Atlanta lists Oct. 14 checkpoint for study of broader water-and-sewer tax uses

A proposal to examine whether Atlanta’s water-and-sewer sales tax could someday help pay for housing, food access and other city priorities has a committee checkpoint listed for Oct. 14. The question is not just what else the tax could fund, but what changing its role would mean for water bills and infrastructure.⁠[1]

Council’s Oct. 5 draft minutes list Oct. 14 at 1:30 p.m. as the next Finance/Executive Committee checkpoint for resolution 26-R-3939. Sponsored by Councilmembers Andrea L. Boone and Michael Julian Bond, the measure was returned as held without objection. That action did not create the task force, and the upcoming listing does not guarantee debate or a vote.⁠[1]

The proposal concerns a substantial source of water-system funding. The resolution cites approximately $220 million in anticipated annual Municipal Option Sales Tax, or MOST, revenue in the fiscal 2027 budget. It describes current proceeds as restricted to water and sewer projects and costs and related debt. The current voter authorization may continue through Sept. 30, 2028, unless collections first reach its $1.1 billion ceiling.⁠[1]

The proposed task force would examine whether Atlanta should seek authority for future proceeds to support affordable housing, food access, senior services, homelessness services, youth programs and neighborhood investment. These are possibilities for study—not newly eligible uses of the tax.⁠[1]

It would also explore a different route to budget flexibility: using MOST more extensively for expenses already legally eligible, potentially reducing demands on other city revenue. The proposal requires that approach to preserve the legal, accounting and financial separation of tax proceeds. Broader support for city priorities therefore would not necessarily require redirecting MOST outside its authorized purposes.⁠[1]

To test the trade-offs, the chief financial officer and Watershed Management would provide a baseline covering tax collections, current spending, capital needs, debt, regulatory commitments and maintenance costs. The review would assess effects on water and sewer rates, infrastructure investment and the city’s wider finances. Those are questions the study would investigate, not quantified benefits or costs established by the proposal.⁠[1]

If created, the task force would owe its final report within 12 months of its first meeting—not 12 months from the upcoming committee checkpoint. Even its eventual recommendations would not authorize spending, change the law or amend a financial agreement. Any required legislative, administrative, legal and voter approvals would still have to follow.⁠[1]