Box 21, Folder 5, Complete Folder

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005.pdf

Dublin Core

Title

Box 21, Folder 5, Complete Folder

Text Item Type Metadata

Text

RAPID TRANSIT
F
O G
....
l!'!l!!llmllall
S
~
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
"]Y.[ARTA
REPORTS TO THE
PEOPLE IT SERVES ... "
SEPTEMBER 1967
VOL. 2 . NO. 9
FINANCIAL PLAN OFFERED
PROPOSES "HAMBURGER-A-WEEK"COST TO LOCAL CITIZEN
Rapid transit can be built at a maximum cost to the taxpayer
of 3 mills in Fulton County and 1.6 mills in DeKalb County, according to economic consultants of the Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority. The figures are contained in the final
draft of a report by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates prepared
as part of the revision of the 1962 plan for rapid transit for Metropolitan Atlanta. The 1967 revision of the plan is expected to
be completed in the next few weeks.
The report shows that the basic 30-mile system, which· will
cost about $332 million, can be built with local funds of $199
million, state funds of $33 million, and federal funds of $ 100
million. The Fulton County share would be $146,265,000
(73.5%) and the DeKalb County share $52,735,000 (26,5%).
Clayton and Gwinnett Counties would not contribute to the capital construction costs until work is begun on the extensions to
complete the 52-mile system when additional federal funds are
expected to become available. The Clayton and Gwinnett fjnancial support would include a pro rata share of the costs of the
basic system.
"This report shows that the maximum cost of rapid transit in
Fulton County to the owner of a $15,000 house would be
$12.00; the same person in DeKalb County would pay about
$6.40 maximum," MARTA General Manager said. "In Fulton
County, this amounts to the price of a hamburger a week, or
two or three cups of coffee a week," he told the MARTA Board
of Directors at their regular meeting today. "And these amounts
would be paid only for about 5 years; the rest of the time the
costs would be even lower," he continued.
"When Clayton and Gwinnett counties assume· their share of
the costs, their rate would be a maximum of 1.5 mills, or about
$6.00 a year to the owner of a $ I 5,000 house," Stuart explained.
"The report of our financial consultants proposes what appears to be a practical and feasible approach to financing construction of the rapid transit system," he said. "Our final plans
are taking shape and preliminary engineering is developing well. ·
If a successful referendum can be held in November 1968, we
would begin construction in Spring of 1969. If this program develops in this manner," he stated, "we would have the first line
operating about the end of 1973 and the basic 30-mile system in
service in 1975. The entire 52-mile system could well be in operation before 1980, or in about the same length of time it is taking to complete the perimeter expressway.
"We need to begin construction as early as possible ," he concluded, "since every year's delay costs us $18 to $20 million
thru inflation and increased construction costs.
The basic 30-mile system would have 24 stations and would
run from Brookhaven to College Park and from Decatur to Lynhurst Drive near i-285 on the west, with a northwest stub to
Northside Drive. The electrically-driven , air-conditioned cars
would operate at maximum speeds of 70 miles per hour, averag(Continu ed on Page 2, Col. J)
FEDERAL
STATE
STATE
FULTON
DeKALB
FULTON
FEDERAL
$332 MILLION
(30 Miles)
$479 MILLION
(52 Miles)
�THIS MANY CARS PARKED HERE ...
(Continu ed from Page 1)
ing about 40 m iles per hour including station stops. Trains
would run as often as every 90 seconds during rush hours. The
commuter will ride to Transit Center, just a block from Five
Points, in about 13 minutes from Brookhaven, 9 minutes from
Decatur, and about 13 minutes from College Park.
... COULD REMOVE MANY
CARS FROM HERE
-

American Transit Association Convention-October 22-26, 1967,
Regency-Hyatt House, Atlanta. The AT A has as members only
those operating transit systems (railroads, bus lines, rapid transit, etc.)
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA
RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
8 08 G L ENN BLOG . 120 MA R I ETT A S T . . N . W .
ATLAN TA . GA . 30303 • P H O N E 52 4 -5711
0
"'DIR ECTED BY TH E GEORG I A STATE
LE G I S L ATURE TO DEVE LO P A RA P I D
TRAN S I T S Y STE M F OR T H E S - CO UN TY
METROPOLIT A N
ATLAN T A AREA ,"
Edited by KING ELLIOTT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OFFICERS :
H. RICH, Chairman
ROY A. BLOUNT, Vice Chairnian
HERB ERT J . DICKSON, Treasurer
GLENN E. BENNETT, S ecr etary
R ICHARD
CITY OF ATLANTA :
L. D. M ILTON
ROBERT F. ADAMSON
RAWSON HAVERTY
RICHARD H. R ICH
CLAYTON COUNTY :
EDGAR BLALOCK
DEKALB COUNTY :
Dn. SANFORD ATWOOD
ROY A . BLOU NT
FULTON COUNTY:
MITCHELL C. B ISHOP
W . A . PULVER
GWINNETT COUNTY :
K. A . MCMILL8N
COBB COUNTY (Obser ver)
OTIS A . BRUMBY, Jn.
MARTA STAFF:
H ENRY L. STUART, General Manager
EARL W. NELSON, Chief Engineer
K ING ELLIOTT, Director of Public Information
H . N. JO HNSON, Secretary to General Manag_e r
An important factor in attracting commuters from their cars
to rapid transit is the "Park-N-Ride Principle," according to a
noted transportation expert.
George L. DeMent, Chairman of the Board of the Chicago
Transit Authority , recently discussed the importance of parking
facilities in connection with rapid transit stations. Referring to
the new Skokie Swift extension t o the Chicago rapid transit system , he said, "The 522 Park-N-Ride spaces provided at the outer
Dempster Street terminal has proved to be a major factor in the
success of Skokie Swift. This Park-N-Ride is used to l 00 per
cent capacity every weekday . It is obvious to the Chicago Transit Authority that the patronage of the highly successful Skokie
Swift operatio n would be increased automatically if additional
parking spaces could be provided at the Dempster Terminal.
Similar examples could be cited for the Park-N-Ride lots along
other Chicago lines."
DeMent noted that "the Cleveland Transit System has given
emphasis to Park-N-Ride. Seven 'Rapid' stations have been provided with 5,2 18 free parking spaces .. .Additional parking spaces
soon will be provided along the airport rapid transit extension
now under construction." He quoted a survey which " indicated
that parking spaces are being used at a rate of 1.3 cars per day .
and t hat each car carries an average of 1.2 passengers.
He says further that "the Toronto Transit Commission will
provide parking spaces for 3.000 cars at three stat ions along the
Bloor Street subway extension now under constru ction . with
(Co11ti1111ecl 0 11 Page 3. Col. 1,
�CITY PLANNING
AND RAPID TRANSIT
The American Institute of Planners has a strong interest in
the development of a rapid transit system for the Atlanta Metropolitan Area. The specific interest in MARTA and its proposed system is related to the "balance" and relationship of the
transit network to the rest of the metropolitan area and to the
total transportation system of the metropolitan area- as it exists
and is planned.
The planner is concerned with the relationships that will be
an outgrowth of the system. What impact will MARTA lines
have on public and private property? Which areas will be likely
to develop because of a MARTA installation-a station, for instance? Will the system be sensitively related to neighborhoods
and business areas, or industrial areas? How? Will the system put
stations in places where other planning and development activities provide an opportunity to "multiply" the effect of the investment in transit by an investment in urban renewal, or a college, or a new business area, or a special school? Can better relationships be established between elements of the transit system and the environment?
The planning profession is interested in the general and the
comprehensive dimensions of the city and the metropolitan
area. Therefore, the planning interest in the transit system will
extend beyond the tracks and the stations, into a concern for
nearby property- and, more important, property that is not so
near. The planning concern for all of the Atlanta area is oriented
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 to
maximizing the livability of our
"place," and deals equally with the
areas impacted and not impacted. In the
areas being served (giving the word "impact" a positive tone) the planner is
likely to seek to make the favorable impact more favorable , more utilitarian,
more significant to the area in terms of
its present and future role in the city ,
whether this role is related to change,
redevelopment, more intensive developR ichard M. Forbes
ment, new uses or no change .
The planning attitude about any public or private investment
is based on what the facility will mean to people in their environment. What will it mean t o citizens as they travel to and
from work, to recreation, to shopping? This is one level of concern. What it will mean to people at home, if they live near the
transit line , is another concern. For example, will it cause an unpleasant industry to develop nearby?
The planning concern reduces itself to a concern for our city,
our place, our environment. The planner wishes to make Greater '
Atlanta the best possible place in which to live and work. He
consequently sees t ransit as a marvelous opportunity to use a
large public investment as one of the elements that will help to
do that. However, transit will make a positive contribution only
if it is very carefully related to each part of the area an d to
other projects and plans so that the system is balanced. This relationship to the whole is o~ prime importance.
Richard M Forbes, Assistant Prof essor of R eal Estate and Urban Affairs at Georgia State College, is a member of the MARTA Advisory Committee, representing the planning profession. He is a member of the
A merican Institute of Planners, and other prof essional groups.
(Continued froin Page 2, Col. 2)
additional spaces planned for the Yonge Street Subway Ex tension just authorized. The new l 0-mile extension in South J ersey
will provide nearly 5,000 parking spaces at six locations wit h
provision for future expansio n. Over 16,000 parking spaces at
23 stations will be provided along the 75-mile rapid transit system being built in San Francisco.
Quoting DeMent, "There is no longer a question of the need
for such facilities. It is only a question of how much parking
should be provided for any given rapid transit in stallation."
The system being designed for the Atlanta area will include
adequate parking facilit ies at suburban stations.
MARTA TALKS ... AND LISTENS
The story of rapid transit plans for Metropolitan Atlanta is
finding interested audiences throughout this area. Between the
first of June and mid-September, the MARTA directors and
staff talked to some 1700 members or more than 30 civic and
other groups, illustrating the MARTA story with slides or motion picture films. In addition, many other discussions were
held with city and county officials, planning departments, state
legislators, and citizen groups such as Chambers ofCommerce \
and Central Atlanta Progress. After the formal presentations,
the meetings were generally opened for questions. In_the picture
below, Henry L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager, is listening
to a question being asked by a member of the Atlanta Civitan
Club.
A MARTA display depicting progress in the development of
rapid transit was part of the fifth Annual Fall Sale at J amestown
Shopping Center in College Park recently. The event was sponsored by the College Park Jaycees in cooperation with merchants at the shopping center.
The MARTA display shows the location of Transit Center in
downtown Atlanta, and the various lines considered for rapid
transit routes.
The display back of College Park Jaycee President Paul Green
shows in the upper left corner a cutaway view of how Transit
Center might be designed, with escalators connecting the two
levels of trains with the sidewalks above .
The lo wer left corner contains typical site development plans
fo r the four !eve.ls of Transit Center while in the lower right corner is a map locating Transit Center in relation to downtown
stree ts.
The map in the upper righ t corner shows the areas in which
the routes and stations will be located. Routes as planned in
196 1, 1962, and 1966-7 are variously indicate d.
The display back of Joan Eschenbrenner, MARTA secretary,
fea tures a large aerial photo of do wntown Atlanta and pictures
of various majo r building developments now under way near
rapid transit stations.
The MARTA exhibit aroused many enth usiastic com ments
from those who viewed it.
�MARTAnswers
MARTA ACTION
QUESTION: Why is MARTA planning to use the old-type steelwheel and steel-rail system instead of something new, like
monorail?
· ANSWER: In the first place, monorail is not new or modern. As
shown in the picture below, monorail has been around a long
time-70 years or so. A short monorail line has bee n operating
across a river in Germany since 1906.
.
The major reason for not using monorail, however, is simply
that no monorail system has ever been a commercially successful operation in moving numbers of commuters.
In recent years, short, relatively simple monorail systems
have been built in Paris and Tokyo, and others have been used
in World's Fairs in Seattle and New York , and at Disneyland.
These small operations, however, do not meet MARTA's design
requirements to transport commuters at 70 miles per hour in capacities approaching 30,000 passengers per hour.
There are other problems relating to cost, engineering, construction, and route location :
Both the top-supported (suspended) and bottom-supported
monorail systems are more expensive to construct system-wide
than the conventional steel-wheel steel rail system. The topsupported monorail requires the support structure throughout
the system, whereas MARTA's plans call for only 3½ miles of
aerial structure. The top-supported monorail requires a much
larger tunnel for subway where subway is esse ntial. Trying to
_eliminate the monorail subway brings us back to the problem
MART A faced all along- where to put the route s thro ugh downtown Atlanta without using subway . There is no fe asible surfa ce
route fo r either system.
Mt:IGS COL Ll:::CT/ ON , Yale University Library - MON ORA IL , 1887
VER SI ON - Joe Vincent Me igs (second row, six th from right) patented
this early "rno11orail " in 1873. The running wheels were tilted at 45 degree angles; horizo11tal/y -moun ted steam-driven wheels running on an up-
The Board of Direc tors at its September 5 mee ting heard a report on a fi_nancial study by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates,
In c. No ac tion wa s taken on the report.
No official ac tion was taken by the Board since a quorum was
not prese nt.
The nex t mee ting of the MARTA Board of Directors will be
Tuesday, October 3, 1967, 3: 30 p.m., Room 619, Glenn Building,
120 Marietta St. , N.W.
The bottom-supported system would be somewhat more expensive for grade and aerial structure than the steel-wheel steel
rail system, and considerably more expensive for subway because of the larger tunnel required.
If expense were not the major factor it is, the question then
arises, "what would monorail give you that the conventional
system would not provide?" The answer is "nothing." The
monorail is slower, has higher operational costs, and does not
provide as comfortable ride. During the past 70 years, engineering problems relating to monorail have not been satisfactorily
resolved. These include switching, high speeds (70 to 80 MPH),
sway, and other technical problems.
·
These and other disadvantages may eventually be resolved,
but no solution is in sight. By contrast, the dual rail system
solved these and many other engineering and operational problems years ago . The dual-rail system will definitely provide what
is needed in this area: 70 MPH speeds, safety, comfort, and convenience at less cost than any type monorail . Using a known
and proven technology means MART A will be able to bring the
sy stem into operation at the earliest possible time . This is our
goal. - Hemy L. Stuart, MARTA General Manager
per set of rails provided propulsion. Th e Philadelphia City Coun cil visited
th e 1, 11 4-foot long test track in East Cambridge, Mass., in 188 7. The revolutionary Meigs rail way did not gain acceptance, however; and the
company fa iled a fe w years later.
RAPID TRANSI T
PROGRESS
METROPOLITA N ATLA NTA RAP ID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
808 GLE N N B LD G .

1 20 MARIET TA S T . . N.W .
P HON E 52 4 - 5 711 (AR E A CODE 4 0 4)
SEPTEMBE R 1967. VO L . 2, NO . 9
~l
·
AT L ANTA . GEORGIA 30303
�r
L
I
r
r
I
FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ATLANTA'S RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM
The capital costs of Metropolitan Atlanta's rapid transit system cleaFlY
must be financed by funds obtained from sources beyond the fare box. The
system can generate enough operating revenues to cover operating expenses .and ·
·maintenance and to fina11ce the purchase of the basic rolling stock and opE:,r at-
I
r

ing equipment. For the capital costs of the system, however
the tracks,
bridges, stations and other elements of the fixed investment
rapid transit
in Metropolitan Atlanta must look to the local governments of the area and to
.Federal and state sources.
,.~ '
,-
r
I
'
I ••
.l
.I
(
This is, of course, normal. Rapid transit systems are basically public
enterprises , operating public facilities comparable to streets and schools and
performing essential public services. Although unlike streets and schools
in that they produce operating revenues, few · systems yield enough net returns
to make any substantial contribution to basic costs of the fixed investments.
Some systems do better than others but all share the characteristic of being
public service enterprises th~t require direct public support if they are to
meet public needs.
In the following section, all aspects of the local financing of the
capital costs of Metropolitan Atlanta's rapid transit system will be explored.
The underlying premise to be reiterated is that the public nature of the
rapid transit enterprise calls for the public assumption of responsibility
·for paying for the fixed investment. This premise has already been clearly
recognized locally and indeed was assumed in the creation of MARTA and in
t he legi~lati on providing fo r MARTA ' s support and operations.
·- 1- .
MAMMlll •• 11••••.•tllll A•••ttAT•t
�II
r
I
,......
I.
Basic Premises of Analysis
This financial analysis is concerned only with the areas embraced oy the
four counties of Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton and Gwinrtett (including the City of
Atlanta) .
Although other parts of the report describe a five~county area
that includes Cobb County,
, the financial analysis excludes Cobb which is not
r
presently participating in the MARTA program.





In analyzing the financial aspects of the proj ecte'd rapid transit system
of Metropolitan Atlanta, three basic premises have been established:
r
1.
That the major share of the financial responsibility for
building the system will be assumed by the local govern ments, with a minimum dependence upon financial help from
the outside;
2.
That the basic target will be the construction of a 30mile system capable of achieving the major part of the
goals set for rapid transit in the area;
I
I
I
I
I
'
'
'~
I
3 • . That a policy will be adopted that will provide for an
extension of the basic system to 52 miles later if and
when additional funds become available from non-local ·
sources.
r-
' '
Primary Local Commitment.
It can be taken as a basic assumption that
Metropolitan Atlanta's rapid transit system must -- and will - - get some aid
f rom both Federal and State sources . The primary responsibility for financing
t his system, however , cannot be shifted away from the local governments . In
developing a financ i al plan for ~he Metropolitan Atlanta system, the appro~ch
~
\
'
mus t be to make the most realistic possible estimate of funds that can_be 0
expected fro m Federal and s t ate sources and then to test the feasibility of
pr oducing t he remaining funds from the local sour ces .
It is not possible accurately t o predict how much Federal money might
! ,-
pecome available. I t is hypothetica lly possible under Federal fo rmul as t hat
two-thirds of the cost could eventually be paid f _or by Federal funds but there
~re grave uncertaint ies as to when such funds might be made available , if at





..
- 2.....,
.,








HAMM I R . IRIINl , IIL I R AII DO IATII
�all at that scale.
Moreover, under present regulations Federal funds can be
committed for only ·two years at· a time.
The truth is that the amount available from the Federal government for
rapid transit purposes in the immediate future
.., ,
i
will be limited.
Despite · (
talk of potentially massive Federal outlays for this purpose, there is no
evidence that such funds are imminent.

' .
The pressure of the Viet Nam war and
the rising demands for Fede_r al funds for other urgent urban problems make 'it
r,
unreasonable to assume any large-scale availability of funds.
Because of its ·
head start in rapid transit planning, Metropolitan Atlanta is assured of its
share of the Federal funds that do become available but these funds must
supplement what is raised locally rather than represent the basic share
at least in the immediate future.
'-
)
As to assistance from the state, the people of Georgia in November 1966
,-,
approved a constitutional amendment declaring public transportation to be:1 an-'
, I
'
L..J
.
"essential governmental function and a public purpose for which the · power of
L
.· Ir
,,
taxation of the state may be exercised and· its public funds expended".
l
u
The
amendment provided, however, that the State of Geo_r gia shall not provide more .
than 10 percent of the totai cost of a public transportation system, either
directly or indirect l y.
For purposes of planning, it is reasonable to assume
that the state will indeed contribute ·10 percent of the cost of the Atlanta


.


system.
This still leaves the. main burden on local shoulders .
This is the
J
way in which -the op erating rapid transit ·s ystems in other big U. S . cities
. '
'
have been buil t - - pr imar ily w~ th local funds . . On the other hand,. the
exis t ence of the ~ederal pr ogr am is i ts elf testimony to a, clear recognition ··
that new rapid trai~s i t systems in t he futu r e .are not likely to be built with- ·
' f
J

out some of the costs bei ng shared at th e 'Federal level .
The .burden on the
l oca l governments is t oo great on t op of mount ing _d emands fo r- a whole r ange





of other s ervices and facilit i es.
It C8.!l be hoped t hat large-sca le Federa l ·f unds mi ght even'tlially be made
availabl e for t his purpose in Metropol itan At l ant a ,
\
However, to p lan on
/


!'


- 3HAMMlll , 8Rlllll , 81, LIII ASSOOIATIS
�.l
l' ....
r
this basis would invi t _e disappointment and even disaster if this hope were
. ..,
not realized -- and would also represent a denial of the high priority that
the public has already put upo~· rapid transit through its approval of the
MARTA program so far.
Commitment to Full-Scale System .
A 30-mile basic system has been de-
signed that covers the heart of the metropolitan area in which are located
the -greatest concentrations of people and jobs, the highest densities of ·
development, and the corridors of heaviest traffic congestion.
An
initial
commitment to a system of less capabilities would not move the area toward a
practical solution of its desperate circulation problem.
As already described in this report, the 30-mile system wou~d extend

, I
between Brookhaven on the north and the Tri-Cities on the south, Deca~ur on
I
the east and Lynhurst Drive on the west, with spurs off to the northwest and
northeast.
This basic system would not reach into the suburban areas of
Clayton and Gwinnett counties. It will cost approximately $332,000~000 to
build, assuming that construction gets underway in 1969 .
Flexible Development Policy.
.
I
The third premise , which relates to future
expansions of the system as additional non-local funds become available ,
I
• I
.I





calls for a fle xible future policy .
of Federal funds .
The key facto r is th e future availability
I f the decision is made to move ahead with the 30-m_ile
system assuming minimum Federal par ticipation, another decision can be made
later t o go to : the 52-mi l e system (which would push rapid transit lines into
Clayton and Gwinnett counties) if suf ficient Federal funds become available
t o mat ch expanded local ·fu nds .
Lat er , if and when Cobb County decides to
participate in t he pr ogr am, t he dec i sion can be .made to go to the 63- mile
f ive-count y sys tem as further fu nds become avai l able .
""he.v'v
As noted earlier in thi~ report , the 52-mile sys t em wou ld cos t
$479, 000, 000 . (This sys t em woul d inc l ude extens i ons t o t he bas ic 30- mil e
(
I
system within the two central counties as wel l as extensions outward to
the suburbs . )
- 4H A',M' M I R . -~ R I I N i , I I l
0
~R
A 8 I O O I. AT I I
l
�r
To summarize the foregoing, this analysis of financing will be concerrted
basically with two rapid transit systems:
,I
I
L
r-·
The basic 30-mile system which will cost $332,000,000,
operate only in Fulton and DeKalb counties> and be
financed on the assumption qf minimum Federal and state
assistance.
The overall 52-mile system which will cost $479,000,000,
extend out into Dayton and Gwinnett counties,' and be
undertaken beyond the _30-mile system as more Federal
money becomes available to match state and local funds.
r
Allocation of Local Costs
In determining the proportion of the _local share of MARTA' s capital

costs that should be allocated to each of the participating local governments,
r-
the objective should be so far as possible to develop a formula based on the
benefits that the system will provide to each jurisdiction.
•• ..-,
.._,
cult to identify the overall kinds of benefits that such a system might
produce; the problem is to determine how these benefits might be distributed
and measured geographically thirough_tout the rnetropoli tan area.
Up to now,
.
no rapid transit system has been able to define these benefits in any precise
J
way on an area-by-area basis.
n
.i
It is not diffi-
I
The evidence of the overall value of_ra~id transit to a metropolitan
area is unmistakable.
The costs of moving people by transit is considerably
less than by expressway.
,...)
Reduction of highway and street traffic through
provision of transit fa cilitie s saves time for individuals and businesses
and means heavy savings in public costs for maintenance of transportation
facilities.
l
New t ax, values are created along rapid transit rights-of-way.


. Valuable land is pres erved that would otherwise be taken for expressways.
/
The availability of jobs t o t he l oca l popul ation is . increas ed and wider
choices of employment are permit ted .
The destructive and costly effects _of
continued urban sprawl are l essened a s close- in densities are increased.
short, ·overall effic-iency of the metropolitan ar ea i s i ~proved and ea ch
jurisdict ion shares in the beriefi ts and· advant_a ges.
·.,I
. --,
I__,
-5liAMMIA,GRE&N& , 8 1 L&R AIIOOIATII
In
�' r
Setting each jurisdiction's specific share of the benefits, however, is·
not subject to easy measurement.
There are different transit mileages in
each area, different patronage levels, different initial costs, different
impacts in terms of both savings and tax values, different effects on area
growth.
r
It can be argued that each benefit to a jurisdiction can be offset
by a liability.
The transit system mar gene.rate large new tax values along
its rights-of-way in the central city but at the same time make possible a
r
diffusion of employment centers and population to other areas.
The system
may accelerate
growth
in ..suburban areas but thi_s can create vast new demands
.
.
.
,,
t
!
A rapid tFan-
sit system can take .property off the tax rolls as well as add tax values,
r
.t:.
for public services and facilities as well as new tax values.
---·
!
I
I
l_
'
,,
and it . can potentially blight the neighborhood as well as create substantial
new environments .
The overriding fact is that rapid transit benefits . the metropolitan
I
region as a whole.
A fast-growing region the size of Metropolitan Atlanta
will not be able to function efficiently without a balanced transportation
system that includes rapid transit.
The internal linkages within the metropolitan area must be particularly


)


. .J
recognized.
The efficient operation of Downtown Atlanta, for example, has
a direct importance to all parts of the metropolitan region.
The functions
of this central business district in one way or another have a critical bearing upon every major industrial investment in the entire. region, and these
industrial investments in turn . support widely scattered commercial and
residential investments .
A rapid transit sys tem accentuates and increases the efficiency of the
inter nal linkages in a metropolitan area,
7
A formula to allocate the costs
of such a sys tem wi t hi n the ar c~, t her efore, must be based upon some commonsense indexe s that measure each jurisdi ction's relative size and function
i n the r eg ion. and its proport ion of the r egion's wealth and its relative
I
pattern of growth . _The benefi t s of a rapid t r ansit system will be reflected
{ 1
'
in each j uri s dict i on's participation in the area's over all economi c and
land us e development •
..J
1
- 6Ht\MM& R . O RIENE.IILE R t\ll OO IATII
...
�l
1L
,
}
,.
A fair and equitable formula for allocating rapid transit costs must
be based on indexes that measure three essential factors -- relative intensity of useage, relative capacity to pay, and relative economic development
impact. Three sets of meas~rements -- population , property tax dige~t and
employment -- would most.clearly reflect these basic considerations. None
,-
of these indexes by itself would provide the basis for a fair and equitable
cost distribution, but the absence of any would prejudice the fairness of
the allocation formula.
These three elements have the additional merit of
being simple and measurable by basic data that can be readily obtained, well
documented and .authenticated from official sources.
Two additional considerations would appear essential.
One is the im-
portance of taking future as well as present patterns into account.
This
can be accomplished by getting two sets of figures for each element -- · a
r,
j





u
figure for the present (using 1965 as the base year for which data can be
verified) and a projected figure for a future year.
Inasmuch as official
forecasts have been made of both population and ·employment for the year
1983 by the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission (in connection
with the Atlanta Area Transportation Study), this year can be used for the
I
J
3
-I
'
J
future date (by which time, incidentally, the rapid transit system would
presumably be in operation).
_The property tax digests utilizi_ng. in part
these population and .employment figures can be projected for the same year.
All three elements can therefore be put into the formula with well documen·ted
present and future components.
·:..
The other consideration is the need for assigning different degrees
of importance t9 each of the basic factors .
This is. done by giving a
different weight to each element in the allocati_on formula.
This weighting ·
·is a_c complished by constructing percent_age distribution tables · to show each
county's share . of each e lement (population, tax digest .and employment) and
then inc luding each tab l e once , twice or t hree times to reflect its relative
import ance in t he formula .
,. , ··
-.
- 7H A M ME R . GR EENE. B ILE R ABB O OIATEi

�r--
w
rI I
.....
,--.
'
l...,,
It \\'as determin ed that employment should be given the greatest weight
(3) because it most nearly measures the e~onomic strength of the various
jurisdications.
,-.


