeah,

10

MR. HENRY: Well, really

"z
.. 11 i=

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I don't think it is.

.o...

MR. HENRY: That is already provided for in a much

@;; shorter and simpler statement which says that you can't

! 14 earmark, and the effect of this is --

I-

U:z:I

".. 15 ol) ::>

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I just wanted a yes or no, Mike.

16 .~.. I didn't want a lecture .

Q

Z

17 :i:i

(Laughter,)

18

MR. HENRY: Yes, You should have moved that that be

19 deleted, or you should have moved in the future that that be

20 deleted.

21

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: In light of the vote on (a), I

22 move that it be deleted.

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Senator, what we can do is once

24 we finish this process we will restate for the record the

25 language that we have passed, and then pass that. That may

PAGE 95

be the best way to do it.

2

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Jim, I'm going to have to leave

3 in five minutes. I've got five people waiting in my office

4 that have been up there for thirty minutes. I thought we were

5 going to get off for lunch.

6

MR. HILL: You're approving this ..language, but the

7 Office of Legislative Counsel has not yet had an opportunity

8 to review this, and I would ask that the committee permit us

9 to make any technical changes after consultation with them

10 that may be necessary.

"z
.11 lot.>..:

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I guess the full committee also

@ ; j can make those changes. MR. HILL: Of course, yes, at any time.

! 14 I-

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. That may be a better way to

'<"l

:I:

15 Q proceed, just make our recommendation and let the full committe

"t>:
::>

16 .~.. get the benefit of the technical remarks .

Q

Z

<l

17 ::i

Okay. Five minutes.

18

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: No, it's just me that's got five

19 minutes.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All right. Where are we?

21

MR. WADE: We're all in the sameShape.

22

MR. HENRY: I'll try and not lecture any more.

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Now we're back up to the

24 general fund exceptions. Correct?

25

Is there a motion on the first one, Number (a),

PAGE 96

whether we add that as a new provision in our Paragraph III,

2 and that provisbn reads the General Assembly may provide that

3 fees, assessments and other charges collected on the sale

4 or processing of certain agricultural products need not be

5 paid into the general fund of the state treasury.

6

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Which is basically a

7 shorter version of what we have now?

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's correct. That's a shorter

9 version of the provisions currently in Article VII, Section II.

10 Paragraph II. Is that correct?

"z
e-I11 ioao=r.: 12 ~

MR. HENRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's right, Paragraph II. MR. NASH, All this does is just say it doesn't have

14 ~ to be in the general fund; right?

!;;

15 ~:r

SENATOR HOLLOWAY; It says it does not have to be.

"or:

:::l

16 ~

MR. NASH: That's what I say.

az 17 :

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a motion?

18

MR. NASH: I move that.

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a second?

20

A MEMBER; Seconded.

21

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor of that motion --

22 Is there a call for the question?

23

A MEMBER: I call the question.

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The question has been called for.

25 All in favor raise your hand.

PAGE 97

{A show of hands.}

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Strickland, are you voting one

3 way or the other?

4

MR. STRICKLAND: I'll vote both ways if you want.

5

(Laughter. )

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor raise your hand,

7 please. That's five.

8

All opposed raise your hand. That's one.

9

That motion passes.

.-

10

The next provision is the one that deals with the

11

"z
j:
..'0"....

subsequent

injury workmen's

compensation

trust

fund.

@r l12 '"

Is there a motion that we accept that language or

add that language to our Paragraph III?

14 !..

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Can I ask a question? Why can't

'-"<l
:I:
15 .:I that be abbreviated the same as Paragraph (c)? Explain that

"'";;;) 16 .IzD.. to me.

Cl

Z

<l:

17 'I"D

MR. HENRY: It would be further abbreviated.

18

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I think we ought to get all this

19 excess langu~ge we can. I think that could be written a whole

20 lot better than it is.

21

MR. HENRY: I'll abbreviate it if you all want to

22 take tentative action.

23

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: We're all aware of the intent.

24 I think tare's a little too much verbiage in there.

25

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Can we not do that

PAGE 98

without this constitutional language?

2

MR. HENRY: You could I think do the first sentence;

3 the second sentence you couldn't do.

4

Do you understand?

5

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If the committee wants to meet

6 once ~gain -- we may need to do that for the others --

7

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Let me ask one question.

8

How many other agencies or departments or whatever

9 you want to call these things are set up that basically do the

10 same type thing or I mean, you know, work on the same

Czl
11 j: principle that come to the General Assembly every year, they Ill(
e;1o.".-. have funds lapse, they come and say "We need new funds," they can get funds appropriated?

14 ~

MR. STRICKLAND: You would have to call all of them

lo-n

:I:

15 olI to find out.

Cl

Ill(

::>

16 .~..

MR. NASH: It's not spelled out in the exception,

Q

Z

17 ::; they're all statutory? Is this all that's in there?

18

MR. HENRY: No, theres a lot of stuff that could be

19 done by statute.

20

As I said, what I have tried to do is pullout the

21 constitutional

22

MR. NASH: This is all constitutional?

23

MR. HENRY: Yeah. This is the only ones that are

24 constitutional.

25

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I've got no problem with

PAGE 99

what the program is doing, but I really wonder whether it

2 needs to be in the consititution. That's the problem I've

3 got ..

4

MR. HENRY: You're questioning whether the lapsing

5 feature of the fund needs to be retained, then.

6

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: That's right. To me, if

7 it's a legitimate program the General Assembly ought to fund

8 it and

9

MR. VICTRY: Can I address that comment, please,

10 sir?

\:l

Z
11 j:

The point is the General Assembly is not funding it.

@;;.'oQ"... This probably would never have gotten off the ground if it had to come out of general tax funds back in 1976 and 1977.

14 ~ Its like many other programs, they're all well intended, but

1;;
:r

15 ~ it's a question of funding, so the source was the individual

\:l

16 .=~'.".' industry that theoretically benefits from it, and they were

Q

17

Z :::

willing

to

allow

themselves

to be

assessed,

and

it's

this

18 concept that was presented to the legislature and adopted.

19

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Why couldn't we pass

20 exactly the same statutory language and do the same thing,

21 then?

22

MR. VICTRY: Because there's a lapsing feature.

23 You're going to -- What you will do, and getting back to a

24 question that was raised earlier, do we have any contractual

25 arrangements here in these funds; the answer I think is yes

PAGE 100

in that respect because in reaching legal agreements in paid

2 cases to reimburse we then enter into a contractual -- we are

3 obligating moneys to be paid back, you see.

4

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Excuse me, gentlemen. I've got

5 something I need to get to. Do you anticipate meeting this

6 afternoon?

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: No, sir.

8

SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Good to see you all.

9

(Senator Holloway withdrew from

10
I:l Z
11 ~
...oIX
0..
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 ~ II> :<z:l 15 ~ I:l IX :> 16 ~... Q Z <l 17 ::;

the meeting.) MR. VICTRY: If it lapsed, where is that money going to go, what's it going to be used for when it's lapsed? It was collected for a specific purpose. If there are funds left at the end of the year, where will they go? This way there's the assurance that the money will be still retained and used to keep the cost at a minimum, you understand. It's an inherent feature-- it's an insurance fund

18 is what it is, and if you lapse the funds then you've 19 destroyed the whole concept. It~s just a simple, unique 20 innovation.

21

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Victry.

22

MR. VICTRY: I'm sorry. I know your time

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We don't want to run the rest of

24 our quorum out of here.

25

MR. HENRY: Can I say one thing? The lapsing is

PAGE 101

also a constitutional mandate that fUnds not appropriated

2 well, it says all appropriated funds except for mandatory

3 appropriations required by this constitution remaining

4 unexpended and not contractually obligated, so if it is

5 a contractual obligation they wouldn't lapse.

6

If it's -- you know, if you could technically say

7 it's a contractual obligation, and I'll have to do research

8 on that. then you probably wouldn't need the

9

MR. WADE: Can you have a contractual obligation

.;--

10 where there's no demand for payment?

CI

Z
11 ~

MR. NASH: That's a question I have. You've got

.0.'."...

8@J~ r i12 '" extra funds there that are not contracted. MR. WADE: The problem is that the General Assembly ! 14 could pass a law setting up this program and have the

~

'<:z"l::

15 .:l companies pay into the same kind of fund to be administered.

CI

:'"l

16 ...zIII but what this does is that the industry just doesn't have to

az

<l:

'" 17 III deal with the General Assembly. I mean it's a less cumbersome

18 way of doing that. If you've got to weigh it --

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What I maybe would like to

20 recommend to the subcommittee is that we go ahead and take 21 the action on these other two provisions, and then we instruct 22 the staff based on our decisbns today to go ahead and draft 23 the paragraph and present that to us at one final meeting to 24 give us a chance for you all to consult with the Attorney 25 General and with Legislative Counsel's office if necessary.

PAGE 102

Is that all right with the committee?

2

Okay. With that in mind, do we have a

For

3 example, we could instruct the staff to try to reduce that

4 language if we adopted that provision at all.

5

Do we have a motion on the proposed language

6 dealing with the subsequent injury workmen's compensation

7 trust fund?

8

MR. NASH: You mean with it reworded?

9

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Whether to put it in or not as an

10 exception to the requirement that the funds be paid into the

CzI

11

i=
'o.Q"...

general

fund.

@;~ MR. NASH: If we keep the lapsing thing in here, it's going to have to be in here, isn't it?

! 14 lo-n

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: At some place in the constitution

%

15 ,!) it's going to be necessary to have this provision.

CI

'";;)

16 .~..

MR. WADE: I think we wanted to clean up the

Q

Z

17 :::: constitution, take all this stuff out.

18

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I want to take it out.

19

MR. WADE: I understand the tidiness as far as

20 industry is concerned, but if we put it in the constitution

21 we've got to take it out.

22

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I can't believe in my

23 own mind this is the only little block out there that's doing

24 the same type thing. I've got to believe there's a lot of

25 other folks in state government that are doing this that are

PAGE 103

set up statutorily, they've got the funds lapse, they come to

2 the General Assembly, you know, we appropriate mo-remoney if

3 they need it in the upcoming year,

4

MR. WADE: Can't you have special accounts in the

5 general fund, Bill? Can you track moneys that are paid in?

6 Can they be tracked?

7

MR. STRICKLAND: I don't know. I know that there are

8 a lot of agencies, different agencies have different situations

9 I don't know about the constitution. As far as the statutes

10 are concerned we have moneys, certain type moneys that don't

11 "5z go into the general fund; I think every agency does.
..o....

@;i

MR. WADE: Is it dealt with in the constitution? MR. STRICKLAND: No. That's what I say; I don't

! 14 I- guess it is.

':"r

.. 15 oll
"

MR. WADE: You're not saying it has to be in the

;:)

16 .~.. constitution?

oz

17 :

MR. VICTRY: All I'm saying is that I wasn't in the

18 state when this thing was initially addressed. It was felt,

19 apparently felt by the legislature initially, by those that

20 were proposing, those drafting, those researching this law

21 that looking at the state's constitution that this feature was

22 needed in order to create this type of fund.

23

MR. WADE: I think that probably this again is just

24 a --

25

MR. VICTRY: You see, this is a very contemporary

PAGE 104

development. This is not something that's been on the books

2 for twenty, thirty years.

3

MR. WADE: Once you put it in the constitution you

4 don't bother it.

5

MR. STRICKLAND: We had our situation on the loans

6 to counties, you know. We had that for tax reevaluation, and

7 that was the type revolving fund, you know, and our counties

8 went into it by contract, but I still can't you know,

9 whenever they paid the money back then it was, you know, we

10 had contracts with other counties to get on the program, you

11

"z
...

know,

the

new

contracts.

.'lo>"...

@;I MR. HENRY: I know what you're talking about. Now you all had specific

! 14 ...

MR. STRICKLAND: It was statutory type .

'<"l:

J:

15 .:l

MR. WADE: I would sort of like to move us along

":'>"

16 .~.. because I'm going to have to leave too .

Q

Z

<l:

17 :

If it's appropriate -- I don't know if the wording

18 is correct -- I would move that we delete this provision from

19 the constitution.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a second?

21

MR. NASH: Well, now, is this going to delete it from

22 the constitution, or will we still have that that's already the

23 exemption there and have to go back take that out too?

24

In other words, are we voting on the wording here, or

25 are we voting on the wording of taking it out of the exemption?

PAGE 105

MR. WADE: I'm voting to take it out of the

2 exemption.

3

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: That would leave us with--

4

MR. NASH: It has nothing to do with what's here.

5 then?

6

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: It would leave us with

7 a statutory law, and their money would lapse and we would have

8 to come back and appropriate more money every year based on

9 what the needs from the fund were.

10

MR. VICTRY: What are you going to do with the

'z"

11

~
..lol..I..:

million

dollars

that's

already

there.

that's

already been

@;i collected under a trust? REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS: I assume we would give you

! 14 I- all credit for it in the future before we decided whether to

'~"

:J:

15 ~ go any further.

'"llI:

;:)

16 .~..

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: There is a motion -- We might --

Q

Z

~

17 ~ The only thing this subcommittee could do I guess. since this i~

18 in Article III. is to suggest to, is to recommend to the

19 Select Committee that the proviSbn in Article III, Section IX,

20 Paragraph VI dealing with the subsequent injury workmen's

21 compensation trust fund be deleted, if that was the motion

22 you wanted to make, Mr. Wade.

23

MR. WADE: Yes. I'm not trying to do away with the

24 thrust of the program. I just simply -- if the point is to

25 clean up the constitution, that's --

PAGE 106

CHAIRMAN MARTIN": Is there a second to that motion?

2

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I second it.

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Representative Williamson has

4 seconded it. Any discussion?

5

MR. NASH: I've got one question on it. Is there

6 any place under this that this falls under the insurance 7 commissioner? Is there some laws there that might pertain 8 to this thing too7

9

MR. HENRY: Yes. There is implementing legislation

10 on it, and it's set up.

"z
11 I-
@;;o."0."<.

MR. NASH: MR. llliNRY: the trust fund.

It's under the insurance commissioner? No, it's under the board of trustees of

! 14

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there any other discussion?

lo-n

%

15 ol)

MR. STRICKLAND: Let me get

Before we vote on

"0<
;;)

16 .~.. that, In other words, this would take this legislation every

Q

z

17 ~ year as far as the funding aspect?

18

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: It would take an

19 appropriation. It would be just like the Department of

20 Education or your department or anything else, we would just

21 have to sit there and I'm sure they would come to OPB like

22 they do now and say, you know, we're projecting we're going

23 to have this many claims, and we would put an appropriation

24 in, they would come back in supplemental and say the claims

25 are running ahead of schedule --

PAGE 107

MR. STRICKLAND: We would just have to include it in 2 their appropriation.

3

MR. 'NASH: Would they do that, or would you authorizE

4 them to collect additional funds from the insurance companies? 5 That's where they're getting their funds from. They'renot

6 getting it out of the general ~-

7

MR. WADE: Based on the experience.

8

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I assume that the --

9

MR. NASH: In other words, the General Assembly

10 would allow them to go tax the insurance companies again?

'z"
11 i=

MR. STRICKLAND: The problem is they would have

.'.0"....

~@r~ ~12 '" funds lapsing, it wouldn't be carried over. MR. NASH: How would you handle that?

! 14 ...

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I as sume if you had

'<:"zl:

15 .:l lapsed funds, assume the program has got a million dollars in

'':":":l

16 .'z".. there and they lapse those funds, then I would assume the

Q

Z

<l

17 ''"" General Assembly wouldn't see fit to go back to the workmen's

18 comp insurance until we had used up that million dollars

19 plus whatever interest we were earning on the general fund.

20 I'm not seeing this as a way to raise taxes on the insurance

21 companies.

22

MR. NASH: I'm just trying to find out how you want

23 to continue funding it. If y~u lapse it, how are you going

24 to assure that they're going to have such a program if the

25 General Assembly gets to it?

PAGE 108

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: We've got all those 2 other programs every year, a continuation budget. We continue

3 them on.

4

MR. STRICKLAND: You're not going to if it's not

5 funded.

6

MR. NASH: I know it.

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let's see. We have got a motion

8 that that language be deleted, and a second to that motion.

9 I'm in kind of a funny --

10

MR. HENRY: Recommend to Article III that it be

11

"z
j:

deleted.

.'o."....

@;i exist?

CHAIRMAN MARTIN:

Does the Article III committee

! 14

MR. HENRY: Well, to the Select Committee.

I-
'<"l

:J:

15 ~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That we recommend that that section

"'";;;)
16 .~.. be delted from Article III .

Q

Z

17 <g;l

I feel kind of funny, because I guess I feel at this

18 point feel like that language should be retained in the

19 constitution if we're going to let the Department of

20 Transportation earmark its funds.

21

This is a specific program that Georgia was the last

22 state to get because they couldn't get the money, and I hate

23 to change it, and that makes me feel very uncomfortable to say

24 that.

25

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: It makes me uncomfortable

PAGE 109

though to have all these nickle and dime things in there.

2 I mean the supplemental injury workmen's compensation fund

3 ain't exactly the DOT. I mean. you know. it is not apples

4 and apples .

5

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a motion for the

6 previous question?

7

You move. George?

8

All in favor of recommending to the Select Committee

9 that the provision in Article III. Section IX. Paragraph VI.

10 dealing with subsequent injury workmen's compensation trust

I!l

Z
11 Ioc....r-..: fund be deleted from the constitution say aye.

~ 12 ~

(Ayes. )

@ ~r~14!

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All opposed. (A. naye.)

I-

'-"<l

:I:

15 ~

MR. WADE: At least I'm consistent.

I!l cr:

::J

16 .~..

CHAIRMAN MAJfTIN: The ayes have it .

Q

Z

-<l

17 ~

Okay. We have got one more to go.

18

The last one is the firemen's pension system. Is

19 there a motion on that?

20

MR. WADE: I move this language be stricken from

21 the constitution.

22

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike . where is that currently

23 located?

24

MR. HENRY; You have to again make a recommendation

25 to the Select Committee that that

PAGE 110

MR. WADE: I move we recommend to the Select 2 Committee that this language be stricken from the 3 constitution.

4
5 thing?

MR. STRICKLAND: This is on that secondary pension

6

MR. HENRY: Yes, it's in Article X,

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a second to that motion?

8

MR. STRICKLAND: I second that.

9

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: A call for the question?

10

All in favor of that motion say aye.

Czl

11 i=
..'o"....

(Ayes. )

Q;I ~ 14!...

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Allopposed?
It's-unanimous.
\
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I 'm bookinglbets whether

'"

I

%

15 .:l that will be in the final document.

Cl

'":::>

16 .~..

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. I was hoping we would get

Q

Z

17 : through with this today, but I am afraid we're probably going

18 to need to see what Mike does with this, with what we did

19 today before we finally adjourn and make our report to the

20 full committee.

21

MR. HENRY: Did you want to delete the second

22 sentence in the body of the main paragraph there? Have you

23 all done that?

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I think that was already covered

25 ~y the motion that Senator Holloway made. Does anyone

PAGE III

disagree with that?

2

That was my understanding that was included.

3

Can we meet before the 24th?

4

MR. HILL: We can't meet before the 17th, the staff

5 cannot meet before the 17th.

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Why don't we do this, why don It

7 we, ask Mike to get in contact with the members of the sub-

8 committee and try to set up another meeting before the 24th

9 and not try to do that today.

10

Is there any more business?

'::

Cl

Z

11 ~
0~ ......

Mike, do you understand where we are?

12 ~
@)r l

MR. HENRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any other business?

! 14

MR. HENRY: let me make sure, though. I redraft --

l-

oll
:r

15 .:I No, I don't. Okay. Yeah.

Cl

~

::>

16 .'z"..

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. You've got it.

Q

Z

17

~
'"

Any other business?

18

Move that we adjourn. All in favor say aye.

19

(j>..yes .)

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We adj ourn .

21

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. the subcommittee meeting

22 was adjourned.)

23

+++

++

24

+

25

. INDEX Committee to Revise Article VII Subcommittee Meeting Held on Sept. 5, 1980

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 9-5-80
Proceedings. pp. 3-4
SECTION III: PURPOSES AND METHOD OF STATE TAXATION Paragraph II: Revenue to be paid into general fund. pp. 4-16, 73-97 Article III, Section IX, Paragraph VI: Appropriations to be for specific
sums. pp. 16-95 Paragraph VI(b): Motor f.uel taxes. pp. 50-72 Paragraph VI(c): Employers' workers' compensation. pp. 16-41, 97-109 Article III, Section X, Paragraph IV: Firemen's pension system.
pp. 42-49, 109-110

STATE OF GEORGIA

2

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VII

3

OF THE

4

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

5

6

7

8

9

10
CzI 11 l-
...oe<
Q.
12 ~
@rl ! 14 IU'I :<rl 15 ol) CI e< :> 16 .~.. Q Z <l 17 ::i

SUBCOMMITTEE ON POw~R OF TAXATION

18

19

20

21

22

23 Room 133 State Capitol
24 Atlanta, Georgia
25 Wednesday, September 10, 1980 10:00 a,m.

PAGE 1

n-------~--------~-~~---~
PRESENT:

2

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

3

CHAIRMAN DON CASTLEBERRY

DR. GEORGE O'KELLEY

4

5

ALSO PRESENT:

6

MELVIN B. HILL, Jr.

CANTER BRO~1N

7

JACK MORTON

JERRY GRIFFIN

8

DAVID KANE

9

10
CzI 11 i=
.'oQ"...
@;I ! 14 ... '" :z: 15 o!) CI :':"> 16 ~... Q Z 17 ::;

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PAGE I-A

PAGE 2

PRO C E E DIN G S

2

CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: Canter, do you want to go

3 ahead?

4

MR. BROWN: Let me give them a copy of the draft

5 we're talking about. That might be a place to start.

6

As you can see, that is a clean draft. Here is a

7 struck through and underlined one.

8

This was the draft that was tentatively approved at

9 your last subcommittee meeting that Professor Blount chaired.

10
...Czl
11 j:
o...
~ 12 ~
~r~14 ! IIII :z: .15 ~ Cl ::l 16 ~... az 17 ::;

At the meeting the committee asked me to get with Jack Morton of the Tax Reform Commission concerning the language of the two provisions.
The first one of those provisions was the language relating to the exception for the mill rate limitation on property taxes as regards bank stock and money capital held by financial institutions .
The other of the two was the language of the

18 provision which grandfa~hers all the current property tax

19 exemptions into law as a part of the new constitution.

20

Jack and I did get together, and we have some

21 language for your consideration.

22

I'm in the position that I'm going to recommend to

23 you the adoption of one and not the other. I think Jack

24 concurs with me on that, but the first one is concerning the

25 bank tax, and the language that I have passed out to you is

PAGE 3

this first page dealing with this first -- with this

2 Paragraph II here that is entitled Taxing Power Limited.

3

Th~ draft as it was approved at your last meeting

4 if I can find it read thusly: The annual levy of state ad

5 valorem taxes on tangible property for all purposes except

6 for defending the state in an emergency shall not exceed

7 one-fourth mill on each dollar of the assessed value of the

8 property, except that in lieu of ad valorem taxation of

9 property owned by banking corporations, shares of stock of

10

CzI 11 j:

..'o"....

12 ~

@ ~sv

~

~F~

14 ~

I-
'"
::I:

15 ~

CI
'":::>
16 ~...
oz

17 :

banking corporations and other money capital coming into competition with such banking corporations may be taxed at a rate not exceeding five mills on each dollar of the assessed value of the property.
The point was raised, and it was a good point, that in fact we do tax some property of banking corporations with the ad valorem tax, and that this would seem to exempt all that property if a bank paid the bank share tax, so what

18 Jack and I did pursuant to your request was come up with the

19 following language:

20

Up to the "except that" on line 5 it's exactly the

21 same that's in the draft you tentatively approved. After

22 that, however, we changed the language to read:

23

Except that so long as the method of taxation in

24 effect on June 30th, 1983 for the taxation of shares of stock

25 of banking corporations and other monied capital coming into

PAGE 4

competition with such banking corporations continues in

2 effect, such shares and other monied capital may be taxed

3 at a rate not exceeding five mills on each dollar of the

4 assessed value of the property.

5

We think that will give you your exception to the

6 quarter mill limitation, but will neither exempt additional

7 property of banks from ad valorem taxation or prohibit the

8 General Assembly thereafter from changing the method of

9 taxation of banks.

10

~

Czl 11 I-
."o0.:".:
12 ~

~F~ 14 ~

I-
'<"l
J:
15 .:I

<.:l 0::
:)
16 .c~.. Z <l
17 :

I would like to recommend that language to you for adoption.
CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: Youtre just grandfathering the old language in?
MR. BROWN: Yes. Wetre trying to be very careful and precise in not changing the current status of banks, but to fit it into the amended language of the new draft .
CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: That's all this is doing

18 is grandfathering the old language in?

19

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. We believe it has that

20 effect, yes, sir.

21

CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: Any questions?

22

MR. BROWN: Okay. The second of the two changes

23 that you asked us to come up with some language dealt with

24 the very last paragraph of the draft of the section. The 25 paragraph in the tentatively approved draft which is

PAGE 5

Paragraph V read as follows:

2

Current property tax exemptions preserved. Types

3 of property which are wholly or partially exempt from ad

4 valorem taxation on the effective date of this constitution

5 including but not limited to homestead property shall continue

6 to be so exempt until otherwise provided for by law.

7

Two questions were raised concerning this provision.

8 Mr. Massey had requested or had asked why homestead property

9 was specified here and not other types of exemptions, and I

10
~ z 11 i=
"..o....
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 .~.. ':z": 15 ~ "::;) 16 ~... Q Z 17 :

had just indicated that I had included that so that people wouldn't be concerned that their homestead exemption was being taken away.
He made the very good point, well, if you're preserving exemptions you don't need to single one out, you may indicate somehow you're not intending to preserve the other ones as much .
The second concern raised was just simply that the

18 language could be more simple in the grandfather provision,

19 and you again asked Jack and I to take a look at it.

20

We came up with the following language, which is

21 the second page that I passed out to you. It would read:

22

Paragraph V. Current property tax exemptions

23 preserved. Those types of exemptions from ad valorem taxation

24 provided for by law on June 30, 1983, are hereby continued

25 in effect Hnti1 otherwise provided for by law.

PAGE 6

Jack and I both feel that that will do the trick 2 for you. I think we both felt, however, that we preferred 3 the language in the draft as you tentatively approved it 4 with one change, and that would be the deletion of the

5 words "including but not limited to homestead property" to

6 meet Mr. Massey's concern, but either one of those if you

7 adopt it we feel would do the job.

8

CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: Any questions or comments

9 from anybody?

10
Czl
.11 ... .'o"..
~ 12 ~
@r~
! 14 ... '~" ::t 15 .:J
Cl
='"> 16 ~...
Q
Z
~
17 :

You mean we've got 21 pages down to nearly four pages?
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. You all have done a real good job.
CHAIRMAN CASTLEBEERRY: Hope it ain't too good . MR. BROWN: We need -- if you could give some direction on that last paragraph, Paragraph V, whether you would prefer the revised language or the original as amended.

18

MR. HILL: Canter, could I ask a question about the

19 effect of those tax exemptions which were in the constitution

20 proper and were not provided for by law? Would they be

21 provided for by law prior to June 30, 1983, so that they

22

MR. BROWN: The term law is a generic term that is

23 broader in meaning that most people realize. The constitution

24 itself in Article XIII I believe specifies what the law of the

25 state of Georgia is, and specifies that first that law is

PAGE 7

the constitution of the United States and federal statutes

2 enacted pursuant to the constitution; second is the

3 constitution of Georgia; and third are statutes enacted by

4 the General Assembly pursuant to the constitution.

5

So the use of the term law here would include the

6 broad meaning of law as specified in the constitution.

7

CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: If you want Paragraph V

8 simple, I think your new draft is about as simple as you can

9 get.

10
CzI 11 I-
...o0<
lL
~ 12 ~
(~~r1i4! I'<"l :I: 15 ~ CI 0< ;) 16 ~... Q Z <l 17 ~

MR. BROWN: We felt that that was your charge, to get it as simple as we could.
As I say, either one would do the trick. For reasons that are just personal preference I think Jack and I prefer the old language with that one correction, but either you adopt we feel would do the job.
CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: What do you think?
DR. o'KELLEY; I think it's fine.

18

CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: The new language?

19

DR. o'KELLEY: It suits me fine.

20

CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: Does anybody else have

21 anything, any questions or comments?

22

MR. HILL: I guess I would still ask Canter, even

23 though that means even though the term law does encompass 24 the constitution, would there be the need for -- if not the

25 need, would there at least be the intention to adopt

PAGE 8

legislation even though it might pattern after the existing

2 constitution as to these exemptions here in effect but have

3 never been statutorily implemented?

4

MR. BROWN: I think we all anticipated that all of

5 that was not a legal problem, that as part of the general

6 advisory bill of the revenue code to incorporate all the 7 language we're deleting that it would write them all in, yes.

8

MR. HILL: Okay.

9

MR. BROWN: But again I want to stress to you and

10
1.7 Z
11 j:
.'"o."".
@;:~ ! 14 ol-n :r 15 ~ 1.7 'J" 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

for the record that I don't think Jack or I or anybody I've talked to felt that was necessary. In fact, the constitution itself is clear that as a part of the law of Georgia the constitution itself prevails.
CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: Can we get these two changes incorporated now and mail this out to all the committee members?
MR, BROWN: Yes, sir.

18

CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: With a notice that we will

19 meet at nine o'clock on whatever that day is.

20

MR. BROWN: You may want to consider just having

21 your notice specify that if any member requests you can meet.

22 That way you won't have to particularly obligate yourself if

23 there isn't any concern.

24

CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: If any member requests or

25 has any concerns or questions about this, then we will meet

PAGE 9

at nine o'clock on September 24th.

2

Does that suit you, Dr. O'Kelley?

3

DR. O'KELLEY: Yes, sir.

4

CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: All right, sir. I think

5 that's all we need to do.

6

I'm sorry the other members couldn't make it.

7

DR. O'KELLEY: As a matter of record, when you asked

8 if it suits me, you mean your statement about September the

9 24th?

10
CzI 11 I-
o.'"".-.
@;I ! 14 I'" J: 15 ~ CI '";;) 16 ~ Qz 17 :

CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: Yes, sir. DR. o 'KELLEY: This doesn't suit me, but I don't propose to pursue it, but I would not want any misunderstanding about that. I don't think it is worth pursuing, but certainly the September the 24th is satisfactory with me. CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: Are you suggesting then we just have a meeting at nine o'clock on the 24th?
DR. o'KELLEY; No, I'm not. I've had my say.

18

CHAIRMAN CASTLEBERRY: All right, sir. We stand

19 adj ourned .

20

(Whereupon, at 10:25 a,m. the subcommittee meeting

21 was adj ourned . )

22

+++

23

+++

24

25

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VII Subcommittee Meeting Held on Sept. 10, 1980

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 9-10-80
Proceedings, p. 2
Section I: -Po-w-er-o-f Taxation
Paragraph II: Taxing power limited. pp. 2-4
Section II: Exemptions From Ad Valorem Taxation Paragraph IV: Current property tax exemptions preserved. pp. 5-8

PAGE 1
------_._------~

2

STATE OF GEORGIA

3

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VII

4

OF THE

5

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

6

7

8 9

10
CzJ 11 ....
oea<..
w
12 ~
~@F~' ! 14 .... ':z": 15 .:. CJ e< ~ 16 ~ w Q Z 17 :
18

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE DEBT

19

20

21 Room 133, Sta.te Capitel
22 Atlanta. Georgia
23 Thursday. September 11, 1980 2:30 p.m.
24

25

2 PRESENT:

3

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

4

CHAIRMAN MARCUS E. COLLINS

RANDOLPH W. THRmJER

5

CHARLES Le. DAVIS

I. OWEN FUNDERBURG

6

WILLIAM N"IXON

7

8
9
10
"z
11 i=
..'o."...
@;I 14 .~... '" :r 15 "'":;) 16 ~ Q z 17 :

ALSO PRESENT:
MELVIN B. HILL, Jr. CANTER BROWN JACK MORTON DAVID KANE ROB SUMNER POPE Me INTIRE PERRY MICHAEL BARRY PHILLIPS BILL WOOD

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PAGE 2

PAGE 3
-~------------------,
PRO C E E DIN G S

2

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We're going to call our committee

3 to order at this time, and I just want to make a few brief

4 comments.

5

We had passed out, or mailed out a proposed change

6 if you want to call it that in the debt section of the

7 constitution, and what I think maybe we should do at this

8 time is sort of go through it, kind of carry us through it

9 one step at a time, show us what the changes are, and let's

10
CzI 11 j:
".o0...
~ 12 ~
(@)r~ 14 ~ I'" :J:: 15 ~ CI ":> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ::;

decide, let's vote whether we want to accept, reject, or what we want to do, see if we can perfect this thing where we can send it back to the full committee.
As you know, and I'm sure we will, if we make any mistakes, this goes back to the full committee, and it takes it up, then it goes to the big committee, then it takes it up, then it goes to the legislature and it's got to go through both houses there, so there is no use of any of us thinking

18 just because we do something in here this is final, because

19 this is not, this has got a lot more times to be watched,

20 and if we do make a mistake we will have an opportunity to

21 relook at it, if there's something we have questions about

22 we have an opportunity to relook at it, but we do need to do

23 something to get our report back to the full committee, I

24 believe we're meeting in some week or two weeks from now,

25 I put it on the calendar the other day, so if there's no
-------- -~-------------'

PAGE 4

objection we're going to start, let Canter go through this

2 thing one step at a time, and if we have objections, we want

3 to voice them. If we don't -- I'm going to ask you if there's

4 any objections to that, if there's not we'll pass on over it

5 and consider it approved until we get to the end of it.

6

Canter, if you would, I'm going to ask you to start,

7 go through it, explain to us what you have done to it to the

8 best of your ability, and if we have any questions you wall

9 want to ask anybody here, any questions or anything, be sure

10
cz.:I 11 ...
'o"
A-
12 ~
~ ~\)~~
14 !... 'x"
15 .:l
c.:I
'";;) 16 .~..
Q
Z 17 ::

and raise them because don't any of us want to do something that we don't think is right,
MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I would like to take just a minute to explain how we have arrived at the draft that I passed out just a few minutes ago just to refresh the memories of the members of your subcommittee . When the original Article VII task force was

18 appointed a year and a half ago, you and Chairman Thrower

19 requested that the Office of Legislative Counsel prepare a

20 first, a very preliminary first draft of Article VII in its

21 entirety.

22

It wasn't the intent of that request as I understood

23 it to show what particularly should be done, but to illustrate

24 the types of changes which should be made by your subcommittee

25 and the other two subcommittees dealing with this article

PAGE 5

without wreaking any sever~avoc on the constitutional

2 framework of the state finance.

3

We did do that, and you used the draft of Section

4 III of that proposal as the basis for your discussion in your

5 first subcommittee meeting.

6

We went through that draft, and at that time your

7 subcommittee directed me to work with a number of other people,

8 particularly a number of individuals who are closely -- work

9 closely with the legal bond field in the state of Georgia

10 .., as designated by Chairman Thrower .

z

11 I-
et:
o.a....

He did designate a group of bond lawyers, and

~ 12 ~ although we were not able to meet as a group I have been

(@)r i privileged to carryon over the past several months a fairly ! 14 l- extensive correspondence with Mr. Pope McIntire who was V>

J:

15 ..:.., designated as working chairman of the group and who is here

et: :::>

16 ~... today with the subcommittee Q

Z

17 ~

I would want to point out that Mr. McIntire through-

18 out the correspondence that we had, which most of the members

19 of your subcommittee received copies of, has expressed

20 reservations, very serious reservations about any attempt to

21 rewrite the bond provision in the constitution.

22

He has been kind enough, given that reservation, to

23 suggest in a series of letters points of concern to him about

24 the particular language which was addressed in a succession of

25 drafts and revisions of the draft that you initially discussed.

PAGE 6

I have attempted through that correspondence to

2 take advantage of his counsel and to correct errors based

3 upon his observations,

4

The draft that you have in front of you dated

5 September 1st, 1980, is the latest revision based upon that

6 correspondence.

7

I don't purport to say that I think that this is

8 what I would have considered the ideal draft you discussed.

9 I personally feel, and I believe the experience of other

10 states in recent years in their constitutional revision

would illustrate that a state can perfectly well safeguard

its bond rating and its fiscal integrity by handli.ng almost

all of this by statute as opposed to having it handled

constitutionally,

I di.d feel, however, that the spirit of your

direction to me was to work with Mr. McIntire and wherever

possible to reach some sort of compromise or to solve any

18 problems that he and the members of his committee might feel

19 were there in the draft.

20

Consequently, you have a draft before you that I

21 feel is a good compromise. and with that I would just like to

22 begin and go through it paragraph by paragraph to show you

23 what I've done.

24

As an overview, just so we're all talking about the

25 same terms, this is drafted in the standard legislative

PAGE 7

bill drafting format. Words that are struck through are

2 words that are presently in the constitution but which would

3 be deleted by this draft.

4

Words that are underlined are words that are not

5 presently in the constitution and which would be added in

6 this draft.

7

It was the intent of this draft generally to carry

8 into effect the charge to the Article VII task force by

9 Governor Busbee and by Mr. Harris, As I understood that

10 charge, it was to wherever possible provide for more coherent

CzJ 11 I-
..o0..<..
~ 12 ~
~F~ 14 ~ I':<z"l: 15 .:>
CJ 0<
;;)
16 ~ Q z
<l
17 ::;

and usable organizational fO+IDat for the article and for the various sections of the article to attempt to provide legislative flexibility wherever possible rather than mandating or directing everything in the constitution itself, and to adopt wherever possible use of standard modern English in lieu of legalism. I have attempted to do that.
The first paragraph obviously beginning on page 1,

18 line 5 --

19

MR. THROWER: Mr. Chairman, may I point out here

20 I think Mr. McIntire has some other members of his committee

21 here, he may want to call them to the attention of the

22 chairman and have their names entered on the record.

23

MR. McINTIRE: Perry Michael is here from the

24 Attorney General's office, and I believe unless somebody is

25 corning in he's the only one,

PAGE 8

John Bobbitt called this morning and we discussed

2 it some, and he said that Perry and I -- the three of us have

3 talked -- I have not heard back from the other members of the

4 committee about theirspecific objections or comments. I

5 have solicited them, I suppose we'll hear some time.

6

The only thing I guess I'd want to say at this time

7 is that from Mr. Canter Brown's point of view, and he has

8 taken a great many of the suggestions which I made after

9 discussing it with John and Perry, but I don't want anybody

10
\:I
..%
11 ..
e;1o...... 14 !.. '" % .15 .:I \:I
::)
16 .~.. Q Z
17 :

to misunderstand about the use of the word compromise. As far as I'm concerned, I still feel very strongly
that the approach that you're taking is wrong, I suppose somewhat on the basis of if it ain't broken don't fix it. We have a AAA credit rating, the highest that you can get, it is based to a large extent on these provisions which are in the state constitution now, they're provisions which for five or six years have been used with rating agencies, bond buyers

18 know them, they rely on them. It may very well be that

19 something else would work just as well, but that is a risk

20 that I for one would not take, and I for one would not want

21 to have to be put to the task of explaining to the house and

22 the senate, the various committees, that I have changed these

23 words but really haven't changed the meaning, and then in

24 turn do that over again with all the rating services in

25 Washingt<ll. and New York.

PAGE 9

OR behalf of myself, and I would like Perry to speak

2 to this point too, I still think you would be wise to go back

3 to the existing provisions and delete from it the words or

4 sections that you think appropriately should be deleted

5 rather than rewording sections.

6

We have been over a number of drafts. For instance,

7 this particular draft now eliminates toll road financing. I

8 don't know whether you intended to do that or whether that's

9 a typo, but that is the kind of risk that you're running,

10
..,
z 11 aI-:
.oQ...
12 ~
(~~r) ~14 !~ I'" :J: 15 .o.l,) a: :;)
16 .~..
cz 17 :

and I wouldn't do it . Perry? MR. MICHAEL: Pope and I talked about this at
length, and basically we're in agreement because in '74 I believe it was the GO provision or section was rewritten in its entirety, and at that time we spent several months in rewriting the article. As a matter of fact, I think one year it failed to get to the General Assembly, the year it got

18 tied up, and it passed the last day of the session; then the

19 following year we came back and made some further revisions.

20

I think Pope is correct that all the rating agencies

21 the investment houses, et cetera, are familiar with what we

22 have now. In fact, most of the language is set out pretty

23 much verbatim on the face of the bond, and if we're making 24 those changes we've got to go back and convince them we

25 haven't made a change.

PAGE 10

Of course you know Georgia does have one of the

2 highest rat.ed bonds in the country, it sells better than most

3 of the bonds. In fact, I have a bulletin here that shows

4 that of the number of states they have listed in fifteen

5 groups, and Georgia is listed at the top of the third group

6 the way its bonds sell in the country at the present time.

7

I think when you talk to most of the brokerage

8 houses they will tell you that Georgia has one of the stronges

9 bonds. As a matter of fact, several states--two I believe,

10 California and Oregon have been downgraded in recent years --

!l
11 I-
.C~.L.
@;i

not recent years, but recent months. California was a AAA, I think they've downgraded it
now to a AA, and also Oregon has been downgraded to a AA.

! 14 I-

I have gone through the revised draft. I don't

'0"(

:r

15 .:I think there appears to be any intent to make any changes, it

"~ '"

16 .~.. seems to me a reorganization and a rewrite of the current

Q

Z

0(
17 g; provision, and I'm not sure whether the purpose is just to put

18 it in more understandable language or why it was necessary to

19 reorganize and redraft, because when you do that you can make

20 some changes that you may not be aware of.

21

MR. McINTIRE: There are some specific changes.

22 For instance, the present constitution restricts the invesL-

23 ment of the state sinking fund to United States government

24 obligations. This proposal would leave that up to the General

25 Assembly which, heaven forbid, might permit the state sinking

PAGE 11

fund to be invested in a hotel somewhere.

2

Those things we think and as a matter of judgment

3 are an important ingredient in your bond rate. We might be

4 wrong, but as I say it's a risk I wouldn't take.

5

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I want to ask you one thing,

6 since you mentioned California. Did they change that debt

7 section of their constitution? Was it their revenue or them

8 selling too many bonds, or what do you think caused it to go

9 dO\m?

10
Czl
.11 le< .o..
12 ~
~~ r~ ~ 14 ~ I'" J: 15 ~ Cl e< :> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

You referred to them, and that implied that they had done something like this to mee, you see,
MR. MICHAEL: The only reason I mentioned that is that they look at the states very closely, and they start looking, think very closely,
California was probably because of some of the other problems they're having, It's not because of a debt change provision,

18

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: When you referred to it and

19 referred to this, that sort of implied to me --

20

MR. MICHAEL: There's no connection one way or the

21 other.

22

C}~I~~ COLLINS: -- that they had changed theirs,

23 and I wanted to make sure.

24

MR. MICHAEL: I admit a lot of the language probably

25 in the current one probably could be changed to make

PAGE 12

it clearer. Of course, I guess you may have some pride of 2 draftsmanship--

3

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: That's exactly what we're trying

4 to do, what this committee wants to do I think -- as one I

5 know I do -- and that is to make it clearer, simpler, that

6 we're not going to mess up.

7

But, you know, if we get afraid of change or get

8 pride of authorship or something, then we won't do the ~ob

9 that this committee has been charged to do, and I don't have

10 any pride of authorship, all I want to do is to come out of

CzI

11

j::
..'o"....

here with a good bill if possible.

12 ~

MR. MICHAEL: My only point was that I think I

@ r l guess it's for the committee to decide whether they think

! 14 ... it needs rewriting to make it better understanding and then

'<:"zl:

15 .:l whether it's necessary to do that, and then go back to the

CI
'"::;)
16 ~... rating agencies, et cetera, to present our case that there

Q

Z

<l

17 : has been no change.

18

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Of couree as we go through this

19 I do want you all to feel free to tell us of any objections.

20 I think we need you all's knowledge, we want to know why

21 you're opposed to it and all, because in making up our mind

22 of how we're going to vote on this stuff we need as much as

23 we can get, as much information as we can get to try to make

the best decision for the state of Georgia in the event this 25 does go through and become a partof the constitution,

PAGE 13

MR. MICHAEL: The only point I was going to make,

2 one of the only things I saw, one of tke only major things I

3 saw that was being changed and left up to the General Assembly

4 was the provision about the investment of the sinking fund.

5 Personally I think that should go back in, but the rest of it,

6 the point I was making, just seems to be a rewrite. Of

7 course, that is just a hurried reading. You can't tell until

8 you really analyze it closely.

9

MR. NIXON: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest you put

10
CzI 11 i=
o.'"."".
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 .~.. '4:"z: 15 .:l CI :'"> 16 .~.. Cl Z 4 17 :;;

back in the provision that you can only invest in U.S. governments.
CHAIRMAN COLLINS: The sinking fund? MR. NIXON: I would suggest that. CHAIRMAN COLLINS: When we get to that, we'll sure take that into consideration. Canter, did you want to -MR. BROWN: If I could just briefly respond to what

18 Mr. McIntire and Mr. Micheal said, I would like to reiterate

19 to the subcommittee that in preparing this draft our office

20 and I particularly were attempting to do that within the

21 limits of the charge that was set for the constitutional

22 review commission by the Governor.

23

As I understood it, it was exactly the point that

24 the Governor wanted the constitution written in simple and

25 modern English terminology as possible; it was the Governor's

PAGE 14

point that he wanted the constitution organized in as clear

2 and direct and easily accessible a manner as possible. Those

3 were two of the major and fundamental principles upon which

4 the Governor based his desire to revise the constitution.

5

He also as I understand it felt that wherever

6 possible flexibility should be left to handle matters by law

7 rather than in the constitution, if by handling it in that

8 manner you are not harming the state constitutional framework.

9

Again, I think that was the fundamental principle

10 upon which this whole three-and-a-half-year effort has been

based, and I frankly can't see how you could take one section

of the constitution even if it does deal with state debt,

as much money as is involved with that, and just simply exempt

it from the three basic premises upon which the whole effort

has been undertaken. I just don't feel you can rationally

and logically do that.

I would like to point out that also this is not the

18 only debt provis ion in the Georgia constitution. Article IX

19 contains very important provisions relating to local debt.

20 The Article IX subcommittee, as Mr. Hill will tell you, has

21 already met, has already tentatively approved a draft that 22 goes far beyond anything attempted in this draft before you

23 as related to local debt, and as far as I know did that 24 without objection, and it is inconceivable to me that just 25 because this language has served the state well for six

PAGE 15

years that it can't be improved upon without harming the

2 substance of it.

3

I personally don't think this language does harm the

4 substance of any of the constitutional debt protections, and

5 I would like to invite you to go through it with me so that

6 I can i11ustra~e that point to you.

7

I had not meant to suggest, though, and I do want to

8 be fair, when I use the term compromise that there had been

9 any sort of agreement between our office and Mr. McIntire or

10
Czl 11 I-
'lo."L..
~ 12 ~
@ ~r~14! I'<"l J: 15 .:l Cl '":::l 16 .~.. Q Z <l 17 :

Mr. Michael or anybody else concerning any specific claims. I meant that only in the sense that I had compromised what was in the draft originally in order to meet so far as I felt the language was able to the objections, the concerns that were raised by Mr. McIntire.
There are two and possibly three provisions in here that I think do to a certain extent substantively change the current provision. I have deleted them to be handled by

18 statute for reasons that I'll mention to you when we get to

19 them, but certainly it is within your prerogative as members

20 of the subcommittee to put any of that bac~ in you want.

21

You know, I'm just trying to suggest a framework

22 that you can use that I feel validly reflects the charge that

23 the Governor has given you.

24

I assume one of the objectives of the Governor was

25 to get one that the legislature world adopt.

PAGE 16

MR. McINTIRE: I'm not motivated by pride of

2 authorship, I maybe feel like the guy who's been twice burned.

3 I went through this as many of you know, and we did write a

4 new constitution and the legislature adopted it, and the court

5 felt it to be the work product of a portion of the General

6 Assembly, and I saw the Georgia senate -- we suggested you

7 turn the preamble around and put the belief in God at the

8 beginning -- the state senate debated that for one solid

9 day and turned that sentence right back around where it was,

10 and -- here's Barryn from our committee -- and I'll say again

zCI
11 i= when you make a change simply for the purpose of making a '2"

'"
9:!

change you are making it extremely that much more difficult to accomplish the objective. That t s all I have to say.

...

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. Are you through, Mr .

'"

%

15 0:1 Brown?

CI

'";;;)

16 .~..

MR. BROWN: With my preamble, yes, sir .

Q

=%
17

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right, We're going to start

18 then and let you go through and discuss your changes that

19 you suggested in here with the committee, tell them why, and

20 when you do come to what you consider to be a substantive

21 change I want you to call it to their attention, and as we

22 go through it, if anybody else comes across something they

23 think is a change I want them to feel free to say so and

24
25 ~L-

M_R_._B~_R_O_WN_: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PAGE 17
~---------------------,
To give you another overview about how this is

2 organized, the present constitution in Paragraphs I through

3 VI which were added in 1972 contain the meat of the provisions

4 on the state debt.

