Search (43 results)

Applied Filters (Reset)

  • Tags = Box 21 Folder 5

Filters

Result Types

Item Types

Tags

Featured

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 1

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_001.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 1
  • Text: RAPID TRANSIT F O G .... l!'!l!!llmllall S ~ METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY "]Y.[ARTA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES ... " SEPTEMBER 1967 VOL. 2 . NO. 9 FINANCIAL PLAN OFFERED PROPOSES "HAMBURGER-A-WEEK"COST TO LOCAL CITIZEN Rapid transit can be built at a maximum cost to the taxpayer of 3 mills in Fulton County and 1.6 mills in DeKalb County, according to economic consultants of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. The figures are contained in the final draft of a report by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates prepared as part of the revision of the 1962 plan for rapid transit for Metropolitan Atlanta. The 1967 revision of the plan is expected to be completed in the next few weeks. The report shows that the basic 30-mile system, which· will cost about $332 million, can be built with local funds of $199 million, state funds of $33 million, and federal funds of $ 100 million. The Fulton County share would be $146,265,000 (73.5%) and the DeKalb County share $52,735,000 (26,5%). Clayton and Gwinnett Counties would not contribute to the capital construction costs until work is begun on the extensions to complete the 52-mile system when additional federal funds are expected to become available. The Clayton and Gwinnett fjnancial support would include a pro rata share of the costs of the basic system. "This report shows that the maximum cost of rapid transit in Fulton County to the owner of a $15,000 house would be $12.00; the same person in DeKalb County would pay about $6.40 maximum," MARTA General Manager said. "In Fulton County, this amounts to the price of a hamburger a week, or two or three cups of coffee a week," he told the MARTA Board of Directors at their regular meeting today. "And these amounts would be paid only for about 5 years; the rest of the time the costs would be even lower," he continued. "When Clayton and Gwinnett counties assume· their share of the costs, their rate would be a maximum of 1.5 mills, or about $6.00 a year to the owner of a $ I 5,000 house," Stuart explained. "The report of our financial consultants proposes what appears to be a practical and feasible approach to financing construction of the rapid transit system," he said. "Our final plans are taking shape and preliminary engineering is developing well. · If a successful referendum can be held in November 1968, we would begin construction in Spring of 1969. If this program develops in this manner," he stated, "we would have the first line operating about the end of 1973 and the basic 30-mile system in service in 1975. The entire 52-mile system could well be in operation before 1980, or in about the same length of time it is taking to complete the perimeter expressway. "We need to begin construction as early as possible ," he concluded, "since every year's delay costs us $18 to $20 million thru inflation and increased construction costs. The basic 30-mile system would have 24 stations and would run from Brookhaven to College Park and from Decatur to Lynhurst Drive near i-285 on the west, with a northwest stub to Northside Drive. The electrically-driven , air-conditioned cars would operate at maximum speeds of 70 miles per hour, averag(Continu ed on Page 2, Col. J) FEDERAL STATE STATE FULTON DeKALB FULTON FEDERAL $332 MILLION (30 Miles) $479 MILLION (52 Miles) �THIS MANY CARS PARKED HERE ... (Continu ed from Page 1) ing about 40 m iles per hour including station stops. Trains would run as often as every 90 seconds during rush hours. The commuter will ride to Transit Center, just a block from Five Points, in about 13 minutes from Brookhaven, 9 minutes from Decatur, and about 13 minutes from College Park. ... COULD REMOVE MANY CARS FROM HERE - • American Transit Association Convention-October 22-26, 1967, Regency-Hyatt House, Atlanta. The AT A has as members only those operating transit systems (railroads, bus lines, rapid transit, etc.) METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 8 08 G L ENN BLOG . 120 MA R I ETT A S T . . N . W . ATLAN TA . GA . 30303 • P H O N E 52 4 -5711 0 "'DIR ECTED BY TH E GEORG I A STATE LE G I S L ATURE TO DEVE LO P A RA P I D TRAN S I T S Y STE M F OR T H E S - CO UN TY METROPOLIT A N ATLAN T A AREA ," Edited by KING ELLIOTT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS : H. RICH, Chairman ROY A. BLOUNT, Vice Chairnian HERB ERT J . DICKSON, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, S ecr etary R ICHARD CITY OF ATLANTA : L. D. M ILTON ROBERT F. ADAMSON RAWSON HAVERTY RICHARD H. R ICH CLAYTON COUNTY : EDGAR BLALOCK DEKALB COUNTY : Dn. SANFORD ATWOOD ROY A . BLOU NT FULTON COUNTY: MITCHELL C. B ISHOP W . A . PULVER GWINNETT COUNTY : K. A . MCMILL8N COBB COUNTY (Obser ver) OTIS A . BRUMBY, Jn. MARTA STAFF: H ENRY L. STUART, General Manager EARL W. NELSON, Chief Engineer K ING ELLIOTT, Director of Public Information H . N. JO HNSON, Secretary to General Manag_e r An important factor in attracting commuters from their cars to rapid transit is the "Park-N-Ride Principle," according to a noted transportation expert. George L. DeMent, Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Transit Authority , recently discussed the importance of parking facilities in connection with rapid transit stations. Referring to the new Skokie Swift extension t o the Chicago rapid transit system , he said, "The 522 Park-N-Ride spaces provided at the outer Dempster Street terminal has proved to be a major factor in the success of Skokie Swift. This Park-N-Ride is used to l 00 per cent capacity every weekday . It is obvious to the Chicago Transit Authority that the patronage of the highly successful Skokie Swift operatio n would be increased automatically if additional parking spaces could be provided at the Dempster Terminal. Similar examples could be cited for the Park-N-Ride lots along other Chicago lines." DeMent noted that "the Cleveland Transit System has given emphasis to Park-N-Ride. Seven 'Rapid' stations have been provided with 5,2 18 free parking spaces .. .Additional parking spaces soon will be provided along the airport rapid transit extension now under construction." He quoted a survey which " indicated that parking spaces are being used at a rate of 1.3 cars per day . and t hat each car carries an average of 1.2 passengers. He says further that "the Toronto Transit Commission will provide parking spaces for 3.000 cars at three stat ions along the Bloor Street subway extension now under constru ction . with (Co11ti1111ecl 0 11 Page 3. Col. 1, �CITY PLANNING AND RAPID TRANSIT The American Institute of Planners has a strong interest in the development of a rapid transit system for the Atlanta Metropolitan Area. The specific interest in MARTA and its proposed system is related to the "balance" and relationship of the transit network to the rest of the metropolitan area and to the total transportation system of the metropolitan area- as it exists and is planned. The planner is concerned with the relationships that will be an outgrowth of the system. What impact will MARTA lines have on public and private property? Which areas will be likely to develop because of a MARTA installation-a station, for instance? Will the system be sensitively related to neighborhoods and business areas, or industrial areas? How? Will the system put stations in places where other planning and development activities provide an opportunity to "multiply" the effect of the investment in transit by an investment in urban renewal, or a college, or a new business area, or a special school? Can better relationships be established between elements of the transit system and the environment? The planning profession is interested in the general and the comprehensive dimensions of the city and the metropolitan area. Therefore, the planning interest in the transit system will extend beyond the tracks and the stations, into a concern for nearby property- and, more important, property that is not so near. The planning concern for all of the Atlanta area is oriented _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 to maximizing the livability of our "place," and deals equally with the areas impacted and not impacted. In the areas being served (giving the word "impact" a positive tone) the planner is likely to seek to make the favorable impact more favorable , more utilitarian, more significant to the area in terms of its present and future role in the city , whether this role is related to change, redevelopment, more intensive developR ichard M. Forbes ment, new uses or no change . The planning attitude about any public or private investment is based on what the facility will mean to people in their environment. What will it mean t o citizens as they travel to and from work, to recreation, to shopping? This is one level of concern. What it will mean to people at home, if they live near the transit line , is another concern. For example, will it cause an unpleasant industry to develop nearby? The planning concern reduces itself to a concern for our city, our place, our environment. The planner wishes to make Greater ' Atlanta the best possible place in which to live and work. He consequently sees t ransit as a marvelous opportunity to use a large public investment as one of the elements that will help to do that. However, transit will make a positive contribution only if it is very carefully related to each part of the area an d to other projects and plans so that the system is balanced. This relationship to the whole is o~ prime importance. Richard M Forbes, Assistant Prof essor of R eal Estate and Urban Affairs at Georgia State College, is a member of the MARTA Advisory Committee, representing the planning profession. He is a member of the A merican Institute of Planners, and other prof essional groups. (Continued froin Page 2, Col. 2) additional spaces planned for the Yonge Street Subway Ex tension just authorized. The new l 0-mile extension in South J ersey will provide nearly 5,000 parking spaces at six locations wit h provision for future expansio n. Over 16,000 parking spaces at 23 stations will be provided along the 75-mile rapid transit system being built in San Francisco. Quoting DeMent, "There is no longer a question of the need for such facilities. It is only a question of how much parking should be provided for any given rapid transit in stallation." The system being designed for the Atlanta area will include adequate parking facilit ies at suburban stations. MARTA TALKS ... AND LISTENS The story of rapid transit plans for Metropolitan Atlanta is finding interested audiences throughout this area. Between the first of June and mid-September, the MARTA directors and staff talked to some 1700 members or more than 30 civic and other groups, illustrating the MARTA story with slides or motion picture films. In addition, many other discussions were held with city and county officials, planning departments, state legislators, and citizen groups such as Chambers ofCommerce \ and Central Atlanta Progress. After the formal presentations, the meetings were generally opened for questions. In_the picture below, Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, is listening to a question being asked by a member of the Atlanta Civitan Club. A MARTA display depicting progress in the development of rapid transit was part of the fifth Annual Fall Sale at J amestown Shopping Center in College Park recently. The event was sponsored by the College Park Jaycees in cooperation with merchants at the shopping center. The MARTA display shows the location of Transit Center in downtown Atlanta, and the various lines considered for rapid transit routes. The display back of College Park Jaycee President Paul Green shows in the upper left corner a cutaway view of how Transit Center might be designed, with escalators connecting the two levels of trains with the sidewalks above . The lo wer left corner contains typical site development plans fo r the four !eve.ls of Transit Center while in the lower right corner is a map locating Transit Center in relation to downtown stree ts. The map in the upper righ t corner shows the areas in which the routes and stations will be located. Routes as planned in 196 1, 1962, and 1966-7 are variously indicate d. The display back of Joan Eschenbrenner, MARTA secretary, fea tures a large aerial photo of do wntown Atlanta and pictures of various majo r building developments now under way near rapid transit stations. The MARTA exhibit aroused many enth usiastic com ments from those who viewed it. �MARTAnswers MARTA ACTION QUESTION: Why is MARTA planning to use the old-type steelwheel and steel-rail system instead of something new, like monorail? · ANSWER: In the first place, monorail is not new or modern. As shown in the picture below, monorail has been around a long time-70 years or so. A short monorail line has bee n operating across a river in Germany since 1906. . The major reason for not using monorail, however, is simply that no monorail system has ever been a commercially successful operation in moving numbers of commuters. In recent years, short, relatively simple monorail systems have been built in Paris and Tokyo, and others have been used in World's Fairs in Seattle and New York , and at Disneyland. These small operations, however, do not meet MARTA's design requirements to transport commuters at 70 miles per hour in capacities approaching 30,000 passengers per hour. There are other problems relating to cost, engineering, construction, and route location : Both the top-supported (suspended) and bottom-supported monorail systems are more expensive to construct system-wide than the conventional steel-wheel steel rail system. The topsupported monorail requires the support structure throughout the system, whereas MARTA's plans call for only 3½ miles of aerial structure. The top-supported monorail requires a much larger tunnel for subway where subway is esse ntial. Trying to _eliminate the monorail subway brings us back to the problem MART A faced all along- where to put the route s thro ugh downtown Atlanta without using subway . There is no fe asible surfa ce route fo r either system. Mt:IGS COL Ll:::CT/ ON , Yale University Library - MON ORA IL , 1887 VER SI ON - Joe Vincent Me igs (second row, six th from right) patented this early "rno11orail " in 1873. The running wheels were tilted at 45 degree angles; horizo11tal/y -moun ted steam-driven wheels running on an up- The Board of Direc tors at its September 5 mee ting heard a report on a fi_nancial study by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, In c. No ac tion wa s taken on the report. No official ac tion was taken by the Board since a quorum was not prese nt. The nex t mee ting of the MARTA Board of Directors will be Tuesday, October 3, 1967, 3: 30 p.m., Room 619, Glenn Building, 120 Marietta St. , N.W. The bottom-supported system would be somewhat more expensive for grade and aerial structure than the steel-wheel steel rail system, and considerably more expensive for subway because of the larger tunnel required. If expense were not the major factor it is, the question then arises, "what would monorail give you that the conventional system would not provide?" The answer is "nothing." The monorail is slower, has higher operational costs, and does not provide as comfortable ride. During the past 70 years, engineering problems relating to monorail have not been satisfactorily resolved. These include switching, high speeds (70 to 80 MPH), sway, and other technical problems. · These and other disadvantages may eventually be resolved, but no solution is in sight. By contrast, the dual rail system solved these and many other engineering and operational problems years ago . The dual-rail system will definitely provide what is needed in this area: 70 MPH speeds, safety, comfort, and convenience at less cost than any type monorail . Using a known and proven technology means MART A will be able to bring the sy stem into operation at the earliest possible time . This is our goal. - Hemy L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager per set of rails provided propulsion. Th e Philadelphia City Coun cil visited th e 1, 11 4-foot long test track in East Cambridge, Mass., in 188 7. The revolutionary Meigs rail way did not gain acceptance, however; and the company fa iled a fe w years later. RAPID TRANSI T PROGRESS METROPOLITA N ATLA NTA RAP ID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLE N N B LD G . • 1 20 MARIET TA S T . . N.W . P HON E 52 4 - 5 711 (AR E A CODE 4 0 4) SEPTEMBE R 1967. VO L . 2, NO . 9 ~l · AT L ANTA . GEORGIA 30303 �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 5

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_005.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 5
  • Text: HUIE AN D HARLAN D ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW FULTON FEDERAL BUILDING ATLANTA. G EO RGIA 3 0 3 0 3 TELEPHONE W . STELL HUIE 522-1641 JAMES R . HARLAND, JR. HARRY L. CASHIN, JR. TOM WATSON BROWN RUFUS A . CHAMBERS TERRILL A . PARKER D ecember 1 9 , 1967 JAMEsH .MO RGAN , JR . The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, G eorgia 30303 D ear Mayor Allen: Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed Bill to implement the legislative program of MARTA. As we have previously indicated, we would like the concurrence of all of the particip ating governments in these suggested changes, and will, of course, not seek to have passed any of those on which the governments cannot agree. This is also true with respect to Senate Bill 1 1 1 which is presently in the House Local Affairs Committee. We have previously furnished copies of the proposed legis lation to Messrs. Earl Landers and Charles Dav is and have discussed the matter with Messrs. Charles Lokey and Jack Dougherty of the City Attorney's office. By a copy of this letter to e ach of the City Attorne ys we are furnishing them a c opy of same. W e are also furnishing a copy to Mr. Hugh Pierce and Mr. H en ry Bowden. Very truly yours, ,I )(<)-39; .:~/Jt/. . .~, HUIE AND,:tARLA~D /) W SH/ jlt Encl. cc : Mr . Mr. Mr . Mr . Hugh Pierce Henry Bow den Charles Lokey Jack Dougherty Stell Huie / ..... J �HUIE AND HARLAND The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Page 2 December 19, 1967 P.S. For your information, also enclosed please find a copy of S.B. 111 as passed by the Senate with an additional sugg e stion added. �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 6

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_006.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 6
  • Text: MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-SECOND MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY DECEMBER 5, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on December 5, 1967, at 3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillan (Gwinnett County) L. D. Milton (City of Atl a nta) Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT: Edgar Blalock (Clayton County) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manager King Elliott, Public Information Director Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager Glenn E . Bennett, Secretary Consultants W. O. Salter, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, San Francisco J . A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor-Bechtel, Atlanta R. W. Gustafson, Supervising Engineer, Parsons, Brincker hoff-Tudor-Bechtel, Atlanta Jacques Labourer , Eric Hill Associates Tom Watson Brown, Huie and Harland \ �Others Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council Mrs. Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMi llon, the minutes of the November meeting were unanimously approveq . Financial Report Mr. Stuart presented the November 30th budget report and said most items were as projected. There were no questions and the report was accepted. Report of General Manager Mr. Stuart said the Georgia Society o f Professional Engineer s had pass e d a resolution e ndorsing the tran s it project, and expressing a desir e to e stablish a spe aker s bureau. Mr . Stuart reported on a recent trip to Louisville, to contact officials of the L. & N. Railroad and present deta ils of the transit plan. He said the new lease for the A. & W. P. Railroad contained spec if ic refer e nce as to how rapid transit should be rou ted thr ough t h e a r ea t o th e wes t o f Un i on Sta t ion. The General Manager said meetings had been held with railroads, planning groups, municipal officials, and with Fu l ton, DeKalb, and Gwinnett County Commissioners. The proposed legislative p r o gr am had been discuss e d wi th member s o f the Hou se a nd Sena t e f r om the fou r count ies . He planne d a tr ip t o Washington to d iscu ss the 1968 l egislativ e pro gram wi th Representatives Blackbur n and Thomps o n. Mr. Stuart me nt i oned a vis it on Nov e mber 28, f rom Mr. Carl Hi ll , a n assis tan t to Mr. Char l es Ha ar of HUD in Wash ington . Mr. Hill h ad been s hown the plans and reviewed progress in the design field. - 2 - �Mr. Stuart said he and Mr. Bennett would appear before the Fulton County Grand Jury on December 12. (Subsequently, Mr. Haverty was substituted for Mr. Stuart.) Mr. Rich had testified before the Rainey Sub-Committee of the Georgia House of Representatives on November 30, and requested Mr. Stuart to send a copy of his testimony to the Board members. Reports by Consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel Mr. John Coil reported that the 701 report had been distributed, and the popular summary version would be r .eady for distribution within one week. He said the engineers were continuing to update the plan and resolve questions with governments. He had been encouraged by responses from the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and by the L. & N. Railroad. Corridor Impact Study Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr . , Planning Director for ARMPC, commented on the corridor impact study. He said the study was designed to examine potentials. Examples had been looked at, such as outlying stations, but most of the work had been done on developed sections of the lines. Mr. Wingfield said many of the ideas would depend upon the initiative of the elected officials to do early work so MARTA could take advantage of opportunities . He stressed that this study was not totally a "MARTA study," but pointed up the opportunities for local governments to act . Contract between Georgia Department of Industry & Trade and MARTA Copies of a proposed contract between MARTA and the Georgia Department of Industry & Trade were distributed for considera tion. The State of Georgia had appropriated $500 , 000 per y ea r to MARTA, and the Department of Industry & Trade had been de s ig nated the agency who would disburse these funds . Th e cont r act p r o v ided for appropriations to be paid quarterly in adv ance , an d provided that such funds could be used fo r direct or indire c t costs , including debt service , administr ation , operating , plan n i ng, desig n i n g , finishing , r ight -of-wa y acq uisition , and r olli ng s t oc k. - 3 - �The contract provided further that the State could appropriate real estate, in lieu of cash. It also gave the State a reversionary interest in the property of the Authority, in the same proportion as the State 1 s appropriation to MARTA. The contract required an annual audit of the books of MARTA to be sent to the State. The contract was for 50 years, and would cover subsequent appropriations as - they were made. After discussion of the contract prov isions, the following resolution was presented: BE IT RESOLVED that Henry L. Stuar t, General Manager, and Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary, be and hereby are authorized and directed to execute on behalf of this Authority a contract substantially in the form as presented to this Board, subject to approval o f counsel, with the State of Georgia, by and through its Depa rtment of Industry & Trade, for the t ra nsfe r and p a yment to thi s Author i t y o f funds appropriated and to be appropriated by the Legislature and Governor of Georgia for the purposes of this Authority; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED t ha t said General Manager a nd Secr e tar y b e and h e r e by a r e a uthoriz ed a nd d i rected t o execu te any and a l l f u rth er d o cuments as may be reasonably necessary to the transfer and payment of said funds; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Citi zens Tru s t Company b e a nd h ere by is d esign a t e d as t he depo s i t ory f o r said f u nds a nd t h a t a l l withdrawals t h eref rom s h a ll b e only o ver t h e signatu res o f e i ther the Chairman or Vice Chairman o f the Board o f this Authority a n d either the Gen e ral Manage r o r t h e Chief Engineer o f th i s Authority. Up o n mo tio n by Mr. Mc Millan , seco nded by Dr. Atwood, the above resolution was u n animously ado pted. Appointmen t o f Audi t o r for 1 96 8 Mr. Stuart had received a proposal from Arthur Andersen Company to continue auditing services as n eeded for the year ending December 31, 1968, for a fee of $500. Mr. Bishop made a motion, - 4 - �seconded by Mr. McMillon, that this contract be renewed. motion was unanimously passed. The 1968 Budget The 1968 budget estimates were presented by the General Manager, who recommended the proposed budget for adoption. Mr. Stuart said the budget had been reviewed by the Board earlier. The Chairman asked for a breakdown and explanation of an item of $750,000 for preliminary design of the transit center. The General Manager agreed to provide an explanation of this item, and Mr. Bishop made a motion that the budget for 1968 be adopted, subject to a satisfactory review of the item questioned by the Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Adamson and unanimously passed. A copy of the 1968 budget as adopted is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Authorization under Retainer Agreement The General Manager requested authorization for $500 to be expended under the retainer agreement, to pay for copies of the 100-scale plan and profile drawings which are being requested by the State Highway Department, the railroads, and others. Mr. Stuart showed samples of these prints, and said the engineers had been making them available at cost. Mr. Bishop made a motion, seconded by Mr. McMillan, that a sum of $500 be allocated for these prints, from the retainer agreement. The motion was unanimously passed. January Meeting It was agreed that the General Manager would poll the members as to a date in January for the regular meeting, which would not conflict with holiday plans. It was tentatively agreed that January 5 would be agreeable. Notice would be sent after the staff had checked with all members. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M. - 5 - �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 9

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_009.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 9
  • Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORI TY ATLANTA, GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION NOVEMBER 30 , 1967 ASSETS Ca sh in Banks : C & S National Bank First National Bank Trust Compa ny of Georgia Fulton Nati.anal Bank ·- Sec tion 9 $ 37,873.95 2 , 972 . 78 1 , 000 . 00 115 , 000 . 00 Invest ments : U" S " Treas ury Bills 9 -, 497 . 06 25. 00 Petty Cash TOTAL ASSETS $253 , 368 . 79 LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $ Payroll Taxes Withh eld and Ac cr ued Reser ves : ARMPC - Ur ban Des ign St udy A lanta Transir St udy Parsons Brinckerho ff - Tuior -Be c hte l : Se ction 9 Ma tc hi ng Re tainer Agr eemen t: Tr a _s portati n Study Publi c Informac i on S rveying TOTAL LIABlU.TIES SUR PLUS 433.65 1 , 283 . 32 8 ,333 . 00 1 , 667 . 00 $1 , 500 . 00 1,92 5 . 48 2 ,984 . 78 6 , 410 .26 8~491. 23 $] 647877, 56 �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 18

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_018.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 18
  • Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT OCTOBER 31, 196 7 BUDGET 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 TO OCTOBER 31 1 1967 $128,281.64 $128,281.64 $ 84,030.00 23,190.00 82 , 770.00 91,800.00 18,210.00 $300,000.00 $ 5,520.00 $ 84,030.00 17,392.50 82,770.00 91,800 . 00 · 13,657 . 50 $289,650.00 $ 3,853.00 $ 95,000.00 276,000.00 $ 3 71, 000. 00 $ 90,000.00 135,402.54 597.46 $226,000.00 TOTAL INCOME $676,520.00 $519,503.00 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS $804,801.64 $647,784 .64 $ 68,950.00 10,500.00 $ 53,226.44 8,881.92 1,109.00 533.00 1,680.00 10,000.00 99.00 $ 92,871.00 $ 3,150.00 1,168.13 533.34 993.05 300.54 104 .00 $ 65, 207.42 $ 2,700 . 00 Unappropriated Surplus INCOME Appropriations: City of Atlanta Clayton County DeKalb County Fulton County Gwinnett County Sub-Totals Int.erest Income Federal Funds: 702 Loan Section 9 Grant Interest _- Federal Funds Sub-Totals 0 EXPENSES Staff Cos t: Salaries Expense Benefits: Social Security Guaranty Fund Health and Accident Insurance Retirement Workme n 's Compensation S~b-Totals Board Meetings Administrative and Office Overhead : Rent Communication and Postage Furniture and Equipment Supplie s Prin ting Auditor Accountant Public Information Advisor y I nsurance: Public Liab i l ity Depositor y and Forgery Fidel ity Bond Sub -Tota l s CARRIED FORWARD $ 3,000.00 2 , 000 .00 2 , 000 .00 3,600.00 1 , 000 . 00 250.00 1,000 . 00 33,000 . 00 5 , 000 . 00 $ 2 , 500. 00 1,595.84 532 .81 2, 293 . 58 623.56 250 . 00 750.00 22 , 61 5. 83 1 ,551. 95 72. 00 56 . 00 199 . 00 $ 51 , l 77. 00 55. 00 56.27 198 . 60 $ 33 , 023.44 $147 , 198.00 $100 1930.86 �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT OCTOBER 31, 196 7 BUDGET 1967 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 TO OCTOBER 31 1 1967 $804 1 801. 64 $647,784.64 $1471198.00 $ 20,000.00 $100,930.86 $10,758.61 $ 31,250.00 $ 29,939.00 32,667.00 16,333.00 16,000.00 16,333.00 3,333.00 1,667.00 0 0 1,667.00 4,742.09 95,000.00 90,000.00 240,000.00 120,000.00 60,000.00 21000.00 $602,250.00 120,000.00 130,364.00 19,335.54 2,475.84 $430,856.47 TOTAL EXPENSES $769,448.00 $542,545.94 SURPLUS S 35,353.6{± SlQ5,238,ZQ EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultants: Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Study: Section 9 Matching Hammer, Greene and Siler Parsons Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel: 702 Loan Section 9: Federal Matching Retainer Agreement Research and Technical Services Sub-Totals �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 19

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_019.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 19
  • Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA , GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION OCTOBER 31, 1967 ASSETS Cash in Banks : C & S National Bank First National Bank Trus t Company of Georgia Fulton National Bank - Section 9 $ 52 , 164 . 36 3,119.80 1 1000 . 00 38,333.00 Investments: U. S . Treasury Bills 102,350 . 85 Pett y Cas h 25 . 00 TOTAL ASSETS $196 , 993 . 01 LIABILITIES Ac counts Payable $ Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued Reserves: ARMPC - Ur ban Design St udy Atlanta Trans it Stud y Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor -Becht el : Section 9 Matching Retainer Agr eement : Transportation Study Public Informa ti on Surveying TOTAL LIABILITIES SURPLUS 2 , 592 .36 1 , 037.13 8 , 333. 00 1, 667. 00 70 ,364. 00 $1 , 500 . 00 2, 000 . 00 4,26 0 . 82 7,76 0 . 82 91,754 . 31 $1 05,238.7 0 �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 21

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_021.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 21
  • Text: Summary of Remarks of w. Stell Huie at MARTA meeting, Novembe r 7, 1967 - re Amendme nts to MARTA Legislation-1968 1. Section 9{c) requiring judicial review of the Authority's rate making powers should be eliminated. It is necessary that the Authority have the power to commit to bond purchasers that it can establish r a t e s suffici e nt to cover the operating cost of the system. 2. Section 10: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) eliminate the 6% interest limitation found in 10 {d) • eliminate the requi rement that the bonds be sold by public competitive bidding found in 10 (h) . . eliminate the requirement that t he bonds be sold at par found in lO{h). amend lO(g) to provide that all "obligations" rather than just bonds will have the qualit i es of negoti able instruments. ame nd lO(p) to provi de that t he procedure o f the reve nue bond l aw as it now e x ists or may be hereafter amended will apply. ~ appears that the 1965 version which has since been amended may be referred to in the Ac t . 3. Section 13{b) must be cla rifi e d so as to eliminate any e x c e ss ive dra in of f unds b y r eason o f r elocation payme nts which may not be included in estimate s o f e n g i nee r s . I n thi s r espect we must check on the federal requirements as well as procedures and policies established f or relocat ion payments under oth e r laws . 4. Section 1 5(c) mus t be amende d so a s t o provide that after a va l idatio n p roc eeding n o c ontract may be declared v oid by reason o f any c o n f lic t o f interest. 5. Greate r fle x ib i lity t han is allowed by S e ction 17 nee ds to be added f o r bud g e t ing p u rpos e s ; howe v er it would app ear t h at t h e o nly must requiremen t here i n is that a def i cit budget should be allowed during initial year ' s operati o ns. 6. Sectio n 18 which pro vides f o r inspectio n every three years by an outside engineer is u nreas onable and wou l d be too e xpe nsive. It should be eliminated. The trust indenture securing the bonds will provide for adequate inspection for t h e interest of the bond holders. 7. Section 24 must be amended so as t o e liminate the r e quire me nt that the contracts with participating governments be approved in a referendum by submitting "the e x tent of the dollar amount or amounts involved." �8. Section 24 and Section 8(i) must be amended so as to authorize the payment of participating governments of operating subsidies if it should become necessary . 9. Section 24(e) should be amended to eliminate the last sentence which says that the authority is subject to and limited b y any local act heretofore or hereafter enacted applicable to the local governing body of any local g overnment. This language is troublesome and we don't know e x actly what it means. 10. Section 24(k) should be amended to eliminate the prohibition of the use by the City of Atlanta of "its public funds" to support rapid transit when taxes are being levied by Fulton and DeKalb counties on subjects of tax ation within the city limits. Such provision could prevent the city from g i ving us the benefit of their l a nd office without cost and cedi rig to us cert ain r i ghts-of -way a nd b e n efi t s in public s t reet~ , e tc. 11. Section 24(1) should be amended to authorize contributions and support from any municip ality in the five-county area rather than limiting it to the defined term "local government" which is limited to the City of Atlanta and the participa ting counties. 12. S e c ti on 2 (j) should be ame nde d so a s to cle a r ly a u t hor i ze t h e capitalizing of interest during construction as well as start-up costs with r e spe ct to each section of the system as it is begun. This section should also be amended so as to include the t otal cos t o f th e s y s tem as de fin e d in 2 (g ). 13 . S e c t ion 6 (i -2) should be ame nded t o e liminate the l ast sen tenc e or t o make i t clear h ow a showing t h at t h e l easing or pu r chas ing of a priva tely owned s y stem is essential to rapid transit. 14 . Se c t ion 8 (e) s hould be amende d to el i minate th e payme nt o f a ttorneys' fee s t o t ho se suing th e Author ity f o r trespas s. 15. S e c tion 12 should be amen ded so as t o provide the Autho rity wi th th e p ower o f e minent d oma in. 16. Section 2 l (d) reg a r di n g t he exemp tion o f th e Au t hor i ty f r om regu l ati on by p ub l ic s ervic e c ommissi on, etc . is a mbiguous and should be clarifi e d . 17. Section 22 should b e rewo rded so as t o allow the Au thority to e s tab lish s elf- insura nce r es e r ves. - 2 - �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 25

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_025.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 25
  • Text: November 1, 1967 Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 45 Broad Street, S. W. Atl nta, Georgia 30303 De r Dick: In view of the f ct that a determination will soon be made on the federal level as to whether the Urban Mass Transportation Act should be left in th Department of Hou ing and Urban Development or trans{ rred to the Department of Tr n portation, the N tion 1 League of Citie i considering th po ition it bould t k on thi matter. The Tran portation nd Communications Committee of NLC baa scheduled me ting for the la t we k of this month, at which tlme I will b asked - - s vie: chairman of the committee to m ke recommendation; and I am writing you to k for the benefit of your feeling nd reason for s m • Sine rely, s SMJr:nd cc: The Hon. Ivan Allen, Jr. V ~ Jr. �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 39

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_039.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 39
  • Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA, GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AUGUST 31, 1967 ASSETS Cash in Banks: C & S National Bank First National Bank - Payroll Trust Company of Georgia Fulton National Bank - Section 9 $ 14,296 . 04 2,651.88 1,000.00 20,976.08 Investments: U. S. Treasury Bills 114,812.00 25.00 Petty Cash Accounts Receivable: Gwinnett County - 19Q7 Gwinnett County - 1966 $9,105.00 4,552.50 13,657.50 $167,418.50 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES $ 12,648.37 Accounts Payable Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued Reserves: ARMPC - Urban Design Study Atlanta Transit Study Parsons-Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtet: Section 9 Matching Retainer Agree~ent: Transportation Study Public Infor\llBtion Surveying TOTAL LIABILITIES SURPLUS 1,492.14 7,293. 00 1 ,563 . 00 82,411.00 $ 139.37 245.19 4,338.89 4,723.45 110,130.96 $ 57 , 287.54 �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 41