.....,


.(
,,
I
sales, and t he employment index is a f air measure of economic activity .
Apart from the convenience factor, the greatest benefit derived by a local
government from an efficient transit system would come from the maintenance
and expansion of its economy.
The area with the heaviest employment would
J, .. .
r ·
have the most to gain from the system and would generate the largest capacity
,._
to finance it.
r
·· I
Employment means inv estments, payrolls, purchases and .
The property tax digest
the assessed value of real and personal
property put on a comparable basis at 100 percent of market value in each
jurisdiction
would be given the next highest weight (2).
The property
tax digest also refJ ects ability to pay on the part of the governments and
in addition helps to measure the potential impact of the :5ystem on physical
. I,
-...)
,.....
growth .
Each of the county governments in Metropolitan Atlanta rely heavily
upon the property tax and all are now required to maintain their assessments
at roughly 40 ,percent of market value.
In the fo rmula, population would carry the basic weight of one (1) .
I


~7


t
( '.J
l
Transit patronage would of course bear' some direct relationship to population.
However a f ormu l a giving a heavi er we i ght to population would penalize outlying areas whose lev e l ·of t r ansi t rider ship would probably not carry the
same r e lationship to population as pat ronage le~els in the close-in areas
· where r es ident i a l densi t i es near the transit corridors would be more intense.
In Table 1, the s e three bas i c fa ctors are set fo rth in ~tat istica l
f or m in ter ms both of t h e . actua l numbers and of the percent distributions (
among each of the f our counti es part icipat ing in the MARTA pro gram.
Thes e
figures are shown for a pres ent (1965) and a future year (1983) .
The proposed allocation formula is the composite index t hat comb i nes
all of these factors at the a s signed weight s . It .is expre ss ed in terms of
the percentage share of total capital cos t that woul d be allocated t o each
jurisdiction, as follows:
0
- 8HAMMEA, O AE&N&.81 LEA
.,
A880CIATi8
I
�Table 1.
ELE>!ENTS IN RE CO'.- lMENDE D FO R111U LA FOR ALLOCATING iv'lARTA
CO~STRUCTION COST M~ONG LOCAL COUNTIES, ACTUAL 1965
Ai~D PROJECTE D 1983
· l-
Populati on (1)
Nur::bers (0 00)
Per cent
1965
1983
1965
1983
r- .
Fulton
DeKa lb
Clayton
Gwinnett
587 . 4
319.6
69 . 2
52 .1 1, 028 . 3
Total
861 . 0
582.7
153 . 3
107.1
1 , 704 . 1
57 .1%
31. 1
6.7
5.1
50 . 5%
34 . 2
9. 0
6.3
100. 0%
100 . 0%
Tax Diaest (2}
Amount (000,000)
Percent
1965
1983
1965
1983
.....,
Fulton
DeKalb ·
Cl ayton
Gwinnett
Total
$ 3,959
1 , 778
350
184
$ 6,271
$10 , 360
5,848
1 , 437
816
63 . 1%
28 . 4
5.6
2.9
56. 1%
31. 7
7.8
4.4
$18 , 461
100.0%
100.0%
!
Em:el orment (3)
Numbers (0 00)
Percent
1965
1983
1965
1983
· Fu lt on
DeKalb
Cl ayt on
Gwinnet t
Tota l
· NOTES:
349.6
68 .1
18 .2
8 .0
556 .1
147. 3
40.1
22. 4
78 . 8%
15 . 3
4 .1
1. 8
72. 6%
19.2
5.3
2.9
44 3.9
765.9
100 .0%
100 .0%
Relativ e we i gh t s us ed in t otaling perc enta ges in t he
all oca tion f ormu l a ar e shown in parentheses . Both
1965 and 1983 percentage figures are weighted accordi ngl y. The property t ax digests were put on a compar able basis for each juiisdiction (100 percent of
market value) .
-,.
- 9H f\ M ME A, 0 A EE N E , 8 I l E A A 6 8 0 0 I A TE 8
�,I
r.J
Proposed allocation formula:
Ful ton County
DeKalb County
Clayton County
Gwinnett County
......
-
66.7%
24.1
5.9
3.3
100.0%
I
~
Each figure shown in Table 1 ·was calculated on the basis of extensive
research utilizing all available data from official sources.
However, it ·
r-
.L
'
was necessary to use independent judgment in arriving at some of the estimates, particularly the forecasts for future years, and the responsibility
for them rests solely with the consultant.
All of the data used can be·
i
documented and the methods can be easily tested and evaluated.
,--
,I
As noted earlier, the basic 30-mile system would lie ent irely within
'-'
the boundaries of Fulton and DeKal b counties .
r
able to limit the local r esponsibility for this$ystem to these two jurisdic- ·
1-J
tions.
It would ther efore seem reason-
As soon as the decision is made to extend the system to its full
r
length of 52 miles, the participation of Clayton and Gwinnett counties would
~--
be assumed.
,--
t he tot al system ca lled f or in the formula, including their pro rata par ts
'-'
Presumably they would then be asked to pay their full shares of
of the 30-mi l e bas ic syst em whose construction would get underway bef ore
their financi a l involvement.
The breakdown of financial responsibility between ·Fulton and DeKalb
count i es in connect ion wit h the 30-mil e bas i c system, based upon the s ame
f act or s s et f orth i n Table 1, would be as follows:
(7
I
L
Fulton Count y
DeKalb County
73 . 5%
26 .5
100 . 0%
L
,-1
L
Clearly there is r oom for differences of opini on about the elements
s elected for inclusion in t he a l l ocation f ormula and about t h e r e l ative
weights assigned t o each.. On ba l ance, however, t he f ormul a would appear to
be fair and equitable. Although s ome obvious elements might be considered
f or addition -- such as, for example, projected patronage leve l s used by the


- 10HAMME R. GRE E N E.S ILER


..
A88O01AT E 6
�l: •
~
.
,...
'! I
.,.....
I
,
L
engineers in .station location, mileage or linear feet of track built in
different jurisdictions, and potential land development prospects ·along
transit rights-of-way -- the measurement of these elements is likely to be
highly · speculative. After considering
them,. it was determined
that a simpler ..
.
. .
and more easily documented set of measurements would be more satisfactory .
•'
Financing the Basic System


-


,--
,.-··
As already noted, the 30-mile basic system proposed as the minimum
construction program for Metropolitan Atlanta wouid cost an estimated .
$332,000,000 to build. The full capital cost of this system must come from
provided funds --:- .that is, fun_d s not generated from the operation of the
rapid tran~it system . itself.
The first assumption to make in developing a financial plan for meeting
L
I
I
I
.-.
. the ·capi tal costs of Metropolitan Atlanta's rapid tran~it system is to make
a specific estimate of the availability of Federal funds. The current
Federal appropriation supporting mass transportation planni_ng and programming
throughout the United .States is for $175,000,000 per year , effective through _
the f i scal year ending ,June 30, 1968 .
There i s a 12½ percent ceiling on
what any one stat e might r eceive out of this appropr i ation.
If MARTA' ·
operations were now underway, it might be expected that a large part of
Georgia 's share - - perhaps as much as $20,000,000 -- might be availabl~
from Feder al sources .
.,
1-
It has been estimat ed that Federal appropri ations f or mas s transpor t at i on will have to reach t he level of at least $500,000,000 per year to
provi de any substantial assistanc e to the cities and metr opol itan areas ·that
are building or expanding th.e ir mass t ransit sys t ems. The i nt ense f iscal
pressures caused by the Viet Nam war and other heavy demands upon t he
· Federal trea_su~y, however, have ·resulted in a deferral of any pr_ogramming
at this level. It is hopefully ·anticipated t hat f unds made avai l able by
Congress for mass transportation for the two fiscal years heginning July 1.
1968, and extending through June 30, 1970, would _pe in .the ra_nge of .·
$200,000,000 a year.
Prospects appear fairly optimistic at this stage .
r·-.
'
- 11 ..
NAMM l ll,llilliil,111.lR A l l
OIAfll
�I
-
Using this estimate it might reasonably be assumed that MARTA would be
in a position to request and receive as much as $25,000,000 per year in the :
calendar years 1969 and 1970 from Federal sources, if voter approval has
been given in the meantime and local funds cpmmitted.
This would mean that
a basic $50,000,000 in. Federal funds ·might be counted on as a minimum.
·r
How much more Federal money might subsequently be made available is
of course speculative.
It might be assumed, however, that at : least an ·addi-
tional $50,000,000 might be forthcoming forllowitig the initial allotments
in the 1969 and 1970 fiscal years.
,-
.!
1
Even if Viet Nam or other international
crises remain, it is reasonable to expect that the present level of ap~ropriations for mass transportation will continue .. If the international situa-
r
tion cl.e ars up, there could be a sharp increase in Federal funds for mass ·1
L ,
transportation in line w1th current thinking.
In short, there is probably
"little chance that current levels of appropriation w~ll be cut back and
there is a good chance· that large outlays might become available.
In light of these considerations, it would appear reasonable to anticipate that at least a second $50,000,000 might be obtained fro~ Federal
sources for MARTA' s·· basic 30-mile system.





t
• ,.J.
As a conservative approach, the
availability of $100,000,000 in Federal funds might be taken as a given for
local fiscal planning.
This would provide considerably less than the
hypothetical two-thirds of total cost that the Federal government might be .
expected to provide, but it would be a substantial contribution.
_...,'
Another important assumption relates to the availability of state funds.
As already noted, mass transportation has already been ~eclared to be a
,-, .
public purpose in Georgia for which state funds might be made available, although not more than 10 percent of the cost of ·a local rapid transit system
f
l
might be borne by the state.
The General Assembly earlier . in 1967 appro -
t
,_J
priated a sum of $500,000 as a contribution· _a gainst the planning and other
pre-operating expenses of MARTA.
-12...__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,HAMM I A, g Ai ! NI, i I l i A A 8 I g O I A fl 1 ·
/
�~
l
I








!I
J

[
I
i
r-
The subsequent availability of the state money, of course, rests entirely with the legislature.
It might be reasonable to expect, however, that
the legislature will see fit to contribute the full 10 percent of the cost
gf Metrgpglitan Atlanta's rapid transit system i£ and when it is apprgved
by the voters. The precise way in which these state . funds might be made
available is not yet clear -- through direct appropriations, through the
channels of some existing authority, or in part through the donation of
state-owned lands for transit rights-of-way -- but the strong public sentiment behind rapid transit in Atlanta should assure the state's maximum .par-
l
1 L.
.
ticipation.
For purposes of fiscal planning, therefore, it might be assumed
that as much as $33,000,000 will be made available against the totai capital
cost of the 30-mile basic system in Metropolitan Atlanta.
Assuming that Federal and state funds are made available as indicatedr,
the local share of the basic system would be approximately $199,000,000
and the distribution of capital costs by sources would be as follows:
,-
Amount
Local
State
Federal
Percent
$199,000.,000
33,000,000
100,000,000
··,
$332,000,000
59.9%
10.0
30.1
100.0%
For planning purposes, it might be assumed that the Federal funds would
be made available in four consecutive annual payments of $25,000,000 each.
It might also be assumed that the state's contribution would be made available on a uniform basis, with the availability of these funds extending over
the nine-year period of construction.
LJ
Of course, the pattern of availability
may be different from that indicated here, but these might be taken as reasonable assumptions .
Issuance of Local Bonds .
Local funds would be made available in the
-fonn of bonds issued as appropriate to meet the projected drawdown schedule
. of const ruction cos t s · set up by the engineers.
As provided in the MARTA
' r.
-13H
\M M I
R• 8 AI I R I • 8 I
Li
A A 8 I OOI AT I 8
�I' -~
I
...
I
act these local bonds might be of two kinds:
-1)
"
bonds issued by MARTA
itself based upon the local governments' unde!writing the payment of
principal and interest;
and 2)
general obligation (GO) bonds issued oy
th e lo ca l gov 0rnm€nts againet t hei r own bonding GapaG i tie s with th e pr oceeds
turned over to MARTA in lump form. In either case, the funds would be made
available to MARTA under contractual agreements with . the local government
setting the relative shares of MARTA's total obligations to be assumed by
each government, the . ceilings upon local obligations that might be stipulated,
and other terms and conditions providing for maximum flexibility while protecturing the interests of local taxpayers.
The final scheduling of local bond issues for the rapid transit system,
of course, will undoubtedly be quite different from any preliminary fiscal
palnning that might be done.
r-
The timing and dimensions of each issue (either
of MARTA's bonds or of GO bonds issued for rapid transit by the governments
directly) will involve many factors including the current status of the bond..
market, the scheduling of other local government issues and obligations,
the actual amounts made available by state and Federal government at any one
t. 'irne , ,m d
. t'
_ p.gss i·b1
. _e vana
. 1,9ns i. n t h e dr aw down sc h edul e,
,.-.
For preliminary planning purposes, however, the schedule of local pond .fund needs related to fund availability from other sources can be set up
as follows for the projected 3O-mile basic syste~:
7
.I
- 14 -
.
(
�(
r
Table 2.
J'
'--
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CAPITAL FUNDS FOR
THE 30-MILE RAP ID TRANSIT SYSTEM
(000, 000)
.-. .
DrawdownY
(cumul.) Federal
·'I
I
I
1969
1970
1971
.1972
1973
1974
1975
19,76
· 1977
$ 25
54
102
158
207
258
298
320
. 332
I ;- -
,.
$ 25
25
25
25
·$100
Availabilitt of Funds
Loca l y Total Cumulative
State
$ 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
$33 .
$ 25
35
50
50
30
9
-$199
$ 54
29
64
29
54
4.
54 .
34
10
--
$ 54
83
147'
176
230
234
288
322
332
$332
y
Preliminary s chedule of needs fo r land purchase and cons t ruction establi shed by the engineers.
·
y
MARTA revenue bonds supported by loca l government underwriting or general obligation bonds of local .governments
issued f or rapid t rans it pur pose~.
·,.
It is noted that t he above schedu le of f und availabi l i ty , as prelimi -
,~
narily set f orth, does not dir ectly match t he sch~dul e of f und needs.
'
sets of fi gures are necessari l y t entative and pre limi nary and will be a l t ered .'.
,I I
in the course of time.
Both
The development of such a bas e table is ne ces sary,
however , in order to set the general dimensions of the financial impact of
,I
MARTA operations upon the loca l governments.
Bond issues are t enta tively
sized and spaced t o meet anti cipated conditi9ns i n the bond market as well
as provide the funds as needed . In pract ice, there may be more issues of
small er sizes or f ewer i s su~s of larger si zes than indicated in this -pr eliminary t able .
These pr ojected local bond issues must then be translated in terms of
annual carryi ng charges f or whi ch t he obl igation would fal l upon the local
governments under the.:sharing f ormula di scussed ear l ier.
It is assumed that
the local bonds (either MARTA revenue bonds or GO bonds of t he local govern-
__,
ments) would be 30-year issues.
Despite contracts with the local governments
- 15HAMM E A . 8A& E N& . 81L&R A88DDIAT l 8
�;,I
. !
... . J
under which MARTA's issues would be underwritten with pledges of property
tax levies to support the obligation, it is anticipated that MARTA's revenue
bonds would carry a somewhat higher interest rate than general obligation
bonds issued directly by the local government~. Bond advisors agree that
a sp~ead of perhaps one~half of one percent should reasonably be assumed,
In these calculations, therefore, the interest rate on the MARTA revenue
bonds is set at 4½ percent and the rate on GO bonds at 4 percent per annum.•
The annual cost of catrying rapid transit bonds issued at the · local
level are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
1969 ..
1970
1971
1972
ANNUAL CARRYING CHARGES OF RAPID TRANSIT BONDS,
ALTERNATIVE METHODS, METROPOLITAN ATLANTA
Principal
Amount
of Bonds
$ 25,000,000
35,000,000

1973
1974
so,000,000
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
50,000,000
30,000,000
9,000,000
1982
Total
.Y
"
!'


1··


....)
$199, 000,000
Annual CostsY
MARTA
GO
Issues
Issues
$ 1,.824,000
$ 1,720,000
1,824,0.00
1,720,000
. . 4,380, 000
4,127,000
4,380,000
4,127,000
8,030,000
7,5 67 ,000
·7,725,000
7,279,000
11,376,000
10,719,000
13,137,000
12,378,000
13,792,000
12,995,000
13,180,000
12,419,000
13,180,000
12,419,000
12,569,000
11,843,000
12,206,000
11,501,000
12,099,000
11,400,000
(Level payments continuing until
bonds are retired)
$362,986,000
$342,020,000
Amortization (principal and interest) charges of all
outstanding bonds for rapid transit under the two
alternative methods of financi_ng MARTA's capital costs.
-16NAMMlll,81111111,IILIII AIIOGIATII
. ~ .l"f/.~.
.
,I
�----

--- --- ~
\
·\


,


-

,'
~
\
'1
·~
"-.
--
~ .
Jt is noted that the ·annual cost of servicing these bonds drops off after
J977 (the date of the last issue) and declines to a level amount in 1982.
This \
'i s b~cause a sinking fund reserve is provided for in each of ·the first five .

years of each issue amounting to 20 percent per year, and at the end of five · ·
years each issue then reverts back to a level payment to maturity. In effect,
I ,
/
six years of payments are made in the first five years of .each issue, and the
,-

amortization period. is actually 29 instead of 30 years.
The level payments
after -1982 would continue through ~997 at which time they would 1 drop off .as the
1969 issue is retired and so on until all issues are paid off. '
Impact on Local Governments
Clearly the assumpLion of an additional $199,000,000 worth ·of rapid transit bonds by the local governments would be a heavy additional burden. The
full responsibility for financing the capital costs of the 30-mile basic
system would fall upon Fulton and DeK.a lb counties, with Clayton and Gwinnett
taking up their shares of the cost only if the system is extended outward to
its full 52 miles.
Il
r
A great deal of research has been undertaken to determine the future
prospects for local government finance in the Metropolitan Atlanta area.
Forecasts have beert made of future operating and capital needs of the local
I
L
\
governments and of fut~re revenues from all existing sources.
In addition,
potential new revenue sources have been thoroughly researched.
,-,
II
L
All local governments face a cost-revenue squeeze in the future. The
range of public services being offered is· widening and the unit costs of
providing these services is risi.n g. In Metropolitan Atl anta, the upward
spiral of local government· costs in part reflects the area I s eme_rgence as
a major. urban center where public service costs are generally higher because
both the quality and quantity of local public services are clearly superior.
The financi'al problems of the City of Atlanta are particularly acute.
The heavy burdens of centxal city problems coupled with the less-than-propor-.
tional increase in revenues from existing sources have resulted in real difficulties. Atlanta is not .unlike other major cities in this regard, however.
· The spill-over of popuiation and industry into outlying areas,·the growing
r
I
obsolescence of parts of the · central core, the increased co.ngestion of central
\
-17r-
�city a~tivity and the · growing demands for high-quality services commensurate
with big city status have all been important factors in Atlanta's financial
~
difficulties.
.
.
Local counties have been ai~ o impacted, and prospects are for much more
serious financial pressures in the future.
Although most of Fulton County's
urban development is within the city limits of Atlanta, a major expansion of
outlying population is forecast with a predictable increase in demand for services ·and facilities.
I
The costs of providing county-wide services such as
health, welfare, and court activities are out-running the growth trends in reve
nues.
.i
I
1:
DeKalb County is basically a "municipal county" providing the full range
of city services, and there will be pressures for future tax increases and new
sources of revenue if first-class public services will continue to be provfcied.
The outlying counties of Clayton and Gwinnett face the same. financial pressures
that have already beset fast growing suburban counties in other large metropolitan areas.
It is a fact of s_imple arithmetic ·that the local governments in Metropolitan Atlanta will need increases in existing tax rates (which means primarily
the property tax) or completely new sources of revenue or both in the years ·
ahead.
Efforts to get a sales tax for local governments in Georgia failed at
the last session of the General Assembly but there will continue to b~ persistent pressures from the state's cities and urban counties .
The local situation is by no means · .b leak,
however . Although tax increases and new revenue sources are both indicated, two favorable factors are
clearly present:
1) the area is rapidly increasing its income and wealth and
hence its capacity to pay for expanded and improved public services; and 2) the
present tax burden in the arE)a is not hign _compared with the tax load in other
major ur ban cent er s .
The locai area has undoubtedly reached its limits in
ii•,
certain t ypes_ of levi es but not in others .
If the people of the area want more
and bet t er loca l government services , they can afford them.
~Re liance on Pr opert y Tax
Studies indicate that f inancing rapid transit 1n Metropo litan Atlant a wi ll
clearly call for new revenue sources or addi t i ons to existing taxes.
It would


appear logica'i -- and it is hereby recommended -- that the local _ governments 1


support of MARTA's r apid transit system be achieved through an increase in the
t ax on propert y.
M A.M M I R , 8 .R I I N I , I I L & R A I I O Q I II T I I
I
I
I
.!
�I,
't"""
. I
There are three basic reasons for this recommendation:
L...,
1.
The property tax is already available as a source. No
additional legislation would be required to tap it for
rapid transit financing. The local .governments will
probably succeed in ~heir efforts to get additional
sources of revenue in the days ahead -- a sales tax, a
payroll tax, an income tax or some other new source -but the timing 1s uncertain and the need for a definite
financial plan for rapid transit is immediate.
2.
Even when n·ew sources of revenue · are made available to
the local governments, the proceeds will be ·needed for
other purposes apart from rapid transit -- expanded .
-current operations of the governments and of the school
systems. As already noted, studies demonstrate the
need for new sources of revenue -whether or not property
tax rates are raised for rapid transit or other purposes.
I
'--
r .
L
r- •
I
l..
r
The property tax is not unduly burdensome on local taxpayers in Metropolitan Atlanta. The local property
tax could be substantially .raised and still be safely
within the margin of reasonableness and economic
feasibility.
3.
The contracts under which the local governments would
underwrite the revenue bonds issued by MARTA (if that
is the financing method that is adopted) might need to
contain a pledge of a specific millage rate against local
property if .the MARTA bonds are to find the most favorable
market when offered for ·sale . . Bond advisors suggest that
this pledge of a property tax levy might help to assure
the proper market reception of these bonds at a moneysaving interest rate . . General obligation~-bonds issued
by local governments i JI. behalf of MARTA, of course,
would also be retired by property tax levies.
·,
As already indicated, · there will be pressures for additional property
tax increases even without rapid transit and even if brand- new sources
of r evenue ar e made available .
The fact remains , however , that the property
t ax is t he most li ke l y sour ce of .funds for underwriting the cost of rapid
t~ans i t·-- it is, as noted ,· an available. source and one with addi t ional
capaciti es to produce .
-- '
- 19.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _MAMMIR . 8RI _I Nl,11LIR AIIOOIATII

�I
I
Ii

I
I
r
I
I
I
I
Ii
The decision, of co-qrse, · is the people's,
11· .
The. law e·s tablishing MARTA
I
!
and authorizing the participation of local governments clearly states that
any proposed financing that would result in the levy of a new or increased
tax on property must be submitted to a referendum of all qualified voters to
determine "whether or not the· local government shoulcj. so obligate itself to





I
l
,.
the extent of the dollar amount or amounts involved therein".
I
l
This provision
clearly enables the people to determine the level of priority that they woµld
put upon rapid transit vis-a-vis other types of public services.
i
Some question might be raised as to whether the property tax is regressive-~ that is, whether it falls with disproportionate burden upon persons
,-
i;
I
·!
'
with limited ability to pay. The point is arguable. In general,·most taxes
are regressive except the carefully graduated income tax and this latter


.--I


I
source is not lik~ly to become available for r~pid transit financing 1n
Atlanta in the near future. The protection afforded low-income people by
the $2,000 homestead exemption, the obvious correlation between income and
property values (including rentals), and the high proportion of all property
taxes paid by nonresidential prop~rties would all point to the .conclusion
that the property tax is considerably less regressive on individuals than
most forms of levy.
·_j
The point about Metropolitan .Atlanta's relatively low property tax
burden ·at the present time should be stressed.
In 1964-65, Metropolitan
Atlanta ranked 33rd out of the 38 largest metropolitan areas in the nation .
. in p~r capita revenue to local governments from property sources. (The
term "local governments" here includes all general governments, agencies,
authorities, special districts, and school systems.) Atlanta's per capita
l'oad was only 74 percent as great as the median for all the areas . Property'
,
\I.
I'
I
I

'
revenue as a percent of revenue from local sources · and from all sources was-··
lower in Metropolitan Atlanta than the overall median.
.
.,
These points are shown in the foll_owing comparisons:
f
f
i
[
· -2 0NAMMIR,8RIINl,llllR AIIQQIATII
�t
r
iI
A ,. •,
38 Largest
Metropolitan Areas
(Median)
Metropolitan
Atlanta
y
Per capita revenues
to local governments _
from property sources
$95.52
$129.94
Property revenue as
percent of revenue
· . from local sources ·
59.6%
67.3%
· Property revenue as
percent of revenue
from all sources
43.7%
48.6%
y
All local ·governments in Metropolitan Atlanta combined.
It is recognized, of ·course, that the property tax already carries
the main burden of 1ocal_ government financing in Metropolitan Atlanta (as
in most local governments).
Approximately three-fourths of the local
government revenues of the two central counties -- Fulton and DeKalb -- are
.
r
derived from property tax receipts • . Equally important, virtually the entire
burden of local public aehool finuncing fall§ on the property tax, and
school millage rates actually exceed those for general .government operations.
The property . tax is a dependable and fast-growi_ng revenue source, however,
and it can sustain additional responsibilities as well as remain the mainstay
of county government and school financing.
Under recent court rulings, counties in Georg'ia are required to carry
all of their property tax assessments at approximately 40 percent of market
value.
_)
Fulton County has just completed the revaluation of its assessment
rolls to meet this requirement, with an accompanying
downward adjustment , I

in the tax rate (miHage rate).
DeKalb County has made no adjustment and
the advice is that such an adjustment may not be nec~ssary inasmuch as
assessments are already within the "tolerance limits" of the 40 percent
figure. Both Clayton and Gwinnett counties already carry their assessments
' generally at the 40 percent level.
\;,
- 21 -
.
"'
HAMMIA , IAl&Nl.lllEA AIIDOIAT I I
l-
!
. !I
�(
Financing th e Basic System
As already stated, it is recommended that the basic 30-mile system be
financed entirely by Fulton and DeKalb counties until the subsequent
decision is made to extend the system out to its full 52-mile length.
If
and when the.full extension is undertaken, it is recommended that Clayton
and Gwinnett counties participate_in the financing under arrangements that ,
I
would enable them to pick up their pro rata share of the overall system,
includirig the 30- mile :basic program.
The recommended formula under which the capital cost of this basic
system would be allocated between the two county governments has already
been given.
It is possible that an alternative formula might be considered
that would break out the City of Atlanta as a separate jurisdiction for
financing purposes, but it would appear more reasonable to proceed on the
county basis.
The rapid transit system clearly will extend beyond municipal
boundaries and its implications will be felt over a broad area.
Residents
of the Ci,ty of Atlanta, of course, are also residents of .both Ful t 'on and ·,
DeKalb counties and they would pay their proportionate share of county
levies.
Under a system of financing that utilizes the county property tax,
the large commercial and inqustrial installati0ns s in ' the City of Atlanta
'
would carry a major share of the overall
burden . .
As already noted, it is assumed that the local share of financing
MARTA ' s c apital c o s t s on t h e
30- mi l e s ys t em would be $199,000,000 , plus
i nt erest . · The f oll owing t able shows t hese re l at ive shares
cost s .t he t wo count y governments would assume :
Fulton Count y
DeKalb County
Total
,.....,
of
Share of
CaEi tal
Costs
.Amount of
CaEital Costs
(Pri ncipal)
73 . 5% .
26 .5
100 . 0%
$146 , 265 , 000
52! 735, 000
$199, 000 , 000
local capital · ·
- 22MAMMIII.IAlllll,IILIA AIIOOIATII
!
�A more detailed analysis will now be made of the year-by-year impact
of rapid transit financing upon the two governments. This analysis will
cover three alternat1ve approaches: 1) the financing of the system through
the issuance of bonds by MARTA based upon payments from the local governments for bond amortization; 2) the issuance of general obligation (GO)
bonds by the governments themselves with proceeds paid over to MARTA; and
3) a mixed system in which both methods might be employed.
r
Issuance of Bonds by MARTA
r
The method of contracting between the local governments and MARTA to
produce funds with which the authority can meet annual carrying charge~ on
its capital bond issues involves a straightforward procedure. To effectuate
this plan, -voters would be asked to authorize the levying of the necessary
· tax (millage) rates with ceilings as to both interest rates and the total
amounts of funds to be raised. No local bond capacities would be involved
I
inasmuch as the bonds would be issued by MARTA rather than the local govern- ··
ments. The tax rate would be applied against the net rather than the gross
tax digest, which means that it would be applicable to a taxpayer's assess~
ment after deduction of the homestead exemption of $2,000.
Table 4 breaks down the share of MARTA's projected carrying charges
(based upon the tentative schedule of bond issues set forth earlier) that
would be indicated for each of the two ·central counties .in connection
with the 30-mile system:
-23-
.J
HAMMlll , IIIIIINl,llllll All8111ATII
..
�'I
r
I
Table 4.
INDICATED COUNTY SHARES OF MARTA BOND
CARRYING CHARGES, 30-MILE SYSTEM
(in thousands of dollars)
<~
'Year
' !i .
..,
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
Total
Indicated Shares
Fulton
DeKalb
Countz:
Countz
1,341
1,34!
3,219
3,219
5,902
5,678
8,361
9,656
10,137
Total
Annual
Cost
'$
483
$ 1,824
483
1,824
1,161
4,380
1,161
4,380
2,128
8,030
2,047
7,725
3,015
· 11,376
3,481
13,137
3·, 655
13,792
9,687
3,493
13,180
9,687
3, 493
13,180
9,238
3,331
12,569
8,971
3,235
12,206
8,893
3,206
12,099
(Level payments continuing until bonds
are retired beginning in 1998)
$
$266,795
$96,191
•"
$362,986
As noted, relatively small payments would be required in the early
years of construction of the transit system.
MARTA's bond issues could be
modest because of the initial availability of sizable Federal funds under
the_ given assumption. Subsequently, however, the impact upon the local
governments would be more substantial.
,..
Followi_ng is the s_c hedule of millage rates that would need to be levied
_against the net property digests_ in each county· in order to meet the indi. cate_d payments set: forth in Table 4.
One mill, it· should be noted, is
equivalent to one-tenth of one percent,, · which can be translated in ~erms
of $1.00 per $1,000 of assessed valuation .
(
I
.
.)
-241rlt,MMIA.8AIINl,IILIA AIIOOIATII
�I
..
I

Fulton
DeKalb
. ' 1969
1970
1971
•7
.7
1.6
. .4
.4
1972
LS
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
. 1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
2.6
2.4
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.2
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
.9
.9
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.9
1. 7
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.1
'
(Then continued reductions
as tax digests increase
and payments remain level)
.. .
Millage rates in this analysis have not been· calculated beyond 1983
because tax digest. projections have not been made. Continued digest in~
creases are anticipated · in each county, however. The projected digests.· for
all four count ies betwe en 1~69
ang i~a3 ar~ givgn in Teblg S! It would b~
highly desirable to reschedule these l evies to provide mor·e substantial
payments in the earlier years and l ower payments during the peak years between 1975 and 1978. It is recommended that an alternative schedule of
taxes. might be considered, which would make possible a ceiling of only 3.0
mills in Fulton County in the peak years and a ceiling of 1. 6 mills in
DeKalb County. This revised schedule would produce more funds in the earlier .
years than would be needed if the MARTA bond p·r ogram set ·forth herein · is
.
.
followed. · However, the cbnstruction cost schedule could be revised to make
use of the ayailable funds in the early years, and . advance purchases of land
with these additional funds .could possibly save a substantial amount of mon~y
in face of rising land ·v alues .in the ij.rea,
..
- 25 NAMMIR,IRllll,11,IR All 00IAYII
0
..,
'

r
,
~
�.
Table 5.
Fulton
1969
1970.
1971.
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
b979
1980
1981
1982
· 1933
,.z
y
I:
I:
•---•
•-.,..-.
.•
.
• ··.•
I
_;
$2,010
$2,108
$2,210
$2,327
$2,448
$2,579
$2,720
$2,868
· $3,027
$3,200
$3,385
$3,580
$3,790
$4,013
$4 , 251
' -·---,
r-·- 1
r
Gross Digest_!/
DeKalb
Clayton
$1,230
$1,312
$1,405
$1,503
$1,614
$1, 726
$1,850
$1,983
$2,127
$2,281
$2,451
$2,629
$2,819
$3,025
$3,261
$188
$202
$219
$236
$255
$275
$297
$321
$348
$378
$408
$443
$481
$522
$566
Gwinnett
Fulton
Net DigestY
DeKalb
Clayton
$100
"$108
$117
$128
$138
$150
$163
$177
$194
$210
$228
$250
$273
$297
$323
$1,-855
$1,950
$2,049
$2,162
$2,279
$2,406
$2,543
$2,688
$2,842
$3,011
$3,192
$3,383
$3,589
$3,808
$4,043
$1,081
$1,158
$1,243
$1,335
$1,438
$1,545
$1,663
$1,791
$1,929
$2,078
$2,243
$2,416
$2,602
$2,804 ·
$3,035
$148
$160
$175
$189
$206
$223
$242
$265
$289
$317
$344
$377
· $413
$451
$493
,--- 1


·---7 . . :··- ·7


.
Gwinnett
$ 76
$ 82
$ 90
$100
$109
$120
$122
$145
$161
$176
$193
$213
$235
$258
$283 _
The assessed value of all real and personal property and utilities less old age
e~emptions, taxed for support of general obligation bonds.
2/ The gross digest less homestead and personal prop erty exemptions, taxed for
support of oper ations (including potential support ·of MARTA bonds).
.
,-. .
~
~- -- 1
PROjECTED PROPERIT TAX DIGESTS, LOCAL COUNTIES, 1969-83
.(In millions of dollars)
D
D
-•
·7
- 26. -:-'
,,
.
,
�..
. ,-,.
I .
~e recommended schedule ~f county payments .and mill_age rates for
MARTA bond finan·cing is set forth in Table 6.
The peak year payments would ·
be substa~tially reduced under this schedule and the peak impact upon local
taxpayers would be correspondingly less.
r .
Table 6.
RECOMMENDED COUNTY PAYMENTS AND MILLAGE
RATES, MARTA BOND ALTERNATIVES
Millage Rates
DeKalb
Fulton
Countl Countl
I
J
'--
r
I
1969
1970
1971
1972
· 1973 ·
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
· 1983
'
i

!
,..
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
-2 .5
2.5
. 3.0
3.0
3.0
. ·3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5 ·
2.3
2.2
Dollar Amounts (000)
Fulton
DeKalb
County
County
· $2,783
2,925
4,098
4,324
5,698
6,015
7,629
8,064
8,526
9,033
9,576
8,459
8,973
8,893
8,893
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.4
.1.6


)1. 6


1.6
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.2
i.1
1.1
(Subsequent reduction as tax
digests continue
to increase)
'
.
$1,081
1,158
1,367
1,489
2,054
2,169
2,751
2,907
3,074
3,257
3,453
3,048
3,235
3,206
3,206
(Then level annual payments to the retirement
of bond issues beginning
1998)
.. . ...
This schedule ·of financi_ng would not involve heavy burdens upon the
individual taxpayer (although most taxpayers probably would argue that all
' ...,
....> .
additional taxes are burdensome). In the first two years of~MARTA's
con-,
..._ -·
construction, the owner of a $20,000 house in Fulton County would pay only
.
.
'
'
$9.00 a year and the comparable pr operty owner in DeKalb County would pay ·
only $6.00 (assuming that assessments in both counties are at 40 percent of
market value). In the years of peak t .a x impact p975-79), the burden upon
I
I
- 27-
_\
NAMMlll,81111•1.IILIII AII II OIATII
-, .
t'

. ......
J

l
I
. .\
�,-.
I '
r1
I
..__
the average home owner in each county would still be modest, as shown in
the following schedule:
i
Fulton
DeKalb
3.0
1.6
L..
Maximum ·millage
needed for MARTA
borid financing
.
! ,.__
Years of maximum
rI
Annual cost of maximum millage to owner
of home with market
value of:
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
L
r
'I
I
<- .
r-
1975-79
1975-79
(
$ 6.00
$12.00
$18.00
$24.00
$30.00
$ 3.20
$ 6.4.0
$ 9.60
$12.80
$16.00
',-
Commercial and industrial properties, of cour_s e, would pay a large part
of the total bill (with the Federal government assuming a good part of the
burden because local property taxes are deductible from Federal income
taxes). Under the schedule of payments set forth above, most home owners in
Fulton County would pay substantially less than one-tenth of one percent of
the market . value of their property per year.for the construction of the rapid
transit system each year, and the tax bite in DeKalb County would be about
...!
half that Tate.
This would be the burden only in the peak years when the
millages levied for support of rapid transit would be at their maximu~_.
_It is rec_o gnized, . of course, that. property already carries a substantial
tax load locally (although, as pointed out earlier, Metropolitan Atlanta
.)
taxpayers pay considerably less on their property than most residents in large
· urban areas).
The present schedule of tax rates applicable in the City of
Atlanta and Fulton and DeKalb counties is_ given in Table 7r (all ta'x~s for -, ·
'
,
(
servicing . bonds are· levied on gross assessmen:ts without homestead exemptions,
and all operati_ng millages except , those for Atlanta's schools are levied on
.net assessments after exemptions).
'
'
-28.
NAMMlll.8Rll111,IILIR A81001Alll
'--,
..'),
.l
.
/
�. ,-.
Table 7.
. rL._
PROPERTY TAX RATES, CITY OF ATLANTA,
FULTON AND DEKALB COUNTIES, 1967
(In terms 0£ millage)
Ins ide Atlanta
Outside Atlanta.
Operations Bonds
Operations Bonds
City of Atlanta:
General government
Schools
'
'--
.r
!
L.
Total
Fulton County:
General · government.
Schools
10.50
22.00
3.50 ]j
32.50
3.50
14.84
1.25
?:J · 1.56
16 . 09 .
Total
,,I
14.84 2/
'20.25
1.56
4.75
--
1.56
35.09
6.31
8.45 2/
2.00
9.75 2/
18.00
2.00
4.00
8.45
2.00
27.50
6.00


'
DeKalb County:
General government.
Schools
Total
y
Includes bond service charges for both general government
and schools. ·
y
Includes .25 mills for state .
Atlanta t axpayers, of course, pay both city and county t axes .
However ,
t he city assessment s are lower than. those of the county's (r eal property,
for example , i s assessed at only 35 percent of market value in the city
compared with a presumed · 40 percent in the counties).
r'
J
Financing by GO. Bonds
The pr ocess of issuing gene r al obligation (GO) bonds which are r etired
by l evies agains t assessed valuation of pr operty is the conventionalr. method
of r ai s i ng capital funds by local government s. In Georgia a vote of the
~-·
pe':>ple is required on: all gener al ob ligation bond i ssues .
Count i es operate.
under a constituti9nal limitation that pl ace s a cei l i ng upon the amount of
GO bonds outstanding at seven percent of the .gr oss property dig'est (calculated
without deductions for homestead and personal prpperty exemptions) .
..
-29. '
NAMMIR.tRIINl,llllR
.,,aa, ·a,11 ~ - -
�There would be s ome advant age to the use of GO bonds by Fulton and
DeKalb counties in meeting the counties' obligations for MARTA's capital cost.
These bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of local governments and
(as already noted) usua lly carry a lower interest rate than bonds issued by
special authorities.
On the other hand , there are some potential disadvantages to the GO
method for r ap id transit financing:
1.
The GO borids issued by local governments for rapid transit
would have to be charged up against the bond capacities of
each government. This simply means that rapid transit would
be competing directly with streets, schools, parks, water,
sewer and other public needs for capital funds.
Although both Fulton and DeKalb counties have excess capacities at the present time, both have large backlogs of cap ital
ne eds . The amounts of capacity available for rapid transit
will not be large enough to cover all of the projected requirements for transit and al l other purposes, as discuss ed l ater.
2.
It might be difficult to schedule the issuance of GO bonds to
meet the full requirements of the MARTA drawdown schedule ,
if the GO route is exclusively used f or transit fi nancing,
rapid transit bond needs would prob ab ly have to be considered
as part of larger public issues covering a variety of other
local government needs . There is an understandable rel uctance
of government leaders to go to the people with propos a ls for
GO bond issues too frequently.
Moreover , it would be difficult if not impossibl e to make a
commitment with MARTA ahead of time that vot ers at a f uture
date would approve subsequent Gb bond issues for rapid transit.
In l ight of the size of rapid transit requirements, it would
not be possible to meet all of these needs through a single
GO bond issue, and this would require subsequent votes by the
people for which no prior commitment could be made in the
MARTA contract.
MARTA does not, of course, have taxing power of its own.
If it were
abl e to levy its own tax on property within the rapid transit district, its
bond issues would have the status of GO bonds .
This is a method utili zed in
San Francisco for the Bay Area Rapid Transit System. Locally, if GO bonds
are issued, they must be issues of the local government.
-30HAMMEA . OA EEN E. BllEA ABBOOIATEQ
.





