Valdosta City Council Tim Carroll
sent a message Saturday with an attached letter from
City Manager Larry Hanson to the sponsor of

HB 170, strongly opposing that stealth tax hike.
This is in addition to

the resolution the Valdosta City Council passed against HB 170.

Carroll’s cover letter:

All,

Attached is a message Mr. Hanson prepared and sent to Rep. [Jay] Roberts
regarding the proposed State Transportation Funding legislation or
HB 170. Rep. Roberts is the lead sponsor of this bill.

As many of you have already heard, the Valdosta City Council adopted
a resolution against the current proposals in this bill. While you
can see more details in Mr. Hanson’s message, suffice to say if
passed as it is currently written, it will take local funds and send
them to the state. Taking over $12 million from local motor fuel
sales tax funds from Lowndes county, the cities including Valdosta,
PLUS both school systems is not a good option for our community.

I hope each of you are concerned and will educate yourselves on this
issue. Your city leadership is engaged and vocal. We have been
communicating with the county and both school systems. I would like
to ask each of you to learn all you can and contact our state
delegation and others you may know in state leadership regarding
this bill.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions. I will update all
of you as this bill works toward its’ final form and possible
adoption.

Thank you for your time regarding this important issue,

Tim Carroll
Councilman District 5
City of Valdosta
229.244.0928 w
229.671.1392 h
tcarroll@valdostacity.com

Here is the attached letter to the bill’s sponsor:

Representative Roberts;

This correspondence is sent with the utmost respect for the
leadership you are providing on the transportation funding issue. I
attended several meetings with you during the time the T-SPLOST
initiative was underway, including meetings to discuss projects and
explain the purpose and intent to elected officials, appointed
officials and citizens. There are always and will always be
naysayers no matter the proposal, but I admire you for stepping up
and providing leadership on this issue. As co-chair of the study
committee, you did reach out to all those who wanted input and give
all areas of the state a voice. That is also recognized and
appreciated. I applaud the committee for their efforts and I think
the greatest success of the committee is the fact that its work has
opened the eyes of Georgians to the transportation funding need and
crisis we have in this state. It is a credit to you and the
committee that the debate is no longer about whether we need
additional transportation funding but what the best way is to
provide such funding. That is a huge hurdle that has been crossed
and you are owed gratitude for the change in attitude towards the
subject of transportation funding.

The study committee provided findings in its report to the Speaker
of the House and the Lieutenant Governor beginning on page 17 of the
report. I find it noteworthy that the first recommendation is as
follows and I quote: “A minimum of $1.0 — 1.5 billion in
new annual transportation infrastructure investment is needed to
address the challenges outlined above and produce the following
results.” To me, the key word in that recommendation is the
word “new.” The report goes on to provide a smorgasbord
of twelve funding options to be considered. Number 9 of those 12
options seems to be the primary focus of HB 170, however it is the
only one of the 12 options that stated it should be a “long
term” solution. HB 170 proposes to re-allocate all the local
government sales taxes on motor fuel to the state by eliminating the
local sales tax and replacing it with a state excise tax. This
re-allocation of existing revenue from local governments to the
state seems inconsistent with the study committee’s report and its
primary conclusion to identify “a minimum of $1.0 — 1.5
billion in new annual transportation infrastructure
investment…” And it certainly falls far below the report’s
findings of needing $1.0 — 1.5 billion in
new
revenue, because over $500 million of HB 170’s proposed revenue
generation comes from local governments and therefore cannot be
correctly portrayed as
new
revenue. HB 170 does not mention recommendation number 6, to
“implement a one-cent statewide sales tax which would generate
approximately $1.4 billion dollars each year.” This despite
the fact this option actually generates the amount the study
committee determined was needed, all of which would be new revenue,
as the committees report recommended.

Let me again applaud you for the time, effort and commitment you
have given on this matter and for being willing to step up and
provide leadership on this important subject. I cared enough about
the matter to be present at the press conference when you gave a
general overview of the bill and I thanked you for your efforts as
you left the press conference. I know this is a difficult issue and
one that has many differing viewpoints. I applaud you for being
willing to step up and lead on the subject. I also believe that is
it never enough to merely oppose something, but it is equally
important to offer something. To that end, I would like to
respectfully offer some suggestions for your consideration.