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_041.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 41
  • Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT AUGUS? ' 31 ·~. 1967 ·. Unappropriated Surplus BUDGET 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 196 7 TO AUGUST 31, 196 7 $128,281.64 $128,281.64 $ 84,030.00 $ 63,022.50 23,190.00 82,770.00 91,800.00 18,210.00 $300,000.00 $ 5,520.00 17,392.50 41,385.00 68,850.00 9,105: 9.9 $199,755.00 $ 3,018.77 $ 95,000.00 $371,000.00 $676,520.00 $804,801.64 $ 60,000.00 67,686.12 597.46 $128,283.58 $331,057.35 $459,338.99 $ 68,950.00 10,500.00 $ 41,380.94 7,048.24 1,109.00 533.00 1,680.00 10,000.00 99.00 $ 92,871.00 $ 3,150.00 1,088.89 400.00 758.13 300.54 104.00 $ 51,080.74 $ 2,200.00 iNCOME Appropriations: City of Atlanta Clayton County DeKalb County Fulton County Gwinnett County Sub-Totals Interest Income Federal Funds: 702 Loan Section 9 Grant Interest - Federal Funds Sub-Totals TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS 276,000.00 0 EXPENSES Staff Cost: Salaries Expenses Benefits: Social Security Guaranty Fund Health and Accident Insurance Retirement Workmen's Compensation Aub-Totals Board Meetings Administrative and Office Overhead: Rent Communications and Postage Furniture and Equipment Supplies Printing Auditor Accountant Public Information Advisory Insurance: Public Liability Depository and Forgery Fidelity Bond Sub-Totals CARRIED FORWARD $ 3,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 3,600.00 1,000.00 250.00 1,000.00 33,000.00 5,000.00 72.00 56.00 199.00 $ 51,177.00 $147,198.00 $ 2,000.00 1,254.16 117 .81 1,854.58 623.56 250.00 500.00 15,025.20 977. 35 55.00 56.27 198. 6 0 $ 22,912.53 $ 76,193.27 �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT AUGUST 31, 1967 BUDGET 19'67 ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 TO AUGUST 31, 1967 I TOTAL INCOME AND UNA?PROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD $804,801.64 $459,338.99 $147,198.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 76,193.27 $ 8,758.61 $ 31,250.00 $ 29",939.00 32,667.00 16,333.00 16,000.00 15,293.00 3,333.00 1,667.00 0 0 1,563.00 4,742.09 EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultants: Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commis~ion Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Stu9y; Section 9 Matching Hamm~r, Greene and Siler Parsons-Brinckerhoff-Tudor ~Bechtel: 702 Loan Section 9: Federal Matching Retainer Agreement Research and Technical Services Sub-Totals TOTAL EXPENSES 95,000.00 60,000.00 240,000.00 120,000.00 60,000.00 2,000.00 $602,250.00 $769,448.00 60,000.00 112,411.00 15,115.64 2,035.84 $317,099.57 $402 , 051. 45 SURPLUS $ 35,353.6~ $ 5Z,28Z.5~ �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 8

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_008.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 8
  • Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET NOVEMBER REPORT 30 s 1967 BUDGET 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1 , 196 7 TO NOVEMBER 30, 196 7 $128 ,2 81.64 §_128,281.64 $ 84 , 030.00 23 , 190.00 82 ,77 0.00 91 , 800.00 18,210 . 00 $300,000.00 $ 5 , 520.00 $ 84 , 030 . 00 . 17,3 92. 50 82,770 . 00 91 , 800 . 00 13 ,657.50 $289,650.00 $ 4 , 262.34 $ 95 , 000 . 00 276 , 000 . 00 $371 , 000.00 $ 90 , 000.00 212,069.54 597.46 $302, 667 . 00 TOTAL INCOME $676 , 520 . 00 $596 , 579 . 34 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS .§.804 , 801. 64 _$,72 4 , 860 . 98 $ 68 , 950 . 00 10 , 500 . 00 $ 59 , 083 .67 9 , 853.63 1 , 109.00 533. 00 1 , 680 . 00 10 , 000 . 00 99 . 00 _L92 , 871. 00 $ 3,150 . 00 1,188 . 09 533.34 1 , 11 0 .5 1 300.54 181. 72 LJ.2, 251.5 0 $ 2 , 950.00 Unappropriated Surplus INCOME Appropr ia tions : City of Atlant a Clay t on County DeKalb Count y Fulton County Gwinnett Count y Sub - Totals I nteres t Income Federal Funds : 702 Loan Section 9 Grant Inter es t - Federal Funds Sub -To tals 0 EXPENSES Staff Cost : Salaries Ex pense Bene fits : Social Security Guarant y Fund Health and Accid ent I nsurance Retir ement Workmen ' s Compensation Sub -To tals Board Mee tings Administra tive and Offi c e Overhead : Rent Communicati ons and Postage Furn iture and Eq ui pmen t Su pplies Pr i n ting Aud i tor Accountant Pub l i c Informa tion Ad v is ory I n sur ance : Pub l ic Li abi l i ty De posi tory a nd Forgery Fide l ity Bond Sub-Tot a l s CARRIED FORWARD $ 3 , 000 . 00 2,000.00 2 , 000.00 3 , 600 . 00 1 :, 000 . 00 250 . 00 1, 000 . 00 33 , 000 . 00 5 , 000.00 $ 2 , 750.00 1 , 890 . 69 577 .16 2, 646 . 55 62 3 . 56 250 . 00 750 . 00 28 , 345. 85 4, 213. 71 72. 00 56 . 00 19 9 . 00 $ 51 z177. 00 107. 00 56 . 2 ·; 198.60 $ 422409 . 39 $147,198. 00 ~117 , 6 10 . 89 �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET NOVEMBER TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD REPORT 30, 1967 BUDGET 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1 , 196 7 TO NOVEMBER 30, 1967 $804 , 801.64 $724 , 860.98 $147 , 198.00 $ 20 , 000.00 ,$,117 , 610 . 89 .,$_ 11,758 . 61 $ 31 , 250 . 00 $ 29,939 . 00 32,667 . 00 16 , 333 . 00 16 , 000 ,. 00 16,333.00 EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultant s: Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Study: Section 9 Matching Hammer , Greene & Siler Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel : 702 Loan Se ction 9 : Federal Mat ching Re tainer Agreement Research and Te chnical Se rvic es Sub - Totals 95 , 000.00 90 , 000 . 00 240 , 000 . 00 120 , 000 . 00 60 , 000 . 00 2 , 000 . 00 .,$_6 02,250 . 00 120 , 000 . 00 130 ,364 . 00 19 , 09 2.99 2, 475 . 84 .,$_43 0 ,613 .92 TOTAL EXPENSES _V 69 , 448 . oo $559 , 98 3 . 42 SURPLUS $ 35 . 353,64 $164,877 ,56 3 ,333 . 00 1,667 .00 0 0 1 , 66 7 .00 4 ,742.09 �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 20

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_020.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 20
  • Text: MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY NOVEMBER 7, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on November 7, 1967, at 3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conf8rence Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Have rty (City of Atlanta) L . D. Milton (City of Atlanta) Richard H . Rich (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT: Edgar Bl al oc k (Clay ton County ) K. A. McMilLon (Gwinnett County) OTHERS PRESENT : Metropoli t an Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L . Stuart , General Manager King Elliott , Public Information Director Ear l Nel son , Chief Engineer H . N. John son , Se cretary to Gen eral Manager Con su ltan ts Wa l t e r Doug l as, Pars ons, Bri n c kerhof f, Quade & Douglas , New Yo rk J. A. Co i l , Res ide nt Manag e r, Par sons , Bri nck e rh off- Tud o r Bechte l , At l ant a Leon Eplan, Er i c Hil l As s oc iat es, Atlan ta W. Stell Hu i e, Huie & Har land, Atlanta George Go odwin, Bell & S t ant on, At l a nt a Bill Bates, Be l l & Stanton, Atlanta �Financial Advisors and Bond Counsel Lloyd Hatcher, White, Weld & Company, New York Dan O'Conner, King & Spalding, Atlanta John Mobley, Gambrell & Mobley, Atlanta Others T. M. Callaway, DeKalb County Commissioner Aubrey Couch, Decatur-DeKalb Development Association Don Ingram; Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. Margaret Hurst, Atlanta Constitution Mrs. Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Jerry Coursey, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, s e conded by Mr. Adamson, the minute s of the October meeting were unanimously approved. Financial Report The Genera l Ma n a ger presented the financial report as of Oct ober 30, 1967, which is attach ed h ereto a nd made a p art o f these minutes. He reported receipt of funds from Gwinnett County during the month, making it current in its appropriations to the Authority. Mr. Stuart said e x penditures for the year would be l ess than anticipated, and a surplus of $105,238 was projecte d. There were no questions, and Mr. Bishop made a motion that the financial r e port b e approved. Dr. Atwood s e conded the motion and it was un animously p assed. Report o f General Manager Mr. Stua rt s a id over six ty meetings had been held with various a g e ncies i n the area conce rned with transporta tion and pla nning, as th e 702 work o f the e nginee rs h a d b e gun to r e flect preliminary drawings in more detail. Mr. Nelson, Chief Engineer, presented a map showing e x pressways e x isting, under c onst ruction , and proposed. He said the MARTA e nginee rs were working wi t h Stat e Highway De p a r t me nt e ngineers on all f utur e improveme n t s planned f o r th e e x presswa y system, in a n effort to coordinate all tran sportati o n pla nn i ng. - 2 - �Mr. Rich suggested the possibility of a spur line off Lenox Road in the center of the freeway to Sandy Springs be considered as part of the long-range plan. He felt it would be a logical and relatively inexpensive way to accommodate the projected e x plosive growth in Sandy Springs. Mr. Callaway of the DeKalb County Commission inquired about the possibility of having a station in Court Square in Decatur instead of along the railroad near Agnes Scott College. He said officials of Agnes Scott would like to have it as far from the college as possible, and officials of Decatur and DeKalb County would like to have it as near the center of Decatur as possible. Mr. Callaway mentioned urban renewal land available in the heart of Decatur, and asked that this be considered at an early date. Mr. Aubrey Couch, representing the Decatur-DeKalb Development Association, also endorsed the exploration of the use of Decatur's urban renewal land for a transit station, parking, etc. In connection with Mr. Callaway's request, Mr. Blount asked if it would be feasible to send an engineer to Decatur to talk about the requests for changes. Mr. Coil said this would be done, and Mr. Callaway requested that DeKalb County officials be included in such a meeting. Mr. Rich said the site along the railroad had been proposed as the most economical, but the plans were tentative, and public hearings would be held in all jurisdictions , and all suggestions considered before the Authority adopted a final plan. The General Manager said meetings with all of the railroads would be completed within one week . Preliminary engineering plans had been left with the engineers of the railroads for study . It was the consensus of the Boar d that the time was approaching when the Board should begin to se r iously negotiate with the policymaking heads of the rail r oads . In response to a question , Mr . Walter Douglas replied t h at as soon as the railroad e n g i nee r s had t i me to absorb the plans , it would be well to s e ek agreement on operational and political feasi bi li ty, l eav i n g the ques ti on of mon e y esti mates until there had been a f a vor able bond issue and money was available with wh i ch to n egot i ate . Mr . Have rty mad e a motion t hat the 70 1 rep o r t be sent to the head s o f the railroads at the appr opriate time , wi t h a pe r sona l letter from t he Chairman of the Aut hority . The moti o n was unanimously pass e d. - 3 - �Reports by Consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel Mr. John coil said the 701 report had been printed and was being bound. The popular report, which was to be a condensed version of the 701 report, would be in draft form for review within a week by ARMPC and MARTA, and would be printed within about three weeks. He said studies of re finement were continuing, and the engineers continued to make evaluations as to use of construction, patronage, etc., and to consider alternate solutions or revisions in the recommendations. Eric Hill As sociates Mr. Leon Eplan said the comme nts of his firm on three of the lines had been given to the engineers, the Planning Commission, and the Authority. Work on the other line would be completed soon, and the writing of the final report had begun. It was hoped their final report would be available by the end of the year. Report of ARMPC Planning Director Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr ., ARMPC Planning Director, reviewed the proposed amendment to the Section 9 application, approved by the MARTA Board at its Octobe r 3rd meeting. He s a id the ame ndme nt r equ e st h a d been fil e d with the Department of Housing and Urban Development as of October 3, 1967. This extension would involve the use of Alan M. Voorhees Associates to give an objective apprai sal of tra nsit planning to date. The study was expected to cost $10,000 in local money, and to take appr ox imately three months. This study, hopefully, would satisfy the interests of the De partment o f Housing and Urban De v e lopme nt and the Bureau o f Public Roads in their efforts to coordinate various public investments in transportation, as well as their concern for the broader impact of transit on the r eg ion . Mr. Rich mentioned the pos sibil ity o f additi onal studies in the future, to examine coordination with the existi ng b u s system. Report of Legal Counsel Mr. Stell Huie o f Huie and Harland, Counsel for the Authority, introduce d Mr. Lloyd Hatcher of White, We ld & Company, - 4 - �financial advisors of New York, and Mr. Dan O'Conner of King and Spalding, and Mr. John Mobley of Gambrell and Mobley, both bond counsel firms of Atlanta. Mr. Huie said several meetings had been held to develop a financial plan which would be practical, with bonds at the lowest possible interest. After discussing various ways of financing, it was recommended that a committee be appointed to work with the financial advisors, bond counsel, and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, to develop current recommendations which could be used in support of a bond issue. The Chairman appointed Mr. Adamson, Dr. Atwood, and Mr. Huie as a committee to work with financial advisors, bond co~nsel and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, to refine and review such variables as interest rates and inflation factors, . in an effort to be certain a realistic millage rate would be used in presenting a bond issue to the public. The Chairman also appointed Mr. Haverty as Chairman, together with Mr. Blount and Mr. Bishop, as a committee to work in the area of public information under the direction of Mr. George Goodwin of Bell and Stanton, to develop the best way to present the plan to the public for referendum. Upon motion by Mr. Blount, seconded by Dr. Atwood, the Board unanimously concurred in the appointment of these two committees by the Chairman. Mr. Hui e r e vi ewe d 17 proposed ame ndme nts to th e MARTA l e gislation, which counsel considered important, and suggested that new legislation incorporating these amendments be submitted to the Legislature in the January session. The suggested change s are attached to and made a part of these minutes . Dr. Atwood made a moti on th a t counsel b e g i v e n aut hor ity t o dra ft l e gis l a tion incorporating th e propos e d ame ndme nts and .submit it to local governments and legislative representatives of loc a l governments for study. Mr. Bishop seconded the motion, and it was unanimously p a ss e d. Adjournment The meeting wa s a d journed at 5 : 00 P . M. Ne x t Meeting Decemb er 5, 1967. - 5 - �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 26

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_026.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 26
  • Text: 1rl Octbber 24, 1967 MEMORANDUM To: Mr . Cha:rle L . Davis From: R . Earl Land rs We are attaching hereto the propo ed budget of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Tran it Authority. If we do not already have the information, I think it would be well for us to cure a complete ro ter of the director and employees of all of the agencie to which we contribute showing al ries proposed . Thi will n ble ua to at lea t, make some compari•on a to the laries b ing paid by the various genci • with tho e we are able to p y to our offici la . REL :lp Atta.chm nt �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 27

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_027.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 27
  • Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY GLENN BU ILD ING / A TL AN TA , GEORG IA 3 0 3 0 3 / AREA CODE 40 4 52 4 -5711 O FFICE RS: Richard H. Rich, Ch a irm a n Roy A. Blount, Vic e Chair man October 16, 1967 Glenn E. Be nn ett, Secreta ry Henry L. Stuart, Ge nera l Ma nager Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta~ Georgia. Dear Mayor Allen: I am enclosing financial statement of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority as of September 30 , 1967 . Sincerely yours, /i-~a4H. L. Stuart, General Manager .• HLS:JJ Enclosur e cc : Mr. Mi l ton G. Fa rris Mr. Cha rles L. Davis �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 29

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_029.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 29
  • Text: S·c .S1..' ',..1t0'.·~ ""1: Ct.1-:t z.:..:1d ..;oh>:1son oi the -±2r.d , \Vesu -::r.-y oi the 37 th, Ma c :.tyre o" the ot}1c:.A s T.) be ·ntitlc . a.~ Act ·:·o · rn nd an Act kr,,ow::1 a - ti':c "Me tro - par::c\.."iL.1. · :i.y by a. w ·,th : 7.o c.ha:--.ge ih~ provisions reL,t.~.g p. 326 4; , :cs fo.-Y·t::e:-:· A app1 ovc r .e ,.YJ~a·-.::i.:.:::: g of i:, e::- so:r.a1. se::T.co.s me::r..de::d ·ty : :--.:3e :~r.in.g in Seer.: ,:)!: 8 of sa~c'. Act .t,ereor, ' a:--i.d •vh~.c h s 1:--.c:.ll -::-ca.cl a· £0110·.v S. 3 . l L fol~ 0 "1.vin.g �11 • •' .. 1, --,] _,1c • 1 ewe.:: to invest anc. rein ves t any or all idle fund::; or 110:11es, :.:.1culuing but no t limi · d to , funds held in r eserve or ebt 2:etire::1.ent , or r- ce1vecl t h ough the issuance of reve nue ce rtificates or fr::>:.:1 co:.nr ' bur ons, gi · ~ o . gr ants, wh ' ch cannot be imrnediately i.:sc · J:o;_· the pc:rpose io · wh· ch :::eceived , .n any security or securiti- s \vh:ch ace 1 gal inve strnen ts £or Executors or Trust ees , _J:,:ovided, however, tha-c such investr.c1.ents in such securities will, at aL -cin:es, be held for arJ.c: ,vhe . sold used for "the purposes for whicn the money was orig i, ally received . Se c;.. io, 2 . Said 11 ct is furt1er an nde d by striking therefr o m Section · 2 thereoi n i'"s entirety and insertir g i:.1 lieu thereof a ne w Section wh ich snall read as follows: 11 l2 The Au ho i ty shall have t 1 . e power of emi ent domc:.in or tl" e purpose oi acquiring pr op erty needed fo_ the purp os es oi t 11e Al...thority . Condenu1ation proceedings for ·the ac _uisition of su c h prop rt.y shall be in accordance -,; ~th t he provisio. s contained 1n C'1aptcr:::: 36-1 th · ough 36-6, of the Cod =- of Geo ;:(a of 1 933 , as &:c:-.ended, C hapte1· 36 - 11 of the Code of Geo'rgia of 1933, as an1ended, or any and all other procedures now or herea ter granted by ti1e · c:.ws and Constitution of Georgia, including but not limi-ced to the ?:COcedu::e set for;;h nan Act approved M2. rch 13, 1957 (Ga . Laws 1 93 7, p. 387 1, as amended , to pers o ns or corporations ·.a vin.g 1:h p n v i c ge of ex ercising the ·ight o · eminent do1nai In addition to sc:..ch 1:,owc::: oI emine:. t do nain, the City of Atlanta a 1d ·he Countic s o i Fulton, De K c1.lb, Claywn ancl Gwinnett (and the County of Cobb ~n t he e::ve nt that i t sha li p ar tic ip a t e ) may for the purposes o th e S . B . 111 - 2- . /,..---....,.,,, \ \ ' ~ �.., A·..:..::ority ex rcise the b:i.•00.dcst. power o_ eminent doma i:1. av3.i lable to : •. "'rn or any agency o:;: j o int a:::;2.1cy· thereo ·, unde:r any Stabxi:e , ..r:.d. convey to the Authority any :_:>:.:-oper y so acquired U:'._:)On payment o ::.· c:cdit for tl e total cos·.: 0£ any acqt:is ition he re DC'.. r . r.0 local gov er 1ing bo 'y sl1.all exc r ci se any- power '1.e ::.· ei..,nd e:c \: ith ·esp ct to propert limi:~s . emin ent don1ain loca . . ccl beyond i s ter1:i·torial 11 S -· c ion 3 . Said Ac 1s f, rtl1c _.. a::-r1en c sec'.:ion C) of Section 8 t er of, i:1. it a new subsection \Vhich shall rea an o:i: However , e. ti l·ety , an by striking he re fro 1., sub serting in lieu thereof L as fo low : em:)loyees , includ ing e.,2:ineeri:1:;; , a~:c '1.itcct al .:..n const1·uctio. experts , fiscal agents an c. 2.'.:to :.: .. eys , ·co contr2.c io:· the se vices of individuals or organizati.ons not er11.p loyed full tirne by ·.:he Authority , 0 t who ar- engaged prii·:-.,_:i::- ::. ly in. 'c:-.Le re . . d ' tion &::G. not the sale o goods o:.: n:e:::c: an 1se, such ers o::-.Lc:.l services 0 s but not li r:1itcd to ·cne services o_ attorn ys, 2..c co u.2Y'::ant s, engi :. ee ~ s, 2.::- c ite c ts , consult;::i.nts and adviso _ , . 2l i.owi:-.::, suitable compcnsatio .. and to m2.ke p1~ovisions fo:c groll,;::_, 1_1:.suyar~ce , i· - ti1·2r.:1ent o · othe be:.1.eiit arrangements . Sc c:ion Lt e1ni)loycc 11 All laws o r p .... ::: " o f laws in conflict wil 'l t . . i s Act 2.re r. e:c e;oy rep ec1 l e d . \;0':2~: \Ve z..~::::o request that the ast se tcn ce in Section 1-± ( · ) b~ dclet ' c.: 2.1c. i:.1. .L:..et: thereof the followin g s b s ituted : .'oc.:-..:'.:."..-5 i:"\. t:-.is .Se.ctio~1 s hall .&f->> y to co·.:1.'c acts for ., ofe.~sion2.l sc ~v:.. c r::.J c :c ·c ne p~ rso n.21 se:..~vic~s o::.· e:nploye.es, or ·::o conc.:··2cts f o:c s2-~- vie.:.:.; o-Z. ::..·.1d.ividuals or o rgc:..niz.:. tio. s not employed full tir:1e. oy ':l.e. 143.215.248.55hc~ity bat who are engaged primari ly in the re.nditio2 ~f J~~son2~ s~rv~c=s ~~d not the sale of goods and m~rchandise., such services of a~tcrneys, accountants, e.ngir:.c'-'rs, ':::ect.J. co;.--:.sultants and advi sors o , . i.::.::'"'c i.\l-- �.,::__..,_ .. - A BILL } .. :: Act ·co .:..n:..~r:d E1 Act known as ·.:he: ~~;:) ic. T:·:..ns::.t _.;.x.ti.10::: ity A-:t or 1965, ,~ \.....i~•• 11 11 ?v:::etropolitan Atla:.:.:a ,,:_)p:cov,;d Maren lC, 1965 (C:•• Laws 1966, p. priv:..ttdy t::::-z.r:.si·.: Ll u ·. . c rn.ctropol i tan are2; ·co ~c::ic:te c:. provision subjecting sa::. ...\.utl-:..ority :o liaoili...:y fo ... c rt air... ::::cco :.r. ey s :ees of adverse parties ; -~o .:J. ....1Ql~'-"-v'-" . ,. . . . . ·- -:. \ ·V ,•. .•. lC . -.. pu. ., ., b1· ;.. C b OQlC::, - . , . . ::,2.H . . .: ...:J... ,\ - __ ,..., . .I. .h.Ul,l.O .. J..y ~ [nay .... or...l,,. • ,.... ....... - .... .I.-. • • •• , - · .... ..... • .: ct l.-c Wl cl1 ?CJ. l,alLJ.. g ..:o its p ·r:)oscs ; Io authorize loc.::.i gove:;:::.·.mcnts to pay opcr2tional s"Gb - ... even-..:e bo:-.1.C:.s ; ::o ' Ir..e rn&y ~(; ::::-.c.z..
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 31

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_031.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 31
  • Text: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT /tUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 1967 BUDGET 1967 Unappropriated Surplus ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 196 7 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1967 $128,281.64 $128,281.64 $ 84,030.00 23,190.00 82,770.00 91,800.00 18,210.00 $300,000.00 $ 5,520.00 $ 63,022.50 17,392.50 62,077.50 68,850.00 13,657 . 50 $225,000 . 00 $ 3,663.17 $ 95,000.00 276,000.00 $371,000.00 $676,520.00 $804,801.64 $ 60,000.00 135,402.54 597.46 $196,000.00 $424,663.17 $552,944.81 $ 68,950.00 10,500.00 $ 4 7 ,2 03 .22 7,86 3.00 1 , 109.00 533.00 1 ,680 . 00 10,000.00 99.00 $ 92,871.00 $ 3,150.00 1 , 151.16 400.00 875 . 59 300 . 54 104. 00 $ 57,897 . 51 $ 2,4 00.00 INCOME Appropriations: City of Atlanta Clayton County DeKalb County Fulton County Gwinnett County Sub-Tota ls . Interest Income Federal Funds: 702 Loan Section 9 Grant Interest~ Federal Funds Sub-Totals TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS 0 EXPENSES Staff Cost: Salaries Ex penses Benefits: Social Security Guaranty Fund Health and Accident Insurance Retirement . Workmen's Compensation Sub-Totals Board Meetings Administrative and Offic e Overhead: Rent Communica tion and Postage Furniture and Equipment Supplies Printing Auditor Accountant Public Information Advisory Insurance: Public Liability Depository and Forgery Fide l ;i.t y Bond Sub - Totals CARRIED FORWARD $ 3,000.00 2, 000 . 00 2, 000 . 00 3,600.00 1 , 000 . 00250.00 1,000.00 33,000 . 00 5,000.00 72.00 56.00 199.00 51 I 177. 00 $ $147 , 198 . 00 $ 2,25 0 .00 1,448.94 117 .8 1 1,978.78 623.56 250.00 500.00 17 ,009.03 1 ,077.35 55.00 56 . 27 198 . 60 $ 25 , 565.34 $ 85 , 86 2 .85 �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 1967 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD BUDGET 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1967 $804 , 801.64 $552,944.81 $147,198. 00 $ 20,000.0-0 $ 85, 86'2.. 85 $ 31,250.00 $ 29, 939 . 00 32,667.00 16,333.00 16,000.00 15,293.00 3,333.00 1,667.00 0 0 1,563.00 4, 742.09 EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultants: Atlanta Region Metropolitan P,anning Commission Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Stuoy: Section 9 Matching Hammer, Greene and Siler Parsons-Brinkerhoff-Tudor-B~ch tel : 702 Loan Section 9: Federal Matching Retainer Agreement Research and Technical Services Sub-Totals TOTAL EXPENSE S 95,000. 00 60 , 000.00 240 , 000.00 120 , 000.00 60 , 000. 00 2, 000. 00 $6 02,2 50.00 $769 ,448.00 60 , 000.00 112,411.00 16 , 182.67 2, 255.84 $318,386.60 $414,008.06 SURPLUS s Sl.38, 2.36. ZS 35,35.3,6~ $ 9,75.8.61 �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 36

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_036.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 36
  • Text: METROPOl 1 1l TA RAP D TRANS i A UT HOR~T Y GLENN BU ILDI G / ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 / AREA COD E 404 524-5711 O FFICERS: Richard H. Rich, Chairman Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary October 3, 1967 Henry L Stuart, General Manager Mr. Charles L. Davis City Comptroller City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia. Dear Mr. Davis: This will acknowledge receipt of and thank you for check No. 18,559 dated October 2, 1967 from the City of Atlanta in the amount of $21,007.50 covering the fourth quarterly payment by the City to the operating budget of the Transi t Aut hori t y. Your promptness in exped iting this matter is indeed appreciated. With b est regards .· Sinc eraly y our s , H. L. Stuart , General Manager. HLS:JJ cc, ~ Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. able Ivan Allen, Jr. Milton G. Farris Rawson Haverty Robt. F. Adamson L. D. Milton - --- �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 40

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_040.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 40
  • Text: MINUTES OF THE NINETEENTH MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY SEPTEMBER 5, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on September 5, 1967, at 3:30 P.M. in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT: Edgar Blalock (Clayton County) K. A. McMillan (Gwinnett County) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manager Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary King Elliott, Public Information Director Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager MARTA Advisory Committee H. Boyer Marx, American Society of Landscape Architects Richard Forbes, American Institute of Planners �Consultants J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta Leon Eplan, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta W. Stell Huie, Huie & Harland, Atlanta Others Joseph Lay, Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., Atlanta William Fletcher, White, Weld & Co., New York City Thomas J. Pendergrast, Courts & Co. P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council George B. Pilkington, Bureau of Public Roads John D. Prien, Jr., Executive Director, Georgia Society of Professional Engineers Donald G. Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Mrs. Rachel Champagne, Miss Claudette Parrish, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman. Minutes The minutes of the August meeting were unanimously approved by the members present. Due to lack of a quorum, it was agreed that this action would be ratified by the Board at the October meeting. Financial Report The General Manager presented the financial report as of August 31, 1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Costs were running according to the budget. Third quarter appropriations had been received from participating governments with the e x ception of DeKalb and Gwinnett Counties . The tentative budget for fiscal 1968 would be submitted to the Board members for consideration in October . Progress Reports General Manager Mr. Stuart reported that Mr. Nelson had met with officials of the City of Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb Counties, and the City of - 2 - �Decatur, and furnished them with sets of the 701 report materials for their study. He was scheduled to meet with East Point and · College Park officials to apprise them of transit plans relative to their areas. The General Manager stated that the final draft of the financial report prepared by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates had been received and would be submitted to the Board members. Public Information Director Mr. Elliott reported that Mr. M. C. Bishop had made rapid transit presentations during the past month before the South Fulton Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors meeting, the College Park Kiwanis Club and the Atlanta Airport Area Rotary Club. At these meetings a film was shown entitled "The Alternate Route"; this was on transportation problems in Los Angeles and its need for a rapid transit system. Mr. Elliott mentioned a special column that will appear in f uture issues of Rapid Transit Progress. It will answer various questions about rapid transit and plans; subject matter will consist of "MARTAnswers" by the General Manager. Chief Engineer Mr. Nelson reported on his attendance at the Engineering Foundation Research Conference held at Proctor Academy , Andover, New Hampshire, August 14-16, where discussions and presentations on e conomic and social aspects of urban transportation were stressed. The imple me nta tion of new transportation technology wa s pre s e nte d b y promine nt res earche rs f rom the fe d e ral government a nd priv a t e industry. Mr . Nelson was instructed to meet with the State Highway Department in connection with the construction of I - 485 in o rder to determine e ff e cts this r oute might h a v e on the t r ansit pl a nni ng. Consultants Pars o n s , Bri n c kerho f f - Tudor, Be chtel Mr. Co i l reported on recent s oil t est borings alo ng the n o rth-so u th line and exhibited formations o f stone taken at various depths. Contractual work f o r these borings had been completed and was - 3 - �being analyzed by Law Engineering Testing Company prior to a final report. Mr. Donald C. Hyde, retired General Manager of the Cleveland Transit System and now an Associated Consultant with Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, had visited the PBTB offices recently and rendered valuable guidance on patronage and operations studies under way. Mr. Walter Quintin of BART, San Francisco, had also worked in Atlanta recently and furnished information on train controls. Mr. Coil said PBTB's text for the 701 report was completed and was going to the printer very soon. Mr. Bennett mentioned that additional copies, over and above the 250 copies called for under the 701 contract, might be requested by the Authority. Mr. Bishop suggested that the General Manager be authorized to secure an appropriate number of additional copies at MARTA's expense. This was agreed. Mr. Coil reported on progress of Lord & Den Hartog, design consultant for PBTB, in the design work for Transit Center and other stations and said a more detailed report would be made during November. Design concepts of the stations had been presented to those in attendance at the briefing session prior to the meeting. Eric Hill Associates Mr. Eplan briefly reported on progress of the impact study; discussions had been held with school authorities, fire department officials, and housing authorities to consider rapid transit plans and their relationship to these particular functions. He said work was continuing; studies were approximately two-thirds complete. · Proposed New Impact Study Mr. Bennett stated that in view of the studies by Eric Hill Ass ociates and the 701 reports, he had felt there might be duplication of work in the previously submitted work program for the first Section 9 Amendment approved by the Authority at the July meeting. This application had been held up until a revised program was determined and clarified. Mr. Wingfield said consideration was being given to retaining one of the nation's outstanding transportation experts, Alan Voorhees and Associates of Washington, D. c., to evaluate plans and pro grams. This could be a valuable addition to the final planning of the transit system. Voorhees would be able to render the - 4 - �Authority excellent advice and evaluations which would be invaluable as input for the pre-referendum campaign next year. Mr. Ingram of Central Atlanta Progress stated the transportation consultant selected to advise MARTA would be retained by Central Atlanta Progress in connection with its studies on transportation. Other Business Mr. Bennett informed the Board members of a meeting to be held on September 12 in the Highway Board Room, co-sponsored by the -State Highway Department and the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. The purpose was to discuss important points relative to overall transportation planning. At the meeting it was expected that a Policy Committee would be organized to render decisions regarding the Atlanta Area Transportation Study. It was hoped this would strengthen coordination of all agencies involved in the total transportation planning program for metropolitan Atlanta. To date AATS had operated without unified policy direction. Invitations had been sent to heads of local governments, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Bureau of Public Roads, MARTA, and the Atlanta Transit System. Adjournment The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:30 P.M. Next Meeting October 3, 1967. - 5 - �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Complete Folder

