393 20 10383 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/a9efd8ead9ede4d57410ef6c8c19fd60.pdf b99f1bbccf3c6bc3e6b3870118c32e69 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. PROPOSED EXPRESS TRANSIT SYSTEM r-7 I I r I I I .J I I L- 1, r' L __. _j - -\ \ l...______ LJ / ( '--- _J' FULTON CO ~ DEKALB_ _ CLAYTON CO. LEGEND ·0 V ••• BUSWA Y RAIL RAPID PERIMETER HIGHWAY �7 PROPOSED FREEWAY SYSTEM r;==~~ ~~==-=~==r;~=-=(-,-J==-=-;;;......;;.;;;=---=-7, -~ '"" 'I \ I \ ' I ~---- 1 I I I I ! !I I /8 ~I I ~ ••• '*rurlW ~c .... 1N --·-- _J_p_~ ClAY1 . I ~ 0 ' I@ 1- \ [b~~ 143.215.248.55----=-=~""!!'°"~'co=-=='b--=======~=~~--~-=--,.-=-=-=--~~=--~==-~ - ------ LEGEND NEW FREEWAYS - - RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FUTURE FREEWAY 1968 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION -=-==-= COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT �PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING FREEWAYS n I r-·JI ~ r I.... J ' -J" J ~ / Alli.MU. CITY r 1 r-..--J 1-- I I I ~ r r' I I I L-7 ·- ~ J 'II rJ r ___...J ~ ~41«1 I L nn $('Alf IN - ! I L .J HENI( co CO r·z >~~ /. J~\ -f \<?.,.,I"' ., -~" // cl (/ ~ ' I@ £_ -, -~tCO \ LEGEN D IMPROVEMEN TS 19 68 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCT ION COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT • �EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT SYSTEM 7' FENCE-T 7" FENCE RAIL RAPID 7' F ENCE OPEN GROUND 7 FENCE BUSWAY RAIL RAPID BUSWAY AERIAL STRUCTURE ·;:?{ . . ·. �PROJECTS BY MILES PROPOSED HIGHWAY SYSTEM Type Miles FREEWAYS, TOTAL SYSTEM ............................... ... ... 321 NEW,OUTSIDE 1-285 .. ....... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. ............ 47 NEW, INSIDE 1-285 .. .... ....... ..... ......... .. ............ ..... 44 IMPROVED EXISTING ..... .. .... ... ....... ................. ..... . 54 EXISTING, NOT IMPROVED .... ........... ..... .. .... .... ... 176 ARTERIALS, NEW AND IMPROVED .......................... 732 COLLECTORS, NEW AND IMPROVED ................. ... ... 803 RIGHTS-OF-WAY, FUTURE FREEWAYS ............. ............ 40 �ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR PROPOSED 1983 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM HIGHWAY Millions of Dollars (New routes and improved existing) FREEWAYS 508 ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS TOTAL 1,058 $ 1,566 TRANSIT (Excludes rolling stock/vehicles) RAPID RAIL 158 BUSWAYS 263 TOTAL $ 421 TOT AL PROGRAM $ 1,987 �INNER CITY JOB ACCESSIBILITY WITH ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT SYSTEMS JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES OF EAGAN HOMES RESIDENTS BY TRANSIT AN EXAMPLE FOR A CLOSE -IN NEIGHBORHOOD SERVED WELL BY EXPRESS TR.A.NSIT 330,000 RAIL & BUSWAY-D LARGE BUSWAY-E 280,000 270,000 MARTA RAIL-B 70,000 SURFACE TRANSIT-A SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES �PLAN B (MARTA SYSTEM) \ 66 MILES .\ \ \ ' '\ , r-1 I I I r-..J I I I I 1 - ..J r-.J I ~-_J I I I I I L. 7 LEGEND -- - RAIL RAPID . . PER IMETER HIGHWAY �TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D-1 70 MILES - I __ J _J OEKA}B_ _ _ CLAYTON CO LEGEND •• • 11 'o u I@ .. , I~ BUSWAYS RA IL RAPID PER IMETER HIGHWAY �. I TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D-3 70 MILES ) \~ 2 I ·1~, ,JI I - -:~LANT_: cn\- 1 L---,-- / I 18 \ ' ' \ 143.215.248.55 ,,-(,~-:/' I u, , i::, , , , , ' ,_z< -» ,!: I I I ,' l '~ ~ , i _,J ~~ /' ' ·1 ~1 • ' \ ,, I,,- L, slr-J I _L ! 1-7 £------/ r~ ,.--___.__ ,I ~ /" / I 10 ! 1,__,,__ __ _ ___ ,..J r-7 I I I I I r-J I ~ , '~ r-- I 7 L- \ I ' •7 --J I II . J I I ~ I \ I , / f\~ I I I _ __ -\ f \./) I I rJ I I - -, - - , ~r' I f-~1-~;~~j r-- , ', . . I ATLA"ITA cnv~-.Jr,a..., I I '1 ,' r---'- - J · ,I ! , L. I I I.. ,', , r-, I = -~ ~_,,,, I .:.-:-:--=-~:: _J OEICA_LB_ __ Ft.JlTON CO. r_, ~ I CL.6.YTON CO ••• I 0 u LEGEND BUS WAYS RA I L RAP ID PER IMETER HIGHWAY �TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM E-2 72 MILES \ ' ATLANTA i I c,rv _Jr l rr L-7 rJ: L 7 ~7 I L -, / 1 z, . . ½ r L---\ I ....J I I I / ,_ e,~ .s11:i . ,o I ).UlTON :.L ---·- _J JJ co DEKALB_ __ CLAYTON CO. ' LEGEND •• d u z 0 I~ ~ l~ ••• - BUSWAYS RA I L RAP ID PER IMETER HIGHWAY. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document PROPOSED EXPRESS TRANSIT SYSTEM LEGEND ) wesw BUSWAY RAIL RAPID ans == PERIMETER HIGHWAY PROPOSED FREEWAY SYSTEM LEGEND Ms NEW FREEWAYS Ge Mm RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FUTURE FREEWAY 1968 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION === =< COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING FREEWAYS LEGEND Ma MPROVEMENTS 1968 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION -_——— = COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT SYSTEM 7! phates! 7’ FENCE RAIL RAPID OEE ooo =e ? 7’ FENCE —~ OPEN GROUND 7 FENCE BUSWAY ot cee RAIL RAPID BUSWAY TANTAT VATA ae AERIAL & aa ie STRUCTURE Sci PROJECTS BY MILES PROPOSED HIGHWAY SYSTEM Type Miles FREEWAYS, TOTAL SYSTEM ........ccccccccecccseesesseseeseeees 321 NEW OUTSIDE 15285 5. ccrccssesessescacsnosipaswrnacesstanvihens 47 NEW). INSIDE S285 i.os ces cduscss secerivertdelawnventaceerianees 44 IMPROVED EXISTING......... Sudscupreserieaicametsh7ersattanl 54 EXISTING, -NOT IMPROVED cuissicsscccecisesacsesaetsncoe 176 ARTERIALS, NEW AND IMPROVED ....................000085 732 COLLECTORS, NEW AND IMPROVED ..................0.005 803 RIGHTS-OF-WAY, FUTURE FREEWAYS ..............0.....008 40 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR PROPOSED 1983 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM HIGHWAY Millions of Dollars (New routes and improved existing) FREEWAYS 508 ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS 1,058 TOTAL | $1,566. TRANSIT (Excludes rolling stock/vehicles) RAPID RAIL 158 BUSWAYS 263 TOTAL $ 421 TOTAL PROGRAM $ 1,987 INNER CITY JOB ACCESSIBILITY WITH ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT SYSTEMS JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES OF EAGAN HOMES RESIDENTS BY TRANSIT RAIL & BUSWAY-D LARGE BUSWAY-E MARTA RAIL-B SURFACE TRANSIT-A AN EXAMPLE FOR A CLOSE-IN NEIGHBORHOOD SERVED WELL BY EXPRESS TRANSIT QU RSS SSS SSS 330,000 280,000 270,000 70,000 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES PLAN B (MARTA SYSTEM) 66 MILES LEGEND wee RAIL RAPID mes PERIMETER HIGHWAY TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D.