�Available Bond Capacities.





With its property assessments now pegged at ·
40 percent of market value, Fulton County has a bonding capacity, over and
above outstanding issues, totaling more than $80,000,000 •. The combination
of annual bond retirements and increased ·values in the tax digest will add .
.L
capacity at a rate of about $3,000,000 per year:; which means an additional
$30,000,000 in capacity over the next 10 years (during the time that MARTA
would be needing funds for construction purpos·es).
However, Fulton County
has a range of capital _improvement needs that must be met by additional GO
bond issues in the immediate future. Perhaps ·as much as $60,000,000 or
·r
$70,000,000 could be made available from Fulton's bond capacity for rapid
transit purposes over the next decade.
This would re~resent about one-half
of the county's po~ential obligation to MARTA.
DeKalb County currently has unused bonding capacity of about $30,000,000
' r1
-
'
and is increasing its capacity by about $2,500,000 per year, which would
add another $25,000,000 over the next 10 years. Hqwever, DeKalb al.s o has a
range of pressing capital improvement needs coming up iri the near future.
As much as $25,DOO,OOO might possibly be made available for rapid transit
. purposes, which again would give about half the . amount that MARTA would need
from this county.


'


It is possible t hat the courts, ruling on cases now before them, might
hold that all propert y in Geor gia must go on the assessment rolls at 100
per cent of market value, as specifically stipulated by state law . If this
happens, t he bonding capacities of Fulton and DeKalb counties would be ._mor e
t han doubled and t here would be ample c.apaci ties for fully financing r apid
transit as well as meeting _o t her capit al improvement needs.
~· _;,
As already not _ed , GO bond financing can save money- through a reduction
i n the interest rat e .
However, th e t ax r at e levied fo r the servici_ng · of
and this
· GO b~nds is applie d agains t t he gr oss r at her t han t he. net ~i ges t
·means that the homestead exemption is not applicable. The owner of a low or
modestly priced house ~ight . pay -more tax on his_ gro~s assessment with a lower
millage rate than ·he would if the homestead exemption applied but the mill_a ge





'\
-31 /
NAMMIR , I R l l l l , IILIR AIIOO I A T II
�r
'
..'
rate was higher.
Commercial properties, on the. other hand·, do not_ get the
·benefit of homestead exemption and would pay ·1 ess tax under GO financi.ng
with its lower millage rate than under MARTA financi_ng :
Table 8 sets forth the co{inty payments and recommended mill.age rates ·
if GO bond financing is utilized for rapid transit •. ._Again it is s.u.ggested
that higher tax rates be established in the earlier years than actually
re-
quired, in order to reduce the J eak loads in later ·years.


l


,
I
Table 8, . RECOMMENDED COUNTY PAYMENTS AND MILLAGE RATES,
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ALTERNATIVE
. I
Millage Rates
Fulton
DeKalb
Countl . Countl
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
.1978
1979
19,80
1981
1982
1983
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2,5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2 .3 ·
2.1
2.0
1.9
Dollar Amounts (000)
Fulton
DeKalb
·County .
County
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.3
$3 ,.015
3,162
4,420
4,654 .
6,120
6,448
6,800
$1,230
1,312
1,545
1,653
2,260
2,416
2,452
1.3
7,170
2,585
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
.9
7,568
8,000
S,124
.. B, 234
7,959
8,026
8,076
2,729
2,884
2,929
2,968
2,870
2,894
. 2, 912
(Subsequent reductions a.s tax
digests continue _
to increase)
" .-··
<
(Then level annual payments to the retirement
of bond issues beginning
in 1998)
·
·
Assuming the lower interest rates on GO bonds, the peak mill_a ge requir~ments under GO financing ~w?uld be lower than those required to underwrite
.MARTA bond issues.. This is true both because the overall financing cost is
'
.-
lower and because the gross rather _than the net digest is used .
As already
J
(

-32...,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , HAMM IR. 8 R 11 NI. I I L I R A I IGO I AT I I
0
�.,, r
· 'I
mention~d, the ;reduced millage rate does not necessarily produce a lower tax
for the residential taxpayer inasmuch as the homestead exemption_ is not





Ir-
applicable.
Following are representative figures on the tax impact of. the
maximum millage under GO bond financing, and these figures might be compared
with the earlier figures for servicing MARTA revenue bonds:
DeKalb
. Fulton
. i
Maximum millage
·needed for GO borid
financing
Years of maximum
2.5
1.4
1973-78
1973-74
Annual cost of
maximum millage t~
owner of home with
market value of:
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25,00
$30.00
$ 5.60
$ 8.40
$11. 20
$14.00
$16.80
'
·-'
Recommended:
,:
The Combination Approach
It is recommended that both methods of financing be employed by the local ·
. governments in ·meeting their obligations to MARTA for constructing the rapid
transit system -- the collection of property taxes to support the issuance ·
of MARTA bonds plus the issuance of general obligation bonds by the governments themselves.
Voter approval could be sought for an overall dollar commitment to
MARTA · authorizing the_ governing bodies to use either or both methods to meet
this commitment.
It would seem clear that the act establ:i.shing MARTA
recognized this possibility by stating:
--,
"A local government may elect any method provided in this
section t o fiRa4'1:ce the participation required of it in
whole or in part, and the election of one me_thod shall
not preclude the election of another method with respect
thereto or wi_th respect to ariy additional or supplementary
participation determined to be necessary.II
-33.....)
HAMMlll.iRIINI.IILIR AIIOOIATII
\I
(
I
�\
/
r
Th.ere would be a numb~r of dist_inct advantages to both Fulton and
DeKalb ·counties in employing both methods.
I
'-
-
,--
.
1
.
..,
I •
L_
.~
!

It would make possible the
use of GO bond capacity whenever available with the consequent savi_ng in
interest charges but it would not demand too much of that capacity in competition with other capital improvement needs.
It would give each government
greater flexibility in handling its financing programs.
Items for rapid
transit could be included within the schedule of purposes for larger GO bon_d
·issues when the timing -o f these issues fits into .t he MARTA drawdown schedule •
If by chance a total GO bond issue fails (or voter approval is not received
for the specific mass transit item in the bond schedule submitted to the
public), the county would be in a position to utilize its alternate authority
to levy a millage rate for underwriting bonds issued by MARTA itself.
Both
the governments and MARTA would be in a better position to take advantage
of favorable conditions in the bond market for either type of issue.
Moreover, t his type of flexi ble financing policy might be eas i er to
· explain to the public and to obtain public approval . The pr oposition to be
submitted at a public referendum could stipulate a maximum dollar commitment
for rapid transit that would be provided in the contr acts between the governl , .
ments and MARTA, such funds to be obtai ned either through general obligation
bonds or through a property tax pledge to underwrite MARTA bonds, and a
ceiling could be es tablished on t he amount of principal and_i nterest to be
paid. The people wouid, of course, r etain the right to vote on the GO bonds
but t he i nitial approval of t he propos i tion by public r ef erendum would give
government leaders -t he di scretion as t o whi ch r oute to f ollow in meet i ng t he .
contractual commitments to MARTA,
.......
Another important advant _age would be the _opportuni t y offer ed to obtain
some of t he funds needed wi t hout an increase in t he current tax rate. Upon
approval of the voters, GO_bonds are frequently issued without incurri_ng a .
tax raise simply because ·the retirement of outs tandi_n~ i ssues and the increase
in the property tax digest makes it possible to absorb additional service
charges within existi_ng effective rates.
i ·-
-34HA M M I II. 8 II I Ii N l . I I L Ii II A I 8 0
o·I AT Ii 8
�. I
I~ is possible that a substantial amount of both governments
I

( .
commitments
to MARTA might be met with little or no tax raise under· such favorable circumstances. For example, Fulton County's share of the $25,000,000 tentatively
scheduled as needed by MARTA from the local governments in 1969 would call for
an annual servicing charge on GO bonds during the first five years (when sinkj .. •.
I
ing funds are built up) of about $1,261,000.
This would represent only .6 of
a mill on the gross tax digest, which might well he absorbed within the cm:rent
bond servicing millage in that year.
DeKalb's share of the same issue would
cost $455,000 per year in the first five years, which would represent · _o nly . • 3
.
.
of a mill in 1969 and less thereafter as the tax digest increases.
Again, in 1971, Fulton's share of the $35,000,000 MARTA requirement could
be handled through a GO bond which would represent only. one mill on the 1971





....
digest, and DeKalb's share in the same issue would represent only .5 of a
mill. Depending on other financia l transactions at the time, these charges
might well be covered all or in part by bond tax levies already outstanding.
It is strongly recommended that MARTA propose to the local governments
that both methods of financing be used in meeting the financial commitments
for rapid transit. This recommendation is a .corollary to the earlier one
that the property tax should be the exclusive source of funds for thi s purpose.
.
~
It is not possible, of course, to make any precise estimate of the tax
rate implications of a combination approach.
Certainly the tax impact would
be less than that shown for the MARTA bond route, and it could be even less
t han that for. GO bond fin ancing on the .strai ght- line basis shown i n Table 8.
Prospec·t s for Full System
The f ull 52-mi l e system would co ~t $479,000,000 . It would r each deep
i nto Clayt on and Gwinnett counties and woul d .a lso have a considerabl y br oader · /
coverage of the Atlant a-Fult on- DeKalb area.
As suming that t he 30-mile sys t em is well underway with $100 , 000 , 000 in
Federal funds availabl~, t he ·ques tion i s how much additional Federal _money
would be required to move directly into the 52-mile program without greatly
- 35 H AM M I R,8R 11 N i ,8 I L I R A 8800IA TII
\
�r- .
I
':
increasing the local outlay (in total or on an annual basis).
If in 1972
or 1973 it would become clear that another $50,000,000 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 . . However, if it
·1-
becomes clear that ·a total of $200,000,000 in. Federal funds might be made
available -- an additional $100,000,000 over and above the same amount already
._
made available for the 30-mile system -- the local share would not be much.,
greater for the 52-mile system than for the 30-mile system.
. ~--
overall breakdown:
r
I
~
Amount
(000,000)
.
Local
State
Federal
.I
I
Here is th~ -
Percent
$231
48
200
48.2%
10.0
41.8
$479
100.0%
This is not an improbable assumption if Federal funds ever do break
loose on a larger scale than at present.
Indeed, as mentioned earlier, it is
estimated that at least .$500,000,000 a year will eventually be needed on
a regular basis to meet 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 $50,000,000 or
$60,~00,000 a year . .
The availability of $200,000,000 in Federal funds could support _the 52mile system with an overall outlay for the two central governments only
slightly higher than the 30 - mile requirement.
All four county governments
would now share the totals , with the following distribution of the burden
based on the formu l a presented earlier :
-36HAMMIR,8Rlllll , 8tLIA A8BDGtATl8
.J
..
!
�.- .
/
30-Mile
System
(000,000)
Fulton County
DeKalb County
Clayton County
Gwiimet t County
'--·'
52-Mile
System
(000,000)
$146.3
52.7
$154.1
55.7
13.6
7.6
$199.0
$231. 0
,-.
It is assumed on a preliminary basis that ', 'fhe 52-mile system would call
I
L
for at least seven MARTA bond issues compared with the six that might b_e
scheduled for the 30-mile system. In Table 9, the bond i _ssue and carrying
charge schedules of the two systems are compared • . (The· MARTA rather than
..
('
,..
the GO bond schedule is used as a base.)
Table 9.
I
·- '
COMPARISON OF LOCAL COSTS, 30-MILEAND 52-MILE SYSTEMS IN SEgUENCE
(000)
Bond Issues
30-Mile
52-Mile
,- '
r
I

i.. .
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982 ·
1983
1984
1985
Total
$ 25,000 ·
$ 25,000
35,000
·35,000
50,000
40,000
50,000
30,000
9,000
40,000
..
$199,000
40,000
30,000
. . 21,000
$231,000
Carrying Charges
30-Mile
52-Mile
$ 1,824
$ 1,824
1,824
1,824
4,380
4,380 .
4,380
4,380
8,030
7,296
7,725
6,994
11,376
9,907
13,I3:Z


9,481


13,792
12,397
13,180
11,913
13,180
14,100
12,569
15,150
12,206
15,150
12,099 .
14,665
12,099
14,665
12,099
14,302
12,099
14,046
(Level payments continuing
until bonds are retired)
$362,986
$421,355
- 37MAMMIR,8RIINI.IILIR A IIOO I ATII
�'\
/
The reason for the lower local requirements for the 52-mile system in
the 1973-76 period, of course, i s the projected availabil i ty of
$100,000,000 more in Federal money.
This fact, plus the sharing of the local
cost by four i ~stead of two gover nments ~ woul d produ ce actually a l ower demand upon Fulton and DeKalb for the lar ger syst em in a number of years . The
necessary millage rates are shown in Table 10 through 1983 .
Table· 10 .
COMPARATIVE . MILLAGE RATES NEEDED TO
SUPPORT 30-MILE AND 52-MI LE SYSTEMS
· System--:
1/
30-Mile
Fulton
DeKalb
I
· Fult on
21
52-Mile System=='
DeKalb
Clayt on
Gwi nnett
. ..___,
(
I......
r
,_
I
1969
1970
~971
1972
1.5
· 1.5
2.0
2 .0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1. 1
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1. 1
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
2 .5
2.5
3.0
3.0
3 .0
3. 0
3 .0
2. 5
2.5
2.3
2.2
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
1. 6
LS
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
2. 0
2.0.
2. 5
2.5
3.0
3 .0
2. 8
2.8
2.6
,2 . 4
1. 1
1. 1
1. 4
1. 4
1.6
1.6
1. 4
1.4
1.3
1. 2
1.1
1983
f
I --
~-·
2. 3
1. 5
1.5
1. 5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1. 5
1.5
. 1·. .5
1. 5
1. 5
1.5
1. 5
1.5
1.5
1. 5
1.5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
y
From Table 6. Assumes $100 , 000 , 000 in . Federal and $33, 000 , 000
i n state funds.
2/
Assumes $2 00 , 000, 000 in Federal and $48 , 000 , 000 in state f unds .
..
All of the indicated millage rates would drop after 1983 -- for all
governments. Although estimates are not available because tax digests have
not been forecast b_eyond that year, the rates would drop because bond
service charges. would remain constant and property digests would continue
to rise.
,7
_,
-38MAMMIR , IRIINI.IILIR AIIOQIATII
...•
�,.......
I
I
L
!.i !.
I
I
Until the decision is made to go to the 52-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 after they are brought into the
,.......
· picutre (assumed to be in 1973), their participation is c~lculated at a low:er
rate up to 1983 than their ultimate share of ~he total cost would indicate.
This simply means a deferral of the main impact on these outlying governments
L__
until the system is actually in operation and their tax base more able to
handle · the burden.
. I.-
Even so, the peak impact would ' never exceed the
1.·s
mills
shown in Table 9 .
\
Full Availability of Federal Funds
/
L
The assumptions in this report about the potential availability of Federal
funds for Metr9politan Atlanta's rapid transit system are admittedly conservative.
The basic idea is that when local voters are asked to approve or dis-
approve the financial plan (presumably in 1968), it will not be realistically
possible to anticipate any more Federal money than the $100,000,000 that is
r
assumed.
The voters would be asked to make a "do-it-yourself" commitment
based on only a one-third share for the Federal government.
· However, it is possible
once the system gets under construction follow-
ing this local commitment -- that as much as two-thirds of the total cost
might eventually be carried· by Federal funds .
Rapid transit undoubtedly will
continue to have a high domestic priority and Atlanta would be in the forefront
of eligible metropolitan areas.
A resurgence of domestic programs following
a major improvement in the . international situation could spring loose the
necessary .funds.
Under this assumption, MARTA could receive as much . as $3 00,000,000 in
Federal money.
Applied to the 52-mile system, this could mean a reduction
. of $1 00,000,000 in cost to the four counties
from $231,000,000 to
$131,000,000. Such a reduction would result in a sharp cut in the millage
rates on property need~d to retire local bonds.
-39HAMMIR,&R&INI.IILIR A&IQGIAT&I
..
�r . .,
,. ,,·.
Assuming that the_ local fin~ncing requirements would not · be altered
'
in the first four years of the construction program (1969-72) but that
these large-scale Federal funds might become available after that period,
the peak millage rate in any year thereafter ts shown below for each of
the governments.
L
r1
· Using
MARTA
Bonds
Using:
GO
Bonds
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
I
L
Fulton
DeKalb
Clayton .
Gwinnett
.7
1.0
1.0
A Note on Atlanta
The option does exist, of course, of recasting the local financing
program for rapid transit to include the City of Atlanta as a participating
·'
L-
government along with the four counties~
The only ~legal stipulation is
that the county governments cannot levy a tax for rapid transit purposes
on any subject of taxation .within the city if the ci~y also has a contrict





with MARTA and is itself "using its public funds or levying a tax" for

'--
that purpose.
Under the allocation formula described earlier, the shares of the
local capital costs of -MARTA to be assumed by the local governments would
be as follows:
J
City of Atlanta
Fulton County 1/
DeKalb County 1/
Clayton County.Gwinnett County
Total
y
I
56.7%
12.0
22.1
5.9
3.3
100.0%
Excluding the portion lying
within the city limits of
Atlanta.
-40H AMMI R.0A i1Nl.8Il1 R a aao o1 'ATl8
'
(
�)
,-
'
As noted earlier, it was considered more reasonable in this report to
develop the financing formula on a county basis without the city's independent participation.
Inasmuch as the rapid transit system would serve the
entire metropolitan area and would extend far beyond the boundaries of
municipalities therein, it would appear logical to utilize the governmental
bodies covering the widest geographical areas -- namely, the counties.
residents and _t axpayers are also county residents and taxpayers;
r-
j
I
'--
City
about 80
percent of Ful to·n County's property digest in 1966, for example, lay within
Atlanta's city limits.
The h~avy concentrations of commercial and industrial
properties within the city (such as the massive buiiding complex in Downtown
.
'......,
Atlanta) are reached as surely by county taxes as by city taxes and carry overwhelmingly the_ greatest burden of property taxation regardless of the channels
,- - ,
I
through which the taxes are collected.
(In 1965 in the City of Atlanta
industrial and commercial property accounted· for the great majority of the
taxable digest--.' about _80 percent:--with single family homes accounting for
~nly 20 percent.)
There are other considerations.
The city of Atlanta as a government
faces a more serious financial problem than that faced by the counties.
It
has been forced to seek an ever-widening range of new revenue sources to
supplement the property tax (which now accounts for only one-fourth of its
revenue). · "It has immediate pressures on its operating budgets as well as a
tremendous backlog of capital improvements calling for its entire GO bonding
capacity as well as expanded r~venue financing.
Its relatively small
depe.ndence on the property tax is no proper justification for using city
rather than county channels for a rapid transit levy on that source -- the
fact that the same city property is already the main support of the county
(and school) financial systems is one of the main reasons why the city has
turned to other sources of reve~mes.
Clearly the county governments also face heavy financial pressures
which is simply sayi_ng that all local governments, in Metropolitan Atlanta
as elsewhere, are in need of additional funds.
The facts .remain, however,
that.the counties cover the broadest areas, embrac~ city as well as

-:-410
HAM MIA ,8A IIN&.8IL&A Ai88DIATl8 '
0
00
�..
r .
l
r
r
suburban taxpayers, enjoy faster rates of overall growth, and have some
measure of excess general obligati on bonding capacity essential to a
flexible system of rapid transit financing.
I
Still, it would be f.easible to approach MARTA' s financing on the basis
of city as well
as county participation.
\ .
The taxpayers in outlying portions.
of Fulton County would undoubtedly get a break under this system (although
-
I
i.......
there would probably be little differences in DeKalb County).
To be
equitable, there would probably have to be a number of different tax rates
in Fulton County outside Atlanta
taxpayers in the Tri-Cities area of
South Fulton, for example, would be directly served by transit and should be
expected to pay as much as taxpayers across the line in Atlanta.
r
The same
might be true of near-:-in residents of North Fulton with ea·sy access to
transit stations.
The ,situation -could get complicated, but it would not be
impossible to work out.
The objective, of course, 11.u st bet~ produce a fair and equitable
financing_method· that would provide the greatest good for the great.est
number.
The basic point is that rapid transit is an essential metropolitan
funct ion and i ts support must come .from the metropolitan community as a
I
L
whole .
_j
-42H A M M I R • 0 R_I E N I , 8 I l I R A 11 8 O Q I A T & 8 ·
�WILLIAM A . SUTHERLAND
MAC ASB ILL
.JOSEPH B . BRENNAN
LAURENS WILLIAMS
HERBERT R . ELS AS
R A NDOLPH W. THROWER
EDWARD .J . SCHMUCK
JAMES H . WILSON. JR .
MAC ASBILL , JR .
KENNETH H. LILES
WILLIAM R . PATTERSON
WILLIS B . SNELL :t
J A MES V . HEFFERNAN :t
0 . ROBERT CUMMING, JR .
JAMES P . GROTON
MICHAEL .J. EGAN , JR .
GEORGE L. COHEN
JEROME B . LIBIN :t
ROBERT M. ROY ALTY
N . JEROLD COHEN
WILLIAM M . HAMES
LOR A N A . JOHNSON
CL.AV C . LONG
THOMAS A. LAMAR . JR.
JAMES R . PAULK , JR.
JERRY D . W ILLIAMS 'f
B A RRETT K . HAWKS
WALTER H . WINGF I ELD
ROBERT L. BROWN
ROBERT E . .JENSEN *
<:;. RONALD ELLINGTON
LAW
O FF' I CE S
O
F'
SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN





f"ARRAGUT BLOG.,9 00- 17 !?' ST. , N .W•
WASHINGTON, O . C . 20006
( 202 ) 296 -4 800
FIRST NATIONAL BANK BLDG .
ATLAN T A,GEORG1A 30303
( 404) 522-1600
MADISON RICHARDSON
WILLIAM T . PLU~MB,JR .*
SPECIAL COUNSEL
ATLANTA


MEMBER 0 . C . BAR, NOT GA. BAR


December 26, 1967
Mr. G. Everett Millican
City H ll
Atiant, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Millican:
I have rece1¥ d a copy ot resolution intr~uced by you and
approved by the Board of Aldermen regarding the Metropolit n Atiant
Rap-id Transit Authority. The re olution states that the passoge ot
Senate Bill lll "may be at variru,.ce with the d sire and i bee ot the
City o't Atlanta as expressed by the Board of Aldermen. 0 'lhe resolution
asks th t all bills regarding MARTA be hmish d to the Mrqor and Board
ot Aldermen ror an expression ot opinion.
Since th
re olution indicat
only that th Alderm n '1mq be 11
opposed to Senat Bill 111; I voUld appreciate it it you would let e
know as aoon as poseibl, pre:terably betore th l gialature b gins,
wheth r or not the Board ot Aldermen is in opposition to the passage ot
&mat _ Bill 111 and; it ao, your reasona tor such oppo 1t1on.
With beat wishe -ror the HolidO¥ Sea on,
SJ.Dcerely your,
(Sgd.)
MJE/HSM
CC=
Me.yor Iv
Allen V--Mr. JU.chard. Rieb
Stell Huie, la<;uire
Michael J. Egan, Jr.
�HUIE AND HARLAND
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
FULTON FEDERAL BUILDING
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
W . STELL HUIE
TELEPHONE
522-1641
JAMES R . HARLAND, JR.
HARRY L . CASHIN , JR .
TOM WATSON BROWN
RUFUS A . CHAMBERS
TERRILL A . PARKER
JAMES H . MORGAN , JR .
December 20, 1967
Chairman, Clayton County Commission
Chairman, DeKalb County Commission
Chairman, Fulton County Commission
Chairman, Gwinnett County Commission
Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
Gentlemen:
Mr. Aldredge, Chairman of the Fulton County Commission,
has indicated a desire, in which I believe all of you concur, that representatives of the governments participating in MARTA meet to discuss the proposed legislative changes. Of course, we with MARTA heartily welcome
such a meeting as the communications problem seems to become more increasingly difficult.
Mr. Aldredge has indicated that he will be in touch with you
shortly after Christmas with regard to such a meeting. We look forward to
seeing you or your representatives at that time.
Wishing for each of you, your families, and your associates,
a Merry Christmas, we are
Very truly yours,
)
WSH/jlt
�HUIE AN D
HARLAN D
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
FULTON FEDERAL BUILDING
ATLANTA. G EO RGIA
3 0 3 0 3
TELEPHONE
W . STELL HUIE
522-1641
JAMES R . HARLAND, JR.
HARRY L. CASHIN, JR.
TOM WATSON BROWN
RUFUS A . CHAMBERS
TERRILL A . PARKER
D ecember 1 9 , 1967
JAMEsH .MO RGAN , JR .
The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr.
Mayor of Atlanta
City Hall
Atlanta, G eorgia 30303
D ear Mayor Allen:
Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed Bill to
implement the legislative program of MARTA. As we have previously
indicated, we would like the concurrence of all of the particip ating
governments in these suggested changes, and will, of course, not seek
to have passed any of those on which the governments cannot agree.
This is also true with respect to Senate Bill 1 1 1 which is presently in the
House Local Affairs Committee.
We have previously furnished copies of the proposed legis lation to Messrs. Earl Landers and Charles Dav is and have discussed the
matter with Messrs. Charles Lokey and Jack Dougherty of the City Attorney's
office. By a copy of this letter to e ach of the City Attorne ys we are furnishing them a c opy of same.
W e are also furnishing a copy to Mr. Hugh Pierce and Mr.
H en ry Bowden.
Very truly yours,
,I
)(<)-39; .:~/Jt/. . .~,
HUIE AND,:tARLA~D
/)
W SH/ jlt
Encl.
cc : Mr .
Mr.
Mr .
Mr .
Hugh Pierce
Henry Bow den
Charles Lokey
Jack Dougherty
Stell Huie
/
.....
J
�HUIE AND HARLAND
The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr.
Page 2
December 19, 1967
P.S.
For your information, also enclosed please find a copy of S.B. 111
as passed by the Senate with an additional sugg e stion added.
�MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-SECOND MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
DECEMBER 5, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on December 5, 1967, at
3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta.
Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta)
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
K. A. McMillan (Gwinnett County)
L. D. Milton (City of Atl a nta)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Edgar Blalock (Clayton County)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
H. L. Stuart, General Manager
King Elliott, Public Information Director
Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer
H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager
Glenn E . Bennett, Secretary
Consultants
W. O. Salter, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas,
San Francisco
J . A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor-Bechtel, Atlanta
R. W. Gustafson, Supervising Engineer, Parsons, Brincker hoff-Tudor-Bechtel, Atlanta
Jacques Labourer , Eric Hill Associates
Tom Watson Brown, Huie and Harland
\
�Others
Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.
P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council
Mrs. Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Atlanta
Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Minutes
Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMi llon, the
minutes of the November meeting were unanimously approveq .
Financial Report
Mr. Stuart presented the November 30th budget report and said
most items were as projected. There were no questions and the
report was accepted.
Report of General Manager
Mr. Stuart said the Georgia Society o f Professional Engineer s
had pass e d a resolution e ndorsing the tran s it project, and
expressing a desir e to e stablish a spe aker s bureau.
Mr . Stuart reported on a recent trip to Louisville, to contact
officials of the L. & N. Railroad and present deta ils of the
transit plan. He said the new lease for the A. & W. P. Railroad
contained spec if ic refer e nce as to how rapid transit should be
rou ted thr ough t h e a r ea t o th e wes t o f Un i on Sta t ion.
The General Manager said meetings had been held with railroads,
planning groups, municipal officials, and with Fu l ton, DeKalb,
and Gwinnett County Commissioners. The proposed legislative
p r o gr am had been discuss e d wi th member s o f the Hou se a nd Sena t e
f r om the fou r count ies . He planne d a tr ip t o Washington to
d iscu ss the 1968 l egislativ e pro gram wi th Representatives
Blackbur n and Thomps o n.
Mr. Stuart me nt i oned a vis it on Nov e mber 28, f rom Mr. Carl Hi ll ,
a n assis tan t to Mr. Char l es Ha ar of HUD in Wash ington . Mr. Hill
h ad been s hown the plans and reviewed progress in the design
field.
-
2 -
�Mr. Stuart said he and Mr. Bennett would appear before the
Fulton County Grand Jury on December 12.
(Subsequently, Mr.
Haverty was substituted for Mr. Stuart.)
Mr. Rich had testified before the Rainey Sub-Committee of the
Georgia House of Representatives on November 30, and requested
Mr. Stuart to send a copy of his testimony to the Board members.
Reports by Consultants
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel
Mr. John Coil reported that the 701 report had been distributed, and the popular summary version would be r .eady
for distribution within one week. He said the engineers
were continuing to update the plan and resolve questions
with governments. He had been encouraged by responses
from the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and by the L. & N.
Railroad.
Corridor Impact Study
Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr . , Planning Director for ARMPC,
commented on the corridor impact study. He said the
study was designed to examine potentials. Examples had
been looked at, such as outlying stations, but most of
the work had been done on developed sections of the lines.
Mr. Wingfield said many of the ideas would depend upon
the initiative of the elected officials to do early work
so MARTA could take advantage of opportunities . He
stressed that this study was not totally a "MARTA study,"
but pointed up the opportunities for local governments to
act .
Contract between Georgia Department of Industry & Trade and
MARTA
Copies of a proposed contract between MARTA and the Georgia
Department of Industry & Trade were distributed for considera tion. The State of Georgia had appropriated $500 , 000 per y ea r
to MARTA, and the Department of Industry & Trade had been de s ig nated the agency who would disburse these funds . Th e cont r act
p r o v ided for appropriations to be paid quarterly in adv ance , an d
provided that such funds could be used fo r direct or indire c t
costs , including debt service , administr ation , operating , plan n i ng, desig n i n g , finishing , r ight -of-wa y acq uisition , and r olli ng
s t oc k.
-
3 -
�The contract provided further that the State could appropriate
real estate, in lieu of cash. It also gave the State a
reversionary interest in the property of the Authority, in the
same proportion as the State 1 s appropriation to MARTA.
The contract required an annual audit of the books of MARTA
to be sent to the State.
The contract was for 50 years, and would cover subsequent
appropriations as - they were made.
After discussion of the contract prov isions, the following
resolution was presented:
BE IT RESOLVED that Henry L. Stuar t, General
Manager, and Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary, be and
hereby are authorized and directed to execute on
behalf of this Authority a contract substantially
in the form as presented to this Board, subject to
approval o f counsel, with the State of Georgia, by
and through its Depa rtment of Industry & Trade, for
the t ra nsfe r and p a yment to thi s Author i t y o f funds
appropriated and to be appropriated by the Legislature and Governor of Georgia for the purposes of
this Authority; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED t ha t said General Manager a nd Secr e tar y b e and h e r e by a r e a uthoriz ed a nd
d i rected t o execu te any and a l l f u rth er d o cuments
as may be reasonably necessary to the transfer and
payment of said funds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Citi zens Tru s t
Company b e a nd h ere by is d esign a t e d as t he depo s i t ory f o r said f u nds a nd t h a t a l l withdrawals t h eref rom s h a ll b e only o ver t h e signatu res o f e i ther
the Chairman or Vice Chairman o f the Board o f this
Authority a n d either the Gen e ral Manage r o r t h e
Chief Engineer o f th i s Authority.
Up o n mo tio n by Mr. Mc Millan , seco nded by Dr. Atwood, the above
resolution was u n animously ado pted.
Appointmen t o f Audi t o r for 1 96 8
Mr. Stuart had received a proposal from Arthur Andersen Company
to continue auditing services as n eeded for the year ending
December 31, 1968, for a fee of $500. Mr. Bishop made a motion,
-
4 -
�seconded by Mr. McMillon, that this contract be renewed.
motion was unanimously passed.
The
1968 Budget
The 1968 budget estimates were presented by the General Manager,
who recommended the proposed budget for adoption. Mr. Stuart
said the budget had been reviewed by the Board earlier. The
Chairman asked for a breakdown and explanation of an item of
$750,000 for preliminary design of the transit center. The
General Manager agreed to provide an explanation of this item,
and Mr. Bishop made a motion that the budget for 1968 be
adopted, subject to a satisfactory review of the item questioned
by the Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Adamson and
unanimously passed.
A copy of the 1968 budget as adopted is attached hereto and
made a part of these minutes.
Authorization under Retainer Agreement
The General Manager requested authorization for $500 to be
expended under the retainer agreement, to pay for copies of
the 100-scale plan and profile drawings which are being requested by the State Highway Department, the railroads, and
others. Mr. Stuart showed samples of these prints, and said
the engineers had been making them available at cost. Mr.
Bishop made a motion, seconded by Mr. McMillan, that a sum of
$500 be allocated for these prints, from the retainer agreement.
The motion was unanimously passed.
January Meeting
It was agreed that the General Manager would poll the members
as to a date in January for the regular meeting, which would
not conflict with holiday plans. It was tentatively agreed
that January 5 would be agreeable. Notice would be sent after
the staff had checked with all members.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M.
-
5 -
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
1968 OPERATING BUDGET
JANUARY 1 1 1968 - DECEMBER 31, 1968
Unappropriated Surplusa
(1)

