.MjU4Nw.MjU4Nw

FINANCilJG THE PUBLIC SCHOOIS OF ATIANTA AND FULTON COUNTY A STUDY CONDUCTED FOR THE LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION BY DR. R. L. JOHNS (Revised by Dr. R. L. Johns - June 21, 1967) �FINANCING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY A comprehensive approach to a study of the financing of the public schools in Atlanta and Fulton County would involve an appraisal of the future policies of tne State of Georgia and the federal government for school financing as well _as a study of local school financing. Since such an appraisal is beyond the scope of this study, this section of the report will deal primarily with problems of local school financing in the two districts. However, most authorities on school financing anticipate that in the future there will be further increases in school financial support from the federal government and state governments as well as from local school districts. Although the public schools will no doubt receive increased funos in the future from both state and federal sources, strong local financial support of the public schools will have to be maintained by all districts that desire something better than a mediocre quality level ~f education for their children. The following matters are treated in this section of the report: revenue receipts, current expenditures, ta..xpp.y.ing ability and local effort to support education, indebtedness, equalization that would result from consolidation, non- pr operty local taxes and financial arrangements that would need to be made i f t he two districts were consolidated. Revenue Receipts Table I shows the budgeted revenue r eceipts of the Atlanta and Fulton County school systems. It will be noted f r om this Table that 55 -4 percent of the revenue of the Atlanta City schools is derived from the district property tax as compared with 28.4 percent in Fulton County. are deceiving. However, both of these percentage figures �-2Just what percent of the revenue receipts of each school system is provided by property truces levied on property located in each district? It will be noted that the Atlanta City Council paid $2,835,045 in 1966 for the debt service on bonds the City issued to construct school buildings. This amounts to 5.3 percent of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City Board of Education. This added to the 55.4 percent derived from the district property tax makes a total of 60.7 percent of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City schools derived from property taxes in 1966-67. It will be noted that Fulton County receives $1,762,892 from the county-wide tax (1½ mills) and $780,000 from a direct appropriation from the County Comm:fssion and $720,000 from the County Commission for Teacher Retirement. total of $3,262,892 from these two sources. This makes a If it is assumed that the appropria- tion from the County Commission is also derived from property taxes, what part of this total is paid on property located in Fulton County but outside of the City of Atlanta? Since only about 19 percent of the digest of Fulton County lies out si de of the City of Atlanta, only approximately 19 percent of this amount, or $619, 949, is paid on the property in Fulton County lying outsi de the City of Atlant a, and $2, 642,943 on the pr operty in the City of Atlanta. This repr esents only approximately 3. 6 percent of the r evenue r ecei pts of t he Fult on County Board. It will also be noted t hat 7.8 percent of the r evenue r eceipt s of t he Fult on County dist rict i s der i ved from the 5½mill levy f or debt s ervice . These two amounts, that is, 3 .6 percent pl us 7.8 percent added t o 28.4 percent make a t otal of 39.8 per cent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County Board of Educat i on obtained frOdl property taxes paid on property located in Fulton County outside of the City of Atlanta. The Fulton County Board of Educati on r ecei ves 40. 8 percent of its revenue from the state Minimum Foundation Program appropriations as eompared with 32.3 percent for the City of Atlanta. The Minimum Foundation Program law was designed �-3to equalize educational opportunities among school districts that vary greatly in wealth. The l½ mill county-wide tax levied in all of Fulton County but al- located exclusively to the Fulton County Board also provides for considerable financial equalization at the local leveL opportunity is sound public policy. The equalization of educational Later in this report, it is shown that the . adjusted gross digest is 32 percent greater per pupil in the City of Atlanta than in Fulton County. Table I shows the revenue receipts of the Atlanta Schools totaled $530.01 per pupil in 1966-67 as compared with $571.07 in Fulton County. This means that the State Minimum Foundation Program. Law together with the l½ mill county-iwide levy and the direct appropriation from the County Commission have gone a long way toward equalizing the financial support of the two systems. It should not be inferred from this comment, however, that educational opportunities are equal in the two school systems. The Atlanta City school system provides kindergartens which are not provided in the Fulton County system. If Fulton County provided kindergartens, the revenue receipts per pupil in that school system would probably be no more than the revenue receipts per pupil in the Atlanta system. Both systems will benefit substantially in 1967-68 from increases from the Minimum Foundation Program Appropriation provided by the 1967 Legislature. It is estimated that the City of Atlanta will receive an increase of approximately $1,863,000 from this source and Fulton County approximately $1,075,000. �I r~ TABLE I - SOURCES OF REVENUE OF ATIANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67 (BUDGETED REVENUES 1966-67., DATA FURNISHED BY CITY AND COUNTY SCHOOL OFFICIALS) SOURCE District Property tax for operation ATLANTA Amount Percent $29.,686,415 55.4 FULTON COUNTY Amount Percent $ 4,922.,451 1,762,892 10.2 County Commission (for General Expenses) 780.,000 4.5 Intangible Taxes Z30,000 1.3 County Commission (for Teacher Retirement) 720,000 # 4.2 County Wide Property Tax State Minimum Foundation Program 40.8 17.,322.,038 32.3 7,074,761 other State Funds 425.,013 .8 0 Vocational Funds 628,449 1.2 58,000 .3 National Defense Education Act 520.,781 1.0 65,400 .4 Fulton County School District 5½mill levy f or debt service Federal Impacted Area Funds 1,350.,000 # 7.8 210.,000 1.2 802,366 1.5 City Council Payments for Debt Service on Sch . Bonds 2.,835.,045 # 5.3 other Income 1.,358,747 2.5 159., 500 .9 $53 ., 578.,854 100. 0 $17,333,004 100.n Tot al Revenue Receipts Beginning Cash Balance Sub-Total Federal FundsElem. & Sec. Act. 1965 GRAND TOTAL 532.,250 818.,609 54.,111.,104 18.,151,613 2.,519,743 461,383 $56,630.,847 $18.,612.,996

