Hb 286: Restricting Local and Municipal Governments' Ability to Reduce Police Department Funding

• Jurisdiction: Georgia,United States
• Publication year: 2022
• Citation: Vol. 38 No. 1

HB 286: Restricting Local and Municipal Governments' Ability to Reduce Police Department Funding

Gia Franchi Souza
gfranchisouza1@student.gsu.edu

Casey Frew
cfrew1@student.gsu.edu

[Page 201]

local government

Amend Chapter 8 of Title 36 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Local Government, so as to Restrict the Ability of County Governing Authorities to Reduce Funding for County Police Departments; to Amend Chapter 60 of Title 36 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to General Provisions Applicable to Municipal Corporations, so as to Restrict the Ability of Municipal or Consolidated Government Authorities to Reduce Funding for Municipal Police Departments; to Provide for Exceptions; to Provide for Related Matters; to Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes.

Code Sections: O.C.G.A. §§ 36-8-8 (new); 36-60-28 (new); 45-1-8 (new)

Bill Number: HB 286

Act Number: 263

Georgia Laws: 2021 Ga. Laws 263

Summary: The Act primarily functions to restrict the ability of county and municipal or consolidated government authorities to reduce funding for county and municipal police departments. In addition, the Act provides exceptions for police departments with less than twenty-five officers.

Effective Date: July 1, 2021

History

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd died after police officer Derek Chauvin kneeled on Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes and twenty-seven seconds.¹ In the weeks following Floyd's death, protests against

[Page 202]

police brutality broke out within Black American communities.² Demonstrators began protesting nationwide with hopes of defunding the police.³ "DefundThePolice" became a trending hashtag after the Black Lives Matter Foundation put out a call of action on its website and social media platforms to mitigate police brutality.⁴

In the wake of nationwide calls to defund the police, government officials in several major U.S. cities have made significant cuts to their local police budgets.⁵ Two months after George Floyd's death, the Minneapolis City Council removed $1.1 million out of the police department's budget.⁶ Following suit in the now national Defund the Police movement, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a $1 billion cut in its police department's budget in early July.⁷ Additionally, both Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Councils approved cuts to their police budgets shortly after New York City.⁸

As the Defund the Police movement spread throughout Georgia, many cities within the state began to push for a cut in police budgets.⁹ When Representative Houston Gaines (R-117th) noticed a push by other Georgia cities to cut their police budgets, he worried that lower police funding would negatively affect the safety of his district, which includes Athens, Georgia.¹⁰ This concern shaped his creation and introduction of House Bill (HB) 286.¹¹

[Page 203]

Bill Tracking of HB 286

Consideration and Passage by the House

Representative Houston Gaines (R-117th) was joined by five co-sponsors in the House: Representative Trey Kelley (R-16th), Representative Katie Dempsey (R-13th), Representative Marcus Wiedower (R-119th), Representative J. Collins (R-68th), and Representative Joseph Gullett (R-19th).¹² HB 286 was placed in the House hopper on February 3, 2021.¹³ The House read the bill for the first time on February 4, 2021, and for the second time on February 8, 2021.¹⁴ The House Committee on Governmental Affairs favorably reported the bill by substitute on February 18, 2021.¹⁵ The substitute created two exceptions that allow a county to decrease the police budget by more than 5% of the previous year's budget allocation.¹⁶ The first exception allows counties and municipalities to decrease their police budgets if they increased their budgets by more than 4% for capital, equipment, software purchases, or one-time legal obligations in the previous year.¹⁷ The second exception allows exemptions from the bill for county or municipality departments that employ fewer than ten full-time or part-time officers.¹⁸ The House read the bill for the third time on February 24, 2021.¹⁹ The same day, the House passed and adopted the bill by a vote of 101 to 69.²⁰

[Page 204]