5

These are reorganized in this draft in Paragraphs I

6 through VIII I believe it is, I through IX,

7

The reason I took the first paragraph as it appears

8 and split it upmto a number of paragraphs is because as you

9 can see in the present constitution you have a very extensive

10 one, two, three, four, a little over four-page paragraph in

CzI 11 I-
'o."".".
12 ~
9rl ! 14 I'<"C( :z: 15 .:l
CI
'";:)
16 ~ Q z
<C(
17 :

the constitution, and I just intend to break it out so that you will be to more easily identify the various parts of that paragraph.
On lines 5, 6 and 7 as you can see I have deleted the words llany other provisions of this constitution to the contrary notwithstanding." Since the entire constitution is being rewritten at one time, I felt the language would speak

18 for itself in terms of any authority or limitations that were

19 placed.

20

It's my feeling that language was necessary

21 originally because this was added in 1972 against a whole

22 constitution that was already in place.

23

I have attempted in that next three or four lines

24 there. just to eliminate the duplication of the words "The

25 state may incur public'! by inserting a new sentence and

PAGE 18

making paragraphs out of it to say the types of debt the state

2 may incur.

3

Generally there are four types. One, of course, to

4 incur public debt without limitation to repel invasion or

5 suppress insurrection or defend the state.

6

As you can see, that is essentially the same language.

7 The only real difference, I have added a comma in line with

8 the rules of grammar which have been adopted for use in the

9 constitutional commission effort.

10
"z
11 j:
'f."..
@;i ! 14 ... ':<"Cr 15 ~ "'":::J 16 ~... o Z <C 17 :

In Paragraph (B) I have changed the word "becausE' of" to "created by" simply because I felt that was the more current or modern usage in that instance.
MR. DAVIS: Both in the old draft and in this draft the word "necessary" gives me a problem .
MR. BROWN: That's right. I haven't attempted to change that. That is language that stayed in.
CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Where is that now? What line?

18

11R. BROWN: Line 15.

19

MR. FUNbERBURG: You're saying created by delay

20 instead of saying necessarily?

21

MR. BROWN: There is a vagueness in the use of that

22 term.

23

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Do you want to make it in the

24 form of a motion that we take it out?

25

HR. DAVIS; I think it's necessary it be removed.

PAGE 19

CEAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. That's "necessary"

2 on line 15 and where else?

3

MR. 0AVIS: That's the only place.

4

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: On line 15. Let it be known by

5 a show of hands.

6

One, two, three. The issue is carried, the

7 "necessary" comes out, Mr. Brown.

8

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.

9

This sentence in the present constitution as you can

10
"z
11 ~
o.".".
12 ~
@ ' ~ _ ~
14! I':<"zl::
15 .:>
"rt:
:>
16 ~ Q z <l:
17 :

see is a long conjunctive sentence using the words "but the." I just attempted to make it two sentences there, again just to have wherever possible short simple sentences in line with the rules of grannnar that have been adopted for the constitution and the new code.
MR. DAVIS: You probably need another "a" in there to make that sentence read correctly.
MR. BROWN: I certainly think that would be fine.

18

CHAI~Uili COLLINS: What line are you on?

19

MR. DAVIS: Line 41.

20

MR. BROWN: It would be line 16, the left-hand

21 colunm.

22

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Line 16, you need "a" in where?

23

MR. BROWN: Between "such" and "debt."

24

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there any objection to putting

25 an "a" in there on line 16 between "such" and "debt"?

MR. DAVIS:

