Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
FINANCING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF
ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY
A STUDY CONDUCTED FOR
THE LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION
BY
(Revised by Dr. R. L. Johns - June 21, 1967)
FINANCING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF
ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY
A comprehensive approach to a study of the financing of the public schools
in Atlanta and Fulton County would involve an appraisal of the future policies
of the State of Georgia and the federal government for school financing as well
as a study of local school financing. Since such an appraisal is beyond the
scope of this study, this section of the report will deal primarily with problems
of local school financing in the two districts. However, most authorities on
school financing anticipate that in the future there will be further increases
in school financial support from the federal government and state governments as
well as from local school districts. Although the public schools will no doubt
receive increased funds in the future from both state and federal sources,
strong local financial support of the public schools will have to be maintained
by all districts that desire something better than a mediocre quality level cf
education for their children.
The following matters are treated in this section of the report:
revenue receipts, current expenditures, taxpaying ability and local effort to
support education, indebtedness, equalization that would result from consolida-
tion, non-property local taxes and financial arrangements that would need to be
made if the two districts were consolidated.
Revenue Rece
Table I shows the budgeted revenue receipts of the Atlanta and Fulton County
school systems. It will be noted from this Table that 55.4 percent of the revenue
of the Atlanta City schools is derived from the district property tax as compared
with 28.4, percent in Fulton County. However, both of these percentage figures
are deceiving.
«Dis
Just what percent of the revenue receipts of each school system is provided
by property taxes levied on property located in each district? It will be noted
that the Atlanta City Council paid $2,835,045 in 1966 for the debt service on
bonds the City issued to construct school buildings. This amounts to 5.3 percent
of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City Board of Education. This added to
the 55.4 percent derived from the district property tax makes a total of 60.7
“percent of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City schools derived from property
taxes in 1966-67.
It will be noted that Fulton County receives $1,762,892 from the county-wide
tax (14 mills) and $780,000 from a direct appropriation from the County Commission
and $720,000 from the County Commission for Teacher Retirement. This makes a
total of $3,262,892 from these two sources. If it is assumed that the appropria-
tion from the County Commission is also derived from property taxes, what part of
this total is paid on property located in Fulton County but outside of the City
of Atlanta? Since only about 19 percent of the digest of Fulton County lies
outside of the City of Atlanta, only approximately 19 percent of this amount,
or $619,949, is paid on the property in Fulton County lying outside the City of
Atlanta, and $2,642,943 on the property in the City of Atlanta. This represents
only approximately 3.6 percent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County
Board. It will also be noted that 7.8 percent of the revenue receipts of the
Fulton County district is derived from the 5% mill levy for debt service. These
two amounts, that is, 3.6 percent plus 7.8 percent added to 28.4 percent make a
total of 39.8 percent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County Board of
Education obtained from property taxes paid on property located in Fulton County
outside of the City of Atlanta.
The Fulton County Board of Education receives 40.8 percent of its revenue
from the state Minimum Foundation Program appropriations as compared with 32.3
percent for the City of Atlanta. The Minimum Foundation Program law was designed
a
to equalize educational opportunities among school districts that vary greatly
in wealth. The 13 mill county-wide tax levied in all of Fulton County but al-
located exclusively to the Fulton County Board also provides for considerable
financial equalization at the local level. The equalization of educational
opportunity is sound public policy. Later in this report, it is shown that the
.adjusted gross digest is 32 percent greater per pupil in the City of Atlanta
than in Fulton County. Table I shows the revenue receipts of the Atlanta Schools
totaled $530.01 per pupil in 1966-67 as compared with $571.07 in Fulton County.
This means that the State Minimum Foundation Program Law together with the 13
mill county-wide levy and the direct appropriation from the County Commission
have gone a long way toward equalizing the financial support of the two systems.
It should not be inferred from this comment, however, that educational opportuni-
ties are equal in the two school systems. The Atlanta City school system provides
kindergartens which are not provided in the Fulton County system. If Fulton
County provided kindergartens, the revenue receipts per pupil in that school
system would probably be no more than the revenue receipts per pupil in the
Atlanta system.
Both systems will benefit substantially in 1967-68 from increases from the
Minimum Foundation Program Appropriation provided by the 1967 Legislature. It
is estimated that the City of Atlanta will receive an increase of approximately
$1,863,000 from this source and Fulton County approximately $1,075,000.
TABLE I - SOURCES OF REVENUE OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY
SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67 (BUDGETED REVENUES 1966-67,
DATA FURNISHED BY CITY AND COUNTY SCHOOL OFFICIALS)
SOURCE ATLANTA FULTON COUNTY
Amount Percent Amount Percent
District Property
tax for operation $29 ,686 415 55k $ 4,922,451 28.4
County Wide Property Tax 1,762,892 10.2
County Commission (for
General Expenses ) 780,000 4.5
Intangible Taxes 230,000 1.3
County Commission (for #
Teacher Retirement ) 720,000 4.2
State Minimum
Foundation Program 17,322,038 32.3 7,074,761 40.8
Other State Funds 425,013 8 0 nee
Vocational Funds 628,449 352 58,000 ‘3
National Defense
Education Act 520,781 1.0 65,400 4
Fulton ae School 4
District 52 mill levy Sin 0 .
for debt service 45320200 we
Federal Impacted
Area Funds 802,366 Led 210,000 1.2
City Council Payments for #
Debt Service on Sch. Bonds 2,835,045 5.3
Other Income 1,358,747 205 159,500 9
Total Revenue
Receipts $53,578,854 100.0 $17,333,004 100.0
Beginning Cash Balance 532,250 om 818,609 a=
Sub-Total 54,111,104 —_ 18,151,613 --
Federal Funds-
Elem. & Sec. Act. 1965 2,519,743 = 461,383 =
GRAND TOTAL $56,630,847 <= $18,612,996 <—
#
Not Included in the operating budget.
continued==-
TABLE I - (Cont.)
SOURCE ATLANTA FULTON COUNTY
Amount Percent. Amount Percent
Average Daily
Attendance Jan. 1,
1967 101,068 30,352
Revenue Receipts
Per Pupil in ADA * $530.01 $571.07
% Excludes federal funds received under the Elementary and Secondary
Act of 1965 which cannot be used for the regular school program.
af
The federal revenues received from the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 are also shown in Table I. These revenues are shown separately be-
cause they are all earmarked for special purposes by the federal government and
cannot be expended for the regular school program. Practically all of these
revenues must be expended for compensatory education for the children of the
disadvantaged.
