House Bill 381 amends the Act creating the Lower Chattahoochee Regional Transportation Authority to expand and update the authority’s membership and governing provisions. The bill adds Clay, Marion, and Webster counties to the authority’s framework and revises the appointment structure so that each participating governing body appoints two members, with the fourteen appointed members selecting a fifteenth at-large member who must be a resident of one of the participating counties. It also preserves the authority’s perpetual existence and clarifies how vacancies, removals, and reimbursement of expenses are handled.
The bill further updates the authority’s financing and legal-status provisions. It restates that revenue bonds issued by the authority are not debts of the counties and do not pledge county faith and credit or taxing power, and it clarifies that the authority and its officers and employees enjoy the same tort immunity and negligence protections as the participating counties. The bill also confirms that nothing in the act limits the power of counties or municipalities in the region, including adjoining counties, to own, operate, maintain, or finance projects under Georgia’s Revenue Bond Law.
Impact
HB381 expands the statutory membership and geographic scope of the Lower Chattahoochee Regional Transportation Authority by incorporating Clay, Marion, and Webster counties into the authority’s governing and legal provisions. It amends the enabling act to align appointment, bond, immunity, and related sections with the expanded county list, while leaving local governments’ independent authority to issue revenue bonds and manage projects intact. The bill primarily affects the authority, the participating county governments, and any local officials involved in appointments and transportation project financing.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 170-0 and the Senate 51-0, both on local consent/calendar procedures, indicating unanimous legislative approval and little to no opposition in either chamber. No committee transcript discussion was provided, and the vote totals suggest the measure was treated as a routine local government/transportation update.
Contention
No notable contention is reflected in the available record. The only potentially sensitive issues are the expansion of the authority to additional counties and the reaffirmation of bond and immunity protections, but the unanimous votes indicate these provisions did not generate visible opposition. The bill’s local nature and its preservation of existing county powers likely reduced conflict among affected governments and legislators.