Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
As noted, relatively small payments would be required in-the early
years of construction of the transit system.
modest because of the initial availability of sizable Federal funds under
MARTA's bond issues could be
the given assumption. Subsequently, however, the impact upon the local
governments would be more substantial.
Following is the schedule of millage rates that would need to be
levied against the net property digests in each county in order to meet
the indicated payments set foreh in Table 5, above:
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
' 1974
1975
1976
LOTT
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
Fulton
.
NNNNWAWAWWAWNNH HB
DeKalb
if
HP RPNADUOCOBOUNOOR
ee
It is possible and it would be desirable to reschedule these levies
to provide more substantial payments in the earlier years and lower pay-
ments during the peak years between 1975 and 1978. It is recommended that
an alternative schedule of taxes might be considered, which would make
mA Qa
HAMMER.OGAREENE.BILER ASSOOIATES
possible a ceiling of only three 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 program set forth herein is follawed: However, this bond program
c6uld be revised to make use of the availabie funds in the early years
and advance. purchases. of land with these additional funds could well save
a substantial amount of money in face of rising land values in the area.
The recommended schedule of county payments and millage rates for
MARTA bond financing is set forth below in Table 6. The peak year payments
would be substantially reduced under this schedule and the peak impact upon
local taxpayers would be corrospondingly less.
Table 6. RECOMMENDED COUNTY PAYMENTS AND MILLAGE
RATES, MARTA BOND ALTERNATIVES
Millage Rates Dollar Amounts (000)
Fulton DeKalb Fulton DeKalb
County County County County
$2,783 $1,081
2,925 , 1,158
4,098 1,367
4,324 1,489
5,698 2,054
6,015 2,169
7,629 257511
°8,064 2,907
8,526 3,074
9,033 33,257
9,576 5,453
8,459 3,048
8,973 ' 3,235
8,893 3,206
8,893 3,206
(These level annual payments
to the complete retirement of
bond issues beginning in 1997)
°
NNNNWWAWAWNNY DNDN
NWN ooccoununoounmnn
* *
° . « .
.
ee
FPRENWUOADADARRHEHOO
HAMMEA.QGREENE.SILER ABBOOIATES
RECOMMENDED COUNTY PAYMENTS AND MILLAGE RATES,
GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION BOND ALTERNATIVE
Millage Rates Dollar Amounts (000)
Fulton DeKalb Fulton DeKalb
. County County County County
$3,015 $1,230
3,162 1,312
4,420 1,545
4,654 1,653
6,120 2,260
6,448 2,416
6,800 2,452
7,170 2,585
7,568 2,729
8,000 2,884
8,124 2,929
8,234 2,968
7,959 2,870
8,026 2,894
8,076 2,912
= «
.
ee
WCOOPNWWNWWARHH OO
»* 8 «
BFPNNMNNNNNNNNNN NH He
= 8 . . «
woorwf UoOoMonuwnuMnoontm
(The level annual
payments to the com-
plete retirement of:
bond issues beginning
in 1997) .
It is to be noted that the peak millage requirements under GO financing
would be substantially lower than in the case of government payments to under-
write MARTA bond issues. This is true because the overall financing cost is
lower and the gross rather than the net digest is used as basis for the
calculations. The lower interest charges are by all odds the most important
factor in this lower impact, the difference between gross and net digest being
relatively small. As already mentioned, however, the reduced millage rate
does not necessarily produce a lower tax for the residential taxpayer because -
the homestead exemption is not 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:
-"249—'
HAMMER,.GREENE.DGILER AGBBOGIATER
eo pee ee ee ee
DeKalb
Maximum millage
needed for GO Bond
financing 2.9 1.4
Years of maximum 1973-78 1973-74
Annual cost of
maximum millage to ~
owner of loan with’
market value of:
$15 ,.000 $15.00 $ 8.40
20 ;000 $20.00 $11.20
25,000 $25.00 $14.00
The projected gross and net tax digests/used as a basis for all of the
foregoing calculations are shown in Chart 2.
Combination of Approaches
There is no reason, of course, why both methods of financing might not
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.
The act establishing MARTA clearly recognized this possibility, as follows:
"A local government may elect any.method provided in this
section to finance the participation required of it in
whole or in part, and the election of one method shall
not preclude the election of another method with respect
thereto or with respect to any additional or supplementary
participation determined to be necessary."
As a purely practical matter, there would be a number of distinct advantages
to both Fulton and DeKalb counties in employing both methods. It would make
possible the use of available GO bond capacity with the consequent saving in
interest charges but it would not demand too much of that capacity in competition
ith other capital improvement needs. It would give each government greater
-50- HAMMER. GREENE, CILER ASBOGIATED —_)
The reason for the lower local requirements for the 52-mile system in
the 1973-76 period, of course, is the projected availability of
$100,000,000 more in Federal money. This fact, plus the sharing of the local
cost by four instead of two governments, would produce an actually lower de-
mand upon Fulton and DeKalb for the larger system in a number of years.
ad
Table 9. COMPARATIVE MILLAGE RATES NEEDED TO
‘SUPPORT 30-MILE AND 52-MILE SYSTEMS
30-Mile Systen!/ 52-Mile System//
Fulton DeKalb Fulton DeKalb Clayton Gwinnett
wn
a
wn
-
Oo
. .-
. . *
VMNnmnwnnunnnunn
uunnuononnnonoonY
NONNNNWWNHYNNDN NNFH
WH DtOmWDoOoOoMNNMoo ocooNMm
RPP Bee ee ee pe oe Pp
RFPRNWOADAADAS HP FPr OO
. «
._ © «©
» «©
YNWAUNODDCOCONN CON
PRP RP Peep PY
ae
.
. «
NNNN WWW NN NNR
le ee ee oe
HPNIWPA ATH HPKRPHY FPRrRO
From Table 6. Assumes $100,000,000 in
Federal and $33,000,000 in state funds.
Assumes $200,000,000 in Federal and
$48,000,000 in state funds.
Jr
~
HAMMER. GREENE.GILER ABBOOIATES tH)