Box 21, Folder 6, Document 55

Dublin Core

Text Item Type Metadata



JANUARY 3, 1967

The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority held its regular meeting on January 3, 1967, at
3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room of the Glenn Building, Atlanta.
Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided. .


Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County)
W. A. Pulver (Fulton County)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)


M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)

Edgar Blalock (Clayton County)

Mills B. Lane, Jr. (City of Atlanta)
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority:

H. L. Stuart, General Manager

Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary

King Elliott, Public Information Director
H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager


J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel, Atlanta

Raoul Garcia, Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, Atlanta

W. Stell Huie and Tom Watson Brown, Huie and Harland,
Legal Counsel for the Authority


J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Planning Director, Atlanta Region
Metropolitan Planning Commission

Others (Cont'd.):

Mrs. Rachel Champagne, Assistant to the Executive Director,
Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission

Jerry Coursey, Transportation Planner, Atlanta Region
Metropolitan Planning Commission

W. Roy Newsome, Regional Planner, Atlanta Region Metro-
politan Planning Commission

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.


Minutes of the December 5, 1966, meeting, which had been mailed,

were unanimously approved, upon a motion by Dr. Atwood, seconded

by Mr. Pulver. The Secretary called the attention of the Board
members to a letter of explanation from the economic consultant,
regarding one item in the minutes of the December 5, 1966, meet-

ing. This related to a statement that financial officers of Lr
the governments had tentatively approved the bases for a formula

for cost-sharing of rapid transit capital expenditures among the
governments. The Secretary suggested that this letter be made a
part of the minutes as a matter of explanation.

In an effort to keep the participating governments fully informed
of the progress being made by the Authority, the Secretary was
directed to make certain that all participating governments
receive a complete set of all minutes.

Financial Report:

The financial report for December, 1966, and the balance sheet
as of December 31, 1966, together with a financial statement
showing total itemized expenditures under the open-ended re-
tainer agreement with Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, were
unanimously accepted upon motion by Dr. Atwood, seconded by Mr.

Mr. Bennett presented an accounting of Committee of 100 funds
for which he had been custodian. An advance of $10,000.00 had
been made by Forward Atlanta to assist in public information
work relative to Amendment No. 14 which was approved in the
November, 1966, general election. Funds expended totaled
$3,489.43, and the balance of $6,510.57 was to be returned to
Forward Atlanta. This was accepted by the Board, and Mr. Rich
requested the General Manager to write a letter of appreciation
to Forward Atlanta on behalf of the Board.
All financial reports are attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes.

Progress Reports:

l. General Manager. The General Manager reported on his
appearance before the Committee on the Study of State and
Local Governments of the Georgia House of Representatives.
The Committee recommended that the State provide 10% of
the total cost of the rapid transit system. He referred
to negotiations which he had carried on with representatives
of developers in the gulch area and the L. & N. Railroad,
relative to rapid transit plans in the gulch. It appeared
that all plans for development of the gulch had taken into
account the needs of the rapid transit system.

After some discussion on the subject of handling the
Authority's public information, particularly that part of
it relating to financial considerations affecting local
governments, it was agreed that all press releases prepared
by the Authority's staff would be cleared with at least one
member of the Board, preferably the Chairman or the Vice

2. Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel. Mr. Coil reported on
work which Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel had been
carrying out during the past month. He said that the study
of the north, northeast and east lines had been almost com-
pleted. Right-of-way maps had been prepared for the esti-
mator, who was working in San Francisco on preliminary cost
estimates. The firm was negotiating with several companies
for aerial photography of the system, and expected to acquire
this photography at an early date.

In the discussion which followed Mr. Coil's report, it was
agreed that at the earliest possible time, members of the
Board should inspect routes, alignments and station loca-
tions recommended by the engineers, and that the highest
governing authorities of the City of Atlanta - that is, the
Mayor and the Board of Aldermen - should be apprised of the
recommendations of the engineers and the decisions on spe-
cific route locations by the Authority. In order to acquire
the necessary property within the city limits, it was essen-
tial that the Board of Aldermen and the Authority be in
agreement prior to public hearings which are required by law.

3. Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates. Mr. Garcia reported that
his firm had assembled data for Cobb County comparable to
that which had been secured earlier for the other govern-
ments. Meetings had been held with finance officers of
DeKalb County, and similar meetings were planned with Fulton

County and the City of Atlanta, to discuss recommendations in
the reports which had been submitted to the Authority. The
firm was assembling material explaining their research, and
drafting the final report.

Reappointment of Committees:

The Board had established two committees in 1966. One was the
Finance Committee, composed of Mr. Lane, Mr. Blount and Mr. Rich.
A second was called the Financial Advisory Committee. This was
the professional finance officers of the local governments.

The reappointment of these committees was postponed. A vacancy
appeared to exist on the Board since the Chairman had received a
letter from Mr. Lane in which he stated that he was being forced
to resign because of pressure of other work.

Reappointment of Auditor:

In accordance with provisions of the Rapid Transit Authority Act
it was necessary to appoint an auditor annually. The Arthur
Andersen Company was unanimously reappointed for 1967, at a fee
of $300.

Authorization to Execute Contracts:

The General Manager requested authorization to execute a contract
between the Authority and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to provide for the use of a grant of $396,333.00 under
Section 9 of the Mass Transit Act of 1966. The grant had been ap-
proved but the contract documents had not been received.

He further requested authorization to execute a contract between
the Authority and Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel for en-
gineering work to be performed in accordance with the grant.
Copies of this agreement had been circulated to members of the

Upon a motion by Mr. Haverty, seconded by Dr. Atwood, Mr. Stuart
was authorized to execute both contracts at the appropriate times.

The General Manager asked for authority to authorize, if necessary,
the expenditure of $1,250.00 by Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel
for a right-of-way expert, Mr. Charles H. Shaw of San Francisco,

to assist him in matters relating to right-of-way acquisition pro-

The General Manager also asked authorization to expend under the
open-ended retainer agreement, an amount up to $2,000.00 for

surveying work, if required, to stake out certain alignments in
the vicinity of the Union Station and Terminal Station area, to
coordinate rapid transit plans with air right development plans.

Authority's Funds:

At Mr. Haverty's suggestion it was decided that the question of
distribution of the Authority's funds among local banks be left
as a matter for the Finance Committee to work out with the
General Manager.

Amendment to the Retainer Agreement:

In view of the fact that a new contract was being made with
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel, it was considered to be in
the best interest of the Authority that an amendment be made to
the retainer agreement, consistent with its treatment of the
other two contracts in effect with Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel, that is, the 701 and 702 contracts. It was unanimously
agreed that the following resolution be adopted:


WHEREAS, Section 6 of the Retainer Agreement of

June 28, 1966, between the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority and Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel provides that the existence of other contracts
between the Authority and Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel and between the Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission and Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel will not cause the total compensation to
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel under the three
contracts to be more than the cost that would prevail
if all the work was performed under the terms of the
said Retainer Agreement; and

WHEREAS, a new contract will be executed between this
Authority and Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel
covering essentially the same work program but ina
different geographical area than the other contracts;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Section 6 of said
Retainer Agreement be amended to place this new con-
tract in the same perspective as the aforementioned

Proposed Amendments to Rapid Transit Act:

Mr. Huie stated that in an effort to further perfect the Act
under which the Authority was constituted, certain amendments
had been suggested for presentation to the forthcoming Legis-
lature. These related to:

1. Giving to the Authority the power of eminent domain.
2. Broadening the definition of "professional services."

3. Clarifying the question of spending funds of the
Authority for public information and public
education. :

4. Giving the Authority the right to invest surplus funds.

5. Changing the requirements for expenditures which
require competitive bidding.

During the discussion of methods of communication between the
Board of Directors and the delegations to the General Assembly,
it was suggested by Mr. Rich that the Board, if possible, meet
with the local delegations. Mr. Huie would make an effort to
arrange appropriate meetings.

February Meeting Date:
It was agreed that because some members would be absent from the
city on February 7, 1967, the next scheduled meeting date, the

February meeting would be held on February 14, 1967, at 3:30 P.M.
and appropriate notices would be sent.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M.

public items show