PAGE 20
~~~------------------,
You're not reading the same place I'm

2 reading

3

MR. FUNDERBURG: I don't see why you need it. It

4 says such debt shall not exceed --

5

MR. BROWN: I see. Created by a delay.

6

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: In other words, you want to move

7 that "a" up a line, then.

8

MR. NIXON: Created by a delay.

9

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: On line 15 where we've marked out

10 the word "necessary" we put in the word "a." Is there any

11

~
~

objections to that?

12 :

If not, we'll put the word "a" in there.

@ri

MR. BROWN: Okay. Going on down to line 20, Mr.

14 ~ Chairman, as you can see there was another conjunction of
~
:I:
15 .:l a sentence, and any, and I just again made another sentence.

~

i;;)
16

I have deleted the words "out of the taxes levied for the

zc

17 ~ fiscal year in which the loan is made," I did that because

18 it appeared to me that if you were mandating that it had to

19 be paid, that there was no reason to limit it, the state's

20 repayment out of taxes that it had raised; it seems to me that

21 any money in the general fund could be used for that.

22

MR. DAVIS: You're adding it back on line 24.

23

MR. FUNDERBURG: You're talking about 20, the debt

S:~lB::~~pa::~_s_o_r_r~y,-. :: [I incurred

__I_'_m_t_h_i_n_k_ing about an earlie

PAGE 21

draft, I sure am. We had put this in in response to a concern 2 that had been raised -- I put it back in, you're right. I'm

3 sorry. All I've done is just switch it down one line for

4 clarity.

5

MR. NIXON: Question.

6

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Yes, sir.

7

HR. NIXON: I'm not arguing this, I'm just asking.

8 I think the reason they put taxes in there probably is that

9 other things get in the state treasury besides taxes. Now,

10 we get some federal revenue sharing funds, we get certain

Czl

.11 j: federal grants and so forth and so on, so I -o.'"..

~ 12 ~

MR. McINTIRE: I might comment. That's correct,

~r~ the use of the word state treasury -- the reason we felt the

14 ~ words "levied for that fiscal year" should be in there is

I-

lit

:E:

15 ~ that the debt is a debt based on the fact that you get or

Cl

'":::>

16 .~.. collect taxes which were already levied. If you leave the

Q

Z

17 ~ word out, somebody might footsie around and borrow money

18 when they hadn't actually levied a tax that wasn't in the

19 budget to begin with, and this is essentially limiting --

20

MR. BROWN: I don't have any objection to leaving it

21 in. I had just forgotten that I had put it back in.

22

MR. DAVIS: You don't have any objection to it

23 staying in like it's worded, do you?

24

MR. McINTIRE: Canter put it back in after he and I

25 discussed it.

PAGE 22

2 247

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: That straightens it out on line

3

MR. DAVIS: Yes, that's okay.

4

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: If there are no objections, then

5 we'll move on.

6

MR. BROWN: Again on line 24 there was a fourth

7 conjunction in that sentence with the words "and no," and I

8 just -- again I just made a separate sentence out of it.

9

The third kind of state debt that was authorized,

10 and this is one of the two major innovations in the work that

~
11 ~ Mr. McIntire and Mr. Michael and others did in 1972 is to

@;i authorize the general obligation debt, as you know. What I have attempted to do in this first paragraph

!.. 14 is just to specify the kind of debt that can be levied, and

''"Il

%

15

o:l
~

I have broken out from this

one paragraph the

two kinds,

the

i 16 OIl general obligation and guaranteed revenue, so that Paragraph

Q

Z

17 ='Il (c) would only deal with general obligation debt.

18

As you can see on line 3 I have struck the guaran-

19 teed revenue debt, but you'll find it again back on line 13.

20

I have stricken the sentence or the words "general

21 obligation debt may be incurred by issuing obligations" 22 because if you'll go back to the lead in to the paragraph 23 says the state may incur, and this would read general

24 obligation debt to acquire, construct, develop, extend,

enlarge. I think that just follows in the use of the

,..---------------------
structured sentence.

PAGE 23

2

CHAIRM)J~ COLLINS: Any objections on this particular

3 section?

4

MR. BROWN: On lines 10 through 12 the present

5 language reads "prior to the amendment adopted November 8,

6 1960, to Article VII, Section VI, ParagraphI(a) of the

7 constitution of 1945, ,! I have just replaced that with the

8 effective date of that amendment. It seems to me it was 9 clearer just to specify the date rather than to go through

10
CzI 11 t-
...oo<
0..
12 ~
@~ F~ ~ 14 ~ t':z": 15 ~ CI 0< ::> 16 .~.. 17 agz;

all that language. MR. FUNDERBURG: Going back to the observation that
counsel made, when he takes this to New York or somewhere, the question is what's significant about November 8, 1960.
MR. BROWN: That was the date upon which the a~mendment to the constitution was approved which permitted the state to
MR. FUNDERBURG; I understand that, but if you

18 strike it out it doesn't have that in there, so I'm reading

19 it and I'm saying "November 8, 1960, what does that refer to?"

20 Then I've got to go do research to find out what's significant

21 about November 8, 1960.

22

MR. BROWN: You really don't, because all that

23 relates to is the dividing date as to when a particular state

24 authority was formed. I think you'll find it really is

25 clearer that way.

PAGE 24

It's fairly easy to determine whether an authority 2 was created.

3

MR. McINTIRE: I think the point is exactly the point

4 I've been trying to make. That language has been in circu1a-

5 tion for eight years and everybody knows what it means.

6 When it changes, rather than making it clearer, somebody is

7 going to have to explain to them that November 8th, 1960, was

8 the date on which that amendment was adopted, so you are 9 forcing a discussion which is totally unnecessary for the

10 purpose of saving five or six words, and it's a matter of

philosophy, but that sort of thing is repeated over and over

again.

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir, that is true, it is repeated

over and over again, which to me illustrates why this whole

15 ~ process should have been through. Again, I don't see what it

'"Ill:

16

;l z z~

adds

to put all

that

language

in there.

17 :Ii

You're talking about a date prior to which state

18 authorities were created. It seems to me that the dividing

19 line is that date, it doesn't matter what happened on that

20 date, it's just that date is where you draw your line.

21

CF.AIRMAN COLLINS: Any more discussion from any

22 member? Any objections to the section?

23

If not, we will move on.

24

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned a little

~:' earlier, this is the section that deals with guaranteed

PAGE 25
,,----------------------------------------------------,
revenue debt, the second type of new debt which was authorized

2 in 1972.

3

Mr. Michael brought up -- I think it was Mr. Michael

4 or Mr. McIntire -- that I had eliminated toll roads from this

5 section.

6

I had not intended to eliminate the authority for

7 toll roads, and certainly if your committee feels there's a

8 question I have done that there's no problem in putting that

9 back.

10

The reason that I did eliminate it was because if

11

"z
j:

you'll follow the language there it says toll bridges, toll

o~ .".".

~ 12 ~ roads and any other land public transportation facility. It

~F~ seems to me if you use the words "and other" there it showed

14 ~ me that they intended toll roads to be a land public trans-

I-

'"

:I:

15 ~ portation, and clearly that is included in Paragraph II there.

"~

::>

16 ~ I had not intended to delete the authority for toll roads,

Q

z

17 ~ it just seemed to me the language there implied it was part

18 of the larger term.

19

MR. DAVIS: It's not a complete thought, Subparagrapl

20 II there, "Land public transpottation facilities or systems."

21

MR. McINTIRE: That's my point. I think you could

22 have a Supreme Court case on whether a toll road was a land

23 public transportation facility, whereas if you put the two

24 words in "toll roads," the whole argument disappears.

25

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier,

PAGE 26

I certainly have no objection if your committee wants to put

2 toll roads back in there. I was simply trying to explain why

3 I felt it could be ~moved.

4
5 in?

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Do we have a motion to put it bac

6

MR. NIXON: I make a motion that we do.

7

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All in favor of putting it back

8 in let it be known by lifting your hand.

9

(A show of hands.)

10

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Reverse your position.

(A mow of hands.)

sir.

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Canter~ put it back in, please,

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.

On line 19 I have eliminated the words --

MR.~VIS: We need clarification on land public

transportation facilities or systems.

18

MR. FUNDERBURG: I would agree now if we put that

19 back in,how would it read?

20

MR. ,BROWN: "Issued to finance: (1) toll bridges

21 and toll roads; (2) Land public transportation facilities or 22 systems."

23

MR. DAVIS: What's significant about the word "land"

24

MR. BROWN: It's just a word that's in the

constituti_on now.

-------- ----------~-_._-------------'

PAGE 27

MR. DAVIS: Well, how to limit it causes confusion.

2 The word "land," I think it was inserted there, wasn't it,

3 Canter--

4

MR. BRO\~: No, sir. It's presently in the

5 constitution. As you'll see, it's the last word on line 17.

6

MR. DAVIS: It's "any other land" on line 17.

7

Now, when you insert Paragraph II you say land pub1i

8 transportation facilities or systems. That's where it creates

9 some confusion.

10
~ z 11 I-
'o<.".>..
~ 12 ~
(~@r1~4! lo-n ~ :l: 15 ol) ~ '~" 16 ~... a Z ~ 17 ::i

Are we talking about just those that went on land, are we just talking about land for those systems?
MR. FUNDERBURG: And you said and any other land. You know, any other land covers everything.
}1R. HILL: Any other land would be stricken from the proposed draft. Right, Canter? Then it would appear in line 2 .
MR. BRO~~: I think the relationship between the

18 word "land" and "public transportation" facilities would

19 remain the same in the new draft as in the old.

20

MR. McINTIRE: What we're talking about in those

21 days was MARTA.

22

MR. DAVIS: I think you would want to drop the word

23 "land" in Subparagraph (2) and let it read public transportati n

24 facilities and systems.

25

MR. McINTIRE: We weren't talking about airlines or

PAGE 28

buses.

2

MR.~E: I think that would change the present

3 constitution, it would be a change. The present constitution

4 reads, after toll roads there's a comma and it says "Any other

5 land public transportation facilities or systems."

6

If you wanted to retain the present language, you

7 would put in "other" preceding "land."

8

MR. FUNDERBURG: You're saying eliminate (2)

9 altogether and incorporate what you need in (1); right? to Is that what you're saying?

MR. KANE: I wasn't saying that. I was saying that

in order to retain the present language you would leave it as it is except insert "other" before "landn in Subparagraph (2).

I don't think we're discussing much of a change here

as far as I can determine.

MR. FUNDERBURG: Since you're talking about

sin~lifying it, I don't see why we can't just incorporate it

18 all in one paragraph, toll bridges~d toll roads, land public

19 transportation facilities or systems.

20

MR. BROWN: The reason I had broken it out like this

21 was assuming in the future that there was any attempt to

22 amend the section, it seemed to me that it would be easier to

23 have it in a format which you could just add a new paragraph

24 at the end, in this instance the sixth paragraph to specify

~" i: which program vou were referring to.

U~

~_

__

------------------

PAGE 29

It was just a matter of drafting style in attempting

2 to break these out so that they would be more easily

3 identifiable.

4

Again I think Mr. Hill will tell you this is in line

5 with the style that is generally being adopted in the

6 constitutional revision.

7

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, in (1) I think it ought to

8 read toll bridges, toll roads; (2) ought to read public

9 transportation facilities or systems, drop the word "land."

10 That will cover it. That will give you land on either the

Czl 11 j:

~

o'"
0w
12 ~

~r~ ! 14

I-
VI
:r

15 ~

Cl
:'>"
16 ~ ozw
17 :;

toll roads or bridges or the public transportation system. MR. BROWN: I do think, Mr. Chairman, you would want
to -- if the subcommittee wants to do this there's no problem in drafting, but I do think that Mr. Kane is right that would make a major substantive change in the present provision.
MR. FUNDERBURG: Charlie, then you're saying that ail and sea transportation facilities would be included?

18

MR. DAVIS: Uh-huh. Right now --

19

MR. FUNDERBURG: Not that I see anything wrong with

20 that, but I just --

21

MR. DAVIS: It reads "and other land." It looks

22 like there's a comma there, or was a comma there.

23

MR. BROWN: The Comma is underlined there, it's

24 added. The comma is not in the present constitutional

25 provision.

PAGE 30

MR. McINTIRE: I didn't get a chance to formally.

2 introduce Barry Phillips. I think most of you know him.

3

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: How do you do. Glad to have you

4 with us. Glad you've taken the time to be with us,

5

MR. MICHAEL: I remember discussing that when it was

6 originally drafted. As Mr. McIntire mentions, that was

7 primarily designed to cover a situation like MARTA in the

8 event the state ever wanted to get into that.

9

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: If we took land out, do you think

10 this would open it up to air and sea and everything else?

MR. MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. McINTIRE: It would.

MR. DAVIS: Your alternate word would be "ground."

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: If anybody has a motion, let's

If we haven't, we can move on.

I'm not going to rush you either.

MR. BROWN: You're considering the deletion on

18 line 18 on page 2 of the word "land," and it has been

19 suggested that if you did that you would be authorizing the

20 state to issue guaranteed revenue debt against sea and air
,
21 transportation facilities and systems.

22

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Do we have any motion on line 18?

23

If not, we'll move on and leave it like you have it

24 drafted there at this time. When we get through, you'll have

25 an opportunity to come back and try anything else you want to.

PAGE 31

As I say, you're going to have three or four more

2 chances.

3

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the next two lines there,

4 the present language reads "or water or sewage treatment

5 facilities or systems. " I felt like that water and sewage

6 were both supposed to modify treatment facilities and systems

7 and wrote them in that way. Just again to me it appeared

8 clearer that way.

9

CHAlill1AN COLLINS: Any objections? Any discussion

10 on that?

Czl 11 j:

MR. DAVIS: Water treatment, water purification --

'o.0"....

@;I MR. FUNDERBURG: That treats it. You purify it, you treat it. You're not going to treat it for some other

14 ~ reason.

I-

':<"rl
15 ~

Isn't the word purification more restrictive? I

Cl
'":::>
16 ~... don't know what you do with water, but it seems to me you

Q

Z

17

<l
:

don't want

to be

too restrictive.

18

MR. DAVIS: I'm saying generally in the world of

19 finance when you're dealing with facilities of this type,

20 treatment is sewage.

21

Cl~IRMAN COLLINS: You had both of them wrote

22 together with the treatment facility at the end. Now then

23 you've just got them separately with the same thing at the end

24 of each one individually, if I'm understanding what he's done

25 here.

PAGE 32

MR. BROWN: Yes.

2

MR. DAVIS: I think it's water purification.

3

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Not in the constitution.

4

MR. DAVIS: Or sewage treatment is the term.

5 They're accepted terms in finance in that type of improvement.

6

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I don't have any objections if

7 you think you need to change treatment to purification.

8

MR. DAVIS: Since this was written there's been a

9 lot of emphasis placed on sewage, so really we have changed a

10 little bit in time too.

11 "~
~'"

MR. PHILLIPS: Did you differentiate water systems

G~r, ~~12 I!' for --? MR. BROWN: No, sir. It read "or water or sewage ! 14 ... treatment facilities or systems."

'<:"Cr

15 ~

MR. PHILLIPS: Charlie's point man be valid, then.

i!"
16 It may not include water supply systenls, which I think that's

17 ~ intended to cover. If you make it water treatment, it sounds

18 like sewage is what Charlie is saying.

19

MR. DAVIS: I move on line 20 the word "treatment"

20 be changed to purification.

21

MR. McINTIRE: You still don't get -- I think if

22 you look back at the old wording it was a deliberate attempt

23 to fit water distribution, supply and treatment facilities

24 and systems.

25

MR. DAVIS: It would be all encompassing.

PAGE 33

MR. FUNDERBURG: I think the language should not be

2 written so restrictively that you can't do everything you

3 need to do to deliver good water.

4

I don't know about the technicalities of the

5 language, bU9re need to say water supply, treatment and so

6 forth. We can put it in there, but I sort of go along with

7 the suggestion you just made, water facilities or systems,

8 and that covers the whole thing.

9

MR. DAVIS: That would be better.

10

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. Is there any

Czl

11

j:
.'o0"..-

objection to removing the word treatment?

If not, we will

~J~! (~) ~ 12 ~ take treatment out. MR. FUNDERBURG: And the same thing with sewage.

14 I-

Why have treatment in it at all?

Why not word it in such

'"

J:

15 .:I manner that you can do whatever you need to do about sewage,

Cl

'":;)

16

~ Q

whatever

you have

to

do.

z

17 :

What about that, Charlie?

18

MR. DAVIS: That would --

19

CHAIR~~N COLLINS: It ain't going to bother me.

20 I just hate for you all to keep flushing the raw sewage down

21 the river.

22

Any objections to taking it out?

23

The word treatment will come out on line 21 too,

24 then.

25

All right, sir.

PAGE 34

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this next and last

2 provision here, the present language reads "or to make or

3 purchase, or lend or deposit against the security of, l oans l!

4 to the citizens of the state for educational purposes.

5

MR. FUNDERBURG: What line is that?

6

MR. BROWN: This is beginning on line 21.

7

I have changed that to read to finanace educational

8 loan programs for citizens of too state. It seems to me that

9 language COvers the same territory. You may want to pay

10 particular attention --

~

11 1=

MR. McINTIRE: I've got one particular comment on

I12 one particular point.
@ r l If you look at the top of page 4 where it starts at

.

14 I ~

the bottom of page 4 when you're referring to the

limit of

~

15 olI this amount of debt, the language gets back to read for

III

II:

16

i
i

educational purposes.

%

17

~
/II

I have some question in my mind whether the words

18 educational loan programs equals precisely educational

19 purposes. I think you ought to describe whatever you describe

20 the same way in both places.

21

MR. BROWN: I think Mr. McIntire is correct in that.

22 The reference should be the same.

23

MR. FUNDERBURG: I have a broader question. I'm

24 not a lawyer -- in case nobody knows what I am, I'm not a

25 lawyer, but does this open Pandora's box as to the definition

PAGE 35

of what educational purposes is?

2

MR. McINTIRE: I might go back a little, recite a

3 little history that the present language was for the purpose

4 of permitting bonds to be issued to fund the present student

5 loan program that you had, and that's why the language was

6 against the security of loans and so forth.

7

You might very well be broadening the horizon

8 considerably to say any kind of educational loan program.

9

MR. FUNDERBURG: Apprentice training program is an

10

~

Czl 11 l-
o."e.<".
12 ~

(@)r l

l 14

I-
'"
:r
15 ~

Cl e<
~
16 .~.. Q Z
17 ::i

educational program. CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Can you get a loan for it at this
time, though? MR. FUNDERBURG: I know, but under the new language
does this open us up to anything? MR. BROWN: Again I think you have to look at how
broad the present language is. It isn't limited to, you know, the present student loan program, it's general, loans to the

18 citizens of the state for educational purposes.

19

It seems to me that under that authority the state

20 could borrow money for any type of educational loan program.

21

MR. DAVIS: I think the point he's making is that

22 it would be an educational loan program for the citizens of

23 the state, the other restriction is they've got to use it for 24 educational purposes, so what we're doing by taking out for

25 educational purposes is to give them a broad program where

PAGE 36

they're free to choose.

2

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if there's any concern by

3 the members of your subcommittee, I don't have any objection

4 at all to going back to the old wording on this if you want

5 to. I feel like it's cumbersome, but whatever you all desire.

6

MR. DAVIS: I move on line 25 for educational

7 purposes be left in.

8

MR. NIXON: Now, I think what they originally

9 intended to do was to have -- I don't know, Marcus you were with the General Assembly -- was to have loans to somebody to pursue their education. If you say for citizens afthe state, how is that interpreted? I mean I could interpret that pretty broadly. I don't know, I'm sure not a lawyer and I don't know.

MR. DAVIS: I'm reading those words that I suggested

we add back in as a restriction on the use of it. MR. NIXON: I don't know what you all intended

18 exactly, Marcus. I assume you intended to loan the money to

19 people to go to school.

20

MR. DAVIS: To only go to school with it.

21

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: The intent of it was to try to

22 help some children go to school.

23

MR. NIXON: You want to loan them money to go to

24 school. That's the way I read it.

25

MR. MICHAEL: I might make one comment. Of course,

PAGE 37

this language was not in the original draft, I think that was

2 added through the process of the amendment going through the

3 General Assembly, and as I recall the language tha~ was in

4 there was specifically to gear to Georgia higher educational

5 system program they've got out there now, and I think you need

6 to consider what you do in connection with your limitations;

7 your limitations you have on the amount of the debt is tied

8 to that specific language.

9

Suppose you had some that didn't fall within that

10 specific language on that limitation, you know, could you

Czl

11

j:::
.'0"".".

exceed that.

In other words, you've got your limitations

12 '" broken down into two separate categories in the prior

@ r l language. Of course, you can discuss that when you get to it.

14 ~ ~

MR. BROWN: If be committee had adopted or does

'<"

:J:

15

~ Cl

adopt the language that

I

have put here,

in line with Mr.

~ '"

16

zIII Q

McIntire's

statement

I

was

going

to

recommend

that

we

insert

z

17

<
'"III

a reference in the

limitations

section to this

specific

18 paragraph.

19

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, if the lawyers tell me

20 it's restrictive enough it can't be used for any purpose

21 other than education I'm willing to leave the words out.

22

MR. McINTIRE: I don't know whether it changes any

23 meaning or not. Particularly it seems to me that saying

24 loans to citizens of the state for educational purposes is

25 a much more clear cut straightforward statement of a fact

PAGE 37

than the use of the words educational loan programs. It

2 could be a variety of things.

3

MR. BROWN: I think that's true, but the reason that

4 I used programs here, if you look back up in the language on

5 line 22 they're really doing it a little broader than just the

6 state lending the money to people. They're authorizing the

7 state to post deposits I assume in banks as security against

8 the banks making loans to students in the state, and it just

9 seemed to me it was a little bit broader than just making the

10 loan, and that's why I used the word program.

Czl

11 Irt:

MR. McINTIRE: It may very well be if that's what

..o....

~ 12 ~ you intend to do, well and good.

~F~

MR. BROWN: I was just trying to do it in a way that

14

~
I-

didn't

take

away

any

authority

that

was

already

there.

'"

:J:

15 01)

MR. McINTIRE: My concern was you may have done

Cl

rt:

~

16 ~... something you didn't intend to do .

Q

Z

17 :

MR. BROWN: I had intended it to be broader than just

18 making loans in line with my reading of what the current

19 language was.

20

CP~IRMAN COLLINS: Any more discussion? Any

21 motions?

22

Would you all like to pass on by this?

23

MR. FUNDERBURG: Let's try and arrive at this by

24 consensus.

25

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, in your opinion by making

PAGE 38

loans it could be used for something other than educational 2 purposes?

3

MR. BROWN: I don't think you could make the loans

4 for any purposes other than that. If you want to consider

5 taking educational out of the, out as the first word there

6 and just say to finance loan programs for citizens of the

7 state for educational purposes --

8

MR. DAVIS: That would do it.

9

MR. BROWN: Would that solve your concern?

10

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I think that's better language.

i11 I
12 t
@;I

MR. BROWN: Again I think in line with the word programs you need the word "for" there, the program would be for somebody as opposed to the loan being to them.

i14 I

MR. FUNDERBURG: Say that again. How would it read?

15 .:I

MR. BROWN: It would simply read: (5) Loan

I16 ~

programs for citizens of the state for educational purposes.

17 a

MR. DAVIS: I think that's all right.

18

MR. BROWN: I don't have any problem with that.

19

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: You've got it how now, Canter?

20 Let's get it down.

21

MR. BROWN: Line 24 and 25 would read: (5) Loan

22 programs for citizens of the state for educational purposes.

23

MR. PHILLIPS: Does that any way limit who the loans

24 can be made to or how the loans are made?

25

MR. BROWN: Clearly the language that's already in

PAGE 39

the constitution like the citizens of the state limits.

2

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you have to ~~ke the loans to

3 them, or can you make them to some authority or --7

4

MR. BROWN: I think under this language you would

5 have to make it -- if the state were making a loan, it would

6 have tobe to a citizen. If they participated in a program

7 that was privately run or run by some public authority or

8 corporation, the program that they approved would have to be

9 the citizens of the state.

10

Czl

11

j: a:

.a0....

12 a:

@rl

14 ~

~
'<:z": 15 ~

Ca:l
:;)

16 .'z"..

Q

Z

17

<a:l
'"

18

MR. FUNDERBURG: I think we have to get away from just the loan concept, because actually these loans are basically made by financial institutions with guarantees by the state, so they're loan programs we're trying to support as opposed to just loans.
MR. DAVIS: "For" gives you the opportunity to go to other institutions.
MR. BROWN: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Do we have any more discussion

i'

19 on it?

20

MR. FUNDERBURG: It's by consensus, Mr. Chairman.

21

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, Paragraph II, I have

22 adopted here in line with the rules of style that have been

23 adopted for the new Georgia code and for the application to

24 the constitution -- there is a definition that is presently

25 in the constitution that defines the term annual debt service

PAGE 40

requirements. The new rules of style provide that the

2 definitions go at the beginning of a paragraph or section

3 in the law or the constitution. I have utilized that rule

4 by placing this definition at the first of this paragraph.

5

As far as any substance is concerned, this

6 definition is verbatim from what is persently in the

7 constitutinn, and you will find it has been deleted on page 4,

8 lines 7 through 16, so all I'm doing is moving it from the

9 bottom of that paragraph on page 4 to the top of this para-

10 graph on page 2. It is the same definition. Again, it's

just adopting the style rules that have been adopted.

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there any discussion on what

Canter has done, or any objection to what he's done in this?

MR. DAVIS: I've got one question.

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right, sir.

MR. DAVIS: My question is do we have any obligation

in which we have to put up a reserve fund on? If we do, he

18 can expand that definition.

19

MR. NIXON: I know we had some reserve, they defeased

20 all those new bonds, and they had some reserve requirements in

21 them, but they've been defeased so that is out.

22

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Some of them have. All of them

23 haven't, have they?

24

MR. NIXON: All the school and university, all the

25 schools were defeased, everyone of the bonds. The university

"

- - - - - ----~ ----~---

-

PAGE 41

I don't know, I can't remember.

2

MR. McINTIRE: I think there were some. I don't

3 believe that -- It's been amended so many times I don't

4 think they've been using reserves in any for a number of

5 years.

6

~ffi. NIXON: In GO we don't.

7

~. DAVIS: I really think what you need in the

8 definition, principal and interest, you ought to have and

9 reserves, if any. That will give you the latitude so if you

10
CzI 11 Iocr-:
l>.
12 ~
(~ @))~ r~ 14 ~ I':<z":l 15 o:l CcrI: ;;;) 16 ~... Q Z <l 17 ~

ever do that you can do it. MR. McINTIRE: Here again is another example of the
problem that has developed because of an effort to adhere to the style and combine the definitions. The definitions of annual debt service requirements with respect to general obligation debt and guaranteed revenue debt before were separately stated, and I think you would have to have a reserve of some kind in connection with revenue debt.

18

MR. NIXON: That was my next question. Say you

19 did build a toll road or a toll bridge, would you not have to

20 reserve something from the revenues or something?

21

MR. McINTIRE: You might very well.

22

~. NIXON: I would think there might be a reserve

23 fund requirement. I'm asking the lawyers now.

24

MR. McINTIRE: As I say, I haven't had a chance to

25 analyze this, and every time you go over it again you find

PAGE 42

something like this that causes maybe not a problem but a 2 concern, and I'll say for the last time because you're putting 3 style over substance.

4

MR. BROWN: I don't believe that I deleted two

5 definitions of this term. I think there's just the one

6 definition at the end of that paragraph which applied to

7 everything in the above paragraph.

8

MR. McINTIRE: You see, the concept of the debt

9 service requirement as it was put in here was a provision

10 that the General Assembly before you could incur general

obligation debt had to appropriate at least annual debt

service requirement. That concept doesn't apply to

guaranteed revenue debt.

MR. DAVIS: It's principal, interest and reserve.

It can be three elements.

MR. BROWN: All this definition is related to is where in this paragraph further on and in Paragraph III we 18 use that term. Just because the paragraph also includes some 19 references to guaranteed revenue debt doesn't mean you 20 shouldn't define a term that does apply to the rest of the 21 sectjon.

22

Youtnow , the definition is the same as is in the

\
23 constitution now, it's just moved from the bottom of the

24 paragraph to the top.

25

MR. McINTIRE: It's confusing. You remember there

PAGE 43

was some kind of a typo in that title to the section that you

2 and I discussed by ~orrespondence, and maybe the confusion

3 comes by stating guaranteed revenue debt in there where it

4 makes you think this has something to do with it. You might

5 be right, it might not have a thing to do with it.

6

MR. BROw~: As you recall, the initial draft I had

7 used the term guaranteed debt which you had raised a concern

8 about, so I just eliminated that and went back to the two

9 terms we do use.

10

This paragraph does deal with both guaranteed

Czl

11 ~ obligation debt and guaranteed revenue debt. It seems to me

.lo.L.

9@_.;12 ~ it's appropriate to mention them both.

~

MR. McINTIRE, What I'm saying. i f (a) were dropped

14 I~;; down or something you might not be having this problem.

:z:

15 ~

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Do we have any more questions,

C..:l

::>

16 ~ suggestions or anything on this paragraph? Any suggested

zQ

17 ~ changes or anything?

18

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I think in good bonding

19 practices and all I would want in there reserves, if any,

20 both in the first section which goes from line 26 to 31,

21 and when you get to defining exactly what annual debt service

22 is, that phrase there too, reserves if any.

23

You're guaranteeing principal, interest and reserves

24

MR. MICHAEL: I'm talking about the guaranteed

25 revenue provision in this article, because you're required

PAGE 44

to have a reserve fund and you're required to supplement

2 should there ever be a shortfall.

3

MR. DAVIS: If there should be a shortfall, the

4 shortfall is guaranteed just like principal and interest.

5

MR. McINTIRE: You can'tplt a number on it because -

6

MR. DAVIS: You can put a number on it if you've got

7 bounds out. You know, when you issue that set of bonds you

8 know what the principal requirements are and you know what

9 the interest is, and you want the highest P&I boserve this.

10 If it's one year you can pinpoint it, if it's accumulative

.~

..11

j:
Ill:

for three years which is old and antiquated it can be fixed,

'0

'Go

12 ~ and today it's just as much a part of marketing bonds as the

@ r l security you've got on a lease or anything like that. The

! 14 !ii better the reserve, the lower the interest cost. You don't <l :I:
15 ~ have to use it, if you're not forced to use it it's
"I::l:l:.
16 .~.. inoperative. It's a vehicle that if you are required to

CzI
17 :; use it. In some of these toll roads, water and ground

18 transportation and all those things, I'll tell you right

19 quick the reserve is appropriate.

20

MR. McINTIRE: Charles, I think you have confused

21 revenue financing. You have no reserves on your GO debt

22 either.

23

MR. DAVIS: I don't have any on the GO, but again

24 I'm mixing some elements of revenue with the GO.

25

MR. McINTIRE: I'm not sure you are. That's why

PAGE 45

I say if you look at the revenue debt, that term isn't used

2 in the same way.

3

MR. DAVIS: The acceptability in the marketplace,

4 I see a toll bond as a revenue bond. You can call it GO if

5 you want to, it's graded as to a credit as a revenue bond.

6

MR. NIXON: We're guaranteeing it, Charlie. We're

7 pledging the full credit of the state if we should sell those.

8

MR. McINTIRE: Charlie, what I'm trying to say, look

9 over on page 3, it says no guaranteed revenue debt may be

10 incurred to finance water or sewage treatment facilities or

CzJ

11

j:
'o."..

systems when the highest aggregate annual debt service

(@!JF~12 ~
~~

requirements

for

the then current year or any subsequent

fiscal year of the state for outstanding or proposed

! 14 ... guaranteed revenue debt for water or sewage treatment

'"<C(

:I:

15 .:l
CJ

facilities

or systems exceed one percent of the total revenue

'":::J

16 .~.. receipts less refunds, of the state treasury .

Q

Z

<C(

17 ::;

MR. DAVIS: All right.

18

MR. McINTIRE: It is anticipated that guaranteed

19 revenue debt would pay for itself. You're trying to describe

20 a formula. Do you want to tighten the formula by putting in

21 a reserve that doesn't exist? That's the kind of problem

22 that I'm afraid you're getting into if you start fooling with

23 it.

24

MR. DAVIS: I'll withdraw my objection.

25

MR. FUNDERBURG: I'm not sure I can catch up with

PAGE 46

exactly where we are, whether we're on page 4 or on page 3.

2

MR. BROWN: Page 2 really.

3

MR. FUNDERBURG: You were talking about this section

4 of page 4 that you had shifted to the top.

5

MR. BROWN: That's right, I was just showing that

6 if you'll look on lines 7 through 16 on page 4, all that

7 material that's stricken is the material that is underlined

8 on page 2. I was just illustraing what I did, was just move 9 it up to the top of the paragraph again in line with the rules 10 of style that were adopted for our use.

MR. FUNDERBURG: I see, because there was some other

items that I wanted to discuss, but I'll do it when we get to

it since I've found out we're not --

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Did you have something you wanted

to --7

There being no objections, then we're going to move

by this section for the time being.

i8

Okay. Go ahead, Canter.

19

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I hope this will be a

20 fairly easy page in terms of the changes I've made anyway.

21

On line 4 you'll see I have added the words

22 "Subject to the other provisions of this paragraph."

23 Absolutely the only reason I did that was to permit me to

24 delete a set of "provided howevers" and "provided furthers."

25 Again, these rules of style we're dealing with are trying

PAGE 47

to encourage us to avoid these elongated types of sentences

2 and provideds, and just state simply what you're trying to do.

3 That's all I've attempted to do.

4

With reference to Subparagraph (c) there, the

5 change is just simply to adapt the references in the present

6 constitution to the organization of the draft you have.

7 That's all I'm attempting to do there.

8

On line 16 --

9

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any questions before we leave

10
Czl 11 i=
.'oa"....
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 ~ lV> <l :I: 15 ol) Cl '::"> 16 ~ Q z <l 17 ::

that? MR. BROWN: On line 16, again the rules of style
provide that any number that is ten or greater we use numerals, and less than ten you write out. All I have done is use the numeral there.
MR. DAVIS: I've got one question in that area, Mr. Chairman. The present constitution does not have a limit as to the term on bonds.

18

MR. FUNDERBURG: Charlie, isn't that to some extent

19 determined by market conditions at anyone time?

20

MR. DAVIS: It might be. After you pass 45 or 48

21 years you're at infinity as far as

22

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: It wouldn't bother me if you had

23 a twenty-year one on the state, but it might bother other

24 people. We've got to stop it somewhere. Personally it

25 wouldn't bother me, and I know it would be a substantive

PAGE 48

change, if you want to make it fifteen it wouldn't bother me.

2

MR. DAVIS: I move we reduce it from fifteen to ten

3 and limit it for a life of not more than thirty.

4

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We have a motion to reduce the

5 number of the percentage to fifteen percent of the revenue

6 and to put a stop on the length of the bonds at thirty years.

7

Now do we have any discussion on this?

8

MR. NIXON: Wait a minute. Did you say ten percent?

9

MR. DAVIS: Ten. It's fifteen in there now. Ten

10 and thirty.

CP~IRMAN COLLINS: Ten and thirty. MR. FUNDERBURG: I guess my own observation is that when you start placing limits and that sort of thing you need to have some feeling about where need is, and I don't have that. Fifteen as a limit, ten as a limit, I don't know

whether either one of them

MR. DAVIS: I'll just ask Mr. Nixon. We've got

18 about four or four and a half percent issued. In other

19 words, you've got a lot of leeway, if you're on fifteen you've

got a leeway of about three times, at least twice as much as

21 you've got out at present.

22

MR. FUNDERBURG: That's fine, Charlie, except we hav

23 a pretty fast moving society, it's hard to get a constitution

24 amended. The four and a half percent now may be totally

25 inadequate ten years from now; four times that may be

PAGE 49

totally inadequate.

2

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: As inflation goes up, )Our revenue

3 goes up.

4

MR. DAVIS: It's related to revenues, and a lot of

5 your revenues of the state are income taxes and this type of

6 thing which is highly inflationary.

7

MR. FUNDERBURG: I don't have a strong feeling eitheI

8 way.

9

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: You've got one thing, if you limit

10
z"
11 I-
'lo."L..
~ 12 ~
@r~
! 14 I'~" :I:
15 .:l
":':">
16 ~
Q z
<l
17 ::;

it to ten percent, you limit it to a thirty-year bond, you

limit the state to where they couldn't get in debt but a

little bit over a year's income ahead and leave everything

for our grandchildren to pay.

MR. DAVIS: Can you live with it?

MR. NIXON: I can live with it. It doesn't bother

me. You're getting into budgetary and legislative matters

now, and if the legislature --

It's fine with me. I

18 mean right now our revenue is up about three billion.

19

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: If there is no objection, we'll

20 change that fifteen to ten and put a catchall down there to

21 where the bonds cannot exceed thirty years.

22

MR. FUNDERBURG: Where does that go?

23

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: He and I are looking for a~ace.

24

MR. BROWN: Are you ~pplying that just to GO debt,

2S or to all debt, all state debt?

PAGE 50

2
3 GO.

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All state debt. MR. DAVIS: I would apply it to both guaranteed and

4

MR. McINTIRE: You're talking about these provisions,

5 I guess you know you've been going the other way in revenue

6 bonds and others, they have gone up to forty years. You're

7 sort of reversing history now.

8

CHAIFMAN COLLINS: What revenue bonds are forty

9 years?

10

MR. McINTIRE: City water and sewer bonds,

hospital authority I think has gone forty years now. You

know as well as I do if you're talking about something that

really can be left to statute or the legislature, the length

of that is one of them. If you're going to put things in the

legislature, that's one of them that would be very appropriate

in my opinion.

MR. FUNDERBURG: I think you've got to leave some

18 room in the constitution to adapt to change.

19

MR. McINTIRE: You've got a AAA rating with a

20 fifteen percent limitation, so you're not going to get any

21 flowers for going to ten.

22

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: They'd know they were going to

23 get their money that much easier, though.

24

MR. McINTIRE: They think it's easy enough now is

25 what I'm saying.

PAGE 51

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We want to keep the AAA.

2 Charlie, what doyou think about leaving your thirty off and

3 lowering your ten?

4

MR. DAVIS: I'm wanting what you all want. I'll be

5 willing to move from thirty to forty, but it's superfluous to

6 have a limitation without some term on it, because after you

7 pass 45, 48 years it's infinity, you'll never pay it off.

8

Mr. Chairman, I would still say that thirty years is

9 appropriate, but I would be willing to amend it to forty.

,

10 I still think a limitation should be in there as to term.

"z
11 i=
''0."".. 12 '" then.

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We'll take them one at a time, We'll take the ten percent first, then we'll insert

@ r l in here at the proper place if we can find it the limitation

! 14 of forty, so we're going to be voting on changing the fifteen

~

'"

:I:

15 .:J to ten on line 16, the latter part of that line .

"'~"

16 .lzD..

All in favor of changing fifteen to ten signify by

0z

17 '"lD uplifting your hand.

18

Reverse your position.

19

We will change the fifteen to ten.

20

Now, the next is the limitation on the number of

21 years. All in favor of inserting a limitation on the number

22 of years these bonds can be sold for to forty let me know by

23 uplifting your hand.

24

Reverse your position.

25

We will insert the limitation of forty years on the

PAGE 52

bonds at this time.

2

All right. Canter, let's see what we're doing now.

3

MR. MICHAEL: Let me ask one question. I really

4 haven't had time to think this out, but paragraph (b)

5 proposes a fifteen -- well, a ten percent limitation on total

6 debt, but your first clause there says subject to the other

7 provisions of this paragraph.

8

Well, you've got the ten percent there, then you

9 come down in (c) and you have the one percent for guaranteed

10 revenue debt on sewage treatment facilities. Does that

clause make that one percent in addition to the ten? The

way it was originally written the one percent was included

in the ten. I j~st have a question here as to how this would

be interpreted. MR. BROWN: I don't see how the organization here

changes what's already the case. All you've got now is a

provided however.

18

MR. MICHAEL: What does subject to the other pro-

19 visions of this paragraph mean? I don't know. I'm just

20 raising the question.

21

MR. BROWN: The paragraph is dealing with state

22 general obligation debt, guaranteed revenue debt limitations.

23

MR. MICHAEL: So we impose the ten percent limita-

24 tion, suppose we get to the ten percent, and as I interpret

25 that then you could come down and issue an additional one

PAGE 53

percent under treatment facilities. I say as I interpret it.

2 I'm just saying it's possible.

3

~fR. BROWN: Again all I'm saying is I don't interpret

4 it that way.

5

MR. McINTIRE: What would happen if you just struck

6 subject to the other provisions of this paragraph?

7

MR. MICHAEL: My question is what is that intended

8 to imply?

9

MR. BROWN: All that language is intended to do is

10 permit me to delete the provided howevers, again in line

zCI

11 i= with the style that we have been asked to utilize.

c.'o"...

~ 12 ~

If you want to delete that -- You know, I put it

~ri in there ju~t to avoid an argument over the provideds, just

! 14 to be honest with you. I don't see any reason --

!;;



J:

15 ~

MR. MICHAEL: I didn't think about that question

CI

'":;)

16 ~... until I was reading it here .

I:l

Z

17 :

MR. BROWN: I don't have any objection in the world

18 to taking out subject to the other provisions of this
,
19 paragraph. Again, I just put it in there so we wouldn't have

20 to argue about the provideds.

21

MR. FUNDERBURG: If you take it out, do you have to

22 put those other things back in?

23

MR. BROWN: No. It all speaks at the same time.

24

MR. McINTIRE: You've got in Paragraph (B) the ten

25 percent limit expressly applies to both, as well as the

PAGE 54

old authority contracts that may sill be outstanding.

2

MR. DAVIS: You would have a subdivision of your

3 ten.

4

MR. McINTIRE: You would have two limits, you

5 would have a combined ten and an independent one.

6

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if your subcommittee wants

7 to delete the words subject to the other Jrovisions of this

8 paragraph, it's fine with me.

9

MR. DAVIS: I move we delete it.

10

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: That's on line 4, and ends on

g! 11 I- line 5.

@ ~12 ~

Is there any objection to deleting it?

,,.o,. _r"~ will delete it.

If not, we

I
14 t>:t

MR. PHILLIPS: You're really getting your problem

.(
15 ~:r: when you're talking about the one percent, because that's
~
16 ! when you're subject to other provisions, subject to (a) or

0x-
17 ~ (b) rather.

18

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any more discussion on this?

19

If not, Canter, let's move to the next.

20

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. (d), Mr. Chairman, is another

21 instance just like (c). It deals with the educational loans

22 we were talking about earlier.

23

MR. MICHAEL: Before you get to (d), I would like to

24 make the changes in (c) to conform with the changes that you

2S made earlier on page 2 because you've deleted -- you know,

PAGE 55
..-------------------------- -----------~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
you said water treatment facilities and sewage treabment

2 facilities.

3

CHAI~Uili COLLINS: What we're saying, we're going to

4 take treatment out of both of those?

5

MR. BROWN: Just say water facilities or systems

6 or sewage facilities or systems.

7

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. Is there anything

8 else?

9

Okay, Canter.

10

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the (d) as I mentioned is

1.7

Z

11

I-
"."o.".

the

educational provision,

and

I

think in

line with Mr.

~ 12 ~ McIntire's comment that you should include a reference back

~r~ to that.

14 ~ I-

Perhaps it would read the aggregate amount of

:'"r

15 .:. guaranteed revenue debt incurred to make loans for educational

1.7

"=>

16 .~.. purposes as authorized by --

I:l

Z

17 :

MR. McINTIRE: Educational loan programs is what you

18 called it.

19

MR. FUNDERBURG: You went back over there and you

20 changed it to loan programs.

21

MR. McINTIRE: I don't know how you ended up,

22 whether it was loan programs for educational purposes or 23 whether you said educational loan programs.

24

MR. BROWN: We said loan programs for educational

25 purposes.

PAGE 56

MR. FUNDERBURG: The aggregate amount of revenue

2 debt incurred to make loans. It's not just for the purpose

3 of making loans. You changed it on page 2, you did say loan

4 programs. You need to --

5

MR. BROWN: It's my understanding the amount given

6 in this paragraph was intended to be the total amount of the

7 state's participation in these programs, it wasn't supposed

8 tobe just limited to where the state itself actually loaned 9 the money.

10
~
11 i=
.~...
@ -12 ~ ~

MR. FUNDERBURG: That's why you've got to take out incurred to make loans.
MR. BROWN: I think if you just said incurred for loan programs for educational purposes that would --

14 ~ ~
15 '~;"z: ~
16 &~
~z 17 g

MR. MICHAEL: One thing you need to consider, you've got two limitations in there, you've got an $18 million limitation on loans directly to the students, that was where the education assistance occurred if you make a direct loan;

18 and then $72 million limitation really was where the

19 educational authority is going to buy the loan from the bank

20 or place as security, so the two limitations there are much 21 narrower than what your general purpose was. If you had some-

22 thing that didn't fit into one of those categories you

23 wouldn't have a limitation other than your ten percent.

24

MR. BROWN: Perry, in looking at that language do

25 you feel that because of that distinction the language could

PAGE 57
---------- ------------,
stay the way it is in the draft, because there is a limita-

2 tion on actual loans in the first one, the $18 million. And

3 then the second one is

4

MR. MICHAEL: I think it could probably stay like

5 it is. The question I'm raising is whether you want an

6 overall limitation too.

7

MR. McINTIRE: My problem is when you change the

8 language on page 2 you talk about loan programs as opposed to

9 loans, you've got no authority to incur any debt to make

10 loans; you've only got loan programs.

Czl

11 i=

Now, they mayor may not mean the same thing. Some-

.'o0"....

~ 12 ~ body could say that a loan program is a different thing from

~r~ buying up loans from financial institutions that they have

14 ~ made to students, that one of the purposes of that thing was

I-

'"

%

15 olI to -- if the market wouldn't keep the loans you could buy

Cl

:'>"

16 .~.. them up like Fannie Mae does for the mortgages and that kind

Q

Z

17 ::i of thing, so I think you have to first decide exactly what

18 you're talking about to make these two restrictions work.

19

MR. FUNDERBURG: I thought the language loan

20 programs was inclusive enough to include direct loans and

21 support for loan programs.

22

MR. McINTIRE: That's exactly the way I'd say it.

23 I've been accused of using too many words, but I'd say loans

24 and loan programs. Then that\WDuld apply one limit to the
"
25 loans, and the other one to loan programs.

PAGE 58

MR. BROWN: That's fine. I don't have any problem 2 with that.

3

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Do any of the committee members

4 have any objections to using these two extra words and

5 putting them in the constitution to clarify what we're trying 6 to do?

7

MR. FUNDERBURG: That means we go back to page 2,

8 Paragraph (5), line 24, and say loans and loan programs.

9

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: That's right. If there are no

10 objections, Canter, will you change that in the proposed

draft?

MR. BROWN: Loans to, and loan programs for.

MR. FUNDERBURG: Down here at 33 I guess you would

say for loans and loan programs.

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. Canter, go ahead

with your next one.

MR. FUNDERBURG: I want to ask a question.

18

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Go ahead.

19

MR. FUNDERBURG: I just want to ask a question about

20 these two dollar limitations.

21

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. I'll try to help you.

22

MR. FUNDERBURG: wbat makes it adequate? Is it

23 does it allow enough ceiling to handle the needs twenty years

24 from now?

25

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: At the time this was passed I

PAGE 59

don't think we were looking at a ceiling twenty years from

2 now. We were looking at what we thought the state was able to

3 incur at this time, and this money, you know, is in a revolving

4 fund, it's supposed to come back in -- some of it hasn't.

5

I think if you go to taking out your caps in here

6 then we're going to be making such a substantive change you

7 might run into a problem, and I realize maybe two years,

8 four years or somewhere down the line we might come back and 9 have to amend this to change this.

10

MR. FUNDERBURG: There's no way to place limitations

effectively unless we put dollar amounts in?

CHAIRMAN COLLINS; I don't think there is in my

opinion. You could put percentages in there, but I don't

know -- in other words, I personally hate to see the dollar

amounts taken out.

Mr. Auditor, you might can tell them why.

MR. NIXON: I don't know how they arrived at the

18 dollar amounts in the thing, but we haven't sold any of these

19 bonds for this purpose.

20

MR. FUNDERBURG: If you haven't sold any, that

21 gives us a long ways to go.

22

MR. McINTIRE: I think Don just tried his best,

23 and as Perry mentioned they stuck that thing in in the

24 General Assembly itself. I think you're right it was a trade-

25 out as to what they thought the state could do.

PAGE 60

MR. NIXON: AS I recall now this was to get the GO 2 bond law, to get it in there. As Pope said, I think this was

3 part of a trade, trading process if I'm right, Pope.

4

MR. MICHAEL: Was that on the schools?

5

MR. McINTIRE: Yes. That was added later.

6

MR. NIXON: It was added. That was one of the

7 provisions added after they got beat.

8

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: There are going to be some

9 added when we get through here too.

10

MR. NIXON: I'm sure there will be.

i!
11

But they never have sold any of these bonds.

~JI ~ 12~ that in?

CHAIRMAN COLLINS:

Is there any objection to leaving

14 ~I

MR. FUNDERBURG: No, you can leave it in.

<l

:I:

15 ~

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. Let's move on to the

I~
:::l
16 next one.

i 17

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier,

18 the language that was stricken on lines 7 through 16 are the

19 same words which are earlier placed in the same paragraph

20 that we have already gone over.

21

Paragraph III deals with conditions on issuance of

22 debt and the sinking and reserve funds.

23

Throughout the present constitution references are

24 contually made to the General Assembly doing something. It

25 is not really the General Assembly, it's the General Assembly

PAGE 61

subject to the Governor's approval, and again one of these

2 rules of style has been more or less suggested it where

3 possible to not specify the General Assembly but just to

4 relate it to law or legislation. That's all that change is

5 doing.

6

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objection to that?

7

If not, we'll move on.

8

MR. BROWN: As you will see, on the top of line 5

9 I have deleted the language relating to the General Assembly

10 raising by taxation sums sufficient to payoff the contracts

Czl

11

j:
.o~ .....

that were authorized in the 1960 amendment.

~ 12 ~

I did that for two reasons. I think by and large

~ri that is already mandated in Article IX, and I have also

! 14 provided at the last of this article we'll get to a savings

t-

'"

:I:

15 .:. clause, a grandfather clause that saves all the ones that are

Cl

~

:;)

16 ~ already in effect, so I don't think you're harming anything

Q

z

17 ~ by deleting that language. It's already taken care of, plus

18 we've got a provision we're adding later to make sure those

19 provisions are taken care of.

20

MR. DAVIS: Any problem the~with those words?

'\'"

21

Okay.

22

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, on lines 9 and 10 I

23 just tried to replace the word hereunder with pursuant to

24 this section. The section is Section III dealing with state

25 debt.

PAGE 62

MR. DAVIS: Any problem there?

2

MR. BROWN: The same change on line 17, Mr. Chairman

3

We are encouraged wherever possible without hurting

4 the meaning to get away from the use of legalisms and

5 reference to legalistic type references like hereunder and

6 heretofore and specify what we're referring to.

7

MR. McINTIRE: You find you're using six words

8 instead of two.

9

MR. BROWN: They certainly encourage us to use as

10 few as possible where you don't harm the meaning, yes, sir.

On line 20, again the instance there, payable

therefrom just to payable from the fund.

I have left out a reference to if the General

Assembly should fail to make the appropriation or if for

any reason the moneys in the sinking fund are insufficient

because it seems to me the second clause covers the first one.

MR. FUNDERBURG: For whatever reason.

18

MR. BROWN: Right.

19

Now, I have left out of here the specific reference

20 to the director of the fiscal division, Department of

21 Administrative Services. As you already know, we have a

22 statute which does provide the director's duties, including

23 this, and I have used the term down on line 33 "appropriate

24 state fiscal officer." I did that just so that we do have

25 the flexibility to call him whatever we want to by law.

PAGE 63

MR. DAVIS: Any problems with that sentence?

2

All right.

3

MR. BROWN: Okay. I think the next change is

4 again on lines 4 through 13 dealing with the old authorities

5 contracts. I have deleted it for the same reason that I

6 deleted that language earlier.

7

MR. McINTIRE: You put it back in on line 30, 29.

8

MR. BROWN: Again I had forgotten that pursuant "to

9 one of Mr. McIntire's concerns we put that back in. We

10

~

Czl 11 j:
o.'"."".
12 ~

~r~
! 14 I'" ::l:
.., 15 o!)

:':">
16 .~..

Q
Z 17 :;

certainly did. I'm sorry. MR. DAVIS; Okay. Any objection to that? All right. MR. McINTIRE: I don't know whether you've gotten
to it yet or whether you're about to get to it. That's the point that I was making earlier on line 18, the obligation first of all that the sinking fund be as fully invested as is practicable, and second kbe restricted to general obligations

18 of the United States government.

19

MR. NIXON: I would strongly suggest that go back

20 in.

21

MR. BROWN: Because rating agencies have some real

22 hangups about that, I grant you, and I know that under

23 statutory law it gives you provisions which are very similar, 24 but it gives them a great amount of comfort and so forth for 25 it to be in the constintion, and for that reason if for no

PAGE 64

other I'm suggesting that be put back in.

2

MR. DAVIS: We've got two or three provisions there.

3 One it's to be fully invested, one it's to be a direct

4 obligation, and the last is for terms no longer than twelve

5 months.

6

The twelve-month bit probably could be longer.

7

MR. McINTIRE: It doesn't say twelve-month maturity.

8 You might have originally had a longer maturity.

9

MR. DAVIS: I'm saying in buying the bond you could

10 have one that would mature more than twelve months from date

~

11

j::
~

of purchase and still make it work for you.

~

12 u

MR. FUNDERBURG: In fact you might get a better

@r l return.

14 ~I

MR. DAVIS: That's right.

0(

%

I15 ~ ~

MR. McINTIRE: The risk is if you~t a fiscal

16 officer who for whatever reason, maybe an effort to increase

17 I= revenues, buys a maturity that is more than twelve months

18 and then has to sell it in order to make the sinking fund

19 payment and the market has shifted, he might not have enough

20 money, whereas if he had made a conservative investment in the

21 first place that risk wouldn't be there, and the rating

22 services like everybody else, .all the provisions of the state

23 constitution are expressions of somebody's fear and concern

24 about an unbridled legislature. They don't want the

25 legislature able to fiddle around with the provisions

PAGE 65

relating to the state sinking fund. They want that left up to 2 only the people to change. They don't want to make it easy to

3 change, that's their view. Whether it would affect rating or

4 not, I don't know.

5

l1R. NIXON: I'm in the same position. I do know they

6 get uneasy about that.

7

MR. FUNDERBURG: Charlie, when you're talking about

8 loan maturities, you're not talking about investments that 9 would carry beyond the time you had to make the payment?

10

MR. DAVIS; That's right.

Czl

11 i=

l1R. McINTIRE: That's the purpose of the one-year

.oC'."L.

~ 12 ~ limitation.

~r~

l1R. BROWN: If the subcommittee does want to put

! 14 this back in, I would like to make one suggestion that would

I-

':"z:

15 .:I save a little space.

Cl

:'"l

16 .~..

There are two identical provisions, one relating

Q

Z

17 ~ to the reserve fund and one to this fund. and I have

18 attempted over on page 9 -- that was the general authority I

19 was giving the General Assembly to provide the administration

20 of the two funds. and if w~ could limit it to putting it back

21 just in this one paragraph, as you can see I have related the

22 paragraph to both funds. so I think the limitation would be

23 there.

24

MR. NIXON; I think twelve months is fine for the

25 reason. Charlie. is that we appropriate the highest debt

PAGE 66

service really, but then we come around at the end of the .year

2 and the money we don't need we lapse it back and put it right

3 back in investment. We're not losing anything doing it the

4 way we do it. It's not going to cost us anything one way or

5 the other.

6

MR. DAVIS: You had a motion?

7

MR. NIXoN: I make a motion that line 18 through 28

8 be reinstated.

9

MR. BROWN: Would it be within the spirit of your

10 motion to do that by putting the language back in at the

111

11 5Z bottom of page 9 relating to both funds, since I assume you'll

~

@ ::::1::0:0 :: ::n::?one ~,!

r::::1:~:Y~~::i::::t::l:fj:::

-.

14!...

MR. NIXON: I have no objection to that .

':"r

15 ~

MR. DAVIS: Is there any objection to adding that

111

'":lI

16 I back relating to the sinking fund and the reserve fund?

I
17 III

You go tit.

18

Now we're down to line 29, Canter.

19

MR. BROWN: As was pointed out, this is language that

20 had just been stricken above. I put it back down in here for

21 clarity.

22

MR. DAVIS: Okay.

23

MR. BROWN: Page 7 as you can see, the first para-

24 graph is essentially verbatim with the present constitution.

25

MR. McINTIRE: I might point out in that paragraph

PAGE 67

you have violated your rule about the General Assembly -- I

2 don't know whether it makes any difference or not -- you say

3 the General Assembly has enacted legislation.

4

MR. BROWN: I did that in response to one of the

5 requests in your letter that you felt that the original

6 language there served well, and it just didn't seem to me

7 worth arguing about that particular reference.

8

Of course, I would be delighted to --

9

MR. McINTIRE: I think you could -- the reason I

10 point it out, I think the point that I was making was the

CzI

11

j:
.oQ'."..

recitation by the General Assembly that the determination that

~ 12 ~ the bonds would be self-liquidating, that that would be a

~r~ conclusive determination. I don't think you need "the

! 14 I-

General Assembly has enacted."

':"z:

15 .:l

MR. BROWN: If we say until legislation has been

CI

'":;)

16 ~... enacted authorizing the guarantee --7 I think I would

Q

Z

17 : certainly prefer that.

18

How about if you said legislation is enacted, just

19 using the present tense?

20

MR. McINTIRE: I'm no expert in grammar, but I don't

21 know what "may not be incurred" and "is enacted" mean, whether

22 they're proper or not.

23

MR. BROWN: I'll just put ''has been enacted."

24

MR. DAVIS: Okay. Any objection tofuat?

25

MR. BROWN: The reference on line 15 and 16 is just

PAGE 68

back to the paragraph before.

2

I separated out again one of these long sentences.

3 I just want to makeft clear the reference there.

4

The language down at lines 25, 26 and 27 is one of

5 those sentences, all such appropriations shall not lapse.

6 Again, I was just trying to use modern usage which would be

7 "no appropriation. shall lapse."

8

I have stricken the language there "for any reason

9 and shall continue in effect until the debt for which such

10 appropriation was authorized shall have been incurred," just

11 5~ simply because that is all encompassed in the prohibition on

.o...

12

~
u

it

lapsing.

All that naturally flows from the fact that it

@ j l does not lapse.

! 14 ...

MR. McINTIRE: You have changed the positive statement

':"r

15 olI that the General Assembly may repeal mone that I presume

CI

!

16

z
lz!l

gives

them

the

right

by

implication

--

you

say

unless

repealed.

17 \l

The present language expressly says the General

18 Assembly cannot repeal if the bonds have not been sold. This

19 one I guess implies it.

20

MR. BROWN: Again I think I did that without

21 intending to make a change in the authority, but to avoid

22 this reference to the General Assembly. I don't really feel

23 it makes a difference in authority.

24

MR. McINTIRE: I'm not sure that it does, I'm just

25 pointing that out.

PAGE 69

That's another ambiguity I think might be created.

2

MR.~VIS: Any further objection to that?

3

MR. BROWN: Lines 32 and 33, all I have done is