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Complete Folder
  • Text: RAPID TRANSIT F O G .... l!'!l!!llmllall S ~ METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY "]Y.[ARTA REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE IT SERVES ... " SEPTEMBER 1967 VOL. 2 . NO. 9 FINANCIAL PLAN OFFERED PROPOSES "HAMBURGER-A-WEEK"COST TO LOCAL CITIZEN Rapid transit can be built at a maximum cost to the taxpayer of 3 mills in Fulton County and 1.6 mills in DeKalb County, according to economic consultants of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. The figures are contained in the final draft of a report by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates prepared as part of the revision of the 1962 plan for rapid transit for Metropolitan Atlanta. The 1967 revision of the plan is expected to be completed in the next few weeks. The report shows that the basic 30-mile system, which· will cost about $332 million, can be built with local funds of $199 million, state funds of $33 million, and federal funds of $ 100 million. The Fulton County share would be $146,265,000 (73.5%) and the DeKalb County share $52,735,000 (26,5%). Clayton and Gwinnett Counties would not contribute to the capital construction costs until work is begun on the extensions to complete the 52-mile system when additional federal funds are expected to become available. The Clayton and Gwinnett fjnancial support would include a pro rata share of the costs of the basic system. "This report shows that the maximum cost of rapid transit in Fulton County to the owner of a $15,000 house would be $12.00; the same person in DeKalb County would pay about $6.40 maximum," MARTA General Manager said. "In Fulton County, this amounts to the price of a hamburger a week, or two or three cups of coffee a week," he told the MARTA Board of Directors at their regular meeting today. "And these amounts would be paid only for about 5 years; the rest of the time the costs would be even lower," he continued. "When Clayton and Gwinnett counties assume· their share of the costs, their rate would be a maximum of 1.5 mills, or about $6.00 a year to the owner of a $ I 5,000 house," Stuart explained. "The report of our financial consultants proposes what appears to be a practical and feasible approach to financing construction of the rapid transit system," he said. "Our final plans are taking shape and preliminary engineering is developing well. · If a successful referendum can be held in November 1968, we would begin construction in Spring of 1969. If this program develops in this manner," he stated, "we would have the first line operating about the end of 1973 and the basic 30-mile system in service in 1975. The entire 52-mile system could well be in operation before 1980, or in about the same length of time it is taking to complete the perimeter expressway. "We need to begin construction as early as possible ," he concluded, "since every year's delay costs us $18 to $20 million thru inflation and increased construction costs. The basic 30-mile system would have 24 stations and would run from Brookhaven to College Park and from Decatur to Lynhurst Drive near i-285 on the west, with a northwest stub to Northside Drive. The electrically-driven , air-conditioned cars would operate at maximum speeds of 70 miles per hour, averag(Continu ed on Page 2, Col. J) FEDERAL STATE STATE FULTON DeKALB FULTON FEDERAL $332 MILLION (30 Miles) $479 MILLION (52 Miles) �THIS MANY CARS PARKED HERE ... (Continu ed from Page 1) ing about 40 m iles per hour including station stops. Trains would run as often as every 90 seconds during rush hours. The commuter will ride to Transit Center, just a block from Five Points, in about 13 minutes from Brookhaven, 9 minutes from Decatur, and about 13 minutes from College Park. ... COULD REMOVE MANY CARS FROM HERE - • American Transit Association Convention-October 22-26, 1967, Regency-Hyatt House, Atlanta. The AT A has as members only those operating transit systems (railroads, bus lines, rapid transit, etc.) METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 8 08 G L ENN BLOG . 120 MA R I ETT A S T . . N . W . ATLAN TA . GA . 30303 • P H O N E 52 4 -5711 0 "'DIR ECTED BY TH E GEORG I A STATE LE G I S L ATURE TO DEVE LO P A RA P I D TRAN S I T S Y STE M F OR T H E S - CO UN TY METROPOLIT A N ATLAN T A AREA ," Edited by KING ELLIOTT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS : H. RICH, Chairman ROY A. BLOUNT, Vice Chairnian HERB ERT J . DICKSON, Treasurer GLENN E. BENNETT, S ecr etary R ICHARD CITY OF ATLANTA : L. D. M ILTON ROBERT F. ADAMSON RAWSON HAVERTY RICHARD H. R ICH CLAYTON COUNTY : EDGAR BLALOCK DEKALB COUNTY : Dn. SANFORD ATWOOD ROY A . BLOU NT FULTON COUNTY: MITCHELL C. B ISHOP W . A . PULVER GWINNETT COUNTY : K. A . MCMILL8N COBB COUNTY (Obser ver) OTIS A . BRUMBY, Jn. MARTA STAFF: H ENRY L. STUART, General Manager EARL W. NELSON, Chief Engineer K ING ELLIOTT, Director of Public Information H . N. JO HNSON, Secretary to General Manag_e r An important factor in attracting commuters from their cars to rapid transit is the "Park-N-Ride Principle," according to a noted transportation expert. George L. DeMent, Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Transit Authority , recently discussed the importance of parking facilities in connection with rapid transit stations. Referring to the new Skokie Swift extension t o the Chicago rapid transit system , he said, "The 522 Park-N-Ride spaces provided at the outer Dempster Street terminal has proved to be a major factor in the success of Skokie Swift. This Park-N-Ride is used to l 00 per cent capacity every weekday . It is obvious to the Chicago Transit Authority that the patronage of the highly successful Skokie Swift operatio n would be increased automatically if additional parking spaces could be provided at the Dempster Terminal. Similar examples could be cited for the Park-N-Ride lots along other Chicago lines." DeMent noted that "the Cleveland Transit System has given emphasis to Park-N-Ride. Seven 'Rapid' stations have been provided with 5,2 18 free parking spaces .. .Additional parking spaces soon will be provided along the airport rapid transit extension now under construction." He quoted a survey which " indicated that parking spaces are being used at a rate of 1.3 cars per day . and t hat each car carries an average of 1.2 passengers. He says further that "the Toronto Transit Commission will provide parking spaces for 3.000 cars at three stat ions along the Bloor Street subway extension now under constru ction . with (Co11ti1111ecl 0 11 Page 3. Col. 1, �CITY PLANNING AND RAPID TRANSIT The American Institute of Planners has a strong interest in the development of a rapid transit system for the Atlanta Metropolitan Area. The specific interest in MARTA and its proposed system is related to the "balance" and relationship of the transit network to the rest of the metropolitan area and to the total transportation system of the metropolitan area- as it exists and is planned. The planner is concerned with the relationships that will be an outgrowth of the system. What impact will MARTA lines have on public and private property? Which areas will be likely to develop because of a MARTA installation-a station, for instance? Will the system be sensitively related to neighborhoods and business areas, or industrial areas? How? Will the system put stations in places where other planning and development activities provide an opportunity to "multiply" the effect of the investment in transit by an investment in urban renewal, or a college, or a new business area, or a special school? Can better relationships be established between elements of the transit system and the environment? The planning profession is interested in the general and the comprehensive dimensions of the city and the metropolitan area. Therefore, the planning interest in the transit system will extend beyond the tracks and the stations, into a concern for nearby property- and, more important, property that is not so near. The planning concern for all of the Atlanta area is oriented _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 to maximizing the livability of our "place," and deals equally with the areas impacted and not impacted. In the areas being served (giving the word "impact" a positive tone) the planner is likely to seek to make the favorable impact more favorable , more utilitarian, more significant to the area in terms of its present and future role in the city , whether this role is related to change, redevelopment, more intensive developR ichard M. Forbes ment, new uses or no change . The planning attitude about any public or private investment is based on what the facility will mean to people in their environment. What will it mean t o citizens as they travel to and from work, to recreation, to shopping? This is one level of concern. What it will mean to people at home, if they live near the transit line , is another concern. For example, will it cause an unpleasant industry to develop nearby? The planning concern reduces itself to a concern for our city, our place, our environment. The planner wishes to make Greater ' Atlanta the best possible place in which to live and work. He consequently sees t ransit as a marvelous opportunity to use a large public investment as one of the elements that will help to do that. However, transit will make a positive contribution only if it is very carefully related to each part of the area an d to other projects and plans so that the system is balanced. This relationship to the whole is o~ prime importance. Richard M Forbes, Assistant Prof essor of R eal Estate and Urban Affairs at Georgia State College, is a member of the MARTA Advisory Committee, representing the planning profession. He is a member of the A merican Institute of Planners, and other prof essional groups. (Continued froin Page 2, Col. 2) additional spaces planned for the Yonge Street Subway Ex tension just authorized. The new l 0-mile extension in South J ersey will provide nearly 5,000 parking spaces at six locations wit h provision for future expansio n. Over 16,000 parking spaces at 23 stations will be provided along the 75-mile rapid transit system being built in San Francisco. Quoting DeMent, "There is no longer a question of the need for such facilities. It is only a question of how much parking should be provided for any given rapid transit in stallation." The system being designed for the Atlanta area will include adequate parking facilit ies at suburban stations. MARTA TALKS ... AND LISTENS The story of rapid transit plans for Metropolitan Atlanta is finding interested audiences throughout this area. Between the first of June and mid-September, the MARTA directors and staff talked to some 1700 members or more than 30 civic and other groups, illustrating the MARTA story with slides or motion picture films. In addition, many other discussions were held with city and county officials, planning departments, state legislators, and citizen groups such as Chambers ofCommerce \ and Central Atlanta Progress. After the formal presentations, the meetings were generally opened for questions. In_the picture below, Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, is listening to a question being asked by a member of the Atlanta Civitan Club. A MARTA display depicting progress in the development of rapid transit was part of the fifth Annual Fall Sale at J amestown Shopping Center in College Park recently. The event was sponsored by the College Park Jaycees in cooperation with merchants at the shopping center. The MARTA display shows the location of Transit Center in downtown Atlanta, and the various lines considered for rapid transit routes. The display back of College Park Jaycee President Paul Green shows in the upper left corner a cutaway view of how Transit Center might be designed, with escalators connecting the two levels of trains with the sidewalks above . The lo wer left corner contains typical site development plans fo r the four !eve.ls of Transit Center while in the lower right corner is a map locating Transit Center in relation to downtown stree ts. The map in the upper righ t corner shows the areas in which the routes and stations will be located. Routes as planned in 196 1, 1962, and 1966-7 are variously indicate d. The display back of Joan Eschenbrenner, MARTA secretary, fea tures a large aerial photo of do wntown Atlanta and pictures of various majo r building developments now under way near rapid transit stations. The MARTA exhibit aroused many enth usiastic com ments from those who viewed it. �MARTAnswers MARTA ACTION QUESTION: Why is MARTA planning to use the old-type steelwheel and steel-rail system instead of something new, like monorail? · ANSWER: In the first place, monorail is not new or modern. As shown in the picture below, monorail has been around a long time-70 years or so. A short monorail line has bee n operating across a river in Germany since 1906. . The major reason for not using monorail, however, is simply that no monorail system has ever been a commercially successful operation in moving numbers of commuters. In recent years, short, relatively simple monorail systems have been built in Paris and Tokyo, and others have been used in World's Fairs in Seattle and New York , and at Disneyland. These small operations, however, do not meet MARTA's design requirements to transport commuters at 70 miles per hour in capacities approaching 30,000 passengers per hour. There are other problems relating to cost, engineering, construction, and route location : Both the top-supported (suspended) and bottom-supported monorail systems are more expensive to construct system-wide than the conventional steel-wheel steel rail system. The topsupported monorail requires the support structure throughout the system, whereas MARTA's plans call for only 3½ miles of aerial structure. The top-supported monorail requires a much larger tunnel for subway where subway is esse ntial. Trying to _eliminate the monorail subway brings us back to the problem MART A faced all along- where to put the route s thro ugh downtown Atlanta without using subway . There is no fe asible surfa ce route fo r either system. Mt:IGS COL Ll:::CT/ ON , Yale University Library - MON ORA IL , 1887 VER SI ON - Joe Vincent Me igs (second row, six th from right) patented this early "rno11orail " in 1873. The running wheels were tilted at 45 degree angles; horizo11tal/y -moun ted steam-driven wheels running on an up- The Board of Direc tors at its September 5 mee ting heard a report on a fi_nancial study by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, In c. No ac tion wa s taken on the report. No official ac tion was taken by the Board since a quorum was not prese nt. The nex t mee ting of the MARTA Board of Directors will be Tuesday, October 3, 1967, 3: 30 p.m., Room 619, Glenn Building, 120 Marietta St. , N.W. The bottom-supported system would be somewhat more expensive for grade and aerial structure than the steel-wheel steel rail system, and considerably more expensive for subway because of the larger tunnel required. If expense were not the major factor it is, the question then arises, "what would monorail give you that the conventional system would not provide?" The answer is "nothing." The monorail is slower, has higher operational costs, and does not provide as comfortable ride. During the past 70 years, engineering problems relating to monorail have not been satisfactorily resolved. These include switching, high speeds (70 to 80 MPH), sway, and other technical problems. · These and other disadvantages may eventually be resolved, but no solution is in sight. By contrast, the dual rail system solved these and many other engineering and operational problems years ago . The dual-rail system will definitely provide what is needed in this area: 70 MPH speeds, safety, comfort, and convenience at less cost than any type monorail . Using a known and proven technology means MART A will be able to bring the sy stem into operation at the earliest possible time . This is our goal. - Hemy L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager per set of rails provided propulsion. Th e Philadelphia City Coun cil visited th e 1, 11 4-foot long test track in East Cambridge, Mass., in 188 7. The revolutionary Meigs rail way did not gain acceptance, however; and the company fa iled a fe w years later. RAPID TRANSI T PROGRESS METROPOLITA N ATLA NTA RAP ID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLE N N B LD G . • 1 20 MARIET TA S T . . N.W . P HON E 52 4 - 5 711 (AR E A CODE 4 0 4) SEPTEMBE R 1967. VO L . 2, NO . 9 ~l · AT L ANTA . GEORGIA 30303 �r L I r r I FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ATLANTA'S RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM The capital costs of Metropolitan Atlanta's rapid transit system cleaFlY must be financed by funds obtained from sources beyond the fare box. The system can generate enough operating revenues to cover operating expenses .and · ·maintenance and to fina11ce the purchase of the basic rolling stock and opE:,r at- I r • ing equipment. For the capital costs of the system, however the tracks, bridges, stations and other elements of the fixed investment rapid transit in Metropolitan Atlanta must look to the local governments of the area and to .Federal and state sources. ,.~ ' ,- r I ' I •• .l .I ( This is, of course, normal. Rapid transit systems are basically public enterprises , operating public facilities comparable to streets and schools and performing essential public services. Although unlike streets and schools in that they produce operating revenues, few · systems yield enough net returns to make any substantial contribution to basic costs of the fixed investments. Some systems do better than others but all share the characteristic of being public service enterprises th~t require direct public support if they are to meet public needs. In the following section, all aspects of the local financing of the capital costs of Metropolitan Atlanta's rapid transit system will be explored. The underlying premise to be reiterated is that the public nature of the rapid transit enterprise calls for the public assumption of responsibility ·for paying for the fixed investment. This premise has already been clearly recognized locally and indeed was assumed in the creation of MARTA and in t he legi~lati on providing fo r MARTA ' s support and operations. ·- 1- . MAMMlll •• 11••••.•tllll A•••ttAT•t �II r I ,...... I. Basic Premises of Analysis This financial analysis is concerned only with the areas embraced oy the four counties of Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton and Gwinrtett (including the City of Atlanta) . Although other parts of the report describe a five~county area that includes Cobb County, , the financial analysis excludes Cobb which is not r presently participating in the MARTA program. In analyzing the financial aspects of the proj ecte'd rapid transit system of Metropolitan Atlanta, three basic premises have been established: r 1. That the major share of the financial responsibility for building the system will be assumed by the local govern ments, with a minimum dependence upon financial help from the outside; 2. That the basic target will be the construction of a 30mile system capable of achieving the major part of the goals set for rapid transit in the area; I I I I I ' ' '~ I 3 • . That a policy will be adopted that will provide for an extension of the basic system to 52 miles later if and when additional funds become available from non-local · sources. r- ' ' Primary Local Commitment. It can be taken as a basic assumption that Metropolitan Atlanta's rapid transit system must -- and will - - get some aid f rom both Federal and State sources . The primary responsibility for financing t his system, however , cannot be shifted away from the local governments . In developing a financ i al plan for ~he Metropolitan Atlanta system, the appro~ch ~ \ ' mus t be to make the most realistic possible estimate of funds that can_be 0 expected fro m Federal and s t ate sources and then to test the feasibility of pr oducing t he remaining funds from the local sour ces . It is not possible accurately t o predict how much Federal money might ! ,- pecome available. I t is hypothetica lly possible under Federal fo rmul as t hat two-thirds of the cost could eventually be paid f _or by Federal funds but there ~re grave uncertaint ies as to when such funds might be made available , if at .. - 2....., ., HAMM I R . IRIINl , IIL I R AII DO IATII �all at that scale. Moreover, under present regulations Federal funds can be committed for only ·two years at· a time. The truth is that the amount available from the Federal government for rapid transit purposes in the immediate future .., , i will be limited. Despite · ( talk of potentially massive Federal outlays for this purpose, there is no evidence that such funds are imminent. • ' . The pressure of the Viet Nam war and the rising demands for Fede_r al funds for other urgent urban problems make 'it r, unreasonable to assume any large-scale availability of funds. Because of its · head start in rapid transit planning, Metropolitan Atlanta is assured of its share of the Federal funds that do become available but these funds must supplement what is raised locally rather than represent the basic share at least in the immediate future. '- ) As to assistance from the state, the people of Georgia in November 1966 ,-, approved a constitutional amendment declaring public transportation to be:1 an-' , I ' L..J . "essential governmental function and a public purpose for which the · power of L .· Ir ,, taxation of the state may be exercised and· its public funds expended". l u The amendment provided, however, that the State of Geo_r gia shall not provide more . than 10 percent of the totai cost of a public transportation system, either directly or indirect l y. For purposes of planning, it is reasonable to assume that the state will indeed contribute ·10 percent of the cost of the Atlanta . system. This still leaves the. main burden on local shoulders . This is the J way in which -the op erating rapid transit ·s ystems in other big U. S . cities . ' ' have been buil t - - pr imar ily w~ th local funds . . On the other hand,. the exis t ence of the ~ederal pr ogr am is i ts elf testimony to a, clear recognition ·· that new rapid trai~s i t systems in t he futu r e .are not likely to be built with- · ' f J • out some of the costs bei ng shared at th e 'Federal level . The .burden on the l oca l governments is t oo great on t op of mount ing _d emands fo r- a whole r ange of other s ervices and facilit i es. It C8.!l be hoped t hat large-sca le Federa l ·f unds mi ght even'tlially be made availabl e for t his purpose in Metropol itan At l ant a , \ However, to p lan on / !' - 3HAMMlll , 8Rlllll , 81, LIII ASSOOIATIS �.l l' .... r this basis would invi t _e disappointment and even disaster if this hope were . .., not realized -- and would also represent a denial of the high priority that the public has already put upo~· rapid transit through its approval of the MARTA program so far. Commitment to Full-Scale System . A 30-mile basic system has been de- signed that covers the heart of the metropolitan area in which are located the -greatest concentrations of people and jobs, the highest densities of · development, and the corridors of heaviest traffic congestion. An initial commitment to a system of less capabilities would not move the area toward a practical solution of its desperate circulation problem. As already described in this report, the 30-mile system wou~d extend 1· , I between Brookhaven on the north and the Tri-Cities on the south, Deca~ur on I the east and Lynhurst Drive on the west, with spurs off to the northwest and northeast. This basic system would not reach into the suburban areas of Clayton and Gwinnett counties. It will cost approximately $332,000~000 to build, assuming that construction gets underway in 1969 . Flexible Development Policy. . I The third premise , which relates to future expansions of the system as additional non-local funds become available , I • I .I calls for a fle xible future policy . of Federal funds . The key facto r is th e future availability I f the decision is made to move ahead with the 30-m_ile system assuming minimum Federal par ticipation, another decision can be made later t o go to : the 52-mi l e system (which would push rapid transit lines into Clayton and Gwinnett counties) if suf ficient Federal funds become available t o mat ch expanded local ·fu nds . Lat er , if and when Cobb County decides to participate in t he pr ogr am, t he dec i sion can be .made to go to the 63- mile f ive-count y sys tem as further fu nds become avai l able . ""he.v'v As noted earlier in thi~ report , the 52-mile sys t em wou ld cos t $479, 000, 000 . (This sys t em woul d inc l ude extens i ons t o t he bas ic 30- mil e ( I system within the two central counties as wel l as extensions outward to the suburbs . ) - 4H A',M' M I R . -~ R I I N i , I I l 0 ~R A 8 I O O I. AT I I l �r To summarize the foregoing, this analysis of financing will be concerrted basically with two rapid transit systems: ,I I L r-· The basic 30-mile system which will cost $332,000,000, operate only in Fulton and DeKalb counties> and be financed on the assumption qf minimum Federal and state assistance. The overall 52-mile system which will cost $479,000,000, extend out into Dayton and Gwinnett counties,' and be undertaken beyond the _30-mile system as more Federal money becomes available to match state and local funds. r Allocation of Local Costs In determining the proportion of the _local share of MARTA' s capital r· costs that should be allocated to each of the participating local governments, r- the objective should be so far as possible to develop a formula based on the benefits that the system will provide to each jurisdiction. •• ..-, .._, cult to identify the overall kinds of benefits that such a system might produce; the problem is to determine how these benefits might be distributed and measured geographically thirough_tout the rnetropoli tan area. Up to now, . no rapid transit system has been able to define these benefits in any precise J way on an area-by-area basis. n .i It is not diffi- I The evidence of the overall value of_ra~id transit to a metropolitan area is unmistakable. The costs of moving people by transit is considerably less than by expressway. ,...) Reduction of highway and street traffic through provision of transit fa cilitie s saves time for individuals and businesses and means heavy savings in public costs for maintenance of transportation facilities. l New t ax, values are created along rapid transit rights-of-way. -· . Valuable land is pres erved that would otherwise be taken for expressways. / The availability of jobs t o t he l oca l popul ation is . increas ed and wider choices of employment are permit ted . The destructive and costly effects _of continued urban sprawl are l essened a s close- in densities are increased. short, ·overall effic-iency of the metropolitan ar ea i s i ~proved and ea ch jurisdict ion shares in the beriefi ts and· advant_a ges. ·.,I . --, I__, -5liAMMIA,GRE&N& , 8 1 L&R AIIOOIATII In �' r Setting each jurisdiction's specific share of the benefits, however, is· not subject to easy measurement. There are different transit mileages in each area, different patronage levels, different initial costs, different impacts in terms of both savings and tax values, different effects on area growth. r It can be argued that each benefit to a jurisdiction can be offset by a liability. The transit system mar gene.rate large new tax values along its rights-of-way in the central city but at the same time make possible a r diffusion of employment centers and population to other areas. The system may accelerate growth in ..suburban areas but thi_s can create vast new demands . . . ,, t ! A rapid tFan- sit system can take .property off the tax rolls as well as add tax values, r .t:. for public services and facilities as well as new tax values. ---· ! I I l_ ' ,, and it . can potentially blight the neighborhood as well as create substantial new environments . The overriding fact is that rapid transit benefits . the metropolitan I region as a whole. A fast-growing region the size of Metropolitan Atlanta will not be able to function efficiently without a balanced transportation system that includes rapid transit. The internal linkages within the metropolitan area must be particularly ) . .J recognized. The efficient operation of Downtown Atlanta, for example, has a direct importance to all parts of the metropolitan region. The functions of this central business district in one way or another have a critical bearing upon every major industrial investment in the entire. region, and these industrial investments in turn . support widely scattered commercial and residential investments . A rapid transit sys tem accentuates and increases the efficiency of the inter nal linkages in a metropolitan area, 7 A formula to allocate the costs of such a sys tem wi t hi n the ar c~, t her efore, must be based upon some commonsense indexe s that measure each jurisdi ction's relative size and function i n the r eg ion. and its proport ion of the r egion's wealth and its relative I pattern of growth . _The benefi t s of a rapid t r ansit system will be reflected { 1 ' in each j uri s dict i on's participation in the area's over all economi c and land us e development • ..J 1 - 6Ht\MM& R . O RIENE.IILE R t\ll OO IATII ... �l 1L , } ,. A fair and equitable formula for allocating rapid transit costs must be based on indexes that measure three essential factors -- relative intensity of useage, relative capacity to pay, and relative economic development impact. Three sets of meas~rements -- population , property tax dige~t and employment -- would most.clearly reflect these basic considerations. None ,- of these indexes by itself would provide the basis for a fair and equitable cost distribution, but the absence of any would prejudice the fairness of the allocation formula. These three elements have the additional merit of being simple and measurable by basic data that can be readily obtained, well documented and .authenticated from official sources. Two additional considerations would appear essential. One is the im- portance of taking future as well as present patterns into account. This can be accomplished by getting two sets of figures for each element -- · a r, j u figure for the present (using 1965 as the base year for which data can be verified) and a projected figure for a future year. Inasmuch as official forecasts have been made of both population and ·employment for the year 1983 by the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission (in connection with the Atlanta Area Transportation Study), this year can be used for the I J 3 -I ' J future date (by which time, incidentally, the rapid transit system would presumably be in operation). _The property tax digests utilizi_ng. in part these population and .employment figures can be projected for the same year. All three elements can therefore be put into the formula with well documen·ted present and future components. ·:.. The other consideration is the need for assigning different degrees of importance t9 each of the basic factors . This is. done by giving a different weight to each element in the allocati_on formula. This weighting · ·is a_c complished by constructing percent_age distribution tables · to show each county's share . of each e lement (population, tax digest .and employment) and then inc luding each tab l e once , twice or t hree times to reflect its relative import ance in t he formula . ,. , ·· -. - 7H A M ME R . GR EENE. B ILE R ABB O OIATEi ,· �r-- w rI I ..... ,--. ' l...,, It \\'as determin ed that employment should be given the greatest weight (3) because it most nearly measures the e~onomic strength of the various jurisdications. ,-. ....., .( ,, I sales, and t he employment index is a f air measure of economic activity . Apart from the convenience factor, the greatest benefit derived by a local government from an efficient transit system would come from the maintenance and expansion of its economy. The area with the heaviest employment would J, .. . r · have the most to gain from the system and would generate the largest capacity ,._ to finance it. r ·· I Employment means inv estments, payrolls, purchases and . The property tax digest the assessed value of real and personal property put on a comparable basis at 100 percent of market value in each jurisdiction would be given the next highest weight (2). The property tax digest also refJ ects ability to pay on the part of the governments and in addition helps to measure the potential impact of the :5ystem on physical . I, -...) ,..... growth . Each of the county governments in Metropolitan Atlanta rely heavily upon the property tax and all are now required to maintain their assessments at roughly 40 ,percent of market value. In the fo rmula, population would carry the basic weight of one (1) . I ~7 t ( '.J l Transit patronage would of course bear' some direct relationship to population. However a f ormu l a giving a heavi er we i ght to population would penalize outlying areas whose lev e l ·of t r ansi t rider ship would probably not carry the same r e lationship to population as pat ronage le~els in the close-in areas · where r es ident i a l densi t i es near the transit corridors would be more intense. In Table 1, the s e three bas i c fa ctors are set fo rth in ~tat istica l f or m in ter ms both of t h e . actua l numbers and of the percent distributions ( among each of the f our counti es part icipat ing in the MARTA pro gram. Thes e figures are shown for a pres ent (1965) and a future year (1983) . The proposed allocation formula is the composite index t hat comb i nes all of these factors at the a s signed weight s . It .is expre ss ed in terms of the percentage share of total capital cos t that woul d be allocated t o each jurisdiction, as follows: 0 - 8HAMMEA, O AE&N&.81 LEA ., A880CIATi8 I �Table 1. ELE>!ENTS IN RE CO'.- lMENDE D FO R111U LA FOR ALLOCATING iv'lARTA CO~STRUCTION COST M~ONG LOCAL COUNTIES, ACTUAL 1965 Ai~D PROJECTE D 1983 · l- Populati on (1) Nur::bers (0 00) Per cent 1965 1983 1965 1983 r- . Fulton DeKa lb Clayton Gwinnett 587 . 4 319.6 69 . 2 52 .1 1, 028 . 3 Total 861 . 0 582.7 153 . 3 107.1 1 , 704 . 1 57 .1% 31. 1 6.7 5.1 50 . 5% 34 . 2 9. 0 6.3 100. 0% 100 . 0% Tax Diaest (2} Amount (000,000) Percent 1965 1983 1965 1983 ....., Fulton DeKalb · Cl ayton Gwinnett Total $ 3,959 1 , 778 350 184 $ 6,271 $10 , 360 5,848 1 , 437 816 63 . 1% 28 . 4 5.6 2.9 56. 1% 31. 7 7.8 4.4 $18 , 461 100.0% 100.0% ! Em:el orment (3) Numbers (0 00) Percent 1965 1983 1965 1983 · Fu lt on DeKalb Cl ayt on Gwinnet t Tota l · NOTES: 349.6 68 .1 18 .2 8 .0 556 .1 147. 3 40.1 22. 4 78 . 8% 15 . 3 4 .1 1. 8 72. 6% 19.2 5.3 2.9 44 3.9 765.9 100 .0% 100 .0% Relativ e we i gh t s us ed in t otaling perc enta ges in t he all oca tion f ormu l a ar e shown in parentheses . Both 1965 and 1983 percentage figures are weighted accordi ngl y. The property t ax digests were put on a compar able basis for each juiisdiction (100 percent of market value) . -,. - 9H f\ M ME A, 0 A EE N E , 8 I l E A A 6 8 0 0 I A TE 8 �,I r.J Proposed allocation formula: Ful ton County DeKalb County Clayton County Gwinnett County ...... - 66.7% 24.1 5.9 3.3 100.0% I ~ Each figure shown in Table 1 ·was calculated on the basis of extensive research utilizing all available data from official sources. However, it · r- .L ' was necessary to use independent judgment in arriving at some of the estimates, particularly the forecasts for future years, and the responsibility for them rests solely with the consultant. All of the data used can be· i documented and the methods can be easily tested and evaluated. ,-- ,I As noted earlier, the basic 30-mile system would lie ent irely within '-' the boundaries of Fulton and DeKal b counties . r able to limit the local r esponsibility for this$ystem to these two jurisdic- · 1-J tions. It would ther efore seem reason- As soon as the decision is made to extend the system to its full r length of 52 miles, the participation of Clayton and Gwinnett counties would ~-- be assumed. ,-- t he tot al system ca lled f or in the formula, including their pro rata par ts '-' Presumably they would then be asked to pay their full shares of of the 30-mi l e bas ic syst em whose construction would get underway bef ore their financi a l involvement. The breakdown of financial responsibility between ·Fulton and DeKalb count i es in connect ion wit h the 30-mil e bas i c system, based upon the s ame f act or s s et f orth i n Table 1, would be as follows: (7 I L Fulton Count y DeKalb County 73 . 5% 26 .5 100 . 0% L ,-1 L Clearly there is r oom for differences of opini on about the elements s elected for inclusion in t he a l l ocation f ormula and about t h e r e l ative weights assigned t o each.. On ba l ance, however, t he f ormul a would appear to be fair and equitable. Although s ome obvious elements might be considered f or addition -- such as, for example, projected patronage leve l s used by the - 10HAMME R. GRE E N E.S ILER .. A88O01AT E 6 �l: • ~ . ,... '! I .,..... I , L engineers in .station location, mileage or linear feet of track built in different jurisdictions, and potential land development prospects ·along transit rights-of-way -- the measurement of these elements is likely to be highly · speculative. After considering them,. it was determined that a simpler .. . . . and more easily documented set of measurements would be more satisfactory . •' Financing the Basic System - ,-- ,.-·· As already noted, the 30-mile basic system proposed as the minimum construction program for Metropolitan Atlanta wouid cost an estimated . $332,000,000 to build. The full capital cost of this system must come from provided funds --:- .that is, fun_d s not generated from the operation of the rapid tran~it system . itself. The first assumption to make in developing a financial plan for meeting L I I I .-. . the ·capi tal costs of Metropolitan Atlanta's rapid tran~it system is to make a specific estimate of the availability of Federal funds. The current Federal appropriation supporting mass transportation planni_ng and programming throughout the United .States is for $175,000,000 per year , effective through _ the f i scal year ending ,June 30, 1968 . There i s a 12½ percent ceiling on what any one stat e might r eceive out of this appropr i ation. If MARTA' · operations were now underway, it might be expected that a large part of Georgia 's share - - perhaps as much as $20,000,000 -- might be availabl~ from Feder al sources . ., 1- It has been estimat ed that Federal appropri ations f or mas s transpor t at i on will have to reach t he level of at least $500,000,000 per year to provi de any substantial assistanc e to the cities and metr opol itan areas ·that are building or expanding th.e ir mass t ransit sys t ems. The i nt ense f iscal pressures caused by the Viet Nam war and other heavy demands upon t he · Federal trea_su~y, however, have ·resulted in a deferral of any pr_ogramming at this level. It is hopefully ·anticipated t hat f unds made avai l able by Congress for mass transportation for the two fiscal years heginning July 1. 1968, and extending through June 30, 1970, would _pe in .the ra_nge of .· $200,000,000 a year. Prospects appear fairly optimistic at this stage . r·-. ' - 11 .. NAMM l ll,llilliil,111.lR A l l OIAfll �I - Using this estimate it might reasonably be assumed that MARTA would be in a position to request and receive as much as $25,000,000 per year in the : calendar years 1969 and 1970 from Federal sources, if voter approval has been given in the meantime and local funds cpmmitted. This would mean that a basic $50,000,000 in. Federal funds ·might be counted on as a minimum. ·r How much more Federal money might subsequently be made available is of course speculative. It might be assumed, however, that at : least an ·addi- tional $50,000,000 might be forthcoming forllowitig the initial allotments in the 1969 and 1970 fiscal years. ,- .! 1 Even if Viet Nam or other international crises remain, it is reasonable to expect that the present level of ap~ropriations for mass transportation will continue .. If the international situa- r tion cl.e ars up, there could be a sharp increase in Federal funds for mass ·1 L , transportation in line w1th current thinking. In short, there is probably "little chance that current levels of appropriation w~ll be cut back and there is a good chance· that large outlays might become available. In light of these considerations, it would appear reasonable to anticipate that at least a second $50,000,000 might be obtained fro~ Federal sources for MARTA' s·· basic 30-mile system. t • ,.J. As a conservative approach, the availability of $100,000,000 in Federal funds might be taken as a given for local fiscal planning. This would provide considerably less than the hypothetical two-thirds of total cost that the Federal government might be . expected to provide, but it would be a substantial contribution. _...,' Another important assumption relates to the availability of state funds. As already noted, mass transportation has already been ~eclared to be a ,-, . public purpose in Georgia for which state funds might be made available, although not more than 10 percent of the cost of ·a local rapid transit system f l might be borne by the state. The General Assembly earlier . in 1967 appro - t ,_J priated a sum of $500,000 as a contribution· _a gainst the planning and other pre-operating expenses of MARTA. -12...