Box 21, Folder 4, Document 16

Dublin Core

Title

Box 21, Folder 4, Document 16

Text Item Type Metadata

Text

.
•.

• I
!
I
,._ ·- work Docwnent: . NO~-- FOR RELEASE·
7/19/67
)


r.


·1 ·
!. ·
• I

t'
'
.. ..
~ l:
-l'
I
. .:t ' .


••
.
!
i
'
' · •• t
FINANCING ATLANTA'S RAPID
.
. .·.
., , ,
·. i
TRANSIT SYSTEM


.··~ :


..·,·. ~
t;..
This memorandlll11 will summarize the most important ~igure~ on the financial implications ,f or .the local governments of ·the proj ecte_d Metropolitan
Atlanta rapid transit system. It is concerned with t _h e potential impact on
the governments of financing the capital . costs of the system, no part of
which will be amortized from the fare box.
-Il -
l!'--
·1
.. ...
-. .,,,
..
[;
,·...
-·i
i
.I
' I
.I
J
' I

.
I'.


.1


.,
,'.,
·'
It is assumed that the method to be used in channeling local funds into
·' · the system will be contracts between the local government·s and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid j Transit Authority (MARTA)'. Under _this method, each
parti cipating government would contract to assume its share of the annual
costs of amortizing bonds issued by MARTA, including both principal and
interest payments· and : extending over the entire li'fe· of the outstanding
bonds so issued.
'
·
·
·
On the bas i s of det ai led cons iderations of the potent ia°I impact of the
system on economy, land us e pa tterns and circulation systenls of the local
jurisdictions, a propos e d f ormul a ha s b een devised for allocating the local
sha r e of MARTA:' s capi tal costs among the five participating governments.
This formula uses weighted indexes of population, property 'tax digests
(adjus ted to a true · basis) and employment for both 1965 and 1985·. .. following
i s t he · al location· of costs tha t the formula "·p roduces:
·
Ci ty : of Atlanta .
Ful t on County.
DeKa l b County
Clayton County
Gwinnett County
/
, •'
·II
.i
I
!
I.
56.6%
12 . 0
. 22. 1
5.9
i
..
·1
I
·- 1
I
i
1.
""
.:
...
II
3.4
.,
100 . 0%
I,
The alloca tiorii for Fulton and DeKa l b count i e s, o f course.~ are for
only those are as of .the countie.s outside t he City of Atlanta ; ·
.I
\
.,.
·I
•. '
I,
.:
~ . .1. . .
,:,'
I
The Georgia law establishing MARTA and the transit system also provided
another meth.od of which the participati_n g local governments might handle
their r e spective shares of the costs -- namely, iss·uance of their own general
obligation bonds in behalf of MARTA. -However, it is generally assume·d that
thi's method would not be used because of the pressing need for this qonding
capacity for other capital needs of the local gover·r nnents .
··
~
I
I
~
. ' . ,'
. i
.!i . .
.
1· '
'





. ~; .~
j,,. , \ '
~i :
'
. '
.
.\
.
\
\
.,
' I


~
.,,
Ill


~~--~- .....,~


-~- ---~ --·~------~----.. ' !, .. ,·
.
-I
�1
I(_•. .
I






) ._ ' ,
,.
.. J
-~:, ....: ..
' '• .
!
)
.· :, . ,
I
. . .
.. ~
- ..·


f: ..-· ..


•:
. ' 1·
,I













~- .
.
. ··-
.I :
· ~:f·. i ·
!
· .• Z ·

·:- 't
'•
.\ .
City of Atlanta
Fulton County ·
DeKalb County , _·
.'





~..
.
·-
., .' :·
..: .
\'
..
.. t,
' '
,. ;r
'


,'


62.4%
13: 2 · ·
• ,
r,











~
I
'
i •••\
I


I•


••
.... : · , .·.
· ·


. ·


~
i:· ·
1 •
.
·..:. ;
Present timing calls for submittal of the prop_osE:d financial plan for


,


·,,
approval of the participat:fog areas in . 1968, with ·capital .expenditures to
. 1·...
get . underway as soon after approval as possible. ·. In these calculations,
" calendar years are used and 1969 -is shown as the first y~ar for drawing
down capital funds for land purchase and construction. · Federal funds esti- ·
mated to be available: in a fiscal year are shown on _a calendar. year basis -for example, funds ·,to be made available on or after ·July 1, 1968 for fiscal
year 1969 ·are shown for calendar year 1969.
'
'; :\:.··
. .•.





, .-:-. .
.
. ...,. . ·.
,
/
l1
. /1
,~ ,
<
•:./
100.0%
I
.
I
•, .. '
.
. ' ~, .
".
.'

The allocation of costs among· the · . · ··/ ,'-"·,_'·, .
three central jurisdictions in this eventuality would be. as follows:·
' · l_, :·· : · ·
., ...
i

\ .
~·1
.
j .,
.,
{
! .
' . .
·;'
• !
.· . ·:__ :....:·· into and ·serve_ .. th.eir. geographical area.
. . =·f·
I~ •


,: ._


.. ' .. ·
... ' .··:- \ · '
.·'Ii ·' . :. }would~."~~:~g~:t143.215.248.55/;.~~i~~;.t;~~o::\~~a!y~!:~t~~a:"!o~~t~:~t,'143.215.248.55 16:51, 29 December 2017 (EST)'!:~
• ;.•,i

{
Federal and State Funds
'
The most critical variable in these estimates 'is the potential availability of Federal funds. It is not possible'to pred.ict -with any accuracy
· , . · how much Federal money might be made available. Ncit, only is there the
practical difficulty of looking beyond a current two~year Congressional
appropriation, but there are ·also the serious uncertainties · ·resulting from
,.
the Viet Nam and other international situations. · Theoretiqally the· .Federal
\
government could over time assume as much as two-thirds of the capital cost
·, . of the rapid transit system over and above what the system can produce
from its own revenues for this purpose . However, it would not be realistic
to take this as the basic assumption / . In this memorandum, conservative
and re_asonable premises are taken with.. respeC!· to · Federal ·fund availability.
,
I

,
""
Another variab_le is the . availability of funds from the State of
Georgia. The recent constitutional amendment enables the state government
to ·assume not to exceed 10 percent of the system ' s cost. The actual
availability of this money for this _purpose, · h,o wever, will depend upon
legislative appropriations . In this memorandum, it is assumed that the
state's 10 percent share would be forthcoming . For . purposes of these
estimates the state money is distributed un.j, formly on an annual bas i s over
·
t h_e le_n gth of t he · construction p~riod .
I
II
l
.i
,,
·1.
.. .i :
\
.-,
l·.
'"" .,
!·,·:-.
f
.
·:
.
\:
\
·.
. ··.: ..
... ... -.
. 1"
--.,,_.,..,.-..


• : '


,- - --
R

.
.
.
•'
.,:..~,. ~-·· .·.
G.
.
~ . _ . .,..,, v---,__ ,,,~,;-....
, ....- -..
, ...
. ---"'
'
........ """
,,.
-·---
�..
- - - - ·- -1
r .,
•. !


,I.


•,
!•
..
,.,
'd
·
11
,.
'
I'
·,·
,!
·. .
',

~
.
•. • :
'
.
' :i.. .
·;·' ! ', .
, ; •
··
...
J . ' : ; . ' ~.
, I ,
·:,
\ ·,
' ,.I
,
. i I .-_'·.
.,'
·'.
· ••
.
)
,
'
.
.. . \ ,,
1.
·'
r,
'
The Basic 30-Mile System
J:·::
,,
). ,
.
·::
The_ basic assumption to start off with is that a 30-i~'ile system. would _; _ ;: .,
.'·.,· . be built extending· between Brookhaven on the north, Decatur on the east,


. ·



- !
~ · -:- · ;·.
the Tri-Ci ties on Vie south. and Lynhurst Ori ve on the west, with possible
..-· · -·
.'
., · additional spurs to\ the northeast into DeKalb County and to the northwest
~·., ·--". ~.:_...·
.
· ··
to Nort'1side Drive.· This system would cost $332,000,000 to build
($326,000,000 for .construction and right.;of-way, plus $6,000,000 pre- ·
-~_··.. '. '. ·_'·._·..· ...-· .,.__.111'. ·
. operati_n g expenses) and construction would take nine ,years (1969-1977). ·
l
'
.' .
1;'
'
·. ·..:' -v-· ,I,
I
I
"
It is regarded as fairly certain that MARTA in 1968 could get an
.
immediate commitment for $50,000,000 . for this basic; system from the Federal
. .
, :· · ·:- government. This ·would represent $25,000,000 a .year ror each of two fiscal
. : ' years (1968-1969 and -1969-1970). Prospects are good that Congress will
make available for rapid transit at least $200 ,·ooo ,000 for each of those
years and under the 1'2 1/2 percent-per-state formula Georgia's share would
produce these local amounts.
·
·11
ii
ti
I' ·
.'
· ··
·•


·.


·:
. .
·· · · . ,
. : .-···;
. t . .\
.
r.1'. '.\;·• •1,






j,
. ,.
It is also not unreasonable, on a most conservative basis; that
anoth;,r $50,000,000 would subsequently be made available froni the same
sourse, regardless of assumptions regarding Viet Nam. No one- knows for


•..,. ,:; './-i'


..
. sure but two observations might be valid: · 1) if V~et Nam clears up, this
· assumption will undoubtedly be conservative; and 2) if things get worse
and no additional Federal money is made .available after 19·70,· then the
· MARTA syst~m can be cut back but still be operational within the same local
approp;l"iation (as described later);·.
'··
I'
r
.
·r-
~
The $100,000,000 assumption of Federal funds is therefore taken at
the outset, with the followi.n g distribution of MARTA capital fund sources:
... ..
j:
I'
I-
ii
I.
'
I'
..; .
!,
1'.
,,
..., _. ..
l
.' .
•I
'
1i


l ,;


t
, I
,,'.
', : I



,




'

,.
~-.
'
Amount
. i
. cooo ;ooo)·
·: · ...
.· : ·Local
. : State ,.<..
_. ,. Federal
l,
·, $199
33
100
' '
,:
, Percent
_:·"' ····<
.
59.9% ·
10.0 ·.
30.1
'
$3_32
.i
'(
\ : ' ·,
...
· .. .
,
'
l
I.
J' ~
-/
' ~
I
!.
'
i 100. 0%
·t
'·. ;-
!
l
The schedule af the top of the next page shows h~~ · this basic 30-- mile
system. ~ight be financed over the nine-y~ar period. ·
" · ·.
I
·i
.·,\
ll
i .
,,
,.
I'
,\
I








>
.
l'
. : ·i ·
··'
..
.'
· 'i'
' I,
.
~
..
!
-'
,
'
I
'

,··· ., ·:
I •
I
\ '.
-: ··
'
'•
1 ..
.
. .j
', .
'l
.
· 1'.
1
t
/ : • . _. i_ l
/
'
. .
·..·;:,1rr. /
l.
k--,'I
J.
I.
\
'
'
I
'
·\I
Y
.
'
\
i '
I,,
I'
[,
I
·1
. •,.
\
! ...
-· ~r,,,_
- ==--=-·,__"""""'="'.,==-,:-~. ;sci_.
,, .... (
P-W ·
·r·· ;·'· ~
·tv~
,.:_ .
---=-=--=-~.-
~f?~'--.;---.
1 ....
,
'. ,
i:-1
�L:-~ --~~ ~~_ci~-143.215.248.55:~~----:
1
- - - 4..- - -- -~ ~ ~ .. _· _
· _·
...~.1.. ..-
••
..
-~-:__~-~~-- :hh:,.143.215.248.55-~"<. ·.
!·..a.. ~ •
r. ·./ .~

·•


.
 :


' •'.
··.·
·.
.I .

