Click here to download pdf version SPLOST FAQS
Transit Tax FAQs
+-How much will the transit tax cost the average Cobb County household, on an annual basis?
According to U.S. Census Bureau, the average household income in Cobb County is $113,918. If the full one percent of the transit tax was to apply for the average household, the annual tax would be $1,139. However, there are a number of expenses that are not subject to the sales tax, which would make the tax burden considerably lower. They include, and these are approximate figures, 15% for Federal taxes, 35% for the average mortgage, 6% for state income tax, 6% for the current Cobb sales tax, and 6% for school, county and municipal property taxes, giving us a total of 68% of income that would not be subject to the tax. Add to that a car loan payment, credit card debt, transportation fuel costs, labor costs for services provided on such items as home and car maintenance, and we come up with a very rough figure of only about 25% of income being subject to the tax, or $284 for the average household income in Cobb County. With the tax being imposed for 30 years, that would cost $8,520 in constant 2023 dollars.
It should be noted that the Cobb Taxpayers Association (CTA) has repeatedly asked the County, in public forums, how much the tax burden would be, because we reason that the County has access to data that would make the estimate more accurate. However, the County has refused to answer the question, and we suspect the reason is that if taxpayers knew the answer, they would vote against the tax. Moreover, we believe that taxpayers have a right to know how much it will cost them, and that the only way we can make an informed decision on whether to vote for or against the tax is to have that information readily available. By the same token, you wouldn’t walk into a car dealership and buy a car if you didn’t first know how much it would cost. Neither should you be expected to vote for a tax when those who advocate for it are unwilling to tell you what it will cost you.
+-How much do you anticipate increased ridership with implementation of the tax?
While there is no doubt that a very expensive expansion of the public transportation system in Cobb County would lead to increased ridership, once again the County is mum on this question. By way of comparison, if a private retail establishment was looking to expand its number of stores in the County, you can be sure that it would develop sophisticated marketing studies to determine if such an expansion would be profitable. While mass transit expansion is not based on a profit metric, (and would indeed greatly increase the amount of subsidization of the service) taxpayers, at a bare minimum, need to know how many people, and how frequently, they would use the service.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that one percent of Cobb’s population used the expanded transit service (7,000 people) on a daily basis to get to work or school. For $10 billion over thirty years, that’s $1.4 million for each of the 7,000 people over that time. For that kind of money, the County could buy each of them a limo and chauffeur! Yet as with the question on how much the tax would cost the average household, the County is silent (as it is on so many of the questions to follow) on ridership by not even providing an estimate or approximation.
+-Do some of the routes planned duplicate and/or replace existing bus service?
At least one route considered by the County would replace the old route 65 that ran from the Marietta Transfer Station to the Merchants Walk area in East Cobb and points beyond, running along Roswell Road. That route was discontinued due to having the lowest number of riders throughout the Cobb Link system.
+-If the transit tax is passed, will that result in the end of the current subsidy for bus service from the general fund, and will that savings result in a reduction of the millage rate?
That is the $30 million dollar a year question, which is about the amount of taxpayer subsidy coming out of the general fund to prop up the Cobb Link system. However, communications with current Cobb County Commissioners indicate that they do not believe the County is currently taxing its citizens enough to pay for what it considers vital and essential services, including social welfare spending on food, rent, shelter, and the like, so we believe it is unlikely the current Board of Commissioners would use the windfall to provide needed and welcome relief for taxpayers.
+-How much of a subsidy per trip cost be if the tax is implemented? How much is it now?
We do know that the taxpayer subsidy per trip on the current system is 89.3% based on 2022 data, with fare box collections only covering 10.7% of the cost. The County remains silent on how much of a subsidy it would be if the tax was passed. We do know, however, that the $30 million subsidy the County is currently providing would be replaced with a sales tax revenue stream of $200 million annually, meaning that the current tax burden would increase by close to 700%.
+-How many rides are provided by the current system and approximately how many rides would be provided when all the projects are completed if the transit tax were to pass?
