►
From YouTube: House Cities & Counties Subcommittee - March 2, 2021
Description
House Cities & Counties Subcommittee - March 2, 2021 - House Hearing Room 3
A
C
A
Thank
you.
Do
any
of
the
members
have
any
personal
orders,
seeing
none
we'll
go
ahead
with
the
calendar.
The
first
bill
is
house
bill,
53
by
speaker
pro
tem
march.
Is
there
a
motion
on
the
bill
deserve
a
second
motion,
the
second
speaker,
pro
tem
marcia
recognized.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
committee
members
house
bill
53
simply
renews
the
tdot
little
grant
program.
The
tdot
little
grant
was
authorized
in
1980
and
funded
by
the
excise
tax
on
beer
and
the
gross
receipts
tax
on
bottled
soft
drink.
A
A
Do
educational
programs
to
let
prisoners
go
out
and
beautify
our
streets
and
roads,
and
I
I
highly
recommend
we
do
this
question
ben
calls
the
objection
to
the
question
hearing,
no
objection,
we're
voting
on
house
bill,
53,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
opposed,
say
no
eyes
prevail.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
committee
moves
on
to
the
next
available
calendar
of
local
government.
The
next
bill
on
the
calendar
is
bill
182
by
representative
jernigan.
Is
there
a
motion?
A
D
Members
house
bill
182
prohibits
a
local
beer
board
in
the
abc
from
opposing
reciprocal
fines
and
penalties
on
a
licensee
or
permittee,
based
solely
on
the
fact
that
their
respective
entity
provided
notice
for
such
a
penalty
in
tennessee,
the
state
regulates,
liquor
and
locals,
regulate
beer
and
they're
granted
authority
to
do
so
in
separate
parts
of
the
code,
and
that's
the
fact
that
we're
in
local
government
today
means
we're
dealing
with
beer.
D
The
current
law
says:
if
the
abc
takes
any
action
against
an
entity
with
an
lbd
license
and
a
beer
permit,
that
the
abc
shall
provide
notice
to
the
local
billboard
and
that's
fine.
I
think
notice
should
go
to
each
entity
to
let
them
know
what's
going
on
in
their
in
their
district
and
their
business.
D
A
A
If
you'll
come
forward,
sir,
introduce
yourself
to
the
committee
and
you'll
have
three
minutes.
Yes,
you
you
can
go
to
to
the
microphone.
That's
for
the
record.
Please
introduce
yourself
we're
going
out
of
session.
E
First
of
all,
I
just
wanted
to
give
a
little
background
on
how
the
tabc
conducts
their
how
we
provide
due
process
to
our
licensees
and
a
little
bit
about
the
case
law,
current
law
in
tennessee,
currently
any
beer
permit,
holder
or
tabc
licensee
once
they
get
that
license
issued
to
them.
They
have
a
property
interest
in
that
permit
or
license,
and
so
that
would
afford
them
due
process
through
the
u.s
and
tennessee
constitution.
E
E
Has
to
be
based
on
evidence
so,
for
instance,
if
the
beer
board
finds
something
that
occurred
or
like
the
local
police
find
a
state
violation
has
occurred.
We
can
call
that
evidence
into
you
know
in
front
of
our
commission
and
that
evidence.
You
know
our
decisions
can't
be
arbitrary.
So
if
somebody
is
upset
about
the
decision,
they
can
appeal
it
to
the
local
circuit
court.
E
So
I
just
want
to
get
that
kind
of
out
there.
Just
so
you
know
if
we
issue
something
it's
gone
through,
you
know,
are
we
we're
covered
by
the
uapa
too?
So
it's
really
like
a
a
judicial.
I
mean
you
know
the
finding
is
is
been
by
our
commission
or
by
administrative
law.
E
They'll
have
a
hearing,
so
if
they
go
to
take
the
beer
permit,
they'll
have
that
hearing.
I
guess
we
are
most.
I
guess
there
is
an
unintended
consequence
that
could
occur
a
lot
of
times
in
your
rural
areas.
We
are
the
only
ones
that
actually
do
the
minor
compliance
checks
to
a
great
extent
the
local
beer
boards.
There
mainly
could
be
the
county
commission,
but
they
don't
have
inspectors.
E
That's
when
they
first
passed
liquor
by
the
drink,
and
so
we
share
liquor,
brother,
drink
licensees
and
our
retail
food
store,
licensees
and
so
a
lot
of
times
in
rural
areas.
They
just
don't
have
the
inspectors
to
do
it.
So
if
they're
not
able
to
call
that
evidence
in
and
call
our
agents
in,
then
there
could
be
a
time
when
you
lose
your
liquor
license
and
not
your
beer
permit.
A
C
E
That
you
mean,
under
the
same
set
of
facts
like
if
we
run
a
minor
compliance
check
and
we
write
a
ticket,
a
violation
of
state
law
for
selling
to
a
minor.