On hand, 12/31/67!a)
$
60,371.00
Receivables a
( 2)
(Omitted)
(3)
State of Georgia(c)
12s,ooo.oo
$185,371.00
(4)
(S)·
l .
Appropriated Surplus (d)
"45,324.00
$230,695.00
(6)
INCOME
(7)
City of Atlanta(e)
(8)
Clayton County
23,190.00
(9)
DeKalp .County
82,770.00
(10)
Fulton County_
91,800.00
(11)
Gwinnett Count y
10,210.00
$ 84,030.00
$300,000.00
(12)
(13)
(14)
s,000.00 .
Intere st on Treasury Bills
(f)
State of Georgia
2so,ooo.oo
U. S . DEPT. OF HUD
_,.
(15)
70 2 Loan
(16)
Section 9
(17)
Section 9 - 2 ) 1968 work program
' (18)
) Compl etion of
1 ~ 1967 work program.
$ . 35, 000.00
173,333.·oo
624, 333. 00
1, 000, od
Interest Income (g)
$839,666.00
(19)
$1,394,666.00
(20)
TOTAL INCCME
(21)
GRAND TOTAL INCQ.iE" SURPLUS
..
$1,625,361.00
�- - -:· -
J
(22)
,j
--
,
$1t62s,.361.oo
INCOME & SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
,
..
.
·- -
STAFF & AI:MINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
(23)
Salaries
93;600,.00
(24)
Expenses
14,500.00

Benefits,
Social Security ·
(26)
Guaranty Fund
(27)
Health & Accident
( 28)
Reti rement
(29)'
Workmen's Cornpensatio·n -
$1,904.,00
533 . 00
2,940.00
11,000.00
182.00
22,559.00 '
(3 0)



.




(31)
BOARD MEETINGS
(32)
TOTAL STAFF EXPENSES
3,600.00
·,
$ 134,259.00
Administrative E25I2enses
'
(33)
Rent
(34)
Communications & postage
4,000.00
(35)
Furniture & equipment
4,000.00
(36)
Supplies
4,000.00
(311)
Pri nti ng
2,000.00
(38)
$ 4,200.00
". Auditor
500.00
(39)
Accountant
(4.0)
Pub lic I nformation a· '(h)
1,soo.00
(41)
Local
$50 , 667.00
(4 2)
Federal -
$35 , 033.00
. (43 )
-
86,000.00
Insurance
327 . 00
(44)
TOTAL ArMl:NIS'l'RATIVE EXPENSES
$ 1 0 6, 5 27.00
(45}
TOTAL STAi'F &c AIMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
$ 24 0,786.00
.
~
I
1
~~ ~-~-·---· -·-"-=-'---'-'_J
Staff E?5Penses
(25)
...
�·. (4 6 )
$1, 625 , 361. 0 0
t lNCOME SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
(47)
EXPENSES BROUGHT
(48)
COUNSEL
FORWAiRD
24 0 , 786 . 0 0
so,000•.00
(i)
CONSULTANTS 8
On
.

Retainer!!
(49)
Research
(50)
Advisory Committee (k)
(51)
Hammer, Greene , Siler Associa tes' (1) -
1, 200. 00
(52)
Eric Hill Associate$ (rn}
1,200 . 00
&
Tecbnical Services (j)
-
$
s, 000 . 00
1 2 t OOO . OO
31,400.00
(53) .'
Under ContractK
1967 Work Proqran,ll,_
3s,ooo. oo
(54)
702 Loan (n)
(55)
Section 9 - l Grant (o)
(56)
· (57)
(58)
Local - $
HUD
230; 000 .. 00
76 ~667a 00
- $ 153 r 333&00
Section 9 - l Gr ant (p)
(59)
Local - $1 ,667. 00
(60)
HUD
s,000.00
3,333.00
270,000.00
(61)
,
1968 Work Programa
.,
(62)
Section 9 - l Amendment (q)
(63)
Local - $ 10,000o OO
(64)
HUD
, (65)
30,000.00
20q000.00
Section 9 - 2 Applic~tion (r)
·(66)
Local - $ 297,000eOO
(67)
HUD
891,000 .. 00
..
594,000. 00
92ltOOO.OO
(68)
(69)
Retainer Agreerf,U!nt ( s )
(70)
TOTAL EXPENSES
(71)
UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
39,000.00
$1,552,186.00
- ....
.$
-
- -- -
73,175.00


.::.. - ~ .



. A->
�EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE BUDGET
D
JANUARY 1 1 1968 - DECEMBER 31, 1 969
(a)
...
.______
.
-
,-
(b)
--
.. - · .. .""'"".:l -:-r
(c)
This is a fcre:::ast figure derived from expected r eceipts and
expenses between August 31, 1967 and Decembe r 31 , 1967 •
~

OMITTED
-
•·.
The 1967 Ge ner a l As semb l y appropriate d $500 , 000 for the
fiscal biennium J uly 1, 1967 throu gh June 30 1 1969. We are
develo~ing a contra ct with the Dep a r tment of Industry and
Trade (in which budget our item appears ) o We are seeking to
arr ange to receive these fund s quarte rly in advance, which is,
the same schedul e on whic h we receive funds from the local
governments and the United States Departme nt of Housing and
Urban Dev e l op ment&
(d)
This is a ~
as t figure based on a n ticipated expenditures and
scheduled appropriations between August 31, 1 967 and December
31, 1 967.
(e)
I ncome fr om local governments shown is idlentlical
requested and received in 1966 and 196 7e
(£)
This i s o ne year 1 s appro~ riati o n made by the 1 967 Georgia
General Assemblyo Note (c) abovee
(g)
I nterest o n federal funds accrues t o the benef i t o f the
Uni ted States Government and is deducted from the grand t otal .
to that
(h)
Thi s is an expanded program (from 33,000 i n 1 966). The
sta ff will double the circulation of " Rapid Transit Progress"
($18,000 for one year above pre sent costs), and we wi ll p r ovide one mailing of factual information t o every r egistered
voter in the four-county area ($35 1 000 )
s ome time pri o r t o
,··-,- - ......; election time.. Publio Information Program Expansion -: $53, 000
. ·- .!1 .
(1) Services of bond counsel, which will be added, a ntici pati ng
a successful referendum in November 1968, which wi l l caus e .
the issuance of bonds. Also, requirements for legal advice
will increase as our work becomes more specific.
(j)
This item covers assistance as required in preparing and
filing requests for federal grantso
(k)
This five- man committee, chaired by Professor Howard Menhinick;
provides us with design advice and assures our communications
with the local groups of design professionalso
(l)'
We will need a little work from economic consultants as it
becomes necessary to update our financial plano
�~m)
The Corri dor Impact Study will go out of date if it doea
nob receive some attention from time to time ..
(n)
This i s the bala nce to be expended on pr eliminary engineering
on the North-South Line.
(o)
1-·
I
i
This is the bala n c e to b~ expended on the prel i minary engineering·
on the Eas t-West Line and certain planning for extensions.

! It also includes support by our consulting engineer s ·.during the
period in which we seek public acceptance ..
(p)
This will be applied to t ransporta tion planning t o itemize
future policy n eeds as to relations between MARTA and other
transportation system.
(q)
This is for an evaluation and review of t1ARTA's plans wi th
reference to total transportation planning in the Atlanta
region.
·(r)
The applicati on for our 1968 work program will cover the following
projects s
1. Prelimi nary Ownership Study ----- ---------------------$ 50,000
This is t he beginning of ti tle search operations on the
30-mile system e Getting s t art ed on this in 1968 will
· save one y e a r in the right of way acquisition programo
2o
Accounting & Financial Control System Design Study -- $ 25,000
This work element sets up the system of accounts and financial contr ols for the Authority. Given a successful bond
referendum, we will be i nto right of way acqui sition
i mmediately and some construction within nine months .
Final ·d esign con~::racts will be r eady soon after the
referenda and our budget will tota l mil lions . The
Comptroller 1 s office must go into operation .:with zero
time lag .
3.
Plans for the Prese rvation of Historical Sites-------$
3,000
Our routes and station sites will be examined by a
committee of the Atlanta Historical Society. It will
recommend to us course of action to preserve our heritage
where rapid transit operations affe ct sites or structures
of historical significance.
.4.
Relocation Program Design----------------------------$ 13,000
This work will d efine the job ahead, in detail, so that
we can make application under our future capital programs
to achieve successful relocation as required by our
const~ction progresse
Sa. Preliminary Architectural and Engineering Design of
J
of Transit Center-------------------------------------$300,000
The purpose of this work is to further the technical
development of Transit Center and the adjacent line
structures. Items to be considered under this work
are s followss
1
L----·
�------ .
--'--- ~ -~ -~--

1··
6.
, ,I .
/· .
Sb.
(a)
Circulation and access of pedestrians, bu~es
and automobiles to Transit Center.
(b)
Metho m of c onstruction.
(c)
Types of s t ructures. ·
(d)
Utility and sub-surface investigations.
(e)
Establi sh electrical and mechanical spatial
requirements.,
(f)
Develop architectural preliminary plans.
(g)
Prepare preliminary specifications •
. (h)
Establish preliminary right-of-way plans.
(i)
Construct architectural study model.
Development of Transit Center-----------------------$450,000
The purpose of t his work is to make surveys, borings
and devel op pla ns to bring the · design of Transit
Center and its a pproaches to a point just short· of
architectural fi nishes and contract documents. By
doing t his in 1968, we can start first construction
on thi s 22½ million complex in the summer of 1969.
This work is s ubject to final adoption of routes,
station locations, and acceptance of uhe work items
in Sa aboveo This work will includes
,.

~-
,
(a)
Make surveys.
(b)
Take soil borings.
(c )
Establish hor izontal and vertical controls.
(d )
Prepare utili ty plans.
(e )
Prepare base maps.
(£)
Develop design c riter ia.
'
6.
Architectural studi es------------ -------------------$ 50,000
This work includes the much di scus sed consulting
Architect. There are many de sign e l e ments t hat should
be constant or confined within prescribed limite
system-wideo Consistency, good looks and economy
demand these specifications set up by the Consulttng
Architect.,
· (s)
This agreements provides for engineering support not otq,r:¥iae
covered in existing contracts.
'
I·f

f.
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET
NOVEMBER
REPORT
30 s 1967
BUDGET
1967
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1 , 196 7
TO
NOVEMBER 30, 196 7
$128 ,2 81.64
§_128,281.64
$ 84 , 030.00
23 , 190.00
82 ,77 0.00
91 , 800.00
18,210 . 00
$300,000.00
$ 5 , 520.00
$ 84 , 030 . 00
. 17,3 92. 50
82,770 . 00
91 , 800 . 00
13 ,657.50
$289,650.00
$ 4 , 262.34
$ 95 , 000 . 00
276 , 000 . 00
$371 , 000.00
$ 90 , 000.00
212,069.54
597.46
$302, 667 . 00
TOTAL INCOME
$676 , 520 . 00
$596 , 579 . 34
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
.§.804 , 801. 64
_$,72 4 , 860 . 98
$ 68 , 950 . 00
10 , 500 . 00
$ 59 , 083 .67
9 , 853.63
1 , 109.00
533. 00
1 , 680 . 00
10 , 000 . 00
99 . 00
_L92 , 871. 00
$ 3,150 . 00
1,188 . 09
533.34
1 , 11 0 .5 1
300.54
181. 72
LJ.2, 251.5 0
$ 2 , 950.00
Unappropriated Surplus
INCOME
Appropr ia tions :
City of Atlant a
Clay t on County
DeKalb Count y
Fulton County
Gwinnett Count y
Sub - Totals
I nteres t Income
Federal Funds :
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
Inter es t - Federal Funds
Sub -To tals
0
EXPENSES
Staff Cost :
Salaries
Ex pense
Bene fits :
Social Security
Guarant y Fund
Health and Accid ent I nsurance
Retir ement
Workmen ' s Compensation
Sub -To tals
Board Mee tings
Administra tive and Offi c e Overhead :
Rent
Communicati ons and Postage
Furn iture and Eq ui pmen t
Su pplies
Pr i n ting
Aud i tor
Accountant
Pub l i c Informa tion
Ad v is ory
I n sur ance :
Pub l ic Li abi l i ty
De posi tory a nd Forgery
Fide l ity Bond
Sub-Tot a l s
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3 , 000 . 00
2,000.00
2 , 000.00
3 , 600 . 00
1 :, 000 . 00
250 . 00
1, 000 . 00
33 , 000 . 00
5 , 000.00
$
2 , 750.00
1 , 890 . 69
577 .16
2, 646 . 55
62 3 . 56
250 . 00
750 . 00
28 , 345. 85
4, 213. 71
72. 00
56 . 00
19 9 . 00
$ 51 z177. 00
107. 00
56 . 2 ·;
198.60
$ 422409 . 39
$147,198. 00
~117 , 6 10 . 89
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET
NOVEMBER
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
REPORT
30, 1967
BUDGET
1967
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1 , 196 7
TO
NOVEMBER 30, 1967
$804 , 801.64
$724 , 860.98
$147 , 198.00
$ 20 , 000.00
,$,117 , 610 . 89
.,$_ 11,758 . 61
$ 31 , 250 . 00
$ 29,939 . 00
32,667 . 00
16 , 333 . 00
16 , 000 ,. 00
16,333.00
EXPENSES
Brought Forward
Counsel
Consultant s:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study:
Section 9
Matching
Hammer , Greene & Siler
Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel :
702 Loan
Se ction 9 :
Federal
Mat ching
Re tainer Agreement
Research and Te chnical Se rvic es
Sub - Totals
95 , 000.00
90 , 000 . 00
240 , 000 . 00
120 , 000 . 00
60 , 000 . 00
2 , 000 . 00
.,$_6 02,250 . 00
120 , 000 . 00
130 ,364 . 00
19 , 09 2.99
2, 475 . 84
.,$_43 0 ,613 .92
TOTAL EXPENSES
_V 69 , 448 . oo
$559 , 98 3 . 42
SURPLUS
$ 35 . 353,64
$164,877 ,56
3 ,333 . 00
1,667 .00
0
0
1 , 66 7 .00
4 ,742.09
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORI TY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOVEMBER 30 ,
1967
ASSETS
Ca sh in Banks :
C & S National Bank
First National Bank
Trust Compa ny of Georgia
Fulton Nati.anal Bank ·- Sec tion 9
$ 37,873.95
2 , 972 . 78
1 , 000 . 00
115 , 000 . 00
Invest ments :
U" S " Treas ury Bills
9 -, 497 . 06
25. 00
Petty Cash
TOTAL ASSETS
$253 , 368 . 79
LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
$
Payroll Taxes Withh eld and Ac cr ued
Reser ves :
ARMPC - Ur ban Des ign St udy
A lanta Transir St udy
Parsons Brinckerho ff - Tuior -Be c hte l :
Se ction 9 Ma tc hi ng
Re tainer Agr eemen t:
Tr a _s portati n Study
Publi c Informac i on
S rveying
TOTAL LIABlU.TIES
SUR PLUS
433.65
1 , 283 . 32
8 ,333 . 00
1 , 667 . 00
$1 , 500 . 00
1,92 5 . 48
2 ,984 . 78
6 , 410 .26
8~491. 23
$] 647877, 56
�MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-SECOND MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
DECEMBER 5, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on December 5, 1967, at
3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta.
Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta)
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County)
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Edgar Blalock (Clayton County)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
H. L. Stuart, General Manager
King Elliott, Public Information Director
Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer
H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager
Glenn E . Bennett, Secretary
Consultants
W. O. Salter, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas ,
San Francisco
J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, BrinckerhoffTudor-Bechtel, Atlanta
R. W. Gustafson, Supervising Engineer, Parsons, Brinckerhoff - Tudor-Bechtel, Atlanta
Jacques Labourer, Eric Hill Associates
Tom Watson Brown, Huie and Harland
�Others
Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.
P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council
Mrs. Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Atlanta
Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Minutes
Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. McMillon, the
minutes of the November meeting were unanimously approved :
Financial Report
Mr. Stuart presented the November 30th budget report and said
most items were as projected. There were no questions and the
report was accepted.
Report of General Manager
Mr. Stuart said the Georgia Society of Professional Engineers
had passed a resolution endorsing the transit projec t, and
expressing a desire to establish a speakers bureau.
Mr. Stuart reported on a recent trip to Louisville, to contact
officials of the L. & N. Railroad and present details of the
transit plan. He said the new lease for the A. & W.P. Railroad
contained specific reference as to how rapid transit should be
routed through the area to the west of Union Station.
The General Manager said meetings had been held with railroads,
planning groups, municipal officials, and with Fulton, DeKalb,
and Gwinnett County Commissioners. The proposed legislative
program had been discussed with members o f the House and Senate
from the four counties. He planned a trip to Washington to
discuss the 1968 legislative program with Representatives
Blackburn and Thompson.
Mr. Stuart mentioned a visit on November 28, from Mr. Carl Hill,
an assistant to Mr. Charles Haar of HUD in Washington. Mr. Hill
had been shown the plans and reviewed progress in the design
fi e ld.
-
2 -
�Mr. Stuart said he and Mr. Bennett would appear before the
Fulton County Grand Jury on December 12.
(Subsequently, Mr.
Haverty was substituted for Mr. Stuart.)
Mr. Rich had testified before the Rainey Sub-Committee of the
Georgia House of Representatives on November 30, and requested
Mr. Stuart to send a copy of his testimony to the Board members.
Reports by Consultants
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel
Mr. John Coil reported that the 701 report had been distributed, and the popular summary version would be ready
for distribution within one week. He said the engineers
were continuing to update the plan and resolve questions
with governments. He had been encouraged by responses
from the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and by the L. & N.
Railroad.
Corridor Impact Study
Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Planning Director for ARMPC,
commented on the corridor impact study. He said the
study was designed to examine potentials. Examples had
been looked at, such as outlying stations, but most of
the work had been done on developed sections of the lines.
Mr. Wingfield said many of the ideas would depend upon
the initiative of the elected officials to do early work
so MARTA could take advantage of opportunities. He
stressed that this study was not totally a "MARTA study,"
but pointed up the opportunities for local governments to
act.
Contract between Georgia Department of Industry
MARTA
&
Trade and
Copies of a proposed contract between MARTA and the Georgia
Department of Industry & Trade were distributed for consideration. The State of Georgia had appropriated $500,000 per year
to MARTA, and the Department of Industry & Trade had been desig nated the agency who would disburse these funds . The contract
provided for appropriations to be paid quarterly in advance , and
provided that such funds could be used for direct or indirect
costs, including debt service , administration, operating , plan ning , designing , finishing, right - of- way acquisition , and roll i ng
stock.
-
3 -
�The contract provided further that the State could appropriate
real estate, in lieu of cash. It also gave the State a
reversionary interest in the property of the Authority, in the
same proportion as the State's appropriation to MARTA.
The contract required an annual audit of the books of MARTA
to be sent to the State.
The contract was for 50 years, and would cover subsequent
appropriations as - they were made.
After discussion of the contract provisions, the following
resolution was presented:
BE IT RESOLVED that Henry L. Stuart, General
Manager, and Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary, be and
hereby are authorized and directed to execute on
behalf of this Authority a contract substantially
in the form as presented to this Board, subject to
approval of counsel, with the State of Georgia, by
and through its Department of Industry & Trade, for
the transfer and payment to this Authority of funds
appropriated and to be appropriated by the Legislature and Governor of Georgia for the purposes of
this Authority; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said General Manager and Secretary be and hereby are authorized and
directed to execute any and all further documents
as may be reasonably necessary to the transfer and
payment of said funds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Citizens Trust
Company be and hereby is designated as the depository for said funds and that all withdrawals therefrom shall be only over the signatures of either
the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of this
Authority and either the General Manager or the
Chief Engineer of this Authority.
Upon motion by Mr. McMillan, seconded by Dr. Atwood, the above
resolution was unanimously adopted.
Appointment of Auditor for 1968
Mr. Stuart had receiv ed a proposal from Arthur Andersen Company
to continue auditing services as needed for the year ending
December 31, 1968 , for a fee of $500. Mr. Bishop made a motion,
-
4 -
�seconded by Mr. McMillan, that this contract be renewed.
motion was unanimously passed.
The
1968 Budget
The 1968 budget estimates were presented by the General Manager,
who recommended the proposed budget for adoption. Mr. Stuart
said the budget had been reviewed by the Board earlier. The
Chairman asked for a breakdown and explanation of an item of
$750,000 for preliminary design of the transit center. The
General Manager agreed to provide an explanation of this item,
and Mr. Bishop made a motion that the budget for 1968 be
adopted, subject to a satisfactory review of the item questioned
by the Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Adamson and
unanimously passed.
A copy of the 1968 budget as adopted is attached hereto and
made a part of these minutes.
Authorization under Retainer Agreement
The General Manager requested authorization for $500 to be
expended under the retainer agreement, to pay for copies of
the 100-scale plan and profile drawings which are being requested by the State Highway Department, the railroads, and
others. Mr. Stuart showed samples of these prints, and said
the engineers had been making them available at cost. Mr.
Bishop made a motion, seconded by Mr. McMillan, that a sum of
$500 be allocated for these prints, from the retainer agreement.
The motion was unanimously passed.
January Meeting
It was agreed that the General Manager would poll the members
as to a date in January for the regular meeting, which would
not conflict with holiday plans. It was tentatively agreed
that January 5 would be agreeable. Notice would be sent after
the staff had checked with all members.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4 : 45 P.M.
-
5 -
�METROPOLITAN A'rLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
1968 OPERATING BUDGET
JANUARY l , 1968 - DECEMBER 31, 1968
Unappropriated Surplusa
(1)


On hand, 12/31/67!a)
$ 60,371.00
Receivables a
(2)
(Omit ted)
(3)
State of Georgia(c)
12s,ooo.oo
(4)
(S)·
$185,371.00
Appropriated Surplus (d)
45,324.00
(6)
$230,695.00
INCOME
(7)
City of Atlanta(e)
(8)
Clayton County
23,190.00
(9)
DeKalp .County
82,770.00
(10)
Fulton County_
91,800.00
(11)
Gwinnett County
10,210.00
$ 84,030.00
(12)
(13)
Interest on Treasury Bills
(14)
State of Geor gia
s,000.00 _
(f)
2so,ooo.oo
U.S. DEPT. OF HUD
.,.
(15)
I
$300,000.00
(16)
) Completion of
Section 9 _ 1 ~ 1967 wor k program.
(17)
Section 9 - 2) 1968 wor k progr am
(18)
7 0 2 Loan
Interest Income (g)
$_ 35 , 000.00
173,3 3 3.00
624 ,333 .00
1,000,00
$839,666.00
(19)
(20)
TOTAL INCOME
$1, 394,666.00
(21)
GRAND TOTAL I NCa-tE 6 SURPLUS
$1,625,361.00
�I
' ·1
$1,6"25,.361.00
INCOME & SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
(22)
\_ti
-
STAFF & .AIMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
.,,...
-
(23)
Sa laries
93,600.-00
(24)
Expenses
14,500.0Q
Benefits&
Social Se curity ·
(26)
Gua ranty Fund
(27)
Health & Accident
(28)
Retirement
(29).
Workrnenvs c ompensation -
$l,904e00
533 . 00
2 1 940.00
17,000.00
--~1~8~2~.o~o~------------22,559.00 '
(30)
3,600.00
( 31)
BOARD MEETINGS
(32)
TOTAL STAFF EXPENSES
$134,259.00
Admini str ative Expenses


~ ' (33 )


Rent
$ 4,200.00
(34)
Cornrnuni ,c ations & postage
4 ,000.00
( 35)
Furnit1.1re & equipment
4 , 000.00
( 36)
Supplies
4,000.00
( 37.7)
Print.lng
2,000.00
(38)
.,·Auditor
500.00
(39)
Accountant
(40)
Public Information ·a· '(h )
1, 500.00
,
(41)
Local
$50.1667.00
(42)
Federal -
$35,333.00
, (43)
-
8 6 ,000 .00
Insurance
I
-~-~
-~----- . ..
Staff E~ens e s
(25)
l
327.00
(44)
TOTAL AIMJ:NISTRATIVE EXPENSES
$106,527.00
(45)
TOTAL STAFF &c AIMIUISTRATIVE EXPENSES
$ 240,786.00
�$1,625,361.00
(46) 1 _tINCOME SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
(47)
EXPENSES BROUGHT FORWARD
(48)
COUNSEL (i)
240,786.00
50,ooo •.oo .
CONSULTANTS

On Retainers
(49)
Research
(50)
Advisory Committee
(51)
Hammer, Greene , Sile.r Associ ates (l) -
1,200.00
(52)
Eric Hi ll Associate$ (rn}
1,200.00
& ~ecbni cal
Services (j)
-
$
s,000.00
12,000.00
(le)
(53) .'
31,400.00
Under Contracti
,!267 Work Program,!_
(54)
702 Loan (n)
(55)
Section 9 - l Grant (o)
(56)
· (57)
(58)
35,000.00
Local - $
HUD
~
230,000.00
76,66 7.00
$ l53r33 3$00
Section 9 - l Grant (p)
(59)
Local - $1,667. 00
(60)
HUD
s,000.00
3,333.00
210,000.00
(61)
,
1968 Work,,Programa
.,.
(62)
Section 9 - l Amendment (q)
(63)
Local - $ 10,000aOO
(64)
HUD
, (65)
. ·(66)
(67)
30,000.00
20,000.00
I
Section 9 - 2 Application (r)
891,000.00
Local - $ 297,000eOO
HUD
594,000.00
921,000.00
(68)
(69)
.-,
.
Retainer Agre~f,ISnt (s)
(70)
TOTAL EXPENSES
(71)
UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
39,000.00
$ 1,552tl86.00
- ~.....-·.$ ·
73,175.00
... . ~
~
-~
�EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE BUDGET
D
(a)
J ANUARY 1 , 1968 - DECEMBER 31 1 1969
This i s a fore:ms·t f igure derived fl~om expected r eceipts and
expenses be·tween Augus t 31; 1 9 6 7 and December 31, 1967 .
(b)

O MI TTED
.
·_
(c)
The 1967 Gener al Assembly appropriated $500,000 for the
fiscal biennium July 1, 1967 throu gh June 30, 1969. We are
develo~ing a contract with the Department of Industry and
Trade (in which budget our i tem appears). We are seeking to
arrange to r eceive these f unds quarterly in advance, which isi
the same schedule on which we receive funds from the local
governments and the Un i t e d States Depar tment of Housing and
Urban Development e
(d)
This is a:f6Jrecast figure based on anticipated expenditures and
scheduled approp r i ations between August 31 , 1967 and December
.,
I
31 , 1967.
(e)
Income f r om local gov ernments shown i s idlentl.ical to that
requested and received i n 1966 and 1967"'
(£)
This is one year's app r o~riat i on made by the 1967 Georgia
General As sembl y o Not e ( c ) above ~
(g)
Interest on federal funds accrue s to t he b enefit of the
United States Gover nmen t and i s deduc t ed f rom t he grand total.
(h)
..
~-
•'
This i s a n expanded p rogram (f r om 33, 000 in 1966 ) . The
staff will double the circu lation of "Rapid Transit Progress•
( $18,000 for one year above present costs) , and we will provide on e mailing of f act ual informat i on to every registered
voter i n the four-county area ( $35, 000) s ometime prior to
···- -- __, election time o Public Infonnation Program Expansion ::-. $53,000
',
. --.- . !,
(1)
Servi c es of bond c ounsel, which will be added, anticipating
a s u c c e s s ful r eferendum in November 1968 , whi ch will cause
the issuance of b ond s. Also, r equirements for l ega l advice
will increase as our work b e comes more speci fic.
(j)
This item c overs assistance as requ ired i n prepari ng and
filing r equests for federal gra nts o
(k )
This five- man committee, chai r ed by Professor Howard Menhinick,
p r ovides u s with design advice and as s ur es our communications
wi t h t he local groups of design professionalso
(1)
We will need a little work from economic consultants as it
becomes necessary to update our financ ial plan.
�·,
~m)
The Corridor Impact Study will go out of date if it does
nob r e ceive some attention from time to time..-
(n)
This is the balance to be expended on preliminary enginee ring
on t he North-South Line .
(o)
This i s the balance to be, expended on t h e preliminary eng ineering·
on t he East-West Line and certain planning for extensions.
It a l so includes support by our consulting engineers··.during the

period in which we seek public acceptance .