-1 70 MILES LEGEND BUSWAYS RAIL RAPID == PERIMETER HIGHWAY TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D-3 70 MILES LEGEND BUSWAYS — RAIL RAPID PERIMETER HIGHWAY TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM E-2 72 MILES LEGEND BUSWAYS RAIL RAPID PERIMETER HIGHWAY  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 9, Document 2 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 9 Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/fbd59b70822f60db86d22881b194e003.pdf f09f0e584c2196f585e2a90e23322eec Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. MINUTES OF THE FORTIETH MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY MAY 6, 1969 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on May 6, 1969 at 3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room, 619 Glenn Building, Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: . Dr. Sanford s. Atwood (DeKalb County) M. c. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) s. Truett Cathy (Clayton County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) John c. Staton (Fulton County) MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) John c. Wilson (City of Atlanta) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manage r E. w. Nelson, Chief Engineer King Elli ott, Public Information Director Edmund W. Hughes, Authority Se cretary H. N. J ohnson, Administ rative Assistant Consul t ants w. o. Salter, PBQ&D, San Fra n ci sco J. A. Coil and Ray Gustaf s on , PBT B, At l ant a E. E. Gilcreas e, PBQ&D, St. Louis Don Hyde, PBQ&D, Ne w Yo r k w. Stell Hui e , Huie and Harla nd Robert Keith , Al an M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., McLean, Va. Others Jan Richey, Planning Dept., City of Atlanta Edgar E. Schukraft, southwest Atla~ta Association Andy Springer, Greater Atlanta Traffic & Safety Council Jeff Wingfield, Atlanta Region Met~opolitan Planning Comroission Aubrey Couch, Decatur/DeKalb Development Association �The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman. MINUTES Minutes of the April meeting had been mailed to the members and upon motion by Mro Bishop, seconded by Mr. Haverty, they were unanimous~y approved. FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Blount stated that the annual audit prepared by Arthur Andersen & co. for the year ended December 31, 1968 needed to be approved. It had previously been mailed to the members. Upon motion by Mr. Haverty, seconded by Mro Bishop, it was unanimously accepted and the General Manager was directed to furnish appropriate officials of the Local Governments with a copy. The Financial Report as of April 30, 1969 was presented by the General Manager. Staff and administrative costs were running within the budget and were expected to remain so through the duration of the current budget (June 30, 1969). No sums had been expended for technical studies during the period and support of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study was continuing. The c. & s. General Account reflected a balance of some $40,000 although this amount had been considerably reduced since preparation of the financial statement due to a ·number of sizable bills having been received. Interest earnings on investment of excess funds was higher than had been projected. Appropriations from the Local Governments were up to date for the first six months with the exception of Gwinnett County whose second payment was expected shortly. Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Cathy, the financial statement was unanimously approved and is attached and made a part of these Minutes. Mr. Stuart stated that the budget adopted for the first six months of 1969 would have to be adjusted in June following further c onsi d eration of the Voorhees report and that the Financial Planning Committee would meet soon to discuss budget requi reme nt s coveri ng the Authority's f uture wor k program. REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER u. s. Mr. Stuart had visited Mr. Carlos Villarreal, Administrator, Department of Transportation, Washington, D. c., on April 23rd, and other members of DOT, and had discussed an approach to the Vorhees recommendations in view of a new application to be submitted for federal funds to implement certain elements of work necessary to accelerate the work program. - 2 - �REPORT OF CHIEF ENGINEER Mr. Nelson called on Mr . Coil of PBTB for a report of their work during April ~ Mr. Coil advised that a written progress report had already been furnished to the Directors . He also introduced Mr. Don Hyde, their transit consultant from New York. Mro Nelson stated that Mr . Gilcrease and he had briefed the Board at the previous two Board meetings on the Atlanta Area Transportation Study (AATS), and that on April 10th at a joint meeting of the AATS Policy Committee and Technical Coordinating Committee Messrs . Tom Deen and Bob Keith of . Alan M. Voorhees and Associates had presented a recommended transportation plan for the Atlanta - area and described their findings and documentation in support of the plan. Because some of the Board members were unable to attend the April 10th meeting held in the offices of the State Highway Department, Mr . Bob Keith of the Voorhees firm was present to make a report on their AATS work and recommendations . Mr . Nelson introduced Mr . Keith who presented their findings with the aid of viewgraphs e The recommended transportation plan was identified as Plan D-4 and major features of the plan included: 1. A $421 million transit program, with construction costs estimated to be $158 million for rapid rail, $263 million for busways , and $54 million for vehicles, for a total cost of $475 million . The transit system would have 64 miles of private right-of-way routes , of which 10 miles would be for rapid rai l and 54 miles f or busways , including an expanded local and feeder bus network . 2. A $1 , 058 million program of improvement to arterial and collector streets. This would include approximately 732 miles o f new and improved arteri al streets, 803 miles of new and improved collector streets. 