‘Current Expenditures
In Table II an analysis of the budgeted current expenditures of the two school
systems for 1966-67 is presented. Both systems expend 75 percent or more of total
current expenditures for instruction. This is typical practice in large school
systems.
Caution should be exercised in comparing the different percentage allocations
given to the same expenditure functions in the two systems. These systems differ
considerably in their bases of financial support, the spread of population and
other factors. For example, Fulton County allocates 2.8 percent of its current
expenditures to transportation but Atlanta spends no funds for pupil transporta-
tion.
Atlanta expended approximately $486.07 per pupil for 1966-67 and Fulton
County $517.07 for current operating expenses. The Research Division of the
National Education Association estimated that the average current expenditure
per pupil in average daily attendance for the 50 states and the District of
Columbia was $564 in 1966-67. Therefore, the eurrent expenditures per pupil in
both the Atlanta and Fulton County School systems are very low when compared with
the national average.
TABLE II
CURRENT EXPENDITURES OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67 tt
(BUDGETED EXPENDITURES FOR 1966-67)
ACCOUNT ATIANTA FULTON COUNTY
FUNCTION Amount Percent Amount Percent
1. Administration $1,796,920 3.7 $ 309,784 2.0
2.. Instruction 365977 s4h3 75.3 12,149,333 77-4
3. Operation of
Plant hy 22h5543 8.6 1,228,200 7.8
4, Maintenance
of Plant 2,810,500 5.7 663,550 4.2
5. Health Services . 96 368 22 0 --
6. Food Services 41,209 ok 9,300 ol
7. Transportation 0 -- Lhd, 5160 2.8
8. Fixed Charges 2,417,800 4.9 889,368* 5.7
9. Other 754,819%* 1:65 0 --
TOTAL 49,119,602 100.0 15,693,695 100.0
Average Daily Attendance
January 1967 101,068 30,352
Current Expenditures
Per Pupil in ADA $486.07 $517.06
Mata furnished by county and city school officials. Expenditure accounts do not
include expenditures from federal funds received from the Elementary and Secondary
Act of 1965.
*This account consists principally of undistributed expenditures made from federal
funds received under the National Defense Education Act.
**Includes $720,000 employees! contribution to teachers! retirement paid by the
County Commission.
=i
Financial Ability
The best measure of the relative local taxpaying ability of the Atlanta and
Fulton County school systems is the gross property digest per pupil in average
daily attendance computed on the basis of 100 percent valuation. This is due to
the fact that most local school revenue is derived from property taxes.
Following is the adjusted 100 percent gross digest for 1966 of the Atlanta
City School district estimated by the State Revenue Department:
Atlanta City in Fulton County $4,141,663 ,000
Atlanta City in DeKalb County 173,149 000
Total $4,314, 812,000
The average daily attendance of the Atlanta City schools was 101,068 in
January, 1967. Therefore, the gross digest of the Atlanta City school district
adjusted on a 100 percent basis was $42,692 per pupil.
The 1966 gross digest of the Fulton County school district adjusted on a
100 percent basis was $982,348,000 according to data furnished by the State
Revenue Department. The gross digest includes the valuation of homesteads even
though homesteads up to a valuation of $2,000 are exempted from County operating
levies for schools. It is necessary to include the valuation of homesteads in
order to compute an accurate measure of the relative wealth of the two districts.
The ADA of the Fulton County schools in January was 30,352. The gross digest
per pupil in ADA was $32,365. Therefore, the Atlanta City school system has a
gross digest approximately 32 percent greater than the Fulton County school system.
However, each of these school systems has considerably more wealth per pupil than
the average school district in the United States.
Local Financial Effort to Support Education
A valid measure of local tax effort to support schools can be obtained by
dividing the taxes paid on the property located in each school district by the
adjusted 100 percent gross digest of that district.
It is difficult to compute exactly the local tax effort of the Atlanta City
District because a part of that district is in DeKalb. County. However, the follow~
ing is a fairly close approximation for 1966-67.
1. District property tax $29 686,415
2. Payments of City Council for debt
service on school bonds 2,835,045
3. The portion of the 13 mill county-wide
tax and the portion of the appropriations
made by the County Commission which was
paid on property located in the City 2.642.943
TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS $35,164,403
The 100 percent gross digest of the Atlanta school district for 1966 was
$4,314,812,000. The total local taxes for schools divided by the gross digest
equals .00815 or approximately 8.2 mills on the adjusted 100 percent gross digest
or true value of property.
The local taxes for schools in the Fulton County school district in 1966-67
were as follows:
1. District property tax $ 4,922,451
2. The portion of the 14 mill county-wide
tax and the appropriation made by the
County Commission which was paid on
property located in the county district 619,949
3. Fulton County district levy of 53
mills for debt service 1,350,000
TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS $ 6,892,400
= Ja
The 1966 gross digest of the County school system on 100 percent basis was
$982,348,000. The total local taxes for schools divided by the gross digest
equals .007016 or approximately 7 mills on the gross digest on true valuation
of property.
It is evident that the Atlanta City school district made a greater local tax
effort in proportion to its ability to support schools than Fulton County. If
the Fulton County school district had made as great a tax effort in proportion
to its ability as the Atlanta school district in 1966-67, it would have raised
-001134 times $982,348,000 or $1,113,983 in additional local revenue in 1966-67.
Special attention is directed to the fact that Fulton County could not
legally have made this extra local effort in 1966-67. The District levied 25
mills of operating taxes which was the legal limit it could levy. Furthermore,
property was assessed at less than 25 percent of true value. However, the limita-
tions on the taxing power of the Fulton County Board of Education will be eased
somewhat in the future because of the ruling of the court in the McLennon vs
State Revenue Commission case. The court ruled that all property must be
assessed at a uniform percent of true value regardless of the class of property
or where it was located. Upon the ruling, the Revenue Commissioner ordered that
all county digests be based on assessing all property at 40 percent of true value.
This will make it possible to increase considerably the local revenues of the
Fulton County school district beginning with the 1967-68 fiscal year.