.....
.. '
~ !!
.
I
Table · 1,
. '-:;
.
./~t \:\<:.
·~
\
\~

I
. ,.
.1
,1 j
I :•
' ~-.
. ·. ·1- : ·_ '
)
.
$ 25
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
!'975
1976
1977
r
. :I··.
. !.
'
. f' ~
.. -----. ?t;
·4 .
$ 25
54 ·
.I.
8
207
258
298

$
$


. I .


,_. I ,
\ .:
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
25
··.
\
,· .\ '
·. ·: ' ',\
•;,·
.F '
320
332.
\ .. $100
,., .

I
.: i.
y
I
'.f'
35
,\I
·:
'
·,.·


.


so
·- -9
!
I
\
--.::,
..
'
.
,:





' . . , :. ·....
.,.
•; • ; "' I
. I
~

.
? . ~-
~
. _. ,
.
.'
. .. ,··: /,





...·.
. ...

~~
~
~. ~
. •.
.. ~-·
?. '
288
·"
322
332 ·
10
·.,.·
.-


,


'
· -.
.
l •.
I
..



,.·


'.
I
1l
' ..

. ~ ·. '
'
... . ~ t


. : {


MARTA revenue bonds supported by
local government contracts
\
··...
83
. $332 .
$199,
$33 ·
..


 
.. ~ ,:


. :,
147 . 1
176 :,·.··... ,-_ ..
... ...
230
234
54 ._._::
.··,·...
\ 34
30
.
. ·. .


..



-.


$ 54


·. :. ; 54"


·.· ·· ,i ,
4
50
'
$ 5,4
. 29
64
. ,;,",
.. . ' } 29
7S
u,~
I. • -
• :
I •
'I
.
.
·, ·
·· · 1
.



·,--.


I
POTE.NTIAL SOURCES OF CAPITAL FUNDS FOR
THE 30-MILE RAPID TRANSIT 'SYSTEM
.(.
(000,000)
'.
Drawdown · ·';.
Availabili t of Funds
( cumul. ) · -=F-e-.--er_a_1=----=s=-t_a_t_e__
_-=-L_o_c_a-=-1---=-1-r_-...,T=-o-t_a...,l,--·--....um-u-=1-a-t...1_v_e· .~- /
.I .
J
·, ··' ·.
'•





,·, ; · _. ; .
_,
7
.
...
\
. ·i, .. ,
·,,
. -·
.I ..'
.. t ' ·
.· : : ·.;
-,.
..
1'. •••
.
t,
..
}
. . ,, ·, : / I
• •· :
' ...
'
.

...
. '! .
• _1., -;
·.· . ... :.
'
'I
'
I
, 1.
t
As noted in Table 1, this financing schedule . ca11s .for six revenue
, :,.. · bond issues by MARTA. This is only a ·tentative list~ng of the. dates and · ·
amounts of issues, but it indicates ·the timing of needs in gene1al
accordance with the drawdown. schedule (governing fund ava;i.lability for land
purchase and construction) established by the ·engineers. Actually, it calls
for the availability of funds somewhat in advance of needs as shown by the
_. engineers . This is to level ·out and space out the MARTA bond · issued for
· marketing purposes. The drawdown schedule itself is tentative, of course,
and can be revised to accommodate adv~nce purchases of lan~.

\.'



,...-




.
· ·._
j;


I


'
..t: ·
··. •. ..
I
.,






•• • ~"'
..
..··; · ..·.:.
·,:' •'
It is preliminarily assumed that·:·~ach of the MARTA bond issues


_(guaranteed by pledges from .the local . govenunents) would run...for 30 years


at 4 . 1/2 percent interest. , the annua·1 cost of servicing these bonds (principal
and interest) is shown in Table 2 on the . followfog
page.
/
,,
.
.
.
.
.' ;
, .,I
.. '
·. /
I.
t


_,'


'1
, . · • ' · · ._
!
.
.
-; .'


1


,.•1
f- ·
'. : ,'
~ ,!
~1
.'

} ' ·, • I•
' •
'


·;



i


I
..

<
> •
. L-

. -.:-· : •
..
1•

•J
.\ .• . :;:/? ,_ · · · ' ,/:/,;: :/\·
L .
!•,
'
l

i•,

-
,.; ,,

~
t
' .

.!;·:.

, ~ '• • •
• ;_ : 1 •
•.. '.
,· •" •
I
'
I
I
. '· .
~

,,,. :·
. ., -
~
_,
.


..,• •


'
' 1' • ,
\ ·-.:.
~
,,
,.
'J
,I,.
. .'
• .• { •
•:
t
~ ·-·'----
- ~ ','·
- - -.
·,
..
'·.
l
·,., .-..·,.., 1~, ,: .· ' .
... " · ' ,. . ~
'
•\
j '
I
I
Il
,,
...
ji
\
r ··:,·:. , ·.· .
,.
~
·.J .~:.. ~
�..
,.~~ . ; ~ L~--~ -4.\:__ ~ ~
. . ,,


,·· ;


.
·.143.215.248.55.:_~_.-L~._;.
_~
.

i
'
I
... .


.... . , :·. ,..':.'


. . i,
I

d-.· /.
.- l;i r·' .
I •
·. -1 ': ~
. •
.
··,: .
I
'
'
_~.
I
'
I
,
I
.I
I
I
-I
'
. I
' .•





I
' ·,.
..
Bond Issues
Interest .
••
!; . - :
~
•'.

I.
.
.
. ..
I .•·
.





, •
I
'

• ••
• !.. • •••
!
... ·, . ; - : . < .'
I ,:
,
• • .,
. :-~. i .
. ·:. . . .
!'. .
.;.:-.:.
1
,,
.i- - -..· / ') .
- :
.
I •


·


. .·
.,
~ .
..
. ·"'..··>'•


\


. ,
I





• j ,


-.:


. .
.
L"
. :
·,:
'
.! ·, •' -. ,.
··F
......
~
'•
.i ..'_.
·· · .· .: · . Ann_u al
.
· .:,_::.' Cost 1/' · : : ·
'Total
I.
, /
~
I '.
.
' ;_,_ :
1969 :;' : , \ ' $ :25 I 000
.. ·.:.. $1,825
$ 20,605 ·$ 45,605
-1970 .: ....
I,':,·
. 1,825
'i!,·:


4 1 380


.
28,847 ~
63,847. '~
1971 . · ,. . ·:- 35,000 .
.
1972
.,
· 4,380 '· . , .
. ' • . . ,.
·, ;_.
r.8,Q3Q '
41,210 .· _. 91,210.
1913
,'-: 50,60_o
·····'.:
'
1974
.,
.\
'
.,. .
J
.7, 725
... '
_i;:-",\ •
,.
'
·' ~ ..
1975 • .·_: ,, '\ 50,000 · · '
!:_, / . 11,375 -' ·
41,210 91~210
',. ..I' .
. 54,726' ::: · · .' 13,138
30,000 , · •, . 24;726
., . 1976
\
. · ,.:
' 1977
9 1 000 I
7 ,418 ..:··
16 ,·418
13,795
,I .
1978
. 13,185
'
1979
·,
<.
13,185
r !.:. ..' :.i. '\• ·.:.


.


1980
· . 12,575
.
1981 !"
l2,209 _. , .· 12,099 :·.··_
1982
·. '•: : '.·
.. ,
- 12,099
· :·
1983
'.
.. .
. .
.\ et seq
· $199,000
$164,016
$363,016






.
I
. . ·. . : . ::-
,
~, ... I
.
j ' •.
I
·;
\
•·.
-. .
.....
1
. ! \.
I .. !
,.
·; '
.· ' '
ANNUAL CARRYING CHARGES OF MARTA=·.··,·,
REVENUE BONDS, 30-MILE _SYSTEM
1
(000)
<.:,, -.! ·..
• I
'i . '
. ':,,
. .Table 2,
~

.:,'_; · :." _·,-.
f,
• • ~· \

j .-._
/ <-:' :- : :·.. ,· '


• : :·. · I ·


. ·, ... . . . l , ·
. . -~.· ~ . :. .:··
. .. ... ·j
I
)
.-_·. 1·
.~
~ ~ ~' - ·1
~ ~~
. I
i.
'•


·


'
I
f
'
.:·-~': :~_·. ·,? ./
l
••
··
\

' ~
'.
. ,· :
.':j





.. \"
j
I

i
..
,
!
II '
~
I
. <,'.•·
.,!
j '
'
..


-. :


\ ~- I •
••

I

'

1
I
~.
Amortization (priricipal and interest) charges
of all outstanding . MARTA revenue bonds to be
assumed by ·1 ocai" governments under contraqt ·
with MARTA.
.
It is noted in Table 2 that the annual cost of servicing these bonds·
· drops off after 1977 (the date of the·· last issue) and declines to a level
-~
amount in 1982. This is because a 20 . percent sinking fund' reserve is
{j
, provided for over'- the first five years of each· issue, and at the encl of
'. five ' yearseach issue then ca rries a level payment to maturi ty. In effect,
s ix ye ars of payments are made in the first five years of ea~ h issue , and
the amor t i zation period is a ctually 20 inste~
years. The l eve l
cost of $12,099,000 would continue through 1997 at which time -it would drop
as the 1969 issue would have been paid ·o ff,. and so on until --a-1 is;ues are
/ · amorti zed .
·
· . '.
1/4_ ·
[_ , J
I mp act on Governments . It is a ssumed that all of the local cost · o f
th is ba s ic 30- mil e syst em would initially b e · a ssumed by the thr ee centra l ··
governments -- Atl anta, Fulton and DeKa lb - - i na smuch as t he system would
not reach out· into Clayton or Gwinnett. Later . however , if and when t h e
sys tem . is extended , · the outlying counties would pick up their p ro r ata
i
i


·


, I
I
I
~~ .,.
'
·' .
, 'J
·, I
J


I


I
,~
'
..
.t·.'· .... .


1··


'
C
I '
.
', .
.i
~
'
,*' •'
'
t


' :•
I
',
'
~
�I · :~
"----=..c.'.'.-:~.......~......:.-:ii..,:............:..:.... LL::.:..:...--'------~'--~-~-··--·-~'
1j.l
1!.
,,
,,

. . ..
' ·~ ' . ' .I _:
-
.• •
. ;I.
,r
,i
I
I
sh~res ; of this · basic cost. · For purposes of this calculation ~;. and
· :'. ·.approach to th~. governments _and the people of the three- counties
·. ·. , full impact of this basic system upon only the three_ governments is
· however.
'the
,.... ---·; ... .
.the ·
, ., .: · ~
assumed ·. ·' .i=' .:.. ·: ·
· -
· - 1 ·,. ·:\
U
i: '
i: 1·
/ '
.
I
,,1·
~(:' ::·i, ,.
' '{:,;-'_\>~ ·
• :/~:_.: - . · -:· ·
1


· ~ i


'.; . ·: ·., .·.