Not Included in the operating budgeto

continued- �TABLE I - (Cont.) ATIANTA Amount SOURCE Average Daily Attendance Ja.n. 1., 1967 Revenue Receipts Per Pupil in ADA

101,068 $530.01 Percent FULTON COUNTY Percent Amount 30,352 $571.07 Excludes federal funds received under the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 which cannot be used for the regular school program. �-4The federal revenues received from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 are also shown in Table I. These revenues are shown separately be- cause they are all earmarked for special purposes by the federal government and cannot be expended for the regular school program. Practically all of these revenues must be expended for compensatory education for the children of the disadvantaged. ·current Expenditures In Table II an analysis of the budgeted current expenditures of the two school systems for 1966-67 is presented. Both systems expend 75 percent or more of total current expenditures for instruction. This is typical practice in large school systems. Caution should be exercised in comparing the different percentage allocations given to the same expenditure functions in the two systems. These systems differ considerably in their bases of financial support, the spread of population and other factors. For example, Fulton County allocates 2.8 percent of its current expenditures to transportation but Atlanta spends no funds for pupil transportation. Atlanta expended approximately $486.07 per pupil for 1966-67 and Fulton County $517.07 for current operating expenses. The Research Division of the National Education Association estimated that the average current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance for the 50 states and the District of Columbia was $564 in 1966-67. Therefore, the current expenditures per. pupil in both the Atlanta and Fulton County School systems are very low when compared with the national average. �TABIE II CURRENT EXPENDITURES OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67 (BUDGETED EXPENDITURES FOR 1966-67) ACCOUNT FUNCTION ATIANTA Amount

FULTON COUNTY Percent 1. Administration $1,796.,920 3.7 2 ._ Instruction 36,977,443 3. Operation of Plant Percent Amount 309,784 2.0 75.3 12,149,333 77.4 4,224,543 8.6 1,228,200 7.8 2,810,500 5.7 663,550 4.2 5. Health Services 96,368 .2 6. Food Services 41,209 .l $ 4. Maintenance of Plant 7. Transportation 8. Fixed Charges 9. other TOTAL Average Daily Attendance January 1967 Current Expenditures Per Pupil in ADA 0 2,417,800 754,819* 49,119,602 101,068 $486.07 4.9 1.5 100.0 0 9,300 .l 444,160 2.8 889,368** 5.7 0 15,693,695 100.0 30,352 $517.06

nata furnished by county and city school officials. Expenditure accounts do not

include expenditures from federal funds received from the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965.