-i
I
(p)
This will be applied to transportation planning to itemize
future policy nee ds as to relations between MARTA and othe r
transportation s ystem ..
(q)
This i s for an evaluation and review of ~TA 1 s plans with
refer e nce to total transportation planniHg in the Atlanta
r egion.
·
. (r)
The applicati on for our 1968 work program will cover the fol lowing
pr oj ects !
l._ Preliminary Ownership Study ----------·---------------- $ SO, 000
This is the beginning of title search operations on t h e
30-mile systemo Getting started on this in 1968 will
save one y ear in the r i ght of way acquisition program.
2o
Accounting & Financial Control System Design Study - - $ 25,000
This work element sets up the sy s tem of accounts and f i nancial controls for the Authority. Given a successful bond
referendmn, we will b e i nto r ight of way acquisition
immediately and some construction within nine months.
Final design con~racts will be r eady soon after the
referenda and our budget will total millions. The
Comptroller's office must go into operation .:with zero
time lag.
3.
Plans for the Preservation of Historical Sites-------$
u
Our routes and station sites will be examined by a
committee of the Atlanta Historical Society. It will
recommend to us course of action to preserve our heritage
where rapid transit operations affect sites or s tructures
of historical significance.
4.
Relocation Program Design----------------------------$ 13,000
.,


.


J
3,000
This work will define the job ahead, .in detail, so that
we can make application under our future capital programs
to achieve successful relocation as required by our
const~ction progresso
Sa. Preliminary Architectural and Engineering Design of
~
of Transit Center-------------------------------------$300,000
The purpose of this work is to further the technical
development of Transit Center and the adjacent line
structures. Items to be considered under this work
are as follows&
l
L - -- .
.
r.' ~ -
�I.r -,-_
. .. ·- --~
r.


l· :,.
I .·
I
'
I
(a)
Circulation and access of pedestrians, bu~es
and automobi les to Transit Center.
(b)
Methods of e onstruotion.
I
'•
(c)
Type s of structures. ·
(d)
Uti lity a nd sub-surface investigations.
(e)
Establish electrical and mechanical spatial
requirements ..
(f)
Deve l op architectural preliminary plans.
(g)
Prepare preliminary specifications •
. (h)
(i)
Sb.
Establish preliminary right-of-way plans.
Constr uct architectural study model.
Development of Transit Center-----------------------$450,000
The purpose o f thi s work is to make surveys, boring•
and devel op plans to bring the design of Transi~
·
Center and its approaches to a point just short of
architectural fi nishes and contract documents. By
doing thi s in 1968, we can start first construction
on this 22½ million complex in the summer 0£ 1969.
This work is s ubject to final adoption of routes,
station locations, and acceptance of the work items
in Sa aboveo This work will includes
,,
,
6.
(a)
Make surveys.
(b)
Take soil borings.
(c)
Establish horizontal and vertical controls.
(d)
Prepare utility plans.
(e)
Prepare base maps.
(f)
Develop design criteria.
Architectural studies-----------------~------------~$ 50,000
This work includes the much discussed consulting
Architect. There are many design elements that should
be constant or confined within prescribed limits
system-wide. Consistency, good looks and economy
demand these specifications set up by the. Consulting
Architecto
(s)
This agreements provides for engineering support not otherw1•,
covered in exieting contracts.
I'f .
f

1.
�I
METROPOLI TAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSI T AUTHORITY
BUDGET
REPORT
NOVEMBER 30 , 1967
BUDGET
1967
Unappropriated Sur plus
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1 , 196 7
TO
NOVEMBER 30 , 196 7
$128~2 81.64
$128 ,2 81.64 ,
$ 84 , 030.00
23 , 190 . 00
82 ,7 70.00
91, 800 . 00
18 ,21 0 . 00
$300 , 000.00
$ 5 2 52 0.00
$ 84,030 . 00
17,392 .50
82,77 0 . 00
91,8 00 . 00
13,657 . 50
,$189 ,650 . 00
$ 4,262 .34
$ 95 , 000 . 00
$ 90 , 000.00
276,000. 00
INCOME
Appropriations :
Cit y of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinne t t Count y
Sub- Tot a l s
I nt erest Income
Federal Funds :
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
I nterest - Federal Funds
Sub-Tota l s
_$_3 71, 000. 00
212,069 . 54
597.46
$3 02_,_66 7 . 00
TOTAL INCOME
$676,520. 00
$596,579 . 34
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
$8 04,801.64
_$_124, 86 0 . 98
$ 68,950 . 00
$ 59 , 083 . 67
10 , 500 . 00
9,853.63
1, 109.00
533. 00
1 , 680 . 00
10 , 000 . 00
99 . 00
_t_92 , 871. 00
$ 3,150 . 00
1,188 . 09
533.34
1 , 110.51
300.54
181. 72
$ 72,251.5 0
$ 2, 950.00
0
EXPENSES
Staff Cost :
Salaries
Ex pense
Bene fit s :
Social Secur i t y
Guar anty Fund
Health and Accid ent Insuranc e
Retirement
Workmen's Compen sat ion
Sub - Totals
Board Meetings
Admi nis t r a tive and Of f i ce Overhead :
Rent
Commun ications a nd Pos tage
Furniture and Equipment
Supplies
Prin ting
Aud i.tor
Accountant
Public Information
Adv i s ory
I n surance :
Public Li abi lit y
De pository and For gery
Fidelity Bond
Sub -Totals
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3 , 000 . 00
2, 000.00
2 , 000 . 00
3 , 600.00
1,000.00
25 0.00
1 , 000 . 00
33 , 000.00
5,000.00
$
2 , 75 0 . 00
1 , 890 . 69
577 . 16
2 , 646.55
623.56
25 0 . 00
750 . 00
28,345. 85
4 , 213.71
72. 00
56 . 00
199 . 00
$ 5 1 , 177. 00
107. 00
56 .2;
198 .60
~ 42..2 409 . 39
~147 , 198 . 00
$117 a610.89
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET
NOVEMBER
REPORT
30, 1967
BUDGET
1967
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
NOVEMBER 30, 1967
i§.04, 801. 64
$724,860.98
Brought Forward
Counse l
Cons ultant s :
Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission
Urban Design Study :
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study:
Section 9
Matching
Hammer, Greene & Siler
Parsons Brinckerhof f- Tudor-Bechtel :
702 Loan
Section 9 :
Federal
Matching
Re tainer Agreement
Re s earch and Te chnical Servic e s
Sub- Totals
$147,J98.00
$ 2Q,,_000.00
.§.117 , 610 . 89
.$.....ll,758 . 61
$ 31 ,250.00
$ 29 , 939 . 00
32,667. 00
16 , 333.00
16 , 000 .. 00
16,333.00
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
EXPENSES
3 , 333 . 00
1, 667. 00
0
0
1 , 66 7 .00
4 , 742.09
95 , 000.00
90 , 000 . 00
240 , 000 . 00
120 , 000 . 00
60 , 000 . 00
2~00. 00
$6 02,,2,25 0 . 00
120 000 . 00
130 , 364 . 00
19 , 092.99
2, 475 . 84
$430.:.§.13 . 92
TOTAL EXPENSES
$769 , 448 . 00
.§_559 , 983 , 42
SURPLUS
$ 35, 353,64
$164, 877,56
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL COND ITION
NOVEMBER 30 ,
1967
ASSETS
Cash in Banks :
C & S National Bank
First National Ba_k
Trus t Company of Georgia
Fulton National Bank - Sec tion 9
$ 37 , 873. 9.5
2 , 972 078
1., 000 000
ll.5 , 000 000
Invest ments :
U" S " Treas ury Bills
9 , 497 006
Pett y Cash
25 000
TOTAL ASSETS
$253 , 368 . 79
LIABILITIES
Account s Payable
$
1 , 283 032
Payr oll Taxes Withhe l d and Ac cr ued
Re serves :
ARMPC - Ur ban Des ign St udy
At lanta Tr ansit St udy
Parsons Brincker hoff - Tudor- Becht e l :
Se c ti on 9 Ma tc hi ng
Re t ai.~er Agreemen :
Tran s por a ti n Study
Public Inf orma t i on
S r veying
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
433.65
8 , 333 . 00
1,667 . 00
70 , 364 . 00
$1 , .5 00 . 00
1 , 92.5 048
2,.;i.984 078
.J.410 026
_ _688,491. 23
$164 : 877,56
�December 7, 1967
Mr. T . J . Lewi , Jr.
Lewis. Lewis and Cagle
905-10 Healey Building
Atlanta, Georgia
30303
Dear Mr. Lewi :
i
Thank you very m.uch for your letter of
Dec mber 5th and the picture of the Hy-Rail
b
which run on trac
or pavement.
1 m forwarding this to the Metropolitan
Atlan Rapid Transit A oc:iation for
c aideration.
Sincerely your ,
I
Allen, Jr.
M yor
lAJr/br
CC: Mr. Hank Stewart
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524 -5711
OFFICERS:
November 29, 1967
Richard H. Rich, Chairman
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary
Henry L. Stuart, General Manager
NOTICE TO:
Board of Directors
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority -
FROM:
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary/
The regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority will be held on
December 5, 1967, at 3:30 P. M., in the Conference Room of
the Glenn Building, 120 Marietta Street, N. W., Atlanta.
The tentative agenda is as follows:
1.
Minutes of last meeting.
2.
Financial report.
3.
Reports :
a)
General Manager
b)
Engineering Consultant
c)
corridor Impact Study
4.
Appointment of auditor - 1968.
5.
Adoption of 1968 budget .
6.
Other business.
�'
MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
NOVEMBER 7, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority held i t s regular meeting on November 7, 1967,
at 3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta.
Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta)
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
M. c. Bishop (Fulton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT :
Edgar Blal o ck (Clay ton County )
K. A. McMil~on (Gwinnett county )
OTHERS PRESENT:
Me t ropolitan At lanta Rapid Transit Authority
H. L . Stuart , General Manage r
King Elliott, Public Informa tion Director
Ea r l Nelson, Chief Enginee r
H . N. Johnson , Se c r etary to General Man age r
con s ul tants
Walt er Doug l a s , Pa r sons, Brin c kerh o ff, Qu ade & Douglas ,
New Yo rk
J . A. Coil, Re s i dent Manager, Pars ons, Br i nck e rh o ff- Tud o r
Bechte l, At l anta
Leon Eplan, Eric Hi ll Associat es, Atl anta
w. Stell Hui e, Huie & Harland, Atlanta
George Goodwin, Be l l & St anton, Atlant a
Bill Ba tes, Be l l & Stanton, Atl a nta
�Financial Advisors and Bond Counsel
Lloyd Hatcher, White, Weld & Company, New York
Dan O'Conner, King & Spalding, Atlanta
John Mobley, Gambrell & Mobley, Atlanta
Others
T. M. Callaway, DeKalb County Commissioner
Aubrey Couch, Decatur-DeKalb Development Association
Don Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.
Margaret Hurst, Atlanta Constitution
Mrs~ Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Jerry Coursey,
Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Minutes
Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Adamson, the minutes
of the October meeting were unanimously approved.
Financial Report
The General Manager presented the financial report as of
October 30, 1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes. He reported receipt of funds from Gwinnett
County during the month, making it current in its appropriations to the Authority. Mr. Stuart said expenditures for the
year would be less than anticipated, and a surplus of $105,238
was projected. There were no questions, and Mr. Bishop made a
motion that the financial report be approved. Dr. Atwood
seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed.
Report of General Manager
Mr. Stuart said over si x ty meetings had been held with various
agencies in the area concerned with transportation and planning,
as the 702 work of the engineers had begun to reflect preliminary drawings in more detail . Mr. Nelson, Chief Engineer,
presented a map showing expressways existing, under construction , and proposed. He said the MARTA engineers were working
with State Highway Department engineers on all future improvements planned for the expressway system, in an effort to
coordinate all transportation planning.
-
2 -
�Mr. Rich suggested the possibility of a spur line off Lenox
Road in the center of the freeway to Sandy Springs be considered as part of the long-range plan. He felt it would be
a logical and relatively inexpensive way to accommodate the
projected explosive growth in Sandy Springs.
Mr. Callaway of the DeKalb County Commission inquired about
the possibility of having a station in Court Square in Decatur
instead of along the railroad near Agnes Scott College. He
said officials of Agnes Scott would like to have it as far
from the College as possible, and officials of Decatur and
DeKalb County would like to have it as near the center of
Decatur as possible.
Mr. Callaway mentioned urban renewal land available in the
heart of Decatur, and asked that this be considered at an early
date. Mr. Aubrey Couch, representing the Decatur-DeKalb
Development Association, also endorsed the exploration of the
use of Decatur's urban renewal land for a transit station,
parking, etc.
In connection with Mr. Callaway's request, Mr. Blount asked
if it would be feasible to send an engineer to Decatur to
talk about the requests for changes. Mr. Coil said this would
be done, and Mr. Callaway requested that DeKalb County officials
be included in such a meeting.
Mr. Rich said the site along the railroad had been proposed as
the most economical, but the plans were tentative, and public
hearings would be held in all jurisdictions, and all suggestions considered before the Authority adopted a final plan.
The General Manager said meetings with all of the railroads
would be completed within one week. Preliminary engineering
plans had been left with the engineers of the railroads for
study.
It was the consensus of t h e Board that the time was
approaching wh en the Board should begin to seriously negotiate
with the policymaking heads of the railroads.
In response to
a question, Mr . Wal te r Douglas replied that as soon as the
railroad engin eers h a d time to absorb the plans , it would be
well to seek a gr eement o n operational and pol i tical feasi bility, leaving th e ques t ion of money estimates until the r e
had been a f a v o rable b on d issue a n d money was available with
whi c h to n egotiate.
Mr. Hav e r t y made a mot ion that the 701 repo r t be sent to the
head s of th e railroa d s at t h e appropr iate t ime, with a p ers onal
l e tt e r from the Chairman of t h e Auth o ri t y. The motion was
unanimously p a ssed.
-
3 -
�Reports by Consultants
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor , Bechtel
Mr. John coil said the 701 report had been printed and
was being bound. The popular report, which was to be a
condensed version of the 701 report, would be in draft
form for review within a week by ARMPC and MARTA, and
would be printed within about three weeks.
He said studies of refinement were continuing, and the
engineers continued to make evaluations as to use of
construction, patronage, etc., and to consider alternate
solutions or revisions in the recommendations.
Eric Hill Associates
Mr. Leon Eplan said the comments of his firm on three of
the lines had been given to the engineers, the Planning
Commission, and the Authority. Work on the other line
would be completed soon, and the writing of the final
report had begun. It was hoped their final report would
be available by the end of th e year.
Report of ARMPC Planning Director
Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr., ARMPC Planning Director, reviewed
the proposed amendment to the Secti on 9 application, approved
by the MARTA Board at its October 3rd meeting. He said the
amendment request h ad b een filed with t h e Department o f
Housing and Urban Development as of October 3, 1967. This
extension would involve the use of Alan M. Voorhees Associates
to give an objective appraisal of transit planning to date.
The study was expected to cost $10,000 in local money, and to
take approximately three months. This study, hopefully, would
satisfy the interests o f the Departme nt o f Housing and Urban
Development and the Bureau of Public Roads in their effo rts
to coordinate various public investments in transportation, as
well as thei r concern f o r th e broader impact of t ransit on the
region.
Mr. Rich mentioned the possibility o f additiona l studies in
the future, to examine coordination with the existing bus
system.
Report of Legal Counsel
Mr. Stell Hui e of Hui e and Harland, Counsel for the Authority,
introduce d Mr. Lloyd Hatcher of White, Weld & Company,
-
4 -
�financial advisors of New York, and Mr. Dan O'Conner of King
and Spalding, and Mr. John Mobley of Gambrell and Mobley,
both bond counsel firms of Atlanta. Mr. Huie said several
meetings had been held to develop a financial plan which
would be practical, with bonds at the lowest possible interest.
After discussing various ways of financing, it was recommended
that a committee be appointed to work with the financial advisors, bond counsel, and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates,
to develop current recommendations which could be used in support of a bond issue.
The Chairman appointed Mr. Adamson, Dr. Atwood, and Mr. Huie
as a committee to work with financial advisors, bond counsel
and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, to refine and review
such variables as interest rates and inflation factors, in an
effort to be certain a realistic millage rate would be used in
presenting a bond issue to the public.
The Chairman also appointed Mr. Haverty as Chairman, together
with Mr. Blount and Mr. Bishop, as a committee to work in the
area of public information under the direction of Mr. George
Goodwin of Bell and Stanton, to develop the best way to present
the plan to the public for referendum.
Upon motion by Mr. Blount, seconded by Dr. Atwood, the Board
unanimously concurred in the appointment of these two committees by the Chairman.
Mr. Huie reviewed 17 proposed ame ndments to the MARTA legislation, which counsel considered important, and suggested that
new legislation incorporating these amendments be submitted
to the Legislature in the January session . The suggested
changes are attached to and made a part of these minutes.
Dr . Atwood made a moti on that Couns e l be give n authority t o
dra ft l e gislation incorporating the proposed amendments and
submit it to local governments and legislative representatives
of local governments for study. Mr. Bishop seconded the motion,
and it was unanimously passed.
Adj ou rnment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M .
Next Meeting
December 5, 1967.
-
5 -
�Summary of Remarks of w. Stell Huie at MARTA meeting,
November 7, 1967 - re Amendments to MARTA Legislation-1968
1.
Section 9(c) requiring judicial review of the Authority's
rate making powers should be eliminated. It is necessary
that the Authority have the power to commit to bond purchasers that it can establish rates sufficient to cover the
operating cost of the system.
2.
Section 10:
3.
Section 13(b) must be clarifi e d so as to eliminate any e x cessive drain of funds by reason of relocation payments which may
not be included in estimates of engineers. In this respect we
must check on the federal requirements as well as procedures
and policies established for relocation payments under other
laws.
4.
Section 15(c) must be amended so as to provide that after a
validation proceeding no contract may b e declared void by reason
of any con f lict of interest .
5.
Greater fl exibility than is allowed b y Section 17 needs to be
added for budgeting purposes ; however i t would a p pear that the
o n l y must r equirement her e i n is that a deficit budget should be
allowed du r i n g init ial y ear's oper at i on s.
6.
Sect ion 18 wh i ch provide s fo r i nspe c tion every three ye ar s b y
a n ou t side eng ineer is unreasonab le a n d would b e too e x pen s ive .
It s h ould b e eliminated . Th e t rust indentur e secu r ing t h e bond s
will p r ovide fo r adequate i nspect ion f o r the i nteres t o f th e
b ond holder s .
7.
Section 24 must b e amended so as t o e limi n ate t h e r e quirement
that t he contracts with p a rticipa ting governme nts be a ppr ove d
in a referendum by submit t ing "the e x t e nt o f the dolla r amount
o r amoun ts involved . "
(a) eliminate the 6% interest limitation found
in 10 (d) .
(b) eliminate the requirement that the bonds be
sold by public competitive bidding found
in 10 (h} .
·
(c) eliminate the requirement that the bonds be
sold at par found in l0(h}.
(d} amend l0(g) to provide that all "obligations"
rather than just bonds will have the
qualities of negotiable instruments.
(e) amend l0(p} to provide that the procedure of
the revenue bond law as it now e x ists or
may be hereafter amended will apply. Ii:
appears that the 1965 version which has since
been amended may be referred to in the Act.
�------------ --
-
8.
Section 24 and Section 8(i) must be amended so as to authorize
the payment of participating governments of operating subsidies
if it should become necessary.
9.
Section 24(e) should be amended to eliminate the last sentence
which says that the authority is subject to and limited by any
local act heretofore or hereafter enacted applicable to the
local governing body of any local government. This language
is troublesome and we don't know exactly what it means.
10.
Section 24(k) should be amended to eliminate the prohibition
of the use by the City of Atlanta of "its public funds" to
support rapid transit when taxes are being levied by Fulton
and DeKalb counties on subjects of taxation within the city
limits. Such provision could prevent the city from giving us
the benefit of their land office without cost and cedi~g to
us certain rights-of-way and benefits in public streets, etc.
11.
Section 24(1) should be amended to authorize contributions and
support from any municipality in the five-county area rather
than limiting it to the defined term "local government" which
is limited to the City of Atlanta and the participating counties.
12.
Se ction 2(j) should be amended so as to clearly authorize the
capitalizing of interest during construction as well as start-up
costs with respect to each section of the system as it is begun.
This section should also be amended so as to include the total
cost of the system as defined in 2(g).
13.
Section 6(i-2) should be amended to eliminate the l ast sentence
or to make i t clear how a showing that the l easing or purchasing
of a privately owned system is essential to rapid transit.
14.
Section 8(e) should be amended to eliminate the payment of
attorneys' fee s to those suing the Authority for trespass.
15.
Section 12 should be amended so as to provide the Authority
. with the power of eminent domain.
16.
Section 2l(d) regarding the exemption of the Authority from
regulation by public service commission, etc. is ambiguous and
should be clarified.
17.
Section 22 should be reworded s o as t o allow the Au thority to
establish self-insurance reserves.
-
2 -
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
OCTOBER 31, 196 7
BUDGET
1967
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 1967
TO
OCTOBER 31 1 1967
$128,281.64
$128,281.64
$ 84,030.00
23,190.00
82 , 770.00
91,800.00
18,210.00
$300,000.00
$ 5,520.00
$ 84,030.00
17,392.50
82,770.00
91,800 . 00
· 13,657 . 50
$289,650.00
$ 3,853.00
$ 95,000.00
276,000.00
$ 3 71, 000. 00
$ 90,000.00
135,402.54
597.46
$226,000.00
TOTAL INCOME
$676,520.00
$519,503.00
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
$804,801.64
$647,784 .64
$ 68,950.00
10,500.00
$ 53,226.44
8,881.92
1,109.00
533.00
1,680.00
10,000.00
99.00
$ 92,871.00
$ 3,150.00
1,168.13
533.34
993.05
300.54
104 .00
$ 65, 207.42
$ 2,700 . 00
Unappropriated Surplus
INCOME
Appropriations:
City of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
Sub-Totals
Int.erest Income
Federal Funds:
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
Interest _- Federal Funds
Sub-Totals
0
EXPENSES
Staff Cos t:
Salaries
Expense
Benefits:
Social Security
Guaranty Fund
Health and Accident Insurance
Retirement
Workme n 's Compensation
S~b-Totals
Board Meetings
Administrative and Office Overhead :
Rent
Communication and Postage
Furniture and Equipment
Supplie s
Prin ting
Auditor
Accountant
Public Information
Advisor y
I nsurance:
Public Liab i l ity
Depositor y and Forgery
Fidel ity Bond
Sub -Tota l s
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3,000.00
2 , 000 .00
2 , 000 .00
3,600.00
1 , 000 . 00
250.00
1,000 . 00
33,000 . 00
5 , 000 . 00
$
2 , 500. 00
1,595.84
532 .81
2, 293 . 58
623.56
250 . 00
750.00
22 , 61 5. 83
1 ,551. 95
72. 00
56 . 00
199 . 00
$ 51 , l 77. 00
55. 00
56.27
198 . 60
$ 33 , 023.44
$147 , 198.00
$100 1930.86
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
OCTOBER 31, 196 7
BUDGET
1967
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 1967
TO
OCTOBER 31 1 1967
$804 1 801. 64
$647,784.64
$1471198.00
$ 20,000.00
$100,930.86
$10,758.61
$ 31,250.00
$ 29,939.00
32,667.00
16,333.00
16,000.00
16,333.00
3,333.00
1,667.00
0
0
1,667.00
4,742.09
95,000.00
90,000.00
240,000.00
120,000.00
60,000.00
21000.00
$602,250.00
120,000.00
130,364.00
19,335.54
2,475.84
$430,856.47
TOTAL EXPENSES
$769,448.00
$542,545.94
SURPLUS
S 35,353.6{±
SlQ5,238,ZQ
EXPENSES
Brought Forward
Counsel
Consultants:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study:
Section 9
Matching
Hammer, Greene and Siler
Parsons Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
702 Loan
Section 9:
Federal
Matching
Retainer Agreement
Research and Technical Services
Sub-Totals
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA , GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
OCTOBER 31, 1967
ASSETS
Cash in Banks :
C & S National Bank
First National Bank
Trus t Company of Georgia
Fulton National Bank - Section 9
$ 52 , 164 . 36
3,119.80
1 1000 . 00
38,333.00
Investments:
U. S . Treasury Bills
102,350 . 85
Pett y Cas h
25 . 00
TOTAL ASSETS
$196 , 993 . 01
LIABILITIES
Ac counts Payable
$
Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued
Reserves:
ARMPC - Ur ban Design St udy
Atlanta Trans it Stud y
Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor -Becht el :
Section 9 Matching
Retainer Agr eement :
Transportation Study
Public Informa ti on
Surveying
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
2 , 592 .36
1 , 037.13
8 , 333. 00
1, 667. 00
70 ,364. 00
$1 , 500 . 00
2, 000 . 00
4,26 0 . 82
7,76 0 . 82
91,754 . 31
$1 05,238.7 0
�MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
NOVEMBER 7, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority held its regular meeting on November 7, 1967,
at 3:30 P.M., in the Glenn Building Conf8rence Room, Atlanta.
Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta)
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Have rty (City of Atlanta)
L . D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
Richard H . Rich (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Edgar Bl al oc k (Clay ton County )
K. A. McMilLon (Gwinnett County)
OTHERS PRESENT :
Metropoli t an Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
H. L . Stuart , General Manager
King Elliott , Public Information Director
Ear l Nel son , Chief Engineer
H . N. John son , Se cretary to Gen eral Manager
Con su ltan ts
Wa l t e r Doug l as, Pars ons, Bri n c kerhof f, Quade & Douglas ,
New Yo rk
J. A. Co i l , Res ide nt Manag e r, Par sons , Bri nck e rh off- Tud o r
Bechte l , At l ant a
Leon Eplan, Er i c Hil l As s oc iat es, Atlan ta
W. Stell Hu i e, Huie & Har land, Atlanta
George Go odwin, Bell & S t ant on, At l a nt a
Bill Bates, Be l l & Stanton, Atlanta
�Financial Advisors and Bond Counsel
Lloyd Hatcher, White, Weld & Company, New York
Dan O'Conner, King & Spalding, Atlanta
John Mobley, Gambrell & Mobley, Atlanta
Others
T. M. Callaway, DeKalb County Commissioner
Aubrey Couch, Decatur-DeKalb Development Association
Don Ingram; Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.
Margaret Hurst, Atlanta Constitution
Mrs. Rachel Champagne, J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Jerry Coursey,
Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
Minutes
Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, s e conded by Mr. Adamson, the minute s
of the October meeting were unanimously approved.
Financial Report
The Genera l Ma n a ger presented the financial report as of
Oct ober 30, 1967, which is attach ed h ereto a nd made a p art o f
these minutes. He reported receipt of funds from Gwinnett
County during the month, making it current in its appropriations to the Authority. Mr. Stuart said e x penditures for the
year would be l ess than anticipated, and a surplus of $105,238
was projecte d. There were no questions, and Mr. Bishop made a
motion that the financial r e port b e approved. Dr. Atwood
s e conded the motion and it was un animously p assed.
Report o f General Manager
Mr. Stua rt s a id over six ty meetings had been held with various
a g e ncies i n the area conce rned with transporta tion and pla nning,
as th e 702 work o f the e nginee rs h a d b e gun to r e flect preliminary drawings in more detail. Mr. Nelson, Chief Engineer,
presented a map showing e x pressways e x isting, under c onst ruction , and proposed. He said the MARTA e nginee rs were working
wi t h Stat e Highway De p a r t me nt e ngineers on all f utur e improveme n t s planned f o r th e e x presswa y system, in a n effort to
coordinate all tran sportati o n pla nn i ng.
-
2 -
�Mr. Rich suggested the possibility of a spur line off Lenox
Road in the center of the freeway to Sandy Springs be considered as part of the long-range plan. He felt it would be
a logical and relatively inexpensive way to accommodate the
projected e x plosive growth in Sandy Springs.
Mr. Callaway of the DeKalb County Commission inquired about
the possibility of having a station in Court Square in Decatur
instead of along the railroad near Agnes Scott College. He
said officials of Agnes Scott would like to have it as far
from the college as possible, and officials of Decatur and
DeKalb County would like to have it as near the center of
Decatur as possible.
Mr. Callaway mentioned urban renewal land available in the
heart of Decatur, and asked that this be considered at an early
date. Mr. Aubrey Couch, representing the Decatur-DeKalb
Development Association, also endorsed the exploration of the
use of Decatur's urban renewal land for a transit station,
parking, etc.
In connection with Mr. Callaway's request, Mr. Blount asked
if it would be feasible to send an engineer to Decatur to
talk about the requests for changes. Mr. Coil said this would
be done, and Mr. Callaway requested that DeKalb County officials
be included in such a meeting.
Mr. Rich said the site along the railroad had been proposed as
the most economical, but the plans were tentative, and public
hearings would be held in all jurisdictions , and all suggestions considered before the Authority adopted a final plan.
The General Manager said meetings with all of the railroads
would be completed within one week . Preliminary engineering
plans had been left with the engineers of the railroads for
study . It was the consensus of the Boar d that the time was
approaching when the Board should begin to se r iously negotiate
with the policymaking heads of the rail r oads . In response to
a question , Mr . Walter Douglas replied t h at as soon as the
railroad e n g i nee r s had t i me to absorb the plans , it would be
well to s e ek agreement on operational and political feasi bi li ty, l eav i n g the ques ti on of mon e y esti mates until there
had been a f a vor able bond issue and money was available with
wh i ch to n egot i ate .
Mr . Have rty mad e a motion t hat the 70 1 rep o r t be sent to the
head s o f the railroads at the appr opriate time , wi t h a pe r sona l
letter from t he Chairman of the Aut hority . The moti o n was
unanimously pass e d.
-
3 -
�Reports by Consultants
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel
Mr. John coil said the 701 report had been printed and
was being bound. The popular report, which was to be a
condensed version of the 701 report, would be in draft
form for review within a week by ARMPC and MARTA, and
would be printed within about three weeks.
He said studies of re finement were continuing, and the
engineers continued to make evaluations as to use of
construction, patronage, etc., and to consider alternate
solutions or revisions in the recommendations.
Eric Hill As sociates
Mr. Leon Eplan said the comme nts of his firm on three of
the lines had been given to the engineers, the Planning
Commission, and the Authority. Work on the other line
would be completed soon, and the writing of the final
report had begun. It was hoped their final report would
be available by the end of the year.
Report of ARMPC Planning Director
Mr. J. D. Wingfield, Jr ., ARMPC Planning Director, reviewed
the proposed amendment to the Section 9 application, approved
by the MARTA Board at its Octobe r 3rd meeting. He s a id the
ame ndme nt r equ e st h a d been fil e d with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development as of October 3, 1967. This
extension would involve the use of Alan M. Voorhees Associates
to give an objective apprai sal of tra nsit planning to date.
The study was expected to cost $10,000 in local money, and to
take appr ox imately three months. This study, hopefully, would
satisfy the interests of the De partment o f Housing and Urban
De v e lopme nt and the Bureau o f Public Roads in their efforts
to coordinate various public investments in transportation, as
well as their concern for the broader impact of transit on the
r eg ion .
Mr. Rich mentioned the pos sibil ity o f additi onal studies in
the future, to examine coordination with the existi ng b u s
system.
Report of Legal Counsel
Mr. Stell Huie o f Huie and Harland, Counsel for the Authority,
introduce d Mr. Lloyd Hatcher of White, We ld & Company,
-
4 -
�financial advisors of New York, and Mr. Dan O'Conner of King
and Spalding, and Mr. John Mobley of Gambrell and Mobley,
both bond counsel firms of Atlanta. Mr. Huie said several
meetings had been held to develop a financial plan which
would be practical, with bonds at the lowest possible interest.
After discussing various ways of financing, it was recommended
that a committee be appointed to work with the financial advisors, bond counsel, and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates,
to develop current recommendations which could be used in support of a bond issue.
The Chairman appointed Mr. Adamson, Dr. Atwood, and Mr. Huie
as a committee to work with financial advisors, bond co~nsel
and Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates, to refine and review
such variables as interest rates and inflation factors, . in an
effort to be certain a realistic millage rate would be used in
presenting a bond issue to the public.
The Chairman also appointed Mr. Haverty as Chairman, together
with Mr. Blount and Mr. Bishop, as a committee to work in the
area of public information under the direction of Mr. George
Goodwin of Bell and Stanton, to develop the best way to present
the plan to the public for referendum.
Upon motion by Mr. Blount, seconded by Dr. Atwood, the Board
unanimously concurred in the appointment of these two committees by the Chairman.
Mr. Hui e r e vi ewe d 17 proposed ame ndme nts to th e MARTA l e gislation, which counsel considered important, and suggested that
new legislation incorporating these amendments be submitted
to the Legislature in the January session. The suggested
change s are attached to and made a part of these minutes .
Dr. Atwood made a moti on th a t counsel b e g i v e n aut hor ity t o
dra ft l e gis l a tion incorporating th e propos e d ame ndme nts and
.submit it to local governments and legislative representatives
of loc a l governments for study. Mr. Bishop seconded the motion,
and it was unanimously p a ss e d.
Adjournment
The meeting wa s a d journed at 5 : 00 P . M.
Ne x t Meeting
Decemb er 5, 1967.
-
5 -
�Summary of Remarks of w. Stell Huie at MARTA meeting,
Novembe r 7, 1967 - re Amendme nts to MARTA Legislation-1968
1.
Section 9{c) requiring judicial review of the Authority's
rate making powers should be eliminated. It is necessary
that the Authority have the power to commit to bond purchasers that it can establish r a t e s suffici e nt to cover the
operating cost of the system.
2.
Section 10:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
eliminate the 6% interest limitation found
in 10 {d) •
eliminate the requi rement that the bonds be
sold by public competitive bidding found
in 10 (h) .
.
eliminate the requirement that t he bonds be
sold at par found in lO{h).
amend lO(g) to provide that all "obligations"
rather than just bonds will have the
qualit i es of negoti able instruments.
ame nd lO(p) to provi de that t he procedure o f
the reve nue bond l aw as it now e x ists or
may be hereafter amended will apply. ~
appears that the 1965 version which has since
been amended may be referred to in the Ac t .
3.
Section 13{b) must be cla rifi e d so as to eliminate any e x c e ss ive dra in of f unds b y r eason o f r elocation payme nts which may
not be included in estimate s o f e n g i nee r s . I n thi s r espect we
must check on the federal requirements as well as procedures
and policies established f or relocat ion payments under oth e r
laws .
4.
Section 1 5(c) mus t be amende d so a s t o provide that after a
va l idatio n p roc eeding n o c ontract may be declared v oid by reason
o f any c o n f lic t o f interest.
5.
Greate r fle x ib i lity t han is allowed by S e ction 17 nee ds to be
added f o r bud g e t ing p u rpos e s ; howe v er it would app ear t h at t h e
o nly must requiremen t here i n is that a def i cit budget should be
allowed during initial year ' s operati o ns.
6.
Sectio n 18 which pro vides f o r inspectio n every three years by
an outside engineer is u nreas onable and wou l d be too e xpe nsive.
It should be eliminated. The trust indenture securing the bonds
will provide for adequate inspection for t h e interest of the
bond holders.
7.
Section 24 must be amended so as t o e liminate the r e quire me nt
that the contracts with participating governments be approved
in a referendum by submitting "the e x tent of the dollar amount
or amounts involved."
�8.
Section 24 and Section 8(i) must be amended so as to authorize
the payment of participating governments of operating subsidies
if it should become necessary .
9.
Section 24(e) should be amended to eliminate the last sentence
which says that the authority is subject to and limited b y any
local act heretofore or hereafter enacted applicable to the
local governing body of any local g overnment. This language
is troublesome and we don't know e x actly what it means.
10.
Section 24(k) should be amended to eliminate the prohibition
of the use by the City of Atlanta of "its public funds" to
support rapid transit when taxes are being levied by Fulton
and DeKalb counties on subjects of tax ation within the city
limits. Such provision could prevent the city from g i ving us
the benefit of their l a nd office without cost and cedi rig to
us cert ain r i ghts-of -way a nd b e n efi t s in public s t reet~ , e tc.
11.
Section 24(1) should be amended to authorize contributions and
support from any municip ality in the five-county area rather
than limiting it to the defined term "local government" which
is limited to the City of Atlanta and the participa ting counties.
12.
S e c ti on 2 (j) should be ame nde d so a s to cle a r ly a u t hor i ze t h e
capitalizing of interest during construction as well as start-up
costs with r e spe ct to each section of the system as it is begun.
This section should also be amended so as to include the t otal
cos t o f th e s y s tem as de fin e d in 2 (g ).
13 .
S e c t ion 6 (i -2) should be ame nded t o e liminate the l ast sen tenc e
or t o make i t clear h ow a showing t h at t h e l easing or pu r chas ing
of a priva tely owned s y stem is essential to rapid transit.
14 .
Se c t ion 8 (e) s hould be amende d to el i minate th e payme nt o f
a ttorneys' fee s t o t ho se suing th e Author ity f o r trespas s.
15.
S e c tion 12 should be amen ded so as t o provide the Autho rity
wi th th e p ower o f e minent d oma in.
16.
Section 2 l (d) reg a r di n g t he exemp tion o f th e Au t hor i ty f r om
regu l ati on by p ub l ic s ervic e c ommissi on, etc . is a mbiguous and
should be clarifi e d .
17.
Section 22 should b e rewo rded so as t o allow the Au thority to
e s tab lish s elf- insura nce r es e r ves.
-
2 -
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
OCTOBER 31, 1967
BUDGET
1967
Unappropriated Surplus
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
OCTOBER 31, 1967
$128,281.64
$128,281.64
$ 84,030.00
23,190.00
82,770.00
91,800.00
18,210.00
$300,000.00
$ 5,520.00
$ 84,030 . 00
17,392.50
82,770.00
91,800.00
13,657.50
$289,650.00
$ 3,853.00
$ 95 , 000.00
276,000 . 00
$ 3 71, 000. 00
$ 90,000.00
135 ,402.54
597.46
$226,000.00
TOTAL INCOME
$676,520 . 00
$519, 503.00
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
$804,801.64
$647,784 .64
$ 68,950.00
10 , 500.00
$ 53 ,226 .44
8,881.92
1,109.00
533 . 00
1,680 . 00
10,000 . 00
99 .00
~ 92,87 1.00
$ 3,150 . 00
1 , 168 . 13
53 3 .34
99 3. 05
300.54
104 .00
~ 65,2 07.42
$ 2,7 00.00
INCOME
Appropriations:
City of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
Sub-Totals
Intere st Income
Federal Funds:
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
Interest - Federal Funds
Sub-Totals
0
EXPENSES
Staff Cost :
Salarie s
Ex pense
Benefi ts:
Social Security
Guarant y Fund
Health and Accident Insurance
Reti rement
Workmen 's Compens a tion
Sub-Tota l s
Boa r d Meetings
Administrative and Office Overhead:
Rent
Communication and Postage
Furn i t ure and Equipment
Supplies
Printing
Auditor
Accoun t an t
Publi c Information
Advi sory
Ins urance:
Public Liability
Depository and Forgery
Fidelity Bond
Sub-Totals
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3 , 000.00
2 , 000.00
2, 000 . 00
3,6 00.00
1 , 000 . 00
25 0.00
1 , 000 .00
33, 000.00
5, 000 . 00
$
2, 500 . 00
1 ,595.84
532. 81
2,293. 58
623.56
25 0 . 00
750. 00
22,615.83
1 ,551.95
72.00
56.00
199.00
$ 51, 177 . 00
55. 00
56.27
198.60
$ 33,023.44
$147,198.00
$100,9 30. 8b
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
OCTOBER 31, 1967
BUDGET
1967
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
OCTOBER 31, 1967
$804 2 801. 64
$647,784.64
$147,198.00
$ 20,000.00
$100,930.86
$10,758.61
$ 31,250.00
$ 29,939.00
32,667.00
16,333.00
16,000.00
16,333.00
3,333.00
1,667.00
0
0
1,667.00
4,742 . 09
95,000.00
90,000.00
240,000.00
120,000.00
60,000.00
2,000.00
$602,250.00
120,000.00
130,364.00
19,335.54
2, 475.84
$430,856.47
TOTAL EXPENSES
$769,448 . 00
$542,545 . 94
SURPLUS
S 35,353.6t1:
SlQS, 238, ZQ
EXPENSES
Brought Forward
Counsel
Consultants:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commission
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study:
Section 9
Matching
Hammer, Greene and Siler
Parsons Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
702 Loan
Section 9:
Federal
Matching
Retainer Agreement
Re search and Technical Services
Sub-Totals
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
OCTOBER 31, 1967
ASSETS
Cash in Banks:
C & S National Bank
First National Bank
Trust Company of Georgia
Fulton National Bank - Section 9
$ 52,164.36
3,119.80
1 , 000 . 00
38,333.00
Investmen ts:
U. S. Treasury Bills
102,350.85
Pett y Cash
25.00
TOTAL ASSETS
$196 , 993 . 01
LIABILITIES
Ac counts Payable
$
Payr oll Taxes Withhe ld and Accrued
Reserve s :
ARMPC - Urban Design Study
Atlanta Transit Stud y
Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel :
Sect ion 9 Matching
Retainer Agreement:
Tr ans portation Study
Public Information
Surveying
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
2, 592.36
1,037.13
8,33 3.00
1, 667. 00
70 ,364. 00
$1 , 500 . 00
2,000.00
4,26 0.82
7, 760 .82
91,754.3 1
$105,238.7 0
�l
I
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
808 GLENN BUILDING/ ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 / TELEPHONE AREA 404 524- 5711
Ki ng Elliott, Public Information Director
Oct. 26, 1966
EDITORS, NEWS DIRECTORS:
(For your information.)
The next meeting of the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan
will be held
Atlanta
966, at 3:30 P.M.
Conference Room
Glenn Building
1 20 Marietta s t ., N. W.
One item which is expected to come up is the a p poi ntment of a
fiscal age nt for the Authority.
The Authority has h e ard presen-
tations from several firms seeking appointment as fiscal agent.
The " Fiscal Agent " would advise MARTA on a l l aspe cts of financ i ng
the r api d t ransit sys tem .
�November 1, 1967
Mr. Richard H. Rich, Chairman
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
45 Broad Street, S. W.
Atl nta, Georgia 30303
De r Dick:
In view of the f ct that a determination will soon be made on
the federal level as to whether the Urban Mass Transportation
Act should be left in th Department of Hou ing and Urban
Development or trans{ rred to the Department of Tr n portation,
the N tion 1 League of Citie i considering th po ition it
bould t k on thi matter.
The Tran portation nd Communications Committee of NLC
baa scheduled me ting for the la t we k of this month, at
which tlme I will b asked - - s vie: chairman of the committee
to m ke recommendation; and I am writing you to
k for the
benefit of your feeling
nd reason for s m •
Sine rely,
s
SMJr:nd
cc: The Hon. Ivan Allen, Jr. V
~
Jr.
�1rl
Octbber 24, 1967
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr . Cha:rle
L . Davis
From: R . Earl Land rs
We are attaching hereto the propo ed budget of the Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid Tran it Authority.
If we do not already have the information, I think it would be
well for us to
cure a complete ro ter of the director and
employees of all of the agencie to which we contribute showing al ries proposed . Thi will n ble ua to at lea t, make
some compari•on a to the
laries b ing paid by the various
genci • with tho e we are able to p y to our offici la .
REL :lp
Atta.chm nt
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
GLENN BU ILD ING / A TL AN TA , GEORG IA 3 0 3 0 3 / AREA CODE 40 4 52 4 -5711
O FFICE RS:
Richard H. Rich, Ch a irm a n
Roy A. Blount, Vic e Chair man
October 16, 1967
Glenn E. Be nn ett, Secreta ry
Henry L. Stuart, Ge nera l Ma nager
Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor
City of Atlanta
City Hall
Atlanta~ Georgia.
Dear Mayor Allen:
I am enclosing financial statement of the Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority as of September 30 , 1967 .
Sincerely yours,