_.,


. .. ,.
·:- ,
. ' : ~ ._.:::.:·
Using the forin~la set forth earlier, the respective governmental shares
of the annual costs ·of this basic 30-mile· system are shown in .Table 3, below.
This is not the recommended funding schedule, however, . Later , it is
recommenclecf that substantially higher payments be made by the governments
to MARTA in the early years in o·rder to reduce the peak loads· in later years.
,
\
\'
'
'
. !
' , .•
. !,
\

Table 3.
_;
..,
.. .\
..





LOCAL GOVERNMENT "SHARES" OF MARTA BOND
CARRYING CHARGES, 30-MILE SYSTEM.





(000)
, ,_
.. .' ·-\ '
' ·,,· ··.: . ,
~
' · ..
'
, :'
!
.'
I
Atlanta
,' '
•I

-. I
ii'


j


.·.·
.
I
' '





'
I•
·'
I
'
..~ .'-_
' !•
·,
.. : .'\





I .
_ _ ..._
••• • • ....,. . _..
Fulton
1969 ' .- ~.. : ,$1,139
1970
,,,' ·:. l, 139
1971 ._..·. · 2,733
1972• . , . 2,733
1973 ,,· ,! ! 5,011
1974 · '• ·.•:-; 4,820
1975
. ; :·, 7,098
~~;~ ; . . ,_-!
8,198
$. 241
241
"/
578
, . _;
578
,
1,060
'.
1,020
1,502 :·
I


• 1


734 '
'. <1
'821
· ..
'
,
.:. L : t143.215.248.55
· . ;1, 740 ·, ·
', \'· 1 , 740 '
.:· , 8,227'
· , 7,847 ·
. 1,653
. ,
7,618
1,612
7,550
· 1,597
7,550·
· I,597


.;! ; .-:· . :< -



. r. ~:.:.:·..·.· ~--.


, ../
' ·,
.
.
...' -..··

1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
et seq
Total
$ 445
$1,825
' 1,825
4,380
4,380
. 8,030
7,725 ·
11~375
13,138
13,295·
-~13,185·
'13,, 185
12' ,575
12,209
12,099
·12,099
·'
.
.._ :·
I
I
~
• • .. !
'
'
• ~
I
.,
•::·
I
.,.





•.

~
"
It is recommended that ,·the flow of funds fo MARTA be i1'creased ahead
of actual need in the early years to put in effect some ceiling in the
later years when the annual requirements are so much higher. · This would
'involve, of course, a provision in the agreements between MARTA and the
local governments .making it possible for the governments to make such
.·,: ·
·advance payments to be subsequently applied against MARTA I s revenue bonds
as they are issued, It is assumed that appropriate legal steps could be ·
taken to make this possible (includi_n g the establishment of special , trust
a c counts i n which ~he advance payments could be placed).
i
·
· '.
1
--·..·""-1 ~· ·- -
..

.
.
·
. /·
.
'
J
'.
•< ,.
• •••
.
'
I


•I


.;
.
t.
'
,. I •





• •
'

... ··
i•
·,..;,:·
!-.'~ "· . .
'
·-~ . : .
'.

. ',
', ( .
.,
•' ,
..
~~



. . ;..




'\:
.,
.
,(7'1
.,,,...--J ~.,'. '~
.
.
-- - --'
·
I
-\~
~
,,
l[
11
· Ii'"


/;


ii
.
.
. ' ·::~ L-_-: J ·:.'.<-:- : :
(.
'
.


·:


... •.'
..
·--- ---
-f
.
'
.
·· , .
• I .. - ··
,
.i
DeKalb
445 .
1,069
1,069
1,959,
_1,885'
,2,776
3, 206·
3 ,'366 ~3,217
3,217
3,068
2,979
2,952
2,952
.
. : -:~


~


I
'
I
':~ \i~'
I
'


.· · ·


,l





I';
.
.. .
. \ ; ·'
.,
,,
· ,; ,,.
l· ' '
• I
! ..~ ·.:'
'
. · I'
' ~
l
I '
. . ·!I
• . "
'
.
�. l ~- . ·- " . . . ·-· -~
u..-:-...
11 ,
!r
I; .
.. . : ,.
!:
..
, I
·· t
, ,.
j.
_,.J
--
'
.
.
_ . _ ~ .. a...4'
...






.
..
I

I
,1
i
·,.:· 1,.·.·:
.. .
I
.. .,
J.:
_:'J : ' '

.,

.--..J.-





I
-\
•' ,·
I
· -; .
. .: . \
.·. ,i :
,
..!-:'
'
t;

,', . _ .. .
t'
.
, ..
", 1.
i' :
L
l
~
1i
' -~





' i.






1 ·. ..


'
.,
I .
· f _.
'I
~
·,

I
' . :-.-~
. '
!
• I
• .
. I
. <__;.,,_·,/. . ,,.
.
..
\ ··
..
i
,,: --:
. ,I.
..
·'
.. '. ..
•.
\
..
!'
..
'
'
-~


·l·


..
., .

t
.l.





\
.\
. _JI
l.·
'
.
-~ . •. ! .•





'
I
l1
I· ,
· · )tlanta ,.
···:
.·,,;·I
,,: ,./.·· . .
.
cooo)
I
.
\:
I
'
1969 , \ $.2, 828 _·
1970 . ,; . . 2,962 ·
1971 ·:
4,659 .
1972
4,884
1973' , ·
5,121
1974
•,• . 5,373
1975 .·;. ' 5,643
1976
' 5,922
19776,222
1978
· 6,537 . '·
-1979
6,873
1980
7,221
1981
7,596 ..
1982
7,983 .
1983
8,400 _
1984
7,825
1985
7,550
et seq ;
Fulton
DeKalb \
I
$ 598 ·
Total :,'
---
'I
r.
l
I
i · :..-.
.j
·,
.
I





t
.,.·
-:•
,:::/:
.t
..



,-'


. ,··..·


·:··/·'.,

-


. . ....
" .. I
$1,106 ' $:'. 4,532 .· ' :
.. --~1,158
. 4,746 : ···.
626 ..
7,467 ·: ·.·
986
1,822
7 827 . ..· ·' .:· ,· . , 1·, 033 :
1,910
·. : 1,083 .
8,208 .: ·. . : .. .... ·..
2,004
2,101
8,611 '..
_
.· 1,137 .
9,043
. .,
. 1,194 .
2-,206 .
2,314 . • 9,489 · .
· 1,253
2,434
~- 9,972 . ·.
.1~316
_. l",383.
2,556
10,476 .-.' · . .
11,op ·· · · ·· 1·
1, 45_4 '
2,686
11,571 ·
2,823
1,527
1,607 ',
2,979
12,174 .3,122
12,792
1,689
1,777 ·
3~284
13 ~461 .
...,.,
12,540
1,65_5 ,
. 3,060
,





2',;952
.
12,099
.1, 597
'
I

'

• •I
i
·.,·
l
I,
~

.l
. As noted, the required payments drop off substantially after 1983
/and from 1985 on they run at a steady rate of ;$12,099,000 until bqnd
retirement dates. . In the earlier years, . th_e governments pay in more than
MARTA currently needs · (through 1974) . Between 1975 and 1983, · they pay
in less but the · advance payment reserve covers the carrying charges above
t he current flow .
·
·
,
!
• I
• I
,
/
The full payment schedule to. the y_ear 2005 is given i n .Appendix · 'Tabl e .. Bo
--~ ·
.i:
. ~-
I'
.
.r ;
·,
.





~t.' '
. :·
.


. ~.


..
·
I
~
· :\l :.
.,
·1
,, ~
'tr,· '~
.·i...-
. .
t
~· .


~ ·...


( .
...• .
.
. .I
,
'! !
• • • • • ••
,.
.:t,' . .
Table 4; · RECOMMENDED PAYMENT SCHEDULE
•• · .1
TO MARTA, 30-MILE SYSTEM


I


' . . ·. '.
'
· '_
The schedule 'of recommended payments that would operate with these .
. .. · .. ' . ·-1ceilings is shown below in Table 4. The millage rate equivalents. are
• . . : ..:· shown and discussed later,
, •.
.
.I
'
.~
.
..
i .

A realistic procedure might be to schedule payments so that the tax
.· i ;
burden in no local governmeiit would ever exceed the equivalent of: 3 mills
... .
. - , " . ... ·.
against the net.. property tax digest - for the 30-mile system. Inasmuch as
. . . • .I
Atlanta would carry 'the main burden, this in effect would mean a schedule
· in which the Atlanta impact would be held within a 3-mill ceiling with the ·; ·· · .·
other two_ governments carryi_n g lower proportional ceiHngs . . · · ·
··
. !; ·
'
·- 7- -
-I
.
i.
l •
l
J
·::··
··:·
,,·. · : ,
,.....,....__
~,. . 1----__.--..,......-----_i.,.;
0- -~- - :·
. ~-..,
~
·r""J;!-09~....""j!'-""'ar---;,---.-.""'\...,_•..,i.,..,·.,._- - - - ,...





~""-
'1

" ": ) - . ,. - .,--
.
- . . . - - - - - - - - ; , -- .,
.:
�... ---- - - · - -~
..---- ~------·~·~--~(-·.--~- .......
I :,
'.) . '
,;
..
j,·
I
I I
j
.·.: • I
I
r,
It
.....
'i (
I
.
,
. I
.
• !.. .
I
.. (( .1
..
.. ,'
.,
)
,.·
~
,.
... .
. · :'
,.
, ,_,
· ;! \.
t:
j:
A great deal of research has been done (with the cooperation of the
.·· ' local ·finance officers) to set these MARTA requirements within the. frame,. / ·· . :
1 work of overall future financial needs and resources of the local ·govern· . . ,,: ,'.' ments. This research documented what was already known :...: that e·ach ·of the . · :i' \._ ·
• ··
local governments .faces financial difficulties in the future. · Both capital


 

..




and o·perating needs' ·'. are steadily mounting_ in the face of limitations of



...




funds from existing ·sources. The seriousness of the situatio~ was highlighted _.j· ~-by careful foreca·sts that were made of future expenditure levels in ·each
..: ·' ·
jurisdiction (tied into official forecasts of populat.i on and employment) and


. : : .;-,. . ...


• .
of future revenues from existing sources (also tied into official forecasts . ·.. : .·.( _r_,-./ :
and additional · estimates of factors such as the tax digest affecting fund ,:
·.. ·.,
<... ' '·:,. ·-~.
availability).
,: ! ·
·
1 '· ·'

!
1


.! 1 •


.:.
· 1··
·.1
1 . .
.I, '
.I·
'
·..,. ,'.
...., .
·l
h
, ·, I
'· Lf


·t.


tr
..
j;f

·

I
.-
> • "\ ,' ,:


Three tables -- 5-A, 5-B and 5-C -- summarize ~ey figures from this
· : analysis for the City of Atlanta, ,Fulton County and DeKalb.County, respec: ·, ti vely. These : tables are presented in . sequence fopowing
·
. . this page.
.
j\'.
!I
'i
\
··.,:
. H!
. ,. I
1.1
'
!ii
• 11
II
·!-!.
j,i .
I,
ft
.
. I:·.
1:1· .....




i


i::.
·1,;I•
. !!
, · ' : ·. : ,
Detailed rese.arch was also undertake·n to anticipate the potential reve;. · ,:; ·,· ·. ·
nues that might be obtained from new sources . . Many new sources were studied
and the research effort was tied into similar explorations undertaken by
other groups (s.uch as '. the Georgia Municipal Association). Two sources were
singled out for particular study _;.. a local option income tax and a local
option payroll tax ·-- both of which are being currently employed· in cities


an.cl u:9-an areas thro_u ghout the. .country. ·



r


•H

• • .


