{"id":12208,"date":"2015-02-09T20:19:35","date_gmt":"2015-02-10T01:19:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=12208"},"modified":"2015-02-10T10:47:28","modified_gmt":"2015-02-10T15:47:28","slug":"valdosta-writes-to-legislature-against-hb-170-transportation-tax-grab","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2015\/02\/valdosta-writes-to-legislature-against-hb-170-transportation-tax-grab.html","title":{"rendered":"Valdosta writes to legislature against HB 170 transportation tax grab"},"content":{"rendered":"

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nValdosta City Council Tim Carroll\r\nsent a message Saturday with an attached letter from\r\nCity Manager Larry Hanson to the sponsor of\r\n\r\nHB 170<\/a>, strongly opposing that stealth tax hike.\r\nThis is in addition to\r\n\r\nthe resolution the Valdosta City Council passed against HB 170<\/a>.\r\n

\r\nCarroll’s cover letter:\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n

\r\nAll,\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nAttached is a message Mr. Hanson prepared and sent to Rep. [Jay] Roberts\r\nregarding the proposed State Transportation Funding legislation or\r\nHB 170. Rep. Roberts is the lead sponsor of this bill.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nAs many of you have already heard, the Valdosta City Council adopted\r\na resolution against the current proposals in this bill. While you\r\ncan see more details in Mr. Hanson’s message, suffice to say if\r\npassed as it is currently written, it will take local funds and send\r\nthem to the state. Taking over $12 million from local motor fuel\r\nsales tax funds from Lowndes county, the cities including Valdosta,\r\nPLUS both school systems is not a good option for our community.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nI hope each of you are concerned and will educate yourselves on this\r\nissue. Your city leadership is engaged and vocal. We have been\r\ncommunicating with the county and both school systems. I would like\r\nto ask each of you to learn all you can and contact our state\r\ndelegation and others you may know in state leadership regarding\r\nthis bill.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nPlease feel free to contact me with any questions. I will update all\r\nof you as this bill works toward its’ final form and possible\r\nadoption.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThank you for your time regarding this important issue,\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nTim Carroll
\r\nCouncilman District 5
\r\nCity of Valdosta
\r\n229.244.0928 w
\r\n229.671.1392 h
\r\ntcarroll@valdostacity.com
\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nHere is the attached letter to the bill’s sponsor:\r\n

\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\n\r\nRepresentative Roberts<\/a>;\r\n