4 replace the word "same" with "appropriation" and the word

5 "said" with "the."

6

You will see in the paragraph that we have just

7 reincluded the language on investment. We specified these

8 funds are to be administered as provided by law. We have

9 already made reference to the appropriate state fiscal officer

10
CzJ 11 j:
...o...:..
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 ~ VI :<xl: 15 ~ .C.J: ~ 16 ~... c Z <l 17 ::;

doing all these things, so I have deleted this reference here. MR. DAVIS: All right. Any objection? MR. BROWN: Line 6, I just replaced the term "said
fund" with "the reserve fund." That's the fund we're talking about.
MR. KANE: Canter, I was wondering if you refer at the bottom of page 7 as the common reserve fund, and just as a matter of consistency I wonder if you shouldn't use the same

18 term throughout.

19

MR. BROWN: That's fine with me.

20

MR. KANE: It's not -- it's just a grammatical

21 suggestion.

22

MR. DAVIS: All right.

23

MR. BROWN: Again I have deleted this long

24 reference to the director of fiscal division. We have already

25 said it would be paid by him.

PAGE 70

The language relating to the paying into the fund

2 has been switched down a line to make the sentence flow a

3 little better. I put comma, reserve fund there by the

4 appropriate state fiscal officer.

5

MR. DAVIS: Let me ask you, what reserve funds have

6 you got? What is a common reserve fund?

7

MR. McINTIRE: You go back, that's the state of

8 Georgia guaranteed revenue debt common reserve fund, the

9 concept beiag that the reserve would be a common reserve to

10 support any number of series of bond issues that may have

11

! "f"

been bought.

It doesn't exist at the moment, there isn't

12 := any guaranteed revenue debt that's sold.

@rl

MR. DAVIS: It still worries me back on the question

.

14 I ~

I had earlier about debt service.

How are you going to get a

x<l

15 ~ common reserve fund if you don't provide for principal,

CI

i'"
16 interest and reserve.

i17

MR. McINTIRE: They have to -- The General Assembb ,

18 if you look above that, in order to authorize an issue of

19 revenue debt, guaranteed revenue debt, has to appropriate as

20 a reserve relating to that issue an amount equal to the

21 maximum debt service in anyone year on that issue. That

22 is done each time an issue is brought out, but you then

23 comingle the reserves for the benefit of all the issues.

24 That was the concept.

25

MR. DAVIS: Okay.

PAGE 71

MR. McINTIRE: So that the appropriation is already

2 made for the issue of the one year's reserve.

3

MR. NIXON: When they make the appropriation,

4 Charlie, they make one lump sum appropriation to this thing.

5 This would be the same way in the GO bonds, we just make one

6 appropriation, and it's all the issues.

7

MR. DAVIS: All right.

8

MR. BRO'~~: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say at the

9 bottom of that page again another one of these references to

10 the director of the fiscal division.

"z
11 ..
'o"
0.

The same at the top of page 9, just replace the

~F~!..12 ~
~~

longer phrase with

the

term appropriate state

fiscal

officer.

I changed it from the aforesaid to as provided in this sub-

14 paragraph .

':4z":

15 Q

Those are the same types of changes that are made

"'=">
16 .~.. all the way down to line 23 . c

Z

4

17 :

MR. McINTIRE: Here again, Charles, you see the

18 concept of the reserve is separate from debt service. They

19 have to build up the reserve if it ever gets depleted.

20

MR. DAVIS: Okay.

21

MR. BROvffi: At the bottom of page 9, Subparagraph (c)

22 there is just a general provisi.on on administration of the

23 fund. We have already made a notation to put back in the

24 limitations on investment beginning on line 31.

25

MR. McINTIRE: Here again is a point that I think

PAGE 72

is a point of departure in n~ philosophy and yours.

2

I think the rating services are also interested in

3 knowipg how a fund is going to be administered, and you don't

4 really need any statute, by leaving four or five words in the

5 way it was before with the change in the fiscal officer it

6 speaks for itself, it keeps it fully invested, invested only

7 in governments, and that's all you have to say about the

8 administration of it.

9

MR. BROWN: We had earlier in the summer contacted

10 Moody's Rating Service and asked them about that very point,

and that made very clear they did like to know how it was

going to be done, but they had indicated as far as their

service was concerned it didn't matter to them if it was in

the constitution or statute as long as it was clear what it

was.

Again, we are here just trying to follow what we

had felt the mandate of the charge we got.

18

MR. McINTIRE: What would the statute say? Why are

19 you going to enact a useless statute?

20

MR. BROWN: I think the idea as I understand it was

21 that in the event the state desired to change the way it

22 administered its business the General Assembly would, subject

23 to the Governor's veto, would have the authority to do that.

24

MR. McINTIRE: That makes sense if you're wing to

25 let them decide what types and characters of investments

PAGE 73

you're going to make, but if you're not going to -- but if

2 you've passed that point then I say you don't need to get

3 into this concept because you don't need an act, just say

4 you've already said what they do, where they put the

5 appropriation, they pay the bonds and they make the invest-

6 ments, and that's all there is to administer the fund, all

7 there could be. Once you button in the investment, there's

8 nothing to be said as a statute.

9

MR. BROWN: We already to have a statute that

10 designates this as a responsibility of the director of the

~

11

zCI
j:

fiscal division.

.'o."....

i12

MR. McINTIRE:

You've left that open, but that's

~F~ the only thing.

! 14

MR. BROWN: I mean it's not that that particular

I-
'"
::t
15 .:I change is going to require any new law, we have already

CI
'"::J
16 .~.. specified the duties of the state officer by statute .

Q

Z

17 :

MR. McINTIRE: I'm talking about administering the -

18 What would the statute say?

19

MR. BROWN: Would you feel better if it said shall

20 be administered by the state fiscal officer designated by law

21 and shall be fully invested?

22

MR. DAVIS: Actually I would debate whether or not

23 you would need those words at all.

24

~~. McINTIRE: That's what I'm saying. I'm saying

25 once you take that out you just say the funds in the general

PAGE 74

obligation debt sinking fund and the guaranteed revenue debt

2 common reserve fund shall be as fully invested as is

3 practical, and put in the investment limitations, and by the

4 proper state fiscal officer, and then that does the whole 5 job.

6

MR. BRo~m: Okay. Thats fine with me.

7

MR. DAVIS: Okay. Any objections to taking those

8 words out, then? Okay.

9

MR. BROWN: As I said, we've put back in the

10 language beginning on line 31 relating to investments.

I think I want to recommend putting something back

in line with a request that Mr. McIntire had made, and I made

one change in light of it and didn't make this one by

inadvertence.

He had requested that the reference to the

institutions, departments and agencies be left in there, and

he cited a number of instances where it really wasn't clear

18 that it was a state act, and I would like to recommend to you

19 that the language that I have stricken from lines 6 and 7 be

20 put back in in line with the change that I earlier made at

21 his request.

22

MR. DAVIS: Okay. Any objections to inserting that

23 back into the draft?

24

We're on page 10, Mr. Chairman, Paragraph IV.

25

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I should have stayed gone, the

PAGE 75

way you all are moving.

2

MR. BROWN: I deleted the reference to September 1st,

3 1974, just simply because that's already past and it didn't

4 seem to me the new constitution was going to speak forward of

5 its effective date, and we didn't need this reference.

6

The language on lines 23 through 33, and then lines

7 1 and 2 on the next page I deleted for the same reason earlier

8 mentioned, that is that I have got a savings clause at the

9 end of this section, and I think the current language in

10
CzI 11 i=
".o0....
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 ... '" :I: 15 01) CI ":;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ~

Article IX would protect them in any event, rather than just repeating the same language in two articles.
The language, the savings language I have used, as I've said what I think is the federal constitutional mandate anyway, "The provisions of this section shall not be construed so as to unlawfully impair the obligation of any contract in effect on June 30, 1983," which is the day before the effective date of this constitution.

18

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any questions or objections?

19 If not, we will go on.

20

MR. BROvlli: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Paragraph V is the

21 provision on refunding of debt.

22

I think you will find that on page 11 the only chang

23 of any consequence I have made there was deleting the

24 language that says "In the event it is determined by the

25 Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission that it is

PAGE 76

to the best interest of the state to fund or refund any

2 such public debt or obligation, the same" and I have just

3 given them the authority to refund.

4

I feel like the obligation imposed on them in their

5 oath of office requires that they act within the same para-

6 meters that this specifies.

7

MR. McINTIRE: Well, I think what you had before

8 was a self-executing constitutional provision that permitted

9 the refunding of debt. This would require a statute which

10 does not now exist saying the same thing.

I mean the purpose of refunding debt as you see is

by resolution of the financing agency, they don't have to go

back to the General Assembly, and if you just start with

"subject to limitation" you don't need any statute.

What would you envision that law would say?

MR. BROW1~: In line with the change we made earlier,

if you would like to just begin the language on lines 3 and 4 18 by saying "subject to limitations contained in Subparagraph 19 II (b) ," that's fine with me.

20

MR. McINTIRE: That's my suggestion.

21

MR. BROWN: Okay. I don't have any objections.

22

MR. McINTIRE: I might also point out in that, I

,,
--' don't know if you've got a different rule you're going by,

24 but you have used the word fifteen instead of the number.

25

MR. DAVIS: We changed that while ago.

PAGE 77

MR. FUNDERBURG: We changed it to a ten percent

2 limitation.

3

HR. BRmVN: Thank you.

4

Cr~IRMAN COLLINS: Any objections from any of the

5 committee on making these changes?

6

If not, we'll move on.

7

MR. BROWN: Okay. I have deleted the language at thE

8 bottom of the page there, lines 31 through 1 on the folbwing

9 page. It seemed to me this was just a restatement of what

10 we had already said.

Czl 11 j:
@;;.'oQ"...

MR. HcINTIRE: When you-eliminated this language on 21 through 24, I don't know that it makes any difference, but I do want to point out the way it presently reads the

! 14 Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission, before

I-
'4"
:t
15 .:l they can refund a debt has to at least determine that the

Cl
'":::t
16 ~... refunding is in the best interest of the state .

Q

Z

4
17 ::;

You have taken that out. I can't imagine they

18 wouldn't do it for the best interest of the state, but it

19 might be worth something to put them sway so to speak.

20

MR. BROWN: If the subcommittee wants to put it

21 back in, I certainly don't have any objection. I would

22 point out that we do place limitations on what they can do

23 in terms of refunding.

24

MR. HcINTIRE: I don't know whether it adds any-

25 thing or not, I'm just pointing that out.

PAGE 78

MR. BROWN: I had just felt like that their oath of

2 office and the legal sanctions imposed upon them as a result

3 of that covered the same ground.

4

MR. DAVIS: There's also some point of authority and

5 responsibility given to them by having that stated in there

6 too.

7

MR. McINTIRE: It has some merit, but I'm not saying

8 it makes any difference or doesn't make any difference. I'm

9 just pointing out that is a change. If you want to make it,

fine.

MR. DAVIS: It does definitely say that is the group that causes it to be done.

MR. BROWN: I think you have that same effect,

though, when you say that in that same sentence the issuance

of such debt may be accomplished by resolution of the

Commission.

MR. McINTIRE: Oh, yes. I don't think you've

18 changed any substance. I'm just saying that --

19

MR. DAVIS: I would suggest we leave it out.

20

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections to leaving it out?

21

MR. McINTIRE: It might do it now, because in the

22 best interest of the

23

MR. BROWN: On line 28, all through here we've used

24 the words debt or obligation. This is one instance where it

25 wasn't used, so I used it. That's all I'm trying to do there.

PAGE 79

I think you'll find that all the changes in the

2 rest of that paragraph beginning at line 2 on page 12 are just

3 granrrnatical and editorial in nature in line with the rules

4 we have already discussed.

5

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any questions on that? If not,

6 let's move on.

7

MR. BROWN: By the way, at this point we have just

8 left what is now Paragraph I, and we have broken it up into

9 five paragraphs.

f"

10

Again I think you'll see in looking back through

"z
11 I-
...o0<
Go
~ 12 ~
(~~r1~4 ~ I'" ::r:: 15 o:l "0< ~ 16 .~.. cz 17 ~

that it will be a little clearer or a little easier to find a particular provision of that section you want with it broken down like this.
This is the provision again which was added in '72 pledging the full faith and credit. I have only made two changes. Where we say such debt and the interest thereon, I've just said on the debt again to avoid these kinds of

18 references.

19

On line 2 on page 13 I have deleted the reference

20 to the General Assembly and just put in by law. It is by

21 law, it's not the General Assembly that does it.

22

That's all the changes in that paragraph.

23

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any questions?

24

MR. BROWN: On page 13, what used to be Paragraph

25 III and is now Paragraph VII, in the original draft I had

PAGE 80

given you two alternatives, one of which for all practical

2 purposes just authorized the creation of this agency by law,

3 and another one of which deleted a great deal of the language

4 in here.

5

After reviewing Mr. McIntire's conrnents concerning

6 the deletions I had made, as you'll see I have put back almost

7 everything that had been taken out.

8

On that page 13, for instance, I think you'll find

9 the only changes are just the editorial types of changes that

10 we have been discussing, the stylistic types.

iI
11

MR. McINTIRE: My purpose in suggesting we go back

12 lK was simply at the time we went through it before, putting the

@ r l responsibility on the people that are recognized to be the

! 14 highest echelon of the state government was felt to be the

!;;

~

15 .:I proper place to put it, and not to leave it -- to put it

I!"
16

somewhere else.

17 i

MR. BROWN: In thinking about Mr. McIntire's

18 comments too in the letter, it occurred to me -- and he may

19 have mentioned this -- that it could have been a clear

20 separation of powers problem in doing it by statute, so I

21 don't have any objection to it the way it is in this draft.

22

I have deleted one sentence on page 14 that says

23 "The Commission shall be responsible for its own record

24 keeping, reporting and related administrative and clerical

25 functions." That is a provision that was already contained

PAGE 81

in the executive reorganization act relating to agencies

2 generally, and so I just deleted it as duplicative.

3

C}~IRMAN COLLINS: Any objections to deleting it?

4

If not, we'll move on.

5

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the old Paragraph IV which

6 in this draft is Paragraph VIII was only changed by making

7 two sentences out of one long sentence.

8

MR. McINTIRE: Let me back up. One thing just

9 flashed through my mind.

10

The reason that the Commission should be responsible

Czl
11 i= for its own record keeping as I recall it was put in so that
@;;'o..".... the legislature would not have to appropriate moneys to that commission, it would make them use their own moneys. They

! 14 make a little money, and that -- I don't know whether that

I-

'<"l

J:

15 .:, has any meaning or rot .

Cl

'"::l

16 .~..

MR. BROWN: We passed a law this session which --

o

Z

<l

17 :; at Mr. Nixon's suggestion that authorizes them to use their

18 own funds for their own purposes.

19

MR. McINTIRE: This would more make them do it

20 rather than authorize them.

21

MR. BRO~m: We have already got it here, the

22 Commission shall be responsible for the investment of all

23 proceeds to be administered by it, and income earned on any

24 such investments may be used to pay operating expenses of

25 the Commission or placed in a common debt retirement fund,

PAGE 82

and we do have a statute in effect now which does authorize 2 that.

3

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, the new Paragaaph VIII

4 only makes two changes. It makes two sentences out of one

5 long one , and it deletes the word "herein" and says as

6 provided in this Constitution.

7

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objection? If not, we'll

8 move on.

9

MR. BROWN: What is now in the draft Paragraph IX

10 was old Paragraph V, was a provision that was included to

" 11

!
I-

."~.-.

@;~

guide the courts in construing he authority granted in 1972 for the issuance of GO debt and guaranteed revenue debt.
I had originally deleted it in its entirety. Mr.

! 14 McIntire suggested that in fact it might be very useful to lo-n -:<rl
15 ol) the courts in interpreting the authority that had been
"Ill:
~
16 .~.. granted liberally, and so I put it back in pursuant to his Q %
17 ~ suggestion.

18

I think that the only change that I have made was to

19 try and update the reference there in lines 22 and 23 to the

20 effective date of the 1972 amendment.

21

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections to this? If not,

22 we'll move on.

23

MR. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, the old Paragraph

24 VI prohibited the state from assuming local debts essentially,

25 and I think for all intents and purposes it's the same in

PAGE 83

this draft. The only major change is taking out thereof and

2 replacing that with of he debt.

3

I have deleted a reference to the assumption of

4 debts except set forth in 1931 and for the Coastal Highway

5 District. I'm sure that these are obsolete references.

6

MR. NIXON: I wanted to ask you a question here,

7 Canter. We're talking about those old debts. It's true

8 we haven't had any payments made for years, but we do still

9 have a sinking fund, it just never has rescinded, and I

10 assume the saving clause here at the end saves them too.

"z
11 i=
'oQ."...
@;I

MR. BROWN: Owing an obligation under one? MR. NIXON: Yes. They just haven't been presented for payrr~nt. We've got the reserves on hand to pay it if they

! 14 .... ever present them, which I doubt since --

'"

:I:

15 ~

MR. McINTIRE: That was the reason that the language

"'";;;)

16 .~.. was left in the last time, that all of the debt had not been

Q

Z

17 ::i paid.

18

MR. NIXON: We haven't paid anything on it, like I

19 said, in I don't know how long, but~'ve got the money.

20

MR. McINTIRE: If you take this language out it

21 probably has no adverse affect.

22

MR. NIXON: I say he's got the saving clause back

23 here.

24

MR. McINTIRE: We threw it in just to make sure,

25 but I guess the saving clause does it now.

PAGE 84

MR. NIXON: I was just asking.

2

There's one $100 certificate, and then there's

3 $18,000 in those old bonds. We've got the moneY,but

4

MR.MICHAEL: What happens to that money?

5

MR. NIXON: Well, he's saving it by saying in the

6 saving clause back here. I think that's what I'm: asking,

7 does it? In my opinion it does, but I'm not a lawyer.

8

MR. BROWN: I think it would, but I would certainly

9 invite careful attention by everybody.

10

MR. NIXON: We just carry that money in reserve all

the time. It's really in the treasury I guess, we reserve

thatanount out of the treasury every year to cover the amount.

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: If we find out it doesn't save

it, we'll correct it when we get it in the full committee if

we've missed it this time.

MR. NIXON: I wanted to know. I think the saving

clause does, but I just wanted to make sure.

18

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the old Paragraph VII

19 purported to make the unlawful use of public money a felony,

20 it doesn't provide any penalty for the crime other than

21 disability from electie office.

22

I have deleted it here, it's already provided by

23 statute, the statute does provide a penalty, and it is very

24 rare to find a state constitution that has any criminal

25 penalty in it, and since it was already covered by statute

PAGE 85

I have deleted it.

2

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections to deleting that?

3 If not, we'll move on.

4

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, Paragraph VIII voids

5 essentially Civil War bonds. The inclusion of this provision 6 was a part of the requirement of Georgia reentering the union. 7 Most of the Southern states had it in their constitutions,

8 and those that have revised it havelong dropped it.

9

In any event, the Fifteenth Amendment to the

10
\:I Z
11 i=
o'"
0.. w
@);~i ! 14 I'" :I: 15 .:l \:I '"::> 16 ~ ozw 17 ::i

United States Constitution prohibits the payment of these obligations.
I have also included in there out of an abundance of caution, and I'm going to draw attention to it in a minute, on the last page, the very last provision it says that this article shall not be construed to revive or permit the revival of any obligation carried forwardin the old constitution. I don't think you need that, but I did put it

18 in out of an abundance of caution.

19

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections to this? If not,

20 we'll move on to the next one.

21

MR. BROWN: Paragraph IX, Mr. Chairman, required

22 that the proceeds of the sale of the Western and Atlantic

23 Railroad and any other state property be used to retire the

24 bonded debt of the state. I have deleted that I think for

25 reasons that are obvious. We sell property all the time, and

PAGE 86

2 too.

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We pay our debts all the time

3

MR. BRO\VN: I feel that is obsolete.

4

The old Paragraph X related to the old state

5 sinking fund. Mr. Nixon helped me remember this was 1937 or 6 '38--

7

MR. NIXON: Thats the one I'm talking about. One

8 of them, the first one you had some certificates of

9 indebtedness, we've got one of those, a hundred-dollar one,

10 and that was up in the first part.

The old state sinking fund is the one that's got

18,OOOor something like that left in the account, and it's

been so long since they've paid anything out of it I can't

remember when they did. We still hold the money in reserve

because the bonds are outstanding.

MR. BROWN: I think my expert in the state

appropriations process sitting to my immediate left here,

18 but even if there are questions as to payment out of the

19 sinking fund I think the state would clearly still have the

authority to appropriate the funds to pay the bond if it were

21 presented. I don't think there would be any question about

22 their getting that money if they were lawfully entitled to it.

23

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I don't have anything against

24 an $18,000 savings account either.

25

MR. BROWN: So other than for the purpose we've

PAGE 87

mentioned that's all that it's used for.

2

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: As long as it's working and makin

3 money I don't have any objection.

4

MR. NIXON: It's working.

5

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the new Paragraph XI which

6 is the final provision in this draft, as I mentioned earlier

7 does intend to do one thing. It states what I believe the

8 courts would hold anyway, and that is that the enactment of

9 this new section will not impair any obligations that are

10 out, nor will it permit the General Assembly if it wanted to

Czl

11 ..joa..::.. to pay the Civil War debt.

~ 12 ~

As I say, I think the federal constitution already

would do this, but it's just to make clear.

@ ~r~14!t-

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Has anybody got anything we've

V>

J:

15 ~ been over that they have changed their mind about, would like

Ca:l

:>

16 ~... to change their mind about, or would like to discuss any more

oz

17 : before we instruct Canter to get this report ready for the

18 full committee?

19

MR. FUNDERBURG: Mr. Chairman, I gather that the

20 committee notwithstanding the observation of counsel about

21 if it ain't broke don't bother it feels that it needs to go

22 ahead with its mandate. Is that correct?

23

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Yes. If this is approved by

24 this subcommittee, we are directed to get a report back to

25 the full committee on our recommendations, and if you feel

PAGE 88

that this is your recommendation, then I think we should vote 2 to send this back or ask Mr. Brown to give us a corrected 3 copy and mail it out if he has an opportunity to or can. 4 and I think he will --

5

MR. BROWN: I'll do it tomorrow.

6

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Then if we were to need to have a

7 called meeting between now and the time the big committee

8 meets we would; if not, this would be our report, and this

9 would be done in face of the cautions that we've had brought

10 out by, you know, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Maybe there's lots in the constitution that some of us probably would say if it ain't broke don't fix it, but if you're going through it and trying to simplify it and put it

in order, it's something that you're going to take a chance on, and the effective date of this constitution is set -when, Canter?

MR. BROWN: It will be July 1st, 1983, Mr. Chairman.

18

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Which would give you how many

19 general elections between now and then?

20

MR. BROWN: )bu have one general election. There

21 would be two sessions of the General Assembly, as well as a

22 special constitutional revision session which theoretically

23 will be next fall.

24

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: You'll have your regular session,

25 you'll have one where you get the whole thing together and

PAGE 89

approve it, then after you once get it in order and get it

2 to where the bond people and other people can study it, you

3 still will have another session of the General Assembly

4 before the election to come back and correct it, correct the

5 mistakes that are made.

6

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. It's my understanding as well

7 that the intention of the commission at the present time is to

8 introduce the proposed constitution at the 1981 session, or at

9 least to present it for study at that session.

10

It will be considered for adoption at the special

"z

11

I-
'o0."....

session,

and then the regular 1982 session will be available

~ 12 ~ to amend it to correct any mistakes.

@F~

MR. FUNDERBURG: Then the process if I'm hearing

! 14 you does include having some evaluationof the bond people

ol:-nr

15 ~ before it's finally enacted?

"'"::l

16 .~..

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I'm in hopes they will, and I'm

Q

Z

17 :; in hopes if there's something they can point out to the --

18 when it goes to this next committee before it goes to the

19 big committee on constitutional revision

In other words,

20 you've got to go to our committee cnthis article, then to

21 the big committee, then to the General Assembly, then into

22 the special session of the General Assembly, then you've got 23 the General Assembly to come behind to correct whatever we 24 can find that needs to be at that time, so you've really got

25 five more shots at it in my opinion.

PAGE 90

MR. FUNDERBURG: Would it be improper for us to 2 include in one of the recommendations we make that at some

3 point prior to finally submitting it for action that it be

4 reviewed by the proper investment people?

5

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I'm in hopes they review this

6 when we get through, I'm in hopes that they review what the

7 full committee does and then what the big committee does.

8

MR. FUNDERBURG: My question is, would it be

9 improper for us to include as a recommendation that they do

10 that?

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: It wouldn't hurt a thing to

include it as a recommendation, because I can assure you I

think they're going to do it anyway.

I don't think it would hurt a thing to make it as a

recommendation that we ask them to have fUrther counsel with

these people.

MR. FUNDERBURG: I would like to see us do that. 18 I think it ought to be in the record.

19

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. Let's see if we can

20 sort of figure out what we're trying to do.

21

What we're going to do at this time, then, is to

22 get Canter to correct this, mail each one of us a copy, and

23 then present this to the full committee, ask them to ask the

24 bond people to study and see if they have any recommendations

25 for changes that need to be made. Is that basically what

PAGE 91

you're thinking about?

2

MR. FUNDERBURG: I'm thinking about that, or if

3 this is improper, then maybe we could do it. Either way.

4

MR. BROWN: You may want to consider just as a part

5 of your

6

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, let me make a suggestion

7 that Mr. Nixon will just take the draft after it comes out

8 and send it to Moody's, Standard & Poor, and ask for their

9 comments.

10

MR. NIXON: I can do that. That's no problem.

..,

z 11 Ioa-:
0..
@ r l12 ~ copy.

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We'll be glad to send them a MR. DAVIS: That will cure what I think Owen is

14 ~ worried about.

I-

'"

J:

15 .~.,

CHAIRMAN COLLINS:

In other words, we'll be doing

a: :>
16 .~.. it ourselves. Okay. That will be fine .

Q

Z

17 :

All right. Are there any objections to Canter

18 making up what you all have done, because I'm sure all of you

19 know what's in it except me, and I was gone part of the time,

20 and sending this back to the full committee as a recommendatio~

21 from this subcommittee?

22

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to make

23 an observation that Canter and our outside specialists here

24 have done a yoeman's job in helping us with our chore as a

25 committee by getting it ready in this fashion, and I'd like

PAGE 92

to commend them on it.

2

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in that regard I would lik

3 to mention to the committee how helpful Mr. McIntire's efforts

4 and correspondence have been to me. I think that the draft

5 is much improved based upon his work than. over what I had

6 presented to you earlier.

7

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We do appreciate them doing all

8 this work, we appreciate them taking time to be with us

9 today, and I'm sure that their counsel is goiftg to be sought

10 following this thing on through until it gets completely

11

"%
j:
..'o"....

through

the

General Assembly.

@;i Now, all in favor of sending this back to the full committee as the subcommittee's recommendation let it be

! 14 ... known by a show of hands .

'"

:r

15 ~

Reverse your position.

"'~"

16 ~...

Mr. Brown, please get it straightened out and

Q

%

17 :: distribute it to the proper people.

18

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19

CHAIRMAN COLLINS: If there is nothin.g else, we are

20 adjourned.

21

(Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m. the subcommittee meeting

22 was adj ourned . )

23

+++

++

24

+

2S

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~_.

____J

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VII Subcommittee Meeting Held on Sept. 11, 1980

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 9-11-80

Section IV: -St-a-te-D-eb-t

Proceedings, pp. 3-17

Paragraph I:

Purposes for which debt may be incurred. pp. 17-39

Paragraph II:

State general obligation debt and guaranteed revenue debt; limitations. pp. 39-60

Paragraph III:

State general obligation debt and guaranteed revenue debt; conditions upon issuance; sinking funds and reserve funds. pp. 60-74, 86-87

Paragraph IV:

Certain contracts prohibited. pp. 74-75

Paragraph V:

Refunding of debt. pp. 75-79

Paragraph VI:

Faith and credit of state pledged debt may be validated. p. 79

Paragraph VII:

Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission; duties. pp. 79-82

Paragraph VIII:

State aid forbidden. p. 82

Paragraph IX:

Construction. p. 82

Paragraph X:

Assumption of debts forbidden; exceptions. pp. 82-84

Paragraph XI:

Section not to unlawfully impair contracts or revive obligations previously voided. pp. 85, 87

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

PAGE 1

2

3

STATE OF GEORGIA

4

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VII

5

OF THE

6

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

7

8

9

10
CzI
@;;.11 i=.o=.. ! 14 ... 'x" 15 .:I =CI => 16 .~.. Q z 17 ~

FULL COMMITTEE MEETING

18

19

20

21 Room 133 State Capitol
22 Atlanta, Georgia
23 Wednesday, September 24, 1980 10:00 a.m.
24

25

1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1

PRESENT:

2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 Czl
11 ~
".oa....
@;I ! 14 .... VI :c 15 .:I Cl ":::> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ~ 18
19
20 21 22 23

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
VICE CHAIRMAN MARCUS E. COLLINS REPRESENTATIVE DON CASTLEBERRY MR. CHARLES L. DAVIS MR. JAMES R. DAVIS MRS. CONSTANCE HUNTER SENATOR JIMMY LESTER MR. JAMES F. MARTIN MR. ABIT MASSEY MR. ROBERT NASH MR. WILLIAM NIXON DR. GEORGE L. O'KELLEY MR. HENRY D. ROBINSON MR. W.E. STRICKLAND REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE WILLIAMS
ALSO PRESENT:
J. ROBIN HARRIS MELVIN B. HILL) JR.
MICHAEL HENRY VICKIE GREENBERG CANTER BROWN JACK MORTON JIM KEYES EDWARD W. KILLORIN ED SUMNER TOM BAUER DAVID GODFREY CHARLES TIDWELL JAMES THOMPSON JOHN ANDY SMITH DEAN FARMER RAY FARMER KEN LAWRENCE KENT SWAYZE HOWARD VICTRY JIM PULLIN SAM OTT ROB SUMNER WALTER WINGFIELD DAVID KANE

24

25

PAGE 2

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

PAGE 3

PRO C E E DIN G S

2

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: If everybody will find a

3 seat, we will try to get started this morning.

4

As all of you know, we have been divided into three

5 subcommittees to go through this article. The purpose of

6 this meeting this morning is for the subcomnittees to make

7 their reports back.

8

I want to tell you all I am not trying to take this

9 committee over. Mr. Thrower had some pressing business to

10
CzI
.11 oa.i=.:.
~ 12 ~
@F~
14 !... '<:"z: 15 olI
aC:I
::l
16 .~.. oz 17 :<;

have him some place else, and he asked me if I would try to preside over it this morning, so we are lookin~ for him to come back when he can.
We have the sure enough big chairman sitting over here, Mr. Robin Harris. Would you like to say anything, Robin, at this time?
MR. HARRIS: Not other than the Governor appreciates all the time that the members of the committees have, the

18 various article committees have put into their efforts, and

19 it's still his plan to have the action on the new constitution

20 in a special session that will be called of the General

21 Assembly in 1981 for the purpose of reapportioning of the

22 house and senate congressional districts. This is just some~

23 thing that would give them oh, maybe two or three days to work

24 on while they are handling the other small matters.

25

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Thank you, Robin.

PAGE 4

SENATOR LESTER: Mr. Chairman, is that two or three 2 days or two or three weeks?

3

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: You know, Senator, if Robin

4 and has committee don't mess this thing up after the sub-

5 committee gets through with it we probably can handle it in

6 two or three days. We're going to look forward to him not

7 having it in a mess when he gets it back to us.

8

At this ttme we're going to calIon Mr. Hill here to

9 call the roll.

10

~

CzI
11 oa..l..L.:..
12 ~

~r~ 14 .~... V:r> 15 ~

Ca:I
::>
16 ~... Q Z
17 :

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blount. Representative Castleberry. REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Here. MR. HILL: Marcus Collins . VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Here MR. HILL: Charles Davis . MR. C. DAVIS: Here. MR. HILL: Jim Davis. MR. J. DAVIS; Here. MR. HILL: Owen Funderburg. Representative Hatcher. Senator Holloway. Mrs. Hunter. MRS. HUNTER: Here. MR. HILL: Mr. Irons.

PAGE 5

Mr. Keenum.

2

Senator Lester.

3

SENATOR LESTER: Here.

4

MR. HILL: Jim Martin.

5

MR. MARTIN: Here.

6

MR. HILL: Abit Massey.

7

MR. MASSEY: Here.

8

MR. HILL: Dr. McDaniel.

9

Robert Nash.

10
zCl 11 ~
oa....:..
~ 12 ~
(@!)F~
! 14 ~ <It -:z<:
15 .:)
aC:l
:;)
16 ~... c Z -<
17 :

MR. NASH: Here. MR. HILL: Bill Nixon. MR. NIXON: Here. MR. HILL: Dr. George O'Kelley. Dr. Charles Presley. Senator Riley. Henry D. Robinson . MR. ROBINSON: Here.

18

MR. HILL: Mr. Strickland.

19

MR. STRICKLAND: Here.

20

MR. HILL: Lyndon Wade.

21

Clara West.

22

Representative Williamson.

23

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Here.

24

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. I think what we

25 next will do is to ask our guests if they would to introduce

PAGE 6

themselves. We have already met Mr. Harris here.

2

Jack, you can start off.

3

MR. MORTON: Jack Morton, Tax Reform Commission.

4

MR. KILLORIN: Ed Killorin for the Forestry

5 Association of Georgia, Georgia Chamber of Commerce.

6

MR. E. SUMNER: Ed Sunmer, GMA.

7

MR. BAUER: Tom Bauer with the Urban Study

8 Institute.

9

MR. GODFREY: David Godfrey, Department of Natural

10 Resources.

Czl 11 i=
o."0."...
~ 12 ~
~~:~ .... ':"r 15 ~ Cl "";:) 16 ~ Czi 17 :

MR. THOMPSON: James Thompson, United Auto Workers. MR. SMITH: John Andy Smith, State Boardd Workers' Compensation. MR. FARMER: Dean Farmer, Alliance of American Insurers. MR. R. FARMER: Ray Farmer, American Insurance Association.

18

MR. LAWRENCE: Ken Lawrence. Georgia Chamber of

19 Commerce.

20 21
22 Fund.

MR. SWAYZE: Kent Swayze, Delta Airlines. MR. VICTRY: Howard Victry, Subsequent Injury Trust

23

MR. PULLIN: Jim Pullin, State Board of Workers'

24 Compensation.

25

MR. OTT: Sam Ott, Georgia Farm Bureau.

PAGE 7

MR. R. SUMNER: Rob Sunmer, Georgia Farm Bureau.

2

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Thank you. We are glad to

3 have you all with us here today.

4

You had a summary passed out. I don't have one. Is

5 this it?

6

MR. HILL: This is it. As you know, all the

7 meetings are transcribed.

8

This is a brief summary that we have copies of for

9 those that were not at the last meeting who would like one.

10

SENATOR LESTER: Mr. Chairman, is this Final

Czl

11

j:
.'oQ"...

Subcommittee Reports,

September 18,

1980,

is that what you

~ 12 ~ have?

~F~!.. MR. HILL: This is a summary of the last meeting 14 we had of this full committee. What you have in front of you

':x":

15 ~ is a summary of the subcommittees' work over the summer. Cl

'";;;)

16 .~..

MR. KANE: Copies are being passed around .

Q

17 gZ;

SENATOR LESTER: Thank you.

18

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: As soon as these get passed

19 around, I think what we need to do is probably approve it sincE

20 we don't have the minutes of the meeting. Is that what we

21 would do?

22

MR. HILL: Yes. This is the sumnary of the

23 proceedings which will be approved.

24

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Do I hear a motion that we

25 approve this summary as written? Are thre any corrections?

PAGE 8

SENATOR LESTER: So moved.

2

MR. STRICKLAND: Second.

3

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We have a motion and second

4 before us to approve this summary.

5

All in favor signify so by saying aye.

6

Opposed likewise.

7

The summary is approved.

8

All right. The next thing we have got is a report

9 on the progress of the other committees with Mr. Hill.

10

MR. HILL: Yes. The other three article committees

zCl 11 ;:::
.'o"..
II'
@;i

that are at work at this time have split themselves into subcommittees for the summer as you have, and they too are reconvening at this time.

! 14 ...

Yesterday Article VIII reconvened on Education to

':"z:

15 .Q., hear reports of their subcommittees, and they will be having

'"::l

16 ~ IozI'

a meeting toward the end of October and hope to conclude their

17 : work at that time.

18

The Article IX committee on County and Municipal

19 Corporations will be meeting next Monday, and they have not

20 set a final meeting date for their work.

21

Mr. Thrower had mentioned to me that he would hope

22 that this committee may be able to finish its work by

23 November 1st, and have one more meeting of t~ full committee. 24 Of course, that depends on the progress at today's meeting.

25

But the other committees are making progress, and

PAGE 9

it appears we're on schedule with all of the committees

2 to date.

3

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Are there any questions of

4 Mr. Hill on these other committees or anything?

5

We've got to think about the adoption of the final

6 report, and we're thinking about at this one getting a report

7 back from the subcommittees, let them explain their work to

8 the full committee.

9

If you have any suggestions, any changes you would

10
'z"
11 I-
'oa."....
@;I ! 14 IUI ::t 15 ~ '"'";;;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ::;

like to have, then we will go into them, and we will try to get it all put back together and you will have a final vote on this at your next meeting if I understand sort of what they're planning on for this, and they intend to submit this final report to the State Bar and the constitutional revision to the Attorney General.
I think probably at this time we need to calIon the chairmen of the subcommittees to give their report to the

18 full committee, or whoever they designate to give it for them.

19

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, just before that, could I

20 mention one thing that will affect the reports as they are

21 reviewed.

22

Mr. Thrower last week had called a meeting of myself

23 and Mr. Hill and his associates, Mr. Kane and Mr. Wingfield,

24 to go through the subcommittee proposals, and as a part of

25 that he proposed some editorial, technical and organizational

PAGE 10

changes of a relatively minor nature, and there were about

2 ten or fifteen instances where he felt it would clarify the

3 language or the organization that has been proposed.

4

With your permission and the permission of the

5 task force as we go through these reports I would like to

6 point outthe changes that he has recommended and that every-

7 one at the meeting wewere at unanimously were in accord with

8 for approval by the task force as a change in the subcommittee

9 reports.

10

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: As we go through this,

then Canter, you can call their attention to it, and if there

are no objections to the change we will go with it. If there

is an objection, we would like to have discussion and let the

committee make a decision at that time on what they would like

to recommend about it.

I believe the first one we have on the list is

Representative Castleberry on the Subcommittee on Power of

18 Taxation.

19

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY; Yes. We have had

20 several meetings on this, and as I have -- Do you have the

21 copies, Canter, to pas s out?

22

MR. BROWN: Yes. The principal draft we'll be using

23 has a date at the top of it in the upper right-hand corner of

24 9/15/80, and a number LC 5 4165. Is there anyone that doesn't

25 have that draft? We have plenty of CDpies.

PAGE 11

MR. KANE: Canter, you may want to point out the

2 clean copy has a date of 9/10.

3

MR. BROWN: That's correct.

4

MR. KANE: The marked copy has a date of 9/15.

5

MR. BROWN: Mr. Castleberry had indicated he wanted

6 to use a struck through and underlined copy so you could see 7 exactly~at changes were being made, and that's why the

8 difference.

9

LC 5 4165 -- is there anybody that doesn't have it?

10
';':'

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Canter, this clean copy

Czl 11 j:

does have the changes that you all had suggested in it?

.'0<".>..

12 '"

MR. BROWN: The copy that does not have strike-

@ r l throughs and underlines which is number LC 5 4159 is exactly

! 14 ... the same as 4165 except for not having strike-throughs and

'"

:I:
15 o:l underlines.

Cl

'";;;)

16 .Iz.I.I

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: You are going to call the

cz

'" 17 III committee's attention to the changes as you get to them?

18

~1R. BROWN: Yes, sir.

19

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right.

20

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: If it please the

21 committee, I would like to request that Canter go through

22 this, and he can explain it to you I think more thoroughly

23 and give those changes that he has there, and then when we

24 get through I've got one further recommendation.

25

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.

PAGE 12

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right, Canter, go right

2 ahead.

3

MR.. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

4

Before I start I would like to point out that I

5 think the work of all three suecomrnittees in line with the

6 guidelines you adopted at the last meeting embodied three

7 main goals.

8

One of the goals was wherever possible to leave to

9 statutory flexibility provisions that are now in the

10
"z
gy:;.11 Io.'"..
~ 14! IVI <l :I: 15 ~ "'"::;) 16 ~... 1z3 17 ~

constitution but which could be removed from the constitution without harm.
The second main goal was to provide for a more orderly and clear method of organization of the provisions in the finance article.
The third was to simplify and clarify the language wherever possible .
I think you will see through all three committee

18 reports that the subcommittes have directed themselves to it

19 these goals in mind.

20

In addition, you will see in the review of Section I

21 here an attempt to provide a mechanism relating to property 22 tax exemptions which would permit the exemptions given 23 certain safeguards to be handled by statute and would not 24 require the constitution be amended time and again every time

25 a proposal for either a statewide property tax exemption or

PAGE 13

a local homestead exemption is suggested, and I think you will

2 see that the safeguards that the subcommittee has provided

3 are essentially the same as are now required for a

4 constitutional amendment. I just wanted to give you that as

5 an overview.

6

On page 1, Paragraph I, on lines 7 through 14 the

7 language which has been deleted was simply deleted because

8 the subcommittee felt it didn't have any substantive effect,

9 it was what is known as prefatory language, and they felt it

10 just simply didn't have any effect and shouldn't be in the

CzI

11 j: constitution. .'~"..

~ 12 ~

The rest of the language in that provision is

~r~! simply rewriting what's there for clarity and for modern 14 English usage.

1:z;;:

15 ~

You will note that a second paragraph in Paragraph I

CI

'";;;)

16 .~.. is completely deleted there at the bottom of page 1. This

Q

Z

17 ::; language was added in the l870s to aim at a particular

18 exemption held by two particular railroads in the state.

19 It was not needed because of the language that was already

20 there in the first paragraph, but they felt it would give

21 more weight in a court test to those exemptions. The

22 Supreme Court on five separate occasions has overruled this

23 provision, and the two exemptions are still in effect a 24 hundred years later, so the subcommittee decided that they

25 didn't need to say the same thing twice, and have simply

PAGE 14

omitted the second paragraph.

2

Those are the changes in the first paragraph. Mr.

3 Chairman.

4
5 them.

As I go along. if there are any questions please ask

6

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: To speed this up. if there

7 are any questions. ifwe have a question on any of these

8 changes we will take a vote of the full committee. and if we

9 don't hear any questions we're going to assume that it is all

10 right to move on past this and it's approved. So everybody

Czl

11 j: keep up. everybody feel free to at any time ask a question.

@;;..'o".... and if --

In other words. we're going to make the decision

on these as many times as you desire.

! 14

MR. BROWN: On Paragraph II the changes which have

t-

':"z:
15 .: been made generally are to clarify the paragraph in light of

Cl
'"::;) 16 .~.. the way in which separate taxation of intangible property
o

Z

17

<l
:;

was authorized in 1937.

18

This provision predated that change in 1937 and

19 should have been amended when the constitution itself was

20 amended to permit separate taxatbn of intangibles. It wasn't.

21 just due to the manner in which the amendment in 1937 was 22 drafted.

23

What we have done there is to limit this one-quarter

24 mill limitation to taxation of tangible property which is in

25 fact the case at the present time. Intangible property is

PAGE 15

separately classified and separately taxed in Georgia.

2

We have tried to make clear that this levy also

3 only applied to state ad valorem taxes which is in fact the

4 case.

5

In the inte~t of modern usage, the subcommittee

6 deleted the language relating to an exception for repelling

7 invasions, suppressing insurrections or defending the state

8 in time of war, and has simply recommended that the provision 9 make an exception for defending the state in an emergency.

10

It was felt that the use of words defense in

emergency provided sufficient limitations on the discretion

of the General Assembly.

On line 7, and you will see this again and again

throughout this provision, we have inserted the words assessed value here. Although the courts have repeatedly

held that the word value in this section does relate to

assessed value, there is some aniliiguity between assessed 18 value and full fair market value for purposes of the limita-

19 tions and exemptions provided in Section I, and we have

20 uniformly -- or the subcommittee has adopted the words

21 assessed value where in fact that's what is intended.

22

The language that is deleted on lines 8 through 12

23 was language which authorizes a separate method of taxatbn

24 for bank shares and monied capital financial institutions.

25

We do in fact tax bank shares and monied capital

PAGE 16

separately from other types of property at the present time,

2 but the present provision also leaves some flexibility to

3 the General Assembly to change that.

4

All that we have tried to do here was to rewrite it

5 so as to make it clear that we are preserving the present

6 method as an exception from the one-quarter mill limitation,

7 but stating clearly that the General Assembly does have the

8 authority to provide for the taxation of bank property in

9 other ways.

10
CzI 11 ...
.."o.."...
@;I ! 14 ... ':"z: 15 0) CI "";:) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

It was not the intent of this provision to change that authority, but merely to clarify it and make the language a little clearer.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right, sir. We've got a question. Senator Lester .
SENATOR LESTER: MR. Chairman -- Canter, I don't Dnagine the constitution -- is there a definition of what an emergency is?

18

MR. BROWN: No, sir.

19

SENATOR LESTER: Is there a definition in the

20 statutory law, or is that clearly in the opinion of the

21 General Assembly of what constitutes emergency?

22

MR. BROWN: I believe the General Assembly would

23 have a reasonable discretion in passing a law to define an

24 emergency. Clearly I think the key word there is "reasonable.'

25 I don't believe the courts would permit the General Assembly

PAGE 17

to pass a law calling an apple a pear. I think it would have

2 to be a bona fide emergency, but it was pointed out for

3 instance that the state may well on an emergency basis need

4 to get into civil defense and preparedness for instance,

5 and that it is not now clearly authorized.

6

The subcommittee didn't feel they were really

7 opening this up very much, but only to give it some flexibilit'

8 to adapt to current circumstances.

9

As a practical matter the GBneral Assembly because

10 of the delay in collecting ad valorem taxes I would think

11

zCl
j:

would very rarely ever

--

.'Io>"..-

~ 12 ~

SENATOR LESTER: I would think so too.

~F~

MR. BROWN: -- resort to this in any event.

! 14

SENATOR LESTER: You're giving the General Assembly

t-

'"

:I:
15 .: the authority to in the event of an emergency, which of course

Cl

'"::l 16 .~.. they have the power to determine su~ct to review by the

Q

Z
17 g courts, to tax the people of Georgia more than one-quarter

18 of a percent.

19

MR. BROWN: One-quarter of a mill on the assessed

20 valuation.

21

SENATOR LESTER: One-quarter of a mill on ad valorem

22 taxes.

23

MR. BROWN: I would point out that before that could

24 happen a law would have to be passed to

25

SENATOR LESTER: To declare a state of emergency?

PAGE 18

MR. BROWN: -- to define what the circumstances were

2 to be considered an emergency, and also appropriations would

3 have to be passed to spend the money that was raised, so it's

4 not j~st a question of several people getting together and

5 deciding to spend some money arbitrarily raised, a number of

6 steps would have to be undertaken before that could happen.

7

SENATOR LESTER: I'm not trying to raise a point

8 here about the wordage itself, but I did feel that it does

9 give the General Assembly a great deal of discretion. Of

~~
10 course, the constitution is supposed to be a limitation.

~ z 11 I-
.'0G".o.
@-~12 '" .... /j'i.

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir, I don't want to try and say exactly what the subcommittee had in mind, but I think their intent was to just use a little bit broader terms to provide

14 ~ I-

a little bit more flexibility to meet changing circumstances.

'<"l

%

15 ~ I don't think it was their intent to open this up to any

~

'":;:)

16 .'z.". sort of abuse at all.

c

Z

<l

17 ''""

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Could we not currently

18 go to income tax or some of the other taxes if we had an

'....'

19 emergency, and this would just allow us to constitutionally

20 look at all the taxes and see where the money ought to come

21 from if there was a legitimate emergency?

22

MR. BROWN: I think that's right.

23

Also as a practical matter I believe that the state

24 if there were a bona fide emergency like that could borrow

25 the money, and there is a separate authority to do that

PAGE 19

without limitation at the present time.

2

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections to this

3 section?

4

If, not, Canter --

5

MR. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, this will be the

6 first example of the changes which Mr. Thrower has recommended

7 for your consideration just as tecanical changes in the

8 drafts which were submitted.

9

He felt as though the language on an exception for

10 .., bank taxation would be clearer if it was in a separate sub-

z

11

j:
.'o.."...

paragraph.

He is recommending that all of the language which

~ 12 ~ is now found on lines 1 through 11 be classified as sub-

~F~ 14 ~ IVI :I:

paragraph (a); that on line 12 the words "except that" be stricken and a new subparagraph (b) begin at that point.

15 ..:.,

The new subparagraph (b) would have two other

'::"> 16 .~.. changes in it for clarity. Where on line 13 on page 2 the

Q

Z
17 : date June 30, 1983 is now written, he has suggested adoption

18 of the date January 1, 1981. This would peg this exception

19 to the bank tax that is in fact currently in law, and there

20 would be no confusion at a later date as to what bank tax

21 we're talking about.

22

The other change he is recommending to you is on

23 line 17, the next to last word "a" be stricken and the words

24 "an annual" be added, just to clarify we are talking about an

25 annual tax rate of five mills. That is consistent with the

PAGE 20

other usage throughout this section.

2

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Mr. Chairman, how about

3 letting him go to the clean copy and go back over that one morE

4 time?

5

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. As we mentioned earlier, the

6 clean copy he's referring to is -- has the number LC 5 4159

7 at the top right corner, and the date of 9/10/80.

8

Has everybody got one?

9

The change that is being recommended is that on

10 line 15 after the words "Taxing power limited" that you add

I:l

.. 11

%
j:

a paren small "A" and a closed paren to create a new sub-

..0G.o.
12 paragraph.

9;1

Okay.

On line 19 on page 1, after the word

! 14 "property" which is the next to last word, you would put a I':"r
.. 15 .:I period, you would strike out the word "except" at the end of I:l

::;)

16

III
.%..

line 19, and on line 20 the word "that" and the comma.

..D
Z
17 III

At that point you would add a paren small "b" and

18 capitalize the word "so," which would create two subparagraphs

.,

19

On line 21 where the date June 30, 1983, appears

20 you would add the date, or in lieu of that date add January

21 1st, 1981.

22

The only other change would be on line 25, after

23 the words "tax at," in lieu of the word "a" you would put

24 "an annual," just for uniformity of usage.

25

Those are the changes he's suggesting for clarity.

PAGE 21

I think all of us who were at the meeting felt that 2 these were merely editorial and technical changes.

3

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Do we have any objection?

4

SENATOR LESTER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get

5 the subcommittee's reasoning why was the date June 30th, 1983

6 put in there?

7

MR. BRO~~: That date is the date immediately

8 preceding the effective date of the new constitution.

9

SENATOR LESTER: Does that mean then to change the

10 method of taxation of banking corporations then it would take

III

Z
11 j:

if we should do so in the next General Assembly would take

0'.l".L.

.

~@F~ ~12 '" an a~mendment to the constitution? MR. BROWN: No, sir. That's exactly what we're tryin~

! 14 to avoid. This is just saying that so long as the one that's

lo-n
:r
15 0:1 in effect this coming January 1st before the General Assembly

..III
'"::>
16 z... meets again is in effect, you've got this exception to the

Q

..Z

17

<I:
'"

five

mill

limit.

If any changes are made after that date,

18 you know, you're not voiding them as of the~fective date of

19 the new constitution. That's the difference we're trying to

20 reach.

21

As a practical matter, the change that could be made

22 in line with the current problems of bank share tax would be to

23 tax banks on their income and property and intangibles exactly

24 as are other businesses. I'm not aware of any proposals to

25 try and manipulate the bank share tax to overcome the problem,

PAGE 22

and this is just preserving the present tax until the General

2 Assembly acts.

3

SENATOR LESTER: Okay. Fine.

4

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any more questions?

5

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Wait just a second.

6

What about instead of January the 1st, '81, peg fuat

7 December 31st, 1980?

8

MR. BROWN: It could be either one, it really

9 wouldn't matter. All we were trying to do was key a date

10 prior to the next legislative session.

zCJ

11 j:
'o"

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: That's the way they're

l>.

@ r l12 : usually done, the end of the year rather than January 1st. MR. BROWN: I don't think he would have any objectio~

14

~
otn-

to

that.

Do you, Dave?

:<z:l

15 ol)

MR. KANE: No. I think it's trying to select a date

CJ

'":::I

16 .~.. which the present law would be in effect .

Q

Z

<l

17 ::;

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Since he already uses

18 that December 31 --

19

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Do you make that in the form

20 of a motion we use December 31st, 1980?

21

MR. STRICKLAND: After December 31st. You would say

22 the method in effect on any day after --

23

MR. BROWN: Except if you do that, all dates are

24 after that. I really think you want to say on, you want to

25 peg it to that particular date.

PAGE 23

MR. STRICKLAND: That's right, on December 31st, 1980.

2 So moved.

3

MR. KILLORIN: Is it out of order for one of us

4 publics to ask a question?

5

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We'll put you in order right

6 now.

7

MR. KILLORIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

8

A legal technicality, if you add the word annual

9 down at the bottom when you talk about a rate, and up top

10 you dont say annual, is there not a likelihood that a court

..CzI
11 j: might say they have two different meanings?

0......

.12

MR. BROw~: In fact, you do say annual on line 15.

(@ @)~ F~ We had added the word "annual" between --

! 14 lon

MR. KILLORIN: You do. I apologize. I see it up

<zI:i

...15 ~ there. CI ::l

16 .z..

Next question. If you add the word "assessed" to

..Q
Z <Ii
17 value, does that not mean the mirage rate can be higher than

18 it is now by some percent?

19

A VOICE: No.

20

MR. KILLORIN: Isn't assessed value a different --

21

MR. BROWN: All of the limitations and exemptions

22 relating to value in the constitution have been interpreted

23 now to apply to the assessed value. They do not apply to the

24 fair market value.

25

MR. KILLORIN: Okay. There is a difference between

PAGE 24

value and assessed value. Is that not --

2

MR. BROWN: Assessed value is forty percent at

3 present, and true value a hundred percent.

4

MR. KILLORIN: You mean to say the uniform

5 interpretation of the constitution va1uehas been assessed

6 value?

7

MR. BROw~: That's correct for purposes afthis

8 limitation and the exemptions.

9

MR. KILLORIN: Is that right? I have never checked

10 on it, but there are two different meanings legally.

MR. BROWN: That's right. These interpretations

have been interpreted to mean only the assessed value.

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We're going to give you time

to look at all this. All we're going to do is try to

tentatively approve this and get it back to the committee to

take its final action on it at the next meeting which will

probably then be the latter part of next month, so we will

18 have an opportunity to check the constitution and get yourself

19 clear on it or clear us up on it.

20

MR. KILLORIN: Thank you.

21

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We do have a motion before

22 us that we use

State it again now.

23

MR. BROWN: It would be December 31st, 1980 as the

24 date in lieu of January 1st, 1981, Mr. Chairman.

25

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. We have a motion

,,-----_. --------_
we change that.

PAGlii 25
_--~-_ ~--------------~

2

All in favor signify by saying aye.

3

Opposed likewise.

4

Canter, we will put the December date in there then.

5

MR. BROWN: I will make that change.

6

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there anything else that

7 anybody has any questions on that we have been over?

8

Canter, to make it sort of clear for me since I'm

9 slower than the rest of them, the biggest thing you have done

10 so far in this as I see it is you've given the state the right

11

Czl
j:

to levy five mills tax --

.'o"
0..

~ 12 ~

MR. BROvlli: Really all we've tried to do, Mr.

~F~! Chairman, is to keep the law, the constitution just as it is, 14 ... but to make sure that the words there say what they have been

15

':"z:
ol)

interpreted to mean.

Cl

.'";;;)
16 ~

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. So you really

Czl
17 :i

don't have a change?

18

MR. BROWN: If you will read the present language

19 there, it is very ambiguous and can be interpreted four or

20 five ways, but I believe you'll find under examination the

21 language we suggested says what the language that's there now

22 has been interpreted to mean.

23

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there any questions on it

24 If not, let's move on.

25

MR. BROWN: Paragraph III, Mr. Chairman, again

PAGE 26

referring to the struck through and underlined draft here,

2 page 2, line 20 and thereafter, this section will appear to

3 be changed probably as much or more than any other section,

4 but I think you will find that in fact it is not at all.

5

What has happened is we have a general requirement

6 of uniformity of taxation, and then we had a whole string of

7 exceptions to that. I think in looking at the language that i~

8 stricken through you will see that everyone of those exceptiols

9 repeated the same language authorizing the General Assembly

10 to act in the same way.

zC) 11 l-
e ; io..e..<..

All the subcommittee has attempted to do here is to reorganize that so that we have one list of exceptions
I
and then one general authority to treat them separately once

! 14 I':"r
15 .:
C)
e<
;;;)
16 .~..
oz 17 :

we have excepted them. The list of exceptions begins on line 29 on page 3
and extends from lines 1 through 8 on page 4. These are the same exceptions that you see stricken out there on page 3

18 and the bottom of page 2. There are no new exceptions added,

19 there are no present exceptions taken away, it~ the same

20 exceptions.

21

Again, the language that is stricken also authorizes

22 time and again the General Assembly to adopt different rates,

23 methods and assessment dates for different classes of

24 property. We have simply put in one provision instead of

25 four, and that is found on page 4, lines 9 through 11.

PAGE 27

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any questions on this

2 change?

3

Don, do you all have a question on this change?

4

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: He's got a question.

5 I don't know whether he wants to bring it up or not.

6

MR. J. DAVIS: (Shook his head.)

7

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any time we'll be ready.

8

Go ahead, Canter.

9

MR. BROWN: All right, Mr. Chairman.

10

I am on page 4 now, line 12. In the present