The most current complete annual data is for 2022, when the number of passenger trips provided was 993,547, or a little more than one trip per year per resident. This represents a dramatic decline in ridership from 2,543,584 in 2018. While the pandemic can be blamed for much of the decline in ridership, the number of increased ridership in 2023 – the first full year when the pandemic was considered to be over with – has increased only very modestly since 2022.
As for how many rides would be provided if the tax were to pass, the County has provided no projections, which is outrageous in light of the fact that it is asking us to pass a more than $10 billion tax over a thirty year period.
+-What is the number of miles of bus routes being proposed to be built, maintained and operated under the transit tax??
108 miles, or about $1 billion for every ten miles.
+-The population of Cobb has increased dramatically over the past few decades. How does that compare with the level of ridership on our bus system? Has it kept pace with population growth?
While population growth has expanded dramatically, the ratio of number of people using mass transit in Cobb County has markedly declined, following a national trend of declining ridership going back to the early 1950s. This has much to do with rising affluence, which makes private vehicle ownership far more convenient and affordable. By way of example, the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama in the mid 1950s had a crippling impact on the local economy because such a large number of essential workers depended on public transportation. Hence the success of the boycott in achieving its objective of ending segregation. A similar boycott today would be barely noticed.
+-How many people who are currently experiencing mobility challenges in Cobb will no longer be faced with that challenge if the tax is passed?
Ask the County. It is the only entity that would even begin to have an answer to that question. We suspect, however, that the number, as a percentage of the population, would be in the very low single digits. So taxpayers need to ask themselves: “Can this multi-billion dollar tax increase proposal be in any way justified, considering how few people will be served?”
We do know, however, that in this regard the County has lied to its citizens when it first rolled out its proposal before the public in August, 2023. It claimed that a senior citizen, living in Powder Springs, who had a doctor’s appointment at the Wellstar Hospital on Austell Road, would have to pay $52 to Uber, because such a senior citizen “Currently has no access on transit,” whereas transit tax expansion would overcome that obstacle. What the County failed to mention is that it offers a travel voucher program designed specifically to address this need.
+-Concerning the dedicated lanes proposed for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), will that take away traffic lanes that are currently used by private vehicles?
The County claims that the dedicated lanes it proposes to build for BRT will not take real estate away from lanes currently used for traffic. Yet if the County has space to build dedicated lanes, why would it not use that space to add lanes to current roadways for the purpose of alleviating traffic congestion? The thought of a dedicated lane, being used only once every 15 to 30 minutes, alongside bumper to bumper traffic, defies logic and common sense.
+-The County proposes implementing technology that will switch traffic signals from red to green to better facilitate a BRT’s movement through an intersection. Yet won’t that serve to impede traffic that is not a BRT?
That question answers itself. Of course it would, meaning that traffic congestion would be made worse if the transit tax was approved.
+-The County relies on studies that show the percentage of seniors making up the population in Cobb will increase dramatically from now until 2050, and it is for that reason that the transit tax is needed so that seniors can “age in place.” Yet isn’t this the same demographic that will shun mass transit because of its inconvenience?
There is no doubt that as people get older they are less inclined, and less able, to use mass transit. To that end, the County offers a travel voucher program to meet that need. On the other hand, to spend billions for a service expansion that seniors will not use is a very poor allocation of public resources. And for seniors living in assisted living residences, these facilities usually offer their own transportation jitneys for its residents, without a taxpayer subsidy.
+-In the Atlanta metro area ridership on public transit declined by 8.6% from 2014 - 2019, with even steeper declines since then. Therefore, why does the County advocate a large, long-term tax increase to provide a service that the public is clearly less and less interested in using?
Why indeed. Expanding mass transit, utilizing 20th Century infrastructure to address 21st Century needs is akin to expanding the production of buggy whip manufacturing in the year 1900.
+-Concerning micro-transit, which is proposed to replace the Flex bus system the County provided, what makes you think it will be widely used when Flex was used hardly at all, and at a massive subsidy of as much as $50 per trip?