Can
they
also
find?
Yes?
Okay?
Yes,
sir,
the
current
law.
So
if
you
have
a
tabc
license
and
a
beer
permit,
the
current
fine
or
current
a
penalty
for
selling
to
a
minor
is
the
tabc
fine
and
the
beer
board.
Fine
both
have
rules
against
breaking
state
law.
So
there's
a
responsibility.
E
When
you
get
your
beer
permit,
you
have
responsibility
to
them.
There's
local
ordinance
that
allow
them
to
find
based
on
a
violation
of
state
law
and
same
with
us
if
a
local
ordinance
is
violated
or
state
law
is
violated.
We
issue
that
fine.
So
we
are
the
you
know
we
were
kind
of
like
the
state,
alcohol
police
and
they
have
the
local
police
both
have
jurisdiction
over
alcohol
violations.
D
The
the
abc
and
the
beer
boards
is
going
to
love
this
bill
because
it's
very
convenient
for
them,
but
I
will,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
every
restaurant
that
has
a
bar
every
chili's,
applebee's
old
charlie's
in
your
district,
is
going
to
welcome
the
regulatory
relief
of
being
hit
twice
for
the
same
violation,
and
so
it's
not
and
from
what
the
abc
just
said
about
the
locals,
having
to
follow
state
law,
we're
getting
rid
of
the
law,
so
they
don't
have
to
do
it.
So
it's
it's
for
it's
a
may.
D
D
D
So
it's
really
and
to
have
a
hearing
two
weeks
later
and
you've
suspended
that
business,
how
much
revenue
have
they
lost
and
they're
innocent
to
come
down,
so
the
due
process
that
he's
talking
about
is
due
process
after
you've
already
suspended,
find
or
revoke
their
license.
That's
not
due
process,
that's
guilty
until
proven
innocent.
So
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
change
just
to
have
both.
I
can't
help
that
both
that
liquor's
estate
and
locals
is
beer,
but
that's
what
we
have,
and
this
is
not
about
convenience.
D
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chairman
to
the
sponsor.
So
under
this
bill,
both
entities
they're
still
able
to
share
information,
and
I
agree
they
are
okay,
but
this
bill
will
require
that
they
do
independent
investigations
right.
They
have
authority
to
do
so.
Okay,
so
as
a
as
it
goes
currently,
if
one,
if
one
finds
a
restaurant,
for
example,
the
other
one
can
automatically
find
them
as
well.
Yes
sponsor.
Okay,
they
do
okay.
Thank
you.
A
F
A
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
committee
house.
Bill
701
is
a
private
act.
What
this
will
do
is
authorize
the
franklin
special
school
district
of
wilson
county
to
issue
and
sell
school
bonds
in
the
amount
of
45
million
dollars.
This
will
be
used
for
new
construction
rehabilitation
of
current
facilities
and
and
such
across
the
district.
A
This
resolution,
as
the
chairman
noted,
was
approved
by
the
school
board
on
their
regular
meeting
of
9
november
2020,
and
I
have
copies
of
that.
If
any
member
needs
it
with
that.
Mr
chairman,
I
renew
my
motion.
Are
there
any
questions
for
the
sponsor
question
being
called
on
the
bill?
Is
there
objection
to
the
question
hearing?
None
we're
voting
on
house
bill,
701,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed,
say
no
motion
carries
it
moves
to
the
next
available
calendar
and
local
government.
A
A
Sponsor
request:
roll
bill,
1097
is
objection,
hearing
no
objection.
It's
been
been
rolled
for
one
week.
B
Thank
you,
chairman
moon.
This
is
a
bill
with
23
sections
that
updates
the
local
government
finance
statutes.
I'm
carrying
this
on
behalf
of
the
comptroller's
office,
and
let
me
give
you
a
sense
of
what's
contained
in
these
statutes,
there's
an
attempt
to
modernize
some
of
the
language.
Currently,
these
statutes
contain
some
outdated
terms
and
some
provisions
that
have
been
sunset,
for
example,
in
these
statutes,
is
the
term
abattoir.
B
B
This
bill
also
simplifies
borrowing
procedures
that
are
currently
burdensome
or
not
very
user
friendly,
for
example,
inter-fund
capital
outlay
notes
can
currently
be
issued
for
a
three-year
period
and
then
ex
can
be
extended
for
two
subsequent
three-year
periods,
but
each
time
it
has
to
these
have
to
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
comptroller's
office.
The
revised
language
in
this
bill
would
allow
these
capital
outlay
notes
to
be
issued
for
a
period
of
12
years
without
the
renewal
process
and
the
and
the
reviews
in
between
as
a
third
example,
this
bill
will
increase
transparency.