constitution, Section I encompasses -- it's called powers of taxation, but it also encompasses and in fact the major part

of it is exemptions from taxation.

The subcommittee has proposed to you that you split

powers of taxation and exemptions

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Canter, we've got a question

MR. KANE: Canter, before you move on, there was one

18 change that we agreed upon that maybe you spoke of.

19

MR. BROWN: I think Mr. Castleberry wanted to wait

20 until we got through the whole section and then come back to

21 that.

22

MR. KANE: Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

23

MR. BROWN: The subcommittee has proposed a separate

24 section relating to ~xemptions from ad valorem taxation.

25 I think you will find here that what they have done is to

PAGE 28

adopt a mechanism which removes all ad valorem property tax

2 exemptions from the constitution and writes them into

3 statutory law, and provides for a mechanism by which new

4 exemptions are to be enacted subjec to essentially the same

5 limitations as are now provided for exemptions done by

6 constitutional amendment.

7

All of the language that you will see stric~n on

8 page 5, line 13, through page 16, line 17, all of that

9 language is the language that now embodies property tax

10 exemptions in Georgia.

"z
11 j:
e -I..'o".... 12 '"

The overwhelmingly large part of that language does not deal with the grant of the exemption itself, but procedures and administrative details of how the exemption is

14 ~ to be granted.

'"

:I:

15 ~

If you adopt the subcommittee's recommendation, none

":'":l

16 ~ of these exemptions would be repealed; no property that is

17

"z
:

presently exempt from taxation will become taxable as a

18 result of this change on July 1st, 1983, and if you will look

19 on the last page of this draft which is page 21, the sub-

20 committee has added this language:

21

Those types of exemptions from ad valorem taxation

22 provided for by law on June 30, 1983, which is the date

23 immediately preceding the effective date of the constitution,

24 are hereby continued in effect until otherwise provided for by

25 law.

PAGE 29

Now. with five exceptions all of the exemptions that

2 are presently contained in the Georgia constitution are not

3 mandatory. they are permissive; the General Assembly can eithe

4 grant them or not grant them. so for the overwhelmingly large

5 number this just simply won't change anything at all. The

6 General Assembly could adopt a statute right now repealing

7 those exemptions. but the adoption of this constitution will

8 not repeal them.

9

Just as is presently the case. a law would have to bE

10
Czl 11 ...
.'oa".... ~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 !... o-cn :I: 15 01) Cl '~" 16 .~.. 17 g-Czcl

adopted at some point in the future to repeal; the constitutioI itself will not do it.
Now. there are five exemptions to that. The subcommittee looked at those exceptions which are primarily homestead exemptions and are very limited, detailed homestead exemptions and certain other relatively minor exemptions and decided that all the exemptions should be treated the same so long as the adoption of the constitution itself did not

18 repeal any of them. and that is what this draft is intended to

19 do.

20

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Yes. sir.

21

MR. MARTIN: Yes. sir. Mr. Chairman, in Paragraph

22 V, does that mean that a statute passed by a majority vote of

23 the legislature could repeal the amendment,, or would it 24 require the two-thirds vote in a referendum?

25

MR. BROWN: A statute could repeal -- a regular

PAGE 30

statute could repeal any exemption which I point out is 2 presently the case except for five exemptions out of the thirty

3 or forty that are now in place.

4

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

5

VIOE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any more questions?

6

MR. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, with that let me

7 explain the new procedure which the subcommittee is proposing

8 to you.

9

Now, as I mentioned before I believe it was their

10 intent to do this so as so remove from the constitutional

Cz'

@;;11

...
..o'.."..

amendment

process

and

the

constitutional

amendment ballots

which have become so congested property tax exemptions.

The proposal that they have made, however, will not

! 14 ... remove in any instance the requirement of a referendum of the

<II

:c

15

.:
C'

people

to grant

a

property

tax exemption,

and

they were very

'";;;)

16 ~... clear on that. To grant an exemption you.'re going to have

Q

Z

17 ::; approval of the voters of the state just exactly as you

18 presently do, so let me make that perfectly clear the

19 General Assembly cannot just pass a property tax exemption,

20 it has to be approved at a referendum by the voters.

21

The other provisions which are provided for state-

22 wide property tax exemptions are essentially the same as are
,
23 now required to pass a constitutional amendment. It would

24 take a two-thirds vote of all members elected to either house

25 of the General Assembly; that is the same as for a constitutiolal

PAGE 31

amendment. The bill proposing the exemption could be intro-

2 duced at either the senate or the house of representatives

3 unlike other revenue bills, which is exactly the same as is

4 presently applicable to constitutional amendments. The bill

5 proposing the exemption would not be subject to the

6 Governor's veto, which is the same as the present provision

7 for constitutional amendments, so in other words what they

8 have attempted to do is to outside the constitution but

9 subject to the same limitatiOns as would apply as if it were

10
1.7 Z
11 i=
...ocr:
Q"
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 ol:-nr 15 ~ 1c.r7: ~ 16 ~... az 17 :

in the constitution create a mechanism for granting all these exemptions if they're to be granted.
Now, the value in that is that that will permit any of the administrative details relating to the exemption to simply be handled by statute, you won't have to goback and have a constitutional amendment every time you want to change the office at which somebody applies for a homestead exemption which, believe it or not, is presently the case in the state

18 of Georgia.

19

Administrative details would have to be handled, or

20 could be handled by statute, and that is the great va1ue~ .

21 I think the legislative members of the subcommittee, and I'm

22 sure the others of you who have had legislative experience

23 know the trend has been to write everything into a

24 constitutional amendment rather than having to go back and

25 pass a law, and that has created a tremendous administrative

PAGE 32

problem in the General Assembly and a tremendous weight on

2 the constitutional amendment list to correct little minor

3 details both locally and statewide, and this would permit

4 all that to be done by statute.

5

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: With the same limita-

6 tions?
7

MR. BRO~~: With exactly the same limitations as now

8 apply to constitutional amendments, that's right.

9

Now, they have extended this mechanism to one type

10

III Z
11 I0:: .~..
~r~ ~ 12 ~

14

I
~

':<z"l::

15 ~

III 0::
;;)
16 .~.. Q
Z <l:
17 ::;

of local exemption. The number one incidence of local amendments to the finance article of the Georgia constitution on local homestead exemptions -- this would permit local homestead exemptions to be handled essentially in the same manner as are statewide, it would require a referendum in ever' case.
They have eliminated the necessity for a two-thirds vote, however, onthis because as a practical matter the

18 General Assembly is going to operate by local courtesy rule

19 in the enactment of a local constitutional amendment dealing

20 with homestead exemption, and consequently if the local

21 delegation approves it the General Assembly approves it, so

22 the two-thirds vote was not felt necessary.

23

Now, there are two changes that would apply that are

24 not now applicable in a local homestead exemption. One is

25 like any other local bill the member introducing the

PAGE 33

legislation would have to advertise it prior to introduction.

2 That is really the only additional constraint.

3

There is another change that would apply as well to

4 the statewide exemptions, and that is the present constitution

5 requires that all constitutional amendments be voted on only

6 at a general election. that is an election held every two

7 years in November. This would permit either a local homestead

8 exemption or any other property tax exemption to be voted on

9 at any election so long as the law proposing the exemption

10
zCI 11 j:
rr:
..o....
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 ... e:zn: 15 .:l rCr:I :> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :;

specifies theelection it's to be held at. I think the subcommittee felt that that was desirablE
because it would permit the question to be voted on at a time that other questions were not necessarily being voted on, and would draw more attention and hopefully more debate as to the merits of a particular proposed exemption.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Canter. back to this time -of course I'm not objecting to this, but homestead exemption

18 is not a local matter.

19

When you see a county such as Appling that has a

20 power plant in it to pay 75 percent of th~ tax, and they

21 increase their homestead exemption to 75 or to $10,000. the

22 power company is paying some 75 percent of their tax. and

23 what they're really doing, they're moving their tax to every

24 power consumer in the state and moving it away from them, so

25 I've got my doubts that homestead exemption is a local matter

PAGE 34

at any time, because when you're moving it from one group

2 of people to the other 158 counties there's something wrong

3 with calling that local legislation in my opinion.

4

Ma. BROWN: Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, the

5 subcommittee as I recall even discussed that very point, and

6 as I recall it was their agreement that that really related to

7 the treatment of the bill in the General Assembly and related

8 more to the rules of procedure in the house of representatives

9 and in the senate, and really the constitution wasn't the

'i

10 appropriate place to address that if it was to be addressed.

Czl
.11 j: .'0".. 12 '"
@rl 14 ~ ~ OIl :<z:l 15 0:1
Cl
'";;)
16 I.zD.. Q Z
'" 17 <l III

The language they have recommended to you would permit the state just as a constitutional amendment could be proposed now to provide for a uniform ho~estead exemption throughout the state, it just simply wouldn't change it. The state could act if it wanted to, or it could continue the local homestead exemption route.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Senator Lester.

18

SENATOR LESTER: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Canter.

19 I think the ideal situation would be to have a unified, a

20 uniform state homestead exemption, but I think I would have a

21 hard time supporting this constitution and so would a number

22 of other legislators without the provision in here for a

23 local homestead exemption act.

24

}ffi. BROWN: By the way, I think this was something

25 also that guided the subcommittee. They didn't~nt to make

PAGE 35

this process particularly tougher than going the constitutional

2 amendment route because, after all, any member can still

3 introduce a constitutional amendment through either local or

4 general for a property tax exemption.

5

It was their hope to provide a process that had all

6 the safeguards of the present constitutional amendment, but

7 to keep it out so that all of these other details could be

8 handled by statute.

9

SENA'lOR LESTER: You couldn't limit him anyway.

.."'.,

lD

MR. BROWN: That's correct .

Czl

11 I-
..00..:..:

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: It still could be done

12 0:: either way.

@rl

SENATOR LESTER: Right.

! 14

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: I made the remark I wou d

I-

U>

:r

15 .:I like to take them all out myself and have no homestead

Cl

0::

;;;)

16 .lzD.. exemptions.

Q

Z

17 0:: lD

. MR. BROWN: Senator Lester, additionally too there

18 was some concern by several members of the subcommittee that

19 people wouldn't use this mechanism but would just resort to

20 constitutional amendments, and it was pointed out to th~ and

21 I believe they agreed in the end that we have in fact adopted

22 this in a number of other instances throughout the

23 constitution.

24

I think that probably the one you're most familiar

25 with would be changing the composition or other details of a

PAGE 36

county board of education.

2

Several years ago that was permitted to be done by

3 local law subject to referendum. As far as I know, we haven't 4 adopted a single local constitutional amendment dealing with 5 that since that was authorized, so I think experience would

6 show that this procedure would be utilized and would result

7 in lessening the need for these constitutional amendments on 8 a continuing basis.

9

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Mr. Nash.

10

MR. NASH: Mr. Chairman, on this here, would this

Czl 11 I-
..'0"....
@F~12 '"

give the General Assembly the right to perhaps come up with a uniform homestead exemption and would be able to eliminate these local exemptions?

14 >-

MR. BROWN: It would permit the General Assembly to

I-

'-:<z":t

15 .:I do by statute, subject to a referendum, what they could do now

..Cl
'";;;) 16 .z.. by constitutional amendment subject: to referendum.

Q

.Z
-<t
17 '"

The procedure, the requirement for getting it on the

18 ballot would be the same, it just wouldn't be in the constitu-

:;'

19 tion.

20

The General Assembly right now could adopt a state-

21 wide constitutional amendment by a two-thirds vote subjedto

22 a referendum which could do that. Under this procedure they

23 would adopt a statute by a two-thirds vote subject to a

24 referendum. I think the effect is exactly the same. You're

25 not by any means encroaching by adopting this constitution on

PAGE 37

your local homestead exemptions, you're just providing that

2 if that's to change it will be done in a little bit different

3 way and will be done outside the constitution itself.

4

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We have got three of you.

5 Go ahead, Mike.

6

MR. HENRY: I just wanted to know -- these are now

7 going to be in the posture of being general laws and local 8 laws -- is there any question but that you may have a general 9 law on a subject for which a local law cannot thereafter be

10 enacted, so that it would almost once you had a general law

11

CzI
t-

on say a general statewide homestead exemption it would

.."o.."..

~ 12.~ preempt the field and you couldn't have a local law on that

~F~! subject?

14

MR. BROWN: That's true, just as if it would be true

t-

':<"rC:l

15 ~ in any other instance of a conflict between a local law or a

CI
"~"
16 ~... general law, but again the same limitation would now apply

Q

Z

<Cl
17 :

to a general constitutional amendment that expressly repealed

18 all the local constitutional amendments.

19

I mean the implications of what you're doing are the

20 same as the implications of amending the constitution to do

21 the same thing. You're not changing that at all.

22

As a practical matter, if the General Assembly

23 wanted to permit say higher homestead exemptions or lower

24 homestead exemptions, they could just write the general statut~

25 which again would be subject to approval by referendum to

PAGE 38

permit that, there wouldn't be any conflict, the general law

2 itself would authorize it.

3

MR. HENRY: Can a general law itself authorize its

4 abridgement given the fact you have a constitutional pro5 hibition against that?

6

MR. BROWN: The Supreme Court has ruled on that

7 question in several different ways at several different times.

8 I think it's unclear, but I would point out we have on the

9 books right now any number of laws which in fact do that,

10 particularly those dealing with what to the legislators are

11

"z
i=
..'o."...

very

sensitive matters

of

local

government

officials'

@;I salaries. Almost all of them authorize local acts authorizing those; as far as I know none of them have been thrown out.

! 14 ...

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Mr. Martin .

V:zI:

15

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, to follow up on Mike's

"'":;)

16 .~.. point, this is an interesting problem. Like with the Tax

Q

Z

17 :: Commissioners' fees, that provision in the old constitution

18 where if you passed a local law after the general law setting

19 the compensation of the tax commissioner, the court has ruled

20 that local law because it had authority in the constitution

21 then was not subject to the pruhibition against a special

22 statute where you had a general statute. It's your 23 interpretation of this provision 'that if you had a statewide

24 general constitutional statute, a general statute under this

25 provision that if you passed a local statute later to that

PAGE 39

it would be invalid under that provision; is that what you're

2 saying?

3

MR. BROWN: I believe it would be, if the general

4 amendment expressly prohibited any local amendments.

5

MR. MARTIN: That's the way you understand it?

6

MR. BROWN: In line with the court's interpretation,

7 I think that if a general exemption was passed which had the

8 effect of increasing a local exemption, then it would probably

9 be interpreted as increasing that exemption to the extent of

:~'-'

10 the conflict, but I do not believe that unless the general

Cl Z
.11 I.'0".. 12 '"
@rl 14 ~ I':<"z:l 15 .:l Cl '";;;) 16 .zC.D. Q Z <l 17 'C"D

amendment specifically prohibited local amendments because the court has already ruled in a very similar circumstance it would repeal a local amendment if it was passed.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Mr. Davis, did you have something?
MR. J. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering, your comment to Canter a minute ago where you said you still

18 have the referendum requirement

19

MR. BROWN: That's correct.

20

MR. J. DAVIS; If all these exemptions would go to

21 general law or local law through local amendment, would the

22 General Assembly have the authority to revoke current local

23 referendums without a referendum?

24

MR. BROWN: In most instances the General Assembly

25 already has that authority.

PAGE 40

MR. J. DAVIS: Currently they are constitutional

2 amendments.

3

MR. BROWN: Most of the local constitutional

4 amendments as well as the general property tax exemptions 5 are not mandatory exceptions, they authorize the General

6 Assembly to act by law.

7

There are some exemptions that do automatically

8 grant the exemptions. I'm sure Bibb must be one of them,

9 but this would in the future handle all of them on the same

10 basis, that's right.

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Mr. Strickland.

MR. STRICKLAND: I think maybe that answered the

question I had about the ones that have already passed.

MR. BROWN: All the ones that are currently on the

books would be continued on the books if this section is

adopted.

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS; George?

18

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Canter, my understanding

19 is that currently these constitutional amendments have to be

20 voted on on a general election day.

21

MR. BROWN: That's correct.

22

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I think I heard you say

23 that if we accept this draft then they can be voted on at any

M election day.

2S

MR . BROWN : That ' s correct . That is in line with

PAGE 41

every other instance in the constitution where we have

2 authorized something to bewne by local act subject to

3 referendum.

4

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I have some problems,

5 because we have very, very poor election turnouts in this

6 state, in tns country and in my county and probably most of

7 the other counties. I'm not saying I'm not for what the

8 subconmittee is recommending, but I do worry that you get a

9 very, very narrow exemption and that's the only issue on the

",-

10 ballot, and the only people who come out to vote are the

CzI
...... 11 j::: to 0
12 to
@rl 14 !... '" :I: 15 olI CI to ::::l 16 .zC.D. Q Z 17 to CD

people who are directly affected. MR. BROWN: I would point out again that this is
exactly as is the case with all other instances in the constitution where we permit something to be done by referendum, that the members of the General Assembly introducing the bill or rewriting it or whatever can provide for it to be held at the general election if they so desire,

18 if that's the time that they feel is the best time to hold

19 that referendum. There's no prohibition whatsoever on the

20 thing. This simply provides the same flexibility in the

21 case of these local homestead exemptions as is already

22 provided in the constitution for every other type of action

23 we would take subject to a referendum.

24

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Bob, did you have a

25 question?

PAGE 42

MR. NASH: I'm a little slow catching on to this. 2 Did I understand it if it's already on there, it is in

3 existence under this new wording, yet what I'm trying to get

4 at, can the General Assembly go back and take away by action

5 of the General Assembly if they go to a referendum?

6

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir, which is exactly the case

7 with all but five exemptions now.

8

MR. NASH: In ether words, if they want to make a

9 uniform homestead exemption forme state, then they could come

10 back and pass that by referendum and make it in effect and

Czl

11 I-
0..'"....

take away any local --

9 r l! 12 '"

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir, that's true, but I want to

make very clear to you that the same thing is true presently.

14 The only difference is that it's going to be called a bill

I-

'"

:I:

15 o!) in the future, and now it's called a constitutional amendment,

Cl

:':">

16 C.Z.D. but you go through exactly the same process to get it approved

Q

Z

17 'C"D It takes a two-thirds vote, It can be introduced in either

18 the House or the Senate, the Governor cannot veto it, it has

'"

19 to be approved in a referendum. That's exactly the same that

20 is now required for a constitutional amendment.

21

MR. STRICKLAND: It would take a constitutional

22 amendment, though. I mean the same thing -- one would be a

23 constitutional amendment, it would be --

24

MR. BROWN: The action is the same.

25

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: It takes a two-thirds vote

PAGE 43

MR. BROWN: There's no reason by going through the

2 same motions right now that the General Assembly can't do

3 what I said they can do by statute.

4

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: They've got the right

5 to go the constitutional amendment route if they so desire.

6 This is to encourage them not to go and load up the

7 constitution.

8

MR. BROw~: But again let me make sure that every-

9 body is clear on this. This draft is not repealing anybody's

10 local homestead exemptbn, and as far as I know the sub-

Czl 11 i=
@;;o..'"....

committee never intended that, and it does not give the General Assembly any power to meddle with the local exemptbn that they could not already do under the same procedures and

! 14 I':"z:
15 ~
Cl
'"::>
16 .~.. Q Z
17 :

limitations. VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Senator Lester. SENATOR LESTER: To clarify Bob's question, let's
say Richmond County has a $10,000 homestead exemption at

18 the present time, and the legislature wanted to abolish that

19 $10,000 homestead exemption. Now they would have to, of

20 course, pass an act calling for a referendum to abolish it.

21 Is that not correct?

22

MR. BROWN: That's correct. There would be a

23 proposed constitutional amendment now.

24

SENATOR LESTER: To abolish the present exemption.

25

MR. BROWN: That's correct.

PAGE 44

SENATOR LESTER: Now another point, and I think 2 George Williamson had a very valid point, I believe all of 3 the voting jurisdictions in the state at every election but

4 a general election have a low voter turnout.

5

Now, of course, I don't think we want to set a

6 different rule here from the rest of the constitution, but

7 it's something we ought to consider throughout the

8 constitution is to require that all amendments be adopted at 9 a general election.

10

MR. BROWN: I think you will find, though, that a

recommendation like that really kind of runs against the grain

of the Governor's charge to the Constitutional Revision

Commission, which was to avoid the very elongated ballot that

the voters now face at the general election as I understood his charge, and I don't know if Mr. Harris is still here,

it was in fact to try and reduce the number of questions

on the general election ballot, and if it had to be decided

18 at a referendum, you know, possibly handled as we have in the

19 past in the other

20

SENATOR LESTER: I can realize that's a problem, but

21 also I think you also want to consider that in an amendment

22 to your constitution you want to get the expression of as

23 many voters as possible, and historically you have a larger

24 voter turnout at a general election than you have at any other

~ election.

PAGE 45

MR. BROl~: Yes, sir. Again all I can say -- and of

2 course this can be written or rewritten in any way the task

3 force desires obviously, but again there is no limitation

4 whatsoever on a member requiring as part of his proposal for

s an exemption to have it voted on the general election. We

6 do in fact have members that do that all the time now with

7 those local acts which otherwise in the constitution can be

8 proposed and voted on at a referendum. It just however the

9 sponsors of the exemption desire to have it handled.

10

SENATOR LESTER: I bring it up as a consideration.

MR. HILL: For your information, Article IX is

wrestling with this question with respect to consolidation

of votes, and the very same point was made that at a special

election they don't get that many, and they felt that

consolidation was so important an issue they are at the

moment proposing that it be limited to a regular general

election, so that we may have another place in the proposed

18 draft where we don't follow the format we've been following

19 elsewhere, so it really is for the committee to decide if

20 this is an issue of enough importance to try to resolve the

21 balance between the two sides.

22

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Don, did you have a question~

23

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: What we were trying to

24 do was leave it up to the option offue local delegation as to

2S when they wanted it.

PAGE 46

You have some instances in the state of Georgia

2 where I feel like, and this is my personal feeling, that you

3 would have more talk and people would know more about what

4 they're going to vote on if you had just one issue during a

5 local election. In some instances I think you would probably

6 get more people input into it than you would when you're

7 going to the general election ballot with this long list of

8 amendments, but you can still do it.

9

In other words, the legislative delegation will say

10 what election they want it on when they introduce the

Czl 11 i=
@;;.'o."....

legislation. SENATOR LESTER: At the same time, Mr. Chairman, if
I wanted to slip something through for a specialized group

! 14 ... '" ::I:
15 ~
Cl
'"::;) 16 .~..
zQ

or something, I think my chances will be better on a special election than at a general election.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We know you wouldn't do

17 : that, Senator.

18

SENATOR LESTER: That was an example I was giving.

19

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Charlie has a question.

20

MR. C. DAVIS: First dealing with Paragraph II on

21 the clean draft, we agree what we're doing is leaving it to

22 the discretion of the local jurisdictions granting of home-

23 stead exemptions in various amounts, and that would not be

24 in the constitution orm the code as far as I know --

25

MR. BROWN: No, sir, that's not it at all. No

PAGE 47

exemption can be granted except for the two that are now

2 authorized in the constitution by any local action, it would

3 take a vote of the General Assembly.

4

MR. C. DAVIS: All right. Now dealing with free-

5 ports, Paragraph III, we omitted the 20740-60-80 stepup.

6

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. We really haven't gotten

7 there yet. If you-could wait just a second, that really is

8 in a different provision of this draft.

9

MR. C. DAVIS: It's spoken to in Paragraph IlIon

10 page 3.

~

Czl 11 I-
IoX
l>. w
12 ~ yet.

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. We're not quitefuat far along

(8)F~

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I was going to comment

! 14 on what Representative Castleberry said. I think if you have

I-

'<"l:

15

J:
~

one

issue on a

special election ballot you're going

to

Cl IX

~
16 ~ certainly get a lot more discussion of that one issue, but w Q

Z

17

<l:
~

there are

so many folks

if it really doesn't affect

them much

18 they're going to stay home and you're going to get this

19 powerful force of people that want that issue to pass, and

20 I think it has a potential to be a very, very small minority

21 of the voters that actually want it, and that's what worries

22 me.

23

I would rather put the burden on the people that

24 want it to go out and inform all the citizens why it's really

25 important and state their case, and then go before the ballot

PAGE 48

box with a large turnout instead of the way it is now where

2 the turnout is going to be very, very small.

3

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: In most of the state of

4 Georgia I think you'll find that your primaries is where your

5 large turnout is rather than your general election. You have

6 a few areas where you have a two party system where you have

7 a big turnout.

8

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: I forget what the vote

9 is, but you go back and look at the MARTA referendum, it was

10
Czl 11 j:
.'oa"....
~ 12 ~
~ri ! 14 I~ :J: 15 ~ Cl '":;) 16 ~ Q z .q; 17 ~

a very small turnout and very few people made the difference in that referendum. It's had, you know, gigantic impact on the metropolitan area, a very, very low turnout.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: You know, if you said you had to have a special election you would still have the right to call the shot as to when they're going to have it, it would be so advertised.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: That's what worries me.

18

MR. C. DAVIS: I'm still a little confused on

19 Paragraph II. Local law is ordinance. Now, is local law

20 defined anywhere in the constitution?

21

MR. BROWN: The constitution in Article XII provides

22 for the rank and order of law in Georgia. It begins with the

23 Constitution of the United States, and it goes down to a 24 general law, a special law and a local law, and Article III

25 of the constitution provides how the General Assembly is to

0----------------------.-----
enact general, special and local laws.

PAGE 49

2

It's the terminology that's used throughout the

3 constitution.

4

MR. C. DAVIS: So it is a defined term?

5

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.

6

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Yes, sir.

7

MR. J. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little confused.

8 You said earlier in answering my question, Canter, under this

9 act which I understand they have the same basic -- they would

10 have no further powers than they do now by granting the local

... 11

CzI
i=

homestead

exemptions,

it would have

to

be

passed by both

.o..

~ 12 ~ houses and voted on in a referendum.

~r~! You said currently to revoke one of those would 14 involve revoking an amendment to the constitution which

lo:-rn
..15 ~ currently would have to be voted on also, right, by the Cl

::>

16 .~.. people?

a

Z
17 ~

MR. BRO~~: I think you need to understand there is

18 no single way in which these are written. Some of them

19 authorize the General Assembly to do it, and some of them

20 automatically grant it, and none of them are uniform. It

21 would be very difficult to find any two homestead exemptions

22 in the state of Georgia which are exactly alike.

23

MR. J. DAVIS: Just let me ask you this in a general

24 way. If we enacted the draft as it stands and all these

25 current acts become law, general law, local law, as a general

PAGE 50

rule could the General Assembly revoke some or any local

2 constitutional -- I mean local property tax exemptbns without

3 a vote of the people?

4

MR. BROWN: Yes. Any property -- under this draft,

5 any property tax exemption could be in the future repealed

6 by the General Assembly subject to the Governor's veto, but

7 I want to reiterate to you that with the general statewide

8 exemptions that except for five exemptions as is the present

9 case, that whole long'list of property tax exemptions in the

10 constitution begins with the words "The General Assembly

III

Z

11

...Ioo-o
lL

~ 12 ~

~F~ 14 ~

I-
'-"<
:J:

15 .:J

IoIoI :::>

16 .~..

Q

Z
17 f-:<i

may exempt," it does not exempt them itself, and a great number of local homestead exemptions or local exemptions are written in exactly the same way.
MR. C. DAVIS: If we had one that was self-executing, the General Assembly could not repeal that unless it went to a referendum; is that right?
MR, BROWN: After this constitution is adopted it

18 could be repealed without a referendum, yes.

19

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: You're throwing those

20 five in there with the rest of them?

21

MR. BROWN: For statewide, that's right.

22

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: George, you had some

23 objections to this section. Do you want to --

24

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, at this

25 point I think I would like to move that if we grant any

PAGE 51

relief we have that done on a general election day. which

2 would be consistent with the current law.

3

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS; Is there any discussit'l1 on

4 George's motion?

5

Now you all understand what it is. He's saying he

6 wants all of these to be put back on the general ballot as

7 they are at this time rather than just at any election.

8

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: I've got some feeling

9 on it. which is my personal feeling. you can call the shot

10 any way you go.

"z
11 ia=:
...o
0..

In some instances I think in some counties and local

~ 12 ~ governments you would have more interest in a special or in a

~)~ primary or local mayor's election in granting these. This

! 14 ... is just dealing with homestead exemptions. is all it's dealing

'"

:r

15 .:t with. It's not a wide open exemption.

"a:
::>

16 ~...

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Yes. Mr. Nash .

Q

Z

17 ~

MR. NASH: As I understand it. it would have to be

18 specified by the General Assembly at the time it was -- at

19 which election it would be. --

20

MR. BROWN: That's correct.

21

MR. NASH: -- as this is written.

22

MR. BROWN: That's correct. That is in fact the

23 case in all other instances now where we authorize something

24 to be done subject to a referendum.

25

MR. NASH: As far as I know under the present

PAGE 52

constitution there's no exception to that.

2

What George is saying, it could only be at a

3 general election.

4

MR. BROWN: A general election, yes, sir.

5

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Yes, Senator.

6

SENATOR LESTER: One comment, Mr. Chairman. That

7 is, one of the biggest complaints voters have now is the

8 cost of elections are very much on their minds and, of course

9 this would eliminate this additional cost of hiring poll

10 workers and so forth if this particular amendment is passed.

Czl 11 i=
o.."..'..
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 lV> J: 15 .:>
Cl
"':::> 16 .~..
oz
17 :

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Unless you had it on the same date you have a local election.
SENATOR LESTER: But it could be. You were talking about it could be the only issue brought up on a particular election. Unless this amendment is passed, unless George's amendment is passed that could be the case .
REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: I'm not going to

18 introduce one, and I don't think you would either unless

19 your local elected officials want it. They're the ones that

20 are going to foot the bill.

21

SENATOR LBSTER: But the point is that it could be.

22

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Oh, it's possible.

23

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Dr. O'Kelley.

24

DR. o'KELLEY: Just a matter of information. I

25 assume that somewhere thre is in law protection against a

PAGE 53

called election without giving adequate notice to the people

2 that it's coming.

3

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.

4

DR. o'KELLEY: That would protect this. You

5 couldn't call one overnight.

6

MR. BROWN: No, sir. In fact, the language that:

7 the General Assembly uses to call a referendum repeats what

8 the general law requirement is, and that is -- let's see --

9 the election cannot -- Let's see. The called election

10 cannot be made within thirty days of the effective date of

Czl 11 j:

the law, and the election cannot be held within thirty days

.'00"...

12 '" after the call. I may be wrong, that is generally what the

@ r l requirements are.

14 !

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right, George.

I-

'<:"r:l

15 .:

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I know

Cl
.';":,)

16 azz what Representative Castleberry is saying, certainly if

17 .'<",:l you've got one or two issues on the ballot those people that

18 are interested will be more involved and they will get out

..

19 and vote .

20

The thing that worries me is all the election

21 statistics I have seen show that your greatest turnout is on

22 general election day, and I think we owe it to the people of

23 Georgia to make sure that we have major issues like this on

24 the day when most of them are going to get out and go vote,

25 and that's why I would like to keep it on the general

PAGE 54

election day.

2

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any more discussion?

3

Yes, sir.

4

MR. J. DAVIS: I guess I'm also -- I was on the

5 subcommittee that did this, I'm basically supporting our

6 position primarily because it has been my experience over the

7 years in my particular area of the state that where we have

8 had a general election and the ballot has been so full of

9 these amendments, while you may have more people, when you

10 look at the end results people have ended up voting -- you may

11

"z
i=

have had a presidential race,

a vice presidential,

et

cetera,

.."o.."..

~ 12 ~ and you may have 50,000 people voting for the candidates, but

~F~! you look down at these where you had 25 constitutional 14 amendments and you had one-tenth or one-fifth of the people

I-

'"

:I:

15 .:> that went in the booth that ever bothered to look at them,

""";;)

16 .~.. so it appears to me, it has appeared to me the same, quote,

Q

Z

17 : special interest groups which in this case would be the

18 homeowners, because if it's a homestead exemption you're

19 talking about the great majority of the people in the county--

20

I thought the intent of getting this out of the

21 constitutional amendment thing was so you wouldn't have them

22 crowded on this large ballot to increase the interest of the

23 people, not to decrease it, and for that reason I felt like

24 we were going to propose this change.

25

Now, with the fact the local delegation can call

PAGE 55

for it to be if they so desire on the general election day

2 it seems to me you're getting the best of both worlds.

3 You're eliminating the requirement that if you have a change

4 in the homestead exemption it has to be on the ballot whether

5 it's 55 candidates and maybe 15 proposed changes, and

6 experience has shown while you may have 90 percent of the

7 voters there, how many of them are really going to take the

8 time to explore it.

9

They're going in there specifically to vote on

10 repealing their homestead exemption or increasing it. If

Czl

11 i= they go there at all that day, they're going to vote on it

"..o....

~ 12 ~ if it's a special.

~r~

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: }1x. Chairman, there's

! 14 no debate the longer the ballot the more people are going to

I-

'"

J:

15 .:l get tired from the first spot to the end. It's incredible

Cl

"::>

16 ~... the dropoff from the first vote to the second vote; there's

oz

17 : no debate about that.

18

I'm just flabbergasted at the number of folks who

19 go in and they vote for one race, and they leave because they

20 don't even want to get down to the next vote. The longer

21 the ballot, the more attrition you have. If there are

22 people when they don't understand the issues, they leave.

23

But the point I'm making is I would rather have a

24 large turnout that has an opportunity at least to get down

25 and read that question than to put it on a special electiOn

PAGE 56

day when you know that you're going to have a less than fu~l

2 turnout. I mean special election days just aren't anywhere

3 near as heavily voted as general election days, and the

4 reason is general election day people are coming out to vote

5 for Governor, they're coming out to vote for President, and

6 then they can get to these other issues that are important

7 to them.

8

On a special election day all you're -- you're going

9 to ensure the people that want that special amendment passed,

10 they're going to be there, but John Doe, the man in the street

Czl

11 j: if the weather is nice he may not come out, and I would rather

'"o.".".

~ 12 ~ have him come out and give him a chance to say the ballot's

~r~ too long, I don't understand the amendment, and not vote

! 14 than to make a change today knowing full well if we make

t-

V>
x

15 the change there's just a lot of folks that will just not come

Cl

'"::J

16 ~ out to the polls on those special election days.

Q

z

17 g

SENATOR LESTER; I call the question.

18

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS; I'm ready. We have a motion

19 before us -- George, I believe it is to put the referendums

20 on the general election.

21

All in favor of George's motion signify by uplifting

22 of the hand.

23

Reverse your position.

24

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS; George, you and the Senator

25 have los t .

PAGE 57

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: We never give Up.

2

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. Go right mead.

3

~1R. BROw~: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out

4 since we were on the topic of the referendum that on page 5,

5 lines 6 through 9, the subconnnittee has created an exception

6 to the referendum requirement in a very limited instance.

7

As most of you are aware, the General Assembly is

8 presently involved in recodifying the Georgia Code. As a

9 part of that it is anticipated that the General Assembly will

10 readopt the code officially possibly every two to four years

11

CzI
I-

so that we will have a continuing official code of Georgia.

.'o"..

12 ::;
~~ r~ ~

The subcommittee didn't intend for every time we readopt he code for all the property tax exemptions to be

14 ~ revoted on. This simply creates an exception to when we are

I-

III
<:c

15 0) merely recodifying a previously approved exemption -- you

CI

:'>"

16 .~.. wouldn't be able to grant any new exemptions, but one that's

zco

< 17 :

already been approved by referendum you would be able to

18 codify or recodify without a referendum.

19

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS; Any questions?

20

Go ahead, Canter.

21

MR. TIDWELL: Mr. Chairman, I've got some nitpicking

22 language on that I don't need to involve the committee with.

23 It would be more appropriate to bring it up with the staff

24 arrlthey can look at it at another time. It doesn't change

25 the substance of what Canter said he was trying to do.

PAGE 58

It's lawyer type --

2

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Either way. If you would

3 like to bring it before us now, Charlie, we will; if you

4 would like to get with the staff later, that will be fine.

5

MR. TIDWELL: It's whatever your preference is. No

6 need to bore you all with it, but if you want to profit by it

7 I'll be glad to --

8

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Roll it, let's see what

9 you've got.

"
10

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Briefly, Charlie,

11

"z
j:
..'0"....

briefly.

12 '"

MR. TIDWELL:

The point being you don't have an

@ r l exemption previously authorized in this constitution; it's

! 14 ... either in the constitution or it's out, so it would be more

'"

:I:

15 .:> appropriate to sayan exemption previously authorized in the

"'";:)

16

zID Q

constitution

of

1976,

or

an

exemption

authorized

pursuant

to

z

'" 17 ID this constitution.

18

MR. BROWN: I think that's a real good point. The

19 reason that I use this language is that it is still possible

20 you could have exemptions in the constitution. We can't

21 prohibit a member if he so desires from going the

22 constitutional amendment route, and it's just been my

23 experience that if it's possible for somebody to do something

24 in the General Assembly eventually they will.

25

MR. TIDWELL: The point being you can't have

PAGE 59

something previously authorized in this constitution.

2

MR. BROWN: I had meant the previously there to

3 relate to previous to the time that the law is codified or

4 recodified.

5

MR. TIDWELL: It's just picking, Mr. Chairman.

6

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if you would like Charlie

7 and I andthe other staff to get together we'll work something

8 out.

9

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Fine. Go ahead, Canter.

~.-

10

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as I have ment ioned

"z
11 I-
..'o."....
~ 12 ~
(@r~
' g 14! I':"r 15 .:I
"'"::>
16 .~.. Q
Z 17 :

previously, the language on lines 5 through -- I mean page 5 through page 16, the middle of 16, is the present language dealing with the exemptions which has been grandfathered in as I mentioned earlier in the last paragraph.
On page 16, line 18. under the present constitution there are two rare animals, and those are two types of exemptions from ad valorem taxation which may be granted

18 locally without the General Assembly acting on them prior to

19 the time they are granted.

20

This paragraph that's being added recognizes that

21 fact; it does not add any new exemptions that can be granted

22 locally, it simply puts into law what we have already got.

23

Now, the first one is the present freeport amend-

24 ment. Let me explain how this language was arrived at.

25

The subcommittee had considered. after they

PAGE 60

considered the rest of this article looked at the language of

2 the freeport amendment and decided that they felt that most 3 of that language should be handled statutorily and didn't 4 belong in the constitution.

5

They directed me with Mr. Hill and his staff to meet

6 with representatives of the Association of County Commissioner~

7 and the Georgia Municipal Association and any other interested

8 parties to try and hammer out some language that would save 9 the guts of the limitations as a part of the constitution

10 but which would permit everything else to be handled

.. 11

zCI
j:

statutorily.

.o.....

~ 12 ~

We did in fact meet and agreed on a presentation

~r~! which is essentially what's before you here.

14

At that meeting it was felt that there were three

I-

'"

.15

J: oll

main points to that exemption which should be kept for various

CI

;:)

16 .~.. reasons in the constitution .

Q

Z 17 g

The first was the specific authority by which these

18 exemptions could be granted locally. It was felt that was a

19 very major point here.

20

The second one was to generally limit the types of

21 property upon which the exemption CQuld be granted while

22 giving some flexibility for the General Assembly to treat the

23 terms used by statute.

24

The third nne was the present constitution provides

25 that an exemption once granted can be repealed only subject

PAGE 61

another referendum. It requires that rive years elapse betwee

2 the time the exemption is first approved and that referendum

3 being held. It also provides that an additionnl fiv~ yearH

4 must elapse between the time the repeal of an exemption is

5 approved and it is in fact repealed. That limitatibn has been

6 retained as a part of this draft.

7

Let's see. I think that is the -- And also the

8 requirement as I mentioned earlier that the exemption must be

9 repealed only subject to referendum.

10
..'z"
11 i=
.o.....
~ 12 ~
~ri ! 14 1;; <l ::r:: ..15 .: '" ;:) 16 .~.. Q Z <l 17 :

We have retained all that while deleting everything else.
Now, I would point out to you on page 20, lines 13 through 20 where you added this language, and I'll read it, but let me explain first it is our opinion the effect of this language writes into statutory law everything that we have deleted from this provision, so in order for anything that is presently dealing with the freeport amendment to change the

18 General Assembly would have to adopt a law, the Governor

19 would either have to approve it or his veto of it would have

20 to be overridden, so it would stay the same until the General

21 Assembly had positively acted to change it.

22

The language that we have drawn to do this says:

23

"The implementation, administration and revocation

24 of the exemptions authorized in this subparagraph (a) shall

25 be provided for by law. Until otherwise provided by law,

PAGE 62

the grant of the exemption shall be subject to the same

2 conditions, limitations, definitions and procedures provided

3 for the grant of such exemption in the constitution of 1976

4 on June 30, 1983."

5

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any questions?

6

MR. C. DAVIS: I think that will clear mine up. It

7 needs studying a little bit more from the standpoint of

8 whether or not we're carving in stone the 20-40-60-80 by

9 this June 30, '83. That will answer my 20-40-60-80 question.

10
I!I Z
11 ~
.'o."....
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 ~ I'~" IS ~ I!I '"::> 16 ~... CI Z <l 17 :::

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Yes, Senator. SENATOR LESTER: One question, Mr. Chairman. This solar energy is a local exemption, it's not a statewide exemption? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. If I could, I mentioned there were two of these exemptions that could be handled locally. The second one deals with solar energy equipment for heating and cooling

18 systems.

19

We handled this a little differently than we did

20 anything else, and I'll explain why. The present constitution

21 automatically repeals this authority as of July 1st, 1986.

22 This constitution won't go into effect until July 1st, 1983,

23 so this theoretically would only apply for three years.

24

The subcommittee felt like it wasn't worth going to

25 the problem of repeating all that language or else having to

PAGE 63

adopt a statute to write into statutory law when it could just

2 simply grandfather it in and then automatically repeal it

3 three years later.

4

This language that is used to do this is exactly

5 the same language that was used when Florida adopted their

6 new constitution and used this same process, so it is language

7 that has been tested and worked down there, but it doesn't

8 creabeany new exemptions, it simply grandfathers this on for

9 another three years.

10
"z
11 l-
...oe<
ll.
~ 12 ~
~r~14 ! lV> :I: 15 ol) "e< ~ 16 .~.. cz 17 ~

SENATOR LESTER: But it is a local -MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. Now it's done locally. VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any other questions? MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if I could, Chairman Thrower had on the freeport I believe a very few, a number of very technical types of changes. Again, I think you will find that all of these are just for conformity with the usage we have used everywhere else.

18

Back on page 16 --

19

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Let's get back on the

20 clean copy. How about that, does that suit everybody? I

21 can folbw the clean copy better than I can a lined through

22 copy.

23

MR. BROWN: The first change is on page 2 right at

24 the very top -- let's see -- no, it's not, it's on page 3

25 right at the bottom.

PAGE 64

On line 28 right at the end, the last two words are

2 "of the." This is page 3. And he has suggested that the

3 language which now reads "approval of electorates of such

4 political subdivision" be changed to say "approval of a

5 majority of quaDfied electors of such political subdivision

6 voting in a referendum thereon."

7

That is the same language we have used in a number 0

8 other instances.

9

SENATOR LESTER: Say it again. Subject to the

10 approval

"z

@;;.11 I'o."..

MR. BROWN: Of a majority of the qualified electors

of such political subdivision voting in a referendum thereon.

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Has everybody got that down

! 14 I- now? One more time.

'"

:I:

..15 .:
"'";:)

MR. BROWN: Okay. It woUd read approval of a

16 ~ majority of the qualified electors of such political sub-

zQ

17 ~ division voting in a referendum thereon.

18

Again, as I say --

19

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any discussion on this

20 technical language?

21

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: It sounds like good

22 lawyer language to me.

23

MR. BROWN: Mr. Thrower proved to me he was a good

24 lawyer, there's no question.

25

The next change on line 30, you will see the word

taxes used there.

PAGE 65
- - - - - -----------
This is line 30, page 3 of the clean copy.

2 If you will note in the same line you have used the word

3 taxation, and he pointed out that thesrome word should be used

4 both tDnes and has recommended that where it says taxes you

5 simply put in taxation.

6

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there any objecCbns to

7 these two changes?

8

If not, Canter

9

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, there is one minor

10 additional change.

"z
11 j:
..'o."....
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 I'" :r 15 .:
"'::">
16 ~ Q z
17 ::;

He pointed out when we were discussing exemptions fo inventories of goods or inventory of goods that in fact that should be plural, it should be inventories. That would be on line 32, page 3, and line 33, page 3.
Again, it's just proper grammar. VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objection to making thos two changes?

18

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in this section the only

19 other change that he has recommended, and except for Mr.

20 Castleberry's recommendation to you in just a minute, is the

21 last thing I wanted to bring up, and that is on page 4 on

22 line 26 we have incorrectly labeled this Paragraph V, it

23 should be Paragraph IV, and on line 4 he has recommended that 24 after the word "continued in effect" you add the word "as

25 statutory law."

PAGE 66

He quite correctly pointed out the constitution

2 includes the Georgia constitution and the federal statutes

3 and everything else as part of Georgia law, and this was

4 intended to be statutory law and consequently should say that,

5 and I certainly agree with him.

6

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Where is that on the

7 clean copy?

8

MR. BROWN: This is on line 29, page 4 of the clean

9 copy, just after the words llin effect" add the words "As

10 statutory law."

1:1

Z
11 j:

MR. KANE: Canter, there was one other question

..'o"....

@;i where we suggested some good lawyer language as Mr. Castleberry has termed it, and that is at the top of that

14 ~ page, page 4 of the clean draft where it lBYS exemptions may

I-

':"z: 15

be revoked,

he suggested that it shou~d read exemptions

1:1
'::"> 16 .~.. granted pursuant to this subparagraph may be revoked .

Q

Z 17 :

MR. BROWN: That's exactly right. I missed that,

18 I t m sorry.

19

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections to either one

20 of these changes?

21

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the only other thing that

22 I have for you is Mr. Castleberry has given me a possible

23 amendment he has drawn up and has asked me to pass this out,

24 and I think he wants to discuss it.

25

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Or you can discuss it.

PAGE 67

MR. BROWN: Let me just pass around copies.

2

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Let them get a copy of

3 that right quick.

4

MR. BROWN: At the subcommittee's very first

5 meeting, Mr. Chairman, and at the very first meeting of this

6 task force you discussed the very real problem of these local 7 constitutional amendments, and in the draft the subcommittee 8 gave you and which you have just tentatively approved you 9 have adopted a formula by which the number one local amend-

10 ment villian will be removed from this article, and that is

Czl

~

11 i= oIll:
0w
12 ~

@)F~

! 14 ...

':"r

15

Cl Ill: ::l
16 .~..

Q

Z

17 :

homestead exemption. The second greatest number of local amendments to
this article deals with authorizing counties to levy occupational license fees in the unincorporated~eas of counties . The reason that that is required as a constitutional amendment is the uniformity provision in Section I of the constitution.

18

We have any number, I would guess forty or fifty

19 counties that are already authorized to levy these

20 occupational license fees in the unincorporated areas of the

21 county.

22

All that Mr. Castleberry's amendment would do would

23 be to permit these counties tobe authorized to do this by 24 local act, or to permit the General Assembly by general law

25 to permit all counties to do it as an exception to the

PAGE 68

uniformity requirement, and he is recommending that you adopt

2 it as an amendment to Section I, Paragraph III, sub (a).

3

It would just add the language you see as a new

4 subparagraph 2 in Paragraph III, Subparagraph (aO.

S

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Canter, will this cover

6 payroll taxes and things?

7

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: No, sir, nothing to do

8 with occupational taxes.

9

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it really doesn't deal witt

10 that in one way or the other. As you know, there is already a

general law on the books that prohibits payroll taxes in

Georgia. This would not either positively or negatively

affect that law.

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I just wanted to make sure WE

wasn't affecting it.

MR. BROWN: This would just permit the General

Assembly outside the constitution to do what it is doing every

18 year in the constitution.

19

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: You put that general law

20 in the constitution about those payroll taxes?

21

MR. C. DAVIS: Canter, I've still got the problem

22 with local law, third line.

23

MR. BROWN: Again, if I could just assure you that

24 local law is a term that is used throughout the constitution

2S and has a very definite meaning I think for any constitutional

PAGE 69

purposes.

2

What you are thinking of is local laws are

3 considered either ordinances or regulations.

4

MR. C. DAVIS: You made a statement the county could

5 authorize by local law --

6

MR. BROWN: No, sir. I said they may be authorized.

7

MR. C. DAVIS: Okay. I misunderstood. I'm sorry.

8

MR. HILL: Is there any reason why we couldn't say

9 counties may be authorized by general or local law to --

10

MR. BROWN: I wanted to make clear that in the

Czl 11 I-
o.'l."L.
~ 12 ~
~ri l 14 lo:z-n: 15 .:l
Cl
'"::>
16 .~.. Q Z
17 :

event the General Assembly opted not to adopt a general law on the subject that individual counties could do it without recourse to a constitutional amendment. That's the only language I could come up with that clearly said that.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Do you have anynore questions?
MR. HENRY: Canter, I have a question. Isn't local

18 amendment a colloquial term? Aren't all amendments amendments

19 to the constitution, they just may have general or local

20 application?

21

I just don't know whether that is a proper term for

22 the constitution. I think when they continued in effect

23 previous local amendments they said all amendments to this

24 constitution which have only local application shall continue

25 in force and effect. I don't think that local amendment

PAGE 70

really is a proper term.

2

MR. BROWN: If you want to say each amendment of

3 local application, it is fine. It's inconceivable to me that

4 a court looking at this provision would not know what a local

5 amendment to the constituion was, but if you would feel more

6 comfortable saying amendment of local application there's

7 certainly no objection to it.

8

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any more discussion?

9

SENATOR LESTER: I've got one further. A county may

10 be authorized by local law -- by that you mean a local act

Czl

11 I-

.'o."..

12 ~

@~

~

~.-)j'~:J.

! 14 lV> :I:
15 01)

Cl
'::">
16 .~..
zo
17 ~

of the General Assembly? MR, BROWN: Act of the General Assembly. SENATOR LESTER: Then why don't you say that? MR. BROWN: Because everywhere else in the
constitution we use the term local law. Again, you have to understand this is within the
context of Artic Ie XII I believe which does rank the law of

18 the state of Georgia, and specifically mentions local law.

19

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any more questions?

20

MR. TIDl~LL: Canter, why did you have the last

21 sentence there? Run that by me.

22

MR. BROWN: So that all of these local amendments

23 that are presently in the constitution would become statutory

24 law and the details afthem could be handled by local law from

25 now on, just so we won't have to go back and amend the

PAGE 71

technical details of previously existing local amendments.

2

MR. TIDWELL: What if it should be a policy decision

3 not to have local amendments? Would that be abolished?

4

MR. BROWN: Again, I think this would successfully

5 grandfather those, protect those local governments that alread)

6 have them by grandfathering them in by statutory law.

7

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any more discussion?

8

MR. BROWN: I'll tell you why I put that in there.

9

MR. TIDWELL: You're doing two different things.

10 You're granting authority, then you're freezing it.

.zCI
11 j:

MR. BROWN: I think I'm just continuing currently

....0
Q.
12 existing authority, and the reason I did that was to make

@ r l absolutely clear to the local governments involved that we

! 14 weren't taking anything away from them, we were just trying

~
I:zII:
.. 15 .:l to make it easier to do it for them in the future, and it CI

::;)

16 .Iz.I.I just didn't seem to me that it was appropriate to come back
.az
17 III and pass forty or fifty local laws in the first session after

18 this constitution is adopted to continue this.

19

MR. TIDWELL: What if they were carried forward as a

20 matter of substance as far as the new constitution? Then

21 you've got this one saying they're not a part of the constitu-

22 tion, they're statutory law.

23

MR. BROWN: That's right. I have done the same

24 thing with local homestead exemptions.

_.

25

MR. TIDWELL: It's two or three different concepts,

PAGE 72

and I guess what I understood Don wanted to do is just grant

2 some authority to the unincorporated areas.

3

MR. BROWN: I think he wanted to authorize the

4 General Assembly to do it. I don't think he intended for the

5 constitution itself to grant that authority.

6

MR. TIDWELL: I understood Don wanting in his

7 first sentence that's what he's trying to accomplish.

8

MR. BROWN: He's trying to accomplish that.

9

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: I don't want to mess up

10 the other either.

Czl 11 i=
'o."".".
@;I

MR. BROWN: He wants to write into law which is authorized in the first sentence all the current authority that local governments have to do this already.

! 14

MR. TIDWELL: What is this article committee doing

I-
'<:"al::
15 .:l with all the local amendments to the constitution of 1976?

Cl

'":::l

16 ~...

MR. BROWN: As a practical matter they have

Cl

Z

<l:
17 :

eliminated almost all of them, because although there are some

18 exceptions almost all the local amendments to Article VII

19 deal with either homestead exemptions or with license fees,

20 and they have written all those into statutory law.

21

MR. TIDWELL: Are they separately addressed else-

22 where in the Article VII?

23

MR. BROWN: I would have to defer to David and

24 Walter, but it was my understanding that the task force was

25 going to further deal with the local amendments that are left

PAGE 73

and that they would do it at the next meeting. Is that right?

2

MR. WINGFIELD: I don't think they really had

3 discussion on it.

4

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: All we're trying to do

5 is grant the authority and to not take away anything, just

6 keeping what we have already done.

7

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.

8

MR. HENRY: Canter, I have one more technical

9 question. What about local amendments which authorize the

10
"z
11 i=
'o."".-.
@;i ! 14 ... ':"r 15 .:I "'";;) 16 .~.. oz 17 :

General Assembly to do this by local law? MR. BROWN: You know, it really won't matter. You
dont need it at that point because you've got general constitutional authority to do it. This would grandfather them in .
VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any more questions? Any more discussion?
Do we have a motion, Don?

18

MR, TIDWELL: Mr, Chairman, is the comnittee going t

19 deal with that question of local amendments?

20

MR, HILL: Charlie, one of the practical problems is

21 that we don't have all of the local amendments to this article

22 compiled and in front of us, so to some extent we know what 23 the major areas are that are problem areas, and as Canter 24 says, this draft addresses that, but there is no -- there has 25 been no effort yet by anyone to look at these, much less

PAGE 74

compile them. We're still in the process of getting them

2 together. You asked if they could address it; I don't see

3 how they could look at them until they have them in front of

4 them.

5

MR. TIDWELL: If you don't carry them forward you

6 have wiped them out.

7