This account consists principally of undistributed expenditures made from federal

funds received under the National Defense Education Act. ,

Includes $720,000 employees' contribution t o teachers' retirement paid by the

County Commission. �-5Financial Ability The best measure of the relative local taxpaying ability of the Atlanta and Fulton County school systems is the gross property digest per pupil in average daily attendance computed on the basis of 100 percent valuation. This is due to the fact that most local school revenue is derived from property truces. Following is the adjusted 100 percent gross di~est for 1966 of the Atlanta City Scho~l district estimated by the State Revenue Department: Atlanta City in Fulton County $4,141,663,000 Atlanta City in DeKalb County 173,149,000 Total $4,314,812,000 The average daily attendance of the Atlanta City schools was 101,068 in January, 1967. Therefore, the gross digest of the Atlanta City school district adjusted on a 100 percent basis was $42,692 per pupil. The 1966 gross digest of the Fulton County school district adjusted on a 100 percent basis was $982,348,000 according to data furnished by the State Revenue Department. The gross aigest includes the valuation of homesteads even though homesteads up to a valuation of $2,000 are exempted frcm County operating levies for schools. It is necessary to include the valuation of homesteads in order to compute an accurate measure of the relative wealth of the two districts. The ADA of the Fulton County schools in January was 30,352. par pupil in ADA was $32,365. The gross digest Therefore, the Atlanta City school system has a gross digest approximately 32 percent greater than the Fulton County school system. However, each of these school systems has considerably more wealth per pupil than the average school district in the United States. �-6Local Financial Effort, to Support, Education A valid measure of local ta.x effort to support schools ccµi be obtained by dividing the taxes paid on the property located in each school district by the adjusted 100 percent gross digest of that district. . It is difficult to compute exactly the local ta.x effort of the Atlanta City District because a part of that district is in DeKalb. County. However, the follow- ing is a fairly close approximation for 1966-67. 1. District property ta.x 2. Payments of City Council for debt service on school bonds 2,835,045 The portion of the l½ mill county-wide ta.x and the portion of the appropriations made by the County Commission which was paid on property located in the City 2,642,243 3. $29,686,415 TorAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS $35,164,403 The 100 percent gross digest of the Atlanta school district for 1966 was $4,314,812,000. The total local taxes for schools divided by the gross digest equals .00815 or approximately 8.2 mills on the adjusted 100 percent gross digest or true value of property. The local taxes for schools in the Fulton County school district in 1966-67 were as follows: 1. District property tax 2. The portion of the l½ mill county-wide ta.x and the appropriation made by the County Commission which was paid on property located in the county district 3. Fulton County district levy of mills for debt service $4,922,451 5½ TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS 619,949 1,350,000 $6,892,400 �-7The 1966 gross digest of the County school system on 100 percent basis was $982,348,000. The total local taxes for schools divided by the gross digest equals .007016 or approximately 7 mills on the gross digest on true valuation of property. It is evident that the Atlanta City school district made a greater local tax effort in proportion to its ability to support schqols than Fulton County. If the Fulton County school district had made as great a tax effort in proportion to its ability as the Atlanta school dist~ict in 1966-67, it would have raised _.OOll34 times $982,348,000 or $1,ll3,983 in additional local revenue in 1966-67. Special attention is directed to the fact that Fulton County could not legally have made this extra local effort in 1966-67. The District levied 25 mills of operating taxes which was the legal limit it could levy. property was assessed at less than 25 percent of true value. Furthermore, However, the limita- tions on the taxing power of the Fulton County Board of Education will be eased somewhat in the future because of the ruling of the court in the McLennan vs St at e Revenue Commission case. The court ruled that all property must be assessed at a uniform percent of true value regar dless of the class of property or where it was l ocated. Upon the ruling, the Revenue Commissi oner ordered that all county digests be based on assessing all propert y at 40 percent of true value. This will make it possible to increase considerably t he local revenues of the Fulton County school district beginning wit h t he 1967-68 fiscal year. Ther e are no legal limits on the amount of mills which the Atlanta City Board of Educat ion may levy for the oper ation of the public schools of the ci ty. Therefor e, t here ar e no legal barrier s to increasing