' ·


1+ ·
I
• I
..
In . these tables, estimates are _presented of the'·current operati_ng funds
/ : required by each government for the future years of 1970 ,· 1976 ·and 1983 .
\ ·-- .:, These estimat~s do not include self-supporti_n g services but, do include de
, \ · service charges on general obligation bonds. The tables al'so present
ti, , · ~
1
)
mates of projected operating revenues of these governments for th.1/s-ani'e years ,..-,v
_·:.;-.-_· ·.· :··. ·
,from existing sources, including revenue from debt service · taxev. In every · 1/case, substantial "deficits" are . indicated -- potential defi"c'i'ts, that is, ·
unless additional revenue sources are made available. The. tables ·also show
estimates of the potential yields of
sales· ·tax in each of the years. The
. MARTA requirements (taken from Table 4, earlier) are then shown for comparison.
·a·
'
.
~
.
It is important to note that only one-half of the projected yield of the
l percent sales tax is shown for. general. government
- operations. in these tables • .
I
. It is assumed that the other one-half would be made available to the schools
.,, under existing proposals.
•/
I
.
The property tax situ'a tion should be particularly noted. 'If the recent _ · 1/
.
court decisions hold up that would require all property to be assessed· at · ~
·
~O percent of tru value, some ch~nges· in tax rates will be necessary simply
. r.r--- ~
to produce the same yields as would be produced under existing ratios and .
_rates, :








·
··
·.
\
'
..
I.
, I•
-: .· i
'
"'t.
.-.!,









'
.' ,
..,
... ,: .
\\
~('.-
~
- - - - - -- -- ,~ .. ., ~
! ,, "\ ~
r'1
- --~ - ,-,.,- ,,.,,,,..,.__,..,_...,,,....._ _,F..,:""'·'1--Jw ,. ... ~. nil
...--...---...........
,, ...
,,_ ...,,,.,_,...,,,......_
�I
. , ~--C:-·--·-·-·=
i ',.
. ': .
.

. . =·: .
/
..

' '
Ii
~-
I:
..r;:-· (
' :'.


~


,
..
l
···-...
I
'\
. ~. .


_._.


~
. I
..• · I
Table 5-A~
.J
~
I .

. . } \ --
· 1! .
~
..
l ~i1
·,
FORECASTS OF CURRENT FUND REQUIREMENTS AND .
.POTENTIAL' FUND AVAILABILITY, ATLANTA
(000)
. .
.. '
.· ( •..
-
~
. ti
. ' I
..
. ', .
,11
Fund requirements ('excluding MARTA) · · ;
I , •
I
1976 .··. .
1970
·.,,
Ir · · ·
!i[.I'
'$71,056 :::.·_.:. $100,896
$48,905 ·
't
··.'.!:-:: ·
Available funds, exis·ting .s ourses:
, . . Property tax (40% vai'uation and ·. · : ;.
adjusted millage) , 1/.
, . . -19f267
Non-property taxes . .
23,390
,'•
'





,•
26,097 ·.
31,682 1
,.
,1
. ;, · •, $42,657 ,·
.
~
...
~-/ \ i
... ·i
.
-·~ .,,37,557
.
45,594
,.
,1 ,.
I
-


I


. ;:.· ·;;.
..
~'
.
!
.
\
\
·, .
, $ 9,377- .,
·. _i.:- ,,; .





·I I
.

~
I
1:
'i •
. 'j.,
.•
-.4
(2 ~O}.Y
· .· ' ·
.,
. . ·j ·· .
.,, ,$ 26,145
.
l.Q
·
3.9
i
'!
.
,,
...

'· :·
II •
•. ,
.

- ' •,"
.
.
'I . ,


., 3.0 ·


1
·1


..4. 3 ·


.1-
,.
• I
'I .
~
, , . .: .. •
. ·,·. +.2 ..
. - .1
3,0
I
'. Total.

$14,001
·12,144
' . ., .
. ' ~. .
~,.·
J· ...
·\
.
._ ,
'
• ••
\ (\; )':
$19,199:
,• ,
$ 26,145 .


.,
,'·,
·:·,:>.\ 1;: .':.<,


Millage rate needs:


To· offset change in
. ·:
assessment iatio · 4/ ·
For· MARTA
. , . For; other purposes ~


. · ·_·?'.,i):;. .
'
/>
. ; ii1'
' ..
.,
I
$ 17,745 .
8,400
i.·-,'. ~,_i-_$
,.
.... ..
, ..
$ 83,151
·$57,779 ;•
Proj.ected operr·~i_n g '.'defici_ts'._'L· ·;.:._ $ 6,248 · · ·_. , $13,277 ) ',:
·,.
·. .. .-::. .· · . 2,962
5,922 ...
. Plu~MARTA 2/
T~tal "deficits" · ·,, ·. · · ·.}
·9 ,210) . . $19,199 ;.__· '
.
i'.. -.. ~·!.f.... . ! .
·_ ' . t .


'· i . ' '•


\ .. : .
·Additional fund sources:
$11,54( .·
"i ;;_:.:::: . .-. . $ 9,377
. .. Sales tax 3/
/
! .... . I .:· •:!... .~ .. .
.7 ,655,.
Property tax
·-
,I
..·'.'
·. !· ·
I
i~'
! ;
.
!
II

-; ·, 1/ Assuming millage rates that would produce th~ same yield

--~-~l- -
.... .
at 40% assessment ratio 'as present rates produce at pr~·-:'° ·
sent assessment ratio (see 5 below)
2/ Recommended lev·e 1 for 30-mile system (see Tabie--. , earlier) ;
3/ · one-half of projected yield of one percent tax
.·,1
r equired in existing millage to get some field
!I Change
at new 40% assessment tat'io
·!
·
"' .,... , ·! , .
•' .,
l: •
5/ .. A pledge for bond purposes only
.\ ~ To produce property tax additions shown· aboye (i_n ·.
addition to MARTA) · · ·
.I
I
'I
•' •





.
. !· ' . ~. ;
·! ·'":


. .'


,i
'
~
'•
.
/
., ·· ... I
.\
. ·: '
I'.
.
·: .. . ..
,


,.


. , ..
I
.1 . .
I
I
'
I
I
.
'


!


.,
I
,' I
\


.


!
.
)
.
I
/ '.
'
-.J
~
~
I
.
....
I
' ··





....
. ,.,.
~
, '
..,
,
~
I
u..,,. ..~ " .·
',.

j
·,

~==-'~
.'
11!1 ','
, JJ!,.§§'l
\j -"'l'~'l'!'l,=
.
.
=if=,=.
.i : .,
,._
I '
, .. . ..
I
t :.
.,
.
.. ~- . . .. :.
... ·
\ .
r
I
.


' .


·.\ .
.
"
.
\: :\.
\: ' 1
I
I
\.
..
"' ·
P4·
.· r-.-"1!11~--.-\.'""""".=.. - -;-. =,o;=:~-=====....J""'=.,......_--=p=·
\ •
'*=";===-,
"""i,;_, ,o=
l.
I•
I
1
,
·. .! . .' : '
..;9~ -
l'7:~\
,1
· !'·... , · .
' .•::
' l-•"~ 1---- -- · --·_ · ._f
~ ,.. ,. ~
\
,...
j
.'<- '. . :
·: ._
. .•
,,•
~
'
I
'
1.·
·:.,\\.i ~-,
f.- 1
• - f~
r--,
i
0
t9Fl
_
Jt
�..
,,
I
.,
.
,I
~
.
·.. 1:,-' (
.·.
f :.
'
\ , ,,

·..
'
.: ,: • : .. :
..
'. . , ·:,
,, '
.. ,
I.
'. ,
':
I
' i
i.
.
.


,


'


' -..


i.
J • . ; ..
~
• : _ ,/
.·-.
. -, · ,-'. ,~,. .
, I •,••
.
..
.:-:-.~~>-._-··. ·.:-:
'
'
1970'
1976 , . .
Fund requirements ('excludi_ng MARTA)·.. :. :·.: · $45,044

·i ·-.
I
I
i .· '
I












'i ' '
,• I'
!'
!'
_'





.


..


?
l ·.• · '
.
. I
!
'
' '
Additional fund sourbes:
I
Sales tax 2/.
\_
I
Property
-· '


4






tax ·
" . II
I
I
.





.





.
..
./

\
. .
··"': :
.
!J
_,,,· ·.
·.
i Net change
. . \ .;
, \ . i" .
,·.
~ - i:_
Millage rate needs:
'
'.,i,
. To offset change in
assessment ·r atio 3/ -- .' ·-' ·
For other purposes
·: ,'
'-', :
,"
~~.. .
_:i ·• ' -; : .
)
$
-3,074
·: . =-··\ ·,;·~- ~: : ·i ,
- :. ' 3,648 ·,
...

'
.
.' ' '
~.: .
0
f,
i_ • • • •:
. $ 6,722
,' .
· ~-





~·.·-.\:i:_'. ~. .
..
,I
·$14 ,6_o s··. :,
$ _. 20,028

1
~
.'-
$
··...
. . 'l
,"'·•
.
5;834
14,194
.. .
.. .5
- .<'.4

I
..
.-. : ·. _·.· -4.3
. +3.8
"."4,5
+4.1
-2·. 8
.: {'..r i . ,- ..
·.., : · MARTA '· requirements
\
Millage rate needed 5/





' .:·_":'. : -.
-4.8_ -',. · .
. +2.0
I..
'


·.(\ .·. f ,•


~
....
'1
. '•
.
,
$.
. : .': ! •... _. .
..
626
1.3
J
$ '. 1,777
· i __l.5
$ 1,253
1. 7
,..
y
In effect, the same· as . a'_projection based on existi_n g ,· ,·
valuation ratios and existing millages
··-'.:, '. / ·
' ·<··.· 2/ One-half of projected yield of ·one percent tax , . .. ' .·
'1
!,
The change from . the existi_n g mill_age rate te> pr..,~duce
... ,
t h e f unds shown·· in the s e cond line, above, at the .
,.,,,/_ ..,; ·
adJ'usted 40 p ercen t _asses sment rat i os .._
_/
.,.,; y To pr oduce the a ddi t i ona l property tax funds shown
"'
\'!:
above as needed
·
.
·
~ .· Outside the City of Atlanta only

"1/
,,
'
!
'
/
/
. \
\
'
.,·_. ' ,.,
., ,
'j
I
,i
', 1, ·_
I
,.
'
l.
I;.
..
,:
. J, _;
!


I


.
'
"'


, 1'


i.
! •
1,
.
·_-.}· .r: ..