\r\nThis correspondence is sent with the utmost respect for the\r\nleadership you are providing on the transportation funding issue. I\r\nattended several meetings with you during the time the T-SPLOST\r\ninitiative was underway, including meetings to discuss projects and\r\nexplain the purpose and intent to elected officials, appointed\r\nofficials and citizens. There are always and will always be\r\nnaysayers no matter the proposal, but I admire you for stepping up\r\nand providing leadership on this issue. As co-chair of the study\r\ncommittee, you did reach out to all those who wanted input and give\r\nall areas of the state a voice. That is also recognized and\r\nappreciated. I applaud the committee for their efforts and I think\r\nthe greatest success of the committee is the fact that its work has\r\nopened the eyes of Georgians to the transportation funding need and\r\ncrisis we have in this state. It is a credit to you and the\r\ncommittee that the debate is no longer about whether we need\r\nadditional transportation funding but what the best way is to\r\nprovide such funding. That is a huge hurdle that has been crossed\r\nand you are owed gratitude for the change in attitude towards the\r\nsubject of transportation funding.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe study committee provided findings in its report to the Speaker\r\nof the House and the Lieutenant Governor beginning on page 17 of the\r\nreport. I find it noteworthy that the first recommendation is as\r\nfollows and I quote: “A minimum of $1.0 — 1.5 billion in\r\nnew annual transportation infrastructure investment is needed to\r\naddress the challenges outlined above and produce the following\r\nresults.” To me, the key word in that recommendation is the\r\nword “new.” The report goes on to provide a smorgasbord\r\nof twelve funding options to be considered. Number 9 of those 12\r\noptions seems to be the primary focus of HB 170, however it is the\r\nonly one of the 12 options that stated it should be a “long\r\nterm” solution. HB 170 proposes to re-allocate all the local\r\ngovernment sales taxes on motor fuel to the state by eliminating the\r\nlocal sales tax and replacing it with a state excise tax. This\r\nre-allocation of existing revenue from local governments to the\r\nstate seems inconsistent with the study committee’s report and its\r\nprimary conclusion to identify “a minimum of $1.0 — 1.5\r\nbillion in new annual transportation infrastructure\r\ninvestment…” And it certainly falls far below the report’s\r\nfindings of needing $1.0 — 1.5 billion in\r\nnew<\/strong>\r\nrevenue, because over $500 million of HB 170’s proposed revenue\r\ngeneration comes from local governments and therefore cannot be\r\ncorrectly portrayed as\r\nnew<\/strong>\r\nrevenue. HB 170 does not mention recommendation number 6, to\r\n“implement a one-cent statewide sales tax which would generate\r\napproximately $1.4 billion dollars each year.” This despite\r\nthe fact this option actually generates the amount the study\r\ncommittee determined was needed, all of which would be new revenue,\r\nas the committees report recommended.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nLet me again applaud you for the time, effort and commitment you\r\nhave given on this matter and for being willing to step up and\r\nprovide leadership on this important subject. I cared enough about\r\nthe matter to be present at the press conference when you gave a\r\ngeneral overview of the bill and I thanked you for your efforts as\r\nyou left the press conference. I know this is a difficult issue and\r\none that has many differing viewpoints. I applaud you for being\r\nwilling to step up and lead on the subject. I also believe that is\r\nit never enough to merely oppose something, but it is equally\r\nimportant to offer something. To that end, I would like to\r\nrespectfully offer some suggestions for your consideration.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nI believe the best and most fair way to address transportation\r\nfunding is through a one-cent statewide sales tax. There are a\r\nnumber of reasons for this. One, the citizens of Georgia get to make\r\nthe determination as to whether they wish to tax themselves by\r\noffering this option as a statewide referendum. Therefore the\r\nGeneral Assembly will not be raising taxes, and the consequences of\r\nHB 170 that would force local governments to raise taxes would not\r\noccur. There would be no losers. In my opinion, a sales tax is the\r\nfairest tax because one’s requirement to pay is based upon one’s\r\nability to spend. Those that purchase the least pay the least and\r\nthose that purchase the most pay the most. Having a statewide\r\ntransportation SPLOST is also the most pure form of democratic\r\ngovernment. The people of Georgia decide if they want to tax\r\nthemselves. With my belief that you and the committee have done a\r\nremarkable job of educating Georgians of the need to address\r\ntransportation funding and the consequences of not doing so, I truly\r\nbelieve a statewide referendum would pass. The people would vote to\r\ntax themselves because a compelling and persuasive argument has been\r\nmade to them. Neither the General Assembly nor local governments\r\nwould have to vote to raise taxes. And best of all, $1.4 billion in\r\nnew funding is achieved, both the amount the report concluded was\r\nneeded, as well as the fact it would all be “new”\r\nfunding, as the report concluded was needed. The statewide\r\ntransportation SPLOST could be initially proposed on the referendum\r\nas an 8 year tax. This would allow the 4 regions that passed\r\nT-SPLOST to continue their tax, and not be double taxed during the\r\nremaining 8 years of their voter approved referendum. The rest of\r\nGeorgia would pay the new SPLOST and it would sunset at the same\r\ntime the 10 year T-SPLOST referendum expires in those 4 regions.