Consideration and Passage by the Senate

Senator Randy Robertson (R-29th) sponsored the legislation in the Senate.²¹ The Senate read the bill for the first time on February 25, 2021, and referred the bill to the Senate Committee on Governmental Oversight.²² On March 15, 2021, the bill was withdrawn from the Senate Committee on Governmental Oversight and recommitted to the Senate Committee on Public Safety.²³ On March 17, 2021, the Senate Committee on Public Safety favorably reported the bill by substitute.²⁴ The substitute addressed some of the bill's exceptions by changing the exclusion of any county or municipal police departments with fewer than ten full-time or part-time officers to twenty-five full-time or part-time officers.²⁵ Further, the substitute added a section defining "correctional officer," "emergency health worker," "ERISA," "firefighter," "highway emergency response operator," "jail officer," "juvenile correctional officer," "probation officer," and "public safety employee."²⁶ Finally, the substitute amended Chapter 1 of Title 45 of the Official Code of Georgia to include that all counties and municipalities that offer electronic payroll deposits must also provide payroll deductions to any public safety employee who requests a deduction for the purpose of purchasing insurance that provides the employee with legal representation for all actions that are caused due to their role or responsibilities as a public safety employee.²⁷

The Senate read the bill for the second time on March 22, 2021, and for the third time on March 25, 2021.²⁸ On the same day, the Senate passed and adopted the bill by substitute by a vote of 36 to 15.²⁹ The House agreed to the Senate substitute on March 31, 2021.³⁰ The House sent the bill to Governor Brian Kemp (R) on April 7, 2021, and he

[Page 205]

signed the bill into law as Act 263 on May 5, 2021.³¹ The Act's effective date is July 1, 2021.³²

The Act

The Act amends the following portions of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated: Chapter 8 of Title 36, relating to county police; Chapter 60 of Title 36, relating to general provisions applicable to municipal corporations; and Chapter 1 of Title 45, relating to general provisions for public officers and employees.³³ The Act's overall purpose is to restrict the ability of county, municipal, or consolidated governing authorities from reducing funding for county or municipal police departments and to require state and certain local governments to provide particular public safety employees with the ability to have legal insurance premiums deducted from the employee's payroll.³⁴

Section 1

Section 1 of the Act amends Chapter 8 of Title 36, which relates to county police by adding Code section 36-8-8.³⁵ Paragraph (a)(1) states that a county governing authority that has elected to establish a county police force cannot decrease the annual budget of said police force by more than 5% of the previous year's fiscal appropriation.³⁶ Paragraph (a) does not apply, if "during the previous fiscal year[,] the county made a one-time capital public safety facility, equipment, or software purchase or incurred a one-time legal obligation that increased" the police force's budget by more than 4% of the annual budget appropriation for the police force in the immediately preceding fiscal year and current fiscal year.³⁷ Further, paragraph (b)(1) makes clear

[Page 206]

that said annual budget cannot decrease by more than 5% during a rolling five-year period.³⁸

Paragraph (b)(2) provides that paragraph (b) does not apply if the actual or anticipated revenues of the county decrease by more than 5%.³⁹ In that case, the governing authority would "decrease the budgetary appropriation for such police force," but the police force budget should not be decreased by more than the overall percentage decrease of the county's actual or anticipated revenue.⁴⁰

Paragraph (c) of Section 1 lays out three exceptions where paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply.⁴¹ The first exception applies where the county ensures that either the sheriff or another local government provide an "equal or greater" level of law enforcement.⁴² The second exception applies where a court orders the county to provide a public service at a level the county was not providing prior to the court order, which requires a county-wide budgetary restructuring.⁴³ Lastly, the third exception provides that if a governing authority proposes to adopt a police department budget exceeding the limits dictated in paragraphs (a) and (b), the government must adopt the budget rate at an advertised public meeting.⁴⁴ To adopt the budget rate advertised, the governing authority must: (1) place an advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation and on the governing authority's website, which describes the proposed budget decrease and (2) conduct a public hearing a week before the adoption of the budget resolution where any person wishing to be heard on the budget may speak.⁴⁵

Finally, paragraph (d) of Section 1 specifies that this Code section applies only to county police forces employing more than twenty-five full-time or part-time certified law enforcement officers.⁴⁶

[Page 207]

Section 2

Section 2 of the Act amends Chapter 60 of Title 36, which relates to general provisions applicable to municipal corporations, by adding Code section 36-60-28.⁴⁷ Paragraphs (a)-(c) and (e) of Section 2 of HB 286 are identical to paragraphs (a)-(c) and (d) of Section 1, except that they apply to municipalities instead of counties.⁴⁸ Additionally, Section 2 of the Act has one additional paragraph, paragraph (d), than Section 1.⁴⁹

Paragraph (d) makes clear that this Code section applies to any consolidated government that operates a police force and for the purposes of this Code section, those police forces will be...