·;;,:·~ Ff
g =st
'
,:. . . :··:: !\>
...
\ . .
1'
I•


- 1,



.:-
. . :1 ··
r
. 1."\.: .
..
' /
,
)
'


• ·', .: ,:/' i• •:


• •
'
I
J,
'. ·~l()'j ;_-'i :'
,.
'
~-.·, \

I•
~
\

···',~ .I I '
,,
'
!_ ;,·:· .·· ·: ' .:J.. :

.. · ·: .
. . .'.
I
·,
\'
(
ich; ,
\.
'
. ,: '
I
"
. .. .
. ,· ...
. ._,.
', 1.
\ !,
' :
$ ·20 ,028
$ 4,321 >
- 10·, 284 '
~
,
...
$ 80,855
' . !f,;'
1
!,
I
·, •
' ,$38,322,J ' ·$53,728', /'
Projected operri.ng "deficits" , ':.~ . · $ 6, 722 · . $14,605
...
! ·. '

.'] '
,:- .·
,' I
.. . . . :·' •.

'


·. · ·


. -; , '. :'
,, \
.f. · ) · .
. '
' \
,: '. ·· .'. $29,730 ·
$41~682:.. · 1 \ $ _62;727
·.; ·
8,592 .. · 12,046,- . · · ·18,128
,',

$68, 333;, . :, $100,883
. . .
1'
. , Availabile funds,. existing sources:


'i . . Property tax ( 40% valuation and .


adjusted millage) , 1/
Non-property taJCes · - ·

~
·,· ·.
.1983
· - - -·.
~
',\
'

Table 5-B • . FORECASTS OF CURRENT FUND REQUIREMENTS AND ·
' ·POTENTIAL FUND AVAILABILITY, FULTON COUNTY
(000)

,: • _! ; _· .
.- •
i
, .. '
> : :
!'j) :,'
\'
-~ :
'I
.'
,· ;· ·.
~
' . ·'
I'
. :~ ~--~-... .
,. ,
I
'
"" ,
'
0
·;
�..
",.
!
t.
l .:

I
·I
.
I
I ' ,'
)
·:i;. : .
I

i
••
' .. -··.
' :~
\
. 'i .
'
t
I .
T'.
i .
.t
Table 5-C.
FORECAST~ OF CURRENT FUND REQUIREMENTS AND
POTENTIAL FUND AVAILABILITY, DEKALB COUNTY
(000)
. . :. ,
...
.,
l
... 'I
I-
Fund requirements (excludi.n g MARTA}·.' ...·
·iI
'
I,
., .
I •
. 'I
.
i ;:,• . '
! ... ~. .
.
..
J
·.1
,
.


!i~


1 1
i:
!i
l1.,
f:
'
$34, 766t';~. : $57,958
0
..
./
.




,: .. : . .






I
. Additional fund sources:
Sales tax 2/
\
Property tax
j.
~. 11 --··
. ,f.



$22 ,604/ .




,,
...
,. $ ·6,509 :'·'.
..
·11'i
. i. ···, .





_.\. ;.
i< . ,. ."-:i _~ -
. ~ '~ '
. .
..,,
) . i···
·
1,038
2,805 i .·..
·.•
11 ·
1,
!

.





·
- 1!
.,
111
~ .
L . 1/
.~ ... ) .
j·'
2/

.,I'.
ii·


 :


,,; ·
-
.
I•
,.·,
j. ..
1'
· ·,,
,1
""11
// ~<·_ .:
/
I
,• •'
.'





+2.3 (,
+6, 7 .: ,·


,i,,

I


'. i.:-
,.
·;•
I '
l
I
,.
' +4.2
.• +4.2
$ :3~284
..
,
..
. ' . ,.
'
,.
,.· ·1.8
·~--
.
'
•·
'
i,
•·
f,-
.l·
"
I
·'


· i:



i ,·
'-)
...
f ..·


,


,, l ,
_;.
' • ,1•··
,1
. '
, •'
,i- ·.
. , · '. •I





,,
l
·1 ~.
I.
' ·~11~
'
'\
- ·' ·
. · : •\:
,,


,.,


' .
,:, ·
• •
1.
J
. - ' :;·.
...
·.. , ... . ·,·
•'
' .
.,.
,.
' ;' •
.. -~,-·~ ~1:
'I..
j .


.,


!
In effect, the same as : a projection based on existing,
valuation ratios and existing ·millages
·
· ·>/. ·.
One-half of projected yield of on~ percent t~x
.
The change from the existing millage rate to P'l'oduce
the funds shown in the sec·ond line, above, at the
· adjusted 40 percent ass·e ssment . ratios
To produce the additional property tax funds shown ,.,
above as needed
Outside the .city of_AUanta only
... :
. ... .
I•
!•
_.
$ 4,991
'
$2,314
2. 3 .~
~
•I
.
'
$1,158
1.9
/,
..
...
+6.0
'i_1 /
MARTA . requirements
MiHage rate needed~
.· 1 1.
I.:
I
~
.·.
....
. ·,,.
+1.3
.
I
' $ 4,983
-~-,. " . . · +4. 4 , . _::
· +4.7
Net change .
\
$ 6,509. ; :· $ 4,991
... . . ..... ,.
. .--:~ :.. .. $ ·3,648 ·
·:.. .-·.;. ; ;: : :'.·:. · ..' r:· . .

..
·~\•
~
I
. \
. ;,· ,..···
I
I
.


-~ ... :'. '


·:: ·_··.::··.:--·· ' $ 2 610 . · ( $ 3, 704 / ·. ·
.
.· .
,
_':/:" ·,. ..Millage rate needs:
•· 1 '
· To offset change in
assessment ratio 3/ .·
. ~,:·,
For other p~rposes !/·
. .•
!ti
. '1
,,,
1, '
'.
. ·,
'1





I• .
"
.. i -' ..
·:$42,121
$25,266 .\·
15~837
9,500 .: :. .









,:
$62,941





·1 .. ,.
I .
.:
. , !.
. . ' ',
I
Projected operating "deficits'.' !' : , · $ 3,648
.,...
..
'
' ,.
Available funds, existi_ng · sources: . : _; ;"" :, ,
Property tax (40% valuation and · -. ,, _. 1
adjusted millage) ··1/


.• .. · $16,427


Non-property taxes 6,177
.,
I
!1· .
$26,~52 . .
1983
,,
·.·,
. , i .





1976
$4_1 , 275 ~·;_
1970
••

.: -> ,·


er


! ,•·
,; .:
·>
\ : 't .
• I
.I

•' .
J
' ., 1,,.,
'


_. i......_


~ I , ,,•
·(
-
,"_"'. ==---~7~
,, . ~- . •.
~I---,_,,,,._,,__,_.,,.__ = - - - -.~,_,,=~=!
. .. ,r• ,""":,"""~_,.,_\,·="'""9"==--1'"'!!,•Fi-,:
'
i!. '"!"
,


, t


r
j
-,


r-


�11
. ,..,..
,... -
i:I,
.. ..'?.l:l::::?.
.... -- .--·- •·.-..
...., . .5 _ __
.
.
·---- !'i!.. . . ...
h ... .. .
,·::::::s: .._ . __ ._ ·. __ :£ ________ .. ·.._ _ _ :::,__.- ·L- __ __tz
i
.,
.,,
..
/
-i ~
•1:
I·.
I
~
·-... · ---- ·- - ---
.,.
~
.,


.• l '


\
i .'
..: .
I
I
'j
i(
f;f


1


·:
' .
..
a - __~,_rrz ·--~--- ·
c . ·_
J
· !··...
... -
a s' · _ :
'i
.; ~ ' '


~


... .: . ...... - ·
,
~
I '
!•


Property Tax Support
1
The question arises as to whether or not the entire local government
cqmmi tment to ~TA piight not be handled by new millage levies . on property • .
The bond _people say that pledges of millage backing ·will be necessary anyway in order to .mal<e the MARTA bonds saleable, even if the actual funds to
MARTA came from other sources or out of e·ach local government's general fund.
Moreover, studies indicate that Metropolitan Atlanta's property tax burden
is not high compar·ed with other areas. In 1964-65, Metropolitan Atlanta 1 s
per capita property tax burden was one of the lowest ·in the nation. In that
year Atlanta ranked 33rd out of the 38 largest metropolitan areas ·in per ,
capita revenue to local governments from ·property sources. The median per
capita load of all the a:reas was 36 percent great~r· than Atlanta's. (A
comparison of the :importance of the property tax : in the 38 metropolitan
. . :_.. · areas is shown in Apprndix Tab le A.) .
.
'
'I
\
·:
..
' '
.. .
~
. •/
-
r
' .,
i .
I
I
I
!
I
... ,·
I
I'
- .. f
T
...
'··
· ,,

! '•
I
.. j
·I
'I
!
.. ·,_ .. availability of Federal funds . .
/.
~





I
I
I
•i
/ .:
.;·-·_......
ll·


,-, ,.,.:••


·:·, .
l
. ., r·. ..,
·": .,., ,,
/


/


·'
J ,
.
--·
': ..
I ,':" ,
/
•:
.. ' ,·.., .. .
,;
...
I:

·!
.•
'
I

l
.•
.
·;

••
'
.·.
i
.. ... . . - i
I
l






I
'
I.
j

. . . , .' . ·,
•,
. .; .


1 .


I
·' -·
'
'
\,/
'•
"
...·.," ' /'·/.'
. ·:.
11
. (
'
'
I•
.'
'
\
. ~-.
. :•
!"j
~·;
,.,
,. I..
- I
~
·l
,,' .
I!.
I,
.I
·.
•I,. ,
t,
l'.:.Ai. .'-
!ii'
,
I'
~
• -~
...
,..
i
/
'l


, ;


.
.,
.,. ,
'
· . ·;
..
·..,...,
. ' '
.· ...:,.,...;. __
I
·,·
I
': ~
· ·
The millage rates that would be required to produce the necessary MARTA '·
support for the 30-mile system is shown for each .government in Table 6 at


.


the top of the following page . These rates are based on the recommended
schedule of government.al p·ayments to · MARTA given earlier in Table 4, which
calls for some . advance payments · at a beginning 2-mill rate in Atlanta
and DeKalb and a beginning
1. 3-mill r_a te in ·Fulton,
.
.
~-
·\ ·..'
· ,·,.,
. I
I ,
.
\ . 1
' '.
1j
1:11
·.
'··
--; -~).-,-· -----.m===""""--..,..,,= -.,,;.,.._,.....,,..,..==~.t,.,,
~
r
· · ..
,,
I
(

•.
M'fl----.---------...----~--~. ·1· , ~· ~
~ •
...,
.,.-==""--=""""-=-=""'*'""'=-=-==·
·rl'l
,\_.T.·
·'t
. ;
.
I
.I
. In any event, the basic 30-mile rapid transit' system . in Metropolitan
Atlanta could b.e financed locally entire'ly by properly taxes at a tax rate
that would not exceed 3.0 mills ($3 per thousand of assessed value) in ,.
Atlanta, 2.8 mills in DeKalb and 1.9 mills in Fulton. These millage ceilings ·
could .,be stayed within if some advance payments are made to MARTA from the·
governments, as,mentioned earlier . It is assumed here that the local cost
· : _would be $199,000,000 plus interest, as set forth e'a riier, _with what ~ight
i be conservatively regarded as a minimum assumption with respect to .the
I
f
.:
�- ---- ------·- ------ ·---------- _
__
__._
._,,----·--~-- - ~-••
- - - -~- -- - ---- -·"- --- r ..
I
. ' .· .J'
. ·:: ·
... . : ..