\r\nThat will give adequate time to review the success of the tax and\r\nthen make a determination as to whether to make it a permanent\r\nstatewide sales tax at that time. Since it would be a state tax, the\r\nstate can and should have full control over how it is allocated.\r\nThere would be no harm to any party, including schools, which seem\r\nto be harmed by all other proposals I have heard.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nI really like the concept of the Infrastructure Bank, as well as the\r\nconcept of matching grants to local governments. The best way to\r\nencourage the behavior wanted is to incentivize it. The state could\r\noffer matching grants to local governments from the state SPLOST,\r\nthus encouraging and rewarding local governments that are willing to\r\nput more transportation funding in their local SPLOST and the use of\r\nother local funding sources for transportation. Local governments\r\ncan also typically deliver projects on a faster timeline that the\r\nstate. This is not a criticism of GDOT, but the agency has never\r\nbeen provided with an adequately staffed Planning Division and they\r\nmust also operate under more federal and state requirements than\r\nlocal governments do. I would estimate that a state delivered\r\ntransportation project of any magnitude has a nearly 10 year process\r\nfrom concept, environmental, right of way, preliminary design,\r\npreliminary construction estimates, final design, final estimated\r\ncosts, bid, award, and construction. Many of these items are outside\r\nthe agency’s control and result from federal mandates GDOT must\r\nfollow. These mandates often add years to a project’s timeline and\r\nforce projects to be overdesigned and therefore more costly than\r\nneed be to meet the local transportation need. Local officials know\r\nlocal needs best and can listen directly to local voters who live\r\nand work on the local roads being affected. In this concept, the\r\nstate and local governments are partners in the funding and delivery\r\nof transportation projects and not adversaries.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nI would urge you not to use the LMIG formula<\/a>\r\nfor distributing funds\r\nto local governments, unless the formula is modernized. The current\r\nLMIG is unfair to cities and unfair to communities that have used\r\ntheir transportation dollars to pave roads, rather than merely\r\nmaintain dirt roads. It is hard for me to justify that dirt roads\r\nare part of a comprehensive state transportation network. Dirt roads\r\nare local roads and should be funded, in my opinion, by local\r\nrevenues. This is more of a maintenance and operation (M&O) issue\r\nthat a capital expenditure issue. The current LMIG formula is 2\/3\r\ncenterline road mileage and 1\/3 population. This means a dirt road\r\ncounts the same as a four lane arterial collector because both have\r\none “centerline.” A more fair way to distribute LMIG\r\nfunds would be lane mileage, not centerline road mileage. I assure\r\nyou no local government is resurfacing one lane of a four lane road.\r\nAll four lanes must be resurfaced, or widened or built. Traffic\r\nvolume also wears out municipal streets faster than rural roads. To\r\nme, a more fair formula would be to allocate funding based on 2\/3\r\nlane mileage and 1\/3 population. Neighborhood streets and dirt roads\r\nshould be excluded from LMIG funding or funded at one-half the level\r\nof paved roads. Collectors, arterials and other such primary roads\r\nthat are clearly part of a comprehensive transportation network\r\nshould be the focus of state funding. In any event, lane mileage,\r\nnot centerline mileage should be the factor used. Vehicles drive on\r\nall the lanes, not just one and all must be maintained and replaced.\r\nA distribution formula could also guarantee a minimum level of\r\nfunding to all cities and counties.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

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

\r\nSincerely,\r\n

\r\nLarry Hanson\r\n
\r\nCity Manager\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\n -jsq\r\n<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"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 […]","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[14,8,20,449,54],"tags":[2311,8704,8241,2282,8701,8218,8702,345,8710,12,7,8242,1147,63,8767,6,8726],"class_list":["post-12208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economy","category-georgia","category-law","category-transportation","category-valdosta-city-council","tag-diesel","tag-economy","tag-excise-tax","tag-gasoline","tag-georgia","tag-hb-170","tag-lake","tag-larry-hanson","tag-law","tag-lowndes-area-knowledge-exchange","tag-lowndes-county","tag-motor-fuels","tag-sales-tax","tag-tim-carroll","tag-transportation","tag-valdosta","tag-valdosta-city-council"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p585fK-3aU","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12208","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12208"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12208\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12230,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12208\/revisions\/12230"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}