MR. HILL: Obviously they will be carried forward

8 unless they're specifically repealed or specifically, or there

9 is a specific policy determination to eliminate them, so I

10 would say the status of those at the moment is that they are

.. 11

"z
j:

all to be carried forward

in all

the

articles

for

the

same

o......

~ 12 ~ reason. I mean it's a massive -- you know, there are a

@F~ thousand and some odd amendments.

! 14 ...

MR. TIDWELL: Is that language carried forward in

'<:"zl::

." 15 ol) here? ::>

16 .~..

MR. BROWN: I think the language dealing with

Q

Z

17 g<l;: carrying forward local amendments, just as was the case in the

18 constitution of 1976 and 1945 will be dealt with in a single

19 provision in Article XIII. This isn't --

20

MR. TIDWELL: Not necessarily. What the Select

21 Committee wants you to do is to make a determination as to the

22 others that are going to have to do also as was done in

23 Article X, which ones do you need and which ones don't you

24 need, or do you need all of them or none of them.

25

Here, you know, you've got -- you addressed it here,

PAGE 75

but what have you done with all the others?

2

MR. BROWN: What I think we can do if this will help

3 meet your concern and the task force desires it, again I think

4 that we have eliminated the necessity for almost all of them 5 that are in Article VII which of course is all this task force

6 can deal with, and we can certainly attempt to compile, or

7 Mel's staff can, those that remain and see if they're -- you

8 know, they continue to be necessary. And they could either be,

9 you know, repealed or not as the task force desires.

r-

IO

All we're attempting to do, though, is to make clear

11

Czl
j:::

that

the General Assembly in the area of license fees,

in the

...'0"
Q,.

12 '" area of homestead exemptions doesn't have to come back and

@ r l reenact all the ones that are already on the books. We wanted

! 14 to write them into statutory law that they in the future can

l-

v>

15

:I:
.:

be

amended

just

as

a

statute

could.

Cl

'"::>

16 .CZ.D.

You know, we're not trying to take anything away froll

Q

17

Z
'C"D

anybody,

but

I

don't

see

any

problem in

the

very relatively

18 few number that are left in compiling those for this task

19 force, let them look at it at their meeting at the end of

20 October, but there just aren't that many of them.

21

SENATOR LESTER: Mr. Chairman, what Charlie Tidwell

22 was talking about, I understood that somebody had contacted all

23 of the local delegations about their county constitutional

24 provisions and had asked these delegations to review these

25 constitutional provisions and decide which ones they wanted

PAGE 76

included in this constitution, and the rest of them were going

2 to be left out. Am I right, Charlie?

3

MR. TIDWELL: I don't know what's been done, Mr.

4 Chairman. I know that there are a lot of local amendments to

5 this article, and if you don't look at them and decide which

6 ones you want and which you don't want you cannot assume they

7 are going to be carried forward somewhere else, because that

8 policy decision may be made by the Select Committee that all

9 local amendments are going to be wiped out.

10

This has raised the issue here. You have addressed

11

"z
j:

one specific set of local

constitutional amendments

that are

@;;o.'0"....

in effect on this article. There are -- I assume there are others -- we know there are a lot of homestead exemptions, but

! 14 ... there are others too I wou~d assume. I have just drawn too

'"

:J:

15 .:l many in the twenty years --

"'";;;)

16 ~...

MR. BROWN: The overwhelming majority of local

Q

Z

17 : amendments to Article VII deal with either local license fees

18 or with local homestead exemptions.

19

There are some other ones and, as I was saying, I

20 think we could compile a list of them. All they're doing

21 today is tentatively adopting the draft; the task force is

22 going to be coming back with at least one more meeting. You

23 know, it would be very easy for the staff to present it to

24 them, but it seems to me the Select Committee has the cart

25 before the horse here. You're telling the task force that

PAGE 77

they ought to do everything contingent upon what the Select

2 Committee mayor may not decide in the future.

3

It seems to me the Select Committee is to decide

4 what they want to do with them and use that decision as a

5 guide for this task force in their work.

6

MR. TIDWELL: I know the Select Committee appreciate

7 your thoughts on that, Canter, but the article committees are

8 to -- all of them to look at fue local amendments that affect

9 their article and make some substantive decision about whether

10 they should be carried forward or not, or specifically

zCJ
11 l- repealed or specifically retained. ..oe..<..

~ 12 ~

Is that your understanding from the staff, Mel?

@ri

MR. HILL: Inthis article it is conceivable that

! 14 some recommendation be made, because you can put in the three IU:-<c>
15 .:I or four categoreis that cover what they are, but Article IX

CJ e<

~

16 .~.. where most of them are to be found will have no comprehensive

cz

-< 17 :

set, so I mean for them to make a recommendation to eliminate

18 them without seeing them would be impossible. It's just not

19 beEn possible to do that this summer.

20

MR. TIDWELL: I'm suggesting this committee do that

21 now, I'm suggesting it be brought to their attention.

22

MR.. C. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, let me make a

23 recommendation. We'll continue two sets of constitutional

24 amendments, one dealing with licensing and one dealing with

25 homestead exemptions. All right. Any other amendments to

PAGE 78

the constitution dealing with this article would be identified 2 and sent to the appropriate subcommittee for recommendation.

3

MR. MASSEY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would also

4 be appropriate to do what Senator Lester mentioned, if we

5 could ask members of the General Assembly or request it be

6 done where there are local amendments if they want to continue

7 it or not. Wouldn't that be an approach we should take, or

8 somebody should?

9

SENATOR LESTER: I know we've got one, we've got a

10 special liquor tax that supports our colosseum that would have

11

"z
I-
..'o"....

to be

protected or we would

lose

it.

Q;i thing.

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY; Let me tell you someI ain't going to vote to take out something that the

! 14 I- local people has done voted to put in there now.

'"

J:

15 .:l

You know, you start talking about these local

"'"::;)

16 .~.. constitutional amendments; if they've done voted to put it in

z13

17 ~ there, then they need to have another referendum to take it

18 out, but I don't think this committee or any other committee

19 ought to meddle with that.

20

MR. MASSEY; We ought to ask the members of the

21 General Assembly, we ought to put in a catch-all paragraph

22 like we've done here to continue them. Maybe that's the

23 approach.

24

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY; I think we've got to put

25 a catch-all in there.

PAGE 79

MR. MASSEY: Just in two areas. You mightwant to

2 follow up what you talked about and go ahead and cover all of

3 them.

4

SENATOR LESTER: That was the reason for your

5 amendment here.

6

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I think maybe we should

7 request Canter to try to get a list of these amendments or

8 laws together for us, and we're going to have -- this is just

9 a preliminary round On this, we're going to have a meeting

10 later to have a final approval and bring this before us at

"z
11 j:
@;;..'o"....

that time and let the full committee act on it at that time. if that suits you all, we'll ask him to get all this
information together for us if possible.

l 14

Are there any more --

I-

'"

%

15 ~

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Ques t ion, Mr. Chairman.

"'::">

16 ~...

On this amendment I've got here where down there

Q

Z

17 : somewhere "Each local amendment of the constitution of 1976

18 which authorizes a county to levy a fee or tax as provided

19 in this subparagraph," we could add another one there and just

20 put a catch-all paragraph at the end of this thing and just

21 catch them all if that's what we want to do. Of course, I

22 agree we ought to look at them,

23

MR. BROWN: Bear in mind this is not the same as

24 you're talking about adding a provision at the end and

25 continuing it as part of the constitution. This continues it

PAGE 80

as statute which subject to the other limitations of the

2 constitution can be amended, changed as any statute. That

3 is very different, and what you have done is taken the 4 necessity for continuing constitutional amendments both on a 5 statewide and local basis away and let it be treated 6 statutorily, so that is different.

7

You certainly could add a provision at the end of

8 the article continuing all those except those which relate 9 to the local occupational fees and the homestead exemptions as

10

..,

~

z 11 j:
'o.."....
12 ~

~F~ ! 14 .... ':"z: 15 .o.l,I

'"::l
16 .~.. Q Z
17 ::

a part of the constitution. VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Yes. SENATOR LESTER: Couldn't you treat them all the
same? I mean if you're going to let these continue as statutes, let all the rest afthem continue as statutes, and then your local legislative delegations could get rid of those that are no longer applied .
MR. HILL: You see, there is a very big problem,

18 though. These local amendments were in general !Bssed in order

19 to get around a provision of the local law, and if you're

20 going to continue them as local acts they will fall because

21 they will conflict with the general laws on the subject, so

22 you can't just say let's by magic wand change them all into

23 local acts, because the general law will preempt the area, so

24 it's not that simple.

25

Micheal has been working for two or three months on

PAGE 81

an analysis of ten years' worth -- well, no, twenty years'

2 worth of local amendments, and it covers ten volumes on our 3 shelves to try to see what's in them, and it's a massive

4 project, and to try to even compile all the ones that relate 5 to this article I think will be an impossible task between now

6 and the next meeting. I mean it's something that's going to

7 take much work on the part of a larger staff than we have to

8 be able to do it.

9

MR. TIDWELL: What will the staff recommend on that?

10

MR. HENRY: My understanding in looking at it was

8-111

"~that,
..oa..:..

you know,

as we went

through

this

process

that

I

would

12 a: try and the staff would try and recommend at appropriate

times where there was a problem and where changes could be

! 14 made to either authorize the General Assembly to do something IIII
15 ~:4z: or authorize the local government to do something which would
"a:
:>
16 ~ alleviate the need for local amendments, and that you could
zQ
17 ~-< once you have that authority in place hopefully you could turn

18 them around and make them local laws so as not to pull the rug

19 out from under the people who are operating day to day in the

20 trenches, but that you could repeal a great, great number of

21 them by operation of a provision such as this and provisions

22 such as the one on local homestead exemptions, and then after

23 that then I think you would have to go to your local delega-

24 tion and find out what has fallen out, find out -- you know,

25 for instance, there's counties that allow deferred payments

PAGE 82

on ad valorem taxes which would certainly circumvent

2 uniformity and which would, but which would not be covered by

3 this article. Then you would just have to go in there and

4 find out, you know, do you still need this, how can we amend

5 the constitution to accommodate you, but the project was just

6 so massive, and plus the fact we have twenty years' worth,

7 but as you know prior to 1956 they were voted on statewide

8 so you really don't have a defined general amendment or local

9 amendment, but you have to go in there and find out which ones

10 actual~y only applied locally, and Legislative Counsel is in

CJ %
..11 ;: 'o"
12 ~
@;I

the process of preparing those which they have determined to only have appliep locally although voted on on a general state wide basis, but the bottom line is I think that where you can

! 14 ... '<x"l 15 ~
CJ
'";;;) 16 .~..
Q
%
17 g<l

make the constitution more flexible and where you can by making it more flexible retain the local amendments and turn them into local law, and then once you have done that then you could repeal by operation of a provision their

18 constitutional status, then you just have to find out what

19 falls out and go to the local delegation

20

SENATOR LESTER: And have them reenacted?

21

MR. HENRY: You would have to go to them and find out

22 what their specific problem is, and sometimes ~u may just havE

23 to ask them to bite the bullet.

24

I mean this local constitutional amendment system

25 that deals with some of the -- you know, with just anything

PAGE 83

you can imagine --

2

MR. HILL: We found one local amendment that

3 authorized the General Assembly to provide for the powers and

4 duties of one subdivision without regard to any provision in 5 this constitution or without regard to any provision of

6 general law, gave the General Assembly the right to establish

7 as to this subdivision those powers that it needed to do what8 ever it wanted to do.

9

But, Charlie, to answer your question, I think what

10 our effort has been sofur is to identify those areas that have

~

11

Czl
I-

been responsible for most of the local amendments we've had,

.'oa"...

12 ~ to prevent the need for those in the future, to try to put a

~F~! stop as much as possible on the effective date afthis 14 constitution in those major areas.

l-

on

<C(

:r
15 ~

Then we hope incrementally we'll be able to somewhat

Cl
'"::l 16 ~ eventually over time be able to actually look at the local

Qz

<C(
17 :

amendments that have been continued to see how they can be

18 incorporated into the constitution or eliminated, but you

19 really would have to contact every city and county attorney 20 in the state and ask them about all of their local -amendments

21 and how they feel about it, and it would be, as Michael said, 22 it's a .massive effort.

23

SENATOR LESTER: I think that's already been done.

24

MR. TIDWELL: I think this committee has got to come

25 to some resolution of what youJre going to do with them.

PAGE 84

You've either got to continue them or drop them out,

2 and I would think that you would want to have some sort of

3 uniformity about the way you treat them.

4

SENATOR LESTER: Mr. Chairman, I think that's

5 already been done. Last year I know all of the municipalities

6 in my district plus the county attorney were sent a list of

7 all of the local provisions and asked -- said that they were

8 going to be revoked unless they were

9

MR. HILL: Did they relate to population statutes?

10
"z
11 i=
.'o0"....
@;j ! 14 !;; :<rt IS .:I "~ '" 16 ~... o Z <t 17 :;

SENATOR LESTER: That's right, they were population. MR. HILL: That's another thing. SENATOR LESTER: That's right. MR. HILL: There is one idea we have been thinking about whereby we would in the constitution recognize local amendments as a category of -- you know, like we have a heirarchy now between general and local laws, we would recognize in the constitution the heirarchy between local and

18 general amendments, and then provide that in this constitution

19 local amendments shall be autho~ized except where prohibited,

20 and in an area such as these two we have addressed, the

21 business licensing, the county business licensing and the 22 local exemptions we would add a provision to say that no local 23 amendments shall be allowed in this area, shall be permitted, 24 and that would begin to give us a handle on it, but it's going 25 to be an incremental process. I don't believe there is any

PAGE 85

way that the whole job can be done with just one fell swoop 2 with the wave of a magic want. I don't see how it's 3 conceivable.

4

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I'm going to ask the staff

5 to get together and see if they can come back with a recom-

6 mendation to the full committee at the next meeting, and we

7 do have this amendment before us addressing the fees and

8 taxes there for your local government.

9

Don, did you make a motion that it be passed?

10
Czl 11 j:::
...o...:..
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 ... ':"z: 15 ~ C..:l ;;;) 16 .~.. cz 17 :

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: I so move, Mr. Chairman MR. NIXON: Seconded. VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All in favor let it be known by saying aye. Opposed likewise . The amendment is adopted, Canter, and we are going to ask you to get together with the staff and see if you all can come up with a suggestion to the full committee.

18

Now, does this complete this --

19

MR. BROWN: Section I, yes, sir.

20

Mr. Martin's subcommittee on Section II I think

21 would be next.

22

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Don't we need to vote whethe

23 we're going to accept this tentatively or not? We went throug~

24 it and have accepted it, so I reckon we haven't we. We won't

25 need to. Okay.

PAGE 86

All right, sir. Mr. Martin

2

I see it's twelve o'clock. What do you all want to

3 do? Do you all want to work on through until three or four, 4 or do you want to quit for lunch?

5

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, we hopefully can do ours

6 in about thirty minutes. After experiencing this morning, I'm

7 not sure that's going to be the case. We are willing to make

8 the effort to be brief.

9

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We've got two more, though,

10
III Z
11 j:
@;;.'o0".... 14 !... '" ::I: 15 ~ III :'>" 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ~

to take up; this one and another one. MR. NASH: We'd better take a break and start over. VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: How long do you all want to
take? VOICES: Thirty minutes . VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I'll tell you"what we'll do,
we will adjourn until 1:30 . (Whereupon, at 12:00 noon the committee meeting

18 was recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. in the same place.)

19

AFTERNOON SESSION

20

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Since Jim is not here, if it

21 is agreeable with the group we will go ahead and start with

22 Section C, the Subcommittee on State Debt, and Canter has

23 worked with us on this and I am going to ask him to present

24 to the committee what the subcommittee has recommended.

25

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PAGE 87

The draft that I will be working with, the struck 2 through and underlined draft is LC 5 4163, and the clean draft 3 is LC 5 4164.

4

Has everybody got those?

5

If I could just very briefly, let me explain to you

6 the process by which this subcommittee report was arrived at.

7

At its first meeting the subcommittee voted to

8 request Chairman Thrower to appoint an ad hoc committee of 9 experts in bond law to work with the staff of the subcommittee

10 in reviewing the draft that had preViously been prepared and

zCl

11

j:
'o.."....

which had been passed out to the entire task force at its

~ 12 ~ first meeting.

~F~

Over the summer we did that. The chairman of that

! 14 I-

task force, Mr. McIntire, was generally concerned with any

'~"

J:

15 .:l revision of the state bond law in light of the possibility for

Cl

'":::l

16 ~... error .

Q

Z

~

17 :

The staff was encouraged by its chairman, though,

18 and the chairman of the task force to continue the process,

19 and we attempted through a series of letter exchanges to meet

20 the specific objections that Mr. McIntire had or anyone else

21 did in this process, and I think in terms of the specific

22 things that were raised really in almost every instance we

23 agreed to make a change to correct whatever had been suggested

24

The subcommittee then met about two weeks ago then

25 requested that Mr. McIntire and his ad hoc committee meet

PAGE 88

with the subcommittee to review the draft and went through it

2 item by item.

3

MR. McIntire again expressed his concern as to any

4 revision, but did participate in the subcommittee in going

5 through the draft and made several very helpful suggestions.

6

I believe it would be fair to say that he still has

7 reservations about the idea of redrafting the constitution,

8 but we had sent copies of this tentatively approved draft out

9 to his ad hoc subcommittee and as far as I know -- and David

10 and Walter may have heanidifferent -- we have had no negative

"%
11 j:

feedback at all from that ad hoc committee as of today.

"..0....

12 "

I think in going through this draft you will see

@ r l that primarily all that is done here is in line with the

! 14 guidelines which the committee set, and that is to organize

o~ :nr 15 ol)

these provisions for clarity, to consolidate duplicative

"";)

16

III %

provisions, to use a little clearer modern English wherever

Qz

<l:
" 17 III

possible, and to eliminate clearly obsolete provisions.

18

Most of the provisions that are stricken in this

19 section you will find are obsolete as I think we can explain
.'
20 to you-.

21

I'm going to use except when we're discussing Mr.

22 Thrower's recommendations of editorial changes the struck

23 through and underlined draft if that's okay with you.

24

As you will see, on page 1, lines 6 through 7 we

25 have just eliminated any provisions to the contrary notwith-

u

.

~.

.......

PAGE 89

standing, since we are reenacting them all at the same time

2 we don't need to do that.

3

What we have done here is organize this section so as

4 to eliminate repetition of the phrase "the State may incur,"

5 and we have just listed these in order. There are four types

6 of public debt the state may incur under the present

7 constitution.

8

One is to repel invasions, suppress insurrections

9 and defend the state in time of war;

10

The second is to supply temporary deficits to the

CzI
11 to state treasury; as you can see, the subcommittee really .'0Q"...

@ r l12 '" hasn't changed sub (a) there. In (b) the changes that are there are primarily

! 14 editorial as you will see. We have tried to shorten to '"

:J:

15 ol) sentences where possible just to make the language clearer.

CI

'":::J

16 z.I.I.I

In (c) on page 2 again the language that's deleted

Q

Z
'" 17 III is just in line with the organization we proposed for this

18 section.

.

19

We have included here the other two types of debt,

20 general obligation debt and guaranteed revenue debt.

21

In terms of (c) which is general obligation debt:

22 the only change of any substance that's been made other than

23 purely grammatical is on line 12 where we have just specified 24 the effective date of a particular constitutional amendment 25 rather than specifying the date, and the subcommittee just

PAGE 90

felt like that was all that was necessary to make the point 2 that needed to be made.

3

In the middle of that page 2 as you will see we have

4 broken out the purposes for which guaranteed revenue debt may

S be issued for clarity. The subcommittee did make two changes

6 in the language of this authority, though, which you will note 7 is they have -- the present language reads authorizing 8 guaranteed debt for water or sewage treatment facilities or 9 systems. The subcommittee along with the ad hoc committee

10 bond lawyers felt it would be clearer to say water facilities

or systems and sewage facilities or systems, again just in the

interest of clarity, and so that change has been made. The language relating to loans for educational

purposes was also changed from "to make or purchase or lend

or deposit against the security of loans to citizens of the

state for educational purposes" to read "loans to and loan

programs for the citizens of the state for educational 18 purposes. II Again, just an attempt otto be a little bit more 19 concise.

20

MR. HILL: Canter, are you going to point out

21 Randolph's changes?

22

MR. BROWN: I thought I would. Once we get through

23 each paragraph I'll go back and mention his editorial

24 corrections.

2S

I wondered if there were any questions.

PAGE 91

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Anyquestions on any of these

2 changes we have discussed so far?

3

If you have one that comes up later, bring it up and

4 we'll go back.

5

Go ahead, Canter.

6

MR. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, the first one of

7 Mr. Thrower's r~co~endadbns to you for technical change is

8 back on page 1, lines 7 through 9. As you will recall, in

9 the provision on powers of taxation you agreed to a change in

10 the power to levy property taxes without limit to defend the

CzI 11 ...

state in an emergency.

'o"

@ r i12 "~"
~~

He is suggesting that the same change be made in

this provision in line with the earlier change. If you

! 14 ... adopt his recommendation, subparagraph (a) would read

'"

:I:

15 0) "Public debt without limit to defend the state in an emergency Ii

CI

.'";;)
16 ~

Again, that is essentially the identical language

cz

17 ~ you have adopted under powers of taxation.

18

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections?

19

If not, we'll put that one in.

20

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the next suggestion he has

21 again on page I, is on lines 10 and 11, the last word on line

22 10 "as," and the first two on 11 "may exist l1 he felt were

23 superfluous to the meaning offue section and simply could be 24 deleted. The language then would read "Public debt to supply

25 temporary deficits in the state treasury in any fiscal year,"

PAGE 92

et cetera.

2

MR. NIXON: Read that again, please.

3

MR. BROWN: You would just eliminate on lines 10 and

4 11 the words "as may exis:," and then the language would read

5 "Public debt to supply temporary deficit in the state

6 treasury."

7

Mr. Chairman, those are the only two suggestions he

8 had for that first paragraph.

9

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections to either one

10 of them?

\:l

Z

11 j:
o.'"".".

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

~ 12 ~

The present constitutional provision as many of you

~r~ are aware dealing with guaranteed revenue and general obliga-

! 14 ~ tion debt is a very long series of paragraphs that really

':"r

15 .:l begins in the middle of this long paragraph and stretches all

\:l

'~"

16 .~.. the way through here (indicating) without any designation for

Q

Z

17 : paragraphs or any captions or anything.

18

This draft attempts to break out in a logical

19 sequence the various component parts of those present

20 provisions. It really doesn't attempt in any way to

21 substitute or change those provisions.

22

You will see -- again I am in the struck through and

23 underlined draft at bottom of page 2, the first thing you will

24 see there underlined is definition of annual debt service

25 requirements. That definitianapplies to limitations on the
---~---

PAGE 93

amount of debt that can be issued, and also with regard to

2 the actual funding of debt through sinking funds and common

3 reserves. It is verbatim the same definition which is

4 presently in the constitution.

5

Later on you will see this same language has been

6 struck out on page 4, lines 11 through 20. All we're doing is

7 moving it up to the front of this paragraph in line with the

8 general rules of statutory treatment.

9

On page 3, lines 5 through 8, all we're doing here

10

~

CzI 11 ~
.'lo."L.
12 ~

~r~
! 14

o~n
<:lr:

15 ol)

CI
'"::>
16 ~...

Cl Z <l:
17 :

is because we are breaking this one long subparagraph (c) of three, four, fives pages into several sections or paragraphs, we are here just simply designating those paragraphs to which this language is already applicable.
This deals -- subsection(c) and (d) of Paragraph I are general obligation debt and guaranteed revenue debt. Paragraph V is refunded debt. Those are the provisions to which these already are applicable.

18

It is in this subparagraph (b) that that the sub-

19 committee made each of the two substantive changes that it is

20 recommending to you dealing with state debt.

21

The first you will find on line 18. The present

22 constiOLion limits the total amount of annual debt service

23 for all guaranteed revenue debt, general obligation debt, 24 refunded debt and contracts guaranteed from the old authority

25 system of financing to 15 percent offue total revenue received

PAGE 94

to the treasury, the state treasury.

2

The subcommittee is recommending to you that you

3 reduce that 15 percent to ten percent. You will find that

4 change made here, and again later on in a reference back to

5 this section.

6

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there any objection to

7 changing that 15 to ten?

8

MR. BROWN: The subcommittee had the understanding

9 that approximately three to four percent is now the annual

10 requirement to service debt, state debt.

1.7 Z
11 I-
'o."".".
@;~

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: If there's no objection, let 's move on.
MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the second major change

! 14 and I believe the last major change in this section is found

lo-n
:4r
15 .:I on lines 23 and 24 on page 3. There is at present no

1.7
'";) 16 .~.. constitutional limitation on the term for which state debt
o

Z

4
17 ::;

may be issued.

The subcommittee voted at its last meeting

18 to limit the term of state debt to forty years, and that

19 change is reflected on lines 23 and 24.

20

REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON: As a practical matter,

21 can you borrow money for that long?

22

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: You're foolish to.

23

I don't think we have any money now over 23, 24, 25

24 years.

25

MR. NIXON: 25 years.

PAGE 95

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any questions on the forty

2 years?

3

If not, move on, Canter.

4

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, we have designated as you

5 can see at the bottom of page 3 some language as a new sub~

6 paragraph (c).

7

The only other changes on this page are with

8 reference to the water facilities systems and sewage facilities

9 systems in line with the change you previously approved.

10

On page 4 again we have designated a new sub-

11

CzI
l-

paragraph,

and we have used numerals

for

the dollar

limita-

...oe<
Q.

~ 12 ~ tions that are applicable to loans for educational loans.

~F~! We have also eliminated the language on line 4 on 14 page 4, the words "to citizens of the state" because we have

I-

'~"
:r

15 olI already limited that under the previous authorization for

CI

e<

:;)

16 .~.. current debt. We thought it was redundant .

Q

Z

~

17 :;

As I have mentioned earlier, on lines 11 through 20

18 that definition of annual debt service requirements is

19 included verbatim at the first of this paragraph. There is

20 no change in that, it's simply reorganized.

21

I don't believe Mr. Thrower had any recommendations

22 on that paragraph.

23

MR. HILL: The Article IX committee has a paragraph

24 to whi.ch this is referenced, and I mentioned this to Canter

25 before, which they would prefer was put in this section, and

PAGE 96

I have discussed it with Canter and he felt that the only

2 need here would be to reference the constitution of '76.

3 It's a provision to assure that the contracts we entered into

4 under this section are preserved, and that that is all the

5 change that was necessary, so in lines 17 and 18 you could

6 accomplish a change that would help Article IX if you would

7 just say Article IX, Section VI, Paragraph I(a) of the

8 constitution of 1976.

9

MR. BROWN: This is on page 3, line 17 and 18.

10

As Mel mentioned, the Article IX task force is

e ; ;11

"z
j:
'o.."....

contemplating eliminating that provision from Article IX,

and

this would just make clear that our reference is to that same

provision in the previous constitution.

14 .~..

SENATOR LESTER: Give us the 'trlOrding again .

':"r

15 .:>

MR. BROWN: It would read on lines 17 and 18,

":':">

16 .~.. Article IX, Section VI, Paragraph I~) of the constitution of

17 :oz; 1976.

18

MR. HILL: There are two other places in the section

19 where this same change would be made if it's approved here.

20

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there any objections to

21 putting it in, the constitution of '76?

22

If not, Canter, put it in.

23

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

24

Mr. Chairman, I'm now on page 4, line 21. Again we

25 have created a new paragraph here which simply reorganizes

PAGE 97

the existing language.

2

On lines 25 and 26you find an illustration of

3 something you'll see throughout this section. In attempting

4 to remove the language the General Assembly does something,

5 in fact under the constitution it's the General Assembly

6 with the Governor subject to his veto. We have attempted

7 there, and you will see again and again to simply say

8 legislature has enacted rather than the General Assembly has

9 enacted. It doesn't constitute any substantive change.

10

On page 5 the next change in this paragraph is the

11

"z
I-

deletion of language on lines

6 through 11 relating to

the

o0<

0-

w

~ 12 ~ requirement to appropriate sums necessary to make payments

@F~ under the old authorities contracts, but I believe if you will

! 14 look on page 7, lines 1 through 7 you will find the same

I-

':<"r

15 .: provision. Thiswas just removed again in the interest of

"0<

:;)

16 ~ clarity to be able to find it easier. It is the same

Q

z

< 17 :

language.

18

When we get to that, we will be recommending the sam

19 change Mel recommended just a moment ago .. Right now we are

20 just reorganizing it.

21

On lines 13 and 14 again in the interest of avoiding

22 these old legalistic words we have stricken hereunder and put

23 in the language pursuant to this section.

24

The next two subparagraphs on pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

25 deal with the general obligation debt sinking fund and the

PAGE 98

common reserve fund for guaranteed revenue debt.

2

You will find typical of the changes that are made

3 here the elimination of the long repetitious phrase "the

4 Director of Fiscal Division, Department of Administrative

5 Services, or such other officer as may be designated by law."

6

We have simply in almost every instance where it

7 was necessary to say anything said the appropriate state

8 fiscal officer. We have also provided that until otherwise

9 provided by law these funds will be administered by the

10
~ 11 j:
'o.0"..-
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 ~ '<x"l: 15 ~ "'";) 16 ~ lz!: <l: 17 :

director. The changes other than that again are typical of
the kind I have mentioned. We eliminate "hereunder" and say "under this section," we eliminate "therefrom" and say "from the fund."
The next change of any substance is found on lines 8 through 17 relati.ng to the obligation to make sinking fund deposits against the liability for the old authority

18 contracts, and again as I mentioned, we have just reorganized

19 that a little later on. The same obligation is maintained 20 throughout.

21

On lines 22 through 32 we have eliminated in this

22 provision language limiting the purposes for which investments

23 of the sinking fund may be made. You will find that there is

24 an identical provision later on that presently relates to the 25 common reserve fund and guaranteed revenue debt, and we have

PAGE 99

simply merged these two provisions.

2

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any questions any any of

3 these sections?

4

MR. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, this is the languag

5 at the top of page 7 that I mentioned earlier concerning the

6 obligation to make sinking fund deposits forfue old

7 authorities contracts. We need with your permission to make

8 the same change in this section as you agreed with Mr. Hill

9 to make in the previous one, that is to say on lines 6

10 through 7 it needs to read "Paragraph I(a) of Section VI of

CzI
11 i.oQ=...
~ 12 ~
~Fi 14 ~ I'" J: 15 .:.
CI
::l
16 .~.. oz 17 :

Article IX of the constitution of 1976." VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections to making tha
change? If not, we'll go on. MR. BROWN: The paragraph (b) (1) that you see here
again is almost all present language, it relates to the limitations on the issuance of guaranteed revenue debt.

18 The only changes that are made throughout page 7 here are

19 just in the interest of organization as you can see. Let

20 me see if there is any substance to that.

21

I think the changes are self-explanatory. We have

22 made one change at the bottom of page 7 to make the sentence

23 a positive statement rather than the way it currently reads,

24 but the effect I think is the same.

25

We have eliminated on lines 6 through 9 on page 8

PAGE 100

again this language relative to the director of the Fiscal 2 Division because we have covered that elsewhere.

3

Sub-sub paragraph (b) on line 10 on page 8 relates

4 to the procedure for which payments from the general revenue

5 fund are to be made into the common reserve fund for guarantee

6 revenue deb t .

7

Again, the only changes of substance are deleting

8 this long repetitive phrase concerning the Director of the

9 Fiscal Division. His authority, nonetheless, remains clear

10 in that area.

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman.

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Yes, sir.

MR. MARTIN: For the purpose of the record, it's

your understanding the ap~ropriate fisal officer is the

Director of the Fis~al Division of the Department of

Administrative Services?

MR. BROWN: As is already provided by law

18

MR. MARTIN: That's our intention in changing that

19 language?

20

MR. BROWN: It's my understanding the subconnnittee

21 did, as the present language would permit, leave flexibility

22 to statute to change that, but there is already a law on the

23 books designating his responsibility in this area, and it

24 was contemplated until the legislature acted he would continue

25 to do this.

PAGE 101
r r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..-~--------------------,
Again, I think you will see that all along page 9

2 are the same changes, simply removing again this repetitive

3 phrase which occurs throughout and providing a little bit

4 clearer organization of the section.

5

Subparagraph (c) at the bottom of page 9 deals with

6 the investments of the funds in both the general obligation

7 debt sinking fund and the common reserve fund for guaranteed

8 revenue debt. These limitations are applicable presently to

9 both funds and would continue to be under this consolidated

:.~-

10 provision.

CzI 11 i=
'0..".... 12 '"
@rl

MRS. HUNTER: At the top of that page, should that again be the constitution of 1976?
MR. BROWN: I have a feeling it should. Yes, thank

! 14 I-

you very much.

'"

:I:

15 .:l

On the top of page 9, again the change the

..CI
'";;;)

16 z... constitution of 1976.

Q

.Z
17 '"

The reason that we continue to refer back to that

18 provision is that we do have a savings clause at the end of

19 this section guaranteeing the obligation of any contract in

20 effect on the effective date of this section, so we didn't

21 feel like we needed to repeat all that language in this

22 constitution.

23

Mr. Chairman, on Paragraph III those are the only

24 changes. I don't believe that Mr. Thrower had any recommenda-

25 tions he wanted to make to you. No, sir.

PAGE 102

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there any questions or 2 discussion on this paragraph?

3

If not, we will go ahead.

4

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, Paragraph IV, the new

5 Paragraph IV which you will find on page 10, line 9, is the

6 prohibition which was adopted in 1972 on authority debt

7 essentially, or at least the system by which the state

8 guaranteed contracts, at least contracts on facilities

9 authority deb t .

10

As you can see, down to line 26 it is left

essentially the same. The deletion of the date on line 18

was just because since we have already passed that date it's no longer necessary.

The language that is deleted on lines 27 through 33

on page 10 and lines 1 through 6 on page 11 the subcommittee felt was transitional language which was no longer required

given the savings clause in the section.

18

Mr. Chairman, Chairman Thrower didn't have any

19 recommendations for changes in that paragraph.

20

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections on this

21 paragraph?

22

If not, move to the next.

23

}1R. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, on line 11, page -- line 7,

24 page 11, excuse me -- we have designated the provisions
25 relating to funding of debt as Paragraph V, refunding of debt .
._ . _ - - - - - - _.. ~------------------------~

PAGE 103

We have noted that there are some limitations which

2 you either previously considered and which are in the present

3 constitution relating to refunding debt, we have noted that

4 here, but otherwise I think you'll find the provisions made

5 for refunding debt are the same.

6

You will note on line 16, page 11, that the 15

7 percent limitation has been changed to ten percent in line

8 with the reduction that you have already approved. This is

9 the same limitation and simply done to adjust for your

10 previous decision.

Czl

11 ..
'..o"....

On lines 23 through 26 some language which the

~ 12 ~ subcommittee really felt was not really effective language

has been deleted relating to what has to be in the minds of
@ ~r~.. 14! the members of the Finance and Investment Commission. The

'"

J:

15 o:l subcommittee felt that their oath of office and the other

Cl

'"::l

16 a~ laws dealing with the performance of public duties would z

17 : mandate the same thing, and have eliminated it in this draft.

18

On lines 31 and 32 of page 11 the words "or

19 obligation" are included just simply for conformity with the

20 other provisions. We use the phrase "debt or obligation"

21 throughout, and this was just to conform.

22

The language at the top of page 12, lines 1 through

23 5, was eliminated just simply because the subcommittee felt

24 it was repetitious of the language immediately above it in

25 the same section.

PAGE 104

The changes on lines 20 and 21 as you can see are

2 just to shorten the sentence and eliminate that "provided

3 further. "

4

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe Mr. Thrower had any

5 recommendations to that section. He didn't.

6

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Question. Do we need

7 to add that constitution of 1976 on line 14, page ll?

8

MR. BROWN: That's correct, we sure do.

9

MR. HILL: And also line 12 on page 12.

10

MR. BROWN: Yes, that's correct. I'm sorry, I keep

forgetting that.

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Are there any other

corrections?

If there's no more discussion, we will move on over

that one.

MR. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, the new Paragraph

VI, let me explain it. At this point everything that we have

18 already covered today was in one single paragraph in the

19 constitution without any organizational designations, and

20 hopefully the organization that has been presented to you will

21 make it a little bit easier to understand and find those

22 provisions.

23

This is the old Paragraph II, and as you can see

24 it's barely changed, which simply authorizes the state to

25 pledge its full credit and faith on general obligation debt.

PAGE 105

Mr. Thrower didn't have any recommendations for

2 editorial changes.

3

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections on that

4

Paragr~ VI?

5

If not, move on, Canter.

6

MR. BROWN: ~tr. Chairman, the next paragraph, the

7 old Paragraph III, is found on line 7, page 13, and is now

8 designated Paragraph VII. It creates and provides for the

9 administration of the Georgia State Financing and Investment

10 Commission. With one exception the only changes here as you

11

"z
I-

will

see are grammatical,

and

that one

change

is

found

on

..'o"....

~ 12 ~ page 14, lines 10 through 12. The subcommittee just felt

~ri that was something that was already handled by law, it was

! 14 inherent in everything else that was said and it just didn't

I-

VI

<C(

:z:

15 ~ need to be said again.

"'";)

16 .~..

The responsibilities of the Commission, however, wer

Q

Z

17 <g;l not limited in the recommendation.

18

VICE CHAlMAN COLLINS; Any questions? If not, move

19 on, Canter.

20

~ffi. BROWN; Mr. Chairman, as you know, the present

21 state constitution prohibits the state from pledging or

22 loaning money to private individuals or businesses or to

23 become a joint stockholder or owner with any private business

24 or individual. This is that provision redesignated

25 Paragraph IV to Paragraph VIII. The only changes are just

PAGE 106

to make two sentences out of one very long sentence.

2

VICE Cl~IRMAN COLLINS: Any discussion? If not,

3 move on.

4

}ffi. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this language in the old

5 Paragraph V on line 22, page 14, which is designated here as

6 Paragraph IX was included in the constitution in 1972 to

7 provide guidance for the courts in interpreting the state's

8 new authority to issue general obligation debt and guaranteed

9 revenue debt.

10

It's left here as you can tell almost verbatim.

11

zC) i=

The only change

that's

really been recommended other than to

'oQ."...

~ 12 ~ redesignate the reference on line 23 is to eliminate the two

~ri "thereofs."

! 14 ...

Mr. Thrower has recommended that you consider one

'<"l:

J:
IS ~ change in this section for clarity. If I can, I'll tell you

C)

:':">
16 az~ that change on the clear copy which would be found on page 11

<l:
17 : of the clear copy.

18

The change that he's recommending is because the

19 language that is repeated here is really picked up from the 20 original construction provision dealing with new and more

21 effective methods. What he's recommending is that where 22 the language says for the purpose of providing a new and 23 more effective method of financing the state's needs than that

24 in effect prior to January 1st, 1978, he is suggesting that

25 you change it to read "or for the purpose of providing an

PAGE 107

effective method of financing the state's needs."

2

I think that is a little less awkward than the one

3 that is there. What you would do is on line 3 would delete

4 the words "a new and more" and put the word "and" in; on

5 line 4 and 5 you would delete the words "than that in effect

6 prior to January I, 1973."

7

A VOICE: Repeat the first part of that, Canter.

8

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. On line 3, page 11 of the

9 clean copy you would delete the language "a new and more"

10
zCI 11 j:
.'0Q"... 12 '"
@FI 14 ! I'" :I: 15 ~ CI :'>" 16 l.zD.. z" 17 'lD"

and you would put in its place the word "an," and it would read "for the purpose of providing an effective method of financing the state's needs."
You would also delete, of course, on lines 4 and 5
the words "than that in effect prior to January I, 1973. 'I
VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections to this change? If not, move on to the next one, Canter.
MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, since you have given me

18 a proposed a~mendment to this section, I would just like to if

19 I could explain the deletion of the language there and then

20 pass out your proposed amendment if that's all right.

21

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right, sir.

22

MR. BROWN: On lines 13 through 28 you will see

23 stricken an awful lot of language dealing with the assumption 24 of debts of the Costal Highway District and certain assess-

25 ments made as a result of public road and highway

PAGE 108

construction.

2

The subcommittee determined that all this language

3 was obsolete, and in any event felt that the language which

4 you see at the end of this section would continue any present

5 lawful obligation and would prohibit the revival of any

6 obligation which is now unlawful, so they just simply felt

7 this could be eliminated.

8

Mr. Chairman, if I could just pass these around.

9

Do you want me to explain this?

10

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Yes, sir, I'll let you

explain to them what you're trying to do.

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it the

concern of yours which prompted this amendment deals with

the fact that it may well be a proper position for the General

Assembly to take to provide some assistance or savings in one

way or another for local goverr~ents who are in default on

their obligations because a default by any local government

18 in the state might well affect the bond rating and the tax

19 structure of every other local government in the state.

20

Consequently as I understand it you're proposing an

21 amendment that was just passed out. The effect of that

22 amendment would be that the General Assembly by two-thirds

23 vote by general law could provide a program for the assumption

24 of local debts by the state. It does not mandate the state

25 do that, it simply provides that by a two-thirds vote the

PAGE 109

state could do it.

2

As I understand your feelings, you felt that it

3 should be difficult for the state to approve the assumption of

4 any local debts, but that that flexibility should be

5 available and the General Assembly should be able to act upon

6 it with haste in the event the situation should arise without

7 having to await the necessity of a referendum at the general

8 election which could be as long as two years after the

9 default arose.

10

VICE CHAI~Jill COLLINS: Right. This is a

Czl

11

j:
..'o."...

substantive change,

I'll assure you.

~ 12 ~

MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. It's also in line with the

~r~ fact that the constitution already authorizes the General

! 14 l- Assembly simply to make grants to municipalities, and it's

UI

<l

:I:

15 ~ assumed that in one way or another that authority to make

Cl

'::">

16 .~.. grants will probably be extended to include counties so the

o

Z

<l

17 : state co~ simply by a majority vote grant funds to let them

18 pay it by themselves, but this would give the Genral Assembly

19 the flexibility in light of that to~ovide for assistance 20 particularly in the event of default, and at the same time 21 to guarantee the integrity of both the local financial 22 structure and the statewide financing system mechanism.

23

VICE C~~IRMAN COLLINS; Yes, sir.

24

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, the current law if we

25 were going to assume any debt, could it do that?

PAGE 110
---------------------------------------
VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: It could not do it with a

2 county, but it could with a city.

3

MR. BROWN: I think the effect is true, the state

4 under Section II of the present Article VII could make grants

5 to the municipalities which could be used in tUTIl theoretica11

6 to pay their debt. It couldn't actually assume the debt.

7

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: It could make payments to

8 the county for road work, and they could use that money, and

9 there is a way around it on both of them really.

10

MR. BROWN: This simply recognizes that and provides

a method for the General Assembly to do directly --

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I hope it don't ever happen.

MR. MARTIN: I'm just trying to clarify the issue.

Are we really making it more difficult to assist local

governments that are in need of help?

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: No, sir, we're not making it

more difficult, we're making it easier. We're trying to make

18 it where if we had one to default today the Governor could

19 call us into special session and keep some other local

20 governments from having to pay a higher rate because the

21 bond rates would go up if we had to default, and here it

22 would probably cost the other government more than the entire

23 amount than the one would if it was a small goernrnent.

24

We're not trying to make it more difficult. I think

25 it would really be easier, and we are holding to the two-third
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-.J

PAGE III

vote just like it would be to change the constitution if we

2 come back and do it. The only thing you're skipping is its

3 being put to a referendum before the people.

4

MR. BROWN: We might point out again it doesn't

5 mandate anything, it doesn't guarantee anything; it simply

6 leaves that flexibility that if by two-thirds vote they desire

7 it it could be.

8

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: We've also got the

9 reporting system set up.

10

I move we incorporate this in there.

..Czl
11 i=

MR. NIXON: Seconded.

o

0..

~F~! 12 ~
~~

VICE CPAIRMAN COLLINS: We have a motion and second

before us that we incorporate this in there. Is there any

14 more discussion on this particular paragraph?

I-

'<"I(

:l:

..15 ~ Cl

If not, all in favor of putting it in there say aye.

;;;)

16 ~

Opposed likewise.

Qz

<I(

17 ~

Canter, try and put it in there.

18

MR, BROWN: Yes, sir.

19

Mr. Chairman, at the bottom of page 15 you will see

20 that the old paragr4h VII of the constitution has been

21 deleted in its entirety. It purported to make a felony the

22 private use of public funds, but it didn't provide a penalty

23 for that other than disqualification from office.

24

The subcommittee assured itself that this was already

25 well covered in the statutes of Georgia, that it didn't need

PAGE 112

to be repeated in the constitution and has eliminated it here.

2

On page 16, this is one of those

Paragraph VIII

3 in the present constitution deals with the redemption of

4 Civil War bonds and reconstruction bonds issued in Georgia.

5 The Fifteenth Amendment to the federal constitution prohibits

6 states from ever honoring Civil War bonds.

7

As you will see, the savings clause at the end of

8 this paragraph provides that any obligation previously voided

9 remains voided, so the committee decided simply to eliminate

10 this as obsolete.

"z
11 ~
'oa."....

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections? If not,

~ 12 ~ move on.

~r~

MR. BRO'W"'N: Mr. Chairman, old Paragraph IX i.n the

! 14 t-

state constitution dealt with requiring the proceeds of the

'<"C(

:I:

15 o!) sale of Western and Atlantic Railroad and any other property

":'>"

16 ~... owned by the state had to be used to service the bonded debt

Q

Z

<C(

17 : of the state. This was written into the constitution in

18 1877 and has been determined by the subcommittee to just

19 simply be obsolete at this time.

20

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Are they using this money to

21 payoff bonds when we sell property now, Mr. Auditor?

22

MR. NIXON: We make an assumption, Marcus -- it

23 all goes into the treasury, it's appropriated out of the

24 treasury, and that appropriation you make, that part of it

25 is appropriated on your retirement of debt.

PAGE 113

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: So long as we're

2 appropriating more than the sale

3

MR. NIXON: As long as you appropriate more than

4 you're selling property. It would be pretty difficult to do

5 otherwise, Marcus.

6

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm also led to believe

7 that the argument has been made in the past that this

8 provision only applied to bonded debt of the state as of the

9 adoption of the constitution of 1977.

10
z(:J
.11 ll.ol.<.
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 I'" ::a:: 15 ~ (:J ll< => 16 ~... oz 17 :

MR. NIXON: There's been some discussion about that too, and there's never been an official opinion on it one way or the other.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Would you like for me to give you one?
Go ahead, Canter. MR. NIXON: We would be interested in your legal opinion.

18

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, on page 17, old

19 Paragraph X relates to the state's sinking fund for debt

20 which wasereated in 1928 or '27. This is the old sinking

21 fund. At present the sinking fund is not utilized at all,

22 the common reserve fund and the guaranteed obligation debt

23 sinking fund are utilized for state debt.

24

We had the undewstanding that approximately $20,000

25 worth of bonds --

PAGE 114

MR. NIXON: Something like that, $18,000.

2

MR. BROWN: -- are still outstanding, but the sub-

3 committee felt that the savings clause in Paragraph XI would

4 require that they be honored in any event and there's no need

5 to keep this in this constitution.

6

MR. NIXON: We've got the reserve in the treasury to

7 pay them if anybody ever brings them. It's been I dOB't Y~Ow

8 how many years since we have paid off one.

9

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections? If not, we

10 will move to the next.

Czl

11 ...
o..0..<..

MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, we're getting close to the

@;i end here. As you can see, in an abundance of caution the

! 14 ... subcommittee adopted a new Paragraph XI which would specify '" :r
15 .:l that this new section on state debt would not unlawfully Cl 0< ;;;)
16 .~.. impair the obligation of any contract,in effect under the Q
Z
17 : present constitution or revive or permit the revival of the

18 obligation of any bond or security declared to be void in the

19 constitution of 1976.

20

Again, I think they felt this would have been the

21 case in any event, but they wanted to make it clear that that

22 was their intent.

23

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there any discussion on

24 this? Any objections to us tentatively approving it?

25
lL-

If not, we will tentati~ly approve it.

~

_ _ ~~

PAGE 115

Next we have Mr. Martin's subcommittee on the

2 purpose and methods of taxation.

3

I have got an appointment to be up on the second

4 floor -- it's unusual for me to have one up there -- I'm going

5 to step out and leave while he is discussing it, so you all

6 just keep running.

7

MR. MARTIN: At this point, who is the chairman

8 for questions?

9

A VOICE: I think you're it, Mr. Chairman.

,.

10

MR. MARTIN: I can't present and be the chairman

Czl 11 j:
..0c..t..
12 ct
@rl ! 14 ... '4:"r 15 .:l Cl ct ::::l ... 16 zIII Q Z 4 17 ct III

at the same time. Don, will you do that? Are you the vicevice?
REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Go ahead. I'm the vice vice .
MR. MARTIN: Our subcommittee met on several occasions to discuss Section II of Article VII. In that process we were faced with three major issues.

18

The first was the provision in the existing Article

19 VII, Section II, dealing with the purposes of taxation, and

20 for the purposes of the discussion the best thing to do

21 would be to have a copy of LC 5 4166 which is the struck

22 through and underlined version of our section, and LC 5 4167

23 which is the clear copy. Those are correct, aren~ they,

24 Canter?

25

MR. BROWN: Correct.

PAGE 116
rr------------------~~------------------_____,
MR. MARTIN: Okay.

2

The first issue, as I said, was the powers of

3 taxation which were specified in the state constitution, and

4 I think the origin of that was the constitution of 1986.

5 Of course, there have been a number of amendments to that.

6

The second major issue was the provision in our

7 section which dealt with the requirement that all state

8 revenues, taxes, fees and assessments be paid into the

9 general fund.

10

The third issue was several special purpose

"z

11

i=
...Ioll:
""

provisions

that had been over

time added

to

this

section of

~ 12 ~ the constitution.

~r~

Our meetings sort of dealt with those three major

14 ~ l-

issues.

V>

<t

:r

15 ~

Mike Henry was our counsel, and did a real good job

"Ill:

::>

16 .~.. of helping us with our committee work and, Mike, I would like

az

17 g<t; to ask you to help us go through this presentation.

18

The first issue, as I said, was the statement in

19 the state constitution that deals with powers of taxation.

20 We had several options that we could have taken.

21

One would have been to look at the list of the

22 purposes of taxation which is provided in the state

23 constitution now to see what needed to be added to that list,

24 would need to be taken away from that list, what was currently

25 -- what current purposes of taxation were not listed in that

PAGE 117

list, and to go through that sort of analysis.

2

The other option would have been to make a clear

3 statement, a simple statement that the state can expend tax

4 revenues for any public purpose that is provided by an act

5 of the General Assembly. It seemed to us that that course

6 of action was the better because it wou~d achieve the

7 purposes that had been outlined for us in our constitutional

8 revision process, and also given the fact the legislature

9 is different from the legislature that existed prior to the

10 constitution of 1877 during reconstruction times; that this

11

Czl
l-

proviSbn hamstringing the legislature really was unnecessary

e<

...o
0..

12 ~ and was the cause of a lot of amendments to the state

~r~! ~~ constitution.

14

Therefore, what you see on the stricken version

l-
V>
:r
15 .: beginning on page 1 and going through page 5 are all the

Cl e<

;;;)

16 .~.. purposes of taxation that are currently listed in the state

Q

Z 17 ::;

constiorion stricken out.

18

In its place is the language that is underlined

19 beginning on line 5 of page 1 of the stricken through and

20 underlined version, LC 5 4166.

21

The provision we recommend to the full committee is

22 this: Except as otherwise provided in this constitution,

23 the power of taxation of the whole state may be exercised

24 for any purpose authorized by law, and any purpose for which

25 the powers of taxation of the whole state could have been

PAGE 118

exercised on June 30, 1983, shall continue to be a purpose

2 for which such powers may be exercised.

3

We do two things by that. One is we've made it

4 clear that the statute passed by the General Assembly that

5 does not conflict with other provisions of the state

6 constitution, for example the prohibition against gratuities,

7 some of the prohibitions we have already talked about in

8 terms of debt, other provisions that limit the use of state

9 funds, if it does not conflict with those other provisions

10 then it would be an authorized purpose for which tax funds

z~

11

I-
.'oA"...

could be spent.

@);~I Secondly, to ensure that the current purposes are not eliminated by this draft we have provided that the

! 14 I- purposes for taxation which are in the current constitution '" :I:
15 .:I shall continue to be a purpose for which such powers may be ~ '"::l
16 .~.. exercised. In order to eliminate a purpose, you would have t:l Z
17 ::i to amend the state constitution, in order to eliminate a

18 purpose that existed in our current constitution.

19

Mr. Chairman, that is the explanation of that

20 section.

21

REPRESENTATIVE CASTELBERRY: Any questions?

22

MRS. HUNTER: Let me just say this, that the

23 purposes were always permissive, so if the General Assembly

24 wished to eliminate a purpose it just simply wouldn't fund

25 one. It doesn't really require a constitutional amendment

~--- . _ - - - - - - - - - - -
to make a purpose no longer funded.

PAGE 119

2

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Connie. That's correct.

3

They have always had the right in the annual

4 appropriations act not to fund one of the stated purposes.

5 The difficulty was if there was a new purpose for which the

6 General Assembly believed tax funds should be spent that

7 wasn't in this restricted list in the state constitution

8 a constitutional amendment was necessary.

9

MR. BROWN: Jim, am I right in thinking that this

10
"z
11 ...
.'oQ"...
~ 12 ~
~F~ 14 .~.. V:rI 15 ~ 16 "'~="' Qz 17 :;

language was not intended to limit these new purposes to that old traditional definition of public purpose?
MR. MARTIN: That's correct. MR. BROWN: In fact, you had contemplated all the things that state government is generally involved in . MR. 11ARTIN: As long as it's a purpose which is provided by a law passed by the members of the General Assembl and signed by the Governor, again under this section it would

18 be a lawful purpose for which tax funds could be spent, and

19 the courts could not then look at that statute and say

20 "Well, this is a quote valid public purposes," closed quotes,

21 even though it is embodied in the state statute.

22

MRS. HUNTER: We carefully left out the word

23 "public," it just says purpose authorized by law. It should

24 cover anything the legislature enacts.

25

REPRESENTATIVE CASTELBERRY: The General Assembly,

PAGE 120

in other words, those people still have two shots. They

2 would be defeating the legislation or either not appropriating

3 the appropriation.

4

MR. }~RTIN: That's correct.

5

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Any further questions

6 on this? If not, go ahead, Jim.

7

MR. MARTIN: The next major issue that we tackled

8 was the provision in Article VII, Section II, that earmarked

9 -- I'm sorry, that provided that -- Let me turn to that in

10 our stricken through so I'll know precisely what that is.

Its on line 17, page 5, of our strike through and underlined

version. That is Article VII, Section II, Paragraph III in

the current constitution, and it requires that all moneys

collected from taxes, fees and assessments for state purposes

as authorized by general revenue measures enacted by the

General Assembly shall be paid into the general fund of the

state treasury.

18

We spent a good bit of time looking into that issue,

19 the requirement that state taxes, fees and assessments be

20 paid into the general fund.

21

This is the first step that assures the General

22 Assembly the authority that -- this is the first step in the

23 process which gives the General Assembly the authority in the

24 appropriations process to determine what to do with all the 25 state funds; it is the first step as it were in the process

PAGE 121
--------------
of permitting earmarking of state funds, because this money

2 is paid to the general fund, then it's available to be

3 appropriated by the General Assembly for whatever purpose

4 it wants.

5

Because of that we considered not only this require-

6 ment but also the earmarking requirement and looked at some

7 of the provisions in other sections, in other articles of the

8 state constitution that deal with earmarking.

9

The committee made several recommendations and heard

10 from Department of Transportation, from the Georgia

Czl

11 oa......:... Municipal Association, the Association of County Commissioners

~ 12 ~ of Georgia, of the League of Women Voters and various

~r~ representatives of business and industry concerning several