Two things to consider here. Yes, expanding the Flex Bus system from a small footprint in South Cobb to a much larger footprint which would cover almost the entire County would increase ridership. But it would also increase the net amount of subsidy provided. And with the travel voucher program already in place, what pressing or urgent need would the microtransit service be providing that is not already being provided?
+-With microtransit, it is proposed to provide pick up service from the home to the nearest bus stop. Yet once a rider then takes a bus to a location as close as possible to the rider’s final destination, how does micro transit plan to get the rider from the bus disembarkation point to the rider’s final destination? Does he or she need to call for another microtransit ride?
More unanswered questions for the County. If the answer to last question is “yes” that appears to be incredibly convoluted and inefficient, and would inevitably result in very low utilization.
+-The County’s proposal provides transit expansion to parts of South and Central Cobb, but no expansion of service to the South Cobb cities of Powder Springs and Austell, and little or nothing for East and West Cobb. What do you say to residents in those areas who will end up footing the bill yet will receive no direct benefit?
The only possible justification for such a large wealth transfer is the altruistic notion that the haves must be required to surrender more and more of their hard earned money to benefit “the less fortunate.” Yet with our highly progressive tax code, this is already happening on a massive scale at all levels of government. We do not need to add to this a transit tax. On the contrary, Cobb County citizens should be allowed to keep more and more of the money they have rightfully earned through dent of hard work and accomplishment.
+-How many cars does the County’s proposal anticipate taking off the roads as a result of this tax and how does it come by that number? What percentage of vehicular traffic is that?
While there is no doubt that a very expensive expansion of the public transportation system in Cobb County would lead to increased ridership, once again the County is mum on this question. By way of comparison, if a private retail establishment was looking to expand its number of stores in the County, you can be sure that it would develop sophisticated marketing studies to determine if such an expansion would be profitable. While mass transit expansion is not based on a profit metric, (and would indeed greatly increase the amount of subsidization of the service) taxpayers, at a bare minimum, need to know how many people, and how frequently, they would use the service.
+-Since this tax is a regressive one, in that it dis-proportionately impacts lower income people more than others, and given that the overwhelming majority of low-income people in the County now own cars regardless, how can the County justify a tax for a service which most low-income people have little desire or inclination to use?
The answer is they can’t. In fact, studies have shown that giving low-income people a new Toyota Prius every few years would be less expensive than providing them with mass transit, and that would be especially true in a county like Cobb which is predominately an upper income area.
+-Of all the people we have spoken to who have used our bus system, they all tell us the same thing; that they can’t wait to get to the point where they don’t have to take the bus anymore. With that being the case, why would the County look to expand a service that current users can’t wait to get to the point where they don’t need to use it?
Regarding this question, the elephant in the room is the real issue driving the drive for more public transit. With billions of dollars generated by the tax, there are obviously well established spending interests that hope to garner huge profits by building, maintaining, operating (and in the case of paid consultants by the County, advocating for) expanded mass transit. Then there are property owners along the proposed routes that hope to see their property values increase as a result. And finally there are political forces that would like to see a more urban and transient population in the County that can reliably be counted on to vote for and support a progressive political agenda that calls for ever more expensive and expansive government.
+-It has been said that the special interest who will really benefit the most from this tax are the builders who are looking to build massive numbers of new apartments along the BRT routes. What is the County’s response to this allegation, and how would it deny that to be the case?
The County claims that is not the case and that there are no plans to change zoning codes to accommodate this change. However, changes in policy usually follows the money, and it would be hard to imagine future Board of Commissioners not responding to this incentive.
+-The County argues that large employers and colleges are clamoring for more transit as a means of attracting and retaining talented, high-skilled and well paid workers. How do you respond to this claim?
We take the County at its word that it has received this input, but anecdotal evidence does not bear this out. When conducting informal surveys on KSU and other campuses, respondents have rarely indicated that this would play a role in where they would choose to live or work./toggler]
The money raised by this particular tax will not go to directly to MARTA but will go to increase and improve connectivity to MARTA, as the enabling legislation for the tax — HB 930 — was ostensibly passed for that purpose. However, taxpayers need to determine if the price for increasing connectivity is worth it. How many people who do not now use public transit to get to jobs in areas directly served by MARTA will now decide to leave their car at home if the tax is passed? Not many.