I
' •.
': !
..
,, •
I

,.

• '


'


'
.~
I •
.r _..
... . :
•j .
i ~ : \ ..
i
···,
,,!
.. 1· '
,:
. .i
.. :
I
_Table 6;
~
1 ~-
.. l t·
4
.
!
1: .
'
(", .


~


.
..tf~~-:'... _:.--~--
.
'
.
·.-.;- .. · Millage· Rate
Atlanta
Fulton
DeKalb
. .,
·1969
1970
1971
1972
1973,
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
.,.1982
1983
et seq
.
ll ' .
1,
' ,.
., t.
i[
• i
·- .·
MILLAGE RATES AND RESIDENTIAL CHARGES FOR
FINANCING 30-MILE SYS'rEM BY PROPERTY TAX ·
\ ,
J ~--.
.,
.
' ,
i
l, · .: .
. ·,
,,
..
)
!.
·\





I ~-
!'
I
Ir ,.
.•
I
1,3
2.0
2:0
1. 2
3.0 .
1,9


·· 1.8 ' .


3,0
3.o :
1,8
'
3,0 i .
J.8
1,8 ·. ·
3_.o , ,
3,0,'
1. 7
1,7
3.0
3.0 ·
1. 7
· , 3.0
1.6
'~ . 3.0
1.6
3.0 ·
1.5
·_1.5 ·· .·
3,0


, 1.5


3,0
I
Cost on $20,000 Residence
Atlanta
Fulton
DeKalb
2.0

1.9
2,8
2.7
2.6·
2. 5:
2,4_·
2,3 .
2,2: ·; .· ,
2. 2
·,
2. 1 · · .• ·
2,0 ·
2,0
1.9
1,8
$12 .. 00
$ 7,80
12,00
7.20
15 . 00
9.00
15.00
9.00
.18.00
10.80
18 00 · ,; 10,80
18:oo.. · 10,80
18.00
10.20
18.00
10 ·.. 20
· 18. 00 \
10._20
18. 00 .'
9.60
18.00
9,6.0
9,00 .
18.00
9 ,00
18,00
9,00
18,00
.'


\' . .


•,. .
. .' . .. :
.I
..


, .


.
' '
-· •
.

J. ' • '
·,
.
... , ...
. ,
I
.1'
' $12 .oo ·._ •,
_:.ll.40
13,80 '
. ; 13, 20
\
.• 15,60
'..,i,15,00
/, 14,40 ,,: ·
. ·:· 13-,80 ' · .


· 13,20

· 13. 20


. •.·
.·.12 ,60
~t
12.00
~'12.00
, ll ,40
· )0.80
• •
'
..
'•
J•
~~
J
...
, ,.- ,
.
·t
. ..
~
. . . : ·.• • . . .



 :,





r . : .' . ·..
r'
.
.


.


.'
As noted in Table 4 earlier, th·e ·a ctual requiiements drop off after
..--" 1983 to follow a level course to the bond retirement .'d ates. · The millage
rate requirements, of course, could: be· adjusted downward as the··tax ~igests
conttnue to go up MARTA requi rements remain steady •
'
.,
-:
'.
.
It shoul d also be noted tha t the mi H ages would have to go cons_iderably
· b eyond the c ei lings showed i n Table 6 i f the heav i er ear lier payments to
MARTA are not made . If the governments simply pay into MARTA what _is
actually needed to amorti z~ ·the bonds ,i n the earl y years, Atlanta's millage
rate would go above four in the later years and the· rates of the other t 'wo
\· gover nments would be proporti_o na te l y h_igher a lso .
'I
• I
. ·I
.
·•.
...
,···
..,... . .
.
.
..
··.,:
~
I
I ·
1.
!
, Cur t ai lment o f Federal· Funds. The · ques t i on now arises: What h appens
if t he second $5 0. 000, 000 of Federa l funds does. not b e come a vaUabl e aft er
t h e first two-year commitment in t he ' s ame amount?
.
~
.- lI
I
I
t•
I
.
· The answer is ·tha t a decis i on can b e ma de (pre sumably · in 1970 when th e
fa c ts are known) to bui ld a · s ma ll e·r sys t em tha n t h e 30-mile sys tem, if i t
' is assumed that the ceiling on local funds woul d b e he ld at the previ ou s ly
established levels . . The ·engineers hav e designed a 21- mile " operat i onal"
s ys tem that c an be maintained without a current operating . deficit. It ·
would cost $276, 000 ,·000 ; only $56, 000 , 000 less . than t h e 3~- mile system.
.I
l
t'
. !
(
.. I
II
I
.

r··
r
!
I
. I
.
'
j
i-'
. ~..'
') \
• I
.
...
. ,
I ,
• ,
. ·u
..
I


· ..13.,.


)I
.-1
.~ ·.,. ..,


,,-·. .-·. . ,1----------.-...--------~~--\~---..,1111'1'---...,,~


n· -~ ~·r:iai ..M--------=-'!""===-,,.---'
,
..
-1
.
~- ~
'··
., ,
·· q
. 1, 1 ·
~ ,f
-~., /
~
�•
1-t:-~-==-~-~~:.-..-~
- - ----~=::.=-=-=--=--=- ~ ========-:;:~-- - --·--========:-:==.. - - - - -- ~,
_
....,;c__ _
_
_
_
~--
.
!
., . :
-
i,
)
i
. .. . .
I


,


(
·: l
.:. •.ti: I '
,..
1:
. ·1I!
.
This 21-mile operational system would take the same amount of .local· .. , · :- ;" f~nds as the 30-,mi_l_e _system; assuming one-half as much available F.ederal
· rno_n ey:
. .. ·i ·
I


'.,~ti.\ ·(~;.



11 .


. •I ' .
. i ;.
'I:
Local ·
' State
Federal
11; .
'
I

'
I f•
.._11


ll


i,
l !f
,. .
I ,}


I'


. :rt
Percent
.
$199
27
so
72,1%
· 10.0
17.9
$276
100.0%
• ;
·i

I~
..

·i ' ".. . .
':
~
,
'
· 1·
..
I
I





·~
.


·


. .::,,.
.. ,··.
.'
. !
-' '
JH
l it.


' ,,if


Toob, 000) :.
/.
i
,,
l
Amount
.~ .
,; : .
. From the staridpo~nt of e_ngineeri_n g, the 21_,.mile operational system


' ·.· could be built in six/ years instead of e_ight. However, 
inasmuch as the


same volume of local funds would be required to finance this system as to
· ., -~
finance the 30-mile system, the local financi_ng woul,d have to extend over
.
the eight-year period if ceilings on individual government outlays are to A .:.J.-:
. be maintained. A delay in construction could result in h_ighe_r costs
partly offset by interest earned on advance payments_held in
. .
' · . •.
.·.:i
whicJ
hor;',_/
P(
-
.' 143.215.248.55!tbe
· :1
'! i
'i!
· I,
,' ,
o\ . ·_:. . -
I'
/
Ii
.
. ,
'
'I. •
Prospects for Full srstem
·11
,,, _,
., ·
•'.
The full 52-mile system that · the · engineers hav~ designed would. cost .
$479,000,000 and take 12 years to ~uild (with completion set for 1981).
It would reach deep into Clayton and Gwinnett counties and would have a
considerably broder cover_a ge of th·e Atlanta-Fulton-DeKalb c1-rea.
i I!
i~
I,
1.
Assuming that the 30-mile system is well underway _with $100,'000,000
in Federal funds available, how much additional Federal money would be
required to move directly into the 52-mile program without greatly increasing the local outlay (in total or on an ·annual basisY? If in 1972
or 1973 it would become clear that another ·$S0,000,000 in Federal funds
would be made available, this would not be enough to support,_the 52-mile
total system without a heavy increase .in the local load, With the Federal
government at $150,000,000 and the state at $48,000,000 (10 percent of
·the total) , the local share would be $281,000 ,.000 -- considerably above
the "ceiling" set. _at the beginni:ng for local financing .
. - "'
. ' i'
,:J
,' 11
.l
'I
,.
'
'
.. >.__ I
. . .
',1 '
.-. .I
·i
1:
.I!
.i
I
/


1


•f
If in 1972 o~ 1973 it becomes clear that as much :a:s $200,000,000
in tota_l Federal funds might be made available - - an additional · ·
$100,000 over and above 'the same amount al_re'ady plowed into the · 30 ....'!lile
I
·,.·
• I
.,,I
I
. !.
i
I
,, j .
·,
,I,
,,

/ •
. ·. ' ..
-., t
!
.
Q.;
)I
• .
• .
• '
• I
.,
"
f ;,}
.
~
I: • , •
~··. . .
·'
.
.
..' .
I

�-·· ----·..-• -··-· ·....... ·---··----- ..L.,+. . . . ,__..,__...... _,i. .. ----·-·-····--··-----------.i..:.-.. . . . . . __. ____
...,i..._ _
_
_


_.. _


_• _ _
_ __
· - -- - - - - - · -
·I
. :1
I

....


,.


·.: !\
,I
I
I
d
lr
··I
I-
ii
'!
ii·
!1
'
"
~

\
.<,:··
.. .,.
I
,:
I .'
..
'.
,, , ,


I


,I


l




i




.,.i
I


i


,l
.•
I
i
l ..
·Percent
$231
48.2%
-10 .o
41.8
Local
State
Federal
I
.. l
, ,··· .'
,•
·, Amount
(000,000)
-48
200 ·
$479
i
. 1·
ii
I:
' 1
. . ·, I , ,
\
ii
·I f
if
,, ..,
·, . . system -- the loca\ share would n?t be ~uch greater -for the S2~mile system
. \. than for the 30-mile srstem ·, Her.e i~ / :the overall breakdown:
. I ,
.J[
~
,.
I,
I
' ··
..., 1 ,
.·. ,....
.~ ..,.I
i'
I
I
100.0%
.,
I
I
This is not an improbable assumption if Federal funds ever do break
· loose on a larger scale than at present, Indeed, it - is presently estimated in Wasllington _that $500,000,000 a year will be needed on a regular
basis to,,mee"t ·u .s; metropolitan transit needs rather than the $200·,000,000
level currently projected for the 1969 and 1970 fiscal years . . MARTA's
share in 1973 and thereafter could run as high as $50,000 or $60,000,000
a year.
!.
At any rate, the -availability of $200,000,000 in Federal funds could
swing the 52-mile system with an overall outlay for the three central
._ governments only slightly higher than the 30-mile requirement. · The point
. ·:· i s that all five local governments would now share the totals, · with the
following distri_bution of the .. burden based on the· fonnula presented
earlier:
.
·
~
'
·
.
·v
,
30-Mile
System
(0'00,000)
· i i. .
-!
· ·.
. •.. : . • .
,··
I
J / .
I
I
I
I
I
•·
· 11e
System
(000,00Q)
!' .
l
. :-, ' ·.
_._
City of Atlanta
·. Fulton County
DeKalb County
Clayton County
· · Gw_innett County
It
itL
.!:ii
$124 . 2
26 .3
48. 5
___
$ 199.0
11
Ii,f
ii
..
i;


,


!:
,,ll
11
.,
r
·f
li
$130. 7 .
. : . _.. ,.,. .
,


. 27. 7 , ._. . ·· ·..