__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,HAMM I A, g Ai ! NI, i I l i A A 8 I g O I A fl 1 · / �~ l I !I J r· [ I i r- The subsequent availability of the state money, of course, rests entirely with the legislature. It might be reasonable to expect, however, that the legislature will see fit to contribute the full 10 percent of the cost gf Metrgpglitan Atlanta's rapid transit system i£ and when it is apprgved by the voters. The precise way in which these state . funds might be made available is not yet clear -- through direct appropriations, through the channels of some existing authority, or in part through the donation of state-owned lands for transit rights-of-way -- but the strong public sentiment behind rapid transit in Atlanta should assure the state's maximum .par- l 1 L. . ticipation. For purposes of fiscal planning, therefore, it might be assumed that as much as $33,000,000 will be made available against the totai capital cost of the 30-mile basic system in Metropolitan Atlanta. Assuming that Federal and state funds are made available as indicatedr, the local share of the basic system would be approximately $199,000,000 and the distribution of capital costs by sources would be as follows: ,- Amount Local State Federal Percent $199,000.,000 33,000,000 100,000,000 ··, $332,000,000 59.9% 10.0 30.1 100.0% For planning purposes, it might be assumed that the Federal funds would be made available in four consecutive annual payments of $25,000,000 each. It might also be assumed that the state's contribution would be made available on a uniform basis, with the availability of these funds extending over the nine-year period of construction. LJ Of course, the pattern of availability may be different from that indicated here, but these might be taken as reasonable assumptions . Issuance of Local Bonds . Local funds would be made available in the -fonn of bonds issued as appropriate to meet the projected drawdown schedule . of const ruction cos t s · set up by the engineers. As provided in the MARTA ' r. -13H \M M I R• 8 AI I R I • 8 I Li A A 8 I OOI AT I 8 �I' -~ I ... I act these local bonds might be of two kinds: -1) " bonds issued by MARTA itself based upon the local governments' unde!writing the payment of principal and interest; and 2) general obligation (GO) bonds issued oy th e lo ca l gov 0rnm€nts againet t hei r own bonding GapaG i tie s with th e pr oceeds turned over to MARTA in lump form. In either case, the funds would be made available to MARTA under contractual agreements with . the local government setting the relative shares of MARTA's total obligations to be assumed by each government, the . ceilings upon local obligations that might be stipulated, and other terms and conditions providing for maximum flexibility while protecturing the interests of local taxpayers. The final scheduling of local bond issues for the rapid transit system, of course, will undoubtedly be quite different from any preliminary fiscal palnning that might be done. r- The timing and dimensions of each issue (either of MARTA's bonds or of GO bonds issued for rapid transit by the governments directly) will involve many factors including the current status of the bond.. market, the scheduling of other local government issues and obligations, the actual amounts made available by state and Federal government at any one t. 'irne , ,m d . t' _ p.gss i·b1 . _e vana . 1,9ns i. n t h e dr aw down sc h edul e, ,.-. For preliminary planning purposes, however, the schedule of local pond .fund needs related to fund availability from other sources can be set up as follows for the projected 3O-mile basic syste~: 7 .I - 14 - . ( �( r Table 2. J' '-- POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CAPITAL FUNDS FOR THE 30-MILE RAP ID TRANSIT SYSTEM (000, 000) .-. . DrawdownY (cumul.) Federal ·'I I I 1969 1970 1971 .1972 1973 1974 1975 19,76 · 1977 $ 25 54 102 158 207 258 298 320 . 332 I ;- - ,. $ 25 25 25 25 ·$100 Availabilitt of Funds Loca l y Total Cumulative State $ 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 $33 . $ 25 35 50 50 30 9 -$199 $ 54 29 64 29 54 4. 54 . 34 10 -- $ 54 83 147' 176 230 234 288 322 332 $332 y Preliminary s chedule of needs fo r land purchase and cons t ruction establi shed by the engineers. · y MARTA revenue bonds supported by loca l government underwriting or general obligation bonds of local .governments issued f or rapid t rans it pur pose~. ·,. It is noted that t he above schedu le of f und availabi l i ty , as prelimi - ,~ narily set f orth, does not dir ectly match t he sch~dul e of f und needs. ' sets of fi gures are necessari l y t entative and pre limi nary and will be a l t ered .'. ,I I in the course of time. Both The development of such a bas e table is ne ces sary, however , in order to set the general dimensions of the financial impact of ,I MARTA operations upon the loca l governments. Bond issues are t enta tively sized and spaced t o meet anti cipated conditi9ns i n the bond market as well as provide the funds as needed . In pract ice, there may be more issues of small er sizes or f ewer i s su~s of larger si zes than indicated in this -pr eliminary t able . These pr ojected local bond issues must then be translated in terms of annual carryi ng charges f or whi ch t he obl igation would fal l upon the local governments under the.:sharing f ormula di scussed ear l ier. It is assumed that the local bonds (either MARTA revenue bonds or GO bonds of t he local govern- __, ments) would be 30-year issues. Despite contracts with the local governments - 15HAMM E A . 8A& E N& . 81L&R A88DDIAT l 8 �;,I . ! ... . J under which MARTA's issues would be underwritten with pledges of property tax levies to support the obligation, it is anticipated that MARTA's revenue bonds would carry a somewhat higher interest rate than general obligation bonds issued directly by the local government~. Bond advisors agree that a sp~ead of perhaps one~half of one percent should reasonably be assumed, In these calculations, therefore, the interest rate on the MARTA revenue bonds is set at 4½ percent and the rate on GO bonds at 4 percent per annum.• The annual cost of catrying rapid transit bonds issued at the · local level are shown in Table 3. Table 3. 1969 .. 1970 1971 1972 ANNUAL CARRYING CHARGES OF RAPID TRANSIT BONDS, ALTERNATIVE METHODS, METROPOLITAN ATLANTA Principal Amount of Bonds $ 25,000,000 35,000,000 ,· 1973 1974 so,000,000 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 50,000,000 30,000,000 9,000,000 1982 Total .Y " !' 1·· ....) $199, 000,000 Annual CostsY MARTA GO Issues Issues $ 1,.824,000 $ 1,720,000 1,824,0.00 1,720,000 . . 4,380, 000 4,127,000 4,380,000 4,127,000 8,030,000 7,5 67 ,000 ·7,725,000 7,279,000 11,376,000 10,719,000 13,137,000 12,378,000 13,792,000 12,995,000 13,180,000 12,419,000 13,180,000 12,419,000 12,569,000 11,843,000 12,206,000 11,501,000 12,099,000 11,400,000 (Level payments continuing until bonds are retired) $362,986,000 $342,020,000 Amortization (principal and interest) charges of all outstanding bonds for rapid transit under the two alternative methods of financi_ng MARTA's capital costs. -16NAMMlll,81111111,IILIII AIIOGIATII . ~ .l"f/.~. . ,I �---- r· --- --- ~ \ ·\ , - ,' ~ \ '1 ·~ "-. -- ~ . Jt is noted that the ·annual cost of servicing these bonds drops off after J977 (the date of the last issue) and declines to a level amount in 1982. This \ 'i s b~cause a sinking fund reserve is provided for in each of ·the first five . 1· years of each issue amounting to 20 percent per year, and at the end of five · · years each issue then reverts back to a level payment to maturity. In effect, I , / six years of payments are made in the first five years of .each issue, and the ,- ,· amortization period. is actually 29 instead of 30 years. The level payments after -1982 would continue through ~997 at which time they would 1 drop off .as the 1969 issue is retired and so on until all issues are paid off. ' Impact on Local Governments Clearly the assumpLion of an additional $199,000,000 worth ·of rapid transit bonds by the local governments would be a heavy additional burden. The full responsibility for financing the capital costs of the 30-mile basic system would fall upon Fulton and DeK.a lb counties, with Clayton and Gwinnett taking up their shares of the cost only if the system is extended outward to its full 52 miles. Il r A great deal of research has been undertaken to determine the future prospects for local government finance in the Metropolitan Atlanta area. Forecasts have beert made of future operating and capital needs of the local I L \ governments and of fut~re revenues from all existing sources. In addition, potential new revenue sources have been thoroughly researched. ,-, II L All local governments face a cost-revenue squeeze in the future. The range of public services being offered is· widening and the unit costs of providing these services is risi.n g. In Metropolitan Atl anta, the upward spiral of local government· costs in part reflects the area I s eme_rgence as a major. urban center where public service costs are generally higher because both the quality and quantity of local public services are clearly superior. The financi'al problems of the City of Atlanta are particularly acute. The heavy burdens of centxal city problems coupled with the less-than-propor-. tional increase in revenues from existing sources have resulted in real difficulties. Atlanta is not .unlike other major cities in this regard, however. · The spill-over of popuiation and industry into outlying areas,·the growing r I obsolescence of parts of the · central core, the increased co.ngestion of central \ -17r- �city a~tivity and the · growing demands for high-quality services commensurate with big city status have all been important factors in Atlanta's financial ~ difficulties. . . Local counties have been ai~ o impacted, and prospects are for much more serious financial pressures in the future. Although most of Fulton County's urban development is within the city limits of Atlanta, a major expansion of outlying population is forecast with a predictable increase in demand for services ·and facilities. I The costs of providing county-wide services such as health, welfare, and court activities are out-running the growth trends in reve nues. .i I 1: DeKalb County is basically a "municipal county" providing the full range of city services, and there will be pressures for future tax increases and new sources of revenue if first-class public services will continue to be provfcied. The outlying counties of Clayton and Gwinnett face the same. financial pressures that have already beset fast growing suburban counties in other large metropolitan areas. It is a fact of s_imple arithmetic ·that the local governments in Metropolitan Atlanta will need increases in existing tax rates (which means primarily the property tax) or completely new sources of revenue or both in the years · ahead. Efforts to get a sales tax for local governments in Georgia failed at the last session of the General Assembly but there will continue to b~ persistent pressures from the state's cities and urban counties . The local situation is by no means · .b leak, however . Although tax increases and new revenue sources are both indicated, two favorable factors are clearly present: 1) the area is rapidly increasing its income and wealth and hence its capacity to pay for expanded and improved public services; and 2) the present tax burden in the arE)a is not hign _compared with the tax load in other major ur ban cent er s . The locai area has undoubtedly reached its limits in ii•, certain t ypes_ of levi es but not in others . If the people of the area want more and bet t er loca l government services , they can afford them. ~Re liance on Pr opert y Tax Studies indicate that f inancing rapid transit 1n Metropo litan Atlant a wi ll clearly call for new revenue sources or addi t i ons to existing taxes. It would appear logica'i -- and it is hereby recommended -- that the local _ governments 1 support of MARTA's r apid transit system be achieved through an increase in the t ax on propert y. M A.M M I R , 8 .R I I N I , I I L & R A I I O Q I II T I I I I I .! �I, 't""" . I There are three basic reasons for this recommendation: L..., 1. The property tax is already available as a source. No additional legislation would be required to tap it for rapid transit financing. The local .governments will probably succeed in ~heir efforts to get additional sources of revenue in the days ahead -- a sales tax, a payroll tax, an income tax or some other new source -but the timing 1s uncertain and the need for a definite financial plan for rapid transit is immediate. 2. Even when n·ew sources of revenue · are made available to the local governments, the proceeds will be ·needed for other purposes apart from rapid transit -- expanded . -current operations of the governments and of the school systems. As already noted, studies demonstrate the need for new sources of revenue -whether or not property tax rates are raised for rapid transit or other purposes. I '-- r . L r- • I l.. r The property tax is not unduly burdensome on local taxpayers in Metropolitan Atlanta. The local property tax could be substantially .raised and still be safely within the margin of reasonableness and economic feasibility. 3. The contracts under which the local governments would underwrite the revenue bonds issued by MARTA (if that is the financing method that is adopted) might need to contain a pledge of a specific millage rate against local property if .the MARTA bonds are to find the most favorable market when offered for ·sale . . Bond advisors suggest that this pledge of a property tax levy might help to assure the proper market reception of these bonds at a moneysaving interest rate . . General obligation~-bonds issued by local governments i JI. behalf of MARTA, of course, would also be retired by property tax levies. ·, As already indicated, · there will be pressures for additional property tax increases even without rapid transit and even if brand- new sources of r evenue ar e made available . The fact remains , however , that the property t ax is t he most li ke l y sour ce of .funds for underwriting the cost of rapid t~ans i t·-- it is, as noted ,· an available. source and one with addi t ional capaciti es to produce . -- ' - 19.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _MAMMIR . 8RI _I Nl,11LIR AIIOOIATII ,· �I I Ii • I I r I I I I Ii The decision, of co-qrse, · is the people's, 11· . The. law e·s tablishing MARTA I ! and authorizing the participation of local governments clearly states that any proposed financing that would result in the levy of a new or increased tax on property must be submitted to a referendum of all qualified voters to determine "whether or not the· local government shoulcj. so obligate itself to I l ,. the extent of the dollar amount or amounts involved therein". I l This provision clearly enables the people to determine the level of priority that they woµld put upon rapid transit vis-a-vis other types of public services. i Some question might be raised as to whether the property tax is regressive-~ that is, whether it falls with disproportionate burden upon persons ,- i; I ·! ' with limited ability to pay. The point is arguable. In general,·most taxes are regressive except the carefully graduated income tax and this latter .--I I source is not lik~ly to become available for r~pid transit financing 1n Atlanta in the near future. The protection afforded low-income people by the $2,000 homestead exemption, the obvious correlation between income and property values (including rentals), and the high proportion of all property taxes paid by nonresidential prop~rties would all point to the .conclusion that the property tax is considerably less regressive on individuals than most forms of levy. ·_j The point about Metropolitan .Atlanta's relatively low property tax burden ·at the present time should be stressed. In 1964-65, Metropolitan Atlanta ranked 33rd out of the 38 largest metropolitan areas in the nation . . in p~r capita revenue to local governments from property sources. (The term "local governments" here includes all general governments, agencies, authorities, special districts, and school systems.) Atlanta's per capita l'oad was only 74 percent as great as the median for all the areas . Property' , \I. I' I I 1· ' revenue as a percent of revenue from local sources · and from all sources was-·· lower in Metropolitan Atlanta than the overall median. . ., These points are shown in the foll_owing comparisons: f f i [ · -2 0NAMMIR,8RIINl,llllR AIIQQIATII �t r iI A ,. •, 38 Largest Metropolitan Areas (Median) Metropolitan Atlanta y Per capita revenues to local governments _ from property sources $95.52 $129.94 Property revenue as percent of revenue · . from local sources · 59.6% 67.3% · Property revenue as percent of revenue from all sources 43.7% 48.6% y All local ·governments in Metropolitan Atlanta combined. It is recognized, of ·course, that the property tax already carries the main burden of 1ocal_ government financing in Metropolitan Atlanta (as in most local governments). Approximately three-fourths of the local government revenues of the two central counties -- Fulton and DeKalb -- are . r derived from property tax receipts • . Equally important, virtually the entire burden of local public aehool finuncing fall§ on the property tax, and school millage rates actually exceed those for general .government operations. The property . tax is a dependable and fast-growi_ng revenue source, however, and it can sustain additional responsibilities as well as remain the mainstay of county government and school financing. Under recent court rulings, counties in Georg'ia are required to carry all of their property tax assessments at approximately 40 percent of market value. _) Fulton County has just completed the revaluation of its assessment rolls to meet this requirement, with an accompanying downward adjustment , I • in the tax rate (miHage rate). DeKalb County has made no adjustment and the advice is that such an adjustment may not be nec~ssary inasmuch as assessments are already within the "tolerance limits" of the 40 percent figure. Both Clayton and Gwinnett counties already carry their assessments ' generally at the 40 percent level. \;, - 21 - . "' HAMMIA , IAl&Nl.lllEA AIIDOIAT I I l- ! . !I �( Financing th e Basic System As already stated, it is recommended that the basic 30-mile system be financed entirely by Fulton and DeKalb counties until the subsequent decision is made to extend the system out to its full 52-mile length. If and when the.full extension is undertaken, it is recommended that Clayton and Gwinnett counties participate_in the financing under arrangements that , I would enable them to pick up their pro rata share of the overall system, includirig the 30- mile :basic program. The recommended formula under which the capital cost of this basic system would be allocated between the two county governments has already been given. It is possible that an alternative formula might be considered that would break out the City of Atlanta as a separate jurisdiction for financing purposes, but it would appear more reasonable to proceed on the county basis. The rapid transit system clearly will extend beyond municipal boundaries and its implications will be felt over a broad area. Residents of the Ci,ty of Atlanta, of course, are also residents of .both Ful t 'on and ·, DeKalb counties and they would pay their proportionate share of county levies. Under a system of financing that utilizes the county property tax, the large commercial and inqustrial installati0ns s in ' the City of Atlanta ' would carry a major share of the overall burden . . As already noted, it is assumed that the local share of financing MARTA ' s c apital c o s t s on t h e 30- mi l e s ys t em would be $199,000,000 , plus i nt erest . · The f oll owing t able shows t hese re l at ive shares cost s .t he t wo count y governments would assume : Fulton Count y DeKalb County Total ,....., of Share of CaEi tal Costs .Amount of CaEital Costs (Pri ncipal) 73 . 5% . 26 .5 100 . 0% $146 , 265 , 000 52! 735, 000 $199, 000 , 000 local capital · · - 22MAMMIII.IAlllll,IILIA AIIOOIATII ! �A more detailed analysis will now be made of the year-by-year impact of rapid transit financing upon the two governments. This analysis will cover three alternat1ve approaches: 1) the financing of the system through the issuance of bonds by MARTA based upon payments from the local governments for bond amortization; 2) the issuance of general obligation (GO) bonds by the governments themselves with proceeds paid over to MARTA; and 3) a mixed system in which both methods might be employed. r Issuance of Bonds by MARTA r The method of contracting between the local governments and MARTA to produce funds with which the authority can meet annual carrying charge~ on its capital bond issues involves a straightforward procedure. To effectuate this plan, -voters would be asked to authorize the levying of the necessary · tax (millage) rates with ceilings as to both interest rates and the total amounts of funds to be raised. No local bond capacities would be involved I inasmuch as the bonds would be issued by MARTA rather than the local govern- ·· ments. The tax rate would be applied against the net rather than the gross tax digest, which means that it would be applicable to a taxpayer's assess~ ment after deduction of the homestead exemption of $2,000. Table 4 breaks down the share of MARTA's projected carrying charges (based upon the tentative schedule of bond issues set forth earlier) that would be indicated for each of the two ·central counties .in connection with the 30-mile system: -23- .J HAMMlll , IIIIIINl,llllll All8111ATII .. �'I r I Table 4. INDICATED COUNTY SHARES OF MARTA BOND CARRYING CHARGES, 30-MILE SYSTEM (in thousands of dollars) <~ 'Year ' !i . .., 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Total Indicated Shares Fulton DeKalb Countz: Countz 1,341 1,34! 3,219 3,219 5,902 5,678 8,361 9,656 10,137 Total Annual Cost '$ 483 $ 1,824 483 1,824 1,161 4,380 1,161 4,380 2,128 8,030 2,047 7,725 3,015 · 11,376 3,481 13,137 3·, 655 13,792 9,687 3,493 13,180 9,687 3, 493 13,180 9,238 3,331 12,569 8,971 3,235 12,206 8,893 3,206 12,099 (Level payments continuing until bonds are retired beginning in 1998) $ $266,795 $96,191 •" $362,986 As noted, relatively small payments would be required in the early years of construction of the transit system. MARTA's bond issues could be modest because of the initial availability of sizable Federal funds under the_ given assumption. Subsequently, however, the impact upon the local governments would be more substantial. ,.. Followi_ng is the s_c hedule of millage rates that would need to be levied _against the net property digests_ in each county· in order to meet the indi. cate_d payments set: forth in Table 4. One mill, it· should be noted, is equivalent to one-tenth of one percent,, · which can be translated in ~erms of $1.00 per $1,000 of assessed valuation . ( I . .) -241rlt,MMIA.8AIINl,IILIA AIIOOIATII �I .. I • Fulton DeKalb . ' 1969 1970 1971 •7 .7 1.6 . .4 .4 1972 LS 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 . 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 2.6 2.4 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 .9 .9 1.5 1.3 1.8 1.9 1.9 1. 7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 ' (Then continued reductions as tax digests increase and payments remain level) .. . Millage rates in this analysis have not been· calculated beyond 1983 because tax digest. projections have not been made. Continued digest in~ creases are anticipated · in each county, however. The projected digests.· for all four count ies betwe en 1~69 ang i~a3 ar~ givgn in Teblg S! It would b~ highly desirable to reschedule these l evies to provide mor·e substantial payments in the earlier years and l ower payments during the peak years between 1975 and 1978. It is recommended that an alternative schedule of taxes. might be considered, which would make possible a ceiling of only 3.0 mills in Fulton County in the peak years and a ceiling of 1. 6 mills in DeKalb County. This revised schedule would produce more funds in the earlier . years than would be needed if the MARTA bond p·r ogram set ·forth herein · is . . followed. · However, the cbnstruction cost schedule could be revised to make use of the ayailable funds in the early years, and . advance purchases of land with these additional funds .could possibly save a substantial amount of mon~y in face of rising land ·v alues .in the ij.rea, .. - 25 NAMMIR,IRllll,11,IR All 00IAYII 0 .., ' • r , ~ �. Table 5. Fulton 1969 1970. 1971. 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 b979 1980 1981 1982 · 1933 ,.z y I: I: •---• •-.,..-. .• . • ··.• I _; $2,010 $2,108 $2,210 $2,327 $2,448 $2,579 $2,720 $2,868 · $3,027 $3,200 $3,385 $3,580 $3,790 $4,013 $4 , 251 ' -·---, r-·- 1 r Gross Digest_!/ DeKalb Clayton $1,230 $1,312 $1,405 $1,503 $1,614 $1, 726 $1,850 $1,983 $2,127 $2,281 $2,451 $2,629 $2,819 $3,025 $3,261 $188 $202 $219 $236 $255 $275 $297 $321 $348 $378 $408 $443 $481 $522 $566 Gwinnett Fulton Net DigestY DeKalb Clayton $100 "$108 $117 $128 $138 $150 $163 $177 $194 $210 $228 $250 $273 $297 $323 $1,-855 $1,950 $2,049 $2,162 $2,279 $2,406 $2,543 $2,688 $2,842 $3,011 $3,192 $3,383 $3,589 $3,808 $4,043 $1,081 $1,158 $1,243 $1,335 $1,438 $1,545 $1,663 $1,791 $1,929 $2,078 $2,243 $2,416 $2,602 $2,804 · $3,035 $148 $160 $175 $189 $206 $223 $242 $265 $289 $317 $344 $377 · $413 $451 $493 ,--- 1 ·---7 . . :··- ·7 . Gwinnett $ 76 $ 82 $ 90 $100 $109 $120 $122 $145 $161 $176 $193 $213 $235 $258 $283 _ The assessed value of all real and personal property and utilities less old age e~emptions, taxed for support of general obligation bonds. 2/ The gross digest less homestead and personal prop erty exemptions, taxed for support of oper ations (including potential support ·of MARTA bonds). . ,-. . ~ ~- -- 1 PROjECTED PROPERIT TAX DIGESTS, LOCAL COUNTIES, 1969-83 .(In millions of dollars) D D -• ·7 - 26. -:-' ,, . , �.. . ,-,. I . ~e recommended schedule ~f county payments .and mill_age rates for MARTA bond finan·cing is set forth in Table 6. The peak year payments would · be substa~tially reduced under this schedule and the peak impact upon local taxpayers would be correspondingly less. r . Table 6. RECOMMENDED COUNTY PAYMENTS AND MILLAGE RATES, MARTA BOND ALTERNATIVES Millage Rates DeKalb Fulton Countl Countl I J '-- r I 1969 1970 1971 1972 · 1973 · 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 · 1983 ' i r· ! ,.. 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 -2 .5 2.5 . 3.0 3.0 3.0 . ·3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 · 2.3 2.2 Dollar Amounts (000) Fulton DeKalb County County · $2,783 2,925 4,098 4,324 5,698 6,015 7,629 8,064 8,526 9,033 9,576 8,459 8,973 8,893 8,893 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 .1.6 )1. 6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 i.1 1.1 (Subsequent reduction as tax digests continue to increase) ' . $1,081 1,158 1,367 1,489 2,054 2,169 2,751 2,907 3,074 3,257 3,453 3,048 3,235 3,206 3,206 (Then level annual payments to the retirement of bond issues beginning 1998) .. . ... This schedule ·of financi_ng would not involve heavy burdens upon the individual taxpayer (although most taxpayers probably would argue that all ' ..., ....> . additional taxes are burdensome). In the first two years of~MARTA's con-, ..._ -· construction, the owner of a $20,000 house in Fulton County would pay only . . ' ' $9.00 a year and the comparable pr operty owner in DeKalb County would pay · only $6.00 (assuming that assessments in both counties are at 40 percent of market value). In the years of peak t .a x impact p975-79), the burden upon I I - 27- _\ NAMMlll,81111•1.IILIII AII II OIATII -, . t' -· . ...... J l I . .\ �,-. I ' r1 I ..__ the average home owner in each county would still be modest, as shown in the following schedule: i Fulton DeKalb 3.0 1.6 L.. Maximum ·millage needed for MARTA borid financing . ! ,.__ Years of maximum rI Annual cost of maximum millage to owner of home with market value of: $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 L r 'I I <- . r- 1975-79 1975-79 ( $ 6.00 $12.00 $18.00 $24.00 $30.00 $ 3.20 $ 6.4.0 $ 9.60 $12.80 $16.00 ',- Commercial and industrial properties, of cour_s e, would pay a large part of the total bill (with the Federal government assuming a good part of the burden because local property taxes are deductible from Federal income taxes). Under the schedule of payments set forth above, most home owners in Fulton County would pay substantially less than one-tenth of one percent of the market . value of their property per year.for the construction of the rapid transit system each year, and the tax bite in DeKalb County would be about ...! half that Tate. This would be the burden only in the peak years when the millages levied for support of rapid transit would be at their maximu~_. _It is rec_o gnized, . of course, that. property already carries a substantial tax load locally (although, as pointed out earlier, Metropolitan Atlanta .) taxpayers pay considerably less on their property than most residents in large · urban areas). The present schedule of tax rates applicable in the City of Atlanta and Fulton and DeKalb counties is_ given in Table 7r (all ta'x~s for -, · ' , ( servicing . bonds are· levied on gross assessmen:ts without homestead exemptions, and all operati_ng millages except , those for Atlanta's schools are levied on .net assessments after exemptions). ' ' -28. NAMMlll.8Rll111,IILIR A81001Alll '--, ..'), .l . / �. ,-. Table 7. . rL._ PROPERTY TAX RATES, CITY OF ATLANTA, FULTON AND DEKALB COUNTIES, 1967 (In terms 0£ millage) Ins ide Atlanta Outside Atlanta. Operations Bonds Operations Bonds City of Atlanta: General government Schools ' '-- .r ! L. Total Fulton County: General · government. Schools 10.50 22.00 3.50 ]j 32.50 3.50 14.84 1.25 ?:J · 1.56 16 . 09 . Total ,,I 14.84 2/ '20.25 1.56 4.75 -- 1.56 35.09 6.31 8.45 2/ 2.00 9.75 2/ 18.00 2.00 4.00 8.45 2.00 27.50 6.00 r· I· ' DeKalb County: General government. Schools Total y Includes bond service charges for both general government and schools. · y Includes .25 mills for state . Atlanta t axpayers, of course, pay both city and county t axes . However , t he city assessment s are lower than. those of the county's (r eal property, for example , i s assessed at only 35 percent of market value in the city compared with a presumed · 40 percent in the counties). r' J Financing by GO. Bonds The pr ocess of issuing gene r al obligation (GO) bonds which are r etired by l evies agains t assessed valuation of pr operty is the conventionalr. method of r ai s i ng capital funds by local government s. In Georgia a vote of the ~-· pe':>ple is required on: all gener al ob ligation bond i ssues . Count i es operate. under a constituti9nal limitation that pl ace s a cei l i ng upon the amount of GO bonds outstanding at seven percent of the .gr oss property dig'est (calculated without deductions for homestead and personal prpperty exemptions) . .. -29. ' NAMMIR.tRIINl,llllR .,,aa, ·a,11 ~ - - �There would be s ome advant age to the use of GO bonds by Fulton and DeKalb counties in meeting the counties' obligations for MARTA's capital cost. These bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of local governments and (as already noted) usua lly carry a lower interest rate than bonds issued by special authorities. On the other hand , there are some potential disadvantages to the GO method for r ap id transit financing: 1. The GO borids issued by local governments for rapid transit would have to be charged up against the bond capacities of each government. This simply means that rapid transit would be competing directly with streets, schools, parks, water, sewer and other public needs for capital funds. Although both Fulton and DeKalb counties have excess capacities at the present time, both have large backlogs of cap ital ne eds . The amounts of capacity available for rapid transit will not be large enough to cover all of the projected requirements for transit and al l other purposes, as discuss ed l ater. 2. It might be difficult to schedule the issuance of GO bonds to meet the full requirements of the MARTA drawdown schedule , if the GO route is exclusively used f or transit fi nancing, rapid transit bond needs would prob ab ly have to be considered as part of larger public issues covering a variety of other local government needs . There is an understandable rel uctance of government leaders to go to the people with propos a ls for GO bond issues too frequently. Moreover , it would be difficult if not impossibl e to make a commitment with MARTA ahead of time that vot ers at a f uture date would approve subsequent Gb bond issues for rapid transit. In l ight of the size of rapid transit requirements, it would not be possible to meet all of these needs through a single GO bond issue, and this would require subsequent votes by the people for which no prior commitment could be made in the MARTA contract. MARTA does not, of course, have taxing power of its own. If it were abl e to levy its own tax on property within the rapid transit district, its bond issues would have the status of GO bonds . This is a method utili zed in San Francisco for the Bay Area Rapid Transit System. Locally, if GO bonds are issued, they must be issues of the local government. -30HAMMEA . OA EEN E. BllEA ABBOOIATEQ . �Available Bond Capacities. With its property assessments now pegged at · 40 percent of market value, Fulton County has a bonding capacity, over and above outstanding issues, totaling more than $80,000,000 •. The combination of annual bond retirements and increased ·values in the tax digest will add . .L capacity at a rate of about $3,000,000 per year:; which means an additional $30,000,000 in capacity over the next 10 years (during the time that MARTA would be needing funds for construction purpos·es). However, Fulton County has a range of capital _improvement needs that must be met by additional GO bond issues in the immediate future. Perhaps ·as much as $60,000,000 or ·r $70,000,000 could be made available from Fulton's bond capacity for rapid transit purposes over the next decade. This would re~resent about one-half of the county's po~ential obligation to MARTA. DeKalb County currently has unused bonding capacity of about $30,000,000 ' r1 - ' and is increasing its capacity by about $2,500,000 per year, which would add another $25,000,000 over the next 10 years. Hqwever, DeKalb al.s o has a range of pressing capital improvement needs coming up iri the near future. As much as $25,DOO,OOO might possibly be made available for rapid transit . purposes, which again would give about half the . amount that MARTA would need from this county. ' It is possible t hat the courts, ruling on cases now before them, might hold that all propert y in Geor gia must go on the assessment rolls at 100 per cent of market value, as specifically stipulated by state law . If this happens, t he bonding capacities of Fulton and DeKalb counties would be ._mor e t han doubled and t here would be ample c.apaci ties for fully financing r apid transit as well as meeting _o t her capit al improvement needs. ~· _;, As already not _ed , GO bond financing can save money- through a reduction i n the interest rat e . However, th e t ax r at e levied fo r the servici_ng · of and this · GO b~nds is applie d agains t t he gr oss r at her t han t he. net ~i ges t ·means that the homestead exemption is not applicable. The owner of a low or modestly priced house ~ight . pay -more tax on his_ gro~s assessment with a lower millage rate than ·he would if the homestead exemption applied but the mill_a ge '\ -31 / NAMMIR , I R l l l l , IILIR AIIOO I A T II �r ' ..' rate was higher. Commercial properties, on the. other hand·, do not_ get the ·benefit of homestead exemption and would pay ·1 ess tax under GO financi.ng with its lower millage rate than under MARTA financi_ng : Table 8 sets forth the co{inty payments and recommended mill.age rates · if GO bond financing is utilized for rapid transit •. ._Again it is s.u.ggested that higher tax rates be established in the earlier years than actually re- quired, in order to reduce the J eak loads in later ·years. l , I Table 8, . RECOMMENDED COUNTY PAYMENTS AND MILLAGE RATES, GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ALTERNATIVE . I Millage Rates Fulton DeKalb Countl . Countl 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 .1978 1979 19,80 1981 1982 1983 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2,5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2 .3 · 2.1 2.0 1.9 Dollar Amounts (000) Fulton DeKalb ·County . County 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.3 $3 ,.015 3,162 4,420 4,654 . 6,120 6,448 6,800 $1,230 1,312 1,545 1,653 2,260 2,416 2,452 1.3 7,170 2,585 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 .9 7,568 8,000 S,124 .. B, 234 7,959 8,026 8,076 2,729 2,884 2,929 2,968 2,870 2,894 . 2, 912 (Subsequent reductions a.s tax digests continue _ to increase) " .-·· < (Then level annual payments to the retirement of bond issues beginning in 1998) · · Assuming the lower interest rates on GO bonds, the peak mill_a ge requir~ments under GO financing ~w?uld be lower than those required to underwrite .MARTA bond issues.. This is true both because the overall financing cost is ' .- lower and because the gross rather _than the net digest is used . As already J ( -· -32...,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , HAMM IR. 8 R 11 NI. I I L I R A I IGO I AT I I 0 �.,, r · 'I mention~d, the ;reduced millage rate does not necessarily produce a lower tax for the residential taxpayer inasmuch as the homestead exemption_ is not Ir- applicable. Following are representative figures on the tax impact of. the maximum millage under GO bond financing, and these figures might be compared with the earlier figures for servicing MARTA revenue bonds: DeKalb . Fulton . i Maximum millage ·needed for GO borid financing Years of maximum 2.5 1.4 1973-78 1973-74 Annual cost of maximum millage t~ owner of home with market value of: $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25,00 $30.00 $ 5.60 $ 8.40 $11. 20 $14.00 $16.80 ' ·-' Recommended: ,: The Combination Approach It is recommended that both methods of financing be employed by the local · . governments in ·meeting their obligations to MARTA for constructing the rapid transit system -- the collection of property taxes to support the issuance · of MARTA bonds plus the issuance of general obligation bonds by the governments themselves. Voter approval could be sought for an overall dollar commitment to MARTA · authorizing the_ governing bodies to use either or both methods to meet this commitment. It would seem clear that the act establ:i.shing MARTA recognized this possibility by stating: --, "A local government may elect any method provided in this section t o fiRa4'1:ce the participation required of it in whole or in part, and the election of one me_thod shall not preclude the election of another method with respect thereto or wi_th respect to ariy additional or supplementary participation determined to be necessary.II -33.....) HAMMlll.iRIINI.IILIR AIIOOIATII \I ( I �\ / r Th.ere would be a numb~r of dist_inct advantages to both Fulton and DeKalb ·counties in employing both methods. I '- - ,-- . 1 . .., I • L_ .~ ! • It would make possible the use of GO bond capacity whenever available with the consequent savi_ng in interest charges but it would not demand too much of that capacity in competition with other capital improvement needs. It would give each government greater flexibility in handling its financing programs. Items for rapid transit could be included within the schedule of purposes for larger GO bon_d ·issues when the timing -o f these issues fits into .t he MARTA drawdown schedule • If by chance a total GO bond issue fails (or voter approval is not received for the specific mass transit item in the bond schedule submitted to the public), the county would be in a position to utilize its alternate authority to levy a millage rate for underwriting bonds issued by MARTA itself. Both the governments and MARTA would be in a better position to take advantage of favorable conditions in the bond market for either type of issue. Moreover, t his type of flexi ble financing policy might be eas i er to · explain to the public and to obtain public approval . The pr oposition to be submitted at a public referendum could stipulate a maximum dollar commitment for rapid transit that would be provided in the contr acts between the governl , . ments and MARTA, such funds to be obtai ned either through general obligation bonds or through a property tax pledge to underwrite MARTA bonds, and a ceiling could be es tablished on t he amount of principal and_i nterest to be paid. The people wouid, of course, r etain the right to vote on the GO bonds but t he i nitial approval of t he propos i tion by public r ef erendum would give government leaders -t he di scretion as t o whi ch r oute to f ollow in meet i ng t he . contractual commitments to MARTA, ....... Another important advant _age would be the _opportuni t y offer ed to obtain some of t he funds needed wi t hout an increase in t he current tax rate. Upon approval of the voters, GO_bonds are frequently issued without incurri_ng a . tax raise simply because ·the retirement of outs tandi_n~ i ssues and the increase in the property tax digest makes it possible to absorb additional service charges within existi_ng effective rates. i ·- -34HA M M I II. 8 II I Ii N l . I I L Ii II A I 8 0 o·I AT Ii 8 �. I I~ is possible that a substantial amount of both governments I • ( . commitments to MARTA might be met with little or no tax raise under· such favorable circumstances. For example, Fulton County's share of the $25,000,000 tentatively scheduled as needed by MARTA from the local governments in 1969 would call for an annual servicing charge on GO bonds during the first five years (when sinkj .. •. I ing funds are built up) of about $1,261,000. This would represent only .6 of a mill on the gross tax digest, which might well he absorbed within the cm:rent bond servicing millage in that year. DeKalb's share of the same issue would cost $455,000 per year in the first five years, which would represent · _o nly . • 3 . . of a mill in 1969 and less thereafter as the tax digest increases. Again, in 1971, Fulton's share of the $35,000,000 MARTA requirement could be handled through a GO bond which would represent only. one mill on the 1971 .... digest, and DeKalb's share in the same issue would represent only .5 of a mill. Depending on other financia l transactions at the time, these charges might well be covered all or in part by bond tax levies already outstanding. It is strongly recommended that MARTA propose to the local governments that both methods of financing be used in meeting the financial commitments for rapid transit. This recommendation is a .corollary to the earlier one that the property tax should be the exclusive source of funds for thi s purpose. . ~ It is not possible, of course, to make any precise estimate of the tax rate implications of a combination approach. Certainly the tax impact would be less than that shown for the MARTA bond route, and it could be even less t han that for. GO bond fin ancing on the .strai ght- line basis shown i n Table 8. Prospec·t s for Full System The f ull 52-mi l e system would co ~t $479,000,000 . It would r each deep i nto Clayt on and Gwinnett counties and woul d .a lso have a considerabl y br oader · / coverage of the Atlant a-Fult on- DeKalb area. As suming that t he 30-mile sys t em is well underway with $100 , 000 , 000 in Federal funds availabl~, t he ·ques tion i s how much additional Federal _money would be required to move directly into the 52-mile program without greatly - 35 H AM M I R,8R 11 N i ,8 I L I R A 8800IA TII \ �r- . I ': increasing the local outlay (in total or on an annual basis). If in 1972 or 1973 it would become clear that another $50,000,000 in Federal funds would be made available, this would not be enough to support the 52-mile total system without a heavy increase in the _local load . . However, if it ·1- becomes clear that ·a total of $200,000,000 in. Federal funds might be made available -- an additional $100,000,000 over and above the same amount already ._ made available for the 30-mile system -- the local share would not be much., greater for the 52-mile system than for the 30-mile system. . ~-- overall breakdown: r I ~ Amount (000,000) . Local State Federal .I I Here is th~ - Percent $231 48 200 48.2% 10.0 41.8 $479 100.0% This is not an improbable assumption if Federal funds ever do break loose on a larger scale than at present. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, it is estimated that at least .$500,000,000 a year will eventually be needed on a regular basis to meet U.S. metropolitan transit needs rather than the $200,000,000 level currently projected for the 1969 and 1970 fiscal years • . MARTA's share in 1973 and thereafter could run as high as $50,000,000 or $60,~00,000 a year . . The availability of $200,000,000 in Federal funds could support _the 52mile system with an overall outlay for the two central governments only slightly higher than the 30 - mile requirement. All four county governments would now share the totals , with the following distribution of the burden based on the formu l a presented earlier : -36HAMMIR,8Rlllll , 8tLIA A8BDGtATl8 .J .. ! �.- . / 30-Mile System (000,000) Fulton County DeKalb County Clayton County Gwiimet t County '--·' 52-Mile System (000,000) $146.3 52.7 $154.1 55.7 13.6 7.6 $199.0 $231. 0 ,-. It is assumed on a preliminary basis that ', 'fhe 52-mile system would call I L for at least seven MARTA bond issues compared with the six that might b_e scheduled for the 30-mile system. In Table 9, the bond i _ssue and carrying charge schedules of the two systems are compared • . (The· MARTA rather than .. (' ,.. the GO bond schedule is used as a base.) Table 9. I ·- ' COMPARISON OF LOCAL COSTS, 30-MILEAND 52-MILE SYSTEMS IN SEgUENCE (000) Bond Issues 30-Mile 52-Mile ,- ' r I • i.. . 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 · 1983 1984 1985 Total $ 25,000 · $ 25,000 35,000 ·35,000 50,000 40,000 50,000 30,000 9,000 40,000 .. $199,000 40,000 30,000 . . 21,000 $231,000 Carrying Charges 30-Mile 52-Mile $ 1,824 $ 1,824 1,824 1,824 4,380 4,380 . 4,380 4,380 8,030 7,296 7,725 6,994 11,376 9,907 13,I3:Z 9,481 13,792 12,397 13,180 11,913 13,180 14,100 12,569 15,150 12,206 15,150 12,099 . 14,665 12,099 14,665 12,099 14,302 12,099 14,046 (Level payments continuing until bonds are retired) $362,986 $421,355 - 37MAMMIR,8RIINI.IILIR A IIOO I ATII �'\ / The reason for the lower local requirements for the 52-mile system in the 1973-76 period, of course, i s the projected availabil i ty of $100,000,000 more in Federal money. This fact, plus the sharing of the local cost by four i ~stead of two gover nments ~ woul d produ ce actually a l ower demand upon Fulton and DeKalb for the lar ger syst em in a number of years . The necessary millage rates are shown in Table 10 through 1983 . Table· 10 . COMPARATIVE . MILLAGE RATES NEEDED TO SUPPORT 30-MILE AND 52-MI LE SYSTEMS · System--: 1/ 30-Mile Fulton DeKalb I · Fult on 21 52-Mile System==' DeKalb Clayt on Gwi nnett . ..___, ( I...... r ,_ I 1969 1970 ~971 1972 1.5 · 1.5 2.0 2 .0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1. 1 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1. 1 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 2 .5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3 .0 3. 0 3 .0 2. 5 2.5 2.3 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1. 6 LS 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 2. 0 2.0. 2. 5 2.5 3.0 3 .0 2. 8 2.8 2.6 ,2 . 4 1. 1 1. 1 1. 4 1. 4 1.6 1.6 1. 4 1.4 1.3 1. 2 1.1 1983 f I -- ~-· 2. 3 1. 5 1.5 1. 5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1. 5 1.5 . 1·. .5 1. 5 1. 5 1.5 1. 5 1.5 1.5 1. 5 1.5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 y From Table 6. Assumes $100 , 000 , 000 in . Federal and $33, 000 , 000 i n state funds. 2/ Assumes $2 00 , 000, 000 in Federal and $48 , 000 , 000 in state f unds . .. All of the indicated millage rates would drop after 1983 -- for all governments. Although estimates are not available because tax digests have not been forecast b_eyond that year, the rates would drop because bond service charges. would remain constant and property digests would continue to rise. ,7 _, -38MAMMIR , IRIINI.IILIR AIIOQIATII ...• �,....... I I L !.i !. I I Until the decision is made to go to the 52-mile system, Clayton and Gwinnett counties would not be involved. In order to keep a ceiling on the cost of the system to these governments after they are brought into the ,....... · picutre (assumed to be in 1973), their participation is c~lculated at a low:er rate up to 1983 than their ultimate share of ~he total cost would indicate. This simply means a deferral of the main impact on these outlying governments L__ until the system is actually in operation and their tax base more able to handle · the burden. . I.- Even so, the peak impact would ' never exceed the 1.·s mills shown in Table 9 . \ Full Availability of Federal Funds / L The assumptions in this report about the potential availability of Federal funds for Metr9politan Atlanta's rapid transit system are admittedly conservative. The basic idea is that when local voters are asked to approve or dis- approve the financial plan (presumably in 1968), it will not be realistically possible to anticipate any more Federal money than the $100,000,000 that is r assumed. The voters would be asked to make a "do-it-yourself" commitment based on only a one-third share for the Federal government. · However, it is possible once the system gets under construction follow- ing this local commitment -- that as much as two-thirds of the total cost might eventually be carried· by Federal funds . Rapid transit undoubtedly will continue to have a high domestic priority and Atlanta would be in the forefront of eligible metropolitan areas. A resurgence of domestic programs following a major improvement in the . international situation could spring loose the necessary .funds. Under this assumption, MARTA could receive as much . as $3 00,000,000 in Federal money. Applied to the 52-mile system, this could mean a reduction . of $1 00,000,000 in cost to the four counties from $231,000,000 to $131,000,000. Such a reduction would result in a sharp cut in the millage rates on property need~d to retire local bonds. -39HAMMIR,&R&INI.IILIR A&IQGIAT&I .. �r . ., ,. ,,·. Assuming that the_ local fin~ncing requirements would not · be altered ' in the first four years of the construction program (1969-72) but that these large-scale Federal funds might become available after that period, the peak millage rate in any year thereafter ts shown below for each of the governments. L r1 · Using MARTA Bonds Using: GO Bonds 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 I L Fulton DeKalb Clayton . Gwinnett .7 1.0 1.0 A Note on Atlanta The option does exist, of course, of recasting the local financing program for rapid transit to include the City of Atlanta as a participating ·' L- government along with the four counties~ The only ~legal stipulation is that the county governments cannot levy a tax for rapid transit purposes on any subject of taxation .within the city if the ci~y also has a contrict with MARTA and is itself "using its public funds or levying a tax" for '-- that purpose. Under the allocation formula described earlier, the shares of the local capital costs of -MARTA to be assumed by the local governments would be as follows: J City of Atlanta Fulton County 1/ DeKalb County 1/ Clayton County.Gwinnett County Total y I 56.7% 12.0 22.1 5.9 3.3 100.0% Excluding the portion lying within the city limits of Atlanta. -40H AMMI R.0A i1Nl.8Il1 R a aao o1 'ATl8 ' ( �) ,- ' As noted earlier, it was considered more reasonable in this report to develop the financing formula on a county basis without the city's independent participation. Inasmuch as the rapid transit system would serve the entire metropolitan area and would extend far beyond the boundaries of municipalities therein, it would appear logical to utilize the governmental bodies covering the widest geographical areas -- namely, the counties. residents and _t axpayers are also county residents and taxpayers; r- j I '-- City about 80 percent of Ful to·n County's property digest in 1966, for example, lay within Atlanta's city limits. The h~avy concentrations of commercial and industrial properties within the city (such as the massive buiiding complex in Downtown . '......, Atlanta) are reached as surely by county taxes as by city taxes and carry overwhelmingly the_ greatest burden of property taxation regardless of the channels ,- - , I through which the taxes are collected. (In 1965 in the City of Atlanta industrial and commercial property accounted· for the great majority of the taxable digest--.' about _80 percent:--with single family homes accounting for ~nly 20 percent.) There are other considerations. The city of Atlanta as a government faces a more serious financial problem than that faced by the counties. It has been forced to seek an ever-widening range of new revenue sources to supplement the property tax (which now accounts for only one-fourth of its revenue). · "It has immediate pressures on its operating budgets as well as a tremendous backlog of capital improvements calling for its entire GO bonding capacity as well as expanded r~venue financing. Its relatively small depe.ndence on the property tax is no proper justification for using city rather than county channels for a rapid transit levy on that source -- the fact that the same city property is already the main support of the county (and school) financial systems is one of the main reasons why the city has turned to other sources of reve~mes. Clearly the county governments also face heavy financial pressures which is simply sayi_ng that all local governments, in Metropolitan Atlanta as elsewhere, are in need of additional funds. The facts .remain, however, that.the counties cover the broadest areas, embrac~ city as well as ,· -:-410 HAM MIA ,8A IIN&.8IL&A Ai88DIATl8 ' 0 00 �.. r . l r r suburban taxpayers, enjoy faster rates of overall growth, and have some measure of excess general obligati on bonding capacity essential to a flexible system of rapid transit financing. I Still, it would be f.easible to approach MARTA' s financing on the basis of city as well as county participation. \ . The taxpayers in outlying portions. of Fulton County would undoubtedly get a break under this system (although - I i....... there would probably be little differences in DeKalb County). To be equitable, there would probably have to be a number of different tax rates in Fulton County outside Atlanta taxpayers in the Tri-Cities area of South Fulton, for example, would be directly served by transit and should be expected to pay as much as taxpayers across the line in Atlanta. r The same might be true of near-:-in residents of North Fulton with ea·sy access to transit stations. The ,situation -could get complicated, but it would not be impossible to work out. The objective, of course, 11.u st bet~ produce a fair and equitable financing_method· that would provide the greatest good for the great.est number. The basic point is that rapid transit is an essential metropolitan funct ion and i ts support must come .from the metropolitan community as a I L whole . _j -42H A M M I R • 0 R_I E N I , 8 I l I R A 11 8 O Q I A T & 8 · �WILLIAM A . SUTHERLAND MAC ASB ILL .JOSEPH B . BRENNAN LAURENS WILLIAMS HERBERT R . ELS AS R A NDOLPH W. THROWER EDWARD .J . SCHMUCK JAMES H . WILSON. JR . MAC ASBILL , JR . KENNETH H. LILES WILLIAM R . PATTERSON WILLIS B . SNELL :t J A MES V . HEFFERNAN :t 0 . ROBERT CUMMING, JR . JAMES P . GROTON MICHAEL .J. EGAN , JR . GEORGE L. COHEN JEROME B . LIBIN :t ROBERT M. ROY ALTY N . JEROLD COHEN WILLIAM M . HAMES LOR A N A . JOHNSON CL.AV C . LONG THOMAS A. LAMAR . JR. JAMES R . PAULK , JR. JERRY D . W ILLIAMS 'f B A RRETT K . HAWKS WALTER H . WINGF I ELD ROBERT L. BROWN ROBERT E . .JENSEN * <:;. RONALD ELLINGTON LAW O FF' I CE S O F' SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN f"ARRAGUT BLOG.,9 00- 17 !?' ST. , N .W• WASHINGTON, O . C . 20006 ( 202 ) 296 -4 800 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BLDG . ATLAN T A,GEORG1A 30303 ( 404) 522-1600 MADISON RICHARDSON WILLIAM T . PLU~MB,JR .* SPECIAL COUNSEL ATLANTA MEMBER 0 . C . BAR, NOT GA. BAR December 26, 1967 Mr. G. Everett Millican City H ll Atiant, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Millican: I have rece1¥ d a copy ot resolution intr~uced by you and approved by the Board of Aldermen regarding the Metropolit n Atiant Rap-id Transit Authority. The re olution states that the passoge ot Senate Bill lll "may be at variru,.ce with the d sire and i bee ot the City o't Atlanta as expressed by the Board of Aldermen. 0 'lhe resolution asks th t all bills regarding MARTA be hmish d to the Mrqor and Board ot Aldermen ror an expression ot opinion. Since th re olution indicat only that th Alderm n '1mq be 11 opposed to Senat Bill 111; I voUld appreciate it it you would let e know as aoon as poseibl, pre:terably betore th l gialature b gins, wheth r or not the Board ot Aldermen is in opposition to the passage ot &mat _ Bill 111 and; it ao, your reasona tor such oppo 1t1on. With beat wishe -ror the HolidO¥ Sea on, SJ.Dcerely your, (Sgd.) MJE/HSM CC= Me.yor Iv Allen V--Mr. JU.chard. Rieb Stell Huie, la<;uire Michael J. Egan, Jr. �HUIE AND HARLAND ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW FULTON FEDERAL BUILDING ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 W . STELL HUIE TELEPHONE 522-1641 JAMES R . HARLAND, JR. HARRY L . CASHIN , JR . TOM WATSON BROWN RUFUS A . CHAMBERS TERRILL A . PARKER JAMES H . MORGAN , JR . December 20, 1967 Chairman, Clayton County Commission Chairman, DeKalb County Commission Chairman, Fulton County Commission Chairman, Gwinnett County Commission Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. Gentlemen: Mr. Aldredge, Chairman of the Fulton County Commission, has indicated a desire, in which I believe all of you concur, that representatives of the governments participating in MARTA meet to discuss the proposed legislative changes. Of course, we with MARTA heartily welcome such a meeting as the communications problem seems to become more increasingly difficult. Mr. Aldredge has indicated that he will be in touch with you shortly after Christmas with regard to such a meeting. We look forward to seeing you or your representatives at that time. Wishing for each of you, your families, and your associates, a Merry Christmas, we are Very truly yours, ) WSH/jlt �HUIE AN D HARLAN D ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW FULTON FEDERAL BUILDING ATLANTA. G EO RGIA 3 0 3 0 3 TELEPHONE W . STELL HUIE 522-1641 JAMES R . HARLAND, JR. HARRY L. CASHIN, JR. TOM WATSON BROWN RUFUS A . CHAMBERS TERRILL A . PARKER D ecember 1 9 , 1967 JAMEsH .MO RGAN , JR . The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, G eorgia 30303 D ear Mayor Allen: Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed Bill to implement the legislative program of MARTA. As we have previously indicated, we would like the concurrence of all of the particip ating governments in these suggested changes, and will, of course, not seek to have passed any of those on which the governments cannot agree. This is also true with respect to Senate Bill 1 1 1 which is presently in the House Local Affairs Committee. We have previously furnished copies of the proposed legis lation to Messrs. Earl Landers and Charles Dav is and have discussed the matter with Messrs. Charles Lokey and Jack Dougherty of the City Attorney's office. By a copy of this letter to e ach of the City Attorne ys we are furnishing them a c opy of same. W e are also furnishing a copy to Mr. Hugh Pierce and Mr. H en ry Bowden. Very truly yours, ,I )(<)-39; .:~/Jt/. . .~, HUIE AND,:tARLA~D /) W SH/ jlt Encl. cc : Mr . Mr. Mr . Mr . Hugh Pierce Henry Bow den Charles Lokey Jack Dougherty Stell Huie / ..... J �HUIE AND HARLAND The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Page 2 December 19, 1967 P.S. For your information, also enclosed please find a copy of S.B. 111 as passed by the Senate with an additional sugg e stion added. �MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-SECOND MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY DECEMBER 5, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on December 5, 1967, at 3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillan (Gwinnett County) L. D. Milton (City of Atl a nta) Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT: Edgar Blalock (Clayton County) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manager King Elliott, Public Information Director Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager Glenn E . Bennett, Secretary Consultants W. O. Salter, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, San Francisco J . A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor-Bechtel, Atlanta R. W. Gustafson, Supervising Engineer, Parsons, Brincker hoff-Tudor-Bechtel, Atlanta Jacques Labourer , Eric Hill Associates Tom Watson Brown, Huie and Harland \ �Others Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council Mrs. Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMi llon, the minutes of the November meeting were unanimously approveq . Financial Report Mr. Stuart presented the November 30th budget report and said most items were as projected. There were no questions and the report was accepted. Report of General Manager Mr. Stuart said the Georgia Society o f Professional Engineer s had pass e d a resolution e ndorsing the tran s it project, and expressing a desir e to e stablish a spe aker s bureau. Mr . Stuart reported on a recent trip to Louisville, to contact officials of the L. & N. Railroad and present deta ils of the transit plan. He said the new lease for the A. & W. P. Railroad contained spec if ic refer e nce as to how rapid transit should be rou ted thr ough t h e a r ea t o th e wes t o f Un i on Sta t ion. The General Manager said meetings had been held with railroads, planning groups, municipal officials, and with Fu l ton, DeKalb, and Gwinnett County Commissioners. The proposed legislative p r o gr am had been discuss e d wi th member s o f the Hou se a nd Sena t e f r om the fou r count ies . He planne d a tr ip t o Washington to d iscu ss the 1968 l egislativ e pro gram wi th Representatives Blackbur n and Thomps o n. Mr. Stuart me nt i oned a vis it on Nov e mber 28, f rom Mr. Carl Hi ll , a n assis tan t to Mr. Char l es Ha ar of HUD in Wash ington . Mr. Hill h ad been s hown the plans and reviewed progress in the design field. - 2 - �Mr. Stuart said he and Mr. Bennett would appear before the Fulton County Grand Jury on December 12. (Subsequently, Mr. Haverty was substituted for Mr. Stuart.) Mr. Rich had testified before the Rainey Sub-Committee of the Georgia House of Representatives on November 30, and requested Mr. Stuart to send a copy of his testimony to the Board members. Reports by Consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel Mr. John Coil reported that the 701 report had been distributed, and the popular summary version would be r .eady for distribution within one week. He said the engineers were continuing to update the plan and resolve questions with governments. He had been encouraged by responses from the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and by the L. & N. Railroad. Corridor Impact Study Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr . , Planning Director for ARMPC, commented on the corridor impact study. He said the study was designed to examine potentials. Examples had been looked at, such as outlying stations, but most of the work had been done on developed sections of the lines. Mr. Wingfield said many of the ideas would depend upon the initiative of the elected officials to do early work so MARTA could take advantage of opportunities . He stressed that this study was not totally a "MARTA study," but pointed up the opportunities for local governments to act . Contract between Georgia Department of Industry & Trade and MARTA Copies of a proposed contract between MARTA and the Georgia Department of Industry & Trade were distributed for considera tion. The State of Georgia had appropriated $500 , 000 per y ea r to MARTA, and the Department of Industry & Trade had been de s ig nated the agency who would disburse these funds . Th e cont r act p r o v ided for appropriations to be paid quarterly in adv ance , an d provided that such funds could be used fo r direct or indire c t costs , including debt service , administr ation , operating , plan n i ng, desig n i n g , finishing , r ight -of-wa y acq uisition , and r olli ng s t oc k. - 3 - �The contract provided further that the State could appropriate real estate, in lieu of cash. It also gave the State a reversionary interest in the property of the Authority, in the same proportion as the State 1 s appropriation to MARTA. The contract required an annual audit of the books of MARTA to be sent to the State. The contract was for 50 years, and would cover subsequent appropriations as - they were made. After discussion of the contract prov isions, the following resolution was presented: BE IT RESOLVED that Henry L. Stuar t, General Manager, and Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary, be and hereby are authorized and directed to execute on behalf of this Authority a contract substantially in the form as presented to this Board, subject to approval o f counsel, with the State of Georgia, by and through its Depa rtment of Industry & Trade, for the t ra nsfe r and p a yment to thi s Author i t y o f funds appropriated and to be appropriated by the Legislature and Governor of Georgia for the purposes of this Authority; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED t ha t said General Manager a nd Secr e tar y b e and h e r e by a r e a uthoriz ed a nd d i rected t o execu te any and a l l f u rth er d o cuments as may be reasonably necessary to the transfer and payment of said funds; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Citi zens Tru s t Company b e a nd h ere by is d esign a t e d as t he depo s i t ory f o r said f u nds a nd t h a t a l l withdrawals t h eref rom s h a ll b e only o ver t h e signatu res o f e i ther the Chairman or Vice Chairman o f the Board o f this Authority a n d either the Gen e ral Manage r o r t h e Chief Engineer o f th i s Authority. Up o n mo tio n by Mr. Mc Millan , seco nded by Dr. Atwood, the above resolution was u n animously ado pted. Appointmen t o f Audi t o r for 1 96 8 Mr. Stuart had received a proposal from Arthur Andersen Company to continue auditing services as n eeded for the year ending December 31, 1968, for a fee of $500. Mr. Bishop made a motion, - 4 - �seconded by Mr. McMillon, that this contract be renewed. motion was unanimously passed. The 1968 Budget The 1968 budget estimates were presented by the General Manager, who recommended the proposed budget for adoption. Mr. Stuart said the budget had been reviewed by the Board earlier. The Chairman asked for a breakdown and explanation of an item of $750,000 for preliminary design of the transit center. The General Manager agreed to provide an explanation of this item, and Mr. Bishop made a motion that the budget for 1968 be adopted, subject to a satisfactory review of the item questioned by the Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Adamson and unanimously passed. A copy of the 1968 budget as adopted is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Authorization under Retainer Agreement The General Manager requested authorization for $500 to be expended under the retainer agreement, to pay for copies of the 100-scale plan and profile drawings which are being requested by the State Highway Department, the railroads, and others. Mr. Stuart showed samples of these prints, and said the engineers had been making them available at cost. Mr. Bishop made a motion, seconded by Mr. McMillan, that a sum of $500 be allocated for these prints, from the retainer agreement. The motion was unanimously passed. January Meeting It was agreed that the General Manager would poll the members as to a date in January for the regular meeting, which would not conflict with holiday plans. It was tentatively agreed that January 5 would be agreeable. Notice would be sent after the staff had checked with all members. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M. - 5 - �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 1968 OPERATING BUDGET JANUARY 1 1 1968 - DECEMBER 31, 1968 Unappropriated Surplusa (1) • On hand, 12/31/67!a) $ 60,371.00 Receivables a ( 2) (Omitted) (3) State of Georgia(c) 12s,ooo.oo $185,371.00 (4) (S)· l . Appropriated Surplus (d) "45,324.00 $230,695.00 (6) INCOME (7) City of Atlanta(e) (8) Clayton County 23,190.00 (9) DeKalp .County 82,770.00 (10) Fulton County_ 91,800.00 (11) Gwinnett Count y 10,210.00 $ 84,030.00 $300,000.00 (12) (13) (14) s,000.00 . Intere st on Treasury Bills (f) State of Georgia 2so,ooo.oo U. S . DEPT. OF HUD _,. (15) 70 2 Loan (16) Section 9 (17) Section 9 - 2 ) 1968 work program ' (18) ) Compl etion of 1 ~ 1967 work program. $ . 35, 000.00 173,333.·oo 624, 333. 00 1, 000, od Interest Income (g) $839,666.00 (19) $1,394,666.00 (20) TOTAL INCCME (21) GRAND TOTAL INCQ.iE" SURPLUS .. $1,625,361.00 �- - -:· - J (22) ,j -- , $1t62s,.361.oo INCOME & SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD , .. . ·- - STAFF & AI:MINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (23) Salaries 93;600,.00 (24) Expenses 14,500.00 • Benefits, Social Security · (26) Guaranty Fund (27) Health & Accident ( 28) Reti rement (29)' Workmen's Cornpensatio·n - $1,904.,00 533 . 00 2,940.00 11,000.00 182.00 22,559.00 ' (3 0) . (31) BOARD MEETINGS (32) TOTAL STAFF EXPENSES 3,600.00 ·, $ 134,259.00 Administrative E25I2enses ' (33) Rent (34) Communications & postage 4,000.00 (35) Furniture & equipment 4,000.00 (36) Supplies 4,000.00 (311) Pri nti ng 2,000.00 (38) $ 4,200.00 ". Auditor 500.00 (39) Accountant (4.0) Pub lic I nformation a· '(h) 1,soo.00 (41) Local $50 , 667.00 (4 2) Federal - $35 , 033.00 . (43 ) - 86,000.00 Insurance 327 . 00 (44) TOTAL ArMl:NIS'l'RATIVE EXPENSES $ 1 0 6, 5 27.00 (45} TOTAL STAi'F &c AIMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES $ 24 0,786.00 . ~ I 1 ~~ ~-~-·---· -·-"-=-'---'-'_J Staff E?5Penses (25) ... �·. (4 6 ) $1, 625 , 361. 0 0 t lNCOME SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD (47) EXPENSES BROUGHT (48) COUNSEL FORWAiRD 24 0 , 786 . 0 0 so,000•.00 (i) CONSULTANTS 8 On . • Retainer!! (49) Research (50) Advisory Committee (k) (51) Hammer, Greene , Siler Associa tes' (1) - 1, 200. 00 (52) Eric Hill Associate$ (rn} 1,200 . 00 & Tecbnical Services (j) - $ s, 000 . 00 1 2 t OOO . OO 31,400.00 (53) .' Under ContractK 1967 Work Proqran,ll,_ 3s,ooo. oo (54) 702 Loan (n) (55) Section 9 - l Grant (o) (56) · (57) (58) Local - $ HUD 230; 000 .. 00 76 ~667a 00 - $ 153 r 333&00 Section 9 - l Gr ant (p) (59) Local - $1 ,667. 00 (60) HUD s,000.00 3,333.00 270,000.00 (61) , 1968 Work Programa ., (62) Section 9 - l Amendment (q) (63) Local - $ 10,000o OO (64) HUD , (65) 30,000.00 20q000.00 Section 9 - 2 Applic~tion (r) ·(66) Local - $ 297,000eOO (67) HUD 891,000 .. 00 .. 594,000. 00 92ltOOO.OO (68) (69) Retainer Agreerf,U!nt ( s ) (70) TOTAL EXPENSES (71) UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS 39,000.00 $1,552,186.00 - .... .$ - - -- - 73,175.00 .::.. - ~ . • . A-> �EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE BUDGET D JANUARY 1 1 1968 - DECEMBER 31, 1 969 (a) ... .______ . - ,- (b) -- .. - · .. .""'"".:l -:-r (c) This is a fcre:::ast figure derived from expected r eceipts and expenses between August 31, 1967 and Decembe r 31 , 1967 • ~ • OMITTED - •·. The 1967 Ge ner a l As semb l y appropriate d $500 , 000 for the fiscal biennium J uly 1, 1967 throu gh June 30 1 1969. We are develo~ing a contra ct with the Dep a r tment of Industry and Trade (in which budget our item appears ) o We are seeking to arr ange to receive these fund s quarte rly in advance, which is, the same schedul e on whic h we receive funds from the local governments and the United States Departme nt of Housing and Urban Dev e l op ment& (d) This is a ~ as t figure based on a n ticipated expenditures and scheduled appropriations between August 31, 1 967 and December 31, 1 967. (e) I ncome fr om local governments shown is idlentlical requested and received in 1966 and 196 7e (£) This i s o ne year 1 s appro~ riati o n made by the 1 967 Georgia General Assemblyo Note (c) abovee (g) I nterest o n federal funds accrues t o the benef i t o f the Uni ted States Government and is deducted from the grand t otal . to that (h) Thi s is an expanded program (from 33,000 i n 1 966). The sta ff will double the circulation of " Rapid Transit Progress" ($18,000 for one year above pre sent costs), and we wi ll p r ovide one mailing of factual information t o every r egistered voter in the four-county area ($35 1 000 ) s ome time pri o r t o ,··-,- - ......; election time.. Publio Information Program Expansion -: $53, 000 . ·- .!1 . (1) Services of bond counsel, which will be added, a ntici pati ng a successful referendum in November 1968, which wi l l caus e . the issuance of bonds. Also, requirements for legal advice will increase as our work becomes more specific. (j) This item covers assistance as required in preparing and filing requests for federal grantso (k) This five- man committee, chaired by Professor Howard Menhinick; provides us with design advice and assures our communications with the local groups of design professionalso (l)' We will need a little work from economic consultants as it becomes necessary to update our financial plano �~m) The Corri dor Impact Study will go out of date if it doea nob receive some attention from time to time .. (n) This i s the bala nce to be expended on pr eliminary engineering on the North-South Line. (o) 1-· I i This is the bala n c e to b~ expended on the prel i minary engineering· on the Eas t-West Line and certain planning for extensions. • ! It also includes support by our consulting engineer s ·.during the period in which we seek public acceptance .. (p) This will be applied to t ransporta tion planning t o itemize future policy n eeds as to relations between MARTA and other transportation system. (q) This is for an evaluation and review of t1ARTA's plans wi th reference to total transportation planning in the Atlanta region. ·(r) The applicati on for our 1968 work program will cover the following projects s 1. Prelimi nary Ownership Study ----- ---------------------$ 50,000 This is t he beginning of ti tle search operations on the 30-mile system e Getting s t art ed on this in 1968 will · save one y e a r in the right of way acquisition programo 2o Accounting & Financial Control System Design Study -- $ 25,000 This work element sets up the system of accounts and financial contr ols for the Authority. Given a successful bond referendum, we will be i nto right of way acqui sition i mmediately and some construction within nine months . Final ·d esign con~::racts will be r eady soon after the referenda and our budget will tota l mil lions . The Comptroller 1 s office must go into operation .:with zero time lag . 3. Plans for the Prese rvation of Historical Sites-------$ 3,000 Our routes and station sites will be examined by a committee of the Atlanta Historical Society. It will recommend to us course of action to preserve our heritage where rapid transit operations affe ct sites or structures of historical significance. .4. Relocation Program Design----------------------------$ 13,000 This work will d efine the job ahead, in detail, so that we can make application under our future capital programs to achieve successful relocation as required by our const~ction progresse Sa. Preliminary Architectural and Engineering Design of J of Transit Center-------------------------------------$300,000 The purpose of this work is to further the technical development of Transit Center and the adjacent line structures. Items to be considered under this work are s followss 1 L----· �------ . --'--- ~ -~ -~-- '· 1·· 6. , ,I . /· . Sb. (a) Circulation and access of pedestrians, bu~es and automobiles to Transit Center. (b) Metho m of c onstruction. (c) Types of s t ructures. · (d) Utility and sub-surface investigations. (e) Establi sh electrical and mechanical spatial requirements., (f) Develop architectural preliminary plans. (g) Prepare preliminary specifications • . (h) Establish preliminary right-of-way plans. (i) Construct architectural study model. Development of Transit Center-----------------------$450,000 The purpose of t his work is to make surveys, borings and devel op pla ns to bring the · design of Transit Center and its a pproaches to a point just short· of architectural fi nishes and contract documents. By doing t his in 1968, we can start first construction on thi s 22½ million complex in the summer of 1969. This work is s ubject to final adoption of routes, station locations, and acceptance of uhe work items in Sa aboveo This work will includes ,. • ~- , (a) Make surveys. (b) Take soil borings. (c ) Establish hor izontal and vertical controls. (d ) Prepare utili ty plans. (e ) Prepare base maps. (£) Develop design c riter ia. ' 6. Architectural studi es------------ -------------------$ 50,000 This work includes the much di scus sed consulting Architect. There are many de sign e l e ments t hat should be constant or confined within prescribed limite system-wideo Consistency, good looks and economy demand these specifications set up by the Consulttng Architect., · (s) This agreements provides for engineering support not otq,r:¥iae covered in existing contracts. ' I·f • f. �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET NOVEMBER REPORT 30 s 1967 BUDGET 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1 , 196 7 TO NOVEMBER 30, 196 7 $128 ,2 81.64 §_128,281.64 $ 84 , 030.00 23 , 190.00 82 ,77 0.00 91 , 800.00 18,210 . 00 $300,000.00 $ 5 , 520.00 $ 84 , 030 . 00 . 17,3 92. 50 82,770 . 00 91 , 800 . 00 13 ,657.50 $289,650.00 $ 4 , 262.34 $ 95 , 000 . 00 276 , 000 . 00 $371 , 000.00 $ 90 , 000.00 212,069.54 597.46 $302, 667 . 00 TOTAL INCOME $676 , 520 . 00 $596 , 579 . 34 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS .§.804 , 801. 64 _$,72 4 , 860 . 98 $ 68 , 950 . 00 10 , 500 . 00 $ 59 , 083 .67 9 , 853.63 1 , 109.00 533. 00 1 , 680 . 00 10 , 000 . 00 99 . 00 _L92 , 871. 00 $ 3,150 . 00 1,188 . 09 533.34 1 , 11 0 .5 1 300.54 181. 72 LJ.2, 251.5 0 $ 2 , 950.00 Unappropriated Surplus INCOME Appropr ia tions : City of Atlant a Clay t on County DeKalb Count y Fulton County Gwinnett Count y Sub - Totals I nteres t Income Federal Funds : 702 Loan Section 9 Grant Inter es t - Federal Funds Sub -To tals 0 EXPENSES Staff Cost : Salaries Ex pense Bene fits : Social Security Guarant y Fund Health and Accid ent I nsurance Retir ement Workmen ' s Compensation Sub -To tals Board Mee tings Administra tive and Offi c e Overhead : Rent Communicati ons and Postage Furn iture and Eq ui pmen t Su pplies Pr i n ting Aud i tor Accountant Pub l i c Informa tion Ad v is ory I n sur ance : Pub l ic Li abi l i ty De posi tory a nd Forgery Fide l ity Bond Sub-Tot a l s CARRIED FORWARD $ 3 , 000 . 00 2,000.00 2 , 000.00 3 , 600 . 00 1 :, 000 . 00 250 . 00 1, 000 . 00 33 , 000 . 00 5 , 000.00 $ 2 , 750.00 1 , 890 . 69 577 .16 2, 646 . 55 62 3 . 56 250 . 00 750 . 00 28 , 345. 85 4, 213. 71 72. 00 56 . 00 19 9 . 00 $ 51 z177. 00 107. 00 56 . 2 ·; 198.60 $ 422409 . 39 $147,198. 00 ~117 , 6 10 . 89 �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET NOVEMBER TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD REPORT 30, 1967 BUDGET 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1 , 196 7 TO NOVEMBER 30, 1967 $804 , 801.64 $724 , 860.98 $147 , 198.00 $ 20 , 000.00 ,$,117 , 610 . 89 .,$_ 11,758 . 61 $ 31 , 250 . 00 $ 29,939 . 00 32,667 . 00 16 , 333 . 00 16 , 000 ,. 00 16,333.00 EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultant s: Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Study: Section 9 Matching Hammer , Greene & Siler Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel : 702 Loan Se ction 9 : Federal Mat ching Re tainer Agreement Research and Te chnical Se rvic es Sub - Totals 95 , 000.00 90 , 000 . 00 240 , 000 . 00 120 , 000 . 00 60 , 000 . 00 2 , 000 . 00 .,$_6 02,250 . 00 120 , 000 . 00 130 ,364 . 00 19 , 09 2.99 2, 475 . 84 .,$_43 0 ,613 .92 TOTAL EXPENSES _V 69 , 448 . oo $559 , 98 3 . 42 SURPLUS $ 35 . 353,64 $164,877 ,56 3 ,333 . 00 1,667 .00 0 0 1 , 66 7 .00 4 ,742.09 �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORI TY ATLANTA, GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION NOVEMBER 30 , 1967 ASSETS Ca sh in Banks : C & S National Bank First National Bank Trust Compa ny of Georgia Fulton Nati.anal Bank ·- Sec tion 9 $ 37,873.95 2 , 972 . 78 1 , 000 . 00 115 , 000 . 00 Invest ments : U" S " Treas ury Bills 9 -, 497 . 06 25. 00 Petty Cash TOTAL ASSETS $253 , 368 . 79 LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $ Payroll Taxes Withh eld and Ac cr ued Reser ves : ARMPC - Ur ban Des ign St udy A lanta Transir St udy Parsons Brinckerho ff - Tuior -Be c hte l : Se ction 9 Ma tc hi ng Re tainer Agr eemen t: Tr a _s portati n Study Publi c Informac i on S rveying TOTAL LIABlU.TIES SUR PLUS 433.65 1 , 283 . 32 8 ,333 . 00 1 , 667 . 00 $1 , 500 . 00 1,92 5 . 48 2 ,984 . 78 6 , 410 .26 8~491. 23 $] 647877, 56 �MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-SECOND MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY DECEMBER 5, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on December 5, 1967, at 3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT: Edgar Blalock (Clayton County) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manager King Elliott, Public Information Director Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager Glenn E . Bennett, Secretary Consultants W. O. Salter, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas , San Francisco J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor-Bechtel, Atlanta R. W. Gustafson, Supervising Engineer, Parsons, Brinckerhoff - Tudor-Bechtel, Atlanta Jacques Labourer, Eric Hill Associates Tom Watson Brown, Huie and Harland �Others Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council Mrs. Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMillon, the minutes of the November meeting were unanimously approved : Financial Report Mr. Stuart presented the November 30th budget report and said most items were as projected. There were no questions and the report was accepted. Report of General Manager Mr. Stuart said the Georgia Society of Professional Engineers had passed a resolution endorsing the transit projec t, and expressing a desire to establish a speakers bureau. Mr. Stuart reported on a recent trip to Louisville, to contact officials of the L. & N. Railroad and present details of the transit plan. He said the new lease for the A. & W.P. Railroad contained specific reference as to how rapid transit should be routed through the area to the west of Union Station. The General Manager said meetings had been held with railroads, planning groups, municipal officials, and with Fulton, DeKalb, and Gwinnett County Commissioners. The proposed legislative program had been discussed with members o f the House and Senate from the four counties. He planned a trip to Washington to discuss the 1968 legislative program with Representatives Blackburn and Thompson. Mr. Stuart mentioned a visit on November 28, from Mr. Carl Hill, an assistant to Mr. Charles Haar of HUD in Washington. Mr. Hill had been shown the plans and reviewed progress in the design fi e ld. - 2 - �Mr. Stuart said he and Mr. Bennett would appear before the Fulton County Grand Jury on December 12. (Subsequently, Mr. Haverty was substituted for Mr. Stuart.) Mr. Rich had testified before the Rainey Sub-Committee of the Georgia House of Representatives on November 30, and requested Mr. Stuart to send a copy of his testimony to the Board members. Reports by Consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel Mr. John Coil reported that the 701 report had been distributed, and the popular summary version would be ready for distribution within one week. He said the engineers were continuing to update the plan and resolve questions with governments. He had been encouraged by responses from the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and by the L. & N. Railroad. Corridor Impact Study Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Planning Director for ARMPC, commented on the corridor impact study. He said the study was designed to examine potentials. Examples had been looked at, such as outlying stations, but most of the work had been done on developed sections of the lines. Mr. Wingfield said many of the ideas would depend upon the initiative of the elected officials to do early work so MARTA could take advantage of opportunities. He stressed that this study was not totally a "MARTA study," but pointed up the opportunities for local governments to act. Contract between Georgia Department of Industry MARTA & Trade and Copies of a proposed contract between MARTA and the Georgia Department of Industry & Trade were distributed for consideration. The State of Georgia had appropriated $500,000 per year to MARTA, and the Department of Industry & Trade had been desig nated the agency who would disburse these funds . The contract provided for appropriations to be paid quarterly in advance , and provided that such funds could be used for direct or indirect costs, including debt service , administration, operating , plan ning , designing , finishing, right - of- way acquisition , and roll i ng stock. - 3 - �The contract provided further that the State could appropriate real estate, in lieu of cash. It also gave the State a reversionary interest in the property of the Authority, in the same proportion as the State's appropriation to MARTA. The contract required an annual audit of the books of MARTA to be sent to the State. The contract was for 50 years, and would cover subsequent appropriations as - they were made. After discussion of the contract provisions, the following resolution was presented: BE IT RESOLVED that Henry L. Stuart, General Manager, and Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary, be and hereby are authorized and directed to execute on behalf of this Authority a contract substantially in the form as presented to this Board, subject to approval of counsel, with the State of Georgia, by and through its Department of Industry & Trade, for the transfer and payment to this Authority of funds appropriated and to be appropriated by the Legislature and Governor of Georgia for the purposes of this Authority; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said General Manager and Secretary be and hereby are authorized and directed to execute any and all further documents as may be reasonably necessary to the transfer and payment of said funds; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Citizens Trust Company be and hereby is designated as the depository for said funds and that all withdrawals therefrom shall be only over the signatures of either the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of this Authority and either the General Manager or the Chief Engineer of this Authority. Upon motion by Mr. McMillan, seconded by Dr. Atwood, the above resolution was unanimously adopted. Appointment of Auditor for 1968 Mr. Stuart had receiv ed a proposal from Arthur Andersen Company to continue auditing services as needed for the year ending December 31, 1968 , for a fee of $500. Mr. Bishop made a motion, - 4 - �seconded by Mr. McMillan, that this contract be renewed. motion was unanimously passed. The 1968 Budget The 1968 budget estimates were presented by the General Manager, who recommended the proposed budget for adoption. Mr. Stuart said the budget had been reviewed by the Board earlier. The Chairman asked for a breakdown and explanation of an item of $750,000 for preliminary design of the transit center. The General Manager agreed to provide an explanation of this item, and Mr. Bishop made a motion that the budget for 1968 be adopted, subject to a satisfactory review of the item questioned by the Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Adamson and unanimously passed. A copy of the 1968 budget as adopted is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Authorization under Retainer Agreement The General Manager requested authorization for $500 to be expended under the retainer agreement, to pay for copies of the 100-scale plan and profile drawings which are being requested by the State Highway Department, the railroads, and others. Mr. Stuart showed samples of these prints, and said the engineers had been making them available at cost. Mr. Bishop made a motion, seconded by Mr. McMillan, that a sum of $500 be allocated for these prints, from the retainer agreement. The motion was unanimously passed. January Meeting It was agreed that the General Manager would poll the members as to a date in January for the regular meeting, which would not conflict with holiday plans. It was tentatively agreed that January 5 would be agreeable. Notice would be sent after the staff had checked with all members. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4 : 45 P.M. - 5 - �METROPOLITAN A'rLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 1968 OPERATING BUDGET JANUARY l , 1968 - DECEMBER 31, 1968 Unappropriated Surplusa (1) j· • On hand, 12/31/67!a) $ 60,371.00 Receivables a (2) (Omit ted) (3) State of Georgia(c) 12s,ooo.oo (4) (S)· $185,371.00 Appropriated Surplus (d) 45,324.00 (6) $230,695.00 INCOME (7) City of Atlanta(e) (8) Clayton County 23,190.00 (9) DeKalp .County 82,770.00 (10) Fulton County_ 91,800.00 (11) Gwinnett County 10,210.00 $ 84,030.00 (12) (13) Interest on Treasury Bills (14) State of Geor gia s,000.00 _ (f) 2so,ooo.oo U.S. DEPT. OF HUD .,. (15) I $300,000.00 (16) ) Completion of Section 9 _ 1 ~ 1967 wor k program. (17) Section 9 - 2) 1968 wor k progr am (18) 7 0 2 Loan Interest Income (g) $_ 35 , 000.00 173,3 3 3.00 624 ,333 .00 1,000,00 $839,666.00 (19) (20) TOTAL INCOME $1, 394,666.00 (21) GRAND TOTAL I NCa-tE 6 SURPLUS $1,625,361.00 �I ' ·1 $1,6"25,.361.00 INCOME & SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD (22) \_ti - STAFF & .AIMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES .,,... - (23) Sa laries 93,600.-00 (24) Expenses 14,500.0Q Benefits& Social Se curity · (26) Gua ranty Fund (27) Health & Accident (28) Retirement (29). Workrnenvs c ompensation - $l,904e00 533 . 00 2 1 940.00 17,000.00 --~1~8~2~.o~o~------------22,559.00 ' (30) 3,600.00 ( 31) BOARD MEETINGS (32) TOTAL STAFF EXPENSES $134,259.00 Admini str ative Expenses ~ ' (33 ) Rent $ 4,200.00 (34) Cornrnuni ,c ations & postage 4 ,000.00 ( 35) Furnit1.1re & equipment 4 , 000.00 ( 36) Supplies 4,000.00 ( 37.7) Print.lng 2,000.00 (38) .,·Auditor 500.00 (39) Accountant (40) Public Information ·a· '(h ) 1, 500.00 , (41) Local $50.1667.00 (42) Federal - $35,333.00 , (43) - 8 6 ,000 .00 Insurance I -~-~ -~----- . .. Staff E~ens e s (25) l 327.00 (44) TOTAL AIMJ:NISTRATIVE EXPENSES $106,527.00 (45) TOTAL STAFF &c AIMIUISTRATIVE EXPENSES $ 240,786.00 �$1,625,361.00 (46) 1 _tINCOME SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD (47) EXPENSES BROUGHT FORWARD (48) COUNSEL (i) 240,786.00 50,ooo •.oo . CONSULTANTS • On Retainers (49) Research (50) Advisory Committee (51) Hammer, Greene , Sile.r Associ ates (l) - 1,200.00 (52) Eric Hi ll Associate$ (rn} 1,200.00 & ~ecbni cal Services (j) - $ s,000.00 12,000.00 (le) (53) .' 31,400.00 Under Contracti ,!267 Work Program,!_ (54) 702 Loan (n) (55) Section 9 - l Grant (o) (56) · (57) (58) 35,000.00 Local - $ HUD ~ 230,000.00 76,66 7.00 $ l53r33 3$00 Section 9 - l Grant (p) (59) Local - $1,667. 00 (60) HUD s,000.00 3,333.00 210,000.00 (61) , 1968 Work,,Programa .,. (62) Section 9 - l Amendment (q) (63) Local - $ 10,000aOO (64) HUD , (65) . ·(66) (67) 30,000.00 20,000.00 I Section 9 - 2 Application (r) 891,000.00 Local - $ 297,000eOO HUD 594,000.00 921,000.00 (68) (69) .-, . Retainer Agre~f,ISnt (s) (70) TOTAL EXPENSES (71) UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS 39,000.00 $ 1,552tl86.00 - ~.....-·.$ · 73,175.00 ... . ~ ~ -~ �EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE BUDGET D (a) J ANUARY 1 , 1968 - DECEMBER 31 1 1969 This i s a fore:ms·t f igure derived fl~om expected r eceipts and expenses be·tween Augus t 31; 1 9 6 7 and December 31, 1967 . (b) • O MI TTED . ·_ (c) The 1967 Gener al Assembly appropriated $500,000 for the fiscal biennium July 1, 1967 throu gh June 30, 1969. We are develo~ing a contract with the Department of Industry and Trade (in which budget our i tem appears). We are seeking to arrange to r eceive these f unds quarterly in advance, which isi the same schedule on which we receive funds from the local governments and the Un i t e d States Depar tment of Housing and Urban Development e (d) This is a:f6Jrecast figure based on anticipated expenditures and scheduled approp r i ations between August 31 , 1967 and December ., I 31 , 1967. (e) Income f r om local gov ernments shown i s idlentl.ical to that requested and received i n 1966 and 1967"' (£) This is one year's app r o~riat i on made by the 1967 Georgia General As sembl y o Not e ( c ) above ~ (g) Interest on federal funds accrue s to t he b enefit of the United States Gover nmen t and i s deduc t ed f rom t he grand total. (h) .. ~- •' This i s a n expanded p rogram (f r om 33, 000 in 1966 ) . The staff will double the circu lation of "Rapid Transit Progress• ( $18,000 for one year above present costs) , and we will provide on e mailing of f act ual informat i on to every registered voter i n the four-county area ( $35, 000) s ometime prior to ···- -- __, election time o Public Infonnation Program Expansion ::-. $53,000 ', . --.- . !, (1) Servi c es of bond c ounsel, which will be added, anticipating a s u c c e s s ful r eferendum in November 1968 , whi ch will cause the issuance of b ond s. Also, r equirements for l ega l advice will increase as our work b e comes more speci fic. (j) This item c overs assistance as requ ired i n prepari ng and filing r equests for federal gra nts o (k ) This five- man committee, chai r ed by Professor Howard Menhinick, p r ovides u s with design advice and as s ur es our communications wi t h t he local groups of design professionalso (1) We will need a little work from economic consultants as it becomes necessary to update our financ ial plan. �·, ~m) The Corridor Impact Study will go out of date if it does nob r e ceive some attention from time to time..- (n) This is the balance to be expended on preliminary enginee ring on t he North-South Line . (o) This i s the balance to be, expended on t h e preliminary eng ineering· on t he East-West Line and certain planning for extensions. It a l so includes support by our consulting engineers··.during the • period in which we seek public acceptance . r· -i I (p) This will be applied to transportation planning to itemize future policy nee ds as to relations between MARTA and othe r transportation s ystem .. (q) This i s for an evaluation and review of ~TA 1 s plans with refer e nce to total transportation planniHg in the Atlanta r egion. · . (r) The applicati on for our 1968 work program will cover the fol lowing pr oj ects ! l._ Preliminary Ownership Study ----------·---------------- $ SO, 000 This is the beginning of title search operations on t h e 30-mile systemo Getting started on this in 1968 will save one y ear in the r i ght of way acquisition program. 2o Accounting & Financial Control System Design Study - - $ 25,000 This work element sets up the sy s tem of accounts and f i nancial controls for the Authority. Given a successful bond referendmn, we will b e i nto r ight of way acquisition immediately and some construction within nine months. Final design con~racts will be r eady soon after the referenda and our budget will total millions. The Comptroller's office must go into operation .:with zero time lag. 3. Plans for the Preservation of Historical Sites-------$ u Our routes and station sites will be examined by a committee of the Atlanta Historical Society. It will recommend to us course of action to preserve our heritage where rapid transit operations affect sites or s tructures of historical significance. 4. Relocation Program Design----------------------------$ 13,000 ., . J 3,000 This work will define the job ahead, .in detail, so that we can make application under our future capital programs to achieve successful relocation as required by our const~ction progresso Sa. Preliminary Architectural and Engineering Design of ~ of Transit Center-------------------------------------$300,000 The purpose of this work is to further the technical development of Transit Center and the adjacent line structures. Items to be considered under this work are as follows& l L - -- . . r.' ~ - �I.r -,-_ . .. ·- --~ r. l· :,. I .· I ' I (a) Circulation and access of pedestrians, bu~es and automobi les to Transit Center. (b) Methods of e onstruotion. I '• (c) Type s of structures. · (d) Uti lity a nd sub-surface investigations. (e) Establish electrical and mechanical spatial requirements .. (f) Deve l op architectural preliminary plans. (g) Prepare preliminary specifications • . (h) (i) Sb. Establish preliminary right-of-way plans. Constr uct architectural study model. Development of Transit Center-----------------------$450,000 The purpose o f thi s work is to make surveys, boring• and devel op plans to bring the design of Transi~ · Center and its approaches to a point just short of architectural fi nishes and contract documents. By doing thi s in 1968, we can start first construction on this 22½ million complex in the summer 0£ 1969. This work is s ubject to final adoption of routes, station locations, and acceptance of the work items in Sa aboveo This work will includes ,, , 6. (a) Make surveys. (b) Take soil borings. (c) Establish horizontal and vertical controls. (d) Prepare utility plans. (e) Prepare base maps. (f) Develop design criteria. Architectural studies-----------------~------------~$ 50,000 This work includes the much discussed consulting Architect. There are many design elements that should be constant or confined within prescribed limits system-wide. Consistency, good looks and economy demand these specifications set up by the. Consulting Architecto (s) This agreements provides for engineering support not otherw1•, covered in exieting contracts. I'f . f • 1. �I METROPOLI TAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSI T AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT NOVEMBER 30 , 1967 BUDGET 1967 Unappropriated Sur plus ACTUAL JANUARY 1 , 196 7 TO NOVEMBER 30 , 196 7 $128~2 81.64 $128 ,2 81.64 , $ 84 , 030.00 23 , 190 . 00 82 ,7 70.00 91, 800 . 00 18 ,21 0 . 00 $300 , 000.00 $ 5 2 52 0.00 $ 84,030 . 00 17,392 .50 82,77 0 . 00 91,8 00 . 00 13,657 . 50 ,$189 ,650 . 00 $ 4,262 .34 $ 95 , 000 . 00 $ 90 , 000.00 276,000. 00 INCOME Appropriations : Cit y of Atlanta Clayton County DeKalb County Fulton County Gwinne t t Count y Sub- Tot a l s I nt erest Income Federal Funds : 702 Loan Section 9 Grant I nterest - Federal Funds Sub-Tota l s _$_3 71, 000. 00 212,069 . 54 597.46 $3 02_,_66 7 . 00 TOTAL INCOME $676,520. 00 $596,579 . 34 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS $8 04,801.64 _$_124, 86 0 . 98 $ 68,950 . 00 $ 59 , 083 . 67 10 , 500 . 00 9,853.63 1, 109.00 533. 00 1 , 680 . 00 10 , 000 . 00 99 . 00 _t_92 , 871. 00 $ 3,150 . 00 1,188 . 09 533.34 1 , 110.51 300.54 181. 72 $ 72,251.5 0 $ 2, 950.00 0 EXPENSES Staff Cost : Salaries Ex pense Bene fit s : Social Secur i t y Guar anty Fund Health and Accid ent Insuranc e Retirement Workmen's Compen sat ion Sub - Totals Board Meetings Admi nis t r a tive and Of f i ce Overhead : Rent Commun ications a nd Pos tage Furniture and Equipment Supplies Prin ting Aud i.tor Accountant Public Information Adv i s ory I n surance : Public Li abi lit y De pository and For gery Fidelity Bond Sub -Totals CARRIED FORWARD $ 3 , 000 . 00 2, 000.00 2 , 000 . 00 3 , 600.00 1,000.00 25 0.00 1 , 000 . 00 33 , 000.00 5,000.00 $ 2 , 75 0 . 00 1 , 890 . 69 577 . 16 2 , 646.55 623.56 25 0 . 00 750 . 00 28,345. 85 4 , 213.71 72. 00 56 . 00 199 . 00 $ 5 1 , 177. 00 107. 00 56 .2; 198 .60 ~ 42..2 409 . 39 ~147 , 198 . 00 $117 a610.89 �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET NOVEMBER REPORT 30, 1967 BUDGET 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 196 7 TO NOVEMBER 30, 1967 i§.04, 801. 64 $724,860.98 Brought Forward Counse l Cons ultant s : Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission Urban Design Study : Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Study: Section 9 Matching Hammer, Greene & Siler Parsons Brinckerhof f- Tudor-Bechtel : 702 Loan Section 9 : Federal Matching Re tainer Agreement Re s earch and Te chnical Servic e s Sub- Totals $147,J98.00 $ 2Q,,_000.00 .§.117 , 610 . 89 .$.....ll,758 . 61 $ 31 ,250.00 $ 29 , 939 . 00 32,667. 00 16 , 333.00 16 , 000 .. 00 16,333.00 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD EXPENSES 3 , 333 . 00 1, 667. 00 0 0 1 , 66 7 .00 4 , 742.09 95 , 000.00 90 , 000 . 00 240 , 000 . 00 120 , 000 . 00 60 , 000 . 00 2~00. 00 $6 02,,2,25 0 . 00 120 000 . 00 130 , 364 . 00 19 , 092.99 2, 475 . 84 $430.:.§.13 . 92 TOTAL EXPENSES $769 , 448 . 00 .§_559 , 983 , 42 SURPLUS $ 35, 353,64 $164, 877,56 �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA, GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL COND ITION NOVEMBER 30 , 1967 ASSETS Cash in Banks : C & S National Bank First National Ba_k Trus t Company of Georgia Fulton National Bank - Sec tion 9 $ 37 , 873. 9.5 2 , 972 078 1., 000 000 ll.5 , 000 000 Invest ments : U" S " Treas ury Bills 9 , 497 006 Pett y Cash 25 000 TOTAL ASSETS $253 , 368 . 79 LIABILITIES Account s Payable $ 1 , 283 032 Payr oll Taxes Withhe l d and Ac cr ued Re serves : ARMPC - Ur ban Des ign St udy At lanta Tr ansit St udy Parsons Brincker hoff - Tudor- Becht e l : Se c ti on 9 Ma tc hi ng Re t ai.~er Agreemen : Tran s por a ti n Study Public Inf orma t i on S r veying TOTAL LIABILITIES SURPLUS 433.65 8 , 333 . 00 1,667 . 00 70 , 364 . 00 $1 , .5 00 . 00 1 , 92.5 048 2,.;i.984 078 .J.410 026 _ _688,491. 23 $164 : 877,56 �December 7, 1967 Mr. T . J . Lewi , Jr. Lewis. Lewis and Cagle 905-10 Healey Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Lewi : i Thank you very m.uch for your letter of Dec mber 5th and the picture of the Hy-Rail b which run on trac or pavement. 1 m forwarding this to the Metropolitan Atlan Rapid Transit A oc:iation for c aideration. Sincerely your , I Allen, Jr. M yor lAJr/br CC: Mr. Hank Stewart �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524 -5711 OFFICERS: November 29, 1967 Richard H. Rich, Chairman Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary Henry L. Stuart, General Manager NOTICE TO: Board of Directors Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority - FROM: Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary/ The regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority will be held on December 5, 1967, at 3:30 P. M., in the Conference Room of the Glenn Building, 120 Marietta Street, N. W., Atlanta. The tentative agenda is as follows: 1. Minutes of last meeting. 2. Financial report. 3. Reports : a) General Manager b) Engineering Consultant c) corridor Impact Study 4. Appointment of auditor - 1968. 5. Adoption of 1968 budget . 6. Other business. �' MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY NOVEMBER 7, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held i t s regular meeting on November 7, 1967, at 3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) M. c. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT : Edgar Blal o ck (Clay ton County ) K. A. McMil~on (Gwinnett county ) OTHERS PRESENT: Me t ropolitan At lanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L . Stuart , General Manage r King Elliott, Public Informa tion Director Ea r l Nelson, Chief Enginee r H . N. Johnson , Se c r etary to General Man age r con s ul tants Walt er Doug l a s , Pa r sons, Brin c kerh o ff, Qu ade & Douglas , New Yo rk J . A. Coil, Re s i dent Manager, Pars ons, Br i nck e rh o ff- Tud o r Bechte l, At l anta Leon Eplan, Eric Hi ll Associat es, Atl anta w. Stell Hui e, Huie & Harland, Atlanta George Goodwin, Be l l & St anton, Atlant a Bill Ba tes, Be l l & Stanton, Atl a nta �Financial Advisors and Bond Counsel Lloyd Hatcher, White, Weld & Company, New York Dan O'Conner, King & Spalding, Atlanta John Mobley, Gambrell & Mobley, Atlanta Others T. M. Callaway, DeKalb County Commissioner Aubrey Couch, Decatur-DeKalb Development Association Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. Margaret Hurst, Atlanta Constitution Mrs~ Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Jerry Coursey, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Adamson, the minutes of the October meeting were unanimously approved. Financial Report The General Manager presented the financial report as of October 30, 1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. He reported receipt of funds from Gwinnett County during the month, making it current in its appropriations to the Authority. Mr. Stuart said expenditures for the year would be less than anticipated, and a surplus of $105,238 was projected. There were no questions, and Mr. Bishop made a motion that the financial report be approved. Dr. Atwood seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. Report of General Manager Mr. Stuart said over si x ty meetings had been held with various agencies in the area concerned with transportation and planning, as the 702 work of the engineers had begun to reflect preliminary drawings in more detail . Mr. Nelson, Chief Engineer, presented a map showing expressways existing, under construction , and proposed. He said the MARTA engineers were working with State Highway Department engineers on all future improvements planned for the expressway system, in an effort to coordinate all transportation planning. - 2 - �Mr. Rich suggested the possibility of a spur line off Lenox Road in the center of the freeway to Sandy Springs be considered as part of the long-range plan. He felt it would be a logical and relatively inexpensive way to accommodate the projected explosive growth in Sandy Springs. Mr. Callaway of the DeKalb County Commission inquired about the possibility of having a station in Court Square in Decatur instead of along the railroad near Agnes Scott College. He said officials of Agnes Scott would like to have it as far from the College as possible, and officials of Decatur and DeKalb County would like to have it as near the center of Decatur as possible. Mr. Callaway mentioned urban renewal land available in the heart of Decatur, and asked that this be considered at an early date. Mr. Aubrey Couch, representing the Decatur-DeKalb Development Association, also endorsed the exploration of the use of Decatur's urban renewal land for a transit station, parking, etc. In connection with Mr. Callaway's request, Mr. Blount asked if it would be feasible to send an engineer to Decatur to talk about the requests for changes. Mr. Coil said this would be done, and Mr. Callaway requested that DeKalb County officials be included in such a meeting. Mr. Rich said the site along the railroad had been proposed as the most economical, but the plans were tentative, and public hearings would be held in all jurisdictions, and all suggestions considered before the Authority adopted a final plan. The General Manager said meetings with all of the railroads would be completed within one week. Preliminary engineering plans had been left with the engineers of the railroads for study. It was the consensus of t h e Board that the time was approaching wh en the Board should begin to seriously negotiate with the policymaking heads of the railroads. In response to a question, Mr . Wal te r Douglas replied that as soon as the railroad engin eers h a d time to absorb the plans , it would be well to seek a gr eement o n operational and pol i tical feasi bility, leaving th e ques t ion of money estimates until the r e had been a f a v o rable b on d issue a n d money was available with whi c h to n egotiate. Mr. Hav e r t y made a mot ion that the 701 repo r t be sent to the head s of th e railroa d s at t h e appropr iate t ime, with a p ers onal l e tt e r from the Chairman of t h e Auth o ri t y. The motion was unanimously p a ssed. - 3 - �Reports by Consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor , Bechtel Mr. John coil said the 701 report had been printed and was being bound. The popular report, which was to be a condensed version of the 701 report, would be in draft form for review within a week by ARMPC and MARTA, and would be printed within about three weeks. He said studies of refinement were continuing, and the engineers continued to make evaluations as to use of construction, patronage, etc., and to consider alternate solutions or revisions in the recommendations. Eric Hill Associates Mr. Leon Eplan said the comments of his firm on three of the lines had been given to the engineers, the Planning Commission, and the Authority. Work on the other line would be completed soon, and the writing of the final report had begun. It was hoped their final report would be available by the end of th e year. Report of ARMPC Planning Director Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr., ARMPC Planning Director, reviewed the proposed amendment to the Secti on 9 application, approved by the MARTA Board at its October 3rd meeting. He said the amendment request h ad b een filed with t h e Department o f Housing and Urban Development as of October 3, 1967. This extension would involve the use of Alan M. Voorhees Associates to give an objective appraisal of transit planning to date. The study was expected to cost $10,000 in local money, and to take approximately three months. This study, hopefully, would satisfy the interests o f the Departme nt o f Housing and Urban Development and the Bureau of Public Roads in their effo rts to coordinate various public investments in transportation, as well as thei r concern f o r th e broader impact of t ransit on the region. Mr. Rich mentioned the possibility o f additiona l studies in the future, to examine coordination with the existing bus system. Report of Legal Counsel Mr. Stell Hui e of Hui e and Harland, Counsel for the Authority, introduce d Mr. Lloyd Hatcher of White, Weld & Company, - 4 - �financial advisors of New York, and Mr. Dan O'Conner of King and Spalding, and Mr. John Mobley of Gambrell and Mobley, both bond counsel firms of Atlanta. Mr. Huie said several meetings had been held to develop a financial plan which would be practical, with bonds at the lowest possible interest. After discussing various ways of financing, it was recommended that a committee be appointed to work with the financial advisors, bond counsel, and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, to develop current recommendations which could be used in support of a bond issue. The Chairman appointed Mr. Adamson, Dr. Atwood, and Mr. Huie as a committee to work with financial advisors, bond counsel and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, to refine and review such variables as interest rates and inflation factors, in an effort to be certain a realistic millage rate would be used in presenting a bond issue to the public. The Chairman also appointed Mr. Haverty as Chairman, together with Mr. Blount and Mr. Bishop, as a committee to work in the area of public information under the direction of Mr. George Goodwin of Bell and Stanton, to develop the best way to present the plan to the public for referendum. Upon motion by Mr. Blount, seconded by Dr. Atwood, the Board unanimously concurred in the appointment of these two committees by the Chairman. Mr. Huie reviewed 17 proposed ame ndments to the MARTA legislation, which counsel considered important, and suggested that new legislation incorporating these amendments be submitted to the Legislature in the January session . The suggested changes are attached to and made a part of these minutes. Dr . Atwood made a moti on that Couns e l be give n authority t o dra ft l e gislation incorporating the proposed amendments and submit it to local governments and legislative representatives of local governments for study. Mr. Bishop seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed. Adj ou rnment The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M . Next Meeting December 5, 1967. - 5 - �Summary of Remarks of w. Stell Huie at MARTA meeting, November 7, 1967 - re Amendments to MARTA Legislation-1968 1. Section 9(c) requiring judicial review of the Authority's rate making powers should be eliminated. It is necessary that the Authority have the power to commit to bond purchasers that it can establish rates sufficient to cover the operating cost of the system. 2. Section 10: 3. Section 13(b) must be clarifi e d so as to eliminate any e x cessive drain of funds by reason of relocation payments which may not be included in estimates of engineers. In this respect we must check on the federal requirements as well as procedures and policies established for relocation payments under other laws. 4. Section 15(c) must be amended so as to provide that after a validation proceeding no contract may b e declared void by reason of any con f lict of interest . 5. Greater fl exibility than is allowed b y Section 17 needs to be added for budgeting purposes ; however i t would a p pear that the o n l y must r equirement her e i n is that a deficit budget should be allowed du r i n g init ial y ear's oper at i on s. 6. Sect ion 18 wh i ch provide s fo r i nspe c tion every three ye ar s b y a n ou t side eng ineer is unreasonab le a n d would b e too e x pen s ive . It s h ould b e eliminated . Th e t rust indentur e secu r ing t h e bond s will p r ovide fo r adequate i nspect ion f o r the i nteres t o f th e b ond holder s . 7. Section 24 must b e amended so as t o e limi n ate t h e r e quirement that t he contracts with p a rticipa ting governme nts be a ppr ove d in a referendum by submit t ing "the e x t e nt o f the dolla r amount o r amoun ts involved . " (a) eliminate the 6% interest limitation found in 10 (d) . (b) eliminate the requirement that the bonds be sold by public competitive bidding found in 10 (h} . · (c) eliminate the requirement that the bonds be sold at par found in l0(h}. (d} amend l0(g) to provide that all "obligations" rather than just bonds will have the qualities of negotiable instruments. (e) amend l0(p} to provide that the procedure of the revenue bond law as it now e x ists or may be hereafter amended will apply. Ii: appears that the 1965 version which has since been amended may be referred to in the Act. �------------ -- - 8. Section 24 and Section 8(i) must be amended so as to authorize the payment of participating governments of operating subsidies if it should become necessary. 9. Section 24(e) should be amended to eliminate the last sentence which says that the authority is subject to and limited by any local act heretofore or hereafter enacted applicable to the local governing body of any local government. This language is troublesome and we don't know exactly what it means. 10. Section 24(k) should be amended to eliminate the prohibition of the use by the City of Atlanta of "its public funds" to support rapid transit when taxes are being levied by Fulton and DeKalb counties on subjects of taxation within the city limits. Such provision could prevent the city from giving us the benefit of their land office without cost and cedi~g to us certain rights-of-way and benefits in public streets, etc. 11. Section 24(1) should be amended to authorize contributions and support from any municipality in the five-county area rather than limiting it to the defined term "local government" which is limited to the City of Atlanta and the participating counties. 12. Se ction 2(j) should be amended so as to clearly authorize the capitalizing of interest during construction as well as start-up costs with respect to each section of the system as it is begun. This section should also be amended so as to include the total cost of the system as defined in 2(g). 13. Section 6(i-2) should be amended to eliminate the l ast sentence or to make i t clear how a showing that the l easing or purchasing of a privately owned system is essential to rapid transit. 14. Section 8(e) should be amended to eliminate the payment of attorneys' fee s to those suing the Authority for trespass. 15. Section 12 should be amended so as to provide the Authority . with the power of eminent domain. 16. Section 2l(d) regarding the exemption of the Authority from regulation by public service commission, etc. is ambiguous and should be clarified. 17. Section 22 should be reworded s o as t o allow the Au thority to establish self-insurance reserves. - 2 - �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT OCTOBER 31, 196 7 BUDGET 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 TO OCTOBER 31 1 1967 $128,281.64 $128,281.64 $ 84,030.00 23,190.00 82 , 770.00 91,800.00 18,210.00 $300,000.00 $ 5,520.00 $ 84,030.00 17,392.50 82,770.00 91,800 . 00 · 13,657 . 50 $289,650.00 $ 3,853.00 $ 95,000.00 276,000.00 $ 3 71, 000. 00 $ 90,000.00 135,402.54 597.46 $226,000.00 TOTAL INCOME $676,520.00 $519,503.00 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS $804,801.64 $647,784 .64 $ 68,950.00 10,500.00 $ 53,226.44 8,881.92 1,109.00 533.00 1,680.00 10,000.00 99.00 $ 92,871.00 $ 3,150.00 1,168.13 533.34 993.05 300.54 104 .00 $ 65, 207.42 $ 2,700 . 00 Unappropriated Surplus INCOME Appropriations: City of Atlanta Clayton County DeKalb County Fulton County Gwinnett County Sub-Totals Int.erest Income Federal Funds: 702 Loan Section 9 Grant Interest _- Federal Funds Sub-Totals 0 EXPENSES Staff Cos t: Salaries Expense Benefits: Social Security Guaranty Fund Health and Accident Insurance Retirement Workme n 's Compensation S~b-Totals Board Meetings Administrative and Office Overhead : Rent Communication and Postage Furniture and Equipment Supplie s Prin ting Auditor Accountant Public Information Advisor y I nsurance: Public Liab i l ity Depositor y and Forgery Fidel ity Bond Sub -Tota l s CARRIED FORWARD $ 3,000.00 2 , 000 .00 2 , 000 .00 3,600.00 1 , 000 . 00 250.00 1,000 . 00 33,000 . 00 5 , 000 . 00 $ 2 , 500. 00 1,595.84 532 .81 2, 293 . 58 623.56 250 . 00 750.00 22 , 61 5. 83 1 ,551. 95 72. 00 56 . 00 199 . 00 $ 51 , l 77. 00 55. 00 56.27 198 . 60 $ 33 , 023.44 $147 , 198.00 $100 1930.86 �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT OCTOBER 31, 196 7 BUDGET 1967 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 TO OCTOBER 31 1 1967 $804 1 801. 64 $647,784.64 $1471198.00 $ 20,000.00 $100,930.86 $10,758.61 $ 31,250.00 $ 29,939.00 32,667.00 16,333.00 16,000.00 16,333.00 3,333.00 1,667.00 0 0 1,667.00 4,742.09 95,000.00 90,000.00 240,000.00 120,000.00 60,000.00 21000.00 $602,250.00 120,000.00 130,364.00 19,335.54 2,475.84 $430,856.47 TOTAL EXPENSES $769,448.00 $542,545.94 SURPLUS S 35,353.6{± SlQ5,238,ZQ EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultants: Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Study: Section 9 Matching Hammer, Greene and Siler Parsons Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel: 702 Loan Section 9: Federal Matching Retainer Agreement Research and Technical Services Sub-Totals �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA , GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION OCTOBER 31, 1967 ASSETS Cash in Banks : C & S National Bank First National Bank Trus t Company of Georgia Fulton National Bank - Section 9 $ 52 , 164 . 36 3,119.80 1 1000 . 00 38,333.00 Investments: U. S . Treasury Bills 102,350 . 85 Pett y Cas h 25 . 00 TOTAL ASSETS $196 , 993 . 01 LIABILITIES Ac counts Payable $ Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued Reserves: ARMPC - Ur ban Design St udy Atlanta Trans it Stud y Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor -Becht el : Section 9 Matching Retainer Agr eement : Transportation Study Public Informa ti on Surveying TOTAL LIABILITIES SURPLUS 2 , 592 .36 1 , 037.13 8 , 333. 00 1, 667. 00 70 ,364. 00 $1 , 500 . 00 2, 000 . 00 4,26 0 . 82 7,76 0 . 82 91,754 . 31 $1 05,238.7 0 �MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY NOVEMBER 7, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on November 7, 1967, at 3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conf8rence Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Have rty (City of Atlanta) L . D. Milton (City of Atlanta) Richard H . Rich (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT: Edgar Bl al oc k (Clay ton County ) K. A. McMilLon (Gwinnett County) OTHERS PRESENT : Metropoli t an Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L . Stuart , General Manager King Elliott , Public Information Director Ear l Nel son , Chief Engineer H . N. John son , Se cretary to Gen eral Manager Con su ltan ts Wa l t e r Doug l as, Pars ons, Bri n c kerhof f, Quade & Douglas , New Yo rk J. A. Co i l , Res ide nt Manag e r, Par sons , Bri nck e rh off- Tud o r Bechte l , At l ant a Leon Eplan, Er i c Hil l As s oc iat es, Atlan ta W. Stell Hu i e, Huie & Har land, Atlanta George Go odwin, Bell & S t ant on, At l a nt a Bill Bates, Be l l & Stanton, Atlanta �Financial Advisors and Bond Counsel Lloyd Hatcher, White, Weld & Company, New York Dan O'Conner, King & Spalding, Atlanta John Mobley, Gambrell & Mobley, Atlanta Others T. M. Callaway, DeKalb County Commissioner Aubrey Couch, Decatur-DeKalb Development Association Don Ingram; Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. Margaret Hurst, Atlanta Constitution Mrs. Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Jerry Coursey, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, s e conded by Mr. Adamson, the minute s of the October meeting were unanimously approved. Financial Report The Genera l Ma n a ger presented the financial report as of Oct ober 30, 1967, which is attach ed h ereto a nd made a p art o f these minutes. He reported receipt of funds from Gwinnett County during the month, making it current in its appropriations to the Authority. Mr. Stuart said e x penditures for the year would be l ess than anticipated, and a surplus of $105,238 was projecte d. There were no questions, and Mr. Bishop made a motion that the financial r e port b e approved. Dr. Atwood s e conded the motion and it was un animously p assed. Report o f General Manager Mr. Stua rt s a id over six ty meetings had been held with various a g e ncies i n the area conce rned with transporta tion and pla nning, as th e 702 work o f the e nginee rs h a d b e gun to r e flect preliminary drawings in more detail. Mr. Nelson, Chief Engineer, presented a map showing e x pressways e x isting, under c onst ruction , and proposed. He said the MARTA e nginee rs were working wi t h Stat e Highway De p a r t me nt e ngineers on all f utur e improveme n t s planned f o r th e e x presswa y system, in a n effort to coordinate all tran sportati o n pla nn i ng. - 2 - �Mr. Rich suggested the possibility of a spur line off Lenox Road in the center of the freeway to Sandy Springs be considered as part of the long-range plan. He felt it would be a logical and relatively inexpensive way to accommodate the projected e x plosive growth in Sandy Springs. Mr. Callaway of the DeKalb County Commission inquired about the possibility of having a station in Court Square in Decatur instead of along the railroad near Agnes Scott College. He said officials of Agnes Scott would like to have it as far from the college as possible, and officials of Decatur and DeKalb County would like to have it as near the center of Decatur as possible. Mr. Callaway mentioned urban renewal land available in the heart of Decatur, and asked that this be considered at an early date. Mr. Aubrey Couch, representing the Decatur-DeKalb Development Association, also endorsed the exploration of the use of Decatur's urban renewal land for a transit station, parking, etc. In connection with Mr. Callaway's request, Mr. Blount asked if it would be feasible to send an engineer to Decatur to talk about the requests for changes. Mr. Coil said this would be done, and Mr. Callaway requested that DeKalb County officials be included in such a meeting. Mr. Rich said the site along the railroad had been proposed as the most economical, but the plans were tentative, and public hearings would be held in all jurisdictions , and all suggestions considered before the Authority adopted a final plan. The General Manager said meetings with all of the railroads would be completed within one week . Preliminary engineering plans had been left with the engineers of the railroads for study . It was the consensus of the Boar d that the time was approaching when the Board should begin to se r iously negotiate with the policymaking heads of the rail r oads . In response to a question , Mr . Walter Douglas replied t h at as soon as the railroad e n g i nee r s had t i me to absorb the plans , it would be well to s e ek agreement on operational and political feasi bi li ty, l eav i n g the ques ti on of mon e y esti mates until there had been a f a vor able bond issue and money was available with wh i ch to n egot i ate . Mr . Have rty mad e a motion t hat the 70 1 rep o r t be sent to the head s o f the railroads at the appr opriate time , wi t h a pe r sona l letter from t he Chairman of the Aut hority . The moti o n was unanimously pass e d. - 3 - �Reports by Consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel Mr. John coil said the 701 report had been printed and was being bound. The popular report, which was to be a condensed version of the 701 report, would be in draft form for review within a week by ARMPC and MARTA, and would be printed within about three weeks. He said studies of re finement were continuing, and the engineers continued to make evaluations as to use of construction, patronage, etc., and to consider alternate solutions or revisions in the recommendations. Eric Hill As sociates Mr. Leon Eplan said the comme nts of his firm on three of the lines had been given to the engineers, the Planning Commission, and the Authority. Work on the other line would be completed soon, and the writing of the final report had begun. It was hoped their final report would be available by the end of the year. Report of ARMPC Planning Director Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr ., ARMPC Planning Director, reviewed the proposed amendment to the Section 9 application, approved by the MARTA Board at its Octobe r 3rd meeting. He s a id the ame ndme nt r equ e st h a d been fil e d with the Department of Housing and Urban Development as of October 3, 1967. This extension would involve the use of Alan M. Voorhees Associates to give an objective apprai sal of tra nsit planning to date. The study was expected to cost $10,000 in local money, and to take appr ox imately three months. This study, hopefully, would satisfy the interests of the De partment o f Housing and Urban De v e lopme nt and the Bureau o f Public Roads in their efforts to coordinate various public investments in transportation, as well as their concern for the broader impact of transit on the r eg ion . Mr. Rich mentioned the pos sibil ity o f additi onal studies in the future, to examine coordination with the existi ng b u s system. Report of Legal Counsel Mr. Stell Huie o f Huie and Harland, Counsel for the Authority, introduce d Mr. Lloyd Hatcher of White, We ld & Company, - 4 - �financial advisors of New York, and Mr. Dan O'Conner of King and Spalding, and Mr. John Mobley of Gambrell and Mobley, both bond counsel firms of Atlanta. Mr. Huie said several meetings had been held to develop a financial plan which would be practical, with bonds at the lowest possible interest. After discussing various ways of financing, it was recommended that a committee be appointed to work with the financial advisors, bond counsel, and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, to develop current recommendations which could be used in support of a bond issue. The Chairman appointed Mr. Adamson, Dr. Atwood, and Mr. Huie as a committee to work with financial advisors, bond co~nsel and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, to refine and review such variables as interest rates and inflation factors, . in an effort to be certain a realistic millage rate would be used in presenting a bond issue to the public. The Chairman also appointed Mr. Haverty as Chairman, together with Mr. Blount and Mr. Bishop, as a committee to work in the area of public information under the direction of Mr. George Goodwin of Bell and Stanton, to develop the best way to present the plan to the public for referendum. Upon motion by Mr. Blount, seconded by Dr. Atwood, the Board unanimously concurred in the appointment of these two committees by the Chairman. Mr. Hui e r e vi ewe d 17 proposed ame ndme nts to th e MARTA l e gislation, which counsel considered important, and suggested that new legislation incorporating these amendments be submitted to the Legislature in the January session. The suggested change s are attached to and made a part of these minutes . Dr. Atwood made a moti on th a t counsel b e g i v e n aut hor ity t o dra ft l e gis l a tion incorporating th e propos e d ame ndme nts and .submit it to local governments and legislative representatives of loc a l governments for study. Mr. Bishop seconded the motion, and it was unanimously p a ss e d. Adjournment The meeting wa s a d journed at 5 : 00 P . M. Ne x t Meeting Decemb er 5, 1967. - 5 - �Summary of Remarks of w. Stell Huie at MARTA meeting, Novembe r 7, 1967 - re Amendme nts to MARTA Legislation-1968 1. Section 9{c) requiring judicial review of the Authority's rate making powers should be eliminated. It is necessary that the Authority have the power to commit to bond purchasers that it can establish r a t e s suffici e nt to cover the operating cost of the system. 