There are no legal limits on the amount of mills which the Atlanta City
Board of Education may levy for the operation of the public schools of the city.
Therefore, there are no legal barriers to increasing local school support fcr
schools in Atlanta.
Actually the local taxes for schools are extremely low both in Atlanta and
Fulton County when compared with the school taxes levied in other sections of
the nation. Recently one of the members of the staff making this survey
-8-
participated in a study of school financing in all school districts of 20,000
population or more in Illinois. It was found that the average school district in
Illinois levied local property taxes for schools equivalent to 12 mills on the
100 percent true valuation of property. This is almost fifty percent greater
local effort than the City of Atlanta and 71 percent greater local tax effort
for schools than in the Fulton County school district.
Indebtedness
The bonded indebtedness of the Atlanta City Council for schools totaled
$52,905,000 in 1967. This was less than 3.8 percent of the unadjusted gross
digest.
The bonded indebtedness of the Fulton County school district was
$22,661,000 in 1967. This was 9.1 percent of the unadjusted gross digest of
the county school district. This is close to the 10 percent constitutional
limit on school indebtedness for the Fulton County district. However, the bonded
indebtedness margin of Fulton County will be greatly increased when the property
digest is raised from an estimated 25 percent of true value to 40 percent. The
unadjusted 1966 gross digest for the Fulton County district was approximately
$248,000,000. Assuming that the 1966 digest was at 25 percent of true value,
the 1967 digest at 40 percent of true value should be approximately $400,000,000
allowing for a reasonable amount of growth. The present county school indebted-
ness would be less than 5.7 percent of the gross digest at a 40 percent valuation.
Another way of looking at the indebtedness of the two districts is to compute
the percent that the school indebtedness of each district is of the adjusted
gross digest of each district at 100 percent of true value. In 1966 this figure
for the Atlanta city district was 1.23 percent and for Fulton County 2.31 percent.
If the two districts were consolidated, it is assumed that the territory that
originally issued the bonds would continue to be responsible for the debt service
-9—
on the bonds that it had issued. It does not appear that this would work any
great hardship on either district because the indebtedness of neither district is
excessive.
Non=-Property Local Taxes
Some school districts in the United States have obtained legal authority
to levy non=-property local taxes for schools. There are arguments both for and
against this practice. Following are some arguments against the levy of local
non~property taxes for schools:
1. Usually only urban or metropolitan school districts are able to derive
substantial funds from this source.
2. The state can collect most types of local non-property taxes more
efficiently than local units of government
3. Local non-property taxes for schools place cities in competition with
each other for industries.
4 If the larger urban districts are able to levy local non=-property taxes
for schools, they may not support a state financing program which helps the less
fortunate school districts.
5. Some types of local non=property taxes make it possible for wealthy
districts to shift a part of the incidence of their taxes on the residents of
less wealthy districts.
Some arguments for the levy of local non-property taxes for schools are as
follows:
1. The property tax is a reneebaiin tax and public resistance to it is
growing. If we maintain the vigor of local school support, many believe that a
source of local revenue more nearly related to ability to pay than the property
tax must be found.
2. The more progressive areas of a state desire a better quality program
than the legislature is usually willing to provide from non-property state taxes.
On
Those areas should be given the authority to provide this higher quality program
from some local source other than the property tax.
3. It is possible to select types of local non-property taxes the burden
of which cannot be shifted to the taxpayers of less wealthy areas.
4. The cost of administering local non-property taxes can be held to a
reasonable level by using the state's tax collection machinery or by levying
local iohetoneety taxes by metropolitan areas rather than by individual school
districts.
5. The taxpayer should be given the choice of what type or types of local
taxes he will levy for schools in order to broaden the base of local taxation.
As has been pointed out above, local property taxes for schools are very
low both in Atlanta and in Fulton County. There is considerable leeway in both
districts for increasing local property taxes for schools without those taxes
becoming burdensome. Therefore, there is no immediate urgency for the considera-
tion of obtaining the authority to levy local non-property taxes for schools.
If the Atlanta and Fulton County school authorities decide to study the
possibility of levying local non-property taxes, it is recommended that considera-
tion be given to the following:
1. That any local non=-property taxes that are levied for schools in the
Atlanta area be levied over the entire metropolitan area of Atlanta including all
school districts in the following counties: Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, and
Gwinnett.
2. That a metropolitan school taxing authority be established with the sole
responsibility for collecting any local non=property taxes for schools authorized
by law and for apportioning such taxes among the several school districts in the
five counties named above in proportion to the average daily attendance of pupils.
4435
3. That only those types of non-property local taxes be levied, the burden
of which cannot be shifted to taxpayers residing outside of the Atlanta metropolitan
area.
Financing Education in a Reorganized District
A number of reports have been presented to the people of the Fulton County and
Atlanta school districts in which arguments for and against the consolidation of
the tio districts have been set forth. It is not the purpose of this report to
review those arguments. Therefore, the discussions of school finance presented
in this study have been focused primarily on the financing of schools in each dis-
trict rather than on the financing of schools in a consolidated district. Certain
suggestions particularly concerning the level of school financing have already been
presented. Those suggestions are as applicable to the financing of education in
Atlanta and Fulton County as separate school districts as they would be applicable
to the financing of education in a consolidated district.
It would no doubt be possible to provide reasonably adequate school financing
in each of the two districts operating as separate districts. However, if the two
districts were consolidated, it would be possible to establish a more equitable
and more efficient financing plan. It has already been pointed out that the 1966
gross digest adjusted at 100 percent in the City of Atlanta was $42,692 per pupil in
ADA and in the Fulton County district $32,365. If the two districts were consoli-
dated, the gross digest at 100 percent valuation for the consolidated district
would be $40,307 per pupil. It has also been pointed out that the taxpayers in
the Fulton County school district are making a lower tax effort to support schools
in proportion to ability than the taxpayers in the Atlanta City district. There-
fore, consolidation of the two districts would equalize the wealth back of each
child and it would also equalize the tax effort to support schools in the Atlanta-
Fulton County consolidated district. Consolidation would also simplify local
financing because there would no longer be a need for the special 13 mill county
equalizing levy or direct appropriations from the County Commission.