local school support f ~r schools in Atlanta.. Actually the local truces for schools are extremely low bot h in Atlanta and Fulton County when compared with t he school t axes levied in other sections of the nation. Recently one of the members of the staff making this survey . �-8participated in a study of school financing in all school districts of 20,000 population or more in Illinois . It was found that the average school district in Illinois levied local property taxes for schools equivalent to 12 mills on the 100 percent true valuation of property. This is almost fifty percent greater local effort than the City of Atlanta and 71 percent greater local tax effort for schools than in the Fulton County sc~ool district. Indebtedness The bonded indebtedness of the Atlanta City Council for schools totaled $52,905,000 in 1967. This was less than 3.8 percent of the unadjusted gross digest. The bonded indebtedness of the Fulton County school district was $22,661,000 in 1967. This was 9.1 percent of the unadjusted gross digest of the county s chool district. This is close to the 10 percent constitutional limit on school indebtedness for the Fulton County district. However, the bonded indebtedness margin of Fulton County will be greatly increased when the property di gest i s raised from an estimated 25 percent of true value to 40 percent. The unad justed 1966 gr oss digest for the Fulton County district was approximately $248,ooo,ooo. Assuming that the 1966 digest was at 25 per cent of true value, the 1967 digest at 40 percent of true value should be appr oximately $400, 000 , 000 allowing f or a reasonable amount of growth. The present county school i ndebted- ness would be less than 5.7 per cent of the gross digest at a 40 per cent valuation. Another way of l ooking at the indebtedness of the t wo districts is to compute . the percent that the school indebtedness of each district is of the adjusted gross digest of each district at 100 percent of true value. In 1966 this figure for the Atlanta city district was 1.23 percent and for Fulton County 2.31 percent. If the two districts were consolidated, it is assumed that the territory that originally issued the bonds would continue to be responsible for the debt service �-9on the bonds that it had issued. It does not appear that this would work any great hardship on either district because the indebtedness of neither district is excessive. Non-Property Local Taxes Some school districts in the United States have obtained legal authority to levy non-property local taxes for schools. against this practice. There are arguments both for and Following are some arguments against the levy of local non-property taxes for schools: 1. Usually only urban or metropolitan school districts are able to derive substantial funds from this source. 2. The state can collect most types of local non-property taxes more efficiently than local units of government 3, Local non-property taxes for schools place cities in competition with each other for industries. 4 If the larger urban districts are able to levy local non-property taxes f or schools , they may not support a state financing program which helps t he l ess f ortunate s chool dist ricts. 5. Same types of local non- pr operty t axes make it possibl e for wealt hy districts t o shift a part of the incidence of t heir taxes on the residents of less wealthy districts . Some arguments for t he levy of l ocal non-property taxes f or schools are as follows: 1. growing. The property tax is a regressive tax and public resistance to it is If we maintain the vigor of local school support., many believe that a source of local revenue more nearly related to ability to pay than the property tax must be found. 2. The more progressive areas of a state desire a better quality program than the legislature is usually willing to provide from non-property state taxes. �-10Those areas should be given the authority to provide this higher quality program from some local source other than the property tax. 3. It is possible to select types of local non-property taxes the burden of which cannot be shifted to the taxpayers of less wealthy areas. 4. The cost of administering local non-property taxes can be held to a reasonable level by using the state's tax collection machinery or by levying local non-property taxes by metropolitan areas rather than by individual school districts. 