, 51 .1
··
'-···:-·
13 .6
7. 9 .
-:
...
'
$231.0 .
I
It · i s assumed on a pre liminary basis th a t the 51 --mile system would
ca ll for at lea st seven MARTA bond issues compared \,ii th the six that
· might be s cheduled for the 30-mile system (s e e Table 2, earlier). The
carryi ng charges will be high er, of course , but five governments wil l be
picking up t h e tab .

J
In Table 7 on t h e next page, t he bond i s sue and car:'-'Yi.ng : ch~rge ·
- schedules of the two s yst ems ·are comp ar e d ,
.
.
)
I
'-~
(
"
·,,'
l,
\
'··
,,
I
i
·J .


. I- . °""


..
---··-·___..,..._,_______,--,



I ,,• ~--




V
""I .,,,-M!j\. -fI ,
r,;:,,

~
f
<
.
I
'
.. I
5 ~ •
~
I t, •
1
•, ·, . ' i '
'
' -1
I
.:
I
�.
_ _____~- ---------.-. --------------------,-,-
- - -- - - --...--"""""....,.._,,..,..,.
.;~
I:: L
.
...


i






I
I
'
~.·
..
..-·
~
,.
.. .··
\
1.
.,
I .

• •• ••
••









..
1,.





.•
t
.
-:
.. ;
.,i ·.,.
..
... ,
I
,· .
· I
I
!
I
..
!I
Ir·
· 1 :-
11


' l-t-


. :
~
'.. ,1
,,
'•








i'
'
'
~ •
.
i:
.. ,
,' et seq .- ,
,
l
,•
.... .



'[


,
' :..
J
I• ,
1, , .
i'
1 ; ..
$231~000
,
!
/
I• •
/
.:•
·....
...
~
/ : .
.
,.
.:.,-... ...
·...·: .,
.
'.
. ,·
,•
'
~
! ~' ..
~;:_,
· t'
\
..

. . '·"·
\
..
, •
.
·- .,.-
9,488
..-
'
..
,, . . '
12,408
I ..
., ,., .
11,920 .. r . .··
·, 14,110 \
,· ~ 15,155
15,iSS
,:
15,155
14,667 ]:.l.·
. ... ..
.
I
,.
'- ·
_/
"t
.
'. ' I
ii ..
.I .


,,:I


.
..:; .
'
. ~
ii
J
I .
·.
..
'





· . . - .~ ' .
l
..
'

. ;i·
,-


•,


, . '
,-:
...
· i j1 .


.I


.
'} .
. ' 1
6,995
9,915
Drops to $14,301,000 in 1984 .and'levels
off at $14,045 ; 000 in -198~
.Y
.
1'; .
I





The r eason for the lower · local --requirements for the 51-mile system in
the 1973-76 period, of course, is the proj ected availability of
$100,000,000 more in Federal . money. _This fact, plus the sharing 0£. the
local cost by five instead ·o f three ·governments, would produce an actually
lower demand upon Atlanta, Fulton ,and -DeKalb. 'for the larger·. system in a
,· number of years •
·
·
I
,. ~ I
~
··:
.. ..


.. \ ;,


\ , ..
. i'.I
.!
~
I
·:1i


_! I


·;!I
.
·
' $199,000
.!.
6,995
8;030
7,725
11 ;·375
· 40,000
13,138
· 40,000 ,. ...... 13,795
13,185;
13,185'
30,000
12,575
.21 000 · '
- 12,209
12,099
12,09_9
I
.
~
I





. . . . 40,000


1983


. . .' ,


j


'
I
3s,ooo :
1'i_ 1 •
' . 1·
Ii'·--,, _
'
$ _25,000
I•
'
r' .
'
Carrying Changes
30-Mile
51-Mil&
, /.. .·.. ,.
. $. 1,825
$ -1,825
.. '
1,825
1,825 '.
I
..
4:,380
4.380
..
.,
4,380
4,380 '
'.
1969
~
$ 2~.000 .

1970
1971
35,000
·" . ,·.
. ....:· ,
1972


· 1973


· . · : 50 000 ·
.• ' • . .:."';\~
, .
1974
I ' •• ,,


·. -.·so ,ooo


1975
1976. · ·
' · 30,000
1977
19,000
1978 ·
·
j


..


1979 ,.
\ ..
.,.
i 1980
.· .. . __;-- 1981 _
.·· : 1982
• '
.I
I
COMPARISON OF LOCAL COSTS, 30~MILE AND
51-MILE SYSTEMS IN SEQUENCE
(000)
}·..l: \\<
·: :. Bond · Issues
".;3 0-Mile
51-Mile
· "





Table , 7_.
?•
. . : t , ·.. • :
t .-
I
i
i-
'
_


i.


.. .
l . i . i~
·,·


,


.li
__,


.
. -.
j
...
.
· . ·:
I












.~ ; '
' j ,


 :-'; .


'
...
~
.·..





.
\
f
.,
..
_'
'
.
. ·:(-.
·- -~·
'
.
! . ':· ·
.
I
. i:








.
.
· 1, I
·'
l
•• •





.
j


..


'•
...
·.·. :
,I
·;'





"
'f.. ' '_ ,;

l ..
l
"j
'! :
...., _;.·, ·;:,


)j,,.


·: . \
• ·,,


,


• • • ' .- •
I
'
I •
.
',
.,
I
·'·
\





.-
..
'!.
'i.





.•
·,





..





.
.
.•
,.. ··
/, . - ~- ·.: ..
,, .
,. .
I
...
. . .. 16 ..
,, I
l'
,,
\.
,' I
•, rt,
I•
1
1, 1
,·, s,
. ~-- C
'1. ··
'·-
�·f:- -~-- ------ -- --~---
1··
J
'
I
·!': '
....
.
..
.
(
l
,, ··... . .

I
.. . .·.\
.
.~
~
'
/
~ ~l .
l;· .
.,
'


t . ' ~'


. :.
..
. . ...
The following table (Table. 8) compares the projected millage rate.
... , equi val en ts of. e·ach local government I s share of financi_ng the ·two ·p ro- -·.
'· :.. j e.cted -systems··:· . . · . . . ·
1
. '~
.
. -~-~. . ..·, . ··.:·. .
,·:
. . ~(-


.I:ji.


!
'
30-Mile System·Atlanta · Fulton DeKalb
r·-
11
.- 1
.,
I •
' !ii·
,,


i


,,
p
·j
. ,.
ii'
'
'
•- . i
I





Table 8,
,.
i
•.
'
, r ,,
' 1i:',·
'

I
.
. ' ,·
I
.
'
1969
· 2 .o
1970
2.0
. 3. 0
1971
.3,0
'· 1972 .
1973 3.0
3,0
1974
1975
3.0
3,0
1976
1977 . · 3.0
1978·/
3.0
3,0
1979
3,0
1980 . ;._
3,0
1981
3.0
1982 · ·,
1983 1. 3.0
_e t seq:
1. 3
' l'.2
l'.9


1.81


1.8
1.8
~.8
1. 7
1.7
l. 7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5 .
J'
t-. )-
I
COMPAR TIVE MILLAGE RATES NEEDED TO
SUPPOR 30-MILE AND 52-MILE SYSTEMS
1/
2.0
], • 9
2.8
2.7
2,6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2. 2 ·.
2.2
•., 2 .1 ·
2.0
2.0 .
1.9
1.,8
Atlanta
2.0
. ..
2 .o
3,0
3,0
I
.
3,0
3,0
3.0
.--2 ,8 .
~ 2,8
. 2. 8
2,8
2.8
2,8
2.8
·: ':2., 8
\.
\
I
r
. I
52-Mile SystemY ·.
Fulton DeKalb Clayton _ Gwinnett
1.3
2.0
. 1.2
· 1.9
· 1.9 ',' .,/ 2.8
f,8 . 2.7
· 1.3
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.6
1,5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1,4
1.4
\ 2.6
,-
I
,"'~ • ·,
.(
•,
2',4
2.2
2,1
2.0
,2 ,0
-'1,9
. 1.8
' ·1 :8
1\ 7
·.1.5
1.4
·1.5 .
L4
1,4
.
1.5
-. ; .
1.-5~'.
.(.4 '


l'.4 ·.·····,. . 1,4


· l.4 . - 1.4
,,'. 1.4
1.4
· .:> 1·.4
1.4
.·1.4 '
1,4
1,5 ·.
1.5
1.5
1.5
\.
\'
r,.
/
y
I
I
('
'
From Table 6, Asstm1es $100, ooo, ooo· in
Federal an $33;000,000 in state funds,
2/ ,· Assumes $200,000;000 in Feder.a l and
$48,000,000 in sta·te funds_.
·,
1 '
\-


I



,,


.,::··.·
'I
. i.


_ I


t
!


/ '


r
I
..
·
.. ,
'I
I
• I
I
~

.;
'
...· . . .
I 2.. 5
"

. .· : . .· . .
I
All of the indicated millage rates· (or their equivalents) will drop
after 1983 -- for all governments. Bond service charges remain constknt
·and property digests continue to rise_. The actual dollar amounts J.nVolved
· in the 52-mile schedule are given in_Appendix Table C.
• l
Note on Clayton and Gwinnett. Until the decisi.on is made to go to the
51-mile. system, Clayton and Gwinnett counties would not be involved. In
order to keep a ceiling on the cost of the system to these governments even
'aftef they are brought into the picture (assumed to be in ·1973), their
participation -is c~lculated in a lower rate up to 1983 than their ultimate·
share of the total cost would indicate, This simply means a deferral of
the main impact on :these outlying governments until the system is actually
in operation -- and their tax. hase more able to handle t _he burden, Even so,
the· peak impact ~ou~d never exceed the l. 5 mills shown in Tab le 8.
A
.
·:. , ,.
HGS
. 7 / 19/67
\
.. ,I...
.
·:/
I
. ':.
I
.
·-
\,
•. \
\. ,
'
.
.: I
.·, .I
I
. I
I
I
I
..,
I.
I
I
,
�·- -
•I
.,!_' 1,. __.__,.,__, _ __, - · _, ~· ·- - · ' -·,_.-
·' , '

~
·,


,



I

i.,


..
I:
I
, •,,.
.


i


1
I
'

!UlVENlllf rROM PROPERTY TAXES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
TlllllTY-EIGll'i' LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS, 1964-65 ]j
.· App.e ndix Table A,
, ··
.. :
I
Metropolitan Aron
i
-1 .
$202.74
82.0%
68.6%
$199.39
69,8% I
46.5% .
$180.29
41.2%
56.1% ~· ·
'i


.,. 1


. ' $178.30
69.7%
46.8%
!


... .. .,- ··


80 1% I;_ . ; ..... ,,
' : .:·
,.


$178.29


.54. 2%
f
85. 6% ..
$176,86
60.0%
- I
' i
$176.03
73 6% :' : .·
47.5%
I
43.4%
·;
$169.67
. . \.


J' · ' 67. 7% :i'. ·


74.4% . .
$168. 92 .:· . .
. : ' 84.6% · ' \
·· 7 3 ·. 3 % ·.·.
. . . ~;. 52.1% .
· $156,14 '• ' · . .
r
75. 6% ·~ . ~ ' . . -~, . -.. ·. 49.0%
$155,90
. '.
75.1% "'; . . . <· ,
$154.08
59~1%
I
71.
9%
·
·
...
.