It has been suggested in other studies presented to the Local Education Com-
mission of Atlanta and Fulton County that the consolidation of the two districts
might result in the loss of some state school funds under present methods of state
apportionment. If there is anything in present state laws that would place a
penalty on desirable reorganization of school districts, the laws should be amended
and the penalties eliminated. This should not be a difficult undertaking.
As has already been pointed out, improvements in school financing should be
made in the Atlanta and Fulton County school districts regardless of whether they
are consolidated. If the two districts are consolidated, consideration should be
given to the following financial recommendations:
1. The Board of the consolidated district should be given the same power for
levying taxes for school operation as that now possessed by the Atlanta City Board
of Education and it should be fiscally independent of any other local body.
2. The Board should be given the power to issue bonds for capital outlay
purposes up to a reasonable percent of the gross digest. The Board should also
be given the power to obtain tax anticipation loans to be repaid within the fiscal
year. |
3. Homestead exemption from school taxes should be abolished in the re=-
organized district.
4. Present outstanding bonds should be retired in accordance with the com-
mitments made at the time of issuance but all new bonds should be issued on a
district-wide basis and retired from taxes levied throughout the consolidated
district.
Estimated Local Tax Levy Needed for Financing Schools in the Reorganized
District
It is difficult to make an accurate estimate of the local tax levy
needed for financing schools in the reorganized district for a number of
reasons, The local tax levy for schools in the combined Atlanta-Fulton
County School District will depend upon a number of factors including the
following: the per cent of true value at which property is assessed, the
quality and quantity of education provided, the economic growth rate of
Atlanta and Fulton County and the additional amounts of revenue to be
received in the future from state and federal sources. Assumptions must be
made with respect to all of these items in order to estimate the probable
tax levy in the combined district.
In Table ITI, the estimates of the gross digest of the combined Atlanta
and Fulton County School District for the years 1966-69 are presented, It
will be noted that estimates at 100 per cent of true value and at 40 per
cent of true value are both presented,
TABLE III ESTIMATED GROSS DIGEST OF ATLANTA AND FULTON
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMBINED 1966 - 1969
GROSS DIGEST AT 100 PER GROSS DIGEST AT 40 PER
YEAR CENT TRUE VALUE CENT TRUE VALUE
1966" $5,297,160,000 $2,118, 864,000
1967 5,519,641,000 2,207,856,000
1968 5,751,466 ,000 2, 300,586,000
1969 5 993,027,000 2,397,211,000
*Actual data reported by the State Revenue Department
The 40 per cent estimate is used for computing the estimated tax levy
because of the order of the Revenue Commissioner that property be assessed
uniformly throughout the state at 40 per cent of true value. It was
aw ie
estimated that the gross digest would increase at the rate of 4.2 per
cent annually. That was the approximate growth rate used in the estimates
presented on p. 15 of District Reorganization For Better Schools in Atlanta
and Fulton County Report of the Local Education Commission of Atlanta and
Fulton County, Georgia, February 1966.
In Table IV, estimates are presented of anticipated revenues of the
reorganized district from non-local sources. estimated budget requirements,
estimated local tax revenue needed and estimated local school tax levy
needed for school operation. These estimates are for operation only and
do not include revenues and expenditures needed for capital outlay and
debt service. The methods used in making the estimates are set forth in
the footnotes to Table IV, It will be noted that the average estimated
tax rate for the two districts operating as separate districts in 1967-68
is 18.3 mills but that the estimated tax rate for the first year of operation
as a combined district is 21.4 milis. This is due to the fact that it will
take a considerable increase in school revenue to provide kindergartens for
the Fulton County children and to increase the general level of educational
opportunity provided in the reorganized system, It will also be observed
that the estimated local tax levy for 1969-70 is 23.2 mills. This is
probably an over estimate because it is based on the assumption that the
1969 State Legislature will not make any increase in the Foundation Program
allotment per teacher. If the 1969 legislature would make the same propor-
tionate increase in the per teacher allotment in the Foundation Program
that it made in 1967, the estimated local tax levy for schools in the
reorganized district would be only approximately 22.0 mills.
Time
Attention is particularly directed to the fact that these estimated
tax levies are based on qa tax digest at 40 per cent of true value. A
tax levy of 23,2 mills on a tax digest at 40 per cent of true value is
equivalent to a tax levy of only 9,28 mills on a tax digest at 100 per
cent true value. This js not a high jopal tax levy for schools when
compared with school taxes levied in leading school systems in other
sections of the country,
TABLE IV ESTIMATED OPERATING REVENUES FOR
ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY DISTRICTS
COMBINED AND ESTIMATED LOCAL OPERATING TAX LEVY
NEEDED FOR SCHOOLS BASED ON A GROSS DIGEST AT 40 PER CENT
OF TRUE VALUE 1967-1969
SOURCE OF 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
REVENUE (Estimated as (Estimated as (Estimated as
separate dis- combined combined
tricts) district) district)
STATE FUNDS $27,759,812 $28,509,327 $29,279,079
Vocational Funds 704,983 724,018 743,566
National Defense
Education Act 602 ,008 618 ,262 634,955
Federal Impacted >
Area Funds 1,039,700 1,067,772 1,096,602
Other Income 1,559,240 1,601,339 1,644,575
Estimated income
excluding income
from local taxes# 31,665,743 32,520,718 33,398,777
Estimated Operating
Budget Requirements* 72,110,626 81,832,188 89,111,499
Estimated Local Tax
Funds Needed 40,444,883 49,311,470 55,712,722
Gross Digest Estimated
at 40 per cent true
value 2,207,856,000 2,300,586 ,000 2,397,211,000
Estimated Tax Levy
for Schools Opera-
tion in mills 18.3 21.4 23.2
#State funds for 1967-68 were estimated by adding $2,938,000 to the state
funds received by the two systems for 1966-67. This is the estimated additional
state revenue provided for the two systems by the 1967 Legislature. The estimated
state funds for subsequent years was increased 2.7 per cent annually which is
about the estimated annual increase in attendance of the combined systems. The
estimates for other non-local sources of revenue were also increased 2.7 per
cent annually for the same reason. This method may overestimate some sources
and underestimate other sources.
*Data taken from P. 21 of District Reorganization for Better Schools in Atlanta
and Fulton County. Report of the Local Education Commission of Atlanta and
Fulton County, Georgia, February 1966.
ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY
A STUDY CONDUCTED FOR
THE LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION
BY
(Revised by Dr. R. L. Johns - June 21, 1967)
FINANCING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF
ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY
A comprehensive approach to a study of the financing of the public schools
in Atlanta and Fulton County would involve an appraisal of the future policies
of the State of Georgia and the federal government for school financing as well
as a study of local school financing. Since such an appraisal is beyond the
scope of this study, this section of the report will deal primarily with problems
of local school financing in the two districts. However, most authorities on
school financing anticipate that in the future there will be further increases
in school financial support from the federal government and state governments as
well as from local school districts. Although the public schools will no doubt
receive increased funds in the future from both state and federal sources,
strong local financial support of the public schools will have to be maintained
by all districts that desire something better than a mediocre quality level cf
education for their children.
The following matters are treated in this section of the report:
revenue receipts, current expenditures, taxpaying ability and local effort to
support education, indebtedness, equalization that would result from consolida-
tion, non-property local taxes and financial arrangements that would need to be
made if the two districts were consolidated.
Revenue Rece
Table I shows the budgeted revenue receipts of the Atlanta and Fulton County
school systems. It will be noted from this Table that 55.4 percent of the revenue
of the Atlanta City schools is derived from the district property tax as compared
with 28.4, percent in Fulton County. However, both of these percentage figures
are deceiving.
«Dis
Just what percent of the revenue receipts of each school system is provided
by property taxes levied on property located in each district? It will be noted
that the Atlanta City Council paid $2,835,045 in 1966 for the debt service on
bonds the City issued to construct school buildings. This amounts to 5.3 percent
of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City Board of Education. This added to
the 55.4 percent derived from the district property tax makes a total of 60.7
“percent of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City schools derived from property
taxes in 1966-67.
It will be noted that Fulton County receives $1,762,892 from the county-wide
tax (14 mills) and $780,000 from a direct appropriation from the County Commission
and $720,000 from the County Commission for Teacher Retirement. This makes a
total of $3,262,892 from these two sources. If it is assumed that the appropria-
tion from the County Commission is also derived from property taxes, what part of
this total is paid on property located in Fulton County but outside of the City
of Atlanta? Since only about 19 percent of the digest of Fulton County lies
outside of the City of Atlanta, only approximately 19 percent of this amount,
or $619,949, is paid on the property in Fulton County lying outside the City of
Atlanta, and $2,642,943 on the property in the City of Atlanta. This represents
only approximately 3.6 percent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County
Board. It will also be noted that 7.8 percent of the revenue receipts of the
Fulton County district is derived from the 5% mill levy for debt service. These
two amounts, that is, 3.6 percent plus 7.8 percent added to 28.4 percent make a
total of 39.8 percent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County Board of
Education obtained from property taxes paid on property located in Fulton County
outside of the City of Atlanta.
The Fulton County Board of Education receives 40.8 percent of its revenue
from the state Minimum Foundation Program appropriations as compared with 32.3
percent for the City of Atlanta. The Minimum Foundation Program law was designed
a
to equalize educational opportunities among school districts that vary greatly
in wealth. The 13 mill county-wide tax levied in all of Fulton County but al-
located exclusively to the Fulton County Board also provides for considerable
financial equalization at the local level. The equalization of educational
opportunity is sound public policy. Later in this report, it is shown that the
.adjusted gross digest is 32 percent greater per pupil in the City of Atlanta
than in Fulton County. Table I shows the revenue receipts of the Atlanta Schools
totaled $530.01 per pupil in 1966-67 as compared with $571.07 in Fulton County.
This means that the State Minimum Foundation Program Law together with the 13
mill county-wide levy and the direct appropriation from the County Commission
have gone a long way toward equalizing the financial support of the two systems.
It should not be inferred from this comment, however, that educational opportuni-
ties are equal in the two school systems. The Atlanta City school system provides
kindergartens which are not provided in the Fulton County system. If Fulton
County provided kindergartens, the revenue receipts per pupil in that school
system would probably be no more than the revenue receipts per pupil in the
Atlanta system.
Both systems will benefit substantially in 1967-68 from increases from the
Minimum Foundation Program Appropriation provided by the 1967 Legislature. It
is estimated that the City of Atlanta will receive an increase of approximately
$1,863,000 from this source and Fulton County approximately $1,075,000.
TABLE I - SOURCES OF REVENUE OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY
SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67 (BUDGETED REVENUES 1966-67,
DATA FURNISHED BY CITY AND COUNTY SCHOOL OFFICIALS)
SOURCE ATLANTA FULTON COUNTY
Amount Percent Amount Percent
District Property
tax for operation $29 ,686 415 55k $ 4,922,451 28.4
County Wide Property Tax 1,762,892 10.2
County Commission (for
General Expenses ) 780,000 4.5
Intangible Taxes 230,000 1.3
County Commission (for #
Teacher Retirement ) 720,000 4.2
State Minimum
Foundation Program 17,322,038 32.3 7,074,761 40.8
Other State Funds 425,013 8 0 nee
Vocational Funds 628,449 352 58,000 ‘3
National Defense
Education Act 520,781 1.0 65,400 4
Fulton ae School 4
District 52 mill levy Sin 0 .
for debt service 45320200 we
Federal Impacted
Area Funds 802,366 Led 210,000 1.2
City Council Payments for #
Debt Service on Sch. Bonds 2,835,045 5.3
Other Income 1,358,747 205 159,500 9
Total Revenue
Receipts $53,578,854 100.0 $17,333,004 100.0
Beginning Cash Balance 532,250 om 818,609 a=
Sub-Total 54,111,104 —_ 18,151,613 --
Federal Funds-
Elem. & Sec. Act. 1965 2,519,743 = 461,383 =
GRAND TOTAL $56,630,847 <= $18,612,996 <—
#
Not Included in the operating budget.
continued==-
TABLE I - (Cont.)
SOURCE ATLANTA FULTON COUNTY
Amount Percent. Amount Percent
Average Daily
Attendance Jan. 1,
1967 101,068 30,352
Revenue Receipts
Per Pupil in ADA * $530.01 $571.07
% Excludes federal funds received under the Elementary and Secondary
Act of 1965 which cannot be used for the regular school program.
af
The federal revenues received from the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 are also shown in Table I. These revenues are shown separately be-
cause they are all earmarked for special purposes by the federal government and
cannot be expended for the regular school program. Practically all of these
revenues must be expended for compensatory education for the children of the
disadvantaged.