5. The taxpayer should be given the choice of what type or types of local taxes he will levy for schools in order to broaden the base of local taxation. As has been pointed out above, local property taxes for schools are very low both in Atlanta and in Fulton County. There is considerable leeway in both districts for increasing local property taxes for schools without those truces becoming burdensome. Therefore, there is no :immediate urgency for the considera- tion of obtaining the authority to levy local non-property taxes for schools. If the Atlanta and Fulton County school authorities decide to study the possibility of levying local non- property tax.es, it is recommended that consideration be given to the following: 1. That any local non-property t axes that are levied for schools in the Atlanta area be levied over the entire metropolitan area of Atlanta including all school districts in the following counties: Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett. 2. That a metropolitan school taxing authority be established with the sole responsibility for collecting any local non-property taxes for schools authorized by law and for apportioning such taxes among the several school districts in the five counties named above in proportion to the average daily attendance of pupils. �-ll- 3. That only those types of non-property local taxes be levied, the burden of which cannot be shifted to ta:xpayers residing outside of· the Atlanta metropolitan area. Financing Education in a Reorganized District A number of reports have been presented to the people of the Fulton County and Atlanta school districts in which arguments for t he two districts have been set forth. review those arguments . and against the consolidation of It is not the purpose of this report to Therefore, the discussions of school finance presented in this study have been focused primarily on the financing of schools in each district rather -than on the financing of schools in a consolidated district. Certain suggestions particularly concerning the level of school financing have already been presented. Those suggestions are as applicable to the financing of education in Atlanta and Fulton County as separate school districts as they would be applicable to the financing of education in a consolidated district. It would no doubt be possible to provide reasonably adequate school financing in each of the t wo distr icts operating as separate districts. However , if the t wo di stricts were consolidated, it would be possible to establish a more equi table and more efficient financing pl an. I t has already been pointed out that the 1966 gross digest adjusted at 100 percent in t he City of Atlanta was $42,692 per pupil in ADA and in the Fulton County district $32,365. If t he two dist ricts were consoli- dated, the gross digest at 100 percent valuation f or t he consolidated district would be $40 ,307 per pupil. It has also been pointed out tha.t the taxpayers i n the Fulton County s chool dist r ict are making a l ower tax effort to support schools in proportion to ability than t he t axpayers i n the Atlanta City distr i ct. There- fore, consolidation of the two dist ricts would equalize the wealth back of each child and it wuld also equalize the tax effort to support schools in the AtlantaFulton County consolidated district. Consolidation would also simplify local .financing because there would no longer be a. need for the special l½ mill .county �-12equalizing levy or direct appropriations from the County Commission. It has been suggested in other studies presented to the Local Education Commission of Atlanta and Fulton County that the consolidation of the two districts might result in the loss of some state school funds under present methods of state apportionment. If there is anything in present state laws that would place a penalty on desirable reorganization of school districts, the laws should be amended and the .penalties eliminated. This should not be a difficult undertaking. As has already been pointed out, improvements in school financing should be - made in the Atlanta and Fulton County school districts regardless of whether they are consolidated. If the two districts are consolidated, consideration should be given to the following financial recommendations: l. The Board of the consolidated district should be given the same power for levying taxes for school operation as that now possessed by the Atlanta City Board of Education and it should be fiscally independent of any other local body. 2. The Board should be given the power to issue bonds for capital outlay purposes -up to a reasonable percent of the gross digest. The Board should also be given the power to obtain t ax anticipat i on loans to be r epaid within t he f iscal year. 3. Homestead exemption f rom school t axes should be abolished i n the reorganized district. 4. Present outstanding bonds should be retired in accordance with the com- mitments made at the time of issuance but all new bonds should be issued on a district-wide basis and retired from truces levied throughout the consolidated district. �Estimated Local Tax Levy Needed for Financing Schools in the Reorganized Distr ict It is difficult to make an accurate estimate of the local tax levy needed for fi nancing schools in the reorganized district for a number of reasons . The local tax levy for schools in the combined Atlanta- Fulton County School District will depend upon a number of facto r s including the foll.owi ng : the per cent of true value at which property is assessed , the quality and quantity of education provided , the economic growth rate of Atlanta and Fulton County and the additional amounts of revenue to be received in the future f r om state and federal sources , Assumptions must be made with respect to all of these items in order to estimate the pr obable tax levy in the combined district . In Table