.
$143,58
·j
53.5%
.·1,
I
$143,24
72.9% · .· ·
56.7%
I
$141. 90
55.5%
73.4%
. '. ~· ' .
I
!
,_; ._,... . ·.' 71.2%
$140~04
49.6%
l
. . J·
. $136.89 . ·
~. 83.5% .. :· ·
62.1%
67~7%
40.7%
$132. 76 ·'
. I
·,:
$129.96
66,6%
39~4%
• I

$122,79
70. 1\
52.3%
. ' .
$119.88 ,.,,
56.7%
44.6%
$117,14 ' ·
. 60. 1% ·
46.1%
65.8% .
· 87 ,0%
.$116.19
.1
$113.65
71.5%
55.4%
111."
00
..
.





~
.
.
.
,.





.~
.
$
31.6~..
49.3%
$110.83 .: .. , .
71.8%
42.3%
$108,00
61. 09(°" .'
48.0%
$103,49
'53.9%
35.8%
$101. 48
58.8%
47 .9%
\I. .. .,
...
$101.40 .•. ,
62.0 %
50 , '8 %
$ 97. 77
·
,
67.9%
53.5%
$ 97 . 06
·:63 ', 4 %
45.2%
s· 95 , 5z ._:. , :.. .
59.6%43.7%
$ 94. 42 '
46.3%
59.8% '·· .
$ 87.61
49, 9% /
37.9%
i'
$ · 70 .28
4 7. 2% .
36.0%
I
$ 59,34
66.6%
. 41.6%
I
$ 44.75
38.6%
23.3%
I
'
·Aver.a ge
$129. 94
67.3%
48.6%


/


TI1ese are the areas .recorded as the mo st populous SMSA's in the nation by the· 1960·· :1
.:
Census of .Popul.ation, when each of them had Jt least 700,.000 ~nhabitants •· ,1. .
·:
Newark
.j ·
2
San Francisco
l
New York
3
·1,,
' I .!
4 .:
Los Angeles

' . ' '
·' '
s ': Milwaukee
·.'.;, ·.\:_
Boston
6 '
,f-.


i


7 .·:
Anaheim .


't'


San Be'rnardino
8


'· ~


~: · Paterson
', . ·:t ..
10
Minneapolis-St. Paul : ·
i


it


11
nuffalo
I
,' :
Cleveland
12.
·'
Denver
,. 13 :
ii
'
14
'
Chicago
,·!.
15
Portland (Or~gon~Wash.)
16
Detroit
17 ,;' Indianapolis ·.. ·
jl
18
Rochester


·,'1·


19 .
San Diego.
·'·.;,
r · 20
Dayton
. ,,
·.
· 21 ·,'
Miami
22 · '· Cincinnati


j


23
Providence
' I'
24
Haus ton


\· .

. 25


Washington, . 0.C~ · . : .





1.',
·,J i. . ..
Baltimore
.:.


. 26


Kansas
City
·'
27
.•..' ,
28
Seattle
I
29
,, Philadelphia

30 .
St . Louis
31
Dallas
.' :
32
Columbus (Ohio)
',
ATLANTA
•,,
I 33
Pittsburgh
! 34
.,
·1'
Tampa-St.
Petersburg
·,
Louisville ·
iI 37
San Ant onio
38
New Orleans
1
•,
I
'

• •
·> : .
~
'
I
Property Revenue
as Percent of
Revenue from l
All Sources 1
Property Revenue
as Percent of
Revenue from
Local Sources
Per Cn~itn Revenue
to Local Governments
from Prop9rty Sources
!
! Rnnk ·
\ .
\ .





e
••
l' I
• •.
,t ~

t.: '.!
..
r
I
1.
.
I
I
t •
·,
1
'
I
I
[' 1!
l/
·'·I
'I
I,
I
~ ..-:_··.
.
~
t ·
.
...
·. .
U.S. Bur eau of the Cen~us, Looai Goverrunent Finances in SeZeoted Me trop~t itan
Areas in 1964-651 Series G.P. - No.9. .
.
.
.'
Al_~::-::.
,.---==!!!!"
·•...•., •om:u.::.:.a:u::
'
··
--:::z:.::enn
·•
I
.
Source:
ii
..
I
·:;
w:r:zz!.S.£!
--- ----

·"-----
- - -- ----~-- - · · -
I
�.~ ---
1·-
,.'

.,.
i
"
I





' .
J'
,_..

..

I
.
l '
~
'
..
'
' •
•:'-. ·- .i .
·, \
.
'
l
' !
I
Appendix Table. B.
l
i
il
. · I ',,
w·.
. ..
-~





~
,
ANNUAL. FUND REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS .-:
TO SUPPORT MARTA BONDS, 30-MILE BASIC SYSTEM ·
.· . .'
I
Federal funds
State funds :
Local funds
. •,;
.···:,
!
r •


,.


.. • . •
J
$100,000,000
33,000,000
199,000,000 . .
$332,000,000



.


I
.
Citl of·.
Atlanta
.(000)
.. : ;
, . ·,· I ;
1969 ··.: ' ~:-'..
\ .
,.·. ·.
,it
.!
I
"'
.··
, •,
'
}
I
,·,
' j
.:
·-
,1
•\
.1
.'I
·I
I
~
.i
I
1 .
DeKalb
County ·
·(000)
•·;t.
r
.
. . '

~


•:


.

1970
1971
.. j •
1972
1973
\ · ·.

,· · •
1974
1975 ·I' • :
-. .
1976, ·
1977 . . ..
'
1978


'. ,


,..
1979 · ,
1
I
1980 ,
1981
1982
' ,· .
1983
1984
1985
1986-96 (11 years
'
@1985 rate)
. 83,050
17,567
'j 32,450
)'
1997
· 1,597
' 7,550
2., 950
.,·.
.. :, ~ ..-:1.. ' '
·:i ~ 1998
6,602 ' ' ...;;..,,.,'.. 1 , 396
2,581
• I
1999 · . · ,
·' 6,602 . . . 1,396
2,581
.
l, 116
2000 . ,
5·, 273
2, cr-62
1-,'.'·.
' 5,273
1,116
-2,062
2001 ·: . ~- ·
2002
3,376
1,320
) 714 _,.
. 714 · ,
2003 : · . :
3 ,'376
1,320 . ,,.
. 2004
.· '
1,479 ,. ' . .
313
579.
2005
342 ,
. 72
... - . ·. 133
.
I
t.
I
I
.I
~
I
I
l
I •
.
!.





I





.
..
I
I
\
.
,,
I
'
/
'
,l
.
'
' !
.·,'
·.· - '
'/
' . t
I
.. - 1·
... / ·. .
~
,·.






. '
•I
I ...
!
·: : :
, i . ,,

·.'
·}
.
..l . '.
'.

'1

..
l
I
.·.t .
~---
I


.




'.'
I,\
• ~ •
. .:·:. :~ .
\.





.





.
I
... ' .
. 1'·
I ~'-,,
I.
-~-'·,
\
I
.
., .
I


, .


'• :
I
. $'.2,828
$· 598 . I.$ · l, 106 ,
.. . .
626 :
2,962 I' . .
·. 1,158
.


.-- \ ;


4,659 ' ....
986 . •. 1,822 '
.J .
4,884
.l, 033 .
1,910
~. ..
' 1,083 ;
5,121
2,004'
'...
. \ .,: .
5,373
1,137
2,101
5,643
1,194 .
2,206
5,922
1,253
2,314 . "· \..· •·
6,222
1,316,
2,434 ._ ... _· .
6,537 · ·
1,383
2,556
6,873
, l, 454
2,686
·l,527
7,221.
2,823
.7,596
1,607 ~.
2,979.
. ,, · ·' .
7~983
· 1,689 · . ... .·3 , 122 ·
_..
... ' .
·. · 8,400
·1, 777
3~284
7,825
1,655
3,060
. : 1: -~7,550
1,597
2,952
•.
.,_' :..
1'
.
~
( '
,I'





· Fulton
. County .
(000),
..

'
\
I ·.
.,
.
. ..





.'
• t • ~ ' •'

.
!
,.
I
t
l

I
I
.f
'
I
I •
I
.
..
"'
I
~
'

I
I,
I
I,
I
·I'
I
I
I
··.:.· . :
I
J
--=~==~=-F'~•
.
f
\.
•.
r.-i...-=---=--~===-=·~
===;,=;,=~===-r."74
.: ~
. . 1;r
l,;:,j!,~. ",o;".Ws;'1r,
.
�.;

.;_;_" . . :..;..·:•-.-_ . ;. ,. .., :. . .. . ;:~l. -= 143.215.248.55 16:51, 29 December 2017 (EST)h~


f; ~: - : ~


',\
' i
. i
,,
Appendix Table C,
l
ANNUAL -FUND REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO SUPPORT MARTA BONDS, 52-MILE TOTAL SYSTEM
i
fi:, '
.
Assumptions:
. . !.
. : ..l
l
.
,\ -
·, .
Federal funds
State funds
Loca l funds
..
$200,000,000
48,000,000
23'1 , 000, 000
!.
. $479,000,000
. 't
City of
Atlanta
(000)
.,
• f ~
" •. j
. ;
)
I'
,I
~
.!i
I
I
. !
.i
I
II
)I
'i
I
...
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986-96 (11 years
@1985 rate)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
$ 2,828
2,962
Fulton.
0
~
DeKalb
Countl'.
(000)
Total
~
$ 4,532
4,659
4,884
5,121
5,373
5,643
5,527
5,807
6,101
6,415
6,740
7,090
7,451
7,840
7,923
7,781
4,746
7,467
7,867
8,661
9,100
9,577
9,440
9,942
10,475
11,037
11,631
12,270
13,005
13,727
14,301
14,045
85,591
7,781
6,940
6,940
5,761
5,761
4,412
4,412
3,065
3,065
1,719
1,719
708
708
18,073
1,643
1,465
1,465
1,216
1,216
932
932
647
647
363
363 '
149
149
33,528 .
3,048
. ___ 2, 718
2,718
2,256
2,256
1,728
1,728
1,200
1,200
672
672
277
277
288
312
340
371 ·
405
444
482
528
578
677
740 '
· 1,015
997
$
$~5 168
173 ;
194
212
231 .
254 '
275
302
330
387
423
586
575





I
·-
. ,. . '~I ·'..
-
.
1,158
1,822
1,910
2,004
2,101
2,206
2,161
2,271
2,385
2,508
2,635
2,772
2,919
3,066
3,103
' 3,048
'
.
Gwinnett
$ 1,106
n. ··
10,967
997 .
889
889
738
738
566
566
393
393
220
220
91
91
!
6,328
575
513
512
426
426
327
327
227 .
227
127
127
14,045
12,525
12,525
10,397
10,397
. 7,965
7,065
5,533
5,533
3,101
3,101
1,277
1,277
52
52
.'
·1
.'
I
-....





143.215.248.55
Clal'.ton
Countl'.
(000)
598
626
986
1,033
1,083
1,137
1,194
1,169
1,228
1,291
1,357
1,426
1,500
1,576
1,658
1,673
1,643 '
$
,.
I
I
.
i~





-'
~. -~· '!.
.
. ,..-.i .......... \___......... -- - : - · ·-
~
~





.
~
n-
.
I

Social Bookmarking

Comments

Transcribe This Item

  1. http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_004_016.pdf

Document Viewer