‘Current Expenditures
In Table II an analysis of the budgeted current expenditures of the two school
systems for 1966-67 is presented. Both systems expend 75 percent or more of total
current expenditures for instruction. This is typical practice in large school
systems.
Caution should be exercised in comparing the different percentage allocations
given to the same expenditure functions in the two systems. These systems differ
considerably in their bases of financial support, the spread of population and
other factors. For example, Fulton County allocates 2.8 percent of its current
expenditures to transportation but Atlanta spends no funds for pupil transporta-
tion.
Atlanta expended approximately $486.07 per pupil for 1966-67 and Fulton
County $517.07 for current operating expenses. The Research Division of the
National Education Association estimated that the average current expenditure
per pupil in average daily attendance for the 50 states and the District of
Columbia was $564 in 1966-67. Therefore, the eurrent expenditures per pupil in
both the Atlanta and Fulton County School systems are very low when compared with
the national average.
TABLE II
CURRENT EXPENDITURES OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67 tt
(BUDGETED EXPENDITURES FOR 1966-67)
ACCOUNT ATIANTA FULTON COUNTY
FUNCTION Amount Percent Amount Percent
1. Administration $1,796,920 3.7 $ 309,784 2.0
2.. Instruction 365977 s4h3 75.3 12,149,333 77-4
3. Operation of
Plant hy 22h5543 8.6 1,228,200 7.8
4, Maintenance
of Plant 2,810,500 5.7 663,550 4.2
5. Health Services . 96 368 22 0 --
6. Food Services 41,209 ok 9,300 ol
7. Transportation 0 -- Lhd, 5160 2.8
8. Fixed Charges 2,417,800 4.9 889,368* 5.7
9. Other 754,819%* 1:65 0 --
TOTAL 49,119,602 100.0 15,693,695 100.0
Average Daily Attendance
January 1967 101,068 30,352
Current Expenditures
Per Pupil in ADA $486.07 $517.06
Mata furnished by county and city school officials. Expenditure accounts do not
include expenditures from federal funds received from the Elementary and Secondary
Act of 1965.
*This account consists principally of undistributed expenditures made from federal
funds received under the National Defense Education Act.
**Includes $720,000 employees! contribution to teachers! retirement paid by the
County Commission.
=i
Financial Ability
The best measure of the relative local taxpaying ability of the Atlanta and
Fulton County school systems is the gross property digest per pupil in average
daily attendance computed on the basis of 100 percent valuation. This is due to
the fact that most local school revenue is derived from property taxes.
Following is the adjusted 100 percent gross digest for 1966 of the Atlanta
City School district estimated by the State Revenue Department:
Atlanta City in Fulton County $4,141,663 ,000
Atlanta City in DeKalb County 173,149 000
Total $4,314, 812,000
The average daily attendance of the Atlanta City schools was 101,068 in
January, 1967. Therefore, the gross digest of the Atlanta City school district
adjusted on a 100 percent basis was $42,692 per pupil.
The 1966 gross digest of the Fulton County school district adjusted on a
100 percent basis was $982,348,000 according to data furnished by the State
Revenue Department. The gross digest includes the valuation of homesteads even
though homesteads up to a valuation of $2,000 are exempted from County operating
levies for schools. It is necessary to include the valuation of homesteads in
order to compute an accurate measure of the relative wealth of the two districts.
The ADA of the Fulton County schools in January was 30,352. The gross digest
per pupil in ADA was $32,365. Therefore, the Atlanta City school system has a
gross digest approximately 32 percent greater than the Fulton County school system.
However, each of these school systems has considerably more wealth per pupil than
the average school district in the United States.
Local Financial Effort to Support Education
A valid measure of local tax effort to support schools can be obtained by
dividing the taxes paid on the property located in each school district by the
adjusted 100 percent gross digest of that district.
It is difficult to compute exactly the local tax effort of the Atlanta City
District because a part of that district is in DeKalb. County. However, the follow~
ing is a fairly close approximation for 1966-67.
1. District property tax $29 686,415
2. Payments of City Council for debt
service on school bonds 2,835,045
3. The portion of the 13 mill county-wide
tax and the portion of the appropriations
made by the County Commission which was
paid on property located in the City 2.642.943
TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS $35,164,403
The 100 percent gross digest of the Atlanta school district for 1966 was
$4,314,812,000. The total local taxes for schools divided by the gross digest
equals .00815 or approximately 8.2 mills on the adjusted 100 percent gross digest
or true value of property.
The local taxes for schools in the Fulton County school district in 1966-67
were as follows:
1. District property tax $ 4,922,451
2. The portion of the 14 mill county-wide
tax and the appropriation made by the
County Commission which was paid on
property located in the county district 619,949
3. Fulton County district levy of 53
mills for debt service 1,350,000
TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS $ 6,892,400
= Ja
The 1966 gross digest of the County school system on 100 percent basis was
$982,348,000. The total local taxes for schools divided by the gross digest
equals .007016 or approximately 7 mills on the gross digest on true valuation
of property.
It is evident that the Atlanta City school district made a greater local tax
effort in proportion to its ability to support schools than Fulton County. If
the Fulton County school district had made as great a tax effort in proportion
to its ability as the Atlanta school district in 1966-67, it would have raised
-001134 times $982,348,000 or $1,113,983 in additional local revenue in 1966-67.
Special attention is directed to the fact that Fulton County could not
legally have made this extra local effort in 1966-67. The District levied 25
mills of operating taxes which was the legal limit it could levy. Furthermore,
property was assessed at less than 25 percent of true value. However, the limita-
tions on the taxing power of the Fulton County Board of Education will be eased
somewhat in the future because of the ruling of the court in the McLennon vs
State Revenue Commission case. The court ruled that all property must be
assessed at a uniform percent of true value regardless of the class of property
or where it was located. Upon the ruling, the Revenue Commissioner ordered that
all county digests be based on assessing all property at 40 percent of true value.
This will make it possible to increase considerably the local revenues of the
Fulton County school district beginning with the 1967-68 fiscal year.