3. A $508 million program of new and improved freeways, including a second outer loop approximately four to five miles from the present I -285 perimeter r oute . This would include 91 miles of new free ways and 54 miles of improved existing freeways , in addition to some 176 miles of existing freeways not to be improved . Some 40 miles of additional right of way were recommended for advance acquisit ion . Cost estimates were in 1969 l evels and did not include inflation, escalation or bond issue costs . A summary report of the highlights of the recommended transportation plan was passed out to the Boa rd members e In clos ing , Mr . Keith said that wor k under their p re s ent contract was about c omple t e d a nd whe n f ini s h e d a b ound technical report of their findings and recommendations would be furnished the Authority. - 3 - �REPORT OF COUNSEL Mr. Huie reported that the Governor had again vetoed the rapid transit technical amendments bill (S. B. 162). ADJOURNMENT The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:45 P.M. NEXT MEETING June 3, 1969. ~4:~L__ L Edmund W. Hughe~/&>-::z..__ Secretary. - 4 - � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document a yi / ] U MINUTES OF THE FORTIETH MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY MAY 6, 1969 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on May 6, 1969 at 3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room, 619 Glenn Building, Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT :. Dr. Sanford S. Atwood (DeKalb County) M. C. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) S. Truett Cathy (Clayton County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County) L. De Milton (City of Atlanta) John C. Staton (Fulton County) MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) John C. Wilson (City of Atlanta) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manager E. W. Nelson, Chief Engineer King Elliott, Public Information Director Edmund W. Hughes, Authority Secretary H. N. Johnson, Administrative Assistant Consultants W. O. Salter, PBQ&D, San Francisco J. A. Coil and Ray Gustafson, PBTB, Atlanta E. Ese Gilcrease, PBQ&D, St. Louis Don Hyde, PBQ&D, New York We Stell Huie, Huie and Harland Robert Keith, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., Mclean, Va. Others Jan Richey, Planning Dept., City of Atlanta Edgar E. Schukraft, Southwest Atlanta Association Andy Springer, Greater Atlanta Traffic & Safety Council Jeff Wingfield, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission Aubrey Couch, Decatur/DeKalb Development Association The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman. MINUTES Minutes of the April meeting had been mailed to the members and upon motion by Mr. Bishop; seconded by Mr. Haverty, they were unanimously approved. FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Blount stated that the annual audit prepared by Arthur Andersen & Co. for the year ended December 31, 1968 needed to be approved. It had previously been mailed to the members. Upon motion by Mr. Haverty, seconded by Mr. Bishop, it was unanimously accepted and the General Manager was directed to furnish appropriate officials of the Local Governments with a copy. The Financial Report as of April 30, 1969 was presented by the General Manager. Staff and administrative costs were running within the budget and were expected to remain so through the dura- tion of the current budget (June 30, 1969). No sums had been ex- pended for technical studies during the period and support of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study was continuing. The C. & S. General Account reflected a balance of some $40,000 although this amount had been considerably reduced since preparation of the financial statement due to a number of sizable bills having been received. Interest earnings on investment of excess funds was higher than had been projected. Appropriations from the Local Governments were up to date for the first six months with the exception of Gwinnett County whose second payment was expected shortly. Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Cathy, the financial statement was unanimously approved and is attached and made a part of these Minutes. Mr. Stuart stated that the budget adopted for the first six months of 1969 would have to be adjusted in June following further consideration of the Voorhees report and that the Financial Planning Committee would meet soon to discuss budget requirements covering the Authority's future work program. REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER Mr. Stuart had visited Mr. Carlos Villarreal, Administrator, U. Se Department of Transportation, Washington, D. Ce, on April 23rd, and other members of DOT, and had discussed an approach to the Vorhees recommendations in view of a new application to be submitted for federal funds to implement certain elements of work necessary to accelerate the work program. REPORT OF CHIEF ENGINEER Mr. Nelson called on Mr. Coil of PBTB for a report of their work during April. Mr. Coil advised that a written progress report had already been furnished to the Directors. He also introduced Mr. Don Hyde, their transit consultant from New York, Mr. Nelson stated that Mr. Gilcrease and he had briefed the Board at the previous two Board meetings on the Atlanta Area Trans- portation Study (AATS), and that on April 10th at a joint meeting of the AATS Policy Committee and Technical Coordinating Committee Messrs. Tom Deen and Bob Keith of. Alan M. Voorhees and Associates had presented a recommended transportation plan for the Atlanta area and described their findings and documentation in support of the plan. Because some of the Board members were unable to attend the April 10th meeting held in the offices of the State Highway Department, Mr. Bob Keith of the Voorhees firm was present to make a report on their AATS work and recommendations. Mr. Nelson intro- duced Mr. Keith who presented their findings with the aid of view- graphs. The recommended transportation plan was identified as Plan D-4 and major features of the plan included: 1. A $421 million transit program, with construction costs estimated to be $158 million for rapid rail, $263 million for busways, and $54 million for vehicles, for a total cost of $475 million. The transit system would have 64 miles of private right-of-way routes, of which 10 miles would be for rapid rail and 54 miles for busways, in- cluding an expanded local and feeder bus network. 2. A $1,058 million program of improvement to arterial and collector streets. This would include approximately 732 miles of new and improved arterial streets, 803 miles of new and improved collector streets. 