2. Section 10: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) eliminate the 6% interest limitation found in 10 {d) • eliminate the requi rement that the bonds be sold by public competitive bidding found in 10 (h) . . eliminate the requirement that t he bonds be sold at par found in lO{h). amend lO(g) to provide that all "obligations" rather than just bonds will have the qualit i es of negoti able instruments. ame nd lO(p) to provi de that t he procedure o f the reve nue bond l aw as it now e x ists or may be hereafter amended will apply. ~ appears that the 1965 version which has since been amended may be referred to in the Ac t . 3. Section 13{b) must be cla rifi e d so as to eliminate any e x c e ss ive dra in of f unds b y r eason o f r elocation payme nts which may not be included in estimate s o f e n g i nee r s . I n thi s r espect we must check on the federal requirements as well as procedures and policies established f or relocat ion payments under oth e r laws . 4. Section 1 5(c) mus t be amende d so a s t o provide that after a va l idatio n p roc eeding n o c ontract may be declared v oid by reason o f any c o n f lic t o f interest. 5. Greate r fle x ib i lity t han is allowed by S e ction 17 nee ds to be added f o r bud g e t ing p u rpos e s ; howe v er it would app ear t h at t h e o nly must requiremen t here i n is that a def i cit budget should be allowed during initial year ' s operati o ns. 6. Sectio n 18 which pro vides f o r inspectio n every three years by an outside engineer is u nreas onable and wou l d be too e xpe nsive. It should be eliminated. The trust indenture securing the bonds will provide for adequate inspection for t h e interest of the bond holders. 7. Section 24 must be amended so as t o e liminate the r e quire me nt that the contracts with participating governments be approved in a referendum by submitting "the e x tent of the dollar amount or amounts involved." �8. Section 24 and Section 8(i) must be amended so as to authorize the payment of participating governments of operating subsidies if it should become necessary . 9. Section 24(e) should be amended to eliminate the last sentence which says that the authority is subject to and limited b y any local act heretofore or hereafter enacted applicable to the local governing body of any local g overnment. This language is troublesome and we don't know e x actly what it means. 10. Section 24(k) should be amended to eliminate the prohibition of the use by the City of Atlanta of "its public funds" to support rapid transit when taxes are being levied by Fulton and DeKalb counties on subjects of tax ation within the city limits. Such provision could prevent the city from g i ving us the benefit of their l a nd office without cost and cedi rig to us cert ain r i ghts-of -way a nd b e n efi t s in public s t reet~ , e tc. 11. Section 24(1) should be amended to authorize contributions and support from any municip ality in the five-county area rather than limiting it to the defined term "local government" which is limited to the City of Atlanta and the participa ting counties. 12. S e c ti on 2 (j) should be ame nde d so a s to cle a r ly a u t hor i ze t h e capitalizing of interest during construction as well as start-up costs with r e spe ct to each section of the system as it is begun. This section should also be amended so as to include the t otal cos t o f th e s y s tem as de fin e d in 2 (g ). 13 . S e c t ion 6 (i -2) should be ame nded t o e liminate the l ast sen tenc e or t o make i t clear h ow a showing t h at t h e l easing or pu r chas ing of a priva tely owned s y stem is essential to rapid transit. 14 . Se c t ion 8 (e) s hould be amende d to el i minate th e payme nt o f a ttorneys' fee s t o t ho se suing th e Author ity f o r trespas s. 15. S e c tion 12 should be amen ded so as t o provide the Autho rity wi th th e p ower o f e minent d oma in. 16. Section 2 l (d) reg a r di n g t he exemp tion o f th e Au t hor i ty f r om regu l ati on by p ub l ic s ervic e c ommissi on, etc . is a mbiguous and should be clarifi e d . 17. Section 22 should b e rewo rded so as t o allow the Au thority to e s tab lish s elf- insura nce r es e r ves. - 2 - �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT OCTOBER 31, 1967 BUDGET 1967 Unappropriated Surplus ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 196 7 TO OCTOBER 31, 1967 $128,281.64 $128,281.64 $ 84,030.00 23,190.00 82,770.00 91,800.00 18,210.00 $300,000.00 $ 5,520.00 $ 84,030 . 00 17,392.50 82,770.00 91,800.00 13,657.50 $289,650.00 $ 3,853.00 $ 95 , 000.00 276,000 . 00 $ 3 71, 000. 00 $ 90,000.00 135 ,402.54 597.46 $226,000.00 TOTAL INCOME $676,520 . 00 $519, 503.00 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS $804,801.64 $647,784 .64 $ 68,950.00 10 , 500.00 $ 53 ,226 .44 8,881.92 1,109.00 533 . 00 1,680 . 00 10,000 . 00 99 .00 ~ 92,87 1.00 $ 3,150 . 00 1 , 168 . 13 53 3 .34 99 3. 05 300.54 104 .00 ~ 65,2 07.42 $ 2,7 00.00 INCOME Appropriations: City of Atlanta Clayton County DeKalb County Fulton County Gwinnett County Sub-Totals Intere st Income Federal Funds: 702 Loan Section 9 Grant Interest - Federal Funds Sub-Totals 0 EXPENSES Staff Cost : Salarie s Ex pense Benefi ts: Social Security Guarant y Fund Health and Accident Insurance Reti rement Workmen 's Compens a tion Sub-Tota l s Boa r d Meetings Administrative and Office Overhead: Rent Communication and Postage Furn i t ure and Equipment Supplies Printing Auditor Accoun t an t Publi c Information Advi sory Ins urance: Public Liability Depository and Forgery Fidelity Bond Sub-Totals CARRIED FORWARD $ 3 , 000.00 2 , 000.00 2, 000 . 00 3,6 00.00 1 , 000 . 00 25 0.00 1 , 000 .00 33, 000.00 5, 000 . 00 $ 2, 500 . 00 1 ,595.84 532. 81 2,293. 58 623.56 25 0 . 00 750. 00 22,615.83 1 ,551.95 72.00 56.00 199.00 $ 51, 177 . 00 55. 00 56.27 198.60 $ 33,023.44 $147,198.00 $100,9 30. 8b �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT OCTOBER 31, 1967 BUDGET 1967 TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 196 7 TO OCTOBER 31, 1967 $804 2 801. 64 $647,784.64 $147,198.00 $ 20,000.00 $100,930.86 $10,758.61 $ 31,250.00 $ 29,939.00 32,667.00 16,333.00 16,000.00 16,333.00 3,333.00 1,667.00 0 0 1,667.00 4,742 . 09 95,000.00 90,000.00 240,000.00 120,000.00 60,000.00 2,000.00 $602,250.00 120,000.00 130,364.00 19,335.54 2, 475.84 $430,856.47 TOTAL EXPENSES $769,448 . 00 $542,545 . 94 SURPLUS S 35,353.6t1: SlQS, 238, ZQ EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultants: Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Study: Section 9 Matching Hammer, Greene and Siler Parsons Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel: 702 Loan Section 9: Federal Matching Retainer Agreement Re search and Technical Services Sub-Totals �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA, GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION OCTOBER 31, 1967 ASSETS Cash in Banks: C & S National Bank First National Bank Trust Company of Georgia Fulton National Bank - Section 9 $ 52,164.36 3,119.80 1 , 000 . 00 38,333.00 Investmen ts: U. S. Treasury Bills 102,350.85 Pett y Cash 25.00 TOTAL ASSETS $196 , 993 . 01 LIABILITIES Ac counts Payable $ Payr oll Taxes Withhe ld and Accrued Reserve s : ARMPC - Urban Design Study Atlanta Transit Stud y Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel : Sect ion 9 Matching Retainer Agreement: Tr ans portation Study Public Information Surveying TOTAL LIABILITIES SURPLUS 2, 592.36 1,037.13 8,33 3.00 1, 667. 00 70 ,364. 00 $1 , 500 . 00 2,000.00 4,26 0.82 7, 760 .82 91,754.3 1 $105,238.7 0 �l I METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 808 GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 / TELEPHONE AREA 404 524- 5711 Ki ng Elliott, Public Information Director Oct. 26, 1966 EDITORS, NEWS DIRECTORS: (For your information.) The next meeting of the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan will be held Atlanta 966, at 3:30 P.M. Conference Room Glenn Building 1 20 Marietta s t ., N. W. One item which is expected to come up is the a p poi ntment of a fiscal age nt for the Authority. The Authority has h e ard presen- tations from several firms seeking appointment as fiscal agent. The " Fiscal Agent " would advise MARTA on a l l aspe cts of financ i ng the r api d t ransit sys tem . �November 1, 1967 Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 45 Broad Street, S. W. Atl nta, Georgia 30303 De r Dick: In view of the f ct that a determination will soon be made on the federal level as to whether the Urban Mass Transportation Act should be left in th Department of Hou ing and Urban Development or trans{ rred to the Department of Tr n portation, the N tion 1 League of Citie i considering th po ition it bould t k on thi matter. The Tran portation nd Communications Committee of NLC baa scheduled me ting for the la t we k of this month, at which tlme I will b asked - - s vie: chairman of the committee to m ke recommendation; and I am writing you to k for the benefit of your feeling nd reason for s m • Sine rely, s SMJr:nd cc: The Hon. Ivan Allen, Jr. V ~ Jr. �1rl Octbber 24, 1967 MEMORANDUM To: Mr . Cha:rle L . Davis From: R . Earl Land rs We are attaching hereto the propo ed budget of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Tran it Authority. If we do not already have the information, I think it would be well for us to cure a complete ro ter of the director and employees of all of the agencie to which we contribute showing al ries proposed . Thi will n ble ua to at lea t, make some compari•on a to the laries b ing paid by the various genci • with tho e we are able to p y to our offici la . REL :lp Atta.chm nt �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY GLENN BU ILD ING / A TL AN TA , GEORG IA 3 0 3 0 3 / AREA CODE 40 4 52 4 -5711 O FFICE RS: Richard H. Rich, Ch a irm a n Roy A. Blount, Vic e Chair man October 16, 1967 Glenn E. Be nn ett, Secreta ry Henry L. Stuart, Ge nera l Ma nager Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta~ Georgia. Dear Mayor Allen: I am enclosing financial statement of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority as of September 30 , 1967 . Sincerely yours, /i-~a4H. L. Stuart, General Manager .• HLS:JJ Enclosur e cc : Mr. Mi l ton G. Fa rris Mr. Cha rles L. Davis �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT AUOUSX· ' 31 -~. 196 7'. BUDGET 1967 Unappropriated Surplus ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 196 7 TO AUGUST 31, 1967 $128,281.64 $128,281.64 $ 84,030.00 23, 19o'. 00 82,770.00 91,800.00 18,210.00 $300,000.00 $ 5,520.00 $ 63,022.50 17,392 . 50 41,385.00 68,850.00 9,10_5_.9~ $199,755 . 00 ~ 3,018.77 $ 95,000.00 276,000.00 $371,000.00 $676,520.00 $804,801.64 $ 60,000.00 67,686.12 597.46 $1 28,283.58 ~"$331, 057. 35 $459,338.99 $ 68,950.00 10,500.00 $ 41 , 380.94 7,048. 24 1 ,109.00 533.00 1 , 680.00 10,000.00 99.00 $ 92 ,871.00 $ 3,150.00 1, 088.89 400 . 00 758.13 300.54 104.00 $ 51 I 080. 74 $ 2 , 200.00 iNCOM)<'; Appropriations: City of Atlanta Clayton County DeKalb County Fulton County Gwinnett County Sub-Totals Interest Income Federal Funds: 702 Loan Section 9 Grant Interest - Federal Funds Sub-Totals TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INC0?1E AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS 0 EXPENSES Staff Cost: Salaries Expenses Benefits: Social Security Guaranty Fund Health and Accident Insur~nce Retirement Workmen's Compensation Aub - Totals Board Mee t i ngs Administrative and Office Overhead: Rent Communications and Postage Furniture and Equipment Suppli e s Print ing Auditor Ac countant Publi c Informat ion Advi sor y Ins urance: Pub l ic Liabi.lity Depository and forgery Fidelity Bond Sub-Tot;als CARRIED FORWARD $ 3,000.00 2, 000.00 2, 000 . 00 3,6 00 . 00 1, 000 . 00 25 0 . 00 1 , 000 . 00 33, 000 . 00 5, 000 . 00 72. 00 56.00 199.00 $ 51 , 177.00 $147,198.00 $ 2 , 000.00 1,254 . 16 117 . 81 1 , 854 . .58 623.56 25 0 . 00 500 . 00 15, 025 .20 977. 35 55. 00 56.27 198 .60 $ 22,9 12.53 $ 76, 193.27 �:S·c .S1..' ',..1t0'.·~ ""1: Ct.1-:t z.:..:1d ..;oh>:1son oi the -±2r.d , \Vesu -::r.-y oi the 37 th, Ma c :.tyre o" the ot}1c:.A s T.) be ·ntitlc . a.~ Act ·:·o · rn nd an Act kr,,ow::1 a - ti':c "Me tro - par::c\.."iL.1. · :i.y by a. w ·,th : 7.o c.ha:--.ge ih~ provisions reL,t.~.g p. 326 4; , :cs fo.-Y·t::e:-:· A app1 ovc r .e ,.YJ~a·-.::i.:.:::: g of i:, e::- so:r.a1. se::T.co.s me::r..de::d ·ty : :--.:3e :~r.in.g in Seer.: ,:)!: 8 of sa~c'. Act .t,ereor, ' a:--i.d •vh~.c h s 1:--.c:.ll -::-ca.cl a· £0110·.v S. 3 . l L fol~ 0 "1.vin.g �11 • •' .. 1, --,] _,1c • 1 ewe.:: to invest anc. rein ves t any or all idle fund::; or 110:11es, :.:.1culuing but no t limi · d to , funds held in r eserve or ebt 2:etire::1.ent , or r- ce1vecl t h ough the issuance of reve nue ce rtificates or fr::>:.:1 co:.nr ' bur ons, gi · ~ o . gr ants, wh ' ch cannot be imrnediately i.:sc · J:o;_· the pc:rpose io · wh· ch :::eceived , .n any security or securiti- s \vh:ch ace 1 gal inve strnen ts £or Executors or Trust ees , _J:,:ovided, however, tha-c such investr.c1.ents in such securities will, at aL -cin:es, be held for arJ.c: ,vhe . sold used for "the purposes for whicn the money was orig i, ally received . Se c;.. io, 2 . Said 11 ct is furt1er an nde d by striking therefr o m Section · 2 thereoi n i'"s entirety and insertir g i:.1 lieu thereof a ne w Section wh ich snall read as follows: 11 l2 The Au ho i ty shall have t 1 . e power of emi ent domc:.in or tl" e purpose oi acquiring pr op erty needed fo_ the purp os es oi t 11e Al...thority . Condenu1ation proceedings for ·the ac _uisition of su c h prop rt.y shall be in accordance -,; ~th t he provisio. s contained 1n C'1aptcr:::: 36-1 th · ough 36-6, of the Cod =- of Geo ;:(a of 1 933 , as &:c:-.ended, C hapte1· 36 - 11 of the Code of Geo'rgia of 1933, as an1ended, or any and all other procedures now or herea ter granted by ti1e · c:.ws and Constitution of Georgia, including but not limi-ced to the ?:COcedu::e set for;;h nan Act approved M2. rch 13, 1957 (Ga . Laws 1 93 7, p. 387 1, as amended , to pers o ns or corporations ·.a vin.g 1:h p n v i c ge of ex ercising the ·ight o · eminent do1nai In addition to sc:..ch 1:,owc::: oI emine:. t do nain, the City of Atlanta a 1d ·he Countic s o i Fulton, De K c1.lb, Claywn ancl Gwinnett (and the County of Cobb ~n t he e::ve nt that i t sha li p ar tic ip a t e ) may for the purposes o th e S . B . 111 - 2- . /,..---....,.,,, \ \ ' ~ �.., A·..:..::ority ex rcise the b:i.•00.dcst. power o_ eminent doma i:1. av3.i lable to : •. "'rn or any agency o:;: j o int a:::;2.1cy· thereo ·, unde:r any Stabxi:e , ..r:.d. convey to the Authority any :_:>:.:-oper y so acquired U:'._:)On payment o ::.· c:cdit for tl e total cos·.: 0£ any acqt:is ition he re DC'.. r . r.0 local gov er 1ing bo 'y sl1.all exc r ci se any- power '1.e ::.· ei..,nd e:c \: ith ·esp ct to propert limi:~s . emin ent don1ain loca . . ccl beyond i s ter1:i·torial 11 S -· c ion 3 . Said Ac 1s f, rtl1c _.. a::-r1en c sec'.:ion C) of Section 8 t er of, i:1. it a new subsection \Vhich shall rea an o:i: However , e. ti l·ety , an by striking he re fro 1., sub serting in lieu thereof L as fo low : em:)loyees , includ ing e.,2:ineeri:1:;; , a~:c '1.itcct al .:..n const1·uctio. experts , fiscal agents an c. 2.'.:to :.: .. eys , ·co contr2.c io:· the se vices of individuals or organizati.ons not er11.p loyed full tirne by ·.:he Authority , 0 t who ar- engaged prii·:-.,_:i::- ::. ly in. 'c:-.Le re . . d ' tion &::G. not the sale o goods o:.: n:e:::c: an 1se, such ers o::-.Lc:.l services 0 s but not li r:1itcd to ·cne services o_ attorn ys, 2..c co u.2Y'::ant s, engi :. ee ~ s, 2.::- c ite c ts , consult;::i.nts and adviso _ , . 2l i.owi:-.::, suitable compcnsatio .. and to m2.ke p1~ovisions fo:c groll,;::_, 1_1:.suyar~ce , i· - ti1·2r.:1ent o · othe be:.1.eiit arrangements . Sc c:ion Lt e1ni)loycc 11 All laws o r p .... ::: " o f laws in conflict wil 'l t . . i s Act 2.re r. e:c e;oy rep ec1 l e d . \;0':2~: \Ve z..~::::o request that the ast se tcn ce in Section 1-± ( · ) b~ dclet ' c.: 2.1c. i:.1. .L:..et: thereof the followin g s b s ituted : .'oc.:-..:'.:."..-5 i:"\. t:-.is .Se.ctio~1 s hall .&f->> y to co·.:1.'c acts for ., ofe.~sion2.l sc ~v:.. c r::.J c :c ·c ne p~ rso n.21 se:..~vic~s o::.· e:nploye.es, or ·::o conc.:··2cts f o:c s2-~- vie.:.:.; o-Z. ::..·.1d.ividuals or o rgc:..niz.:. tio. s not employed full tir:1e. oy ':l.e. 143.215.248.55hc~ity bat who are engaged primari ly in the re.nditio2 ~f J~~son2~ s~rv~c=s ~~d not the sale of goods and m~rchandise., such services of a~tcrneys, accountants, e.ngir:.c'-'rs, ':::ect.J. co;.--:.sultants and advi sors o , . i.::.::'"'c i.\l-- �.,::__..,_ .. - A BILL } .. :: Act ·co .:..n:..~r:d E1 Act known as ·.:he: ~~;:) ic. T:·:..ns::.t _.;.x.ti.10::: ity A-:t or 1965, ,~ \.....i~•• 11 11 ?v:::etropolitan Atla:.:.:a ,,:_)p:cov,;d Maren lC, 1965 (C:•• Laws 1966, p. priv:..ttdy t::::-z.r:.si·.: Ll u ·. . c rn.ctropol i tan are2; ·co ~c::ic:te c:. provision subjecting sa::. ...\.utl-:..ority :o liaoili...:y fo ... c rt air... ::::cco :.r. ey s :ees of adverse parties ; -~o .:J. ....1Ql~'-"-v'-" . ,. . . . . ·- -:. \ ·V ,•. .•. lC . -.. pu. ., ., b1· ;.. C b OQlC::, - . , . . ::,2.H . . .: ...:J... ,\ - __ ,..., . .I. .h.Ul,l.O .. J..y ~ [nay .... or...l,,. • ,.... ....... - .... .I.-. • • •• , - · .... ..... • .: ct l.-c Wl cl1 ?CJ. l,alLJ.. g ..:o its p ·r:)oscs ; Io authorize loc.::.i gove:;:::.·.mcnts to pay opcr2tional s"Gb - ... even-..:e bo:-.1.C:.s ; ::o ' Ir..e rn&y ~(; ::::-.c.z...in u1c n:.c:t:i: opo:i.itJ.n ca , ::or public trans :,ortation services to be :ren · erea by the Au hority or its rapid -~:::;:;.:1sit ::;yster,1, ;.;.nc ior any o·c'1.cr pu:rposc:s inciccntal ·:o i,1dica t e ,-:hich puolic bociies s id _~_uthority may con - o :1.1-2 cs;;a.'.:llishrn.cnt a.. d 111.ain·c<.::nancc of its rapid tr2.ns i t tract \Yith pertaining syst1::n1., or any par·c or project t·1ereo ~, including the to its purposes nd to cla:::-ify the power payr:.,...:::'t oi iunds to subsidize fr1e operations oi such of loc3.l governinents top Y opera ional subs idi es syste1n if ·t s}1ould ev ::: be nccc:ssa:;.:y to the usual fa.ciliti""s related t::iereto . Sec-'-icn i . o so, and 11 Said Act is fu _ ther a1nended by striking t: ereiron.J. subscc·.::.on c) of Section 9 :.n its entirety and inse1·ti~1.~ i:::i lieu t..1.ereof a new subsection (c) which shall read as follows : Boa ~ d shall , . Q(!·i: ~ ::~11'1:i.~-- C oy itseli c:):clusi vcly by ·.:--ic Au:ho:city, the scr-~eduled se:::vice::; ;;o be made available to the pi..1.biic and -~he an'lo·u.nt s to be charged to eliminate the pro v ision for judicial review of char ge s or services fixed by said Authority '.:r..e::.:eio :: . c:1eclulec. Before 1na!c:.. ng a:n.y c.e·~erminations as to ervices o_ an"lou::1.ts ·co be chz..rged there:o::.·, the.; 302.::-c. shall :i.i:;.: st hold a·c lez..st one public hearing ·~:-,..:; largc:c.t circulatic.,n J. -~}1c ·11.d:ro )ol:i.tan :1:.: ...: no · c:-_0~c ·" .::... ten u ays :.1.or lcs.3 tr.an five d:iys prior ..;o the - 3-- �:n,lcs an,t rcg,1L.1.tio 1s tu g0vc1·n ::;uch hc:::i.ring::; not Sc...: ion 6. 1 SJ.i ' _.\ct 1s fu:rthcr 'arnc:1.dcd by sL iking tbcrciror11. cw ··d) sc ctio 1 (d) which shall ::cad ;.is :.:allows : I, : \ ~ .l ) ..)c~::.· intc.:. est p::i.yablc 2.t s · c h tin1cs :tncl a· such rate o:::- rc:.tcs .nd sI'.all rnaturc 1n s,__...cn amounts and at Si.:.c: :i:Y1es _ot exc eeding :or ty (".::O) ye!2.rs fro:,n the d2.-ce fne1· eof, as th i3oard rr:.ay detenni ne . The to delew require n:.en-s t at rev nue bonds 1nay be ir. coupo :1 or registered f r om, or both , bonds o: said A ui:1:o rity be sold at pa 2.nd bearing inte est at as the Boa1·d 111.ay d ete r:nin e , a:id the Board may · a rate not exceedin;; ff.::.:,c provision for the rcgis-::rz.:~io::-, 0£ any co upon bond s 1x per cent per anr.um .::::c:.: es -:: . s;.1'.:,scctiora ( 6 ) 01 1' S ection 10 in its e:::1.ti r e ty a:1.c. i:..1.serting 1r.. lieu t:ne1·cc:.: tcnY:::io:::-2.ry bonds, equi pn:1er..t trust cplic:able:, i n a cco:rci anc c w i tl1. tne proc c~u2: e of fr1e i\even:c:. e :2.ond Law (Ga . L . 19 37, ? • 7'. . C 1, (;t . seq . ) as now c :: h e r e a:frer a1ner:d.:::ci . T11e to clar ify the p : :.- 0 cedur e fo th e validar;ctition fo -:: valiC::.ation s},all c:..lso rn.a. ~ e pa rty de:ic:ad ant tion of rcvenu(:; bonds · t 0 ::; u ch action a . . y n unicipal ' ty , county , aut 10· ity, ·<1 .J C i vi s i0n , in:;.;tn.;.1n c nt:..t.lity o dcpar1.1Y1cnt of th e StC!.tc: o · Ce 0r gia , i:Z subject to be sued , which has conn a ct e.::i with t:he: Autncr i '~y £o r ·.:he -;i :.: 0 · e:ct i c 12 ~ vices and iacilitics , 01 J.:8 ior wnich bo::-,ds arc to be is succ. a1;.d so g},.t .. o validated and suc:1 n'lunicip~.lity , county , auth or ity, i 'l.,b d:ivision , instnnncnta li ty or dcpJ.rt1nc1-~t ::;hall be - S- 4 CO: . �:.-~ ~'--1::,:cci to show c ause, ii ar.. y, why ::;uch contract or co:1-r2.cts and the tenns and cone itions ther eo f s:-..o~ :d : 10t be i :1 1ui::: c i .. to by the coun an d the va:ici.i::y oi the -~ern1s thereo:.: to be dete r mined and .or ·che: ·9ayr.1 ~.. t o:I: any !:;;UCh bonds of the Authority . The judgn1ent o: valid atio n shall be final and con elusive with resuecc to such bonds, and ·che security .:r1erefor, agains t the P_u h ority , and aga in st any mm .. icipality , county , &u-ch ority , sub di visio n , instru- .nentali::y o:::- depa r tment o:: the S '~ate of Georgia, i£ a ?2. :.-ty to the validati01,. p. oceedings, co ntrac -cing with J·he . ,_11.. c:tho:::-ity . 11 -._. , l:. \..'. l: ~ J,,.j ... .. 1.. ,._,. . : _:: L: V ·:.:.,_;:..r,s 1or anci :::.ssi.st in the reloc&tio::1 o:£ persons - ... . .:.aJ..:::l.;.lC S , .) sincss conccr;.1s, no:-.·Hoii:: or 6 aniL'. atior'..s 2.;.1cl othc .. s) d i spla c ed by to lin1.it the sou .. ces £rom which rcloca tio payme .. ts .ay be made on-::r2..·cions oi fr.8 Aut}:ori;;y t::.· z.nsit projecc, a:c.. El c::u: rying out a rapid to rnake ::: clocz.. ·ion pay :-nen ·s to or with rcsj_)ect to such pc::.· son::; . Tr:e relocation p&..y - --::.cnts rd<;rre:d to in t:l1is subsection b) s~1all not be rr.acle fro~'Y'.. -~:-..e: P - occeC::.s cie:rive:ci :aor,:1 the sale of bonds 1:-:,'/ th<; Authority no r fro1n rcve:~1ue s or funds which abso.:::n"i: -~}:e 1-r.2:.king 0£ such relocation payn1er-.t s there:...~ orn would 0r the interest the:re:on . 1 1 - 6- _ �Sc-:.tion 11. .'.::iaid Act is further an:1c:aclccl by striking thc:rc:from sub::;ec:ion 1 c) oi Section. 15 in its entirety and inserting in lieu t:ier c of -1 new subsc -:. io 1 c) which shall 1·cacl as iollowt: : 11 (c) Any contract or transac-;:ion of the Authority rn - sectio. (a) he _ eof, o ~ a violation oft: e a c t of the General As senc.bly approved Mar c h l O, 19 6 -= , (19 64 Ga . L . p . 261) , as an1 ded, o r a vio l z,:cion o:f any other p r o vision o f law ap?licable w tl1e Author i ty, ii:s .c..ioard n1.crr1ber s, o ffi c ers , to ?rovicl..e t 1at con tracts and trans or er:::1.p: oyees regulating conflicts o::: i ::ite ::- est , shall ·oe actions c onstitut·ng security for the pay - voidable by the Boar d ; provided, howeve r, a judgrn ent a nci 111. nt of obiigations shall not be voidable ore.er vali ating °!)ands of t:1.e Authorit y, as in Secti o n 10 afte r validation prov1cea, shall c o _stitute a fir.. 1 and c onclu s i ve adjud ic a-ci on th&t no such conflict of :.::1.terest exists w i th respect to s...:.c;1 ~cc11rity ior r}1c·-:_:,2.;,n.-;.1.c ~1.t c: st1.cl".. bor:i.ds . 1 1 s~asectio. ('::>) 0£ Sectior.. 17 in its entirety and inse1·ting m lieu i:hcreoi a new s"c1bscction (b) wr.icr. shall rcac. as i ollow s : "(b) During each :Ciscal year the.• Board shall propo s e in ~:1:::.·...:;:.l operating b clg e.: io :2: the cns1. rn.g :iisc:::..l y...::a.1· · ncl hold a public r.ea,.ing therco~1 . Aiter such puolic hea.1·ing ·.:::-.e :Soa1-d s1-:all review its ? rO)OScd budget, and, on or to expar.d rhe pcrioc:. of time with in which J....::.:o:-c the last U.d.Y o:f t: c fiscci.l ye::1.r , it shall dopt a11 budge::ts shall be propose d and review e d <,.::,.._,__.._d ope;rc:..ting b ·d~ e:c fo:: the: ensui1:g :fiscal year . In -~:.e; an:r......:.al operating budget each O?erating fund shall be set forth s epara-ceiy and 11 w an estimate of ·he £-..me. ~alancc to be a vailabl-:; a·c the bc ~innin g ox the yc;:i.r , an - 7- �cs tirnate o" anticipated crcdi ·s during the year a ccording to sou ... c ~, an cs;;in1atc o · .:mti ci patecl c harges , inc l u ding lr.:)ln antic1p;1t cd rcv.:m.uc s, and co1nparati ve data on t he 13.s;; two con1.plc·.:c' fiscal ye;2. rs n or csti1na-ccc, fo r t he current yea r. Scc1:io:1. 13 . si1nilar data , actual 11 S aid A c t is iu :nhc r a1nended by st:::iking th er efrom S ection 18 whi c h reads as follows : 11 Scction 18. Engineering Surve y . At least e very tr-.1.ree years, th e Board shall enc.ploy a iirm of qualified i n depenc.ent e ngin ee rs to survey the conc.iti on 0 1 t:he to de l te the r equire ment o f an eng inee r - i,.uth orityis fa c iliti es and OJ?er at::.ons fro1n an en g inee r ing ing survey eve r y thr ee years standpo i nt and make a repo r;; th ereof and any re c or.irncndc:.. t ::.ons :::o r i r .-.1.p rov en1.cnt i n i 'c s ~)hys ic al faciiities a nd ov-.. ::.·n:-.1.e;nt l:l ir.. the metro Dol::.ta ::1 area . 11 i t S s.:::.t::.r C :.:y. Saici A c t is iu ... the r a:::-:-.. ended by sc.: ikir:.g ::here:r o:".:.1. s c..:.sc ci:::. o;.1. (b) of Section 21 "in i::s entir ety and i nsc . t i ng 111 lieu the r eoi a ,·,,:vi :... ·u1,::.;cction (b) w ·1 ·ch s h-:ill re:~,d :,c.: Io . lows: '(L) 'J.'lH; .i\1.cLliori.ly :.;h~LJ..L <.1.l ::,;v IJ(.; cxcn·,1JL f1:u:u1 ...,_ny 1·c:,;l.ll..l.ti.011 to clarify the re::lation of the Autho rity to ·0y tnc Publi c S e :::vic e Co nnn::. ss ion oi this S tate. 11 the Public Service S(;ctio::1. 15. Sa.id Act i s :Curfr1er arr:.enc.e;d by striki g the 1· 2i:i: o:::n Commis s ion Se;ctior. 22 in its cr.tirety and in serting 1n lieu ther~of a new S e ct i on 22 1 'Se::c-cion 22 . To. t Liabili·.:y; Insurance. The Au::hority s~all not enjoy g ove _ mne:-i.tal i:mrnunity frorn tort liabili1:y, - '-: i., .... - �Dut shall be liable t hcrcfo ::..· a s any private.; cor poration cxce;,pt t:1a t no exe cution sl12..ll be le vied on any property o:.: t~1c A: ·hor ity p rior to :1inety (90 days from the; date o: i. ~:., al jucigmem again t the Authority . The Authority s.1a.:.l p roviC:.e ior adequate ins1.:r a i1cc or similar protection against any loss, liability or other risk, hazard or o pe rmit the _,;uthori~y to act as a self - insurer _ espons ibility to whic h it 1-r..ay be exposed or which it rr:Zi.y accept on acco'll:at o:2erations . 0.1. i-cs pro?e ::ty, personnel, or Such i nsurar.ce rn.ay be p rovided through self- insurance res e rves or by contracts or arrange ments w ith othe r parties 1n such manner a::id amounts as the Boar d in i ts d iscr etion shaL. cietermine . Section 16 . 11 Said A ct ::. s further arr.ended by s-cri ·::.r..g tne r cfro~ S c c·cion 24 in its en ir e ty and in scning in l ieu thcreoi a new S c ctio::-, 2-;, .:. :::- ~;:,. :;. ::, c:c:2.:;: e ci ior the ?u:::posc 01 this _-'>..ct to be an essential o v c nr ::-:c:nt2.l iunctio n a:i.d a p t b2.ic purpose of t he City oi Atlanta and fr.c counties of Fulto~1., DeKalb , Clayton and Gwin nett, ana t o m o d ify the pro c edur es w he r eb y o: fo e co·,nty of Cobb if it :hereafter de ·~ermines- to ?articipate local g ov e rnments and othe r p ubl ic l 1 L.. .... ..1.-..; Au-cha r ity a s provicied 1n this Act . b o d ie s may partici ,. The B oard and the local governing boci.y of the City of pat e i n financing ', ';j } and s upporting a rapid tr a nsit Lt:a:r:.ta and each of th e: counti es of Fulton, DeKalb , C L:l.y t on, sys t e m .I• .,,.,,... \ c::.:-..e l ocal g overning boc.y o : any county within the :::11.etrop0Et2.:1 a r ea sha· 1 not be heic. 1:::1. a:_y p a rt o f such coun ty which i.S \V::.t::in t ;-..c te rr::.torial lim its o f t h e City of Atlanta i i , with rc s? cct t o '.:he :) a rtic u lar rapid tran sit proje c t or projects -~o b e sup9or"Ci.::C. cy the p r opo sed r apid tr a n s it co::.1t a ct of s uch county, s::i.i' C i::y .s al · ca y a pa1·ty to a rap id n-a n s it contr a ct or t he gov...:: :::1::.ng IJGc.y of ;:;aid C ity p::.·opo::;e;::; t o c 1tcr into r ap.-d t r,:i-:.1 sit c or:::::: c.c"' ·ubj(;ct - ;o the ap-;_)roval t 1crc o f ::i.t a rc ie r c n dun1 . 1..o be :::irescr.t s.: GET REPORT AUGUST 31 1 1967 BUDGET lo/67 ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 TO AUGUST 31, 1967 I TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD $804,801.64 $459,338.99 $147,198.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 76,193.27 $ 8,758.61 $ 31,250.00 $ 29,939.00 32,667.00 16,333.00 16,000.00 15,293.00 3,333.00 1,667.00 0 0 1,563.00 4,742.09 EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultants: Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planµing Commission Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Study: Section 9 Matching Hamm~r, Greene and Siler P~rsons-Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel: 702 Loan Section 9: Federal Matching Retainer Agreement Research and Technical Services Sub-Totals TOTAL EXPENSES 95,000.00 60,000.00 240,000.00 120,000.00 60,000.00 2,000.00 $602,250.00 $769,448.00 60,000.00 112,411.00 15,115 . 64 2,035.84 $317,099.57 $402 I 051. 45 SURPLUS S 35,353,6f± S 5Z, 28Z , 5f± �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA, GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AUGUST 31, 1967 ASSETS Cash in Banks: C & S National Bank First National Bank - Payroll Trust Company of Georgia Fulton National Bank - Section 9 $ 14,296 . 04 2,651.88 1,000.00 20,976.08 Investments: U. S. Treasury Bills 114,812.00 25.00 Petty Cash Accounts Receivable: Gwinnett County - 19Q7 Gwinnett County - 1966 $9,105.00 4,552.50 13,657.50 $167,418.50 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES $ 12,648.37 Accounts Payable Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued Reserves: ARMPC - Urban Design Study Atlanta Transit Study Parsons-Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtet: Section 9 Matching Retainer Agree~ent: Transportation Study Public Infor\llBtion Surveying TOTAL LIABILITIES SURPLUS 1,492.14 7,293. 00 1 ,563 . 00 82,411.00 $ 139.37 245.19 4,338.89 4,723.45 110,130.96 $ 57 , 287.54 �MINUTES OF THE NINETEENTH MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY SEPTEMBER 5, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on September 5, 1967, at 3:30 P.M. in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT: Edgar Blalock (Clayton County) K. A. McMillan (Gwinnett County) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manager Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary King Elliott, Public Information Director Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager MARTA Advisory Committee H. Boyer Marx, American Society of Landscape Architects Richard Forbes, American Institute of Planners �Consultants J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, Atlanta Leon Eplan, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta W. Stell Huie, Huie & Harland, Atlanta Others Joseph Lay, Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., Atlanta William Fletcher, White, Weld & Co., New York City Thomas J. Pendergrast, Courts & Co. P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council George B. Pilkington, Bureau of Public Roads John D. Prien, Jr., Executive Director, Georgia Society of Professional Engineers Donald G. Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Mrs. Rachel Champagne, Miss Claudette Parrish, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman. Minutes The minutes of the August meeting were unanimously approved by the members present. Due to lack of a quorum, it was agreed that this action would be ratified by the Board at the October meeting. Financial Report The General Manager presented the financial report as of August 31, 1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Costs were running according to the budget. Third quarter appropriations had been received from participating governments with the e x ception of DeKalb and Gwinnett Counties . The tentative budget for fiscal 1968 would be submitted to the Board members for consideration in October . Progress Reports General Manager Mr. Stuart reported that Mr. Nelson had met with officials of the City of Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb Counties, and the City of - 2 - �Decatur, and furnished them with sets of the 701 report materials for their study. He was scheduled to meet with East Point and · College Park officials to apprise them of transit plans relative to their areas. The General Manager stated that the final draft of the financial report prepared by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates had been received and would be submitted to the Board members. Public Information Director Mr. Elliott reported that Mr. M. C. Bishop had made rapid transit presentations during the past month before the South Fulton Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors meeting, the College Park Kiwanis Club and the Atlanta Airport Area Rotary Club. At these meetings a film was shown entitled "The Alternate Route"; this was on transportation problems in Los Angeles and its need for a rapid transit system. Mr. Elliott mentioned a special column that will appear in f uture issues of Rapid Transit Progress. It will answer various questions about rapid transit and plans; subject matter will consist of "MARTAnswers" by the General Manager. Chief Engineer Mr. Nelson reported on his attendance at the Engineering Foundation Research Conference held at Proctor Academy , Andover, New Hampshire, August 14-16, where discussions and presentations on e conomic and social aspects of urban transportation were stressed. The imple me nta tion of new transportation technology wa s pre s e nte d b y promine nt res earche rs f rom the fe d e ral government a nd priv a t e industry. Mr . Nelson was instructed to meet with the State Highway Department in connection with the construction of I - 485 in o rder to determine e ff e cts this r oute might h a v e on the t r ansit pl a nni ng. Consultants Pars o n s , Bri n c kerho f f - Tudor, Be chtel Mr. Co i l reported on recent s oil t est borings alo ng the n o rth-so u th line and exhibited formations o f stone taken at various depths. Contractual work f o r these borings had been completed and was - 3 - �being analyzed by Law Engineering Testing Company prior to a final report. Mr. Donald C. Hyde, retired General Manager of the Cleveland Transit System and now an Associated Consultant with Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, had visited the PBTB offices recently and rendered valuable guidance on patronage and operations studies under way. Mr. Walter Quintin of BART, San Francisco, had also worked in Atlanta recently and furnished information on train controls. Mr. Coil said PBTB's text for the 701 report was completed and was going to the printer very soon. Mr. Bennett mentioned that additional copies, over and above the 250 copies called for under the 701 contract, might be requested by the Authority. Mr. Bishop suggested that the General Manager be authorized to secure an appropriate number of additional copies at MARTA's expense. This was agreed. Mr. Coil reported on progress of Lord & Den Hartog, design consultant for PBTB, in the design work for Transit Center and other stations and said a more detailed report would be made during November. Design concepts of the stations had been presented to those in attendance at the briefing session prior to the meeting. Eric Hill Associates Mr. Eplan briefly reported on progress of the impact study; discussions had been held with school authorities, fire department officials, and housing authorities to consider rapid transit plans and their relationship to these particular functions. He said work was continuing; studies were approximately two-thirds complete. · Proposed New Impact Study Mr. Bennett stated that in view of the studies by Eric Hill Ass ociates and the 701 reports, he had felt there might be duplication of work in the previously submitted work program for the first Section 9 Amendment approved by the Authority at the July meeting. This application had been held up until a revised program was determined and clarified. Mr. Wingfield said consideration was being given to retaining one of the nation's outstanding transportation experts, Alan Voorhees and Associates of Washington, D. c., to evaluate plans and pro grams. This could be a valuable addition to the final planning of the transit system. Voorhees would be able to render the - 4 - �Authority excellent advice and evaluations which would be invaluable as input for the pre-referendum campaign next year. Mr. Ingram of Central Atlanta Progress stated the transportation consultant selected to advise MARTA would be retained by Central Atlanta Progress in connection with its studies on transportation. Other Business Mr. Bennett informed the Board members of a meeting to be held on September 12 in the Highway Board Room, co-sponsored by the -State Highway Department and the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. The purpose was to discuss important points relative to overall transportation planning. At the meeting it was expected that a Policy Committee would be organized to render decisions regarding the Atlanta Area Transportation Study. It was hoped this would strengthen coordination of all agencies involved in the total transportation planning program for metropolitan Atlanta. To date AATS had operated without unified policy direction. Invitations had been sent to heads of local governments, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Bureau of Public Roads, MARTA, and the Atlanta Transit System. Adjournment The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:30 P.M. Next Meeting October 3, 1967. - 5 - �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT AUGUS? ' 31 ·~. 1967 ·. Unappropriated Surplus BUDGET 1967 ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 196 7 TO AUGUST 31, 196 7 $128,281.64 $128,281.64 $ 84,030.00 $ 63,022.50 23,190.00 82,770.00 91,800.00 18,210.00 $300,000.00 $ 5,520.00 17,392.50 41,385.00 68,850.00 9,105: 9.9 $199,755.00 $ 3,018.77 $ 95,000.00 $371,000.00 $676,520.00 $804,801.64 $ 60,000.00 67,686.12 597.46 $128,283.58 $331,057.35 $459,338.99 $ 68,950.00 10,500.00 $ 41,380.94 7,048.24 1,109.00 533.00 1,680.00 10,000.00 99.00 $ 92,871.00 $ 3,150.00 1,088.89 400.00 758.13 300.54 104.00 $ 51,080.74 $ 2,200.00 iNCOME Appropriations: City of Atlanta Clayton County DeKalb County Fulton County Gwinnett County Sub-Totals Interest Income Federal Funds: 702 Loan Section 9 Grant Interest - Federal Funds Sub-Totals TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS 276,000.00 0 EXPENSES Staff Cost: Salaries Expenses Benefits: Social Security Guaranty Fund Health and Accident Insurance Retirement Workmen's Compensation Aub-Totals Board Meetings Administrative and Office Overhead: Rent Communications and Postage Furniture and Equipment Supplies Printing Auditor Accountant Public Information Advisory Insurance: Public Liability Depository and Forgery Fidelity Bond Sub-Totals CARRIED FORWARD $ 3,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 3,600.00 1,000.00 250.00 1,000.00 33,000.00 5,000.00 72.00 56.00 199.00 $ 51,177.00 $147,198.00 $ 2,000.00 1,254.16 117 .81 1,854.58 623.56 250.00 500.00 15,025.20 977. 35 55.00 56.27 198. 6 0 $ 22,912.53 $ 76,193.27 �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY BUDGET REPORT AUGUST 31, 1967 BUDGET 19'67 ACTUAL JANUARY 1, 1967 TO AUGUST 31, 1967 I TOTAL INCOME AND UNA?PROPRIATED SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD $804,801.64 $459,338.99 $147,198.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 76,193.27 $ 8,758.61 $ 31,250.00 $ 29",939.00 32,667.00 16,333.00 16,000.00 15,293.00 3,333.00 1,667.00 0 0 1,563.00 4,742.09 EXPENSES Brought Forward Counsel Consultants: Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commis~ion Urban Design Study: Section 9 Matching Atlanta Transit Stu9y; Section 9 Matching Hamm~r, Greene and Siler Parsons-Brinckerhoff-Tudor ~Bechtel: 702 Loan Section 9: Federal Matching Retainer Agreement Research and Technical Services Sub-Totals TOTAL EXPENSES 95,000.00 60,000.00 240,000.00 120,000.00 60,000.00 2,000.00 $602,250.00 $769,448.00 60,000.00 112,411.00 15,115.64 2,035.84 $317,099.57 $402 , 051. 45 SURPLUS $ 35,353.6~ $ 5Z,28Z.5~ �METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ATLANTA, GEORGIA STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AUGUST 31, 1967 ASSETS Cash in Banks: C & S National Bank First National Bank - Payroll Trust Company of 9eorgia Fulton National Bank - Section 9 $ 14,296.04 2,651.88 1,000.00 20,976.08 Inv es tmen ts: U. S. Treasury Bills 114,812.00 Petty Cash 25.00 Accounts Receivable: Gwinnett County - 1967 Gwinnett County - 1966 $9,105.00 4,552.50 13,657.50 TOTAL ASSETS $167,418.50 LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $ 12,648.37 Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued Reserves: ARMPC - Urban Design Study Atlanta Transit Stu9y Parsons-Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel: Section 9 Matching Retainer Agreement: Transportation Study Public Information Surveying TOTAL LIABILITIES SURPLUS 1,492.14 7,293.00 1,563.00 82,411.00 $ 139. 37 245.19 4,338.89 4,723.45 110,130.96 $ 57,287.54 �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017