III , the estimates of the gross digest of the combined Atlanta and Fulton County School District for the years 1966-69 are pre s ented . It will be noted that estimates at 100 per cent of true value and a t 40 per cent of t r ue value are both presented , TABLE III YEAR 1966~~ 1967 1968 1969 ESTIMATED GROSS DIGEST OF ATT__ANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMBINED 1966 - 1969 GROSS DI GEST AT 100 PER GROSS DIGEST AT 40 PER CENT TRUE VALUE CENT TRUE VALUE $5,2 97} 160 , 000 5,519 , 641 , 000 5, 751 , 466 , 000 5,993 , 027 , 000 $2 , 118,864 , 000 2,207,856 , 000 2 , 300 , 586, 000 2,397 ,211 , 000 ~~Actual data repor ted by the Sta te Revenue Department The 40 per c ent es timat e i s used f or computing t he es t imated tax levy b ecause of the or der of the Revenue Commis sioner t hat property be assessed uniformly t hroughout t he state at 40 per cent of t r ue value , It was �- 2 estimated that the gross digest would i ncr ease a t the rate of 4.2 per cent annually . Tha t was the approximate growth r ate . us ed i n the estima t es pres ented on p , 15 of Distric t Re organiza tion For Bet ter Schools in Atlanta and Fulton C0un.ty Repor t of the Loca l Educa tion Corrnnis sion of Atl anta and Fulton Count y , Ge orgia, February 1966. In Tabl e IVJ estimate s are pr esented of anticipated revenue s of the reor ga nized di s tri ct from non-local s ources , estimated budget requirement s , estimated local t ax revenue needed and estimated loca l school tax levy needed f or s chool operati on . Thes e estimates are for opera tion only and do not include revenues and expenditures needed fo r ca pita l outlay a nd debt ser vice . The methods used in making the estimates are s et fo r th in the footnotes to Table I V. It will be noted that the average es timat ed tax r a te fo r the two dis trict s oper ating a s s eparate dist ri cts i n 1967- 68 is 18. 3 mi lls but tha t t he estimated tax rate for the firs t year of operation as a c ombined di strict i s 21 . 4 mills . This is due to the fa ct that i t will take a considerable i ncr ease in school r evenue t o pr ovide kinder gartens for the Fulton County childr en a nd to i ncrea s e the genera l l evel of educati onal opportunity provided in the re organi zed sys t em. It will als o be observed tha t t he estimated l ocal t ax levy for 1969-70 i s 23 .2 mills. This is probably an over estimate becaus e i t i s based on t he as sumption that the 1969 State Legislature will not make any incr ease in the Foundation Program allotment per tea cher , I f the 1969 legis l a tur e would make the same propor- t ionat e i ncreas e in t he per teacher al lotment in the Foundation Program t ha t it made in 1967 , the es t imated l ocal tax l evy fo r s chools in the reorgani zed district would be only approximately 22, 0 mills. �- 3 .. Attention is partj,cul~rly directeq to the fact that t hese estirr~ted tax levies are paseq on - 11, ta.:x: digest at 40 per cent of true value, A tax levy of 23, 2 m!il~ An ~ tax digest At 40 per cent of true value is equivalent t A a t~x +evy ~f only 9, ~8 mills on a tax digest at 100 per cent true ve.+ue , Thh is not. a high l~pal tax levy for schools when comparecl. w:i.th ~chool. t a:x;es levied in 1 p.ding school systems in other sections of the coµp.tr y, �TABLE IV SOURCE OF REVENUE ESTIMA. TED OPERATING REVENUES FOR ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY DISTRICTS COMBINED AND ESTIMATED LOCAL OPERATING TAX LEVY NEEDED FOR SCHOOLS BASED ON A GROSS DIGEST AT 40 PER CENT OF TRUE VALUE 1967-1969 1967- 68 1968-69 1969- 70 (Estimated as (Estimated as (Estima ted as separate discombined comb i ned tricts) district) district) STATE FUNDS Vocational Funds National Defense Education Act Federal Impacted Area Funds Other Income Estimated income excluding income from local taxes # $27 , 759 ,812 704,983 $28,509,327 724 , 018 $29 , 279,079 743 , 566 602)008 618, 262 634 , 955 1 , 039 , 700 1,559,240 1,067,772 1,601,339 1 , 096 , 602 1,644,575 31,665,743 32 , 520 , 718 33,398 ,777 Estimated Operating Budget Requirement"s-l:- 72,110 , 626 81,832,188 89,111 , 499 Estimated Local Tax Funds Needed 40,444 , 883 49 , 311,470 55 , 712 , 722 Gross Digest Estimated at 40 per cent true value Estimated Tax Levy for Schools Operation in mills 2 , 207 ,856,000 18. 3 21.4 23 . 2

State funds for 1967-68 were ·estimated by adding $2, 938, 000 to the sta te

funds r ecei ved by the two systems for 1966-67. This is the estimated additional state revenue pr ovided for the two systems by the 1967 Le gislature . The estimated s tate fund s f or subsequent year s wa s increased 2 . 7 per cent annually which is about t he estimated annual incr ease in attendanc e of the combined systems . The estimates f or other non-local sources of revenue were also i ncr eased 2 . 7 per cent annual ly for the same r ea son. This method may over es t imate some sources . and underestimate other sources. -l~Data t aken from P. 21 of Distr ict Reorgani zation fo r Better School s i n Atlanta and Fulton County. Repor t of the Local Education Cormnis sion of Atlanta and Fulton County, Ge orgia , February 1966. �