3. A $508 million program of new and improved freeways, in- cluding a second outer loop approximately four to five miles from the present I-285 perimeter route. This would include 91 miles of new freeways and 54 miles of improved existing freeways, in addition to some 176 miles of existing freeways not to be improved. Some 40 miles of additional right of way were recommended for advance acquisition. Cost estimates were in 1969 levels and did not include infla- tion, escalation or bond issue costs. A summary report of the high- lights of the recommended transportation plan was passed out to the Board members. In closing, Mr. Keith said that work under their present contract was about completed and when finished a bound technical report of their findings and recommendations would be furnished the Authority. eh ae  REPORT OF COUNSEL Mr. Huie reported that the Governor had again vetoed the rapid transit technical amendments bill (S. B. 162). ADJOURNMENT The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:45 P.M. Edmund W. Ba Secretary. NEXT MEETING June 3, 1969. fe  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 9, Document 1 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 9 Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/e3e14c3b1da9a7233034b5a8fd1529db.pdf 050aed115ae19f66d79baf30084dac1d Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. MINUTES OF THE FORTIETH MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY MAY 6, 1969 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on May 6, 1969 at 3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room, 619 Glenn Building, Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: . Dr. Sanford s. Atwood (DeKalb County) M. c. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) s. Truett Cathy (Clayton County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) John c. Staton (Fulton County) MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) John c. Wilson (City of Atlanta) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manage r E. w. Nelson, Chief Engineer King Elli ott, Public Information Director Edmund W. Hughes, Authority Se cretary H. N. J ohnson, Administ rative Assistant Consul t ants w. o. Salter, PBQ&D, San Fra n ci sco J. A. Coil and Ray Gustaf s on , PBT B, At l ant a E. E. Gilcreas e, PBQ&D, St. Louis Don Hyde, PBQ&D, Ne w Yo r k w. Stell Hui e , Huie and Harla nd Robert Keith , Al an M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., McLean, Va. Others Jan Richey, Planning Dept., City of Atlanta Edgar E. Schukraft, southwest Atla~ta Association Andy Springer, Greater Atlanta Traffic & Safety Council Jeff Wingfield, Atlanta Region Met~opolitan Planning Comroission Aubrey Couch, Decatur/DeKalb Development Association �The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman. MINUTES Minutes of the April meeting had been mailed to the members and upon motion by Mro Bishop, seconded by Mr. Haverty, they were unanimous~y approved. FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Blount stated that the annual audit prepared by Arthur Andersen & co. for the year ended December 31, 1968 needed to be approved. It had previously been mailed to the members. Upon motion by Mr. Haverty, seconded by Mro Bishop, it was unanimously accepted and the General Manager was directed to furnish appropriate officials of the Local Governments with a copy. The Financial Report as of April 30, 1969 was presented by the General Manager. Staff and administrative costs were running within the budget and were expected to remain so through the duration of the current budget (June 30, 1969). No sums had been expended for technical studies during the period and support of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study was continuing. The c. & s. General Account reflected a balance of some $40,000 although this amount had been considerably reduced since preparation of the financial statement due to a ·number of sizable bills having been received. Interest earnings on investment of excess funds was higher than had been projected. Appropriations from the Local Governments were up to date for the first six months with the exception of Gwinnett County whose second payment was expected shortly. Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Cathy, the financial statement was unanimously approved and is attached and made a part of these Minutes. Mr. Stuart stated that the budget adopted for the first six months of 1969 would have to be adjusted in June following further c onsi d eration of the Voorhees report and that the Financial Planning Committee would meet soon to discuss budget requi reme nt s coveri ng the Authority's f uture wor k program. REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER u. s. Mr. Stuart had visited Mr. Carlos Villarreal, Administrator, Department of Transportation, Washington, D. c., on April 23rd, and other members of DOT, and had discussed an approach to the Vorhees recommendations in view of a new application to be submitted for federal funds to implement certain elements of work necessary to accelerate the work program. - 2 - �REPORT OF CHIEF ENGINEER Mr. Nelson called on Mr . Coil of PBTB for a report of their work during April ~ Mr. Coil advised that a written progress report had already been furnished to the Directors . He also introduced Mr. Don Hyde, their transit consultant from New York. Mro Nelson stated that Mr . Gilcrease and he had briefed the Board at the previous two Board meetings on the Atlanta Area Transportation Study (AATS), and that on April 10th at a joint meeting of the AATS Policy Committee and Technical Coordinating Committee Messrs . Tom Deen and Bob Keith of . Alan M. Voorhees and Associates had presented a recommended transportation plan for the Atlanta - area and described their findings and documentation in support of the plan. Because some of the Board members were unable to attend the April 10th meeting held in the offices of the State Highway Department, Mr . Bob Keith of the Voorhees firm was present to make a report on their AATS work and recommendations . Mr . Nelson introduced Mr . Keith who presented their findings with the aid of viewgraphs e The recommended transportation plan was identified as Plan D-4 and major features of the plan included: 1. A $421 million transit program, with construction costs estimated to be $158 million for rapid rail, $263 million for busways , and $54 million for vehicles, for a total cost of $475 million . The transit system would have 64 miles of private right-of-way routes , of which 10 miles would be for rapid rai l and 54 miles f or busways , including an expanded local and feeder bus network . 