B
Currently
there
it's
possible-
and
there
has
been
one
instance
where
a
local
entity
issued
capital
outlay
notes
for
a
long-term
capital
project
in
order
to
avoid
a
referendum
only
to
convert
those
capital
outlay
notes
to
a
long-term
bond.
Here's
why
that
happened.
Voters
have
the
prerogative
to
call
a
referendum
whenever
a
long-term
capital
project
is
being
financed
with
long-term
bonds,
but
they
don't
have
that
prerogative
for
a
capital
outlay
note.
So
the
way
a
county
entity
was
working
around
that
was
again
issue.
B
The
capital
outlay
note
avoid
the
referendum
and
then
convert
it
to
a
long-term
bond.
The
language
in
this
bill
makes
it
clear
that
that's
not
permissible.
The
appropriate
approach
is
to
simply
issue
a
long-term
bond
or
a
bond
anticipation.
Note,
and
let
me
give
one
more
example
of
the
kinds
of
of
things
that
are
in
this
bill.
It
updates
certain
ways
that
you
can
issue
debt.
B
It
would
make
it
permissible
for
a
county
or
city
authority
to
issue
a
variable
rate
revenue
bond
and
then
to
convert
that
to
a
fixed
rate
bond
at
some
point.
That's
currently
not
permissible,
but
that
would
benefit
our
local
citizens
because
it
would
insure
against
risk
moving
from
a
variable
rate
to
a
to
a
fixed
rate.
Some
of
the
provisions
in
here
benefit
our
citizens
in
other
ways,
for
example,
not
having
to
issue
debt
multiple
times
that
that
would
save
on
on
some
fees.
B
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
simple
question
representative
baum
on
this.
The
the
bill
that
you're
bringing
now
is
there
any
pending
litigation
that
your
bill
would
have
an
effect
on
if
it
goes
into
effect.
This
sponsor.
A
Is
there
objection
to
the
question
hearing,
no
objection,
we're
voting
on
house
bill
657,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
opposed,
say
no,
the
eyes
prevail.
It
moves
on
to
the
next
available
calendar
and
local
government.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
all
very
much.
The
next
bill
is
house
bill
327
by
vice
chairman
wright.
A
F
And
with
the
current
circumstances,
health
care
related
in
the
pandemic
technology
has
brought
forward
better
presentations
and
access
to
the
public
is
better
than
ever
in
an
effort
to
keep
this
transparency
and
provide
for
representation,
and
I
say
that
in
the
word
of
keeping
the
legislative
member
involved
in
making
policy,
here's
a
straightforward
approach
to
use
of
technology
for
county
legislative
bodies,
as
currently
used
by
boards
of
education,
state
committees
and
state
boards.
Bill
has
two
parts.
A
Thank
you
miss
sponsor
this
time.
I'd
like
to
go
out
of
session.
Miss
deborah
fisher
from
the
tennessee
coalition
on
open
government
would
like
to
do
testimony
if
you'll
come
forward
and
for
the
record.
If
you'll
introduce
yourself
we're
out
of
session.
H
I
am
the
executive
director
of
tennessee
coalition
for
open
government
and
we're.
We
do
education,
advocacy
on
the
open
records
and
public
records,
open
meetings
and
public
records
laws,
and
this
this
bill
would
create
an
exception
to
the
open
meetings
act
section
if
we
were
not
in
a
pandemic,
with
a
governor's
order
allowing
electronic
meetings.
Section
108
of
the
open
meetings
act
would
govern
electronic
participation
and
meeting
meetings.
H
Broadly
speaking-
and
I'm
really
here
to
speak
to
you
from
the
public's
point
of
view
not
from
the
county
commissioner's
point
of
view
and
we've
learned
some
things
during
the
pandemic
during
electronic
meetings,
some
meetings
have
gone
well,
some
have
not
gone.
Well,
are
some
specific
things
in
this
bill
that
I
think
are
not
good
for
the
public.
The
public
needs
assurance
that
they
will
be
able
to
hear
and
follow
along
a
meeting.
H
This
would
apply
for
county
commissions,
and
some
county
commissions
are
quite
large.
They're
24
25.,
so
physical
quorum,
present
physically,
would
still
allow
quite
a
number
of
commissioners
to
patch
in
by
phone
electronically,
and
probably
the
biggest
complaint
that
we've
had
during
the
pandemic
is
when
you
have
people
in
a
governing
body
patching
in
by
phone
it's
hard
to
follow.
Who
is
speaking,
you
don't
really
know
section.
108
does
cover
that
in
terms
of
looking
for
a
roll
call
vote
and
have,
and
it
has
some
audibility
concerns
again.
H
This
is
an
exception
not
just
to
section
108
but
to
the
entire
open
meetings
act.
Anything
that
conflicts,
in
other
words
with
the
open
meetings,
act
this
bill
the
language
in
this
bill
with
trump
the.
