Support seen for Atlanta bond issues

Twin requests seek voter approval for $250 million to fix infrastructure.

A poll found that 79 percent of Atlanta voters are likely to approve spending $250 million on infrastructure fixes next month,

Mayor Kasim Reed predicts Atlanta’s notoriously troubled traffic woes will prompt locals, anxious for any ounce of gridlock relief, to approve spending $250 million on in- frastructure fixes next month.

“Traffic light synchronization and bridge repair, on their own ... really make this dog hunt,” Reed said, adding that key to the bond passage is that voters understand their taxes won’t rise as a result. “This is less about persuasion and more about awareness of the election.”

Reed has less than a month left to persuade voters to say yes on March 17 to two separate bonds. The first, worth $188 million, will fund capital maintenance projects such as road improvements and sidewalks. The second bond, valued at $64 million, will pay to build or improve municipal facilities.

In late 2008, Atlanta com- pleted a study that found nearly half of its 1,705 miles of streets were in disrepair and needed repaving. About the same time the great recession began pinching city revenues, limiting the city’s ability attend to its maintenance backlog.

Early voting begins today, and Reed said he’s now raising funds for a messaging campaign to reach those voters in the final critical weeks.

New polling suggests the infrastructure referendum might be an easy sell.

A poll commissioned by Citizens for Better Infrastructure, the group running the bond campaign, finds that 79 percent of Atlanta voters are likely to support the referendum. The poll was conducted by Reed’s go-to-group, Anzalone Liszt Grove Research.

Bond issues

the state’s general fund.

Banstetter’s point: The FAA has made clear that jet fuel tax revenue can only be spent on airports or aviation. Otherwise, FAA funding could be lost.

Delta is one of the state’s largest and most influential employers, with $659 million in net income in 2014 and about 32,000 Georgia workers.

PolitiFact decided to check the facts.

Lawmakers — including Ehrhart — have voted repeatedly to extend the fuel tax exemptions first approved in 2005, saving Delta millions of dollars each year. They made them permanent in 2012.

Recently, Ehrhart and the bill’s second sponsor, Rep. Howard Maxwell, RDallas, have criticized Delta executives for piping up on political issues.

Some Paulding County officials said last year that they resented Delta’s vocal opposition to plans to commercialize their tiny county airport. Maxwell said he told Delta officials “to shut up and leave Paulding County alone.”

Ehrhart this year bristled after Delta CEO Richard Anderson said lawmakers should not be “chicken” about raising the state’s gasoline taxes for transportation. He also complained this month on the House floor that one of Delta’s 12 registered lobbyists was threatening co-sponsors of his bill, a charge airline executives deny.

Ehrhart said HB 175 is about “corporate welfare.”

“They need to get off the taxpayer dime,” he said.

Ehrhart said he expects a hearing on his bill Tuesday.

Banstetter said Ehrhart’s bill would violate two federal laws requiring that any state or local jet fuel taxes imposed after 1987 go to cover airport capital or operating costs. It also would change state law so the existing sales tax exemptions would apply to airlines with a tax liability of less than $15 million per year — essentially singling out and cutting out Delta.

Delta would be subject to jet fuel taxes, including a statewide 1 percent sales tax and a 1 percent transportation special purpose local option sales tax (TSPLOST) in Columbus and Augusta, Banstetter said. Total jet fuel tax exemptions currently add up to about $21 million a year, the lion’s share for fuel bought by Delta.

Georgia received about $67 million in airport funding from the FAA in fiscal 2014, according to the agency’s website.

An FAA representative said agency officials as general policy do not discuss pending legislation.

The FAA issued a policy statement in November with major implications for how airlines set up their jet fuel-purchasing operations and making clear that tax money collected on jet fuel could only be used for airport and aviation purposes. State and local governments were given no more than three years to adjust.

The jet fuel tax isn’t a make-or-break proposition for the airlines, but it’s a big deal nonetheless. Just this week, a lobbyist for American Airlines told Charlotte, N.C., leaders that a state tax break on jet fuel was his airline’s top legislative priority of the year.

Ehrhart told PolitiFact he’ll work to use the threeyear window provided by the FAA to Georgia’s advantage. He said his strategy will be to have the fuel tax on Delta reinstated and have the proceeds go to the general fund for at least a couple of years and then for aviation uses as the FAA requires.

“That could be $25 million to $45 million a year, real money,” he said. “I have a solid legal opinion that we can do that. Delta says we can’t? Tell them to bring their proof, and I’ll bring mine.”

Gregory Walden, a former chief counsel at the FAA, was one of a handful of aviation experts we contacted who agreed to comment on the record.

“FAA policy gives states up to three years to come into compliance with its November 2014 policy that state fuel tax proceeds must be directed either to the airport where the fuel is provided or to state aviation programs. Thus, the state (Georgia) will not risk losing any current or future FAA grant funds if it complies with the FAA policy within the period set out in that policy,” said Walden, an attorney with Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld in Washington, an aviation law professor at George Mason University and counsel to Propeller Airports.

Kenneth Quinn is an aviation attorney in the Washington law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, whose clients include Delta.

Quinn said the airline spokesman’s comments were addressing the legislation as filed, not “potential revisions” now being discussed.

But he questions what Ehrhart is suggesting.

“The three-year period was not a grace period for states or local municipalities to introduce new aviation fuel taxes with nonaviation revenue use,” Quinn said.

Our ruling: Banstetter said HB 175 “violates federal law and puts the state at risk of losing critical aviation funding from the Federation Aviation Administration.” He bases that on federal laws stating that aviation fuel taxes must be used for airports or aviation purposes and an FAA policy statement in November clarifying the agency’s position and giving governments no more than three years to adjust.

Since Banstetter made his statement, Ehrhart has said he’s developing a plan that would allow the tax money to go to aviation uses by the FAA’s three-year deadline. But reading the bill you couldn’t know that.

We rate Banstetter’s statement True.