There are no legal limits on the amount of mills which the Atlanta City
Board of Education may levy for the operation of the public schools of the city.
Therefore, there are no legal barriers to increasing local school support fcr
schools in Atlanta.
Actually the local taxes for schools are extremely low both in Atlanta and
Fulton County when compared with the school taxes levied in other sections of
the nation. Recently one of the members of the staff making this survey
-8-
participated in a study of school financing in all school districts of 20,000
population or more in Illinois. It was found that the average school district in
Illinois levied local property taxes for schools equivalent to 12 mills on the
100 percent true valuation of property. This is almost fifty percent greater
local effort than the City of Atlanta and 71 percent greater local tax effort
for schools than in the Fulton County school district.
Indebtedness
The bonded indebtedness of the Atlanta City Council for schools totaled
$52,905,000 in 1967. This was less than 3.8 percent of the unadjusted gross
digest.
The bonded indebtedness of the Fulton County school district was
$22,661,000 in 1967. This was 9.1 percent of the unadjusted gross digest of
the county school district. This is close to the 10 percent constitutional
limit on school indebtedness for the Fulton County district. However, the bonded
indebtedness margin of Fulton County will be greatly increased when the property
digest is raised from an estimated 25 percent of true value to 40 percent. The
unadjusted 1966 gross digest for the Fulton County district was approximately
$248,000,000. Assuming that the 1966 digest was at 25 percent of true value,
the 1967 digest at 40 percent of true value should be approximately $400,000,000
allowing for a reasonable amount of growth. The present county school indebted-
ness would be less than 5.7 percent of the gross digest at a 40 percent valuation.
Another way of looking at the indebtedness of the two districts is to compute
the percent that the school indebtedness of each district is of the adjusted
gross digest of each district at 100 percent of true value. In 1966 this figure
for the Atlanta city district was 1.23 percent and for Fulton County 2.31 percent.
If the two districts were consolidated, it is assumed that the territory that
originally issued the bonds would continue to be responsible for the debt service
-9—
on the bonds that it had issued. It does not appear that this would work any
great hardship on either district because the indebtedness of neither district is
excessive.
Non=-Property Local Taxes
Some school districts in the United States have obtained legal authority
to levy non=-property local taxes for schools. There are arguments both for and
against this practice. Following are some arguments against the levy of local
non~property taxes for schools:
1. Usually only urban or metropolitan school districts are able to derive
substantial funds from this source.
2. The state can collect most types of local non-property taxes more
efficiently than local units of government
3. Local non-property taxes for schools place cities in competition with
each other for industries.
4 If the larger urban districts are able to levy local non=-property taxes
for schools, they may not support a state financing program which helps the less
fortunate school districts.
5. Some types of local non=property taxes make it possible for wealthy
districts to shift a part of the incidence of their taxes on the residents of
less wealthy districts.
Some arguments for the levy of local non-property taxes for schools are as
follows:
1. The property tax is a reneebaiin tax and public resistance to it is
growing. If we maintain the vigor of local school support, many believe that a
source of local revenue more nearly related to ability to pay than the property
tax must be found.
2. The more progressive areas of a state desire a better quality program
than the legislature is usually willing to provide from non-property state taxes.
On
Those areas should be given the authority to provide this higher quality program
from some local source other than the property tax.
3. It is possible to select types of local non-property taxes the burden
of which cannot be shifted to the taxpayers of less wealthy areas.
4. The cost of administering local non-property taxes can be held to a
reasonable level by using the state's tax collection machinery or by levying
local iohetoneety taxes by metropolitan areas rather than by individual school
districts.
5. The taxpayer should be given the choice of what type or types of local
taxes he will levy for schools in order to broaden the base of local taxation.
As has been pointed out above, local property taxes for schools are very
low both in Atlanta and in Fulton County. There is considerable leeway in both
districts for increasing local property taxes for schools without those taxes
becoming burdensome. Therefore, there is no immediate urgency for the considera-
tion of obtaining the authority to levy local non-property taxes for schools.
If the Atlanta and Fulton County school authorities decide to study the
possibility of levying local non-property taxes, it is recommended that considera-
tion be given to the following:
1. That any local non=-property taxes that are levied for schools in the
Atlanta area be levied over the entire metropolitan area of Atlanta including all
school districts in the following counties: Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, and
Gwinnett.
2. That a metropolitan school taxing authority be established with the sole
responsibility for collecting any local non=property taxes for schools authorized
by law and for apportioning such taxes among the several school districts in the
five counties named above in proportion to the average daily attendance of pupils.
4435
3. That only those types of non-property local taxes be levied, the burden
of which cannot be shifted to taxpayers residing outside of the Atlanta metropolitan
area.
Financing Education in a Reorganized District
A number of reports have been presented to the people of the Fulton County and
Atlanta school districts in which arguments for and against the consolidation of
the tio districts have been set forth. It is not the purpose of this report to
review those arguments. Therefore, the discussions of school finance presented
in this study have been focused primarily on the financing of schools in each dis-
trict rather than on the financing of schools in a consolidated district. Certain
suggestions particularly concerning the level of school financing have already been
presented. Those suggestions are as applicable to the financing of education in
Atlanta and Fulton County as separate school districts as they would be applicable
to the financing of education in a consolidated district.
It would no doubt be possible to provide reasonably adequate school financing
in each of the two districts operating as separate districts. However, if the two
districts were consolidated, it would be possible to establish a more equitable
and more efficient financing plan. It has already been pointed out that the 1966
gross digest adjusted at 100 percent in the City of Atlanta was $42,692 per pupil in
ADA and in the Fulton County district $32,365. If the two districts were consoli-
dated, the gross digest at 100 percent valuation for the consolidated district
would be $40,307 per pupil. It has also been pointed out that the taxpayers in
the Fulton County school district are making a lower tax effort to support schools
in proportion to ability than the taxpayers in the Atlanta City district. There-
fore, consolidation of the two districts would equalize the wealth back of each
child and it would also equalize the tax effort to support schools in the Atlanta-
Fulton County consolidated district. Consolidation would also simplify local
financing because there would no longer be a need for the special 13 mill county
equalizing levy or direct appropriations from the County Commission.