Another major problem with the idea of increasing connectivity to Atlanta from Cobb is that the Atlanta Metro area is one of the most spread-out metro areas in the World. Unlike older cities like New York that grew up before the advent of the private automobile, Atlanta’s transportation network was shaped by the automobile, with public transit playing a very small role in the development of the region prior to the automobile. Consequently, the Atlanta region has the lowest population density of any other city of its size, in the World, and is not hemmed in by oceans or mountains to limit its physical expansion.
With respect to Cobb County, there are about as many people who live in Cobb but work outside of Cobb as there are people who live outside Cobb but come here to work; a typical polycentric configuration. Increasing connectivity from Cobb to Atlanta is to assume a mono-centric model which does not exist and hasn’t for close to one hundred years.
+-Isn’t this tax really an attempt to turn a suburban county into an urban one?
Yes. That is certainly part of the driving force behind the push for this tax. But it is also wedded to the collectivist, utopian ideal that decisions related to mobility should more and more be controlled by a paternalistic government that would have us all live in compact urban density utopias where transportation would be determined and provided by government and where we would use less energy and travel shorter distances by walking and riding bicycles to where we needed to go.
The idea of waiting at a bus stop, depending on the government to determine when and where you will be picked up and dropped off, then standing in a standing room only crowded bus, is the progressive ideal of collectivist nirvana on steroids.
The alternative is anathema to this brave new world, where we live in single, detached homes, surrounded by lawns and landscaping that we design and maintain, park our cars in climate controlled garages, drive to work in air conditioned comfort, and come and go on our own schedule and not one made up by a central bureaucracy. In this day and age, this is the tale of two cities, and we must decide if we wish to live in a suburban environment that gives full range to our comfort and individuality, or acquiesce to the will and dictate of others. This is what you must decide on the first Tuesday of November, 2024. Please choose wisely.
+-What is a SPLOST?
SPLOST stands for a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax. It was passed into law by the Georgia state legislature in 1985 to allow voter approved levies of a one percent sales tax by the counties to finance local government capital projects. It was not intended to pay for routine maintenance items, such as repaving existing roads, but rather for an expansion of existing facilities, such as road widening or putting in new sewer lines to accommodate population and economic growth, or to replace existing facilities such as jails or courthouses. Unfortunately, the Cobb County 2016 SPLOST on the November 4, 2014 ballot contains numerous items which go beyond the original intent of the law, such as the aforementioned repaving of existing roads.
+-How much will the Cobb County 2016 SPLOST cost?
The County predicts that it will raise $750 million over six years, running from January 1, 2016 until December 31, 2021, which would average $125 million a year. However, revenues raised from the SPLOST currently in place are averaging about $30 million per year over projections due to improving economic conditions, which means the 2016 SPLOST will, conservatively, raise $930 million. Allowing for normal growth in the county, a windfall in sales tax revenues that will accrue from the new Braves Stadium, and continued improvement in the economy during the 2016 SPLOST’s six year lifespan, it is not unrealistic to assume that it will raise over $1 billion. This would amount, on average, to an additional tax burden of over $1440 for a family of four in Cobb County.
+-How will the SPLOST money be spent?
The County has on its website a list of the proposed projects that are divided between Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects, and within those tiers they are further divided into Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs, Transportation, Facilities, Public Safety and Municipal Improvements. The Tier 1 projects are ones deemed to be of highest priority, with Tier 2 projects to be funded if additional revenues become available.
+-Aren't many of these projects needed and necessary, and won't our quality of life in Cobb be adversely affected if the SPLOST does not pass?