Box 21, Folder 5, Document 16

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005_016.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 21, Folder 5, Document 16
  • Text: ' MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY NOVEMBER 7, 1967 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held i t s regular meeting on November 7, 1967, at 3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta) Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County) M. c. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) MEMBERS ABSENT : Edgar Blal o ck (Clay ton County ) K. A. McMil~on (Gwinnett county ) OTHERS PRESENT: Me t ropolitan At lanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L . Stuart , General Manage r King Elliott, Public Informa tion Director Ea r l Nelson, Chief Enginee r H . N. Johnson , Se c r etary to General Man age r con s ul tants Walt er Doug l a s , Pa r sons, Brin c kerh o ff, Qu ade & Douglas , New Yo rk J . A. Coil, Re s i dent Manager, Pars ons, Br i nck e rh o ff- Tud o r Bechte l, At l anta Leon Eplan, Eric Hi ll Associat es, Atl anta w. Stell Hui e, Huie & Harland, Atlanta George Goodwin, Be l l & St anton, Atlant a Bill Ba tes, Be l l & Stanton, Atl a nta �Financial Advisors and Bond Counsel Lloyd Hatcher, White, Weld & Company, New York Dan O'Conner, King & Spalding, Atlanta John Mobley, Gambrell & Mobley, Atlanta Others T. M. Callaway, DeKalb County Commissioner Aubrey Couch, Decatur-DeKalb Development Association Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. Margaret Hurst, Atlanta Constitution Mrs~ Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Jerry Coursey, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Adamson, the minutes of the October meeting were unanimously approved. Financial Report The General Manager presented the financial report as of October 30, 1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. He reported receipt of funds from Gwinnett County during the month, making it current in its appropriations to the Authority. Mr. Stuart said expenditures for the year would be less than anticipated, and a surplus of $105,238 was projected. There were no questions, and Mr. Bishop made a motion that the financial report be approved. Dr. Atwood seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. Report of General Manager Mr. Stuart said over si x ty meetings had been held with various agencies in the area concerned with transportation and planning, as the 702 work of the engineers had begun to reflect preliminary drawings in more detail . Mr. Nelson, Chief Engineer, presented a map showing expressways existing, under construction , and proposed. He said the MARTA engineers were working with State Highway Department engineers on all future improvements planned for the expressway system, in an effort to coordinate all transportation planning. - 2 - �Mr. Rich suggested the possibility of a spur line off Lenox Road in the center of the freeway to Sandy Springs be considered as part of the long-range plan. He felt it would be a logical and relatively inexpensive way to accommodate the projected explosive growth in Sandy Springs. Mr. Callaway of the DeKalb County Commission inquired about the possibility of having a station in Court Square in Decatur instead of along the railroad near Agnes Scott College. He said officials of Agnes Scott would like to have it as far from the College as possible, and officials of Decatur and DeKalb County would like to have it as near the center of Decatur as possible. Mr. Callaway mentioned urban renewal land available in the heart of Decatur, and asked that this be considered at an early date. Mr. Aubrey Couch, representing the Decatur-DeKalb Development Association, also endorsed the exploration of the use of Decatur's urban renewal land for a transit station, parking, etc. In connection with Mr. Callaway's request, Mr. Blount asked if it would be feasible to send an engineer to Decatur to talk about the requests for changes. Mr. Coil said this would be done, and Mr. Callaway requested that DeKalb County officials be included in such a meeting. Mr. Rich said the site along the railroad had been proposed as the most economical, but the plans were tentative, and public hearings would be held in all jurisdictions, and all suggestions considered before the Authority adopted a final plan. The General Manager said meetings with all of the railroads would be completed within one week. Preliminary engineering plans had been left with the engineers of the railroads for study. It was the consensus of t h e Board that the time was approaching wh en the Board should begin to seriously negotiate with the policymaking heads of the railroads. In response to a question, Mr . Wal te r Douglas replied that as soon as the railroad engin eers h a d time to absorb the plans , it would be well to seek a gr eement o n operational and pol i tical feasi bility, leaving th e ques t ion of money estimates until the r e had been a f a v o rable b on d issue a n d money was available with whi c h to n egotiate. Mr. Hav e r t y made a mot ion that the 701 repo r t be sent to the head s of th e railroa d s at t h e appropr iate t ime, with a p ers onal l e tt e r from the Chairman of t h e Auth o ri t y. The motion was unanimously p a ssed. - 3 - �Reports by Consultants Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor , Bechtel Mr. John coil said the 701 report had been printed and was being bound. The popular report, which was to be a condensed version of the 701 report, would be in draft form for review within a week by ARMPC and MARTA, and would be printed within about three weeks. He said studies of refinement were continuing, and the engineers continued to make evaluations as to use of construction, patronage, etc., and to consider alternate solutions or revisions in the recommendations. Eric Hill Associates Mr. Leon Eplan said the comments of his firm on three of the lines had been given to the engineers, the Planning Commission, and the Authority. Work on the other line would be completed soon, and the writing of the final report had begun. It was hoped their final report would be available by the end of th e year. Report of ARMPC Planning Director Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr., ARMPC Planning Director, reviewed the proposed amendment to the Secti on 9 application, approved by the MARTA Board at its October 3rd meeting. He said the amendment request h ad b een filed with t h e Department o f Housing and Urban Development as of October 3, 1967. This extension would involve the use of Alan M. Voorhees Associates to give an objective appraisal of transit planning to date. The study was expected to cost $10,000 in local money, and to take approximately three months. This study, hopefully, would satisfy the interests o f the Departme nt o f Housing and Urban Development and the Bureau of Public Roads in their effo rts to coordinate various public investments in transportation, as well as thei r concern f o r th e broader impact of t ransit on the region. Mr. Rich mentioned the possibility o f additiona l studies in the future, to examine coordination with the existing bus system. Report of Legal Counsel Mr. Stell Hui e of Hui e and Harland, Counsel for the Authority, introduce d Mr. Lloyd Hatcher of White, Weld & Company, - 4 - �financial advisors of New York, and Mr. Dan O'Conner of King and Spalding, and Mr. John Mobley of Gambrell and Mobley, both bond counsel firms of Atlanta. Mr. Huie said several meetings had been held to develop a financial plan which would be practical, with bonds at the lowest possible interest. After discussing various ways of financing, it was recommended that a committee be appointed to work with the financial advisors, bond counsel, and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, to develop current recommendations which could be used in support of a bond issue. The Chairman appointed Mr. Adamson, Dr. Atwood, and Mr. Huie as a committee to work with financial advisors, bond counsel and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, to refine and review such variables as interest rates and inflation factors, in an effort to be certain a realistic millage rate would be used in presenting a bond issue to the public. The Chairman also appointed Mr. Haverty as Chairman, together with Mr. Blount and Mr. Bishop, as a committee to work in the area of public information under the direction of Mr. George Goodwin of Bell and Stanton, to develop the best way to present the plan to the public for referendum. Upon motion by Mr. Blount, seconded by Dr. Atwood, the Board unanimously concurred in the appointment of these two committees by the Chairman. Mr. Huie reviewed 17 proposed ame ndments to the MARTA legislation, which counsel considered important, and suggested that new legislation incorporating these amendments be submitted to the Legislature in the January session . The suggested changes are attached to and made a part of these minutes. Dr . Atwood made a moti on that Couns e l be give n authority t o dra ft l e gislation incorporating the proposed amendments and submit it to local governments and legislative representatives of local governments for study. Mr. Bishop seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed. Adj ou rnment The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M . Next Meeting December 5, 1967. - 5 - �
  • Tags: Box 21, Box 21 Folder 5, Folder topic: Rapid Transit | 1966-1967
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: December 29, 2017