I believe the best and most fair way to address transportation
funding is through a one-cent statewide sales tax. There are a
number of reasons for this. One, the citizens of Georgia get to make
the determination as to whether they wish to tax themselves by
offering this option as a statewide referendum. Therefore the
General Assembly will not be raising taxes, and the consequences of
HB 170 that would force local governments to raise taxes would not
occur. There would be no losers. In my opinion, a sales tax is the
fairest tax because one’s requirement to pay is based upon one’s
ability to spend. Those that purchase the least pay the least and
those that purchase the most pay the most. Having a statewide
transportation SPLOST is also the most pure form of democratic
government. The people of Georgia decide if they want to tax
themselves. With my belief that you and the committee have done a
remarkable job of educating Georgians of the need to address
transportation funding and the consequences of not doing so, I truly
believe a statewide referendum would pass. The people would vote to
tax themselves because a compelling and persuasive argument has been
made to them. Neither the General Assembly nor local governments
would have to vote to raise taxes. And best of all, $1.4 billion in
new funding is achieved, both the amount the report concluded was
needed, as well as the fact it would all be “new”
funding, as the report concluded was needed. The statewide
transportation SPLOST could be initially proposed on the referendum
as an 8 year tax. This would allow the 4 regions that passed
T-SPLOST to continue their tax, and not be double taxed during the
remaining 8 years of their voter approved referendum. The rest of
Georgia would pay the new SPLOST and it would sunset at the same
time the 10 year T-SPLOST referendum expires in those 4 regions.
That will give adequate time to review the success of the tax and
then make a determination as to whether to make it a permanent
statewide sales tax at that time. Since it would be a state tax, the
state can and should have full control over how it is allocated.
There would be no harm to any party, including schools, which seem
to be harmed by all other proposals I have heard.

I really like the concept of the Infrastructure Bank, as well as the
concept of matching grants to local governments. The best way to
encourage the behavior wanted is to incentivize it. The state could
offer matching grants to local governments from the state SPLOST,
thus encouraging and rewarding local governments that are willing to
put more transportation funding in their local SPLOST and the use of
other local funding sources for transportation. Local governments
can also typically deliver projects on a faster timeline that the
state. This is not a criticism of GDOT, but the agency has never
been provided with an adequately staffed Planning Division and they
must also operate under more federal and state requirements than
local governments do. I would estimate that a state delivered
transportation project of any magnitude has a nearly 10 year process
from concept, environmental, right of way, preliminary design,
preliminary construction estimates, final design, final estimated
costs, bid, award, and construction. Many of these items are outside
the agency’s control and result from federal mandates GDOT must
follow. These mandates often add years to a project’s timeline and
force projects to be overdesigned and therefore more costly than
need be to meet the local transportation need. Local officials know
local needs best and can listen directly to local voters who live
and work on the local roads being affected. In this concept, the
state and local governments are partners in the funding and delivery
of transportation projects and not adversaries.

I would urge you not to use the LMIG formula
for distributing funds
to local governments, unless the formula is modernized. The current
LMIG is unfair to cities and unfair to communities that have used
their transportation dollars to pave roads, rather than merely
maintain dirt roads. It is hard for me to justify that dirt roads
are part of a comprehensive state transportation network. Dirt roads
are local roads and should be funded, in my opinion, by local
revenues. This is more of a maintenance and operation (M&O) issue
that a capital expenditure issue. The current LMIG formula is 2/3
centerline road mileage and 1/3 population. This means a dirt road
counts the same as a four lane arterial collector because both have
one “centerline.” A more fair way to distribute LMIG
funds would be lane mileage, not centerline road mileage. I assure
you no local government is resurfacing one lane of a four lane road.
All four lanes must be resurfaced, or widened or built. Traffic
volume also wears out municipal streets faster than rural roads. To
me, a more fair formula would be to allocate funding based on 2/3
lane mileage and 1/3 population. Neighborhood streets and dirt roads
should be excluded from LMIG funding or funded at one-half the level
of paved roads. Collectors, arterials and other such primary roads
that are clearly part of a comprehensive transportation network
should be the focus of state funding. In any event, lane mileage,
not centerline mileage should be the factor used. Vehicles drive on
all the lanes, not just one and all must be maintained and replaced.
A distribution formula could also guarantee a minimum level of
funding to all cities and counties.

In closing, I hope these suggestions will be received in the manner
they are intended. I am sincere when I say I appreciate your courage
and your effort to bring this issue forward. You and the committee
have done a tremendous job educating Georgians and changing the
debate from whether funds are needed, to the best and most fair way
to generate such funding. We will always have the vocal few who
oppose everything, but I believe the overwhelming majority of
Georgians are prepared to provide more funding to meet the needs for
their own economic well-being, their quality of life and our states
future. I stand ready to work with you and all involved to come up
with final recommendations that benefit all and harm none.

Sincerely,

Larry Hanson

City Manager

-jsq