/i-~a4H. L. Stuart,


General Manager .•
HLS:JJ
Enclosur e
cc :
Mr. Mi l ton G. Fa rris
Mr. Cha rles L. Davis
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
AUOUSX· ' 31 -~. 196 7'.
BUDGET
1967
Unappropriated Surplus
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
AUGUST 31, 1967
$128,281.64
$128,281.64
$ 84,030.00
23, 19o'. 00
82,770.00
91,800.00
18,210.00
$300,000.00
$ 5,520.00
$ 63,022.50
17,392 . 50
41,385.00
68,850.00
9,10_5_.9~
$199,755 . 00
~
3,018.77
$ 95,000.00
276,000.00
$371,000.00
$676,520.00
$804,801.64
$ 60,000.00
67,686.12
597.46
$1 28,283.58
~"$331, 057. 35
$459,338.99
$ 68,950.00
10,500.00
$ 41 , 380.94
7,048. 24
1 ,109.00
533.00
1 , 680.00
10,000.00
99.00
$ 92 ,871.00
$ 3,150.00
1, 088.89
400 . 00
758.13
300.54
104.00
$ 51 I 080. 74
$ 2 , 200.00
iNCOM)<';
Appropriations:
City of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
Sub-Totals
Interest Income
Federal Funds:
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
Interest - Federal Funds
Sub-Totals
TOTAL INCOME
TOTAL INC0?1E AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
0
EXPENSES
Staff Cost:
Salaries
Expenses
Benefits:
Social Security
Guaranty Fund
Health and Accident Insur~nce
Retirement
Workmen's Compensation
Aub - Totals
Board Mee t i ngs
Administrative and Office Overhead:
Rent
Communications and Postage
Furniture and Equipment
Suppli e s
Print ing
Auditor
Ac countant
Publi c Informat ion
Advi sor y
Ins urance:
Pub l ic Liabi.lity
Depository and forgery
Fidelity Bond
Sub-Tot;als
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3,000.00
2, 000.00
2, 000 . 00
3,6 00 . 00
1, 000 . 00
25 0 . 00
1 , 000 . 00
33, 000 . 00
5, 000 . 00
72. 00
56.00
199.00
$ 51 , 177.00
$147,198.00
$
2 , 000.00
1,254 . 16
117 . 81
1 , 854 . .58
623.56
25 0 . 00
500 . 00
15, 025 .20
977. 35
55. 00
56.27
198 .60
$ 22,9 12.53
$ 76, 193.27
�:S·c
.S1..' ',..1t0'.·~
""1: Ct.1-:t z.:..:1d
..;oh>:1son oi the -±2r.d , \Vesu -::r.-y oi the 37 th, Ma c :.tyre o" the
ot}1c:.A
s
T.) be ·ntitlc . a.~ Act ·:·o · rn nd an Act kr,,ow::1 a - ti':c "Me tro -
par::c\.."iL.1. · :i.y by a.
w ·,th : 7.o c.ha:--.ge ih~ provisions reL,t.~.g
p. 326 4; , :cs fo.-Y·t::e:-:·
A
app1 ovc
r .e ,.YJ~a·-.::i.:.:::: g of i:, e::- so:r.a1. se::T.co.s
me::r..de::d ·ty : :--.:3e :~r.in.g in Seer.: ,:)!: 8 of sa~c'. Act
.t,ereor,
'
a:--i.d •vh~.c h s 1:--.c:.ll -::-ca.cl a· £0110·.v
S. 3 . l
L
fol~ 0 "1.vin.g
�11 •
•'
.. 1,
--,]
_,1c

1
ewe.:: to invest anc. rein ves t any or all idle fund::; or


110:11es, :.:.1culuing but no t limi · d to , funds held in r eserve or


ebt
2:etire::1.ent , or r- ce1vecl t h ough the issuance of reve nue ce rtificates
or fr::>:.:1 co:.nr ' bur ons, gi ·
~
o . gr ants, wh ' ch cannot be imrnediately
i.:sc · J:o;_· the pc:rpose io · wh· ch :::eceived ,


.n


any security or
securiti- s \vh:ch ace 1 gal inve strnen ts £or Executors or Trust ees ,



_J:,:ovided, however, tha-c such investr.c1.ents in such securities will,




at aL -cin:es, be held for arJ.c: ,vhe . sold used for "the purposes for
whicn the money was orig i, ally received .
Se c;.. io, 2 .
Said
11
ct is furt1er an nde d by striking therefr o m
Section · 2 thereoi n i'"s entirety and insertir g i:.1 lieu thereof a ne w Section
wh ich snall read as follows:
11
l2
The Au ho i ty shall have t 1 . e power of emi ent domc:.in



or tl"

e purpose oi acquiring pr op erty needed fo_ the purp os es oi t 11e






Al...thority .
Condenu1ation proceedings for ·the ac _uisition of su c h
prop rt.y shall be in accordance -,; ~th t he provisio. s contained 1n
C'1aptcr:::: 36-1 th · ough 36-6, of the Cod =- of Geo ;:(a of 1 933 , as
&:c:-.ended, C hapte1· 36 - 11 of the Code of Geo'rgia of 1933, as an1ended,
or any and all other procedures now or herea ter granted by ti1e
· c:.ws and Constitution of Georgia, including but not limi-ced to the
?:COcedu::e set for;;h nan Act approved M2. rch 13, 1957 (Ga . Laws
1 93 7, p. 387 1, as amended , to pers o ns or corporations ·.a vin.g 1:h
p n v i c ge of ex ercising the ·ight o · eminent do1nai
In addition to
sc:..ch 1:,owc::: oI emine:. t do nain, the City of Atlanta a 1d ·he Countic s
o i Fulton, De K c1.lb, Claywn ancl Gwinnett (and the County of Cobb
~n t he e::ve nt that i t sha li p ar tic ip a t e ) may for the purposes o th e
S . B . 111
- 2-
.
/,..---....,.,,,
\
\
'
~
�..,
A·..:..::ority ex rcise the b:i.•00.dcst. power o_ eminent doma i:1. av3.i lable
to : •. "'rn or any agency o:;: j o int a:::;2.1cy· thereo ·, unde:r any Stabxi:e ,


..r:.d. convey to the Authority any :_:>:.:-oper y so acquired U:'._:)On payment


o ::.· c:cdit for tl e total cos·.: 0£ any acqt:is ition he re DC'.. r .
r.0
local gov er 1ing bo 'y sl1.all exc r ci se any- power
'1.e ::.· ei..,nd e:c \: ith ·esp ct to propert
limi:~s .
emin ent don1ain
loca . . ccl beyond i s ter1:i·torial
11
S -· c ion 3 .
Said Ac 1s f, rtl1c _.. a::-r1en c
sec'.:ion C) of Section 8 t er of, i:1. it
a new subsection \Vhich shall rea
an
o:i:
However ,
e. ti l·ety , an
by striking he re fro 1., sub serting in lieu thereof
L
as fo low :
em:)loyees , includ ing e.,2:ineeri:1:;; , a~:c '1.itcct
al .:..n
const1·uctio.
experts , fiscal agents an c. 2.'.:to :.: .. eys , ·co contr2.c io:· the se vices of
individuals or organizati.ons not er11.p loyed full tirne by ·.:he Authority ,
0 t who ar- engaged prii·:-.,_:i::- ::. ly in. 'c:-.Le re . . d ' tion
&::G.
not the sale o
goods o:.: n:e:::c: an 1se, such
ers o::-.Lc:.l services
0
s but not li r:1itcd
to ·cne services o_ attorn ys, 2..c co u.2Y'::ant s, engi :. ee ~ s, 2.::- c ite c ts ,
consult;::i.nts and adviso _ , . 2l i.owi:-.::, suitable compcnsatio .. and to
m2.ke p1~ovisions fo:c groll,;::_, 1_1:.suyar~ce , i· - ti1·2r.:1ent o · othe
be:.1.eiit arrangements .
Sc c:ion
Lt
e1ni)loycc
11
All laws o r
p .... ::: " o f laws in conflict
wil 'l t . . i s Act 2.re
r. e:c e;oy rep ec1 l e d .


\;0':2~:


\Ve z..~::::o request that the
ast se tcn ce in Section 1-± ( · )
b~ dclet ' c.: 2.1c.
i:.1. .L:..et: thereof the followin g s b s ituted :
.'oc.:-..:'.:."..-5 i:"\. t:-.is .Se.ctio~1 s hall .&f->> y to co·.:1.'c acts for ., ofe.~sion2.l sc ~v:.. c r::.J c :c ·c ne p~ rso n.21 se:..~vic~s o::.· e:nploye.es, or ·::o conc.:··2cts f
o:c
s2-~-
vie.:.:.; o-Z. ::..·.1d.ividuals or o rgc:..niz.:. tio. s not employed full tir:1e. oy ':l.e.
143.215.248.55hc~ity bat who are engaged primari ly in the re.nditio2 ~f J~~son2~
s~rv~c=s ~~d not the sale of goods and m~rchandise., such
services of a~tcrneys, accountants, e.ngir:.c'-'rs,
':::ect.J. co;.--:.sultants and advi sors
o
,
.
i.::.::'"'c i.\l--
�.,::__..,_
..
-
A BILL
} .. :: Act ·co .:..n:..~r:d


E1


Act known as ·.:he:
~~;:) ic. T:·:..ns::.t _.;.x.ti.10::: ity A-:t or 1965,
,~
\.....i~••
11
11
?v:::etropolitan Atla:.:.:a



,,:_)p:cov,;d Maren lC, 1965 (C:••




Laws 1966, p.
priv:..ttdy
t::::-z.r:.si·.:
Ll
u ·. . c rn.ctropol i tan are2; ·co ~c::ic:te c:. provision subjecting sa::.
...\.utl-:..ority :o liaoili...:y fo ... c rt air... ::::cco :.r. ey s :ees of adverse parties ; -~o
.:J. ....1Ql~'-"-v'-"


. ,. . . . . ·- -:. \ ·V ,•. .•. lC


. -.. pu.
., ., b1· ;.. C b OQlC::,
- . , . . ::,2.H
. . .: ...:J...
,\ -
__ ,...,


.


.I.
.h.Ul,l.O .. J..y
~
[nay .... or...l,,.

,....
....... -
.... .I.-.
• • •• ,
- ·
.... .....

.:
ct l.-c Wl cl1 ?CJ. l,alLJ..
g
..:o its p ·r:)oscs ; Io authorize loc.::.i gove:;:::.·.mcnts to pay opcr2tional s"Gb -
... even-..:e bo:-.1.C:.s ; ::o
'
Ir..e
rn&y ~(; ::::-.c.z..<le; to prov::.de
s e c 1...::::-i:y



.01·




t:
2.t con..::: a.cts
2..:-... ct
tra::::-.sactio:is co:.1s 's itt::-.:i. g
t::-i.e ?a 1 1-:..--icnt of obligations sl:a: l not be voidc:.blc a:t12r v2..hdatio:-:,.;
".ib
iod of '.:i::.-r. . c withir, wbich budgc·cs shz.ll be pro::ioscc.
st:rvcy cvi:..;ry ..... ., . .
')
L, .... .1.. I,,..;\.,;
w :.:e: : c .) 1 :cc::il 6 ove::.:r.:m-::nts and oC:..cr pubL.c bodies n1::i.y partici:J::.tc ~--
0 _ ::.-. <;
P... ...: t ; an<... 1:o :r r.Jthe: r p u :c )Os c s.
�Sc ,:::cion l.
_-\:.1 _.\c t known as th~ lvfci.:ro1)01itan
Adan ta I-C ni<l
.
i
Tr2. .. s i ;: -~'.:cl:o ·i:.y _-\.c · oi 1)65 , ;;;.pprovcd :\t~;:irch 10 , 1965 (Gz... L aws
196 5, p '.
? ' ·.=.)
~) '
-
ci.S
arnc r..d~d, p:1rticularly by an Act approve
.). ) U.l ::i, ·~: t:~011
.!_
l.ll it: .· Cll
,.i..l' c
v'j.
March -:'. ,


,nd i n .;cr t i"i ,
,


" i.· li e
-~o a cccpt,.:;ci -;:Hi::-.. ciplc s oi 2.cc01..:n;::.~-.. g , the total cost, paid
. 1cur:r(.;c,
'
o:.· :..1
to study,
· 111~n C(;,
a ra"'.)ic. tr2..nsit sy s ten.1. or rz..nici ·i::.· 2.ns::.t "._)1·ojecc to a nor-:.·:c.a.l
o:::
c-~:.~ :t cd,
to cla_ify wha~
co sts rnay be capi - i:-:. c...'.iY way fr.cs0 - E:X?E:nses w:. ich L'...ay be ca:c .:.·.:aLzccl &s
ta ized as costs of
a. rapid t ra. sit
syste m or project
w 1_,___ ac e~ ue on obligations 1 s sued 0y tn e Al:fr. . o:;: i.:y to
n:c.2.•:cc t::e con st... ;_:c.:io:i of


J.'.1.f





-an i d tra1c.si"i.: sys.:e:-.. --. o:;:-






?:.·oj<;C'C di.:;. rin g t i1c co ns .:::n:ct:.or:. Dc r-i od ane'.. :or s1:-:: ( 6)
.
.
costs :.ncurrea
.
. :..-1
.::,;·._,.);::,..._;C~:.G
'·.L' ) ' 21'
0 1-.r
S ,··c'.:ion
6
.....
1n l'cS
a ::-,c w ~-..;,~:,.3,:: ccion (i)(2) wnich s1cali rc.-:i.d as follow s:
1n
�f: ,)
~ ) T~1c purcl:.:i.sc or lc;:i.se of a n y privat e ly o w n ed
dcl c t ' tl ' r ~qu ir~ 1n ' n . oi .:i. showii:s
sys1:c1-:1 oi: ;;r;:i11spo ::.--t ati o n of -oa c;sen g cr s £or hire in i~s



h.::. t L1 <2 C l~ ui s i i o 1




.J
o.:.·
3.
.p. r::. v a · ly- o,vncd
. .~::t i :i.· (!ty,



rans?Ortat io:1 syst 1-1



. s e sse, . .:ial to t 1


i~" s..:ction 8( c) o .. S (d ). ri
cev dopm.ent oi _ a.pid
t r a.i: sit in the met::.· o S a i d A ct ::.s fur fr, c _ i:l.lYJ.encle d by s c:rikin g th e refrom
-:i 0lita. are::a




uo ;:..:; ci.io::-: ' c) of Sc::ction 3 1n it::; (;:1t i:.: ety &nd inserting in liE:u the::rcof







I
)
• 7 s •• a.!.1
""
r

a ::1 cw s ·...: •::i scc"10::1.
~c
w 1Ecn
_ eac..1 a s :c0
_1ows





11 I
c
)
T h e power to develo p cia1:;:.., p~.a:;:-,.:; and inJ.orn1ation
d<:!ve:lo p and car::.· y
01..
t mass t r ansportatio n demo::;.stra -
tio~1 projects , including the deve:lop:rnent, testing a ~1d dem cns-:: _ ation of :iew f acilities, e qui pme:;:-,'~, techniques ancl
methods, and ·c he i mp :-- o · vement and u t il:.zation of tr ans?o :: ·ca-cion servi ce s ai1.d facilit::.es, anc. any other rr:.eans
ve lo ? in g, uti~izir: g
OT
01
de -
i r.:1p rov i 11 g :i.Tia s s t~a::..: s :) Or Latio r1 :i.r.:.
to e l e t e a p r o vi s io n
subje cting sa id
c~-:. ; i:1(;;:;ring , :::.l13. l1Ci:cl c:..r.cl e:c o :;:-. ol-:"1.1c s ·.:l:d i-.:s, ·.:o n : a,,;_c; ?l ct~: s ,
A u tho .. ity t o liability
io r c e rt a i n atto rn e ys dc.: si g:-1s a nd te s ~s rc : a:: c c. .:o r2. p ::.c. -;;ra:.isi·~·projects . I:-.:. c o::1 fee s of a dverse
parties
rc. a :.:1ner ·c.::ion 2::iy lands, wat e:i: s o r prei-:11s es fo r .:he purpose


-. (;\




, ·...._b .,; c;ctic:i.-.:. (i) wh: c: sha ll r cz.<l a::; iollow s :






' i)




e,{
r;:r.(;
po\vC
w e n te r i n t o c ontrac t s with t he St3.t c
G-.:o ::.- g i 2. &nd a ny ager.. cy, i r, s tr u :-n e: ntalit y , a u tho ri ty ,
- ~-
�rn.unicip::i.lity o:i: politic :;_ su!.:)division thereof or
·:n cr...:in, J.nd pa riicub.rly with the locJ.l govcrnn1.cnts
wit>.in u1c n:.c:t:i: opo:i.itJ.n




ca , ::or public trans :,ortation






services to be :ren · erea by the Au hority or its rapid
-~:::;:;.:1sit ::;yster,1, ;.;.nc ior any o·c'1.cr pu:rposc:s inciccntal
·:o i,1dica t e ,-:hich
puolic bociies s id
_~_uthority may con -



o :1.1-2 cs;;a.'.:llishrn.cnt a.. d 111.ain·c<.::nancc of its rapid tr2.ns i t




tract \Yith pertaining syst1::n1., or any par·c or project t·1ereo ~, including the
to its purposes nd
to cla:::-ify the power payr:.,...:::'t oi iunds to subsidize fr1e operations oi such
of loc3.l governinents
top Y opera ional
subs idi es
syste1n if ·t s}1ould ev ::: be nccc:ssa:;.:y to
the usual fa.ciliti""s related t::iereto .
Sec-'-icn



i .




o so, and
11
Said Act is fu _ ther a1nended by striking
t: ereiron.J.
subscc·.::.on c) of Section 9 :.n its entirety and inse1·ti~1.~ i:::i lieu t..1.ereof
a new subsection (c) which shall read as follows :
Boa ~ d shall
,
.
Q(!·i: ~ ::~11'1:i.~-- C
oy itseli c:):clusi vcly
by ·.:--ic Au:ho:city, the scr-~eduled se:::vice::; ;;o be made
available to the pi..1.biic and -~he an'lo·u.nt s to be charged
to eliminate the pro v ision for judicial
review of char ge s
or services fixed
by said Authority
'.:r..e::.:eio :: .




c:1eclulec.






Before 1na!c:.. ng a:n.y c.e·~erminations as to
ervices o_ an"lou::1.ts ·co be chz..rged there:o::.·,
the.; 302.::-c. shall :i.i:;.: st hold a·c lez..st one public hearing
·~:-,..:; largc:c.t circulatic.,n
J.
-~}1c
·11.d:ro )ol:i.tan :1:.: ...:
no ·


c:-_0~c ·" .::... ten u ays :.1.or lcs.3 tr.an five d:iys prior ..;o the


- 3--
�:n,lcs an,t rcg,1L.1.tio 1s tu g0vc1·n ::;uch hc:::i.ring::; not
Sc...: ion 6.


1


SJ.i ' _.\ct 1s fu:rthcr 'arnc:1.dcd by sL iking tbcrciror11.


cw ··d) sc ctio

1 (d) which shall ::cad ;.is :.:allows :




I, :
\
~
.l )
..)c~::.·
intc.:. est p::i.yablc 2.t s · c h tin1cs :tncl a· such rate
o:::- rc:.tcs



.nd sI'.all rnaturc 1n s,__...cn amounts and at




Si.:.c: :i:Y1es
_ot exc eeding :or ty (".::O) ye!2.rs fro:,n the
d2.-ce fne1· eof, as th


i3oard rr:.ay detenni ne .