So
I
think
that
we
need
to
think
about
and
just
go
slowly
and
carefully
on
this,
that
you
know
and
think
out
the
different
scenarios,
because
this
is
not
just
for
the
pandemic.
If
it,
you
know,
continues
past
april
may
june.
This
is
for
this.
Is
you
know,
for
post
pandemic?
H
There
are
some
things
that
we
think
could
improve
the
bill,
which
would
be
to
limit
the
number
of
people
who
could
call
in
on
the
phone.
So
you
could
better
understand,
have
more
video
and
this
this
bill,
even
though
more
people
have
been
able
to
from
the
public
participate
in
governing
body
meetings
electronically.
This
bill
does
nothing
for
the
public.
It
does
not
allow
the
public
to
patch
in.
So
it's
really
just
about
the
commissioners.
H
You
know
the
the
bill
is
modeled
after
what
the
school
boards
have,
it
does
expand
it
slightly.
The
school
board
has
family
emergency,
this
adds
medical
emergency,
and
then
it
says
that
the
local,
the
local
governing
body,
can
determine
what
that
is,
and
with
the
open
meetings
act.
I
think
that
we
should
proceed
there
with
caution.
Mrs.
A
At
this
time,
do
any
members
have
questions
for
miss
fisher,
representative
miller,
you're
recognized?
Yes,
thank.
C
H
A
C
I
H
Well,
just
to
respond:
the
statute
does
not
require
the
county
governing
bodies
to
allow
the
public
to
participate
electronically.
It
allows
the
county
legislative
body
to
develop
a
policy,
but
that
policy
it's
not
required
that
the
policy,
unless
I'm
it
doesn't
say
that
it
requires
that
the
policy
require
the
public
to
be
able
to
patch
in
electronically.
It
just
says:
develop
a
policy.
C
H
A
A
A
Duly
noted,
any
other
questions
on
the
bill
chairman
crawford
you're
recognized.
Thank.
G
You,
mr
chairman,
I
just
wanted
to
go
back
to
representative
miller's
question
there
within
the
bill.
It
does
require
each
county,
commission
or
whatever
entity
is
doing
this.
They
have
to
come
up
with
some
good
line
guidelines
and
I
think
that's
where
the
public
would
come
in
and
say
hey.
We
want
access
to
this
and
I
think
she
said
a
certain
amount
of
people
calling
in
I
think
under
the
guidelines
is
where
all
that
would
be
stipulated.
G
I
don't
think
we
need
to
legislate
from
the
state
what
each
local
government
needs
for
themselves
to
participate.
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
say
is:
I
would
like
for
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
to
answer
the
question
and
clarify:
is
this
for
only
county
commission
meetings,
the
main
meetings,
or
would
this
involve
their
committee
and
work
sessions.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
mr
chairman,
for
the
question.
This
would
just
be
the
regular
stated
monthly
meeting
of
the
county
elected
body
chairman.
G
F
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Doug
garrett.
Again
with
legal,
there
are
multiple
references
to
either
a
scheduled
commission
meeting
or
a
commission
meeting
itself.
It
doesn't
mention
committee
meetings
or
any
other
ancillary
meetings
that
may
occur.
A
F
Well
back
in
the
session.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
in
light
of
that,
let
me
back
up
to
the
beginning
of
the
bill
and
the
subparagraph
one
speaking
to
the
elected
member.
F
This
policy
is
made
up
enacted
by
the
legislative
body
itself,
so
if
they
want
to
cover
just
monthly
meetings,
it
would
be
my
opinion
that
they
could
cover
whatever
meetings
they
want
to
cover
or
cover
no
meetings.
If
they
don't
want
to
have
a,
but
they
will
have
a
policy,
the
policy
could
be
to
have
no
policy.
So
all
of
what
we're
discussing
right
here
today
is
a
way
of
having
electronic
meetings,
but
allowing
that
to
be
determined
by
the
local
legislative
body.
G
Crawford.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
question
would
be
for
mr
garrett,
then,
due
to
what
we've
just
heard,
I
think
the
intent
of
this
bill
will
now
be
on
record
and
if
there's
any
question
to
the
intent
of
it,
we
can
always
go
back
and
review
that.
I
With
legal,
I
can't
speak
to
the
intent
of
the
bill,
of
course,
but
it
does
specifically
say
on
paper.
It
does
specifically
say:
commission
scheduled
commissioned
meetings
and
commission
meetings,
it
does
not
speculate
or
it
does
not
address
the
issue
of
any
other
meeting.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
all
my
questions
have
been
answered
and
I
appreciate
the
sponsor
taking
time
to
explain
his
intent
on
that.
Thank
you.
F
F
F
F
C
F
C
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
County
legislative
body
would
not
be
city
council,
correct.