2. A $1 , 058 million program of improvement to arterial and collector streets. This would include approximately 732 miles o f new and improved arteri al streets, 803 miles of new and improved collector streets. 3. A $508 million program of new and improved freeways, including a second outer loop approximately four to five miles from the present I -285 perimeter r oute . This would include 91 miles of new free ways and 54 miles of improved existing freeways , in addition to some 176 miles of existing freeways not to be improved . Some 40 miles of additional right of way were recommended for advance acquisit ion . Cost estimates were in 1969 l evels and did not include inflation, escalation or bond issue costs . A summary report of the highlights of the recommended transportation plan was passed out to the Boa rd members e In clos ing , Mr . Keith said that wor k under their p re s ent contract was about c omple t e d a nd whe n f ini s h e d a b ound technical report of their findings and recommendations would be furnished the Authority. - 3 - �REPORT OF COUNSEL Mr. Huie reported that the Governor had again vetoed the rapid transit technical amendments bill (S. B. 162). ADJOURNMENT The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:45 P.M. NEXT MEETING June 3, 1969. ~4:~L__ L Edmund W. Hughe~/&>-::z..__ Secretary. - 4 - �PROPOSED EXPRESS TRANSIT SYSTEM r-7 I I r I I I .J I I L- 1, r' L __. _j - -\ \ l...______ LJ / ( '--- _J' FULTON CO ~ DEKALB_ _ CLAYTON CO. LEGEND ·0 V ••• BUSWA Y RAIL RAPID PERIMETER HIGHWAY �7 PROPOSED FREEWAY SYSTEM r;==~~ ~~==-=~==r;~=-=(-,-J==-=-;;;......;;.;;;=---=-7, -~ '"" 'I \ I \ ' I ~---- 1 I I I I ! !I I /8 ~I I ~ ••• '*rurlW ~c .... 1N --·-- _J_p_~ ClAY1 . I ~ 0 ' I@ 1- \ [b~~ 143.215.248.55----=-=~""!!'°"~'co=-=='b--=======~=~~--~-=--,.-=-=-=--~~=--~==-~ - ------ LEGEND NEW FREEWAYS - - RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FUTURE FREEWAY 1968 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION -=-==-= COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT �PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING FREEWAYS n I r-·JI ~ r I.... J ' -J" J ~ / Alli.MU. CITY r 1 r-..--J 1-- I I I ~ r r' I I I L-7 ·- ~ J 'II rJ r ___...J ~ ~41«1 I L nn $('Alf IN - ! I L .J HENI( co CO r·z >~~ /. J~\ -f \<?.,.,I"' ., -~" // cl (/ ~ ' I@ £_ -, -~tCO \ LEGEN D IMPROVEMEN TS 19 68 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCT ION COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT • �EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT SYSTEM 7' FENCE-T 7" FENCE RAIL RAPID 7' F ENCE OPEN GROUND 7 FENCE BUSWAY RAIL RAPID BUSWAY AERIAL STRUCTURE ·;:?{ . . ·. �PROJECTS BY MILES PROPOSED HIGHWAY SYSTEM Type Miles FREEWAYS, TOTAL SYSTEM ............................... ... ... 321 NEW,OUTSIDE 1-285 .. ....... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. ............ 47 NEW, INSIDE 1-285 .. .... ....... ..... ......... .. ............ ..... 44 IMPROVED EXISTING ..... .. .... ... ....... ................. ..... . 54 EXISTING, NOT IMPROVED .... ........... ..... .. .... .... ... 176 ARTERIALS, NEW AND IMPROVED .......................... 732 COLLECTORS, NEW AND IMPROVED ................. ... ... 803 RIGHTS-OF-WAY, FUTURE FREEWAYS ............. ............ 40 �ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR PROPOSED 1983 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM HIGHWAY Millions of Dollars (New routes and improved existing) FREEWAYS 508 ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS TOTAL 1,058 $ 1,566 TRANSIT (Excludes rolling stock/vehicles) RAPID RAIL 158 BUSWAYS 263 TOTAL $ 421 TOT AL PROGRAM $ 1,987 �INNER CITY JOB ACCESSIBILITY WITH ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT SYSTEMS JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES OF EAGAN HOMES RESIDENTS BY TRANSIT AN EXAMPLE FOR A CLOSE -IN NEIGHBORHOOD SERVED WELL BY EXPRESS TR.A.NSIT 330,000 RAIL & BUSWAY-D LARGE BUSWAY-E 280,000 270,000 MARTA RAIL-B 70,000 SURFACE TRANSIT-A SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES �PLAN B (MARTA SYSTEM) \ 66 MILES .\ \ \ ' '\ , r-1 I I I r-..J I I I I 1 - ..J r-.J I ~-_J I I I I I L. 7 LEGEND -- - RAIL RAPID . . PER IMETER HIGHWAY �TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D-1 70 MILES - I __ J _J OEKA}B_ _ _ CLAYTON CO LEGEND •• • 11 'o u I@ .. , I~ BUSWAYS RA IL RAPID PER IMETER HIGHWAY �. I TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D-3 70 MILES ) \~ 2 I ·1~, ,JI I - -:~LANT_: cn\- 1 L---,-- / I 18 \ ' ' \ 143.215.248.55 ,,-(,~-:/' I u, , i::, , , , , ' ,_z< -» ,!: I I I ,' l '~ ~ , i _,J ~~ /' ' ·1 ~1 • ' \ ,, I,,- L, slr-J I _L ! 1-7 £------/ r~ ,.--___.__ ,I ~ /" / I 10 ! 1,__,,__ __ _ ___ ,..J r-7 I I I I I r-J I ~ , '~ r-- I 7 L- \ I ' •7 --J I II . J I I ~ I \ I , / f\~ I I I _ __ -\ f \./) I I rJ I I - -, - - , ~r' I f-~1-~;~~j r-- , ', . . I ATLA"ITA cnv~-.Jr,a..., I I '1 ,' r---'- - J · ,I ! , L. I I I.. ,', , r-, I = -~ ~_,,,, I .:.-:-:--=-~:: _J OEICA_LB_ __ Ft.JlTON CO. r_, ~ I CL.6.YTON CO ••• I 0 u LEGEND BUS WAYS RA I L RAP ID PER IMETER HIGHWAY �TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM E-2 72 MILES \ ' ATLANTA i I c,rv _Jr l rr L-7 rJ: L 7 ~7 I L -, / 1 z, . . ½ r L---\ I ....J I I I / ,_ e,~ .s11:i . ,o I ).UlTON :.L ---·- _J JJ co DEKALB_ __ CLAYTON CO. ' LEGEND •• d u z 0 I~ ~ l~ ••• - BUSWAYS RA I L RAP ID PER IMETER HIGHWAY. �SUMMARY OF HIGHLIGHTS RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM The attached papers provide brief statements and exhibits that summarize the findings and proposals from the past fourteen months of investigation of Atlanta's transportation needs. While technically sound, the papers are in draft form and are now presented only for the convenience of the Policy and Technical Coordinating Committee in its near-future work. This material, together with all prior work of the study project, is· being developed into a complete Technical Report for the Committees. A Part of the Presentation to the Policy and Technical Coordinating Committees of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study by: £l4I\V ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Westgate Research Park McLean, Virginia April 10, 1969 �FEATURESOFTHEPROPOSEDPROGRAM 1. · A $421 million transit program of rapid rail and busway construction is proposed to permit the Atlanta region to grow to its full potential and to provide th e means for its people to enjoy the social and economic opportunities that Atlanta can provide. An additional $54 million is tentatively estimated as required for transit vehicles, for a total program cost of $475 million. 