 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||
GEORGIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
ROOM 505, LOB 30334
404-656-5082 1-800-282-5800
Daily Report Number 19
February 17, 2004
Back to PIO
The House passed seven pieces of legislation today, most of which received
very little opposition. For instance, House members voted 122-5 in favor
of legislation which seeks to help motorcycle enthusiasts ride easy. HB
1155 raises the ante for negligent automobile operators who, in their
distraction, cause injury to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcycle riders.
Currently, a person who commits a right of way violation and causes injury
to a pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorcyclist is fined $25. HB 1155 would
increase that fine to $250. Furthermore, the proposal creates a new criminal
charge of “serious injury by vehicle.” This new crime would
be committed if a person, while violating established traffic laws, unintentionally
causes serious bodily harm to another causing disfigurement, partial or
total paralysis, or serious brain damage.
House members also gave overwhelming approval to HB 1415, which deals with how local governments spend their share of the hotel-motel tax. Georgia’s hotel-motel tax is designed to serve two purposes: to be a revenue source for local governments, and to provide funds for the promotion of local tourism. Currently, state law provides that 40 percent of the proceeds from the hotel-motel tax should be used to promote area tourism, conventions, and trade shows. However, a number of lawmakers have been receiving complaints that some cities and counties are attempting to raid these tourism dollars by stretching the definition of tourism spending. Stories of cities building arts centers, or playhouses with these funds have begun to trickle back to lawmakers. Delegates from the hotel and motel industries began to call for more oversight on how this money is spent, and lawmakers held hearings over the summer to study the problem.
The result is HB 1415. Under the new legislation, citizens, local hotel and motel owners, and other groups having a dispute over how the 40 percent share is spent would be able to bring their concerns to a Hotel Motel Tax Performance Review Board. This board would consist of eleven members, and would contain one representative each from city and county governments, as well as the tourism and tourism marketing industries. The board would be tasked with investigating complaints on the expenditure of hotel-motel tax funds, and determining whether those uses conform to state law. The results of this investigation, along with the board’s findings, would be made available in a written report. This report would also include any of the board’s evaluations, judgements, or recommendations regarding the spending of hotel-motel tax dollars. The Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs would review this report and determine if any remedial action is necessary. Cities or counties which require correction would have 90 days to take the required action. Those failing to do so would be reported to the state Department of Revenue, which has the ability to remove a city or county’s ability to collect the tax if they will not comply with state law.
As an additional check to ensure compliance with state law, HB 1415 requires local governments which levy a hotel-motel tax to open their books to audits, and to provide a report on how the tourism portion of the tax is spent.
Members realize the economic crunch being felt by some local governments at this time. However, they feel it to be somewhat shortsighted to raid tourism promotion funds since each dollar spent on the promotion of tourism typically brings at least three more in return. Members voted 114-1 to pass HB 1415, and send it to the Senate.
The only issue which raised considerable debate was HB 886. The legislation addresses situations where state money is used to finance local airports, and would make it harder for local entities to close an airport after taking state money to finance its creation or operation. Under the plan, any private or public entity wishing to use state dollars for their local airport would be required to enter into a 20-year agreement with the state. The terms of the agreement would require the local operator to maintain the airport in a safe and serviceable condition, and to keep the airport operational and available for public use for the duration of the agreement. This agreement could not be broken without the approval of the state Department of Transportation, and entities which break the agreement would be required to repay all state funds.
Additionally, for the purpose of public information, HB 886 requires any city, county, or private organization which is closing an airport to hold a public hearing prior to its closing. Notice for the hearing would have to run in the local papers for 30 days prior to the meeting, and to ensure state participation, the DOT would have to be notified at least three weeks in advance. Finally, HB 886 provides that any entity which decides to close an airport must make that decision known for 90 days prior to actually suspending operations.
Some members were concerned that HB 886 was too harsh. They were particularly worried over an aspect which requires the operating entity to repay the state using current fair-market value for any land which was purchased for the airport.
The bill’s authors, however, noted that the state has invested taxpayer dollars in these airports, which serve the public good. They said HB 886 is simply a way of ensuring that the taxpayers get a good return on their money. The legislation passed by a vote of 96-33.
Other items receiving passage in the House today include:
- HB 753 (120-0)– Allows persons who previously served as county
paid Assistant District Attorneys to apply those years toward credible
time served in the state Employees Retirement System, or the Judicial
Retirement System. Members wishing to do so would have to purchase the
time by paying actuarial costs.
- HB 1195 (109-4)– Revises the “Prompt Payment Act”
to include service professionals and sub-consultants who are providing
services on a subcontract basis.
- HB 1239 (117-0)– Eliminate interest payments on tax refunds
for certain tax-exempt goods which were purchased before the exemption
request was processed.
- HB 1320 (116-0)– Institutes an annual reporting requirement
on the fiscal condition and all premium or cost share proposals for
state employee health insurance plans. The report would be made to the
Georgia General Assembly by February 1st of each year.
Georgia House of Representatives
Public Information Office
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------