14 .~.. of the provisions of the state constitution that deal with

VI

:I:

15 o:l earmarking.

Ca:l

::>

16 ~ Q

Our recommendation to the full committee is

z

17 : contained in this language here in three resolutions -- no,

18 I'm sorry, two resolutions.

19

MR. HENRY: Three.

20

MR. MARTIN: One deals with municpa1 debt, but that'

21 another section.

22

In terms of the general fund provision there are

23 two resolutions that deal with that.

24

MR. HENRY: Okay.

25

MR. ~~RTIN: We have this language to recommend in

PAGE 122

two resolutions that we want to recommend to the full

2 committee for its adoption. These resolutions would transfer

3 to other articles in the state constitution some of the

4 provisions that relate to the requirement that state taxes,

5 fees and assessments be paid to the general fund.

6

Finally, the one m~r change here is to add the

7 requirement that all interest earned on revenues collected by

8 the state will be paid to the general fund. That apparently

9 is current practice, the state constitution was silent on

10 that point, it currently silent on that point. We add to the

11

Czl
i=

types of funds

that have to be paid into the general fund

~

..'o"....
12 ~

all interest earned on revenues paid to the state fund.

~r~

Let me explain the resolutions as well. Mike,

14 ~ would you pass those out, please?

I-

':"r 15 ~

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY; Let me ask a question

Cl
'"::> 16 ~ here to satisfy something in my mind.

cz 17 ::;

In the last session, or session before last, or

18 both of them, Canter, we passed legislation -- let's use

19 the Forestry Department for instance to sell timber, the

20 Natural Resources Department to sell timber, to take that

21 money that they receive from that and use it. You know

22 what I'm talking about?

23

MR. BROWN: Vaguely. I don't believe they can do it

24 either presently or under this language.

25

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Castleberry, I think what you're

PAGE 123

talking about if I'm not mistaken is the category of funds

2 that never go into the general fund that would not be

3 affected by this, they call those agency funds.

4

We heard from Mr. Pete Hackney in some detail

5 talking about the type funds that never go into the general

6 funds, that are retained by the agencies.

7

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Right. Is this going

8 to have any effect?

9

MR. MARTIN: This will not have any effect on those

10 type of agency funds because it had been the interpretation

CzI
11 ~ of the Attorney General that those types of funds are not o...
~ --I ~ ~ 12 ~ taxes, fees or assessments, but are funds generated by the agency.

14 ~

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: I just wanted to be sure,

'"

J:

15 ~ because I didn't like it to start with.

Ca:I

:::>

16 ~

MR. BROWN: Jim, just before you get consideration

oz

17 : of these three, Mr. Thrower had one change that he would like

18 to be considered on the bottom of page 5. This is language

19 dealing with the Agricultural Commodities Commission, and he

20 asks is that between the words "of the" on line 34 and the

21 word "program" be added "agricultural promotion" for clarity.

22
23 that?
24

HR. NASH: What's that now, Canter? Would you read MR. BROWN: On line 34 after the words "of the"

25 this is in the struck through and underlined copy -- the

PAGE 124

words "agricultural promotion." We have already used the

2 term higher, quote, promotion of agricultural products, and

3 he just wanted to make clear that we're still dealing with

4 that same concept.

5

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: For agricultural

6 promotion programs?

7

MR. BROWN: Right.

8

MR. NASH: That doesn't eliminate just your promo-

9 tion of that product.

10

MR. BROWN: Under the present constitutional

zCI 11 i=
@);;o..'"....

provision the entire program is predicated upon the promotion of product really, it includes the authority to do everything else they do. This wouldn't change that.

14 ~ tIlt :I:
15 ~
CI
'"::>
16 ~... Q
17 :Zll

MR. NASH: Okay. MR. MARTIN: Canter, what Mr. Nash's question indicates is something that we found out -- I'm not a farmer so I don't understand this at all, but apparently there are

18 activities that the Agricultural Commodities Commissions do

19 other than just promote the commodity itself under the

20 commission's jurisdiction.

21

Mr. Nash, you may want to speak to that.

22

MR. NASH: For instance, each one of them has to

23 specify in the marketing order -- and there's only three 24 items that are used in the marketing orders at the present

25 time, education, research and promotion, and that's the

PAGE 125

reason I asked tfie question.

2

MR. CANTER: I think the language relating to

3 promotion, of course, is the same as the present constitution,

4 . and I think that what's happened is the General Assembly in

5 the laws establishing the commodities commissions have

6 interpreted that to include that.

7

MR. NASH: That's right.

8

MR. MASSEY: These other things are in the law.

9

MR. BROWN: I don't think the change would change

10 that.

cz.:l 11 ~
e -1.o.. 12 ~

MR. NASH: I didn't want us to get limited where we couldn't bring it into -- I realize these other items are spelled out in enacting those laws from the statutory end

14 ~ of it, but I just didn't want us to get limited here to where

'"

:E:

15 .:I we couldn't do that.

c.:l

'":::l

16 ~

MR. BROWN:

We will certainly take another long look

Czl
17 : at it, but I think you're on solid ground.

18

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: It says the General

19 Assembly may provide, and they provide it in that general law.

20

MR. M.SH: That's where it's at, and then there are

21 others, but there's only three of them that's ever been used,

22 and that's education, research and promotion.

23

MR. MARTIN: Canter, if you wouldn't mind just

24 looking into that, but it's your understanding that Mr.

25 Thrower had in mind the current program as conducted by the

PAGE 126

commodities commission and not to limit it?

2

MR. BROWN: That's correct. That's exactly correct.

3

MR. MASSEY: If there is any dangerous thing about

4 it, certainly other words then that are in the law -- if you

5 think it limits it in any way

6

MR. NASH: We don't want to get it limited just to

7 promotional programs.

8

MR. BROWN: I understand. It was not his intent to

9 do that, he was just trying to clarify that since we created

10
CzI 11 ~
..'o"....
@;~ ! 14 ~ ':"z: 15 .:I CI '";;;) 16 ~... az 17 ~

two sentences like we did he just wanted to clarify that we're still talking about the same program.
HR. NASH: Okay. MR. MARTIN: Let me try to focus exactly on what we're talking about by this paragraph. The change that we had made with the existing language begins on page 5, line 17 of the strike through and underline. The major changes that have been made are one to add interested earned on such

18 revenues to the types of funds that are required to be paid 19 into the general fund, to take the provision that is in

20 Section II dealing with the agricultural commodities

21 commission which is an exception to the requirement that
22 taxes, fees and assessments be paid into the general fund and _,.', to list that as an excepdbn to this paragraph rather than

24 having it as a separate paragraph, and then to define

25 agricultural products as defined in the state constitution

PAGE 127

now?

2

Is that correct, Mike? That's the same definition?

3

MR. HENRY: Yes.

4

MR. MARTIN; Then as part of our study we had some

5 recommendations to make to the select committee concerning

6 other situations of earmarking, one of which is in our

7 article, one of which is in our section and one of which is

8 not.

9

The first recommendation is the resolution that

10 starts out -- in fact, it's the shorter one with the letter

..Czl

11

...
o......

A in parentheses

in

the

therefore

part .

(~ @r:~ This is a provision that is currently in Article X, Section I, Paragraph IV, that is an exception to this require14!... ment that we're talking about, that is that funds be

'<"C(

:I:

..15

.:
Cl

taxes,

fees

and assessments

be paid

into

the general

fund.

;;)

16

~...
Q

It allows

the

firemen's

pension system.

it exempts

the

firemen's

Z

<C(

17 ::i pension system --

18

Mike, would you state that?

19

MR. HENRY; There is a special tax levy in the

20 statute which is levied on insurance premiums for insurance

21 companies writing fire related insurance which is paid

22 directly to the system itself and is never paid into the

23 general fund and goes specifically for that pension system

24
which is a secondary pension system which supplements the

25 local pension system, and that was in Article X and was

PAGE 128

carried forward intact even after the revision of Article X

2 because of political influences.

3

MR. MARTIN: It was our understanding that in

4 Article X, Section I, this issue had already been covered,

5 but the firemen's pension system for some reason felt like

6 that language was something they had to have in the

7 constitution for them to support the constitution. Is that

8 correct, Mike?

9

MR. HENRY: For them to continue to receive that

10 special tax, yes.

MR. MARTIN: Okay. The other recommendation is that

the provision as currently in our article dealing with ear-

marking moneys that are collected from the assessment of

additional penalties in any case in which any court in the

state shall impose a fine for the purposes of the training

of law enforcement officers, that that provision really should

be moved over to the Article III provision dealing with

18 earmarking of funds, it should not be in. our section since

19 it deals more with earmarking than the requirement that funds

20 be paid to the general fund.

21

It's our recommendation to the full committee that

22 we recommend to the Select Committee that~ovision be moved,

23 retained and moved over to Article III.

24

MR. BROWN: Jim, would I be correct in thinking that

25 if for some reason the Article III task force or whatever

PAGE 129

didn't want it in that article it was not your intent that it

2 be repealed, just it would be more properly there, and if

3 they don't want it there it ought to remain in Article VII?

4

MR. MARTIN: That's correct. Our recommendation on

5 that is that -- and I can read the resolution once we get

6 through the discussion -- is that we retain that provision

7 and that it be moved to Article III.

8

The recommendation as far as the firemen's pension

9 fund is made that it be deleted from Article X, Section I,

10 Paragraph IV.

Czl
11 ..0c~..r..:

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: You done left me now.

9 r l12 cr:

Is there any questions?

recommending?

This is what you have been

14 ~

MR. MARTIN: That's right. Our subcommittee has

I-

'<"l

:I:

15 .:. recommended that we delete the provision in Article X,

..Ccrl:
:l
16 .z.. Section I, Paragraph IV which is an exception to the require-

Q

..Z
17 c<rl: ment that the taxes, fees and assessments be paid to the

18 general fund, that that provision be deleted from the

19 constitution.
',-

20

It's our recommendation that the provisbn that's

21 currently in our section dealing with the earmarking of

22 additional penalties levied by fines for the purposes of

23 training law enforcement officers, that that provision be

24 moved to Article III, Section X, Paragaaph VII dealing with

25 earmarking, the same place as motor fuel taxes are.

PAGE 130

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Come in, Mr. Chairman.

2

We done fought that battle in the General Assembly

3 one time if I remember correctly.

4

MR. BROWN: Which one is this? This isn't dealing

5 with motor fuel taxes.

6

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: I'm talking about

7 dealing with the fines and penalties for law enforcement

8 officers, moving it around, changing it or doing something.

9 Didn't we, Marcus?

10

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I'm lost, I don't know what

you're talking about.

MR. HENRY: It's a '78 amendment which would

authorize it, but the legislation never has been implemented.

That may be --

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: It was tried, though,

and we decided we didn't want to do it or something. That's

what I'm trying to get in my memory.

18

MR. HENRY: The General Assembly decided they didn't

19 want to pass the implementing legislation, yes.

20

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: That's what I'm

21 talking about, because of the objections to the people

22 participating in the fund if I remenber correctly.

23

MR. MARTIN: This wouldn't change -- this wouldn't

24 fund that or change the existing language, it's just

25 enabling. We thought in our study that that really is an

PAGE 131
rr---------~----~---.--~---~~~-~--~-----------___,
exception to t he earmarking provis ion and probab 1y should be

2 over in Article III dealing with earmarking. The language

3 would be the same, no matter whether it's contained in our

4 section or whether it's moved to Article III.

5

MR. NASH: We weren't trying to take it out or leave

6 it in, we were just trying to get it moved to where it belongs

7 and then let that conmittee look at it.

8

MR. BROWN: Mr. Castleberry, of course your sub-

9 committee would know better than I, but I'm not aware of any-

10
zc.:J 11 j:
.'ol>."..
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 lV> :z: 15 .:l c.:J '"::l 16 ~... Q Z 17 :

body that objects just to moving it from Article VII to
Article III.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: If they don't take it
over there, though, we've got to put it back in here.
MR. BROWN: That was the question that I had asked

of Mr. Martin, it was their intention that if Article III doesn't want to include it there that it would be included
in Article VII.

18

MRS. HUNTER: From a procedural standpoint we have

19 two sections like that we think should be moved, retained but

20 moved. How do we go about amending this resolution so that

21 that would occur? Is it necessary to state in here if it

22 is not moved it needs to be retained?

23

MR. BROWN: You may want to simply have Mr, Hill

24 check in the interim between this meeting and the next one

25 with the powers that be with that article.

PAGE 132

REPRESENTATIVI CASTLEBERRY: I was going to say 2 somebody has got to keep an eye on it.

3

MR. HILL: As a matter of precaution, it might be

4 better to include it here with a recommendation you know,

5 put it in with a recommendation that it should be transferred,

6 so then it won't get lost. I think that's what should be done 7 with it.

8

The Article III committee is all finished with its

9 work, so that it will be to the Select Committee to make a

10 decision, but just to be sure it's not lost I think we should

11

zCl
ot..o..-:..:

probably

include

it with

an accompanying recommendation

that

~ 12 ~ it be transferred.

~F~

REPRESENTATIVE CASTELBERRY: You stated it very well,

14 ~ Mr. Hill. That's what I've been trying to say.

t-

'<:"zC:(

15 ~

MR. MASSEY: Could I ask too if it's covered in

Cl

0::

;:)

16 .~.. there about the subsequent injury workers compensation trust

Q

Z

<C(

17 : fund?

18

MR. MARTIN: It's not covered in this reoommendation.

19

MR. MASSEY: It will remain as it is now? Is that

20 correct?

21

MR. MARTIN: That's right. We have no recommendation

22 one way or the other.

23

At our last meeting we had discussed that and asked

24 our staff to draw up a recommendation. This morning we did

25 not act on that, we did not make a recommendation one way or

PAGE 133

the other to the committee on the subsequent injury fund.

2

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Is it in there, or is

3 it out now?

4

VICE CHAIRMAN CDLLINS: Mike, you passed around the

5 wrong one.

6

MR. HENRY: I see.

7

MR. NASH: That was a question Iwas fixing to ask

8 when we got on this, Don mentioned that this first one here

9 we had was enabling but had never been put into effect.

10
CzI 11 j:
.'lo".L.
~ 12 ~
~ri ! 14 I'<:"Crl 15 ~ CI '~" 16 .~.. Q Z <Cl 17 ~

Perhaps it doesn't even need to be in the constitution if you feel that way about it,
MR. MARTIN: We had discussed that in our subcommittee, and the consensus of the subcommittee at that time it was discussed was that since it had been passed by the voters a fairly short period of time ago or fairly recently it was inappropriate for us to delete it at this point, but our recommendation was to move it to another --

18

MR. NASH: I thought maybe that's what you were

19 talking about.

20

MRS. HUNTER: Should we recommend this be Paragraph

21 IV since it doesn't really fit into that sectionwith regard

22 to payments?

23

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Let me see if I can find

24 this now. What we've got is a motion on this resolution

25 here, plus what Mr. Hill stated adding to it. Now, is that

PAGE 134

right?

2

MR. HILL: There are two different things, there are

3 two things that are being discussed here at one time which is

4 what's confusing.

5

One of them relates to the firemen's pension system

6 provision. Its now in Article X, that's not even in this

7 article, but it's related to the work that subcommittee was

8 doing, and they considered it and discussed it, and they

9 would like to make a recommendation to the Select Committee 10 through this committee if possible, or as a subcommittee if
not I suppose

MR. MARTIN: I think that would be inappropriate.

I think we have to make our recommendations to the full committee.

MR. HILL: ~fuether this committee goes with you or

not, the recommendation is that provision now in Article X

that relates to your article but is not directly affected,

18 that that provision be deleted. That is one recommendation.

19

The second recommendation has to do with something

20 that is in your article right now relating to the earmarking

21 of funds for the training of prosecutorial officers in the

22 state, earmarking of certain penalties, fines and whatnot,

23 and that is in this article now. It doesn't belong here, it

24 really belongs in Article III with the earmarking, general

25 earmarking prohibition, so that is something you must address

PAGE 135

now as a committee in this article.

2

Okay. So there are two things. If you want to

3 handle them one at a time it would be easier.

4

The firemen's pension is the one that has this (A}

5 on the resolution. If you resolve that, then you can move to

6 the other one.

7

MRS. HUNTER: As a matter of information, I tried

8 very hard to eliminate that (A) from there. In fact, I did

9 not put it in my motion, because you don't need an (A) if

10 you don't have a (B}. We started out with an (A) and a (B).

Czl 11 j:
'"...o
ll..
~ 12 ~
(~@r1~4! I':"r 15 .:> Cl '";:) 16 ~... Q Z 17 :

MR. NASH: Have you got the one that's got (A) and (B) on it, or just (A)?
MR. HILL: I have both, but I -MR. NASH: The one we passed justhas (A) on it. MRS. HUNTER: Mine doesn't even have (A) on it. REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Mine has a resolution on it. I ain't seen no B resolution.

18

(Laughter.)

19

MR. MARTIN: We can take these one at a time, Mr.

20 Chairman, if you want to do that, and then we will expain

21 each one.

22

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We will let the subcommittee

23 make its motion or suggestion and we'll act on it.

24

MR. MARTIN: I was trying to explain what all was

25 involved in this. We can take them now one at a time.

PAGE 136

In our study of~e requirement that funds be paid, 2 that taxes, fees and assessments be paid into the general 3 fund we discovered that the firemen's pension system which

4 is located, a provision that's located in Article X, Section I S Paragraph IV is in conflict with that provision, is an 6 exception to that provision.

7

After hearing testimony and studying that provision

8 we found out that last year the recommendation of the Article 9 X committee was to eliminate the firemen's pension system 10 provision in Article X, and we concur with that recommendation
after our study. Since this is an exception to the provision that requires taxes, fees and assessments be paid into the general fund, it's our recommendation that this committee

recommend to the Select Committee that provision be deleted from Article X, Section I, Paragraph IV.
MR. MASSEY: You're not recommending deleting the

workers' comp fund? It will stay in?

18

MR. NASH: Throw that one away and forget about it.

19

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: The committee to

20 study this other article is recommending this be deleted from

21 their article?

22

MR. MARTIN: Here's the problem, Don. There is no

23 Article X task force or committee. Article X and Article III

24 have already been disbanded, so where you have a conflict or

2S a suggestion to transfer language over to an article that's

PAGE 137

already been completed it would seem to us the best procedure

2 was to make a recommendation to the Select Committee, which

3 is the only existing body, that that change be made since

4 we can't refer this back to the Article III committee since

5 it doesn't exist, and we can't refer this particular one back

6 to Article X committee since it does not exist.

7

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Your recommendation is to

8 recommend to the Select Committee that they delete what we've

9 got here in (A)?

10

~

CzI 11 j:::
..'o"....
12 ~

~r~ 14 ~ I'-" :J:
15 .)

CI
'";;;)
16 .~..

Q
-Z 17 ::;

MR. MARTIN: Yes, sir. VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: From Article X? MR. MARTIN: That's right. VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Does everybody understand what we're talking about now? Have you got (A) in your hand? MR. MASSEY: Mr. Chairman, let me follow up on Don's question. When the Article X committee was in existence they deleted this and apparently they did not include it.

18

MR. MARTIN: That's my understanding.

19

MR. HENRY: No, no. They included it.

20

MR. MARTIN: Article X did?

21

MR. MASSEY: Oh, they did include it.

22

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: You're recommending to the

23 Select Committee for them to take it out if I'm understanding

24 you right.

25

MR. MARTIN: That's correct.

PAGE 138

2 to it?

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: What's going to happen

3

VICE CHAIRMAN COLlINS: The Select Committee is

4 going to make a decision to leave it in like the other

5 committee has done or whether to take it out, just like they'rl

6 going to go through everything we've done and decide.

7

SENATOR LESTER: We're not going to have any input.

8

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: The motion is to recommend

9 to the Select Committee to delete what we have got here

10 listed (A) from Article X.

Is there any more discussion on it? All in favor let it be known by uplifting your hand. Reverse your position.

The recommendation will go to the Select Committee.

Now, what was our next controversy?

MR. MARTIN: The next is that there is a provision

in Section II which is our section that deals with the ear-

18 marking, which allows the earmarking of additional penalties

19 in circuit court cases for the purpose of providing training

20 for law enforcement officers and prosecuting officials. It

21 is my understanding that provision has never been implemented,

22 but that provision exists in SectiOn II.

23

It is our recommendation, since that is an exception

24 to the earmarking provision, that it be moved to Article III,

25 Section X, Paragraph VII, which is the provision that

PAGE 139

number one prohibits earmarking 1 and number two then goes

2 ahead to state an exception for the motor fuel tax. This

3 would be a (b) under those exceptions.

4

MR. BROWN: Jim , as per what Mel said, would it be

5 appropriate to read into that that it's your recommendation

6 that we go ahead and include it, but recommend that it be

7 moved?

8

MRS. HUNTER: If it will make it easier, I will be

9 glad to go ahead and make a motion that we-amend our report

10
Czl 11 ...
...o0<
0.
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 !... '" :I: 15 .:l Cl 0< ::::l 16 ~ oz 17 ~

to include the language as Section IV, Paragraph IV rather with an appropriate title, and the language is found on page 6 of the marked up copy, lines 7 through 20. That is fairly recent language, it really doesn't seem to require any --
MR. BROWN: v]ould it be all right for the staff just to do the editorial changes, just to rework that for you?
MRS. HUNTER: That will be fine. VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there any objections to

18 including this recommendation?

19

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: You're going to make

20 the recommendation -- you're going to include it in and make

21 the recommendation that it be moved; what way it won't get

22 lost.

23

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Right.

24

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Okay.

25

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Was there any objections?

PAGE 140

2
3 out?

If not, we will include this in the recommendation. Now have you all got all the rest of it straightened

4

MR. MARTIN: One more then we'll be all straightened

5

o~.

6

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right, sir.

7

MR. MARTIN: All right. There is a provision in

8 Section II that deals with grants to municipalities. We

9 heard testimony both from the Municipal Association of

10 Georgia and the Association of County Commissioners, an.d it's our recommendation to the subcommittee that language be

retained as is, but that it be moved to the gratuities

provision of the state constitution since it is a --

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: You're getting lost

like I did now. VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: I haven't even got a feel.

I just walked in here.

18

MR. BROWN: Am I right again you would be recommend-

19 ing that it be included in this draft?

20

MR. HENRY: It is included in the draft.

21

MR. MARTIN: It's included as Paragraph III in our

22 proposed language. It's our recommendation to the full

committee that it recommend to the Select Committee that that 24 provision be moved to Article III, Section VIII, Paragraph 25 XII.

PAGE 141

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Don, is this where you want

2 to make your recommendation?

3

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: This is where I want to

4 make a recommendation.

5

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Let's hear it.

6

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: That's the reason I've

7 been waiting until he got to that one.

8

Where the word ''municipalities'' there on line 1,

9 page 7, grants to municipalities, and down on line 2, that

10
"z
11 I-
.'lo".L.
~ 12 ~
~r~ 14 ~ I':"r 15 ~ "'";;;) 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

that be changed to local governments. SENATOR LESTER: Instead of the word municipalities
change it to local governments? MR. BROWN: That would authorize grants to counties
and consolidated governments. REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Ifwe change this to
local government, that would conform to what we did in my section.

18

You're limited now to municipalities. This would

19 make it local governments.

20

, SENATOR LESTER: Wouldn't you have to change line 1

21 then too to local governments instead of grants to

22 municipalities?

23

MR. BROWN: It would be the same thing on 1 and 2.

24

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Lines 1 and 2.

25

MR. MARTIN: As chairman of the subcommittee I

PAGE 142

ean report to you the Municipal Association of Georgia is

2 opposed to that and the Association of County Commissioners

3 is in favor of it.

4

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Don, are you offering this

5 as an amendment to - -

6

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: If we need a motion

7 I'll just make a motion that the word be changed, where

8 municipalities is put local governments.

9

SENATOR LESTER: I would like to second that.

10

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. We're going to

vote on that first.

Now what we are doing here, you all understand it,

we're voting on Don's motion to change it to local governments

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed same.

All right. We will change it.

Now, then the next is your since it's been amended.

18 You can tell us what it does now.

19

MR. MARTIN: Our proposal is that since that is an

20 exception to the gratuities provision that it be moved from

21 our section which is -- well, our Section II and moved to

22 Article III, Section VIII, Paragraph XII, which is the

23 provision dealing with gratuities since it's appropriately 24 an exception to the gratuities provision rather than a part

25 of our sectbn .

PAGE 143

MR. BROWN: It would remain in here until it was

2 actually moved.

3

MR.MARTIN: That's right.

4

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there any objections to

5 the subcommittee's recommendation?

6

If not, we will do it.

7

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, we probably still have to

8 adopt the language that we recommended in our Paragraph II on

9 line 17, page 5.

10

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: All right. Explain it to me

sort of briefly. I hate to have to be caught up on all of it.

MR. MARTIN: Okay.

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: That's all right. I see

what it is.

Is there any objections in accepting Paragraph II

as the subcommittee has recommended?

If not, we will move on to the next, then. We'll

18 accept that.

19

MR. MARTIN: The final proposal is the, for lack

20 of a better term the Abit Massey-Charlie Tidwell amendment,

21 both of whom are present in the room.

22

Beginning on line 8 of page 7 of the draft, a

23 provision of real foresight was put into our constitution

24 dealing with industrial development conEissions some twenty

25 years ago, and it has notbean ~plernented, and it's our

PAGE

14L~

recommendation that that be deleted.

2

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Any objections?

3

If not, go on to ~ur next one.

4

MR. MARTIN: That's it, Mr. Chairman.

5

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Is there any objections to

6 tentatively approving this subcommittee's report?

7

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: I've got to find out

8 something about this subsequent injury fund. Now where is

9 that thing? Is it in or out?

10
:IzII 11 j:
'~."..
~~ 12~
~r~
! 14 I'<"l %
15 o:l
III
16 '~" ~
17 ~

MR. MARTIN: It's just like it was, we didn't change it. No problem.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: If there is no objections, this will be tentatively approved.
I've got something here some place. MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, could I make sure while everybody is here -VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Again let me check my

18 calendar.

19

MR. BROWN: It's my understanding at this point you

20 want me in cooperation with Mel and his staff to incorporate

21 all these three reports into one draft of the revised

22 Article VII, making the changes you have approved today,

23 and mailed to everyone.

24

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: Yes, sir.

25

MR. BROWN: Including revising the language of that

PAGE 145

one thing on the assessed penalties.

2

All right.

3

MRS. HUNTER: Which would need to be a Paragraph IV

4 because it does not fit into any other paragraph.

5

MR. BROWN: Right. I'll do that.

6

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: I move we adj oum, Mr.

7 Chairman.

8

VICE CHAIRMAN COLLINS: We're going to in just a

9 minute, sir.

10
"z
11 j:
o."0."...
~ 12 ~
~ri 14 !... ':"r 15 ~ ""~" 16 .~.. a Z 17 ~
18

Mr. Thrower suggested thatwe have our next meeting the 30th unless I notify you differently.
If there is no other business, then we stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m. the committee meeting was adjourned.)
+++ ++ +

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VII Full Committee Meeting Held on Sept. 24, 1980

FULL COMMITTEE MEETING, 9-24-80

Subcommittee Reports Proceedings, pp. 3-13

Section I: Power of Taxation

Paragraph I:

Taxation; limitations on grants of tax powers. pp. 13-14

Paragraph II:

Taxing power limited. pp. 14-25

Paragraph III:

Uniformity; classification of property; assessment of agricultural land; utilities. pp. 25-27

Section II: Exemptions From Ad Valorem Taxation

Paragraph I:

Unauthorized tax exemptions void. pp. 27-28

Paragraph II:

Exemptions from taxation of property. pp. 28-59

Paragraph III:

Exemptions which may be authorized locally. pp. 59-65, 66-85

Paragraph IV:

Current property tax exemptions preserved. pp. 65-66

Section III: Purposes and Method f State Taxation

Paragraph I:

Taxation; purpose for which powers may be exercised. pp. 116-120

Paragraph II:

Revenue to be paid into general fund. pp. 120-140

Paragraph III:

Grants to counties and municipalities. pp. 140-143

Section IV: -St-at-e-D-eb-t

Paragraph I:

Purposes for which debt may be incurred. pp. 88-92

Paragraph II:

State general obligation debt and guaranteed revenue debt; limitations. pp. 92-96

Paragraph III:

State general obligation debt and guaranteed revenue debt; conditions upon issuance; sinking funds and reserve funds. pp. 96-102

Paragraph IV:

Certain contracts prohibited. p. 102

Paragraph V:

Refunding of debt. pp. 102-104

Paragraph VI:

Faith and credit of state pledged debt may be validated. pp. 104-105

Full Committee Meeting 9-24-80 Page 2

Paragraph VII:

Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission; duties. p. 105

Paragraph VIII:

State aid forbidden. pp. 105-106

Paragraph IX:

Construction. pp. 106-107

Paragraph X:

Assumption of debt forbidden; exceptions. pp. 107-111

Paragraph XI:

Section not to unlawfully impair contracts or revive obligations previously voided. p. 114

See also the 1976 Constitution, Article VII, Section III

Paragraphs VII:

Profit on public money

VIII:

Certain bonds not to be paid

IX:

Sale of State's property to pay bonded debt

all deleted and to be provided for by law.

PAGE 1

STATE OF GEORGIA

2

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VII

3

OF THE

4

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

5

6

7

8 9

10
CzI
.11 .. .'o".. ~ 12 ~
@ ~r~14!.. ':z": 15 .:I CI :':"> 16 ~ Q z 17 :
18

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PURPOSES OF TAXATION

19

20
21 Room 402 State Capitol
22 Atlanta, Georgia
23 Wednesday, September 24, 1980 9:00 a.m.
24

25

PAGE 2
rr----------------.-------------~
PRESENT:

2

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

3

CHAIRMAN JAMES F. MARTIN

MRS. CONSTANCE HUNTER

4

MR. ROBERT NASH

5

6
7
8
9
10 z~
11 i=
...oa:
Q.
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 ... '" J: 15 .:l ~ a: :> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :::i

ALSO PRESENT:
MICHAEL HENRY JOHN ANDY SMITH RAY FARMER ROB SUMNER SAM OTT GLENN ANTHONY KENT LAWRENCE DAVID GODFREY JIM PULLIN JAMES THOMPSON EDWARD W. KILLORIN HOWARD VICTRY

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PAGE 3

PRO C E E DIN G S

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Since we have some people here --

3 we don't have a full committee present, but I know that the

4 subsequent injury fund people want to make a statement or

5 talk to us, in the interst of time since we have a meeting at

6 10:00 afthe full committee we might as well go ahead and get

7 started, and maybe some of the other members of the committee

8 will show up.

9

Before we get started, I would like to recognize the

10
Czl 11 t-
..oo..<..
~ 12 ~
@r~
! 14 t':"r
15 ~
Cl 0<
::>
16 ~... Q Z
17 :

fact that Mr. Robert Nash, a member of the subcommittee, and Mrs. Constance Hunter, the vice chairman of the subcommittee, are present, and I am Jim Martin, the chairman.
Mike Henry, the staff attorney for the subcommittee is also present.
I would like to ask everyone else to introduce themselves for the record. I'll start with you .
MR. VICTRY: Howard Victry.

18

MR. KILLORIN: I am Edward W. Killorin, and I am

19 here representing the Georgia For~estry Association as

20 chairman of its Workers Compensation Committee, and I am

21 here representing the Georgia State Chamber of Commerce as

22 chairman of its Workers Compensation Committee.

23

I have been practi~ing law for 24 years specializing

24 in constitutional law and workers compensation law. Those

25 two organizations represent some 9,000 Georgians.

PAGE 4

MR. THOMPSON: I am James C. Thompson, chairman,

2 Georgia State Community Action Program, Council of United

3 Auto Workers. I am here as an employer who pays taxes into

4 the workmens compensation system of the state; I am here also

5 as a representative of the workers, and I am also here as a

6 trustee on the subsequent injury trust fund.

7

MR. PULLIN: Jim Pullin, secretary-treasurer, State

8 Board of Workers Compensation.

9

MR. GODFREY: David Godfrey, Department of Natural

10 Resources.

MR. LAWRENCE: Kent Lawrence, Georgia Chamber of

Commerce.

MR. ANTHONY: I am Glenn Anthony, executive director

Georgia Forestry Association.

MR. OTT: Sam Ott, Georgia Farm Bureau.

MR. SUMNER: Rob Sumner, Georgia Farm Bureau.

MR. FARMER: Ray Farmer, American Insurance

18 Association.

19

MR. SMITH: John Anthony Smith, executive assistant,

20 State Board of Workers Compensation.

21

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay.

22

For purposes of our agenda today, I would like to

23 propose that we hear the comments. I talked with Mr.

24 Thompson yesterday, and I know other people and Howard as

25 wil from the subsequent injury fund would like to say

PAGE 5

something.

2

I think the best thing to dc, Connie and Robert,

3 would be to hear from them first, and then to take action on

4 the proposals that we have to finalize before the meeting at

5 ten o'clock.

6

Is there anything else we need to do, Mike, any

7 other business we need to conduct before ten o'clock?

8

MR. HENRY: Well, we need to take action on those

9 resolutions and on the final draft.

"

10

MR. KILLORIN: Mr. Chairman, may I say I understand

11

C.z..l
cr:

you have a

tight

schedule,

and we

can save you

time because

...0
11.

~@r~ ~12 cr: some of us can speak for others, but the business community of Georgia who has paid the money into this, who is responsiblE

14 .~.. ultimately in the first instance for having it in the law in

'<"l

:I:

15 .:. the first place would like to be heard.

Ccr:l

16

...:;) .z..

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I understand that.

Q

Z

... 17 c<r:l

MR. KILLORIN: You mentioned two and didn't mention

18 us, and we would certainly like to be heard.

19
y

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What I mean to say was anybody who

20 had any comments on the subsequent injury fund, Mr. Killorin.

21

MR. KILLORIN: Thank you, sir.

22

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is it okay with the members of the

23 subcommittee that we follow that agenda, we hear from anyone

24 who has any information to give us about the subsequent

25 injury fund first, and then we take action on the resolutions

PAGE 6

that have been prepared, and then final action on the final

2 draft?

3

In all candor, both the court reporter and the

4 subcommittee meniliers need to be down at the meeting which

5 will begin at ten, so if we can try to honor that time

6 restraint that will help us in doing our business.

7

Howard, we talked yesterday. Do you have any way

8 you want to make your presentation or suggestions about how to

9 proceed in terms of discussing the issue that you raised?

10

MR. VICTRY: Yes.

Czl

11 i=

As you recall, at the last committee meeting,

'..o"....

~ 12 ~ subcommittee meeting, I went into great detail about the

~F~! functioning of the fund, the operation of the fund, and the 14 ... need for the retention of the amendment in the constitution

'"

:r

15 q that authorized the legislature to create the fund.

Cl

'"::;)

16 .~..

The action taken by the committee at that time was

"z

17 :: a recommendation to delete that amendment from the constitutioI

18 We are here today to ask for reconsideration of that and to

19 reinstate that as a recommendation that that amendment stand

20 as is.

21

In an effort to save time, I am going to defer any

22 additional comments I have to Mr. Ki1lorin and to Mr. Thompson

23 and any other interested parties here, so I'll turn the floor

24 over to Ed Ki110rin.

25

CHAIRMAJl MARTIN; Fine. Before we begin that, let

PAGE 7

me just explain why this all came up from the subcommittee's

2 point of view.

3

In our work in Section II of Article VII, the issue

4 of the provision that deals with the requirement that all

5 assessments, revenues and fees collected by the state be paid

6 into the general fund was within our area of study.

7

In conducting that area of study, we decided that it

8 was appropriate to consider all those provisions in the state

9 constitution that were in conflict with that provision.

.~.
:

10 Obviously the provision dea[ng with the subsequent injury

c.:I Z
11 I-
0.'0"....
~F~ @~ 12 '" 14 ~ I':-"z<:l 15 .:l
c.:I
'";;;)
16 .Iz.I.I Q
Z -<l
'" 17 III

fund is not currently in Article VII. We heard testimony' from a number of different
people, and I guess it was the consensus of the committee that absent a major public policy reason in some cases in disagreement with that that all state revenues ought to be
1
paid to the general fund and appropriated annually by the legislature.

18

It was the feeling that some of the exceptions in

19 the state constitution to that provision really were un-

20 necessary and probably not very valid public policy.

21

We did make two exceptions. One is for the

22 Agricultural Commodities Commission, the other is with some 23 disagreement the provision that deals with the State 24 Department of Transportation and the use of its motor fuel 25 funds.

PAGE 8

The provisions that we recommended be deleted were

2 the subsequent injury fund, the subcommittee recommended

3 deleting the subsequent injury fund and the firemen's secondar

4 retirement fund. Those were the only two; right, Mike?

5

MR. HENRY: Yes.

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's the basis on where we come

7 from.

8

Go ahead, Mr. Ki110rin.

9

MR. KILLORIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

10

On behalf of the Georgia Forestry Association, the

..,

z

11

t=
'o."..

Georgia Chamber of Commerce,

and I might say that

there are

w

@;I insurance industry people here and they will adopt or not as they like these views, I must say that I think everybody I

! 14 I- know is in accord with what I'm about to say.

'-:<"z:l

15 q..,

First, we very much appreciate the time you fine

'"::l

16 ~
ow

people have devoted to this good cause.

We applaud the

Z

-<l

17 ::; efforts to streamline the constitution, we understand that it

18 is not your mission to try to make really substantive changes,

19 but it is your mission to try to make some sense out of a

20 hodgepodge which we're in favor of and always have been, and

21 have worked toward that end on many occasions.

22

As to this particular matter, this which happens to

23 be codified as you know as Chapter 215.06 of the Georgia Code,

24 Article III, Section 9, Paragaaph 6, known as Subsequent

2S Injury Workers Compensation Trust Fund in the constitution

PAGE 9

of Georgia, this is unique -- and I use that word advisedly

2 as an English major, unique means there's nothing else like

3 it, and there's not anything else exactly like it. It was

4 put together and put in here as many here well know who

5 participated in it, including Judge John Andy Smith who is a

6 legal scholar, a former assistant to the court of appeals
i
7 judges, it was done this way fo~a specific purpose, and the
f
I
8 purpose was to make it work, because without this it won't

9 work; it's just that simple.

10

~~y should we have it? The main thrust of the

l-'

11

Z j:

subsequent injury trust fund is

to urge folks

to hire the

'o.."....

~ 12 ~ handicapped. How could anybody quarrel with that? I don't

@ ~r~ think anybody does.

14!

The idea is to set up a fund which is very much like

I-

':"r

15 q and almost identical to a reinsurance fund just as an

l-'

:'>"

16 .~.. insurance company holds, and the moneys in that fund become

Q

Z

-et

17 : contractually obligated to be paid out in claims.

18

As a matter of fact, from a legal point of view

/
19 any time there is an award which declares money should be

20 paid out of a fund which has to come about ultimately by the

21 workers comp board approving it, even though it's often done

22 by agreement by t he administrator in reconmending and so forth,

23 the ultimate concept is an award. That award as you know is

24 like a judgment, that judgment is enforceable in court against

25 the fund, and that judgment decla~es that the moneys shall

PAGE 10

be paid under the terms of the fund and the workers 2 compensation law interp~ed meaning in a case of total 3 disability for life of the disabled person as long as that 4 disability continues, which means that in some cases the 5 moneys will be paid for thirty, forty, fifty years, 6 depending upon the longevity.

7

The amount of the money to be paid therefore is

8 uncertain, yet it's a matter of judgment and contract.

9 That's unique. We don't have that I don't think in anything

10 else. Everything else, the amount becomes certain. In this

11

"z
j:

it does not, but by contract and by judgment it must be paid

@;;o.'0".... for life, and the amount of medical to be pad is unlimited. Those two things make the amount uncertain.

14 ~

It could be $1 million. There have been cases

I-

':4"r

15 ~ already in Georgia, workers comp cases where the amounts paid

"'"::::I

16 .~.. far exceeded $100,000. There are many workers comp cases in

oz

17 : Georgia right now since we have had lifetime benefits and

18 unlimited medical where the reserves set up are more than $1

19 million because the insurance company knows they're going to

20 have to pay that ultimately, so that is the unique nature of

21 this fund.

22

Now, why must it be the way it is? Very simple.

23 It cannot be paid from state treasury money, it is money

24 which is contracted for a period of time, for longer than one

25 year, and as you know other parts of the constitution

PAGE 11

prohibit state contracts for a period in excess of one year,

2 and it is money which is put into this fund to be paid out

3 for individuals according to findings by someone other than

4 the General Assembly, which is proper.

5

The General Assembly doesn't want to decide every

6 workers comp case, they want the Board or in this case the

7 subsequent injury fund plus the Board to decide. That's the

8 reason the administrative agencies are set up, because the

9 legislature is not equipped to do them piece by piece by

10 piece.

CzJ 11 j:
'.o"..
12 ~
~~r~ ~ ! 14 lo:-rn 15 Q
CJ
:'>"
16 ~...
oz 17 ~

So for those reasomwe submit that the subsequent injury trust fund must be in the constitution, and it must be in there in its present form, although words can be juggled slightly, obviously we can write a paragraph and write it a few different ways,but the point is the entire content is necessary in my opinion as a constitutional practicing lawyer, and any of you are welcome to check my references, in my

18 opinion it's necessary that this thing be in substance the way

19 it is, that is, that it have all of the explanatory language

20 as to the reasons and what it deals with, and that above all

21 it have in management of funds it may provide for the

22 disposition of the funds for purposes stated herein above

23 without being placed in the state treasury.

24

The explanation hereinabove tells exactly, describes

25 the program, and then the final clincher is not to be placed

PAGE 12

in thestate treasury.

2

Now let me tell you how this thing came about. It

3 came about by a lot of well meaning people wanting to improve

4 our system for the injured workers, and also wanting to find

5 a way to encourage employers to hire the handicapped, and to

6 find a way to try to limit costs of operating the workers

7 compensation system.

8

It is felt that as long as this thing is operated th~

9 way it is the employers of Georgia who are very cost-conscious

10
..,
z 11 I-
'o.Q"...
@;i 14 ~ lV> ::I:
15 ..:.,l '";;)
16 .~..
oz 17 ::;

-- and whether or not tHs committee has had personal experience, most folks have -- the hottest item in Georgia today is workers compensation and its cost. There has been a study committee that just went around the state, went to about ten or twelve different cities on this from the General Assembly, a joint committee, there have been seminars put on byfue Georgia Chamber of Commerce and the Georgia Forestry Association and others -- the workers comp board has

18 participated, does many of their own seminars, we just did

19 one in Albany.

20

People are thirsting for two things, one, knowledge

21 about the workers compensation system so they can better

22 administer their own shops, and two, cost control so they

23 won't have to pay as much.

24

If this thing were taken out of the constitution,

25 I can assure you that in my opinion the cost would skyrocket

PAGE 13

for its operation. It would have to if it gets into the state

2 treasury.

3

There is no way the state treasury could operate

4 the thing the same way it's being operated now and, number

5 two, the employers of the state would be up in arms.

6

We like to see progress in these constitutional

7 revision committees, we donJt like to see stalemates or get a

8 logjam like we did last year in the General Assembly where

9 nothing happened. There were a lot of good points, but there

10 were a few points of debate in the revision, and nothing

11

"z
j:

happened.

..'0"....

-

@r l12 '"

I assure you -- and this is not a threat, this is a

practical observation -- the employers of Georgia will go

! 14 through the ceiling if this thing is tampered with. It is a I':"r

15 ~ good thing, they all like it; I have never heard the first

..":'>"
16 .z.. dissenting word about the way its operated, all I have heard

13
.Z
17 '" is applause, and I've been very close to the employer

18 community of Georgia and to the insurance community. It's

19 their money that's in there, their money went in there on the

20 basis of this constitutional amendment, that is what persuaded

21 them that they should support its passage in the General

22 Assembly, and they relied on that.

23

They have put up now how many millions -- some odd

24 dollars, whatever the number is -- I forget the total --

25

MR. VICTRY: A million-four.

PAGE 14

MR. KILLORIN: They relied on that, and they should

2 not now be told that their reliance was not justified.

3

I am sorry we didn'tklow about this sooner, I just

4 learned about it yesterday afternoon, and all these people

5 who are here except for Howard and James because of my learnin~ 6 about it yesterday afternoon, and I assure you each one of

7 them represents thousands of heads of Georgians and Georgians 8 who can be heard -- they're not all in the room, but they're

9 here through us.

10

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I understand. Thank. you for your

comments, Mr. Killorin.

In fact, I have had business with a number of people

here in the room, and I understand the people that they

represent.

Howard, is Mr. Killorin speaking for you in the

terms that there is no language that can be taken out of the

provision?

18

MR. VICTRY: Absolutely.

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let me say at this point ~or the

20 benefit of the members of the subcommittee, I suggested when

21 Howard called me yesterday I tried to clarify what we were

22 saying when we took our action.

23

On the one hand, we're concerned about any exception~

24 to the provision that requires that the funds be not paid to

25 the general fund; the second is that there are a number of

PAGE 15

provisions like this one that seem to have a lot of statutory

2 detail in them, and that clutters up the state constitution.

3

I had asked Howard if there was any language that

4 perhaps could be treated by statute as opposed to in the

5 constitution. I guess the answer is that at this time you

6 all think there iSR' t a --

7

MR. VICTRY: I have also reviewed this with our

8 attorney, with the attorney general's office, and he's advised

9 that in order for the fund to proceed with its mission

10 legally that this wording must be there.

This of course in his, meaning Mr. Killorin's

expertise.

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: James, do you have any connnents?

MR. THOMPSON: I think Ed pretty well covered

everything that is to be said, except I would like to say

and wear two hats, as an employer who pays into the fund I

would like to see all the money that I pay in returned either

18 in benefits or for the administration of the fund. This

19 assures that; it assures it doesn't become a tax on me and

20 doesn't become a tax on the other business interests of the

21 state, but more importantly as one who represents thousands

22 of people in this state who are inside of plants and who

23 suffer incapacitation and injury and illness or disease, it 24 assures them that they can go out -- this fund assures them

25 under its present form, assures them that when they have

PAGE 16

reached maximum healing even though they're disabled and

2 would normally not be able to secure employment in the

3 state, it gives them a degree of hope because of the off-

4 setting factors in this fund that they will b~ again gain-

5 fully employed in the state, and if this fund doesJnothing

6 else than that, then I think it is well worth it.

7

I will answer any questions that any of you might

8 have, but this is one of those rare instances where labor and

9 management and industry and everyone else has worked together

10
Czl 11 I-
'o.."....
~ 12 ~
@ ~r~14 ~ IU'I ~ :I: 15 .!) Cl '":;) 16 .~.. Q Z ~ 17 :;

hand in hand in setting up this fund; there was no disagreement from the beginning, and there is still no disagreement that it is one of the best things that's ever happened to the state, and as a representative of labor you wontt find us sittinl in the same room asking you to do something very often. We usually are apart, but this is one of those rare instances that we all agree that it's one of the best things that ever happened in the state.

18

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there any other comments,?

19

MR. PULLIN: I would just like to echo what Mr.

20 Killorin and Mr. Thompson have said. Without this vehicle

21 I think we're going to totally destroy the rehabilitation

22 program in our state of getting people back to work that have

23 been injured.

24

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Anyone else?

25

MR. FARMER: Mr. Chairman, my name is Ray Farmer

PAGE 17

with the American Insurance Association) I'm counsel for the

2 Southeastern Region. Our 150 stock companies write approxi-

3 mately 45 percent of the workers compensation in the state.

4 We would just like to echo what Mr. Killorin has so ap~ly

5 put. I would like to see this vehicle left as it is and not

6 going into the general treasury) and left as the account that

7 it actually is.

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Ray) do you take the position

9 that Mr. Killorin takes that there is no language in this

Q

10 provision that could be treated by statute as opposed to

11

"z
j:

constitutional amendment?

"o."."".

._- ~12 ~

MR. FARMER: Mr. Chairman, we haven't reviewed any

proposed language or really studied the current language

14 ~ recently. Mr. Killorin being the constitutional scholar that

':"z:

15 o:l he is, we would go along with his recommendations.

""";;;)

16 ~

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Fine.

Q

z 17 :

Let me for the benefit of the people here explain

18 one of the problems. I am not a constitutional lawyer of the

19 stature of Mr. Killorin, although I did work on the draft of

20 the constitution of 1976, and one of the top constitutional

21 experts in the state took us to task with that, and I'm used

22 to the hard feeling and strong disagreement among lawyers.

23

One of the issues that came up last year or at our

24 last meeting was, for example, the budget or the administrativE

25 budget of the subsequent injury fund is not subject to

PAGE 18

legislative review like other budgets. For example, the 2 workmen~ compensation board budget is appropriated through the 3 legislative process, it has nothing to do with the money that's 4 allocated for the payment of benefits.

5

I think one of the concerns was that maybe some

6 aspect of the subsequent injury fund should in fact be part

7 of the annual appropriations process as a means of ensuring

8 economies in administration and those sorts of things.

9

The other point is that in many cases when you deal

10 with a specific issue you tend to allow language in the

1:1 Z
11 ~ constitution that may not be absolutely necessary, and one of ..'o"....
@;I our jobs is to try to get brevity and clarity in the constitution. I think that's an equally important issue that

! 14 I-

came up at our last meeting,

and may be one of the reasons

'<"l:

:J:

15 0)) that the subcommittee voted the way it did last time.

Cl

'"::>

16 ~III

Are there any comments to that?

a

Z

<l:

17 :::

MR. KILLORIN: Mr. Chairman, as you well know, the

18 matter of the budget addresses itself to the legislature. It

19 has really no bearing on this constitutional provision. The

20 constitutional provision permits the legislature to treat that 21 any way it wants, and as you are probably aware, the way they 22 have treated it so far is found in 114.905 which declares the 23 costs shall be paid out of the assets and the administrator 24 shall submit to the board of trustees the budget, and it will 25 be submitted to the Office of Planning and Budget for comment

PAGE 19

prior to approval by the trustees. That is in the law.

2

Now, the legislature can change that law any way

3 they see lit. They can either make it totally under the

4 Planning and Budget, or they can make it not at all under

5 them, any way they want.

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The constitutional provision would

7 allow that kind of change?

8

MR. KILLORIN: Indeed, there's no question it allows

9 this, it allows either way they want to go on that.

10
zCI 11 j:
.'l0."L.
~@F~ ~12 '" 14 ! tIII :I: 15 otI CI '"::l 16 Iz.I..I Q Z 17 '"III

Cr~IRMAN MARTIN: But all the funds are paid into th subsequent injury fund, and none are paid into the general fund.
MR. KILLORIN: Right. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's the problem. MR. KILLORIN: There's no problem, there's no problem at all. The legislature could still provide if they want for any moneys for the operation of the fund to be

18 approved first by the Office of Planning and Budget, even

,-

19 though the funds happen to reside in the trust account.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I understand what you're saying.

21 Maybe we just disagree.

22

MR. VICTRY: I would like to say one thing here in

23 this respect. You have a similar fund set up with the

24 employees retirement fund, and it is set up by constitutional

25 provision just as this one is. I would as a matter of

PAGE 20

interest simply -- perhaps not necessarily for discussion at 2 this point, but would raise the question is that being 3 altered or changed? Is the retirement fund being deleted from 4 the constitution?

5

I'll just leave it at that. My point is that there

6 is precedent for this type of fund operation, you have looked

7 at the employee's retirement fund for that precedent.

8

That retirement fund, its operating budget is

9 handled through the legislature, but again the retirement

10 fund is not considered part of the state moneys.

MR. THOMPSON: Jim, the legislature in its wisdom passed this into law, and the reason they did this is that if you poll the legislature as a whole you will find, and I think

Ed will probably agree with this, you will find there are

probably five people in the legislature who understand workmens compensation, who understand all of the ramifications

of it, who would know enough about the type of budg~t that

18 would be needed.

19

Now they put into the board of trustees management

20 members, insurance members, labor members and public members,

21 and an ex officio member of the workmens camp board, who all

22 have some expertise in the area, they know what it takes to

23 operate the fund.

24

I have yet to sit on that board of trustees side by

25 side with management members and disagree on any aspect of

PAGE 21

the budget that we didn't sit there and work out. It was

2 either necessary or not necessary.

3

I'm not sure that the legislature wants that. If

4 they do want that, then I don't have any personal objections

5 to it.

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: What is the will of the committee

7 on this? Do you all have any questions or thoughts?

8

MR. NASH: I wish we had more of our committee here

9 this morning that was here at the time this was presented to

10

z~

11 j:

'..0"....

~r~ @~ 12 '" 14 !

l-
Oll
x<l

15 o:l

~

16

...'"::;) .z..

Q

Z

17 .'<.".l

us before. I know what you're saying is that you say one thing
in the constitution one place, and then turn right around and circumvent it with the next paragraph, and maybe the question is whether the original part of the constitution that says all moneys go into one fund -- this may be the whole hangup on all of it, and I wish the whole committee was here before
I have no objection to reconsidering it personally,

18 but with more knowledge of what they're saying here, and it

,-

19 sounds reasonable, but yet there is aspects of it that we

20 have to look at as far as regards the rest of the constitution

21

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Connie, what's your feeling?

22

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, could I say a word?

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes, please.

24

MR. SMITH: I'm in complete agreement with your view

25 we ought to have a streamlined constitution. In fact, I could

PAGE 22

be quoted for things I said 25 years ago, and I've probably

2 practiced law as long as anyone here in this room, and I say

3 that without apology.

4

We explored this situation very carefully when we

5 worked with the business and insurance industry in this state, 6 and the problem pure and simple was this: Georgia is the last

7 state to attempt anything like this, we couldn't get to first

8 base without the support of the insurance industry and the

9 business people, and we could not get that support as well as

10 the rehabilitation support and other support needed to

l:l

11

Z
i=

establish

a

subsequent

injury

trust

fund

unless

they were

..'o"....

@;I assured by constitutional amendmene that it was protected and treated as an absolute trust fund.

14 ~

They view it as their money, not the~ate's money,

I-
'"

15

:I:
~

and although you may reduce

the

language

somewhat,

shorten

it

l:l

:':">
16 .~.. down, that's what is involved here, and all our talk is not

Q

17

Z :

going

to

remove

that.

You can't get the support, you can't

18 keep a subsequent injury trust fund in this state without a

19 guarantee of that protection.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you for those comments.

21 That's an interesting observation.

22

Does anyone

Connie, do you have anything?

23

MRS. HUNTER: Well, of course, our objective in

24 looking at this particular thing at all was, one to

25 eliminate any exceptions that we could inthe constitution to

PAGE 23

the funds being paid, I mean any exceptions that no longer

2 seemed valid.

3

The other was to remove any statutory detail that

4 could be removed, and the other was to make sure that the

5 constitution didn't put a stranglehold on things that needed

6 to be done, that the~tail was so limiting, but it would

7 appear that you like the language that's in here, that

8 it's accomplishing its purpose.

9

Now, I think a lot of things we put in the

10 constitution because we want constitutional assurances.

11

"z
I-
'o"

Thats

not

always

a valid reason

for

putting

it

in

the

"-

1M

@ ; j constitution, because it's always nice to have everything / you're interested in protected by the constitution obviously,

14 ~ but there are very good reasons for not putting every special I-

'"

:J:

15 ~ interest's particular baby in the constitution.

"'::">

16 ~

I was not here for the discussion, and aside from

1M

Q

Z
17 : what Jim said about budget control I can't think of any

18 reason for our recommending that this be changed at this

19 point in time, and if budget control is statutory, then of

20 course that really isn't an issue.

21

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Why don't we go ahead and take

22 some action on this, since our time is running out.

23

Mike, maybe the thing to do, if you wouldn't mind

24 would be to see if you can find if any of the other members

25 of our subcommittee are either down on Room 337-B or around

PAGE 24

would you just make that effort?

2

We can talk about the other resolutions while you're

3 gone, if that's all right.

4

MR. HENRY: Okay. Let me take this one resolution

5 and copy it.

6

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We will act on that as soon as

7 Mike comes back and sees if he can find more members of the

8 committee. We will act one way or the other, with or without

9 more members.

10

~ z

~

11 i=
'o."".".
12 ~

~ri ! 14

l-
V>
<l :r

15 .l)

~
'";;;)
16 ~...

Q

Z <l
17 ::i

Any other comments? Well, I appreciate you all having appeared, and certainly I'm sorry about the shortness of the notice. MR. VICTRY: I would like to say that due to the shortness of the notice of this meeting to me, and because of other very long term and serious commitments of other trustees of the fund, Ed Bartlett the chairman of the board with Union Camp, Nathan Nolan who represents labor, Jack

18 Murray who represents the insurance industry, James Neal

19 that represents the public at large, they were not able to

20 be here.

21

I can assure you, and I'm sure James who is a

22 trustee present will also assure the corrITnittee that the

23 comments made here are supported wholeheartedly by all

24 trusteees of the fund.

25

MR. THOMPSON: Yes.

PAGE 25

CHAI~~ MARTIN: Thank you for that comment.

2 That is a matter of record.

3

One of the other things that the subconmittee has

4 tried to do is to try to get on the record the arguments for

5 retaining this language in the constitution, or any language

6 that we decide to retain, and you all have spoken very

7 eloquently for that cause, and that's all a matter of record.

8 We will vote on that as soon as Mike comes back.

9

