Box 21, Folder 5, Document 2

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
1·
, 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
r·
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
r·
[
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
�----
r·
--- --- ~
\
·\


,


-

,'
~
\
'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 .
1·
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
1·
'
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
r·
!
,..
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
r·
I·
'
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 ·