It has been suggested in other studies presented to the Local Education Com-
mission of Atlanta and Fulton County that the consolidation of the two districts
might result in the loss of some state school funds under present methods of state
apportionment. If there is anything in present state laws that would place a
penalty on desirable reorganization of school districts, the laws should be amended
and the penalties eliminated. This should not be a difficult undertaking.
As has already been pointed out, improvements in school financing should be
made in the Atlanta and Fulton County school districts regardless of whether they
are consolidated. If the two districts are consolidated, consideration should be
given to the following financial recommendations:
1. The Board of the consolidated district should be given the same power for
levying taxes for school operation as that now possessed by the Atlanta City Board
of Education and it should be fiscally independent of any other local body.
2. The Board should be given the power to issue bonds for capital outlay
purposes up to a reasonable percent of the gross digest. The Board should also
be given the power to obtain tax anticipation loans to be repaid within the fiscal
year. |
3. Homestead exemption from school taxes should be abolished in the re=-
organized district.
4. Present outstanding bonds should be retired in accordance with the com-
mitments made at the time of issuance but all new bonds should be issued on a
district-wide basis and retired from taxes levied throughout the consolidated
district.
Estimated Local Tax Levy Needed for Financing Schools in the Reorganized
District
It is difficult to make an accurate estimate of the local tax levy
needed for financing schools in the reorganized district for a number of
reasons, The local tax levy for schools in the combined Atlanta-Fulton
County School District will depend upon a number of factors including the
following: the per cent of true value at which property is assessed, the
quality and quantity of education provided, the economic growth rate of
Atlanta and Fulton County and the additional amounts of revenue to be
received in the future from state and federal sources. Assumptions must be
made with respect to all of these items in order to estimate the probable
tax levy in the combined district.
In Table ITI, the estimates of the gross digest of the combined Atlanta
and Fulton County School District for the years 1966-69 are presented, It
will be noted that estimates at 100 per cent of true value and at 40 per
cent of true value are both presented,
TABLE III ESTIMATED GROSS DIGEST OF ATLANTA AND FULTON
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMBINED 1966 - 1969
GROSS DIGEST AT 100 PER GROSS DIGEST AT 40 PER
YEAR CENT TRUE VALUE CENT TRUE VALUE
1966" $5,297,160,000 $2,118, 864,000
1967 5,519,641,000 2,207,856,000
1968 5,751,466 ,000 2, 300,586,000
1969 5 993,027,000 2,397,211,000
*Actual data reported by the State Revenue Department
The 40 per cent estimate is used for computing the estimated tax levy
because of the order of the Revenue Commissioner that property be assessed
uniformly throughout the state at 40 per cent of true value. It was
aw ie
estimated that the gross digest would increase at the rate of 4.2 per
cent annually. That was the approximate growth rate used in the estimates
presented on p. 15 of District Reorganization For Better Schools in Atlanta
and Fulton County Report of the Local Education Commission of Atlanta and
Fulton County, Georgia, February 1966.
In Table IV, estimates are presented of anticipated revenues of the
reorganized district from non-local sources. estimated budget requirements,
estimated local tax revenue needed and estimated local school tax levy
needed for school operation. These estimates are for operation only and
do not include revenues and expenditures needed for capital outlay and
debt service. The methods used in making the estimates are set forth in
the footnotes to Table IV, It will be noted that the average estimated
tax rate for the two districts operating as separate districts in 1967-68
is 18.3 mills but that the estimated tax rate for the first year of operation
as a combined district is 21.4 milis. This is due to the fact that it will
take a considerable increase in school revenue to provide kindergartens for
the Fulton County children and to increase the general level of educational
opportunity provided in the reorganized system, It will also be observed
that the estimated local tax levy for 1969-70 is 23.2 mills. This is
probably an over estimate because it is based on the assumption that the
1969 State Legislature will not make any increase in the Foundation Program
allotment per teacher. If the 1969 legislature would make the same propor-
tionate increase in the per teacher allotment in the Foundation Program
that it made in 1967, the estimated local tax levy for schools in the
reorganized district would be only approximately 22.0 mills.
Time
Attention is particularly directed to the fact that these estimated
tax levies are based on qa tax digest at 40 per cent of true value. A
tax levy of 23,2 mills on a tax digest at 40 per cent of true value is
equivalent to a tax levy of only 9,28 mills on a tax digest at 100 per
cent true value. This js not a high jopal tax levy for schools when
compared with school taxes levied in leading school systems in other
sections of the country,
TABLE IV ESTIMATED OPERATING REVENUES FOR
ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY DISTRICTS
COMBINED AND ESTIMATED LOCAL OPERATING TAX LEVY
NEEDED FOR SCHOOLS BASED ON A GROSS DIGEST AT 40 PER CENT
OF TRUE VALUE 1967-1969
SOURCE OF 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70
REVENUE (Estimated as (Estimated as (Estimated as
separate dis- combined combined
tricts) district) district)
STATE FUNDS $27,759,812 $28,509,327 $29,279,079
Vocational Funds 704,983 724,018 743,566
National Defense
Education Act 602 ,008 618 ,262 634,955
Federal Impacted >
Area Funds 1,039,700 1,067,772 1,096,602
Other Income 1,559,240 1,601,339 1,644,575
Estimated income
excluding income
from local taxes# 31,665,743 32,520,718 33,398,777
Estimated Operating
Budget Requirements* 72,110,626 81,832,188 89,111,499
Estimated Local Tax
Funds Needed 40,444,883 49,311,470 55,712,722
Gross Digest Estimated
at 40 per cent true
value 2,207,856,000 2,300,586 ,000 2,397,211,000
Estimated Tax Levy
for Schools Opera-
tion in mills 18.3 21.4 23.2
#State funds for 1967-68 were estimated by adding $2,938,000 to the state
funds received by the two systems for 1966-67. This is the estimated additional
state revenue provided for the two systems by the 1967 Legislature. The estimated
state funds for subsequent years was increased 2.7 per cent annually which is
about the estimated annual increase in attendance of the combined systems. The
estimates for other non-local sources of revenue were also increased 2.7 per
cent annually for the same reason. This method may overestimate some sources
and underestimate other sources.
*Data taken from P. 21 of District Reorganization for Better Schools in Atlanta
and Fulton County. Report of the Local Education Commission of Atlanta and
Fulton County, Georgia, February 1966.