Box 6, Folder 2, Document 26

Dublin Core

Title

Box 6, Folder 2, Document 26

Text Item Type Metadata

Text

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


Not Included in the operating budgeto


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









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





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


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


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


This account consists principally of undistributed expenditures made from federal


funds received under the National Defense Education Act.
,



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




County Commission.
�-5Financial Ability
The best measure of the relative local taxpaying ability of the Atlanta and
Fulton County school systems is the gross property digest per pupil in average
daily attendance computed on the basis of 100 percent valuation.
This is due to
the fact that most local school revenue is derived from property truces.
Following is the adjusted 100 percent gross di~est for 1966 of the Atlanta
City Scho~l district estimated by the State Revenue Department:
Atlanta City in Fulton County
$4,141,663,000
Atlanta City in DeKalb County
173,149,000
Total
$4,314,812,000
The average daily attendance of the Atlanta City schools was 101,068 in
January, 1967.
Therefore, the gross digest of the Atlanta City school district
adjusted on a 100 percent basis was $42,692 per pupil.
The 1966 gross digest of the Fulton County school district adjusted on a
100 percent basis was $982,348,000 according to data furnished by the State
Revenue Department.
The gross aigest includes the valuation of homesteads even
though homesteads up to a valuation of $2,000 are exempted frcm County operating
levies for schools.
It is necessary to include the valuation of homesteads in
order to compute an accurate measure of the relative wealth of the two districts.
The ADA of the Fulton County schools in January was 30,352.
par pupil in ADA was $32,365.
The gross digest
Therefore, the Atlanta City school system has a
gross digest approximately 32 percent greater than the Fulton County school system.
However, each of these school systems has considerably more wealth per pupil than
the average school district in the United States.
�-6Local Financial Effort, to Support, Education
A valid measure of local ta.x effort to support schools ccµi be obtained by
dividing the taxes paid on the property located in each school district by the
adjusted 100 percent gross digest of that district.
.
It is difficult to compute exactly the local ta.x effort of the Atlanta City
District because a part of that district is in DeKalb. County.
However, the follow-
ing is a fairly close approximation for 1966-67.
1.
District property ta.x
2.
Payments of City Council for debt
service on school bonds
2,835,045
The portion of the l½ mill county-wide
ta.x and the portion of the appropriations
made by the County Commission which was
paid on property located in the City
2,642,243
3.
$29,686,415
TorAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS
$35,164,403
The 100 percent gross digest of the Atlanta school district for 1966 was
$4,314,812,000.
The total local taxes for schools divided by the gross digest
equals .00815 or approximately 8.2 mills on the adjusted 100 percent gross digest
or true value of property.
The local taxes for schools in the Fulton County school district in 1966-67
were as follows:
1.
District property tax
2.
The portion of the l½ mill county-wide
ta.x and the appropriation made by the
County Commission which was paid on
property located in the county district
3.
Fulton County district levy of
mills for debt service
$4,922,451

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


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


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

Social Bookmarking

Comments

Transcribe This Item

  1. http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_006_002_026.pdf

Document Viewer