2. A major highway program is needed to complete the freeway system already underway for the inner region, an d to set a framework of highways for the outer portion of the region . A $508 million program of freeways is proposed . 3. In addition, a major expansion of past efforts for improving arterial and collector streets is needed for the freeway and transit programs to function effectively and to create a modern system of local street service. A $ 1,058 million program is proposed to accomplish this by the early l 980's. The transit program provides for that system which, among all" major alternatives analyzed 4. which provide Uptown ex press service, gives the most service per dollar of invested capital, the lowest cost per ride, scores well on other measures and may be built in stages if required. The small additional cost per ride to provide Uptown rail service is proposed as acceptable in view o f other benefits that will result. 5. The transit system has 64 miles of private right-of-way routes, of which IO miles are fo r rapid rail and 54 miles are for busways, and an expanded local and feeder bus network that includes operation on certain outer area freeways. This system will carry twice as many passengers as the present Atlanta Transit System service and it will carry them further , faster and in more comfort. The proposed transit system will have a construction cost 17 percent less than MARTA'S 6. 66-mile rail rapid transit proposal of 1968, yet will have about the same total mileage. The system will carry I 0- 15,000 more passengers per day than would have been carried by that system. There will be no significant change in annual transit system operating costs, between all-rail and the proposed system . The proposed transit system will provide more service for most areas inside the Perimeter 7. Highway than the all-rail proposal, and only in Marietta will direct express service be less, i!1 any significant measure, than the all-rail proposal. Accessibility for inner city residents will be improved- many will be able to reach four or five times as many jobs by transit in 30 minutes of door-to-door travel as they could if local, surface transit were all that was available. �8. Properly encouraged and coordinated , real estate development near transit stations and busway access points will give a new structural framework to the region , around which many other beneficial policies and practices can be based. Well executed , the transit program can be a catalyst for a better region. 9. The busway elements of the plan can-provide even greater benefits than have been estimated if a comprehensive research and development program is established immediately , in cooperation with industry and the Federal government. Research into vehicle design, automation in various components, propulsion systems and operating techniques all offer potential benefits. 10. The highway program is designed to provide a rational communication network for people who will use automobiles to do business, shop and carry out the many social activities of tomorrow's society. The system is not designed to eliminate congestion , for this is not viewed as a practical goal. In the l 980's, in peak periods, the proposed system will be much like today . However, in the off-peak periods-which represent nearly 90 percent of the hours in the yearthere will be substantial benefits to travelers. 11. The proposed highway system will provide a substantial time saving fo r motorists compared with the initial highway system concept with which the study began a year ago. Principal new features are the central area tunnel to the northwest and the outer beltway north of but close to 1-285. While specific data on savings cannot be quoted - the proposed system is a composit selected from two alternatives-the difference in the two tested alternatives was a 10 percent time saving over the initial system tested. Most elements of the second alternative are in the proposed system. 12. The cost of the proposed highway program is about the same as for the initial system that was studied. The system has 91 miles of new freeway and 54 miles of im provements to existing freeways and will result in a total freeway network of approximately 321 miles within the sixcounty area. 13. Most of the new freeway routes are "corridor" locations only, that is, they are approximate as to location and general design. The next step is to identify the best way to build the highway into the existing development , especially in a way to assist the community in gaining the facilities it needs at the same time the transportation facility is provided. A number of corridors also call for transit routes and stations to be designed jointly with the highway- community development effort. 14. The arterial and collector street system included in the highway recommendations is fundamentally that developed by the AATS staff following analysis of earlier forecasts of highway travel and review with area planning and traffic engineering staffs. This system represents a general plan indicating the approximate locations and scope of the arterial-collector system. It 2 �will require further study and refinement as the final freeway and transit routes are determined and as future development occurs. The traffic operations study procedures advocated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (TOPICS) will be useful in this work. A development and improvement program of major proportions is required and it will require a major financial undertaking. 15. In the Central Business District of Atlanta the proposed program will mean 10,000 fewer parking spaces than if only a local, surface transit system were available. The benefit for peak hour motorists on CBD streets and on the CBD approaches to the freeway ramps will be enormous, for a large portion of those 10,000 parking spaces would have been used by peak hour motorists. 