The other matters that we need to accomplish before

10 our ten o'clock meeting -- there are three resolutions -- we

will hold the one that deals with the subsequent injury fund.

First I guess we need to approve our minutes from

the last meeting. Have you all had a chance to look at those?

Robert, how about you?

MR. NASH: I haven't in detail, but as far as I can

tell they're correct.

CHAIRMP~ MARTIN: Is there any objection to us

18 accepting the minutes as sent out on September the 11th, 1980?

19

Hearing none, they are adopted.

20

We have a resolution, one resolution dealing with

21 a provision that is in our section, Section II of Article VII,

22 Paragraph III, relating to the assessment of additional

23 penalties in any case in which any court in the state shall

24 impose a fine.

25

It provides that the General Assembly may provide

PAGE 26

that the proceeds derived from such additional penalties

2 or assessments may be allocated for specific purposes -- for

3 the specific purpose of providing training to law enforcement

4 officers.

5

At our last meeting the recomrrlendation was that

6 Well, Mike has drawn up this resolution for us to adopt

7 which would transfer that, or recommend to the Select

8 Committee that that provision be transferred to the ear-

9 marking provision in Article III, moved out of our section

10 to Article III.

Czl

~

11 I-
'o"
0w
12 ~

~r~

14 ~

I-

'<"l
:I:

15 .:l

Cl
:'>"
16 ~

Q z

<l
17 :::i

Do you all understand what's going on there? That

is language -- When the constitutional amendment was

adopted they apparently picked Article --

\oJell, let me

rephrase that.

For some reason it was editorially put in this

section; it seems more appropriate in the earmarking

provision along with the motor fuel taxes.

18

Do I have a motion on that?

19

MR. NASH: I so move.

20

MRS. HUNTER: Seconded.

21

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor say aye. All right.

22

We have got one other resolution that I don't have

23 a copy of, but I can tell you -- Mike is Xeroxing it right 24 now, we may be able to go ahead and act on it -- it is the 25 one dealing with the grants to municipalities. We labored

PAGE 27

with that on our first meeting, and the recommendation in the

2 resolution is that we recommend to the Select Committee that

3 the provision of Article VII, Section II, Paragraph IV

4 dealing with grants to municipalities be moved to the

5 gratuities Provision in Article III, and that our recomn1enda-

6 tion to the Select Committee be that that be moved to the

7 gratuities provision.

8

Is there any discussion about that?

9

MR. NASH: I think it is a matter of relocating it

10 where it should be rather than in this section.

Czl 11 j:::
'o.a"...
~ 12 ~
~ri ! 14 ot-n :E: 15 ol)
Cl
'":;)
16 ~... Q Z
17 ::;

CI~IRMAN MARTIN: We're not proposing any change to that language, it just needs to be moved.
MRS. HUNTER: I move we adopt it. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there any objection to adopting that resolution? MR. NASH: None from me . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Hearing none, it is adopted.

18

Well, we have our last one to go. Is there any

19 other business that we need to act on before our meeting at

20 ten besides the subsequent injury fund and the firemens

21 pension system? I'm gladfuere are no firemen here this

22 morning.

23

MR. OTT: Sam Ott, Georgia Farm Bureau. On the

24 resolutions that were sent out by the full committee on the

25 actions of the various subcommittees, I just noticed that

PAGE 28

the grants to municipalities in that draft was included in

2 now that would be changed, your action just has made a note

3 it would not be included in Section II?

4

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's correct. It would be part

5 of the gratuities.

6

MR. OTT: That would be a change from this

7 proposal?

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Let me clarify that. What our

9 recommendation would be is the language we have in this

10 draft --

"z
11 j:

MR. OTT: I understand that. I just want to make

'.oQ"...

~r~ ~

12 ~ sure when this is presented to the full committee that it
does not -- since the committee did take the action that this

! 14 resolution that was --

~

'<"l
:r

15 .:l

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We will report that back to the

"'";;;)

16 ~... committee; it will be in the form of a recommendation to the

Q

Z

17

<l
:

Select

Committee

that

that

language be moved.

Our little

18 subcommittee can't move it over to Article III, and the

19 difficulty for everybody else's information with this process

20 is that the Article III subcommittee has been disbanded, so

21 the article by article revision presents some difficulty on

22 issues like the one we're talking about where there is some

23 overlap.

24

Okay. I just want to say for the record as

I2~ chairman of this subcowmittee that I have really enjoyed

PAGE 29

the experience, and I have learned a lot in this process 2 about state government and about the taxation system in the

3 state, and I really take pride in the work that we have done

4 on Section II of Article VII, and particularly in the area

5 of reducing the long verbiage dealing with the purposes of

6 taxation and eliminating that from the constitution. I

7 think that is a really positive step. I wish we could have

8 gone further, but we have to deal with reality.

9

We will stand in recess for just a moment until

10
Czl 11 j:
.'o0".-.
~ 12 ~
~r~ ! 14 lo-n :r 15 Cl '":::> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 :

Mike comes back. (Pause. )
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike, we have already adopted the resolution that you Xeroxed.
MR. HENRY: This one? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Right. MR. HENRY: Okay . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Now we have before us a

18 resolution with several whereases, but the operative part is

19 that: Be it resolved that the subcommittee recommends to

20 the full Article VII Committee that the final draft should

21 contain a recommendation to the Select Committee on

22 Constitutional Revision that (a) Whne the concept of a

23 subsequent injury workmens compensation trust fund has merit,

24 the provision at Article III, Section IX, Paragraph VI which

25 provides for an assessment for this purpose not to be paid

PAGE 30

into the general fund should be deleted; and (b) while the

2 concept of a firemens pension system has merit, the

3 provision at Article X, Section I, Paragraph IV which provides

4 for a special tax for this purpose not to be paid into the

5 general fund should be deleted.

6

Are there any recommendations concerning that

7 proposal?

8

MRS. HUNTER: If we fail to move the adoption of

9 this, it would die from lack of having been proposed, would

10 it not?

..."z
11 i= o

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's right. We could do that,

@~:.i1M or someone could move that we amend our proposal to take out
~r~ the (a) part, which would just mean that our recommendation

14 ~ would be that the enabling language -- I'm not sure you call

~

..':<z"l:
15 ol)

it enabling language -- the language dealing with the firernens

";;;)

16 ~ pension system be deleted from Article X, Section I,

o1M

Z

<l
17 :

Paragraph IV would be all that would remain.

We could do it

18 either way.

19

We need to deal with the firemen's pension system

20 it seems like.

21

MR. NASH: What we have heard this morning would

22 indicate that we need to take action; however, I felt like

23 some of the committee here was knowledgeable in that at the

24 time we took that action. That leaves us in a very difficult

25 position this morning to change it without their knowledge

PAGE 31

and consent, and I don't know -- do they plan additional

2 meetings after the meeting this morning?

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mike, can you answer that? What

4 is the status of the full committee at this point?

5

MR. HENRY: This is in the form of a recommendation

6 to the full committee, so if it were passed on to the full

7 committee then they would again have to act on it to determine

8 whether they want to follow these recommendations to the

9 Select Committee.

10

If you fail to adopt them, of course, it would not

.11

"z
j:

go to the full Article VII committee and there would probably

'o."..

~ 12 ~ be no consideration unless somebody took it on his own

@ r i initiative to bring it up.

! 14

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Did we actually act on this

~

':"z:

15 .:l proposal at the last subcommittee meeting, Mike?

":'>"

16 ~az

t1R. HENRY: You instructed me to draft resolutions

17 : for the subcommittee to present to the full committee on

18 these issues.

19

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: To be adopted today?

20

MR. HENRY: To be adopted or declined.

21

MRS. HUNTER: May I ask with regard to the firemen'

22 pension system, do we have other pension systems that don't

23 operate this way?

24

MR. HENRY: Basically in the full revision of

25 Article X almost all the pension systems in Article X were

PAGE 32

to be provided by law. They made the article very brief, 2 very clear and very flexible.

3

The firemen's pension system, as Senator Holloway

4 pointed out, was a point where politics was involved or came

5 in, and they were not able to delete this special tax for the

6 firemen's pension system, so it is kind of a sore thumb in

7 the revised Article X.

8

MR. NASH: It should be over there, but it's one of

9 those things.

10

.CzI
11 i=

~

12 ~."o.".

~F~ ! 14

l-
Oll
~

.15 ~ CI

::0
16 ~... oz

<l(

17 :

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Since we are in that posture, I guess it would be appropriate for us -- we have to take action one way or the other on these recommendations, otherwise there won't be a recommendation, and we can do that too since the action at the last meeting was to draft these proposals.
MR. NASH: I move we not take any action because this will be looked at subsequent to our meeting by the full

18 committee, and also other people.

19

MR. HENRY: I think you have to move to adopt and

20 have it adopted for the committee to consider. In other

21 words, to put this before the subcommittee as an order of

22 business you would have to adopt --

23

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You mean the full committee, don't

24 you, Mike?

25

MR. HENRY; The full committee, I'm sorry.

PAGE 33

MR. NASH: If we don't take any action

2

MR. HENRY: If you don't take any action --

3

MR. NASH:

then what is already in the language

4 will go forth, correct?

5

MR. HENRY: This is not in your article, so it

6 remains the way it is. It will be on someone else's motion

7 to bring it up again.

8

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If we do not want to deal with the

9 subsequent injury fund, we could delete (a) from our motion

10 and just deal with the firemen's pension system and adopt

11

Czl f:

that resolution as our recommendation with no recommendation

.'oA"...

~ 12 ~ concerning the subsequent injury fund.

~)~

MRS. HUNTER: Has a formal motion been made?

! 14

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: No .

t-

I:zII:

15

MRS. HUNTER: All right. Would it be possible just

Cl

'::">

16 ~ to say that we would delete paragraph (a), in which case you

Q

17

z
::i

would not need

the

letter

(b).

18

MR. HENRY: This is getting as confusing as last

19 time. If you want to take out (a) and recommend to the full

20 conmittee that the full committee recommend to the Select

21 Corrmittee that the firemen's pension system be deleted, or

22 the special tax for the firemen's pension system be deleted,

23 then I would suggest that you make a motion to take out

24 subparagraph (a) and adopt the proposal as amended, or the

25 resolution as amended.

PAGE 34

MRS. HUNTER: It seems sort of unnecessary since 2 the motion has never been made.

3

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: There is no motion on the floor.

4 Someone could move that we adopt the resolution that would

5 contain only subparagraph (b), and we could adopt that, and

6 the only recommendation then being made to the full committee 7 would be the deletion offue firemen's pension system.

8

MR. THOMPSON: You need to renumber your paragraphs

9 accordingly, then you would be in order. As an ex-

10 parliamentarian, that I can tell you.

I:l Z
11 j:
o.la.L:.
@;i here.

MR. HENRY: I'm glad we've got a parliamentarian I'm going to defer to you from now on.
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Does anyone want to make a motion

14 .~.. to that effect?

'"
:I:

15 ~

MRS. HUNTER: I can read the whole thing if it

Ia::l

~

16 .~.. would make everybody more comfortable .

az
17 ::i

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If you would. Are you going to

18 make that in the form of a motion?

19

MRS. HUNTER: I move the following resolution:

20

Whereas, the subcommittee considering Section II of

21 Article VII has determined that the provision in Paragraph III

22 of that section requiring all revenue collected from taxes,

23 fees and assessments for state purposes ... be paid into the

24 general fund of the state treasury, has merit and represents

25 sound public policy;

PAGE 35

Whereas, the subcommittee recognizes that there are

2 several exceptions to this general fund requirement provided

3 for in other provisions of the constitution;

4

Whereas, the subcommittee has debated and discussed

5 the merits of each on~f these constitutional exceptions to

6 the general fund requirement;

7

Therefore, be it resolved that the subcommittee

8 recommends to the full Article VII committee that the final

9 draft proposal should contain a recommendation to the Select

10
zCJ 11 j:
o..".."..
~ 12 ~
~F~ 14 .~.. '<"l: :J: 15 CJ "":::> 16 .~.. Q Z 17 ~

Committee on Constitutional revision that While the concept of a firemen's pension system has
merit, the provision at Article X, Section I, Paragraph IV which provides for a special tax for this purpose not to be paid into the general fund should be deleted .
CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a second? MR. NASH: I'll second it . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor of the motion say

18 aye. Okay.

19

Is there any other business to come before the

20 subcommittee?

21

MR. HENRY: This one you're moving

22

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: We have adopted the resolution on

23 the law officers' earmarking, that's right.

24

MR. HENRY: You've adopted the one on yours?

25

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That's right.

PAGE 36

}ffi. HENRY: Okay. Do you want to adoptthe draft?

2

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Let's now turn to the --

3

Mike, for the purposes of the record, these other

4 two resolutions will be part of the records of the committee,

5 the actual resolutions themselves?

6

MR. HENRY; Yes.

7

CHAIRMAN MARTIN; We need to adopt the language in

8 Section II of Article VII. The only change would be that

9 this language -- well, we adopt this language knowing we have

10 made a recommendation that part of that language be moved to
..,

.. 11

z
~

Article

III.

.o".".

@;i MRS. HUNTER: We would go ahead and adopt this language in case it doesn't move, right?

! 14 lII' < :E:

MR. HENRY: Might as well. You want to retain it at

..15 o..!,l some point in the constitution, right?

;:)

16 .~..

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there a motion we adopt that

Q

Z
17 :<:i language as drafted?

18

MRS. HUNTER; I so move.

19

MR. NASH: Seconded.

20

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: All in favor say aye.

21

Opposed.

22

Okay. Any other business?

23

Thank you all so much for coming this morning.

24

(Whereupon, at 10:00 a.m. the subcommittee meeting

25 was adjourned.)

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VII Subcommittee Meeting Held on Sept. 24, 1980

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, 9-24-80
Proceedings. pp. 3-6
SECTION III: PURPOSES AND METHOD OF STATE TAXATION Paragraph II: Revenue to be paid into general fund. pp. 6-26 Paragraph III: Grants to counties and municipalities. pp. 26-28
ARTICLE III: LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SECTION IX: APPROPRIATIONS Paragraph VI(c): Appropriations to be for specific sums (employers'
workers' compensation expenses). pp. 6-24
SECTION X: RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Paragraph IV: Firemen's Pension System. pp. 29-35

PAGE 1

2

3

STATE: OF' CEORGIA

4

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE VII

5

OF THE

6

CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

7

8

9

; <0.

lD

"z
11 ~
0..~....
12 ~
@rl ! 14 ..:.z...: 15 ~ "~ :::J 16 .Iz.I.I Q Z 17 ~ III

18

FULL COMMITTEE MEETING

19

20

21 Room 133 State Capitol
22 Atlanta, Georgia
23 Thursday, November 13, 1980 11:00 a.m.
24

25

PRESENT:

2

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 CzI
... 11 Ioa-: Go
@;I ! 14 I'<x"l( 15 .: aC:I ;;;) 16 ~... Q Z <l( 17 :
18

CHAIRMAN RANDOLPH W. THROWER REPRESENTATIVE DON CASTLEBERRY MR. JAMES R. DAVIS MRS. CONSTANCE HUNTER SENATOR JIMMY LESTER MR. JAMES F. MARTIN MR. ABIT MASSEY MR. ROBERT NASH DR. GEORGE L. O'KELLEY MR. HENRY D. ROBINSON MR. W. E. STRICKLAND
ALSO PRESENT:
MELVIN HILL, Jr. DAVID KANE WALTER WINGFIELD MICHAEL HENRY VICKIE GREENBERG SAM OTT HOWARD VICTRY DAVID GODFREY J. H. WILLIAMS JIM PULLIN JACK MORTON ED SUMNER ROB SUMNER KENT LAWRENCE GLENN ANTHONY

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

PRO C E E DIN G S

2

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Let me suggest that we get

3 started, and as I indicated earlier, when members who arc now

4 in the house caucus come in we will review briefly with them 5 the agenda that we have covered up to that point.

6

I would ask Mel if he would call the roll and keep

7 open those that we expect to come in in a moment or two.

8

MR. HILL: Mr. Barton.

9

Mr. Blount.

10
"z
11 i=
.'oQ"...
@;~ 14 >1;; :~r 15 ~ "'";:) 16 .~.. Q Z ~ 17 :
18
19
20
21
22 23
24
25

Mr. Castleberry. Mr. Collins. Mr. Charles Davis. Mr. Jim Davis. MR. J. DAVIS: Here. MR. HILL: Mr. Fundgerburg. Mr. Holloway . Mrs. Hunter. MRS. HUNTER: Here. MR. HILL: Mr. Keenum. Mr. Lester. SENATOR LESTER: Here. MR. HILL: Mr. Martin. MR. MARTIN: Here. MR. HILL: Mr. Massey. MR. MASSEY: Here.

PAGE 4

MR. HILL: Dr. McDaniel.

2

Mr. Nash.

3

Mr. Nixon.

4

Mr. O'Kelley.

5

DR. O'KELLEY: Here.

6

MR. HILL: Mr Presley.

7

Mr. Robinson.

8

MR. ROBINSON: Here.

9

MR. HILL: Mr. Strickland.

10

MR. STRICKLAND: Here.

MR. HILL: Mr. Wade.

Mrs. West.

Mr. Williamson.

CHAIRMAN THROWER: All right. Let me welcome you

here. I believe each of you has a copy of the agenda, which

I think we will be able to proceed through and conclude

within the morning.

18

As is customary, I would like for our visitors to

19 introduce themselves. If you would, begin over in the corner

20 here, I would like for you to go around the room and intro-

21 duce yourselves, and we would certainly welcome any comments

22 that any of you might have to make as we go along.

23

MR. OTT: Sam Ott, Georgia Farm Bureau.

24

MR. R. SUMNER: Rob Sumner, Georgia Farm Bureau.

25

MR. VICTRY: Howard victry, Subsequent Injury

PAGE 5

Trust Fund.

2

MR. LAWRENCE: Kent Lawrence, Georgia Chamber of

3 Conunerce .

4

MR. PULLIN: Jim Pillin, Workers Compensation Board.

5

MR. ANTHONY: Glenn Anthony, Georgia Forestry

6 Association.

7

MR. WILLIAMS: Harold Williams, Southern Bell.

8

MR. GODFREY: David Godfrey, Depatment of Human

9 Resources.

10

MR. MORTON: Jack Morton, Tax Reform Commission.

..Czl
11 i=

CHAIRMAN THROWER: We are certainly happy to have

@;;o...... you here. As I indicated, if you have comments to make, we would certainly be happy to receive them.

! 14 ...

The minutes or summary of our last meeting have been

'"<4(

:I:

..15 .:I circulated. As you know, we have the detail on the tapes. Cl

::l

16 .~..

Do I hear a motion with respect to approval of those

Q

Z

<4(

17 : minutes, or any modifications?

18

SENATOR LESTER: So moved.

19

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Second?

20

A MEMBER: Second.

21

CHAIRMAN THROWER: All in favor let it be known by

22 saying aye.

23

You have before you a commentary prepared by the

24 staff, and this has been reviewed and re-reviewed to

25 accompany our proposals in order to give to those who will

PAGE 6

be reading them a general sense of what we have been doing.

2

I think it would be useful -- let me say that if

3 acceptable to you I would like for you to be in a position to

4 move to accept or not accept the commentary. I don't think of

5 it in the sense of an adoption as your own which would require

6 more detailed reading, but it is intended for the purpose

7 indicated, and I think it should be accepted by us with any

8 modifications we might wish to make, really either now or at

9 a later time, or suggestions.

10

! 11 i

12

@rl

....

14 I

~
:I:

15 oll

CI
:::I
16 J
!

17 :

I think it would be helpful if Mel would review for us, take us through this paper.
MR. HILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to state first of all this commentary is based on the work of the staff, a collective effort of the staff to identify and put down in this paper the rationale behind the changes that are being proposed. We went back to the transcripts in some cases to make

18 sure that the reasons were in fact the reasons given in the

19 meetings, and it is as Mr. Thrower says an effort to provide

20 the people that look at the draft later with an idea of why

21 we did what we did and what exactly we did.

22

That is the origin of this commentary, and it's in

23 keeping with the other articles that have been revised in the

24 constitution; we also presented notes and comments on those

25 as well.

PAGE 7

I would say first , of all that the revision of
2 Article VII as has been generated by the work of this committee

3 is primarily an organizational and editorial revision; there

4 are not too many substantive changes that have been made.

5

The objectives of the constitutional revision in

6 general have been brevity, clarity and flexibility, which we

7 have been trying to achieve as we move through this process,

8 and I believe those objectives have been achieved in this

9 draft that you have prepared.

10

The major substantive changes which I can highlight

11

Czl
j:
Io..l..l..:

very quickly are a

new method

for granting exemptions

to the

@;I ad valorem taxation in the state, and I'll explain that in more detail as we go through, but that's one of the major

! 14 ... changes in this draft, the new method for granting those :'z": 15 Q exemptions; secondly, the authorization to counties to levy
Cl Ill: ::>
16 .~.. business license fees and license taxes in unincorporated Q Z
17 : areas if authorized by general law or by local law in the

18 absence of general law.

19

Thirdly, the purposes for which the state may tax

20 has been broadened to indicate that they may tax for any

21 purposes as authorized by law as opposed to the situation now

22 where there is a list of 13 specific purposes for which the

23

state may tax, and those purposes only.

24

Finally, in the area of state debt a number of

25 changes have been made. The limit on state debt has been

PAGE 8

reduced to ten percent from the present 15 percent, a forty-

2 year limitation on the term of the debt has been imposed,

3 and the state has been given the ability to assume the debts

4 of local governments if the General Assembly approves this

5 action by two-thirds vote of each house.

6

Those are primarily the substantive changes that

7 have been approved in this draft, and what I'm going to

8 discuss -- I'll try go to through the draft quickly to indicat(

9 what's been done in addition to that, but for the most part

10 these other changes are of an editorial and organizational

~
11 ~
@;;2 III

nature. I might indicate for the benefit of those who were
not here at the last meeting that Canter Brown led us through

! 14

the draft on a paragraph by paragraph basis, and we did make

M

~

%

15 q a number of wording changes as we went through to clarify

I~
16 things that weren't clear, and we did approve, or the committe(

i 17 approved at the last meeting that change relating to the

18 taxation by counties of businesses in the unincorporated

19 area. It also authorized grants for local governments in

20 general as opposed to the present provision that limits 21 grants to municipalities only, and the assumption of debts 22 by the state of 10cal-gqvernments was another change approved

23 at the last meeting.

24

Those were the three principal changes that were

25 agreed upon at the last meeting.

PAGE 9

Now I'll try to go through the draft quickly. If

2 you disagree, I hope you will speak up and indicate you don't

3 agree with the rationale that's been given, that was given

4 in this draft, and we can correct that.

5

We will start with Section I. Paragraph I of

6 Section I, Taxation; limitations on grants of tax powers

7 is an editorial revision to eliminate inoperative and

8 unnecessary language; otherwise, it's the same.

9

Paragraph II, Taxing power limited. This was a

10
.."z
11 I-
o......
~ 12 ~
(@)F~
! 14 t; :~r
..15 0:1 "~
16 ~...
az
17 :

restatement of the existing provisions todescribe more accurately the limitation on the state's power to levy ad valorem taxes, to modernize the exemption to the limitation relating to defending the state in an emergency, and it continues forward the present method of taxing shares of stock of banking corporations, but allows future changes in this method as authorized by law
Paragraph IlIon Uniformity; classification of

18 property, of course is one of the most important paragraphs

19 in the entire article, and this preserves the present

20 uniformity language with the exception of the "for public

21 purposes only" because as I indicated earlier the authoriza-

22 tion to tax was broadened to include any purpose authorized

23 by law, so the present uniformity provision itself was

24 retained, but as I said, these exceptions for licensing of

25 businesses in unincorporated areas is added. If this was

PAGE 10

not added, the county would not be able to tax only in the

2 unincorporated area, or levy such a tax only in the

3 unincorporated area, so that's why that particular provision

4 is added to the uniformity section.

5

I would say the local amendments authorizing these,

6 the present exemptions, are continued as statutory law, and

7 the classes of property are the same as in the present

8 constitution but they're reorganized. They're put together

9 so hopefully it will be clearer to thereader what the

10 different classes of tangible property are that the state

i"
11 may --

@;i...

MR. KANE: Excuse me, Mel. I believe you misspoke yourself. You used the word exemption in talking about the

! 14
:!;;
15 ~
i~
16

local constitutional amendments which are carried forward as statutory law, and I'm sure you intended to say that the present local constitutional amendments authorizing the

i 17 business licensing, taxes and fees has been carried forward

18 as statutory law.

19

MR. HILL.: That's right. Thank you. That I s correct.

20

Are there any questions about anything in Section I

21 as I have just summarized it?

22

All right. In Section II the major change proposed

23 in Section II is to allow future exemptions to be granted 24 pursuant to law subject to referendum. In the case of a

25 general exemption that's statewide it would be a general law

PAGE 11

that would be subject to referendum statewide: in the case

2 of a local homestead exemption it would have to be approved

3 by a majority of the members of each house and approved in a

4 referendum in the locality.

5

This is the same procedure that is now followed in

6 amending the constitution, we need two-thirds approval of

7 each house and approval of the voters to have a statewide

8 constitutional amendment, so that is the saroe procedure that

9 we now use for that type of an exemption.

10

For local homestead exemptions we now need two-

CzI 11 j:
..'o"....
@;i

thirds approval of each house and approval of the citizens in the locality, but because of the local courtesy rule if the local amendment has the approval of the local delegation

! 14 In :I: 15 ~
CI
'";;;) 16 .~..
Q
Z 17 :

it is approved hy the General Assembly, so the local homestead exemptions will be able to be granted by a majority vote of each house and the approval of the citizens in the locality.

18

There is one difference in the sense that between

19 the procedure that we're proposing and the procedure we have

20 now, when you can vote on them, the constitutional amendment

21 can only be voted on in even numbered years, and this change

22 would allow this exemption to be voted on at the time that the 23 law provides for the election, so that it would change the 24 present procedure to that extent.

25

Otherwise it would be the same procedure that we now

PAGE 12

have, and it would eliminate the need in the future for

2 constitutional amendments relating to these issues because

3 we've set forth a procedure in the constitution to do the job.

4

Now, Paragraph I of this section is moved up from

5 the end of the present section, and it states that all

6 exemptions from ad valorem taxation which are not granted in

7 or pursuant to this constitution are void.

8

Now, the present language says that all exemptions

9 that are not granted in the constitution are void. That

10 provision is what caused any exemption to have to be a part

!
11 j:: of the constitution itself and caused the people to have to
:2=
12 u vote on these things as an amendment to the constitution.
@ r l With the new procedure we've established they would be

14 t.I. :I:
15 ~
III
Il:l
16
:t
17 i

authorized to be done by law sUbject to referendum similar to what I've described.
Okay. Paragraph II is an explanation of that procedure that I described earlier.

18

I think I should point out that the grant of any

19 such an eemption in this law that's subject to referendum

20 would then be sUbject to the conditions, limitations and

21

administra~ive procedures specified by law to give the General

22 Assembly flexibility to provide for these administrative

23 details in implementing the exemption by law.

24

You see, presently if you have an amendment to the

2S constitution that has a long list of procedures, then in order

PAGE 13

to change even those procedures you need a new constitutional 2 amendment, and so this provision is an effort to give more

3 flexibility to the General Assembly to in fact handle these

4 kind of administrative matters by statute.

5

Paragraph IlIon the freeport exemptions, it's the

6 present provision on freeport, but editorially revised. It's

7 been shortened to allow the administration and implementation

8 of exemptions to be provided by law, and until such a law is

9 enacted the exact same procedures, definitions, limitations

10 and conditions that are provided in the present constitution

are carried forward, so the freeport provisions as I say

are preserved but revised editorially.

Paragraph IV i.s an extremely important paragraph in

this section because it carries forward all existing

exemptions so that all the exemptions we have in the present

constitution are carried forward. They will be authorized in

the future to be repealed as are regular statutory law.

18

Paragraph V of the present constitution relates to

19 exemptions from taxation in corporate charters, and this

20 provision was deleted because the Supreme Court in a very

21 early case held that this type of provision was void and of

22 no effect, so it's been eliminated from the draft.

23

Are there any questions on Section II as I have

24 tried to summarize it?

25

All right. Section III, Purposes and Methods of

PAGE 14

State Taxation.

2

As I indicated earlier, this is another place where

3 there is some major change in the draft from what we have at

4 the present time because the state is given the broad

5 authority to tax for any purpose authorized by law. That's

6 what Paragraph I does.

7

Paragraph II is an editorial revision again of the

8 present provision, and it includes the present exception to

9 the general fund requirement relating to the promotion of

10 agricultural products. That provision has been modified,
I11 has been shortened, but the substance of it has been retained
e;i~ so that will continue to be an exception to the general fund requirement relating to prosecutorial officers' training

14 ~I aftd the collection of additional penalties and fees by local

i

I15 ~ ~

governments,

the requirement that these be paid into a special

16 fund for prosecutorial officers' training has been retained

17 I in this section, but there is a recommendation that was

18 approved at the last meeting that in the final draft of the

19 constitution that this be Shifted to Article III because it's

really an exception to the earmarking provision and is

21 misplaced here, but in order to assure that it is not lost

22 it's been retained at this point for the time being. The

23 Select Committee will understand it's to be moved to Article

24 III as part of the recommendation of this committee.

25

Paragraph III as I indicated earlier as well relates

PAGE 15

to grants to local governments, and the present provision 2 authorizes grants to municipalities. The subcommittee

3 recommended and the full committee approved a change in this

4 provision to allow grants to local governments in general

5 as authorized by the General Assembly.

6

DR. o 'KELLEY: Mr. Hill, may I raise a question

7 there for my own understanding? What does the term "local

8 government" include? What agencies does this --

9

MR. HILL: It was my understanding that the committeE

10 intended to mean counties and municipalities, and they did not

z"
11 i=
o..'"....
@;I

intend to include other political subdivisions. DR. O'KELLEY: Not the board of education? MR. HILL: No, sir. That was not the intention of

! 14 ... the committee .

'x"

15 Q

SENATOR LESTER: You wouldn't classify a board of

"'";;;)

16 ~... education as a governing, local government .

az

17 ::

DR. o 'KELLEY: I understand that, but I was

18 wondering if what we were trying to get at was a tax rebate

19 that we've had so much trouble with. It's a grant, but it

20 does not

21

MR. HILL: It's not intended to -- when the committeE

22 discussed this initially --

23

Is there some sentiment that this should be

24 rephrased?

25

DR. o 'KELLEY: I do not know that much about the

PAGE 16

terminology. I do know that the tax rebate has created quite 2 a problem at the local level because of the necessity for

3 sending it down the way it was sent down. I assume there's 4 no way to avoid that.

5

MR. HENRY: I think the state otherwise has the

6 ability to grant funds to local boards of education. I think 7 the tax rebate issue that came up a couple years ago and

8 I'm not sure, maybe Senator Lester could help me -- was the

9 state couldn't grant that money directly back to the citizens

10 because ad valorem tax relief was not a purpose for which the

i~
11 state could tax, so they granted it to the boards of education
...

and had them make a commensurate rollback of the funds they
@);':j would have otherwise needed to have raised by taxation. Is
~ 14! that --

t;

-c

%

15 011

SENATOR LESTER: I think you're correct.

III

Ill:

::I

16 I ~

DR. o 'KELLEY: Yes, that's right.

g%
17

SENATOR LESTER: I think that was the hitch. It was

18 all right to do it for education, but not to individual

19 citizens.

20

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Mr. Martin?

21

MR. MARTIN: The debate in the subcommittee, both

22 the County Commissioners' Association and the Municipal

23 Association appeared -- the Municipal Association was in favor

24 of leaving the language as it originally appeared in the

25 constitution, and the County Commissioners were in favor of

PAGE 17

expanding it.

2

At the fUll committee meeting last time Representativ~

3 Castleberry made the proposal that the language be changed, so

4 the discussion at least at the subcommittee level was between

5 whether to include counties or not.

6

I don't remember what Representative Castleberry

7 said when he proposed his amendment to add that language.

8

MR. HILL: If there's some confusion, the draft

9 could be changed to state grants to counties and municipalities.

10 If that was the intention of the committee, and I believe it

Czl

@;;11

i=
..o~....

was,

perhaps

that

would

be

a

proper

revision

or

change.

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Any further expressions on that?

SENATOR LESTER: Would that clarify it, Mr. Chairman?

! 14 lon

CHAIRMAN THROWER: I believe so.

:I:

15 .:

SENATOR LESTER: I wouldn't want to vote on it until

Cl

~

::;)

16

.~..
az

Mr.

Castleberry

is

present,

though .

17 ::;

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Let's do hold that then for him.

18 I think that would be an appropriate subject for a motion

19 when he joins us.

20

All right. Mel, do you want to proceed?

21

MR. HILL: All right. The present Paragraph V of

22 Section III relating to industrial development commissions

23 was deleted. It was determined by the committee that this 24 provision was never implemented and was no longer necessary,

25 and therefore it was deleted from the proposed draft.

PAGE 18

Any questions on Section III as I've summarized it?

2

All right. Section IV on State Debt was -- this

3 section was subject to close scrutiny by Marcus Collins'

4 subcommittee and a small number of bond counsel that worked 5 with us on this, and it too is an editorial revision for the 6 most part with the following substantive changes which I 7 pointed out earlier but I'll review them again.

8

First of all, the present 15 percent debt limitation

9 that's on the state was reduced to ten percent.

10

Secondly, a forty-year limit was imposed on the term

I!
11 of the state debt; and

12 =

Thirdly, the state was authorized to assume the debt

@ r l of local governments upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds

14 ~I of the members of each house if it decided that that was

~

15 ~
i16 I

necessary. I

have

spoken

to Mr.

Nixon

and

he

indicated

that

he

i 17 intends to send a copy of this provision on state debt to

18 Standard and Poore's and Moody's once it is finally approved

19 by this committee to have their reaction to it, and the

Select Committee will be very interested in hearing what the 21 response of those services are, because it was determined by 22 the committee that these were very carefully drawn provisions 23 and may have quite a bit to do with their high bond rating, 24 so they didn't intend to affect the substantive protections 25 that are here, but only to restate and reorganize these

PAGE 19

provisions.

2

Now, under the circumstances I can go through these

3 specific changes in each of these paragraphs, but I'm not sure

4 the committee feels that is necessary. It is a very tecnnical

5 area of the law, and because Mr. Nixon is going to be sending

6 this to Standard and Poore's and Moody's I hesitate to go

7 through this.

8

What is your feeling?

9

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Any desire on the part of any to

10
..CzI
11 j:
o...
12 ~
~~ F~ ~ 14 ~ I'<"l( :J: ..15 ~ CI
;;;)
16 .~.. Q Z <l(
17 :

go through it in detail? It has been done in the subcommittee and by us previously I believe.
Hearing none, Mel, go ahead. MR. HILL: All right. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the commentary that will be presented to the Select Committee. MR. HENRY: Mel, could I point out one thing? It's probably not as technical as the rest of it is, is that authorizing the General Assembly to take over the debt of

18 local government in certain instances, that was added to the

19 state debt provision.

20

MR. HILL: Yes. Thank you. I tried to summarize

21 the substantive changes in the beginning.

22

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Do you want to comment on that

23 particular provision?

24

SENATOR LESTER: What's the reason for that?

25

MR. HILL: The subcommittee felt that there may

PAGE 20

come a time when the city or county goes bankrupt, and if it 2 does it wants to be able to assume the obligations of that

3 unit of government.

4

SENATOR LESTER: Would this strengthen the bonding

S ability of your county and city governments? Do you think thai

6 was the primary reason for it?

7

MR. HILL: It would seem to me it would strengthen

8 it. That wasn't a consideration at the time to my recollec-

9 tion.

10

SENATOR LESTER: They can only do this on two-

thirds vote of the General Assembly; is that right?

MR. HILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN THROWER: I think it probably was more to permit the state some flexibility in dealing with an

emergency that would not lend itself at that point to

constitutional amendment.

SENATOR LESTER: But it does provide for a two-

18 thirds vote?

19

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Yes, it does provide for a two-

20 thirds vote.

21

MR. HILL: Paragraph X on page 17 is a more

22 detailed discussion of this change and the reason for it.

23

SENATOR LESTER: I think the same thing happened in

24 New York. Didn't the state take over the debt of the city?

2S

MR. HILL: I believe so.

PAGE 21

MF.. ROBINSON: There's no provision now to allow

2 this in the present constitution?

3

CHAIRMAN THROWER: That's correct, yes.

4

MR. HENRY: Arguably they could by making grants to

5 municipalities shore up that debt.

6

MR. NASH: In the present law it's prohibited as I

7 see it. Isn't that right?

8

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Except as

9

MR. NASH: Through grants or something like that,

10 but as far as assuming the debt.

~ z
11 f:
o..'"....
@;I

comes

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Yes. SENATOR LESTER: A comment. Of course up with the General Assembly there's going

when this to be a hotly

! 14 ol -n

contested issue,

I'm sure.

:~r

15 .:
~

MR. KANE: This change was introduced by Representat ve

'";:)

16 .az~.. Collins at our previous meeting, and approved by the committee

~

17 ::; at that time.

18

SENATOR LESTER: That surprises me.

19

MRS. HUNTER: The commentary indicates it was

20 intended to preserve the state's credit should the possible

21 default of the local government endanger the state's credit

22 they could take action under this provision to shore up the

23

state's credit. Presumably that was the reason for putting

24

it in.

25

MR. HENRY: And it would be prospective in nature

PAGE 22

as well. You wouldn't necessarily by putting this in there,

2 you wouldn't mandate that the state do it.

3

SENATOR LESTER: There would have to be a two-thi.rds

4 vote.

5

MR. HENRY: It would have to be under a general

6 law, so you're just adding flexibility; you're really not

7

SENATOR LESTER: You're not commanding bat it be

8 done. 9
10

MR. HENRY: Right. CHAIRMAN THROWER: It would be a two-thirds vote

sUbject to veto.

MR. HILL: Are there any other comments on the

commentary?

At the last meeting the committee also made other

recommendations, later recommendations which were summarized

in a memo sent to you earlier, and I will summarize those for

you again. This will be part of the recommendation of this 18 article committee as well, these recommendations on these 19 other matters.

First of all, it was proposed by the subcommittee

21 on purposes of taxation and approved by the full committee

22 that Article X, Section If Paragraph IV, firemen's pension

23

system, insofar as it authorizes a special tax for that

24 pension system which is not required to be paid into the

25 general fund of the state's treasury should be deleted from

PAGE 23

the constitution with appropriate statutory changes. It was

2 a recommendation approved by the full committee and it's

3 passed along to the Select Committee along with the other

4 recommenations.

5

The second one, it was recommended that Article VII,

6 Section III, Paragraph 2(c) relating to the assessment of

7 additional fines and penalties provided for law enforcement

8 prosecutorial officers' training be transferred to Article

9 III to follow the earmarking provision, and I mentioned that

10 earlier, the reason for that shift.

Thirdly, which we have discussed as well, that the

provision on grants to local governments, that that provision

be shifted to Article III to follow the gratutities prohibitioI

because it's considered an exception to the limitation on the

state to provide grants or gratuities to any person, and it

was recommended by this committee that that provision be

shifted as well.

18

The final report of the committee will consist of

19 the strike through and underlined copy of Article VII, the 20 clean copy of Article VII, the commentary which we have just

21 reviewed, and the recommenations on the other matters I just

22 summarized for you, and that will be the final report'of this

23 committee to the Select Committee if you approve the proposed

24 draft and the commentary as we have summarized it.

25

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Any discussion?

PAGE 24

MRS. HUNTER; Would the recommendations with regard 2 to local constitutional amendments be part of the report also?

3

MR. KANE: I was just going to point out that that

4 would be the fourth recommendation of the Article VII committee.

S It has already been approved by the committee through the

6 mailing that we sent out, and the response we received of

7 course was approval of that recommendation, and it will be

8 forwarded on. It has already been forwarded to the Governor.

9

CHAIRMAN THROWER: I believe each of you received a

10 copy of my letter to the Governor including the making of that

recommendation. I understand that committee has not met, they did

not --

MR. HILL: They have not met.

CHAIRMAN THROWER: When, will it meet? MR. HILL: I would think soon after Thanksgiving,

early December.

18

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Any comments on or with respect t(

19 the commentary?

20

SENATOR LESTER: I move it be accepted.

21

CHAIRMAN THROWER: There's been a motion it be

22 accepted. Do I hear a second?

23

MR. MASSEY: Second.

24

CHAIRMAN THROWER: All in favor let it be known by

2S

saying aye.

PAGE 25

I'm assuming we.'re taking this action subject to

2 further comment when our absent members in caucus come in and

3 have anything to add.

4

Now let's go to Item 5 on the agenda, the review of

5 changes in the draft of the proposed revision, that is

6 changes in the draft which you have heretofore approved,

7 and these are primarily editorial, and who is to review those?

8 Mr. Hill? Mel, will you

9

MR. HILL: All right. Mr. Chairman, I had indicated

10 earlier that at the last meeting there were a number of minor

editorial changes made throughout the draft, and I don't

intend to go through them all and point out word changes

that were made, but I would like to highlight the major

changes, the first being the county business license taxes.

Now, we have discussed that a number of times.

You have in front of you, or should have -- we'll give you

one if you don't have it -- and alternative provision which

18 the staff is offering to clarify what was done earlier.

19

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Does each of you have that before

20 you? Mr. Robinson doesn't have a copy.

21

MR. HILL: All this does is to put in two sentences

22 what we had in one sentence before, it's more a grammatical

23 correction, and we would need the approval of the committee

24 to nlake even this kind of change, so you may take a minute to

25 read that provision.

PAGE 26

(Pause. )

2

MR. HILL: I might point out this as well. In the

3 last sentence of this proposal which is in the draft you have

4 it indicates that all of the local amendments relating to this

5 matter are continued as statutory law until otherwise

6 provided for by law, and if ~ur proposal on local constitu-

7 tional amendments which was a proposal to encompass all local

8 constitutional amendments is approved, then it's my under-

9 standing that this would be unnecessary and that these

particular amendments would be treated the same as other
i..I
11 local amendments and they would not be singled out for special
@-:! treatment. That is my understanding of what's to happen, how to

t reconcile your proposal with respect to local constitutional

~

%

15 ill amendments in general and as to this.

I\II
I
16

That is the change that the Select Committee would

17 :; have to make once it makes a decision about local amendments

18 in general, so it's not something you would change at the

19 moment.

20

Is there any objection to our inclusion of this

21 change in the draft, in the final draft?

22

MR. KANE: Mel, I would like to emphasize that this

23 is as I perceive it solely a grammatical change in the way the

24 sentence was structured originally, it was not proper, and in

25 order to use correct grammar throughout it was necessary

PAGE 27

simply to rephrase the one long sentence into two sentences.

2 I don't think there is any other change accomplished by this.

3

CHAIRMAN THROWER: As Is otherwise found in the

4 earlier draft is found on page 2 of the draft previously

5 approved by us.

6

MRS. HUNTER: Would you like a motion to make the

7 substitution?

8

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Yes, please.

9

MRS. HUNTER: I would move we choose the alternative

10 provision.

"z
11 j:
.'oG".o.
@);~

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Do I hear a second? MR. DAVIS: Seconded. CHAIRMAN THROWER: Any discussion?

14 !... '" :I:
15 ~
"'":::l
16 .~.. Q Z
17 ::;

All in favor let it be known by saying aye Opposed. It is adopted . MR. HILL: The second change approved at the last

18 meeting relates to this grants to local governments, and this

19 may be a proper time to change that wording if that is the

20 wish of the committee.

21

CHAIRMAN THROWER: A change from local government to

22 counties and municipalities. Do you have a motion on that?

23

SENATOR LESTER: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to make

24 any change when the author of the original motion is not

25 present.

PAGE 28

Of course, as has been stated, we are not the last

2 group that is going to be looking at this; there is going to

3 be a select overall committee plus the General Assembly.

4 I know we have got to move on, we can't just sit here and

5 wait for our brethern in the house. I'm sure that their delay

6 is legitimate, and so I would hesitate to make any change

7 without his presence.

8

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Let's then continue to hold that

9 and see if they do not join us.

10
11 t":z
o.I.I..
@;~ ! 14 Ii; <C :I: 15 ~ "Ill: ;;) 16 ~... :oz 17 :<Ci

All right. MR. HILL: The third change that was approved at the last meeting of a substantive nature was the change relating to the assumption of debts of local governments which we have already discussed. CHAIRMAN THROWER: Then it would be -- Do we have before us a draft which incorporates the editorial changes that you have made?

18

MR. HILL: Yes, sir. Well, we sent out with the

19 notice of the meeting the final draft of the article, but we

20 do have fifty other copies here if anyone did not bring it.

21

CHAIRMAN THROWER: It includes all changes then

22 except the one that we have just discussed that you had

23 written out, and except the possible change of the termi-

24 nology of local government?

25

MR. HILL: Yes.

PAGE 29

CHAIRMAN THROWER: All right. We will then hold

2 further action on that to see if the members of the house

3 join us.

4

SENATOR LESTER: One comment, Mr. Chairman.

5

Mel, on your alternative provision, this is Secti.on

6 Paragraph II, you mean Section I, Paragraph III, don't you?

7

MR. HILL: Yes.

8

CHAIRMAN THROWER: All right.

9

Item 8 on our agenda --

10

MR. KANE: Mel has already gone through that.

"z
11 j:

CHAIRMAN THROWER: All right. Item 9, I think you

e;r...oor: Go have reviewed the or summarized the contents of the final
report.

! 14 .I.-. <I( x
IS .:I
"or:
~
16 ~... Q Z <I(
17 :

I believe the members are familiar with what we have recommended with respect to local amendments, that is as a -not for Article VII alone, but for the general purposes . Do you want to review that again for us as we have a moment

18 or two and to refresh the committee on that?

19

MR. HILL: Yes, sir.

20

The proposal that was agreed upon by the full

21 committee and sent to the Governor was that all local 22 constitutional amendments be carried forward for a period of 23 four years as valid statutory law, and that at the conclusion 24 of that four years they would be automatically repealed 25 unless some affirmative action is taken by the local

PAGE 30

delegation in the interim to preserve them, and the virtue of

2 that proposal is that it gives the Office of Legislative

3 Counsel and the staff of the Select Committee the opportunity

4 to in fact give each delegation a package of their local

5 amendments so that they can in fact review them and decide

6 which ones should be continued or which ones should not.

7

As we said, there are over a thousand local amend-

8 ments to the constitution; they have not been chronicled,

9 indexed, compiled in a systematic way, and it is an effort

10 that is going to take some time, and this proposal would give

the time that is necessary as well as the review that's

necessary to deal with these in a responsible manner, so that

is the proposal that was approved by the committee, and I

feel the Governor will be very pleased to have this

recommendation to assist him.

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Otherwise these constitutional

amendments, local amendments simply disappear in the mist,

18 and it will be quite a task for the staff to get the materials

19 in some instances the local governments will need in reviewing 20 it, and I hope that without waiting the staff can undertake

21 that work because whatever happens to the proposed amendments

22 to the constitution this is information that is needed.

23

Further I would think that having this kind of

24 information would emphasize the need for constitutional

25 amendments to this article we're proposing and suggesting

PAGE 31

generally.

2

It seems to me it is a very useful proposal and one

3 that certainly would be welcomed by the voting populous

4 that's so impatient with these extended amendments.

5

SENATOR LESTER: At the$me time, Mr. Chairman, as

6 I understand the proposal these local constitutional amend-

7 ments will disappear in the mist unless they are enacted

8 within the four-year period.

9

MR. HILL: Yes.

10
IJ Z
11 j:
Io..l..l..:
~ 12 ~
~F~ ! 14 I:zii: 15 ob IJ Ill: ;) 16 ~... Q Z 17 :

SENATOR LSSTER: Reenacted I guess is the proper term. Is that right?
MR. HILL: Yes. CHAIRMAN THROWER: They will be cut off, but none will be cut off without it being known that they're going out of existence. SENATOR LESTER: Without the opportunity to put them in the local law.

18

CHAIRMAN THROWER: No one will be surprised one day

19 to find because he didn't do something affirmative he's lost 20 the right, because he will be put on -- or the unit of

21 government will be put on notice and there will be exchanges

22 to avoid any surprises of that sort.

23

SENATOR LESTER: This will authorize these local

24 governments or county governments in the future to, with the

25 same formality as a constitutional amendment to enact them

PAGE 32

but they would not be constitutional amendments, they would be

2 general law. Is that right?

3

MR. HILL: They would be law, yes.

4

SENATOR LESTER: General law?

5

MR. HILL: Yes.

6

SENATOR LESTER: You would still have to have your

7 two-thirds vote, you would still have to have a referendum.

8

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Correct, except on the local

9 we're providing for a majority rather than twothirds.

10

MR. HILL: Yes. Now remember that only relates to

homestead exemptions. You know, that particular procedure is

very limited in scope. It only relates to local homestead

exemptions.

In terms of any other local amendments to the

constitution that we would have after this four-year period

they would be prohibited; local governments would not be able

to amend the conltitution to apply to -- it would have to get

18 a local act that was under the --

19

SENATOR LESTER: Local statutory law.

20

MR. HILL: Yes.

21

MR. KANE: Mr. Chairman, I believe Mel just mentionec

22 the second part of the recommendation which is very important,

23 that is the prohibition against future local constitutional

24 amendments which accompanies this recommendation.

25

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Yes.

PAGE 33

MR. HILL: That prohibition will go into effect at 2 the effective date of the constitution; it doesn't have to

3 wait the four years to go into effect.

4

MR. MASSEY: All that has been approved by mail.

5 Do we need to take any action?

6

MR. KANE: No, we don't. It's been approved. We've

7 got the consent of the committee, and we have already made that

8 recommendation in fact to the Select Committee.

9

SENATOR LESTER: Mr. Chairman, we have Mr.

10 Castleberry here now, we might take up this provision that

11

"z
j:
o..'"....

carne

into question.

@;i CHAIRMAN THROWER: If I could refer to the page of the commentary that deals with this.

14 ~ t'x<"l(
15 .:J
"'";;;)
16 .~.. Q
Z
<l(
17 ::;

MR. HILL: Page 13. CHAIRMAN THROWER: Page 13. Do you have before you a copy of what is called commentary to Title VII, Taxation and Finance?

18

SENATOR LESTER: My only question, Mr. Chairman, if

19 I might present this to --

20

CHAIRMAN THROWER: If you would.

21

SENATOR LESTER: -- to my goodfriend, Representative

22 Don Castleberry.

23

Don, in our discussion we were thinking that maybe

24 the term "local governments" was possibly too broad and that

25 we ought to spell out that it was for municipalities and

PAGE 34

county governments; the word Itlocal government ll might be

2 misconstrued in some way.

3

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: The intent was to include

4 counties along with municipalities. What other --

5

CHAIRMAN THROWER: A question was raised as to

6 whether a local board of education would be covered. We

7 thought that would not be considered a local government, but

8 since we were clearly talking about counties and municipalitie~

9 that it might be better simply to state that rather than to

10 state local governments; however, we held all of that until

II
i 11 i= you were present and could give us your --

12 :=

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: We already give the

@ r l grants to the boards of education, we do that.

! 14 i

DR. o 'KELLEY: Mr. Castleberry, I raised the questior

15 011 simply because if we mean municipalities and counties, why

!"
i16 not just say that? Why say local governments?

17 :~:

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: I have no objection .

18 That was the purpose of my amendment was to include those two,

19 the counties along with municipalities.

20

DR. o 'KELLEY: We thought that. We just raised that

21 question.

22

SENATOR LESTER: We just want to tie it down a littlE

23 bit further so there wouldn't be any question of the definitior

24 of local government.

25

CHAIRMAN THROWER: I think it was the consensus to -

PAGE 35

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: As I say, in education

2 we have 'already got that right in the constitution.

3

CHAIRMP.N THROWER: It was the consensus I believe

4 to make that change subject to discussing it with you, and

5 if that accords with what your intent was maybe we could now

6 have a motion on that.

7

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: I move that we change

8 local governments to spell it out to municipalities and

9 counties.

10

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Do I hear a second to that?

"z
11 i=
@;;..Io..I..:

SENATOR LESTER: Seconded. DR. O'KELLEY: Seconded. CHAIRMAN THROWER: Any further discussion?

! 14 I:nr

All in favor let it be known by saying aye.

15 ~
"II:
:;)

We reviewed the commentary prepared by the staff,

16 ~... or rather it was reviewed or summarized for us, and a motion

Q

Z

17 : was made to accept it in the sense of it being a useful

18 document for the next readers to have.

19

We did not attempt to review it in detail and adopt

20 as a committee product itself, but simply to accept it

21 subject to any comments that might be offered by those who

22 couldn't be present when we acted on it.

23

Do you have anything?

24

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: No, sir. Mr. Chairman,

25 I have been over this that I received in the mail the other

PAGE 36

day, and I really think the committee has done a good job on 2 it, on this.

3

I know probably there are going to be some questions

4 arise down the road, but I think we have addressed this

5 article in good fashion.

6

CHAIRMAN THROWER: All right. It's good to hear

7 that.

8

We did adopt a revised statement of Section I,

9 Paragraph III (a) (2) which merely broke into three sentences

10 what had been in two without intending to change the sense of



11

j:
2...

it

in

any

way,

but

to

clarify

it,

and

that

is

on

a

separate

9;-112 III sheet that says Paragraph II, that is Roman Numeral II, that should be Roman Numeral III.

14 ~I

MR. KANE: The only thing we have left is the

<C

~

15 ~
~

adoption of the revision as the final draft of the committee.

!:l
16 c

MR. HILL: As amended.

i17

CHAIRMAN THROWER: As amended.

18

Then we conclude; right?

19

MR. KANE: We have covered everything.

20

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Good job.

21

All right. The remaining formal item of the agenda

22 of course is the culmination of everything we have been doing,

23 and that is to adopt the proposed revision of Article VII with

24 the indicated amendments.

25

What is the disposition of the committee in that

PAGE 37

respect?

2

MR. MASSEY: Move it be approved.

3

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Second?

4

MR. ROBINSON: Seconded.

5

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Any discussion?

6

This I understand puts us out of business, so it's

7 a solemn act to take.

8

All in favor let it be known by saying aye.

9

Opposed.

10

As we conclude, let me thank each of you. I had

CzI 11 ...
'o.."....
e~~1

concern when we for one

about the started. reason or

size of the committee as a working committee It is true that some have not contributed another. We have had one member of our

! 14 I-ici J: 15 ~
CI
'"::l 16 .~..
Q
-Zc
17 ::i

committee move into the federal realm, and we can certainly understand his absence and others were not able to particpate actively, but I have been very much impressed by the way each of you has contributed to this product as we have come along,

18 and whatever may happen to it in the future I feel that we

19 have made a contribution, and I want to express my apprecia-

20 tion to each of you for your working together to produce this

21 product. I think we can all be proud of it, and I hope that

22 the Select Committee receives it favorably whatever its

23 action may be in specifics.

24

We have certainly been aided greatly by the staff

25 people, and I want to thank each of them; I want to thank Mel

PAGE 38

and his staff, Mike Henry and Vickie Greenberg -- I don't

2 know, did you introduce yourself as we went around the room,

3 Vickie? I don't know why you were skipped. We certainly

4 would have wanted you prominent in that.

S

Then the Office of the Legislative Counsel has

6 contributed greatly. As all of you know, Canter has done a

7 great job here with us, and he's following Congressman-elect

8 Hatcher into the federal realm, and we certainly wish him well.

9

MR. BROWN: Thank you.

10

CHAI~~ THROWER: You will be his

MR. BROWN: Legislative assistant.

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Legislative assistant. I know

you'll do a good job, and I think he's fortunate to have you.

SENATOR LESTER: My only comment, Mr. Chairman, is

God help us.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN THROWER: I feel that He will.

18

REPRESENTATIVE CASTLEBERRY: Did you say us or him?

19

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN THROWER: Cindy Nonidez is not present, but

21 she has done a great deal of work as you know in this misty 22 obscure area of constitutional and local amendments and what 23 they are what'shappened to them, and I think has given us a 24 body of material to work with where we were simply guessing 2S previously, and I hope you will convey our appreciation to her

PAGE 39

With that, we are prepared to go off the payroll

2 here in just a moment.

3

Are there any other remarks that we have, any other

4 business that we need to take up?

5

MR. MASSEY: You have thanked everybody but the

6 chairman, so thank you.

7

CHAIRMAN THROw~R: It has been a pleasure to work

8 with this conunittee and the staff. I feel like I've had no--

9 difficulties at all, and I do appreciate it.

10
"z
11 i=
.'oa"...
@;I 14 ~ I'" :r 15 ~ "'":::> 16 .~.. Czl 17 ~

Do I hear a motion that we adjourn?
SENATOR LESTER: Move that we adjourn, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN THROWER: Seconded.
We will stand adjourned. Thank you all.
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m. the conunittee meeting was ad j ourned )
+++ + -I+

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
J

INDEX Committee to Revise Article VII Full Committee Meeting Held on Nov. 13, 1980

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
I

FULL COMMITTEE MEETING, 11-13-80

Proceedings. pp. 3-9
SECTION I: POWER OF TAXATION Paragraph I: Taxation; limitations on grants of tax power. p. 9 Paragraph II: Taxing power limited. p. 9 Paragraph III: Uniformity; classification of property; assessment of
agricultural land; utilities. pp. 9-10
SECTION II: EXEMPTIONS FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION Paragraph I: Unauthorized tax exemptions void. p. 12 Paragraph II: Exemptions from taxation of property. pp. 12-13 Paragraph III: Exemptions which may be authorized locally. p. 13 Paragraph IV: Current property tax exemptions preserved. p. 13
SECTION III: PURPOSES AND METHOD OF STATE TAXATION Paragraph I: Taxation; purposes for which powers may be exercised. p. 14 Paragraph II: Revenue to be paid into general fund. p. 14
Paragraph III: Grants to counties and municipalities. pp. 14-17, 27-28,
33-35
SECTION IV: STATE DEBT General discussion. pp. 18-19 Paragraph X: Assumption of debts forbidden; exceptions. pp. 19-22, 28-29 Article III, Section IX, Paragraph VI(c): Appropriations for specific
sums (and earmarkings). pp. 22-25

ARTICLE XI: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SECTION I: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Paragraph IV:

Continuation of certain constitutional amendments for a period of four years. pp. 26-27, 29-33 (local constitutional amendments)

I
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j