The
to delew require n:.en-s t at rev nue
bonds 1nay be ir. coupo :1 or registered f r om, or both ,
bonds o: said A ui:1:o rity
be sold at pa 2.nd
bearing inte est at
as the Boa1·d 111.ay d ete r:nin e , a:id the Board may ·
a rate not exceedin;; ff.::.:,c provision for the rcgis-::rz.:~io::-, 0£ any co upon bond
s 1x per cent per
anr.um



.::::c:.: es -:: .




s;.1'.:,scctiora ( 6 )
01
1'
S ection 10 in its e:::1.ti r e ty a:1.c. i:..1.serting 1r.. lieu t:ne1·cc:.:
tcnY:::io:::-2.ry bonds, equi pn:1er..t trust c<c:rtificates 2.::::d oth e :::to p1·ovic.e that ail
ooligations issued by o0:i_;;atio:is issued "l.:r.de r ·cl1e provis ions 0£ this Act s::J.l~
said Authority sh.a 1
havE: t ' e q;__;_alities
a _d inciC:.ents o
, egotiable
"L:r..cler the la.ws of this state anc. a _ c !1. e r eoy decl2._ ccl to
instruments
a:1C: the: pro;?e 1··cy, obligi:i:cic,r.s an~ interest 0:1 1:.1.:: obli~2.tioj::s
oi the A-.....t::--iority shall be cx~rn.pt fro1n all taxaticn wit"1in
~- .. -
�1




i






'CliOl1 8 .
Said Act i::; further am.ended by strikin g therefr or.n
Sl:b s 'Ci..iOl1 (h) oi Sec ·ion 10 i _
-,. ... -2.w


.t::i


cmircty a . . cl in se r t in g m lic:u thereof
s1.:.0scctior. h) whi c:n sho..11 read a::; follows :
11
(:1)
Born:s oi the Authority r-:i.ay be ::;old by public
c :11.pctitive b::.dding o:· dnol·: gh negotiation with
).i.:
spc c ;;ive p cu-cha$c r o
p'l.:rch.:i..se rs.
If the
J..
o::i.rd
.::ictc ·n~::..-:2::; tl," t so..i '-' by public co m .petiti vc bidd in g is
t o ddcte the equire 111.cnt that bo 1.ds be
in 1:11c best interest of ·he A u 'i:ho rity with res )C Ct to




o ld a t public






c~lni p '.li. .i.vc b.i.cdin ~


1oti cc


al:al
o:
sale an
invita'ci o n to bid wit:-1 respec t thereto
be adve::: t ised ~s is custon:.arily d one in the ha-:.1.dlin g
of g ovcrnrnental bond issues and section 14(b) as to th.:;sc
. . atters shall not a p ply.
Se;ctio
~
9.
11
Sz..ici _t\ct 1 s :\.:1··.:t.2 r c1.rr. . e11dcc~ by st ri:( i ng tl:c::: ci r o:ci:-1
.
~~·. I....' :
II
?)
vz..l.icia.t:cci , :;.r1 s0::a :c as a::>plic:able:, i n a cco:rci anc c w i tl1.
tne proc c~u2: e of fr1e i\even:c:. e :2.ond Law (Ga . L . 19 37,
? • 7'.
. C 1, (;t . seq . ) as now c :: h e r e a:frer a1ner:d.:::ci . T11e
to clar ify the p : :.- 0 cedur e fo th e validar;ctition fo -:: valiC::.ation s},all c:..lso rn.a. ~ e pa rty de:ic:ad ant
tion of rcvenu(:; bonds ·
t 0 ::; u ch action a . . y n unicipal ' ty , county , aut 10· ity,




·<1
.J C






i vi s i0n , in:;.;tn.;.1n c nt:..t.lity o
dcpar1.1Y1cnt of th e
StC!.tc:
o · Ce 0r gia , i:Z subject to be sued , which has conn a ct e.::i
with t:he: Autncr i '~y £o r ·.:he
-;i :.: 0 · e:ct



i c







12 ~






vices and iacilitics
,
01
J.:8
ior wnich bo::-,ds arc to be is succ. a1;.d so g},.t .. o
validated and suc:1 n'lunicip~.lity , county , auth or ity,



i 'l.,b d:ivision , instnnncnta li ty or dcpJ.rt1nc1-~t ::;hall be




- S-
4
CO:
.
�:.-~ ~'--1::,:cci to show c ause, ii ar.. y, why ::;uch contract
or co:1-r2.cts and the tenns and cone itions ther eo f
s:-..o~ :d : 10t be i :1 1ui::: c
i .. to by the coun an d the
va:ici.i::y oi the -~ern1s thereo:.: to be dete r mined and
.or ·che: ·9ayr.1 ~.. t o:I: any !:;;UCh bonds of the Authority .
The judgn1ent o: valid atio n shall be final and con elusive with resuecc to such bonds, and ·che security
.:r1erefor, agains t the P_u h ority , and aga in st any
mm .. icipality , county , &u-ch ority , sub di visio n , instru-



.nentali::y o:::- depa r tment o:: the S '~ate of Georgia, i£ a




?2. :.-ty to the validati01,. p. oceedings, co ntrac -cing with
J·he . ,_11.. c:tho:::-ity .
11
-._. , l:. \..'. l:
~
J,,.j
... ..
1..
,._,. . : _:: L: V
·:.:.,_;:..r,s 1or anci :::.ssi.st in the reloc&tio::1 o:£ persons
-
... .


.:.aJ..:::l.;.lC S ,


.) sincss conccr;.1s,
no:-.·Hoii:: or 6 aniL'. atior'..s 2.;.1cl othc .. s) d i spla c ed by
to lin1.it the sou .. ces
£rom which rcloca tio payme .. ts .ay
be made
on-::r2..·cions oi
fr.8
Aut}:ori;;y
t::.· z.nsit projecc, a:c..
El
c::u: rying out a rapid
to rnake ::: clocz.. ·ion pay :-nen ·s to
or with rcsj_)ect to such pc::.· son::; .
Tr:e relocation p&..y -



--::.cnts rd<;rre:d to in t:l1is subsection b) s~1all not be




rr.acle fro~'Y'.. -~:-..e: P - occeC::.s cie:rive:ci :aor,:1 the sale of bonds
1:-:,'/ th<; Authority no r fro1n rcve:~1ue s or funds which abso.:::n"i:
-~}:e 1-r.2:.king 0£ such relocation payn1er-.t s there:...~ orn would
0r the interest the:re:on . 1 1
- 6-


_


�Sc-:.tion 11.
.'.::iaid Act is further an:1c:aclccl by striking thc:rc:from
sub::;ec:ion 1 c) oi Section. 15 in its entirety and inserting in lieu t:ier c of
-1
new subsc -:. io 1 c) which shall 1·cacl as iollowt: :
11
(c) Any contract or transac-;:ion of the Authority rn -
sectio. (a) he _ eof, o ~ a violation oft: e a c t of the General
As senc.bly approved Mar c h l O, 19 6 -= , (19 64 Ga . L . p . 261) ,
as an1
ded, o r a vio l z,:cion o:f any other p r o vision o f law
ap?licable w tl1e Author i ty, ii:s .c..ioard n1.crr1ber s, o ffi c ers ,
to ?rovicl..e t 1at con tracts and trans or er:::1.p: oyees regulating conflicts o::: i ::ite ::- est , shall ·oe
actions c onstitut·ng
security for the pay - voidable by the Boar d ; provided, howeve r, a judgrn ent a nci
111. nt of obiigations
shall not be voidable ore.er vali ating °!)ands of t:1.e Authorit y, as in Secti o n 10
afte r validation
prov1cea, shall c o _stitute a fir.. 1 and c onclu s i ve adjud ic a-ci on
th&t no such conflict of :.::1.terest exists w i th respect to s...:.c;1
~cc11rity ior r}1c·-:_:,2.;,n.-;.1.c ~1.t c: st1.cl".. bor:i.ds . 1 1
s~asectio. ('::>) 0£ Sectior.. 17 in its entirety and inse1·ting m lieu i:hcreoi a
new s"c1bscction (b) wr.icr. shall rcac. as i ollow s :
"(b)
During each :Ciscal year the.• Board shall propo s e


in


~:1:::.·...:;:.l operating b clg e.: io :2: the cns1. rn.g :iisc:::..l y...::a.1· · ncl
hold a public r.ea,.ing therco~1 .
Aiter such puolic hea.1·ing
·.:::-.e :Soa1-d s1-:all review its ? rO)OScd budget, and, on or
to expar.d rhe pcrioc:.
of time with in which


J....::.:o:-c the last U.d.Y o:f t: c fiscci.l ye::1.r , it shall dopt a11


budge::ts shall be propose d and review e d <,.::,.._,__.._d ope;rc:..ting b ·d~ e:c fo:: the: ensui1:g :fiscal year . In
-~:.e; an:r......:.al operating budget each O?erating fund shall be
set forth s epara-ceiy and




11






w an estimate of ·he £-..me.
~alancc to be a vailabl-:; a·c the bc ~innin g ox the yc;:i.r , an
- 7-
�cs tirnate o" anticipated crcdi ·s during the year a ccording
to sou ... c ~, an cs;;in1atc o · .:mti ci patecl c harges , inc l u ding
lr.:)ln antic1p;1t cd rcv.:m.uc s, and co1nparati ve data on t he
13.s;; two con1.plc·.:c' fiscal ye;2. rs
n
or csti1na-ccc, fo r t he current yea r.
Scc1:io:1. 13 .
si1nilar data , actual
11
S aid A c t is iu :nhc r a1nended by st:::iking th er efrom
S ection 18 whi c h reads as follows :
11
Scction 18.
Engineering Surve y .
At least e very tr-.1.ree
years, th e Board shall enc.ploy a iirm of qualified i n depenc.ent e ngin ee rs to survey the conc.iti on 0 1 t:he
to de l te the r equire ment o f an eng inee r - i,.uth orityis fa c iliti es and OJ?er at::.ons fro1n an en g inee r ing
ing survey eve r y
thr ee years
standpo i nt and make a repo r;; th ereof and any re c or.irncndc:.. t ::.ons :::o r i r .-.1.p rov en1.cnt i n i 'c s ~)hys ic al faciiities a nd




ov-..
::.·n:-.1.e;nt






l:l
ir..
the metro Dol::.ta ::1 area .
11
i t S s.:::.t::.r C :.:y.
Saici A c t is iu ... the r a:::-:-.. ended by sc.: ikir:.g ::here:r o:".:.1.
s c..:.sc ci:::. o;.1. (b) of Section 21 "in i::s entir ety and i nsc . t i ng
111
lieu the r eoi a
,·,,:vi :... ·u1,::.;cction (b) w ·1 ·ch s h-:ill re:~,d :,c.: Io . lows:


'(L) 'J.'lH; .i\1.cLliori.ly :.;h~LJ..L <.1.l ::,;v IJ(.; cxcn·,1JL f1:u:u1 ...,_ny 1·c:,;l.ll..l.ti.011


to clarify the re::lation
of the Autho rity to
·0y tnc Publi c S e :::vic e Co nnn::. ss ion oi this S tate. 11
the Public Service
S(;ctio::1. 15. Sa.id Act i s :Curfr1er arr:.enc.e;d by striki g the 1· 2i:i: o:::n
Commis s ion
Se;ctior. 22 in its cr.tirety and in serting 1n lieu ther~of a new S e ct i on 22
1
'Se::c-cion 22 .
To. t Liabili·.:y; Insurance.
The Au::hority
s~all not enjoy g ove _ mne:-i.tal i:mrnunity frorn tort liabili1:y,
-
'-:
i., .... -
�Dut shall be liable t hcrcfo ::..· a s any private.; cor poration
cxce;,pt t:1a t no exe cution sl12..ll be le vied on any property
o:.: t~1c A: ·hor ity p rior to :1inety (90 days from the; date
o:



i. ~:.,




al jucigmem again t the Authority .
The Authority
s.1a.:.l p roviC:.e ior adequate ins1.:r a i1cc or similar protection
against any loss, liability or other risk, hazard or


o pe rmit the


_,;uthori~y to act as
a self - insurer
_ espons ibility to whic h it 1-r..ay be exposed or which it
rr:Zi.y accept on acco'll:at
o:2erations .
0.1.
i-cs pro?e ::ty, personnel, or
Such i nsurar.ce rn.ay be p rovided through
self- insurance res e rves or by contracts or arrange ments w ith othe r parties 1n such manner a::id amounts
as the Boar d in i ts d iscr etion shaL. cietermine .
Section 16 .
11
Said A ct ::. s further arr.ended by s-cri
·::.r..g tne r cfro~
S c c·cion 24 in its en ir e ty and in scning in l ieu thcreoi a new S c ctio::-, 2-;,


.:. :::- ~;:,. :;. ::,


c:c:2.:;: e ci ior the ?u:::posc
01 this _-'>..ct to be an essential


o v c nr
::-:c:nt2.l iunctio n a:i.d a p t b2.ic purpose of t he City oi Atlanta


and fr.c counties of Fulto~1., DeKalb , Clayton and Gwin nett, ana
t o m o d ify the pro c edur es w he r eb y
o: fo e co·,nty of Cobb if it :hereafter de ·~ermines- to ?articipate
local g ov e rnments
and othe r p ubl ic
l 1 L.. .... ..1.-..; Au-cha r ity a s provicied 1n this Act .
b o d ie s may partici ,. The B oard and the local governing boci.y of the City of
pat e i n financing
', ';j }
and s upporting a
rapid tr a nsit
Lt:a:r:.ta and each of th e: counti es of Fulton, DeKalb , C L:l.y t on,
sys t e m
.I• .,,.,,...
\
c::.:-.<l G w i r,nett, and of t he c ount y oi Co bb if it hcrc<1itcr
.ines t o pa.,, tici-oate i. th e Aut hority as provided

L
i:..--, :his P-c t, subj ect t o s 1..;.ch limitations a s ar e he re i na.::'"e - ~n t :'ni s section s<.;t f or ·ch, rnay negotiate
- 9-
�;:-.nci cic t cr:1. inc th c extent of fin;:i,nci:::..l
.
1) :1 •
·ici )ation


..:.nd .:he -.::irn.2 or ti 1.1.cs ::;uch ii 1a 1cial participation n1.ay


be required wit1 rcspcct ty
C;).Ch
of the; local govcrnni.cnts
in .:nde::.- to fiY-1::mce provision for· a rapid transit system
, g:1 ·c·1 e joint in::;tru:rncntality o:Z the Amhority .
£ ::;uch
c.:er:rn.i:1 tion co!1ternplates a conn-actual obligation on ·he
ua::.··~ oi a local governn1ent to n1.ake pay1nents t o the Autho::.·ity
over a period of tin1e e xc eeding one: year or t o i · s u e an y
bor:..ds or other obliga;;ions evi dencij_1.g ir.debtedness , su ch
.
cieter1-:1ir.. - ;;io"' s'1ali take the iorm of a r anid trans i t
c ont ra c t to be entered i nto between the Autho r i ty and
t :-. c lo c al gove ::.· nment .
T he :final execution 0£ a r a pid
t:;: ansit c ontr a c t shall be c on1.nicted in e v ery i nstan c e
1n the :::-r:.anner hcrc::.naf.:cr ::;.:;t fo_ tb. in this Section 2 , .
o : ·J:c c ost oi financi:..'lg a r c:.p i c. trar;.s i t projcc·c or p::: ojcc-cs,
2..
iocal go ve:!:"nment rnay in 1:he r:--.anner pres c :;:- i b.:;d by law c1.nd
Sl.:bjec~ to the conditio:1s 2..~d l i :r-[litatio11s pres c ribc.;G. ·oy law,
i ssue its gene:;:-al oblig2.tion bor.c.'..s , pay ovei· the pro c eeds
·fr. creo:f to the Author i ty and fo.e :;:- cby co:-nplctc and mctk-::: ii::al



he execution of the proposed r a:)lG. transit c on;;ra c t antici?ated




'-::,y such ::ioncl au·c:.10rization and "s suance and the Aut:l:..o:.:it: y ::;ha:l
agree
t~'le:;
1n
s-uch cor.t::a c 'c to pcriorrn ior s·u.ch lo c al 6 overm11-2nt
afo:;:e said g overnmcr. tal iur.ction and to pro vi de the nccc s s ary
u · ::,_r.::; 1:,ort;:i.tion sc1·viccs and :facilities .


.::..)


P- s c::u1 altcrr1ativc 1Y1c.:thocl o{ p rovidin g the iinancial pc:..:;:c:ici:.)J. -
1..iu~'l cicte; ·m.irJ.e c by its local ,sov.:; rnm g body to be i;; s pro:)c::: s:.1:.cn.:
- 10-
�lo ·al govcrnm.cnt n.1 y em:cr in ·o a rapid transit contract or
c0nt : :~1ct::; c:1lli 1f; for the At,tho::.:ity to p<..:!rionn for it'thc.: .:i.forcsaid
,,. o vcr m nent::i.l .LUnction and c:.illing for it to n1a :-.::.
e riodic payments
to t l1e At,:::hority for the public transpo r tation services and


facilities c: 01:t r a ct ed f or, whic h payments ma y include an1ounts


required. to defray the pe r ::.odic p rin cip ct.l ar:.d i"1tc re st )ayn1c.: nts
on ::my obli g ations i ss u e-· by ·h..:: Autho rity io:.: the purpose oi
iin::i.ncing th..:: cost o:C any r::i.picl tr:::..nsit project or projec ts,
a::nounts necessary to establis:1 and maintain rea s ona b le
rese ... ves 1n co nne ction w::.th the paym ent o:f sai2. debt se rvice
a:1d amo-..:nts re qu i red. to defray any op erational defic it w:'1ich
the system or any part thereof may inc ur .
(c) A local gove:r:nir..g boc.y may p ::: o c eeci 0:::1 its ow:1 r.::: soh1tior-,


 !:a-:: ::1:c ii:1.a:1c ial ?a~·ticipa:cion required 1:he:-eunder may



,_-"' as onaLJ.y be iinanced w i t1:out ·~he: i .::: vy o:c any new or


•,, 1
..1.l",
1' r · . 1 ; . , · ,
I
i
, 1 :.
1 , 11
IJ
J
f"
l ' 1' i ' i '
1 •
J
I/
i. I
l
t
I .l
I 1·
f /
'/ /
j i -, ) l
I I
I
i. i:
{'·
1 1·
j l.1'
1'
y.
tl is event , the r es o l utio:r-1 o:f the lo c al govern1;:,g body
tha -.: the partic ipati on r equi::.: ed there "l.:nder may reasonably
be i::.nan c ed witho ut the l e vy of any new or increased tax
0~1.
the ?rope::: ty situated w i thi n its -er ritory shall be con -
c :usive oi that :fact.
(i:
Oth e rwi.3c, befo r e a r ap i d transit contra ct such as is
ci e: :;cribeci. in subsection (d) is exe cuted bc ·cwee:1 the Authority
a nci a local g overnm.ent, the loc.:.i go verning body shall c all
a n ·e~e ction and s h all sub n 1it tc the qualifi ed voters of s :ch
- LL -
�l o c.::11 :;ovc::: nn1.cnt in a rci(;ren<lu::n as hereinafter proviclccl ,
c:hc; .._uc ,3tion whet 1er or not the local g over nn1.cnt should enter



.:::.o a r :Jid t:,: a;.1sit c ontra.ct o · contracts calling io-:.: it to make




perio d ic pay1nen-cs to the Authority within the parti cular r.noneta ry
lirnitatior: or iimitations p ... oposc
The
HOC
by such lo cal govcr:::1.ing b c.dy .
,du.r e io,: holdi:1g .:he rdcrendum c allccl fo · rn
sub scctio1 (i) shall be as io lows :
Tl:c local governing body
s:nll cause to be published 1n a nc;wspa J c r having gcn<::rd
c::. ... cula-cion throughout the te rrito r y of the local gave ... nrrle::1t
involve d , once ea c h , week for three wee ks immediately preceding





-::: Wc;ci, during which the rc:.. -:::rcndu1n is to be held, a 101.:icc to





1e electors thereof that on the day na1nec. therein an ele c tion




w il be h elc. to dete i-r11.ine fne ouestion wheth e r or not the loc2.l
g ove r:11-:1ent shall enter i;1;;0 a rapic. transit co:1tract or co -. c: ro.cts
c:.:l the ele ctio:'1 cii s t:::ic t s wi;;}_i:;:-. th e ·.:c r ::: itorial lirnits o:t t h e
~o c al g overr.i-r1ent involv e d e xc e pt that an ei e ction call e d b y
t>.e l ocal g overning boc.y o : any county within the :::11.etrop0Et2.:1
a r ea sha· 1 not be heic.
1:::1.
a:_y p a rt o f such coun ty which


i.S


\V::.t::in
t ;-..c te rr::.torial lim its o f t h e City of Atlanta i i , with rc s? cct t o
'.:he :) a rtic u lar rapid tran sit proje c t or projects -~o b e sup9or"Ci.::C.
cy the p r opo sed r apid tr a n s it co::.1t a ct of s uch county, s::i.i' C i::y



.s al · ca y a pa1·ty to a rap id n-a n s it contr a ct or t he gov...:: :::1::.ng




IJGc.y
of ;:;aid C ity p::.·opo::;e;::; t o c 1tcr into
r ap.-d t r,:i-:.1 sit c or:::::: c.c"'




·ubj(;ct -
;o the ap-;_)roval t 1crc o f ::i.t a rc ie r c n dun1 .






1..o be :::irescr.t s.: <l to t he elc cto
· ::t t 1;
The qucs
·1011
o f a loc a l g ovc n11n s.: nt ;.:.:1-:::. s s.::t
�iorth on the b:illot shall be detenn.ined by· the local
govcrn::.:1g bo -' y ;:i,nd i t slull set out t he monetary limitation
or lim.itations, ii any, proposed by the local governing
b0dy w id resp ' Ct to the :: nnou1 ts oi the periodic pay11cnts
to b' rn;:i,dc
nJ er :1ny suc ~1 r.:1.pi c'. t ransit c ont ·act or co tracts.
T~1c bJ..llot subrnitting the question shall be in a fonn dc::t<.:!rmined
by the local go verning body, and th12: form. of the. ballot shall
b e published as a pa ~ t oi the aioresaid notice.
Each such
election called by the governing body or c:. county within the
met ropolitan area under th.2 provisio~1.s of this subse c tion
is hereby declared to be a co·c1nty ele c tion and shall be
gove rned by and c ondu c teci. in a cc ordanc e with the provisions
oi the Georgia Ele c tion C ode.
The board 0£ reg i strars 0£
ea ch county snall provide tbe n e ce s sa:cy lists ior c onducti . . g
delega te, w ho shall 0£:fici2.lly de cla::.·e t}1c re suit .
EZi.c h
de c tion c ailed by ·c~. e g ov e :::-n::.:1 g ::iody of th e City o :. _.:i~tla:::tz,,
1.1::-. der t he ;novisions oi this sue se ction shail be gove :..- :::ecl by
1D.c udin:::, spccific;:i.lly the chc:..rt.:.:r cf :::aid City, ct.t tl <.: ti . c
6 ove rnin g the:: ho ~d in g of e lectio:is by sa~cl Ci-c y .
T'.:-.e ex _)ense
o : any such e l e ction caile d by the gove::.·ning body of th e Cit y
oi Atb.. nta shall be paid by the City of Atlanta.
(b)
If a r.1ajority oi thos e vo-cin g in such an ele ction vo te
in fa vo::: of the proposition sub::nitted, then tl-1.e local
- 13-
�g 0v~::: ni.1g b o d y ::;hali b"' al:::c~1orizcd to agree upon and
execution of a r apid transit
c0 n trac ·c o::: con trac;:s subj ect '.:o ::;uch moneta r y lirnitation
or Ln:;.i·c3.tions as were proposed w the ele c torate and in



...:: co rci::i.l1ce with the te r r:."ls of this Act.




(:. ) _-\ _ocal gove:rn:nem: :c:.1.&y elec:: any n1.ethod provided 1~1.
L"l::. s
se c-.:io:-i to finance ::he p2.rticipation requi red. of it 1::--.
wnole or in pa:::t , and the el.::: c tic:, ::--. of o ne rnethod shall not
? reclucie tne election oi anothe _ n1.cthod w i th r espect thereto
or w i th r es p e ct t o any a d ditional or supplementary participatioa
dete::.·r.:1.ined to be ne c essar y .
(j) W h e n the Authority and a l o cal government have co:npleted
and iully exec--1.:ed a ra-pid transit c ontract in c ompliance wi::h
t l"'.e re qui _ ements of this _-\ct, such cont::: a c t shall cons:initc
w a y car.:. -- e
er 00 ,_'
C,
a r.C:. cr e cit o f a r.y local
·;,le2 6 ed w it}. re s p e ct to a :::ap ::.c tr an sit co:ntracc.
(:'-
A n y local govermnent :nay us e p ub lic fu~-.cis ·co ? r ovic.c 1or
a ra? i d L a n sit syste1n within the :netropolitar. a:c e a anG. ::-:.-1&y
evy and colle ct any t a x es a u tho : :ized t o it by law t o ·che e xi.:e:r.t


necessar y to fulf ill t he o b li g atio::-i. s incurrcc. in a :::apic. t: ::: aas :::c


co:it::: z.. c t o r co n tr a c t s wit};_ the A1..:thor i ty ; p:::ovicie d , t::at no



.0 co.l county g ove:r:rnnent s h all lav e t h e p ow.:; r t o l .:::vy ar"y ;:ax




0 ::.
c, {
2.~·,y .; uojc ct o i -..: ax a ;:ion s :.t 1.. ;:;,;: ~ cl w i tl i n the t..-:;rri rnri::i.l E r:... its
the C ity o f AtlZ:.nta in i u l.ii lln1.c11:c oi fina nc i a l obli:;::t ··i o :1s set
{0::: C'l
i~'l
a rapid tran~;it c o n t ::: act w h en t he C i ·cy of _t.~ tb.1".t J.
- 1-..: -
~1z.i.s .J.
�:::a·.Jid t:.:2.:1.sit c ontr2. c t with the ~e1~l '. :hority c alling for said
C:.-.:y
to 1ss1.:e its general obligation bonds_ for rapid t:l: an::;it
pl::;::xlscs
CH to
pay rnonics pcr i o ically with respect to the
o.cbt sc:: vicc on obiig;:nions issu-c:d by the Authority , and is itsc .. : us :.ng its public funds or levyi1:g a tax for eithZ::r oi such
?Urpo ses .
( l) Any ::.nunicipality o::.· c ounty witnin the rr.ctropolitan area


1.:;ly transie r to the Autho::.· ity any p rop e rty or fa cilities , or


r-,::.::.y be useful to -d:e establish 11..er.-.:, op e r c1tion or administration
oi the r apid trans it s ystem contemplated hereunde r, a ~'ld may
contract with the Authorit y for &.:'ly of e r purpo se inc idental
·.:o th1::: e stablis:n..111..cnt, opc::::.'~ior_ or adrninistra.tion o·i such
s~:a:l !Jc ,-;:.::'.'l0\,Vl1 as Scc::ions 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 , 23, 2-± and 2.S , :-cs?cctivciy ,
, to renumber
1 certain
saici Act a?proved
ar.cl ci.ny :r e:::e::.· ences i:ci said Act, as h e::.· etofore


se ctions of


the A ct


\{arc:-_.;,, :966 and by ·che preced::.ng lc:.:::'..guage oi ·.:his amer.c.a·.:o:-y A ct, to