3 �TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES This section provides highlights and a selected list of comments on the findings resulting from a comprehensive search for the right transit system for the Atlanta region. Because there are no existing fixed facilities for transit service that can limit development of a new system and because of Atlanta's kind of land development and community patterns, there is a wide range of possibilities to be evaluated. At the same time, as will be seen below, the selection of the "best system," after all the evaluation work, is not a simple task. The selection process depends upon rather clear-cut agreement as to Atlanta's transit objectives, and on this there is not a single opinion. The proposed transit system is believed to be the best for Atlanta yet there are options available that could make a good choice under certain conditions. Atlanta, as any other city, must consider a number of factors in deciding what is best. To demonstrate this the ten most relevant system alternatives have been compared on an Evaluation Summary Chart. The Chart must be interpreted and used with great care because many significant bits of information are omitted on a signle chart. In addition , the ranking system used for each factor can produce a distorted summary , or net, ranking figure. Nevertheless, the Chart is a useful tool for systematic appraisal of the many choices. Major F indings The alternative systems shown on the Chart have been developed from the testing of five basic systems known as A, B, C, D, and E. The results from these five tests have been previously reported and one system, A, consisting entirely of local, surface transit, has been rejected. From these five tests, however, a long list of possible refinements and new configurations were considered, and the ten most meaningful alternatives selected for comparison here. The " best" plan- the one proposed for development - is Test System D-4. While not ranking as "best" on any individual item, its composite ranking does indicate its leading position. If emphasis is placed on particular objectives, it would be reasonable to consider three other alternatives as acceptable- these three are D-3, E-2 and D-1. In summary, the following alternatives stand out above all the others: Best D-4, 10 miles of rapid rail and a large busway network. 4 �Acceptable D:3, 27 miles of rapid rail and a large busway net~ork. E-2, 6 miles of rapid rail and a large busway network. D-1, 15 miles of rapid rail plus a large busway network. One major issue that was recognized early in the study work was whether to serve the developing "Uptown" area of Central Atlanta with grade-separated, P,Xpress transit in view of the need for underground transit construction. The Evaluation Summary Chart shows the difference in capital cost per ride for the "best" system without Uptown express service and the "best" ~-ystem with Uptown express service. Because Uptown service will cost only one cent per ride more than Non-Uptown service, 22 cents versus 21 cents, it is proposed that Uptown express service be provided. Among other benefits, the inducement to development here should more than offset the added capital cost. Among the "best" and "acceptable" plans listed above, only Test System D-1 does not provide Uptown service. Evaluation Factors Review 1. Lowest Total Cost and Cost per Ride. The lowest cost per ride system is provided by the small busway system Plan C, but this system does little for Atlanta's transportation problems. It would give much better service to the present transit riders, would attract a small number of auto users, and could be expanded to a larger system, but a policy of aiming now for this little a transit improvement would be ineffective and would likely have a negative impact on potential urban developments. If a least-cost per ride system is preferred over other community objectives, the one that should be first considered in Plan C-1. In this alternative, the Plan C busway routes are expanded by 11 miles and a 2-mile rail distributor is added from the Stadium to North Avenue but Uptown express service is not provided. It would provide a 44-mile system which could be expanded later although not into exactly the system that is recommended. An ultimately expanded system would have a higher capital cost in the long run , but there would be an offsetting saving because some costs would have been deferred for a number of years. 2. Traffic Impact. The system that attracts the most riders and, therefore, makes the largest impact on traffic, is Plan E-2. The cost per ride is higher than for the recommended plan-10 percent higher on capital cost per ride, 3 percent higher on total annual cost per ride-but it is less costly per ride than the all-rail plan considered last year by MARTA. Its construction cannot be staged over time as readily as the other acceptable plans but if it were built as a single program, it would be a good system. Further, it is the only plan, among the major alternatives considered to be acceptable, that provides direct express service into the Model Cities-Stadium area. 5 �I 3. Operational/Physical Feasibility. For technical feasibility, Plan B, the all-rail plan, rates high because its general performance as an operating system is well established. In contrast, busway systems have not been built. Even thouih the assumptions involved in the Atlanta busway concepts require no technological breakthroughs, or complex or unproven mechanical equipment, prudence requires recognition of the lack of operating experience with this innovative system. The more miles of busway in the proposal, the more care is required not to over-extend initial busway construction commitments. Plan B is not ranked best on the Chart because its present design has capacity limitations that would be approached by the forecasted demand. 4. Staging Possibilities. The best systems to develop from a staging and flexibility point are small busway plans. The least desirable is an all-rail plan principally because for any given amount of initial capital it buys the least amount of express service mileage. Except for the "Non-Uptown" systems, Plans E-1, D-4 (the proposed plan) and D-3 are best for staging because substantial mileage can be obtained in an initial stage, and the ultimate system can vary from present thinking if future information suggests it should. 