What constitutes a true need vs. want is a subject in which reasonable people can honestly disagree. A soccer Dad may consider resurfacing a lacrosse playing field with AstroTurf to be a real need if his daughter plays lacrosse. A senior citizen may argue that such expenditure has no direct bearing on his quality of life other than to increase his tax burden. CTA would argue that a need is something which affects the overall safety and well being of all the people, such as an unsafe road condition. Replacing a bridge which might otherwise collapse, or expansion of the sewer system to accommodate growth and prevent groundwater contamination are clear examples of needs vs. wants. Unfortunately, there are many, many projects in this SPLOST which do not meet even the most rudimentary definition of needs, and in fact are actually counter-productive, where the citizens would be better off if the project does not happen in the first place. They include a new splash pad and dog run upgrades in Kennesaw, a $2 million equestrian center at Stout Park, building underutilized sidewalks and bicycle paths, $26.5 million to make C.H. James Parkway into six lanes from four up to the Paulding County line, thereby creating a huge bottleneck at the County line, taking valuable real estate away from businesses along the proposed project, and addressing a traffic need which does not exist! Ditto for a $63 million project to make Roswell Road a six lane highway from its current four lane divided highway leading up to the Fulton County line. Or $7 million in Marietta to go towards 14 feet planted areas, six feet sidewalk upgrades, decorative lighting and landscaping. And $23.4 million for technology, which according to the exact wording in the project list, “allows government to focus more attention on aspects of customer service that are more challenging.”
Taxpayers should be especially concerned about the open-ended nature of many of the proposed expenditures, such as the last example cited above. In fact, the project list is rife with vague and ill-defined project expenditures that lack specificity, and do not answer the basic questions which should be required of any governmental entity which is asking you to pony up around $1 billion of your money, those questions being:
- Who asked for it?
- Is there a problem to be solved?
- What is the purpose of the project?
- What goals are to be achieved?
- How many people will be served by this project?
- What benefits are expected for the public?
- What will be the future cost to operate and maintain this project?
To quote local citizen activist, Larry Savage: “No one in the business world would even consider committing $750 million based on a list of projects without…evidence that there will be beneficial results.”
Here are just a few examples of the lack of specificity in the project list:
- $400,000 for a railroad quiet zone installation at a crossing to be determined (Page 17 of the project list.)
- $1 million to the City of Smyrna for public safety equipment (Page 66). What safety equipment? For what purpose? Where is the need?
- $2.5 million for Mitchell Hill Drive in Acworth. To do what?
In fact, of the $750 million proposed for Tier 1 projects, $221.1 million do not: specify how and why the money will be spent, use “To be determined” for justification, or are identified as “miscellaneous spending.”
With Tier 2 spending, the problem is worse. Of the $338 million listed there, $287.3 million fail to meet the basic accountability standards that taxpayers have a right to demand of its local government.
+-Even if there are numerous wants in the SPLOST, shouldn't we pass it anyway to make sure the needs get taken care of?
Before a SPLOST of any length or amount is passed, the County must first address the systemic problems that currently exist with the way it spends our tax dollars. Is the County doing everything in its power to reduce costs and operate more efficiently? The record clearly indicates that is not the case. The County has been bleeding millions in red ink on County owned facilities such as the Mableton Amphitheater and the Cobblestone Golf Course. We need to ask: Has it considered zero-based budgeting as an effective tool to reduce operating expenses? Has it privatized wherever possible? Has it raised user fees to more closely match the costs of operating and maintaining County facilities such as its six aquatic centers? On the contrary, these measures have yet to be seriously looked at. Instead, this SPLOST seeks to expand public facilities, which in turn will increase fixed costs to maintain them. Until the County decides to get really serious about reducing spending, it would be irresponsible and unfair to taxpayers to grant them access to an additional $1 billion dollars of our hard earned tax dollars. Legitimate needs can be met by a fiscally responsible County government, without the imposition of another SPLOST. Besides, the County already has access to over $1.4 billion from the 2005 and 2011 SPLOST. That should have been more than enough to address current needs if managed properly.
+-With growth in the County, don't we need a SPLOST to accommodate it?
That may have been true prior to the housing bubble burst starting in 2007, but since that time growth has come to a grinding halt, followed by an anemic recovery. This, therefore, represents the perfect time for hard pressed taxpayers, who are struggling with high unemployment and declining property values to receive a much needed and welcome tax cut, which the defeat of this SPLOST would accomplish.