24, 2:5 anci. 26 as tl:ey we c ·- own
s.:r:_y ci said Sec-cions 19 , 20, 21, 22,
p:.:-:.c ~ to ·.:he ac.optio:1 of this arnenda:cory A ct, are hereby char:geci so that
5l.:.c::. :;: e:Eerences h.:::rea£'.:er shall be to said Sections as re:::i"wY. . ber.:::d .
- b-
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT /tUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
SEPTEMBER 30, 1967
BUDGET
1967
Unappropriated Surplus
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
SEPTEMBER 30, 1967
$128,281.64
$128,281.64
$ 84,030.00
23,190.00
82,770.00
91,800.00
18,210.00
$300,000.00
$ 5,520.00
$ 63,022.50
17,392.50
62,077.50
68,850.00
13,657 . 50
$225,000 . 00
$ 3,663.17
$ 95,000.00
276,000.00
$371,000.00
$676,520.00
$804,801.64
$ 60,000.00
135,402.54
597.46
$196,000.00
$424,663.17
$552,944.81
$ 68,950.00
10,500.00
$ 4 7 ,2 03 .22
7,86 3.00
1 , 109.00
533.00
1 ,680 . 00
10,000.00
99.00
$ 92,871.00
$ 3,150.00
1 , 151.16
400.00
875 . 59
300 . 54
104. 00
$ 57,897 . 51
$ 2,4 00.00
INCOME
Appropriations:
City of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
Sub-Tota ls .
Interest Income
Federal Funds:
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
Interest~ Federal Funds
Sub-Totals
TOTAL INCOME
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
0
EXPENSES
Staff Cost:
Salaries
Ex penses
Benefits:
Social Security
Guaranty Fund
Health and Accident Insurance
Retirement .
Workmen's Compensation
Sub-Totals
Board Meetings
Administrative and Offic e Overhead:
Rent
Communica tion and Postage
Furniture and Equipment
Supplies
Printing
Auditor
Accountant
Public Information
Advisory
Insurance:
Public Liability
Depository and Forgery
Fide l ;i.t y Bond
Sub - Totals
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3,000.00
2, 000 . 00
2, 000 . 00
3,600.00
1 , 000 . 00250.00
1,000.00
33,000 . 00
5,000.00
72.00
56.00
199.00
51
I
177. 00
$
$147 , 198 . 00
$
2,25 0 .00
1,448.94
117 .8 1
1,978.78
623.56
250.00
500.00
17 ,009.03
1 ,077.35
55.00
56 . 27
198 . 60
$ 25 , 565.34
$ 85 , 86 2 .85
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
SEPTEMBER 30, 1967
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
BUDGET
1967
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 1967
TO
SEPTEMBER 30, 1967
$804 , 801.64
$552,944.81
$147,198. 00
$ 20,000.0-0
$ 85, 86'2.. 85
$ 31,250.00
$ 29, 939 . 00
32,667.00
16,333.00
16,000.00
15,293.00
3,333.00
1,667.00
0
0
1,563.00
4, 742.09
EXPENSES
Brought Forward
Counsel
Consultants:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan
P,anning Commission
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Stuoy:
Section 9
Matching
Hammer, Greene and Siler
Parsons-Brinkerhoff-Tudor-B~ch tel :
702 Loan
Section 9:
Federal
Matching
Retainer Agreement
Research and Technical Services
Sub-Totals
TOTAL EXPENSE S
95,000. 00
60 , 000.00
240 , 000.00
120 , 000.00
60 , 000. 00
2, 000. 00
$6 02,2 50.00
$769 ,448.00
60 , 000.00
112,411.00
16 , 182.67
2, 255.84
$318,386.60
$414,008.06
SURPLUS
s
Sl.38, 2.36. ZS
35,35.3,6~
$
9,75.8.61
�METROPOLITNA ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
SEPTEMBER 30, 1967
ASSETS
Cash in Banks:
C & S National Bank
First National Bank
Trust Company of Georgia
Fulton National Bank - Section 9
$25,7 68.9 1
2,907.26
1,000.00
90,000 . 00
Investments:
U. S. Treasury Bills
99,229.40
Petty Cash
25.00
Accounts Receivable:
Gwinnett County - 1967
Gwinnett County - 1966
$13,657.50
4,552.50
18,210.00
TOTAL ASSETS
$237,140.57
LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
$
Payroll Taxes Wi thheld and Accrued
Reserves:
ARMPC - Urban Design Study
Atlanta Transit Study
Parsons-Beinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
Section 9 Matching
Retainage Agreement:
Transportation Study
Public Information
Surveying
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
549.86
1,779.01
7,293.00
1,563.00
82,411.00
$
139.37
207.76
4,260.82
4,607.95
98,203.82
$138,936 75
I
�MINUTES OF THE TWENTIETH MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
OCTOBER 3, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority held its regular meeting on October 3, 1967, at 3:30 P.M.
in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr. Roy A. Blount,
Vice Chairman~ presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robe1.t F. Adamson (City of Atlanta)
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
K. A. McMillon .( Gwinnett County)
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Edgar Blalock (Clayton County)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropolita n Atl a nt a Rap id Tran s it Autho rity
H. L. Stuart, General Manager
Glenn E ._ Bennett, Secretary
King Elliott , Public I n f ormation Director
Earl Ne lson, Chie f Eng i neer
H. N . Johns on, Secretary to Ge n eral Ma n a g er
Consultants
Wal t er Doug las, Pars o ns, Br i nckerho ff, Qua de & Douglas,
Ne w Yo rk
Gerald M. Stu r man, Parsons, Brinckerho ff, Quade & Dougl as,
Ne w -York
W. O. S a lter, Parsons, Brincke rhoff- Tudor, Bechtel,
Sa n Franci s c o
�Consultants (Cont'd.)
J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel, Atlanta
Leon Eplan, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta
W. Stell Huie, Huie & Harland, Atlanta
Tom Watson Brown, Huie ·& Harland, Atlanta
Others
Paul Muldawer, Muldawer & Patterson, Atlanta
Maartin Den Hartog, Lord & Den Hartog, New York
Stan Lorch, Lord & Den Hartog, New York
H. Boyer Marx, American Society of Landscape Architects
and MARTA Adviso~y Committee
P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council
William Fletcher, White, Weld & Co., New York City
George B. Pilkington, Bureau of Public Roads
Roger D. Lewis, Bureau of Public Roads
John D. Prien, Jr., Ex ecutive Director, Georgia Society
of Professional Engineers
Bill Schemmel, Marietta Daily Journal
Dick Hebert, Atlanta Constitution
Dave Donaldson, Securities News
Leroy Powell, WAGA-TV
Don Bridges, WAGA-TV
Mrs. Margaret C. Breland, Jerry A. Coursey, Mrs. Rachel
Champagne, Miss Claudette Parrish, Atlanta Region
Metropolitan Planning Commission
The meeting was called to o r der by the Vice Chairman.
Minutes
Upon motion by Mr. Bishop , seconded by Mr. Adamson, the minutes
of the September meeting were unanimously approved and the actions
of th e August mee ting were ratifie d.
Financial Report
The General Manager presented the f inancial report as of September 30, 1967, which is attached h ereto and made a part of these
minutes. Gwinnett County was in arrears for one- half o f its 1967
commitment. Mr. McMillan reported on a meeting held with Gwinnett
- 2 -
�County Commissioners and stated payment would be forthcoming.
Cash balance would be in line once the recent bill from Parsons,
Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel was audited and paid.
Section -9 Amendment
The General Manager recommended approval of a resolution authorizing
an application to HUD for an amendment to the current Section 9
project and a contract between MARTA and the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission for a three-month study to meet statutory requirements for a coordinated transportation and transit
plan required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
This work would be performed by Alan M. Voorhees and Associates,
the cost of which would not . exceed $30,000--$10,000 local money
and $20,000 from HUD.
The following resolution was unanimously
passed:
WHEREAS, local funds in the amount of $10,000 are available
as matching funds for additional work necessary to expand
the scope of HUD Contract No. H-771 as set forth in the
Amendment request presented to this Board;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Authority request
$20,000 additional funds to expand the scope of the technical studies, Section 9 Grant (HUD Contract No. H-771) and
approve the Amendment request; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that H. L. Stuart, General Manager of
this Authority, be and hereby is authorized and directed
to take any and all further actions and to execute for
this Authority any and all documents as may be reasonably
necessary to make and obtain such request.
Huie and Harland
Mr. Huie stated that the re was now a need for bond counsel to as sist in preparation of bond issues.
There were only two firms in
Atlanta specializing in this area and they both were interested
in doing this work.
He suggested the firm of King & Spalding be
retained as bond counsel , with Gambrell & Mobley as associate
bond counsel.
This would not involve any commitment of money this
year.
Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Atwood , the
following resolution was passed :
RESOLVED, that the recommendations of General Counsel
with regard to Bond Counsel are approved and that King &
Spalding be named Bond Counsel and that Gambrell & Mobley
- 3 -
�be named Associate Bond Counsel to the Authority with
the understanding that Bond Counsel will report to the
Authority through General Counsel.
Report of Secretary
Mr. Bennett reported on recent meetings held with Mr. Robert
Sommerville, President of the Atlanta Transit System, ~nd stated
he thought any misunderstanding had now been removed. Mr. Sommerville had said he would study MARTA's 701 report before making
any further statements. He also expressed an interest in meeting
with MARTA's consultants for briefings. Mr. Haverty commended
this effort.
General Manager
Mr. Stuart recommended appointment of a committee made up of members of the Board to approve the procedures under which public
hearings and meetings were to be conducted as well as to conduct
such hearings and meetings. A design review committee should also
be formed and the Finance Committee reactivated. Mr. Bishop
suggested the formation of a public relations committee.
Upon
motion by Mr. Bishop and seconded by Mr. Adamson, it was agreed
that Messrs. Rich, Blount and Stuart should appoint these committees and that Mr. Huie prepare bylaws.
Mr. Stuart stated that in the past Mr. McBrayer of Parsons,
Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel had represented MARTA at meetings
of the Technical Coordinating Committee and the consultants were
reimbursed under the retainer agreement. He requested approval
of the Board to make adjustments under the retainer agreement
now that the Chief Engineer of MARTA would replace Mr. McBrayer.
He also requested authorization for $2,000 for graphics under
the retainer agreement. Upon motion by Mr. Bishop and seconded
by Mr. Adamson, those two requests were approved.
Consultants
Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor, Bechtel
Mr. Coil reported that the design firm of Lord and Den Hartog had
completed final drawings for the stations . He stated the 701
report was at the printer and copies should be available for the
nex t Board meeting . Mr. Haverty urged that steps be taken to
e x pedite completion of the report.
-
4 -
�At the briefing prior to the Board meeting, a table had been presented showing costs of the system for the metropolitan area as
it related to the 65-mile system.
The report from Law Engineering Company on soil samples would be
ready within the next month; however, PBTB had been using the
information developed by that firm on a daily basis. Liaison was
being continued with the State Highway Department, municipalities,
cities and counties. Meetings Lad been held with the railroads.
In response to a question from Mr. Haverty, Mr. Coil said that
his firm was getting excellent cooperation from the Highway Department and the railroads.
It was mentioned that the General Manager had had at least ten
conferences with the railroads, all of which were most satisfactory.
Eric Hill Associates
Mr. Eplan stated work was almost finished on the impact of the
system on certain facilities such as schools and fire stations.
The report on the impact on the poor and disadvantaged was being
written. The firm's current effort was giving line-by-line reviews to the General Manager and engineers on recommendations as
to possible changes, conflicts and opportunities for development.
Reviews had been submitted on the east and west lines. He commented that relationships with the engineers had been very good.
Mr. Muldawer, whose firm is assisting Eric Hill Associates in its
work, made a presentation showing potential development around
the Cultural Center as it related to rapid transit.
The firm
will prepare such information regarding ten or twelve key stations.
196 8 Proposed Budget
Mr. Stuart presented the proposed budget for · l968. This required
only Board review; approval of the budget would be requested at
the December .meeting. The proposed budget showed a carry-over
from 1967 of $230,000 with income for 1968 estimated to be about
$1.5 million.
Income was based on continuing participation of
local governments, money appropriated by the State, money authorized
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as
anticipated federal funds for applications to be submitted by the
first of the year.
Operating expenses amounted to approx imately
$1.6 million. Mr. Stuart was instructed to forward the proposed
budget to the governments after preparing a more detailed e xplanation for each item.
-
5, -
�Rail Equipment
Mr. Douglas discussed the various kinds of rail equipment and
pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of each. de recommended to the Board thdt it conside£ steel wheels on steel rails.
If any other system developed more potential, it should be considered only if it demonstrated substantial savings. Mr. Douglas
pointed out that 70-foot cars seating 72 passengers would cost
approximately $200,000 per car.
Adjournment
The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:50 P.M.
Next Meeting
November 7, 1967.
-
6 -
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT SUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
SEPTEMBER 30, 1967
BUDGET
1967
Unappro priated Surplus
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1 , 1967
TO
SEPTEMBER 30 1 1967
$128,281.64
$128,281.64
$ 84,030.00
23,19 0.00
82,770.00
91,800.00
18,2 10.00
$300,000.00
$ 5,5 20.00
$ 63,022. 50
17 , 392. 50
62,077.50
68,850.00
13,657.50
$2 25 ,000 . 00
$ 3,663.17
$ 95,000. 00
276 ,000 . 00
$371,000.00
$676,520. 00
$804,801.64
$ 60,000 .00
135,402 .54
597.46
$196,000. 00
$424 ,663.17
$552,944.81
$ 68,950.00
10 , 500 .00
$ 47 ,2 03.22
7,863.00
1 , 109.00
533.00
1,680.00
10,000.00
99.00
92
,871.00
$
$ 3 , 150 . 00
1 , 151.16
400 . 00
875 . 59
300.54
104 .00
5
7,8
97 . 51
$
2
,400.00
$
INCOME
Appropr iations :
City of Atlanta
Clayt on County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
Sub-Totals .
Interest Income
Federal Funds:
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
Interest~ Federal Funds
Sub-Totals
TOTAL INCOME
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
0
EXPENSES
Staff Cost:
Salar ies
Expens e s
Benefits:
Social Secur i ty
Gua r anty Fund
Health and Accident Insurance
Retirement
Workmen is Compensation
Sub-Totals
Board Mee tings
Administra t ive and Office Overhe ad :
Rent
Communication and Postage
Fur niture and Equipment
Supplies
Prin t ing
Audi tor
Ac countant
Public I n forma t i on
Advi sory
Insurance :
Pub l ic Liability
De pos i tory and Forger y
.Fidel;i.ty Bond
Sub-Totals
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3, 00 0 .00
2 ,000. 00
2, 000 . 00
3 ,6 00 . 00
1 , 000 . 0025 0 . 00
1, 000 . 00
33, 000 . 00
5 ,000 . 00
72. 00
56. 00
199. 00
51,177.00
$
$147,198.00
$
2, 25 0 . 00
1 ,448.94
11 7 . 81
1 , 978 . 78
62 3.56
250. 00
500 . 00
17, 009. 03
1 , 077.35
55 .00
56.27
198. 60
25,565.34
$
$ 85,862.85
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
SEPTEMBER 30, 1967
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
BUDGET
1967
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
SEPTEMBER 30, 1967
$804,801.64
$552,944.81
$147,198.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 85, 86'2,. 85
$ 9,7~8.61
$ 31,250 . 00
$ 29, 939. 00
32,667.00
16,333.00
16,000.00
15,293.00
3,333.00
1,667.00
0
0
1,563.00
4, 742.09
EXPENSES
Brought Forward
Counsel
Consultants:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan
P,anning Commission
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study:
Section 9
Matching
Hammer, Greene and Siler
Par sons-Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
702 Loan
Section 9:
Federal
Matching
Retainer Agreement
Research and Tec~ni cal Services
Sub-Totals
TOTAL EXPENSES
95,000.00
60,000.00
240,000. 00
12 0 , 000 . 00
60,000.00
2,000 .00
$602,2 50.00
$769,448. 00
60, 000.00
112,411.00
16,182.67
2,255.84
$318,386.60
$414,008.06
SURPLUS
s 35
Sl38, 236. Z5
0
353 6~
I
�METROPOLITNA ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
SEPTEMBER 30, 1967
ASSETS
Cash in Banks:
C & S National Bank
First National Bank
Trust Company of Georgia
Fulton National Bank - Section 9
$25 .; 768.91
2,907.26
1,000 . 00
90,000 . 00
Investments:
U. S. Treasury Bills
99,229.40
Petty Cash
25.00
Accounts Receivable:
Gwinnett County - 1967
Gwinnett County - 1966
$13,657.50
4,552.50
18,210.00
TOTAL ASSETS
$237,140 . 57
LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
$
Payroll Tax es Withheld and Accrued
Reserves;
ARMPC - Urban Design Study
Atlanta Transit Study
Parsons-Beinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
Section 9 Matching
Retainage Agreement:
Transportation Stud y
Public Information
Surve yi ng
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
549 . 86
1,779.01
7, 293 . 00
1 , 563 . 00
82,411.00
$
139.37
207 . 76
4 , 260 . 82
4 ,607.95
98,2 03.82
$138,936, 75
�METROPOl 1
1l
TA RAP D TRANS i A UT HOR~T Y
GLENN BU ILDI G / ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 / AREA COD E 404 524-5711
O FFICERS:
Richard H. Rich, Chairman
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary
October 3, 1967
Henry L Stuart, General Manager
Mr. Charles L. Davis
City Comptroller
City of Atlanta
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia.
Dear Mr. Davis:
This will acknowledge receipt of and thank you for
check No. 18,559 dated October 2, 1967 from the City of
Atlanta in the amount of $21,007.50 covering the fourth
quarterly payment by the City to the operating budget of
the Transi t Aut hori t y.
Your promptness in exped iting this matter is indeed appreciated.
With b est regards .·
Sinc eraly y our s ,
H. L. Stuart ,
General Manager.
HLS:JJ
cc, ~
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
able Ivan Allen, Jr.
Milton G. Farris
Rawson Haverty
Robt. F. Adamson
L. D. Milton

-
---
�MINUTES OF THE NINETEENTH MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER 5, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority held its regular meeting on September 5, 1967, at
3:30 P.M. in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr.
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta)
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Edgar Blalock (Clayton County)
K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County)
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
H. L. Stuart, General Manager
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary
King Elliott, Public Information Director
Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer
H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager
MARTA Advisory Committee
H. Boyer Marx, American Society of Landscape Architects
Richard Forbes, American Institute of Planners
�Consultants
J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel, Atlanta
Leon Eplan, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta
w. Stell Huie, Huie & Harland, Atlanta
Others
Joseph Lay, Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., Atlanta
William Fletcher, White, Weld & Co., New York City
Thomas J. Pendergrast, Courts & Co.
P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council
George B. Pilkington, Bureau of Public Roads
John D. Prien, Jr., Executive Director, Georgia Society
of Professional Engineers
Donald G. Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.
J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Mrs. Rachel Champagne, Miss Claudette
'
Parrish, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman.
Minutes
The minutes of the August meeting were unanimously approved by the
members present. Due to lack of a quorum, it was agreed that this
action would be ratified by the Board at the October meeting.
Financial Report
The General Manager presented the financial report as of August 31,
1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes .
Costs were running according to the budget. Third quarter appropriations had been received from participating governments with
the e xception of DeKalb and Gwinnett Counties. The tentative
budget for fiscal 1968 would be submitted to the Board members
for consideration in October.
Progress Reports
General Manager
Mr. Stuart reported that Mr. Nelson had met with officials of the
City of Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb Counties, and the City of
-
2 -
�Decatur, and furnished them with sets of the 701 report materials
for their study. He was scheduled to meet with East Point and
College Park officials to apprise them of transit plans relative
to their areas.
The General Manager stated that the final draft of the financial
report prepared by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates had been
received and would be submitted to the Board members.
Public Information Director
Mr. Elliott reported that Mr. M. C. Bishop had made rapid transit
presentations during the past month before the South Fulton Chamber
of Commerce Board of Directors meeting, the College Park Kiwanis
Club and the Atlanta Airport Area Rotary Club. At these meetings
a film was shown entitled "The Alternate Route"; this was on
transportation problems in Los Angeles and its need for a rapid
transit system.
Mr. Elliott mentioned a special column that will appear i n future
issues of Rapid Transit Progress. It will answer various questions about rapid transit and plans; subject matter will consist
of "MARTAnswers" by the General Manager.
Chief Engineer
Mr. Nelson reported on his attendance at the Engineering Foundation Research Conference held at Proctor Academy, Andover, New
Hampshire, August 14-16, where discussions and presentations on
economic and social aspects of urban transportation were st r essed.
Th e implementation of new t r ansportat i on t e chnology was pres ent e d
b y promine nt r esea rchers f rom th e f ederal gove rnment and pr iva t e
i ndustry .
Mr . Nelson was instructed to meet with the State Highway Depa r tme nt
in connection with the construction of I-485 in order to determine
e ffects this route might have on the t ran s it pla n n ing .
Co nsultants
Pa r son s , Brincke rho f f - Tudor, Be chtel
Mr. Coil reported o n rece n t s oil t est borings a lo ng the north-so u t h
line and exhibite d formations o f s tone taken at var i ous depths.
Contractual work f o r these borings had been completed and was
-
3 -
�being analyzed by Law Engineering Testing Company prior to a final
report.
Mr. Donald C. Hyde, retired General Manager of the Cleveland Transit
System and now an Associated Consultant with Parsons, Brinckerhoff,
Quade and Douglas, had visited the PBTB offices recently and rendered valuable guidance on patronage and operations studies under
way. Mr. Walter Quintin of BART, San Francisco, "had also worked
in Atlanta recently and furnished information on train controls.
Mr. Coil said PBTB ' s text for the 701 report was completed and
was going to the printer very soon. Mr. Bennett mentioned that
additional copies, over and above the 250 copies called for under
th e 701 contract, might be requested by the Authority. Mr. Bishop
suggested that the General Manager be authorized to secure an
appropriate number of additional copies at MARTA's expense. This
was agreed.
Mr . Coil reported on progress of Lord & Den Hartog, design consultant for PBTB, in the design work for Transit Center and other
stations and said a more detailed report would be made during
Nove mber. Design concepts of the stations had been presented to
those in attendance at the briefing session prior to the meeting.
Eric Hill Associates
Mr . Eplan briefl y reported on progress of the impact study; d i scussions had been held with school authorities, fire department
officials, and housing authorities to consider rapid transit plans
and their r elationship to these particular functions . He said
wo r k was continuing ; studies were appro x imately two-thirds complete.
Pr o p os e d New Impact Study
Mr. Ben nett stated that in view of the studies b y Eric Hill
Associates a nd t h e 701 repo r ts, he had felt the r e might be dupl icat i o n o f wo rk in the p r eviously submitte d wo rk p r ogram fo r t h e
fi r s t Sec t i o n 9 Amen dmen t appro ved b y the Autho ri t y at t h e July
me e t i n g . Th i s applicatio n h ad been held up until a r e v i s ed
pro gram wa s d etermined and cla ri fied.
Mr. Wingfi e l d sai d cons ideratio n wa s b e i ng gi v e n t o r eta ining one
o f th e nati o n ' s out sta n d ing tra n spo r tati on e xperts , Alan Voorh e es
and Ass o ci a t e s of Wa shing t o n , D. C. , t o eval uate plans a nd p r o grams . This could be a valuable a dditio n t o the final planning
of the t ransit s y stem . Voorhee s wo uld b e abl e to r e nder the
- 4 -
�Authority excellent advice and evaluations which would be invaluable as input for the pre-referendum campaign next year.
Mr. Ingram of Central Atlanta Progress stated the transportation
consultant selected to advise MARTA would be retained by Central
Atlanta Progress in connection with its studies on transportation.
Other Business
Mr. Bennett informed the Board members of a meeting to be held on
September 12 in the Highway Board Room, co-sponsored by · the State
Highway Department and the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission. The purpose was to discuss important points relative
to overall transportation planning. At the meeting it was expected that a Policy Committee would be organized to render
decisions regarding the Atlanta Area Transportation Study.
It
was hoped this would strengthen coordination of all agencies involved in the total transportation planning program for metropolitan Atlanta. To date AATS had operated without unified
policy direction.
Invitations had been sent to heads of local
governments, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Bureau
of Public Roads, MARTA, and the Atlanta Transit System.
Adjournment
The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:30 P.M.
Next Meeting
October 3, 1967.
-
5 -
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
AUaus:r-. ' 3l ·~. 196 7·.
Unappropriated Surplus
BUDGET
1967
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
AUGUST 31, 1967
$128,281.64
$128,281.64
$ 84., 030. 00
$ 63,022.50
17,392.50
41, 385.00
68,850.00
9,10.5:9~
$199,755.00
$ 3,018.77
lNCOME
Appropriations:
City of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
St,1b-Totals
Interest Income
Federal Funds:
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
Interest - Federal Funds
Sub-Totals
TOTAL INCOME
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
23,190.00
82,770.00
91,800.00
18,210.00
$3001000.00
$ 5,520.00 .
$ 95,000.00
276,000.00
$ 60,000.00
$371,000.00
$676,520.00
9804,801.64
67,686.12
597.46
$128,283.58
."$ 331 z 05 7 , 35 .
$459,338.99
$ 68,950.00
10,500.00
$ 41,380.94
7,048 . 24
1,109.00
533.00
1,680.00
10,000.00
99.00
$ 92 1871. 00
$ 3,150.00
1,088.89
400.00
758.13
300.54
104.00
$ 51 1 080.74
$ 2,2 00.00
0
EXPENSES
Staff Cost:
Salaries
Expenses
Benefits:
Social Security
Gua,ranty Fund
Health and Accident Insurance
Retirement
Workmen's Compensation
Aub-Totals
Board Meetings
Administrative and Office Overhead:
Rent
Communications and Post143.215.248.55
Furniture and Equipment
Supplies
Printing
Auditor
Accountant
Public Ipform,ation
Advisory
Insurance:
Pub l ic Liability
Depository and Forgery
Fidelity aon9
Sub-Totals
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3,000.00
2, 000.00
2,000 . 00
3 , 600.00
1,000.00
25 0 . 00
1,000 . 00
33,000.00
5 , 000.00
72 . 00
56.00
199.00
$ 51 ,177. 00
$147,198.00
$
2,000.00
1 ,2 54 .16
117.81
1, 854 .58
623.56
25 0 . 00
500.00
15,025.20
977. 35
55. 00
56.27
198.60
$ 22,9 12.53
$ 76,193~27
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUI;>GET REPORT
AUGUST 31 1 1967
BUDGET
lo/67
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 1967
TO
AUGUST 31, 1967
I
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
$804,801.64
$459,338.99
$147,198.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 76,193.27
$ 8,758.61
$ 31,250.00
$ 29,939.00
32,667.00
16,333.00
16,000.00
15,293.00
3,333.00
1,667.00
0
0
1,563.00
4,742.09
EXPENSES
Brought Forward
Counsel
Consultants:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planµing Commission
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Study:
Section 9
Matching
Hamm~r, Greene and Siler
P~rsons-Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
702 Loan
Section 9:
Federal
Matching
Retainer Agreement
Research and Technical Services
Sub-Totals
TOTAL EXPENSES
95,000.00
60,000.00
240,000.00
120,000.00
60,000.00
2,000.00
$602,250.00
$769,448.00
60,000.00
112,411.00
15,115 . 64
2,035.84
$317,099.57
$402 I 051. 45
SURPLUS
S 35,353,6f±
S 5Z, 28Z , 5f±
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AUGUST
31, 1967
ASSETS
Cash in Banks:
C & S National Bank
First National Bank - Payroll
Trust Company of Georgia
Fulton National Bank - Section 9
$ 14,296 . 04
2,651.88
1,000.00
20,976.08
Investments:
U. S. Treasury Bills
114,812.00
25.00
Petty Cash
Accounts Receivable:
Gwinnett County - 19Q7
Gwinnett County - 1966
$9,105.00
4,552.50
13,657.50
$167,418.50
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES
$ 12,648.37
Accounts Payable
Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued
Reserves:
ARMPC - Urban Design Study
Atlanta Transit Study
Parsons-Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtet:
Section 9 Matching
Retainer Agree~ent:
Transportation Study
Public Infor\llBtion
Surveying
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
1,492.14
7,293. 00
1 ,563 . 00
82,411.00
$
139.37
245.19
4,338.89
4,723.45
110,130.96
$ 57 , 287.54
�MINUTES OF THE NINETEENTH MEETING OF THE
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER 5, 1967
The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority held its regular meeting on September 5, 1967, at
3:30 P.M. in the Glenn Building Conference Room, Atlanta. Mr.
Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman, presided.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert F. Adamson (City of Atlanta)
Sanford Atwood (DeKalb County)
M. C. Bishop (Fulton County)
Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County)
Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Edgar Blalock (Clayton County)
K. A. McMillan (Gwinnett County)
L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta)
Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
H. L. Stuart, General Manager
Glenn E. Bennett, Secretary
King Elliott, Public Information Director
Earl Nelson, Chief Engineer
H. N. Johnson, Secretary to General Manager
MARTA Advisory Committee
H. Boyer Marx, American Society of Landscape Architects
Richard Forbes, American Institute of Planners
�Consultants
J. A. Coil, Resident Manager, Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor,
Bechtel, Atlanta
Leon Eplan, Eric Hill Associates, Atlanta
W. Stell Huie, Huie & Harland, Atlanta
Others
Joseph Lay, Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., Atlanta
William Fletcher, White, Weld & Co., New York City
Thomas J. Pendergrast, Courts & Co.
P.A. Springer, Atlanta Traffic and Safety Council
George B. Pilkington, Bureau of Public Roads
John D. Prien, Jr., Executive Director, Georgia Society
of Professional Engineers
Donald G. Ingram, Central Atlanta Progress, Inc.
J. D. Wingfield, Jr., Mrs. Rachel Champagne, Miss Claudette
Parrish, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission
The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman.
Minutes
The minutes of the August meeting were unanimously approved by the
members present. Due to lack of a quorum, it was agreed that this
action would be ratified by the Board at the October meeting.
Financial Report
The General Manager presented the financial report as of August 31,
1967, which is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
Costs were running according to the budget. Third quarter appropriations had been received from participating governments with
the e x ception of DeKalb and Gwinnett Counties . The tentative
budget for fiscal 1968 would be submitted to the Board members
for consideration in October .
Progress Reports
General Manager
Mr. Stuart reported that Mr. Nelson had met with officials of the
City of Atlanta, Fulton and DeKalb Counties, and the City of
-
2 -
�Decatur, and furnished them with sets of the 701 report materials
for their study. He was scheduled to meet with East Point and ·
College Park officials to apprise them of transit plans relative
to their areas.
The General Manager stated that the final draft of the financial
report prepared by Hammer, Greene, Siler Associates had been
received and would be submitted to the Board members.
Public Information Director
Mr. Elliott reported that Mr. M. C. Bishop had made rapid transit
presentations during the past month before the South Fulton Chamber
of Commerce Board of Directors meeting, the College Park Kiwanis
Club and the Atlanta Airport Area Rotary Club. At these meetings
a film was shown entitled "The Alternate Route"; this was on
transportation problems in Los Angeles and its need for a rapid
transit system.
Mr. Elliott mentioned a special column that will appear in f uture
issues of Rapid Transit Progress.
It will answer various questions about rapid transit and plans; subject matter will consist
of "MARTAnswers" by the General Manager.
Chief Engineer
Mr. Nelson reported on his attendance at the Engineering Foundation Research Conference held at Proctor Academy , Andover, New
Hampshire, August 14-16, where discussions and presentations on
e conomic and social aspects of urban transportation were stressed.
The imple me nta tion of new transportation technology wa s pre s e nte d
b y promine nt res earche rs f rom the fe d e ral government a nd priv a t e
industry.
Mr . Nelson was instructed to meet with the State Highway Department
in connection with the construction of I - 485 in o rder to determine
e ff e cts this r oute might h a v e on the t r ansit pl a nni ng.
Consultants
Pars o n s , Bri n c kerho f f - Tudor, Be chtel
Mr. Co i l reported on recent s oil t est borings alo ng the n o rth-so u th
line and exhibited formations o f stone taken at various depths.
Contractual work f o r these borings had been completed and was
-
3 -
�being analyzed by Law Engineering Testing Company prior to a final
report.
Mr. Donald C. Hyde, retired General Manager of the Cleveland Transit
System and now an Associated Consultant with Parsons, Brinckerhoff,
Quade and Douglas, had visited the PBTB offices recently and rendered valuable guidance on patronage and operations studies under
way. Mr. Walter Quintin of BART, San Francisco, had also worked
in Atlanta recently and furnished information on train controls.
Mr. Coil said PBTB's text for the 701 report was completed and
was going to the printer very soon. Mr. Bennett mentioned that
additional copies, over and above the 250 copies called for under
the 701 contract, might be requested by the Authority. Mr. Bishop
suggested that the General Manager be authorized to secure an
appropriate number of additional copies at MARTA's expense. This
was agreed.
Mr. Coil reported on progress of Lord & Den Hartog, design consultant for PBTB, in the design work for Transit Center and other
stations and said a more detailed report would be made during
November. Design concepts of the stations had been presented to
those in attendance at the briefing session prior to the meeting.
Eric Hill Associates
Mr. Eplan briefly reported on progress of the impact study; discussions had been held with school authorities, fire department
officials, and housing authorities to consider rapid transit plans
and their relationship to these particular functions.
He said
work was continuing; studies were approximately two-thirds complete.
·
Proposed New Impact Study
Mr. Bennett stated that in view of the studies by Eric Hill
Ass ociates and the 701 reports, he had felt there might be duplication of work in the previously submitted work program for the
first Section 9 Amendment approved by the Authority at the July
meeting. This application had been held up until a revised
program was determined and clarified.
Mr. Wingfield said consideration was being given to retaining one
of the nation's outstanding transportation experts, Alan Voorhees
and Associates of Washington, D. c., to evaluate plans and pro grams. This could be a valuable addition to the final planning
of the transit system. Voorhees would be able to render the
-
4 -
�Authority excellent advice and evaluations which would be invaluable as input for the pre-referendum campaign next year.
Mr. Ingram of Central Atlanta Progress stated the transportation
consultant selected to advise MARTA would be retained by Central
Atlanta Progress in connection with its studies on transportation.
Other Business
Mr. Bennett informed the Board members of a meeting to be held on
September 12 in the Highway Board Room, co-sponsored by the -State
Highway Department and the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission. The purpose was to discuss important points relative
to overall transportation planning. At the meeting it was expected that a Policy Committee would be organized to render
decisions regarding the Atlanta Area Transportation Study. It
was hoped this would strengthen coordination of all agencies involved in the total transportation planning program for metropolitan Atlanta. To date AATS had operated without unified
policy direction.
Invitations had been sent to heads of local
governments, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Bureau
of Public Roads, MARTA, and the Atlanta Transit System.
Adjournment
The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:30 P.M.
Next Meeting
October 3, 1967.
-
5 -
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
AUGUS? ' 31 ·~. 1967 ·.
Unappropriated Surplus
BUDGET
1967
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 196 7
TO
AUGUST 31, 196 7
$128,281.64
$128,281.64
$ 84,030.00
$ 63,022.50
23,190.00
82,770.00
91,800.00
18,210.00
$300,000.00
$ 5,520.00
17,392.50
41,385.00
68,850.00
9,105: 9.9
$199,755.00
$ 3,018.77
$ 95,000.00
$371,000.00
$676,520.00
$804,801.64
$ 60,000.00
67,686.12
597.46
$128,283.58
$331,057.35
$459,338.99
$ 68,950.00
10,500.00
$ 41,380.94
7,048.24
1,109.00
533.00
1,680.00
10,000.00
99.00
$ 92,871.00
$ 3,150.00
1,088.89
400.00
758.13
300.54
104.00
$ 51,080.74
$ 2,200.00
iNCOME
Appropriations:
City of Atlanta
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Fulton County
Gwinnett County
Sub-Totals
Interest Income
Federal Funds:
702 Loan
Section 9 Grant
Interest - Federal Funds
Sub-Totals
TOTAL INCOME
TOTAL INCOME AND UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS
276,000.00
0
EXPENSES
Staff Cost:
Salaries
Expenses
Benefits:
Social Security
Guaranty Fund
Health and Accident Insurance
Retirement
Workmen's Compensation
Aub-Totals
Board Meetings
Administrative and Office Overhead:
Rent
Communications and Postage
Furniture and Equipment
Supplies
Printing
Auditor
Accountant
Public Information
Advisory
Insurance:
Public Liability
Depository and Forgery
Fidelity Bond
Sub-Totals
CARRIED FORWARD
$
3,000.00
2,000.00
2,000.00
3,600.00
1,000.00
250.00
1,000.00
33,000.00
5,000.00
72.00
56.00
199.00
$ 51,177.00
$147,198.00
$
2,000.00
1,254.16
117 .81
1,854.58
623.56
250.00
500.00
15,025.20
977. 35
55.00
56.27
198. 6 0
$ 22,912.53
$ 76,193.27
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
BUDGET REPORT
AUGUST 31, 1967
BUDGET
19'67
ACTUAL
JANUARY 1, 1967
TO
AUGUST 31, 1967
I
TOTAL INCOME AND UNA?PROPRIATED
SURPLUS BROUGHT FORWARD
$804,801.64
$459,338.99
$147,198.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 76,193.27
$ 8,758.61
$ 31,250.00
$ 29",939.00
32,667.00
16,333.00
16,000.00
15,293.00
3,333.00
1,667.00
0
0
1,563.00
4,742.09
EXPENSES
Brought Forward
Counsel
Consultants:
Atlanta Region Metropolitan
Planning Commis~ion
Urban Design Study:
Section 9
Matching
Atlanta Transit Stu9y;
Section 9
Matching
Hamm~r, Greene and Siler
Parsons-Brinckerhoff-Tudor ~Bechtel:
702 Loan
Section 9:
Federal
Matching
Retainer Agreement
Research and Technical Services
Sub-Totals
TOTAL EXPENSES
95,000.00
60,000.00
240,000.00
120,000.00
60,000.00
2,000.00
$602,250.00
$769,448.00
60,000.00
112,411.00
15,115.64
2,035.84
$317,099.57
$402 , 051. 45
SURPLUS
$ 35,353.6~
$ 5Z,28Z.5~
�METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
AUGUST
31, 1967
ASSETS
Cash in Banks:
C & S National Bank
First National Bank - Payroll
Trust Company of 9eorgia
Fulton National Bank - Section 9
$ 14,296.04
2,651.88
1,000.00
20,976.08
Inv es tmen ts:
U. S. Treasury Bills
114,812.00
Petty Cash
25.00
Accounts Receivable:
Gwinnett County - 1967
Gwinnett County - 1966
$9,105.00
4,552.50
13,657.50
TOTAL ASSETS
$167,418.50
LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
$ 12,648.37
Payroll Taxes Withheld and Accrued
Reserves:
ARMPC - Urban Design Study
Atlanta Transit Stu9y
Parsons-Brinkerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel:
Section 9 Matching
Retainer Agreement:
Transportation Study
Public Information
Surveying
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SURPLUS
1,492.14
7,293.00
1,563.00
82,411.00
$
139. 37
245.19
4,338.89
4,723.45
110,130.96
$ 57,287.54

Transcribe This Item

  1. http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_021_005.pdf

Document Viewer