This bill provides for a 'property tax recovery fee' on the rental of construction, industrial, maritime, or mining equipment that is rented without a driver or operator. While the definition in subsection (a) and the internal references are all to a 'fee', subsection (f) states that this charge is a tax.

The 'fee' is in the amount of 1.5% of the total rental charge (minus some exclusions) and applies to lease agreements which are either: 1) 365 days or less; or 2) for an open or unspecified period of time. The 'fee' is purportedly to pay the lessor's (rental company's) property tax liability on rental equipment. However, if the lessor collects more than the amount of that property tax liability, the excess amount plus any interest, goes to the state and not to local government. The 'fee' commences January 1, 2018, and ceases December 31, 2022.

This complex and lengthy bill provides as close to unfettered access to county and municipal rights of way (ROW) as possible for wireless providers to construct unlimited wireless support structures/poles (50' high, or 10' taller than any existing pole within 500'), antennas (up to 6 cubic feet), equipment boxes (up to 28 cubic feet) and other infrastructure in order to roll out 5G service in metropolitan areas.  The bill limits or preempts a broad range of county decisions regarding: wireless structures within and outside public ROW, collocation of small wireless facilities, zoning reviews for cell towers and wireless support structures, modifications to wireless facilities outside public ROW, location of wireless facilities on local government owned utility poles, and county jurisdiction over small wireless facilities on private property. For example, HB 535 would bar local governments from subjecting certain wireless facilities to zoning review and approval, limit fees that counties and cities could impose for permitting, regulating and managing access to public ROW by wireless companies, and impose unrealistic shot clocks for counties to make decisions regarding various wireless facilities; otherwise the applications are "deemed approved". In addition, the bill would prohibit counties from requiring that wireless providers indemnify and hold the county harmless against claims arising from negligent acts of the provider and does not provide that these structures be removed or relocated, at provider expense, for road widening, maintenance or emergency situations. Lastly, counties can only deny a permit for this infrastructure if it violates stipulations in the bill... which are slim to none.  

This legislation clarifyies that if a city of county has a medallion system or “certificate of public necessity and convenience” in place, it is against the law for anyone to operate a taxicab without a medallion. Additonally, taxicab drivers would be required to display within full view of passengers an idientification card that included the name and photo of the operator and the name of company for whom the operator is driving.

This bill also includes the prohibition of the governing authority of any county or city airport from imposing any age limit on vehicles for hire doing business at such airport that is less than eight years measured from the vehicle's year of manufacture, for any vehicle used as a ride share, taxicab, or limousine. Lastly, the bill defines "soft taximeters" and states that that no local government shall have the authority to reject or prohibit the use of soft taximeters.

While this bill began, constructively, as a rural broadband bill, the Senate Regulated Industries Committee stripped and replaced it with the language of SB 426.  This wireless industry legislation guarantees authorization for wireless providers to construct and place poles (50' high), antennas (up to 6 cubic feet in volume and 10' higher than poles), equipment boxes (up to 25 cubic feet in volume), plus up to 4 cabinets (undefined size) and other infrastructure in county and city right of way (ROW).  Local government management of the above is all but entirely usurped; the grounds by which applications can be denied are few; denials are primed to result in litigation; and then locals are set up to lose.  

ACCG has attempted to work with the wireless providers, legislators and other stakeholders since last year to try to incorporate safeguards into the legislation.  While some of our recommendations were made, most of these "concessions" are so wrought with legal loopholes that their purported purpose has been nullified. 

For ACCG's concerns with (and suggestions for) this bill and SB 426, please click here.  

This legislation had mandated that cities and counties which charge any regulatory fees (license or permit fees) or have any regulatory requirements to establish a schedule of such fees and requirements which must include time lines necessary for processing completed applications and a list of all documentation needed by applicants to meet regulatory requirements. Upon receipt of an application related to any fee, the applicant will pay only 50% of the fee. The local government must then notify the applicant whether an application is complete. Whenever the local government does not meet its deadline for acting on a "complete" application, the associated fees will be reduced by 10 percent for each 10 days said action is delayed. Local governments are required to set up a second, expedited process for processing all applications and permits and must study how to share applicants' information with other local, state and federal agencies so that applicants don't have to duplicate filing efforts with other governments.  

For a summary of the above, Senate version of SB 2 please click here.      

The above language was removed by the House and replaced with a voluntary "Ready for Partnership Georgia" program whereby local governments can adopt a series of measures to streamline their permitting processes to obtain said designation.  While ACCG has no concerns with the now-current House version of the bill, there will most certainly be efforts by the Senate to reinstall the above language that ACCG opposes.  Stay tuned, as this one will likely be decided in a conference committee report late on the last day of session.      

This bill authorizes cities and counties, in which the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on premises is already lawful on Sunday from 12:30 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, to allow said sale from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight if the county adopts an ordinance or resolution and the voters so approve via a referendum. 

Counties wishing to have this approved by the November 6, 2018 election should pass their ordinances by July 31st in order to provide their elections superintendents to prepare the proper materials ready and distributed to notify the public by August 4, 2018.