+-Is this SPLOST a tax increase or a tax cut?
If passed, the SPLOST would be seamless continuation of a sales tax increase of 16.7 percent that was passed in the six-year 2005 SPLOST, followed by the four year 2011 SPLOST. If defeated, it would be a tax cut that would reduce the sales tax to 5 percent for most goods and services, compared to 7 or 8 percent in adjoining counties, making it the lowest tax rate in the state. This would have obvious benefits for businesses in the county and for customers looking to do business with them, and would inject hundreds of millions in private spending into the local economy by local taxpayers, rather than being put into the hands of spending interests – whose profits would largely be siphoned off to contractors whose home offices reside out of the County or out of state. SPLOST proponents claim opponents are characterizing it as a tax increase, which is simply not true. All organizations and individuals who oppose the SPLOST have been emphatically clear that this is either a continuation of a tax increase or a tax cut, depending on the outcome of the measure at the polls.
+-What goods and services are taxed with the SPLOST?
All retail items and most services, such as electric, water, phone and gas are assessed the tax.
+-Isn't it true that the SPLOST would force people outside the county to pay for services they use here, as opposed to property taxes which only residents pay?
It’s been estimated by the County that about 15 percent of SPLOST revenues come from outside the county. That still means that a disproportionate amount is paid by residents. Moreover, the benefits of receiving out of county revenue would be more than offset by the benefit to business owners and residents of a lower tax rate. Furthermore, the amount spent by residents from outside the county is likely offset by the amount that Cobb residents also spend outside Cobb County, resulting in a net effect of zero.
+-What is the status of the Bus Rapid Transit project as it relates to this SPLOST? I heard that it was removed from the project list.
As a specific line-item in the SPLOST project list, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), a fixed guideway project that would run from Town Center in Kennesaw to the MARTA Arts Station in mid-town Atlanta, was removed from the list, but the funding for it was not. Some of the money would go towards infrastructure to support the new Braves Stadium, thereby increasing the amount of taxpayer subsidies used to entice the Braves to move to Cobb County above and beyond the $600 million largess already agreed to by the County for the Braves over 30 years. Moreover, in the intervening eight years, future Boards will have enormous discretion to add or discard projects at will. Thus, once the voters open the Pandora’s box to pass this year’s SPLOST, they open the door to future mischief by urban planners who have not given up on their 20 year quest to build a mass transit system through the heart of Cobb County. In fact, on the County website, BRT is still being touted under its new name, Cobb Connect, where it is described as “providing much-needed travel options for thousands of daily riders.”
+-But isn’t it true that at least voters can be assured that the County will not stray from the project list, and they will only deliver what is listed?
Unfortunately, no. Since there is so much latitude and lack of specificity in the project list, the County and municipalities within the County can and will use the SPLOST as a slush fund to reward its well placed supporters and benefactors and shift funds around for that purpose. An example of this is in the City of Austell which spent tens of thousands of dollars building a park on Veterans Memorial Highway with 2011 SPLOST funds even though no funds were earmarked for it.
+-Since we all can agree that public safety is the County’s first priority, won’t public safety be compromised if the SPLOST is not passed?
The primary issue facing public safety in Cobb County is attracting and retaining qualified personnel. This is an issue which can only be addressed through the general fund. And while infrastructure needs will always be present when it comes to providing for public safety, the County will be spending close to $13 million in the current SPLOST for public safety, and that does not include what was spent in the previous six year 2005 SPLOST and what was allocated for municipalities. Now the County is asking for an additional whopping $213 million, (Tier 1 and 2 combined) much of which is highly questionable, such as an indoor firing range, or replacement of a perfectly functional and adequate police headquarters ($16 million). There comes a point where taxpayers need to question how much in the way of capital improvements is really needed for public safety, and not assume that if it falls under that category, then it is automatically justified.
+-Who benefits the most from the SPLOST and where does its support come from?
Supporters will tell you that all of us benefit equally, in that it improves the overall quality of life in the county. That is clearly not the case because residents who are heavy users of heavily subsidized county services and facilities benefit in the form of a wealth transfer payment at the expense of everyone else. The most obvious beneficiaries are the builders, contractors, lawyers and bankers who have an immediate fiduciary interest in keeping the lucrative projects going. As a measure of how important these projects are to them, they traditionally give hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to organizations which are set up specifically to promote the SPLOST. As for the “quality of life” issue touted by SPLOST proponents, CTA cannot think of a better way to improve the quality of life than for residents to keep and spend as much of their own money as they see fit.
+-How can we know that the price tags attached to these projects are reasonable and cost competitive?
Sadly we can’t, which is all the more reason to oppose this SPLOST because of the way the money has been managed in the past and will likely be managed in the future. For example, in the 2005 SPLOST a Tier 2 project at Trickum Road to add left turn lanes was listed as costing $465,000. In the 2011 SPLOST the exact same project will now cost $759,000, a $294,000 increase in five years. Either it was under-estimated then or it is overpriced now, but it can’t be both. Discrepancies like these should give voters real pause about how well the county would manage the costs of these projects if the SPLOST was to pass.
+-Are there any circumstances under which your organization would support a SPLOST for Cobb County?
CTA can envision a scenario when it might not oppose a SPLOST that was of very limited duration and was designated to address really critical needs that could not be reasonably paid for in any other way. For that reason, CTA supports legislation that was proposed in the last two sessions of the state legislature which would allow for an optional fractional SPLOST, where the County would first identify true needs that most everyone could agree on, and then put on the ballot a SPLOST that would address needs vs. wants and would avoid imposing fluff projects which are done to find a way to spend the full one percent SPLOST as required under current law. But that is certainly not the case today. Until the County gets its fiscal house in order, giving money to it in the form of a full one penny SPLOST would be like giving heroin to an addict.
+-If the SPLOST fails, won't property taxes go up to make up for the revenue shortfall?
That is a question best answered by the Board of Commissioners. Normally, property taxes should not go up because the proper purview of a SPLOST should be for capital improvements, whereas property taxes should go to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government, such as salaries, benefits and routine maintenance. Unfortunately, the Cobb County SPLOST has morphed into a slush fund where the lines between the two funding sources have become blurred and the County has used the SPLOST to pay for those items which should be paid for out of the general fund. Defeating this SPLOST would be the best way to cure the County of its over reliance on the SPLOST and force a level of fiscal restraint and responsibility that taxpayers have not enjoyed since the current SPLOST was imposed back in 2005. Prior to 2005, the County did not have a county-wide SPLOST, yet the basic needs of the County were met for several years without it, to the benefit of local taxpayers.
Historically, it is interesting to note that proponents of the 2011 SPLOST warned voters that if that SPLOST did not pass, then property taxes would go up, and plastered the county with lawn signs that read: “Vote Yes for Low Taxes. No Debt.” Then four months later, the Board of Commissioners went ahead and raised property taxes anyway, from 9.60 to 11.11 mills. Since then it has only declined to 10.71
+-Isn't there a difference between the impact the SPLOST would have on low verses high-income taxpayers?
Yes. Low income taxpayers pay a disproportionately higher share of their income on the SPLOST, making it a regressive tax. This makes sense since there are so many taxable items that the poor and rich purchase at approximately the same level, such as sundries and motor fuels. This is especially hard on low income residents who are struggling to advance their economic status, and retired seniors on fixed incomes.
+-How would defeat of this SPLOST affect the Cobb County School System?
There would be no impact. This SPLOST is for county provided services and facilities, which has a separate budgeting authority from the schools.
+-With the recovery in real estate values, doesn’t that mean the County will automatically receive a windfall in property tax revenues?
Absolutely. With increased assessments in property values, tens of millions in increased revenues will flow into County coffers between now and when this SPLOST would expire seven years from now. With all that additional revenue, CTA takes the position that this windfall would go a long way towards meeting the true needs of the County without a SPLOST. Under the circumstances, asking for another SPLOST is unreasonable, excessive and County’s elected officials.