5. Community Objectives. The fundam ental objectives of the individual communities and the region are believed best met by Plan E-2 with one exception: it has a higher cost and cannot be staged as readily as other alternatives. It will attract the most riders in nearly all parts of the region, it gives more accessibility to all of Atlanta's present Central Business District, it serves Atlants's inner city residents as well as or better than other alternatives, and it serves the Uptown area with rail subway. Plan E-1 might appear second best for community obj ectives but potential congestion in the Transit Center station rules this out, if the central area is assumed to grow to its forecasted number of jobs in the l 980's. Plans D-3 and D-4 (the proposed plan) are next best. 6. Citizen/Transportation Advisors. The attitudes of citizens, political leaders and transportation people are basic to a system decision. No ratings are given to the alternatives on the Evaluation Chart, but it is expected that each person will, in one way or another, make his own judgement and see how this affects the overall evaluation summary. 7. Summary. The net ranking of each alternative helps to identify the better solutions, but the result should be considered only a gross approximation not to be followed too rigorously. From the findings shown on this Chart and all the tangible and intangible information gathered.in the past year of study, it is proposed that Plan D-4 be selected as the best basis for meeting the transit needs of Atlanta. 6 �8. Note on D-4 Refinement. In evaluating the highway needs, it was concluded that the new northwest freeway in the South Cobb Drive corridor between I-285 and the proposed outer beltway near Marietta could be used by buses in the early l 980's. Therefore, Plan D-4 was shortened along its NW busway following the comparison of the systems evaluated on the Evaluation Summary Chart. 7 �EVALUATION OF HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES The proposed highway system has been selected after analysis of two alternative systems. Prier highway analysis by the Atlanta Area Transportation Study has also been recognized in this process. Four essential points have been identified in thses studies. First, the traffic problems in and near the Atlanta Central Area will worsen substantially if the region grows in the way it is expected to grow. Second, more freeways will be needed inside the Perimeter Highway to achieve a reasonable degree of traffic service in off-peak periods and to keep peak hour traffic at tolerable levels of congestion. Third , there are only a small number of major alternatives to consider, in contrast to the very large number of transit possibilities available , because of the number of existing freeways. Fourth, careful design of added fre eway sections to create a more rational network can produce substantial and meaningful time savings for motorists compared with lesser network designs. The first of the two highway system concepts was analyzed in the first phase of the present study project. From that analysis, the second highway system alternative was developed for a new series of traffic tests, now completed. The second alternative included, by design, several extreme features to demonstrate how far certain new ideas could be carried. For example, no widening of the 4-lane sections of 1-285 was provided in the traffic tests, but a 6-lane outer beltway relatively close to 1-285 was included. The objectives agreed to by the Policy Committee for designing the second highway alternative were : 1. provide a more logical spacing and network arrangement of routes 2. complement possible express transit service 3. encourage less growth in travel demand by altering the location of certain freeways. The growth anticipated for the Atlanta Central Area will produce travel demands that must be met, in part, by development of a major transit program. Compared with most cities, Atlanta has already developed substantial freeway access for its Central Area and only limited additions can be considered. It is proposed that freeway service be added in areas west and northwest of the Central Area, partly to improve access into the business area but mainly to provide a means for keeping traffic not destined for the business area from the Central Business District streets. These added facilities based on traffic forecasts, will mean a three to five percent reduction in transit use in the l 980's. This is proposed to be an acceptable impact on transit in order to provide the accessibility benefits to highway users. Other freeways are proposed inside 1-285 because it is believed that they will be a better solution than forcing excess traffic over the arterial street system. While the freeways will 8 �generate travel demands that would not exist otherwise, the arterial streets of the Atlanta region present a very poor circulation system, and even with a major improvement program would not serve regional travel as well as the development of several new freeways. Also, the studies indicate that inclusion of F-56 South and a new northwest freeway will reduce in a significant way the need for rebuilding of existing freeways-1-75 North and 1775 South-although some improvements are proposed. These new facilities will not have a major impact on transit use. It is to be noted, however, that this evaluation has not had the benefit of preliminary route engineering nor of community development studies and it is imperative that such studies be made as soon as possible to be certain that the proposed network inside· 1-285 can be achieved. In the area o f 1-285 and beyond, the highway plan will have a major impact on the structure, the pattern and intensity of land development. The initial highway studies indicated much more travel would be generated here than previously had been expected, and this led to seeking a highway network that would re-orient future travel patterns. The second phase of highway studies showed that some success could be achieved by locating a new outer beltway (or outer Perimeter Highway) close to the present Perimeter Highway . The impact on travel accessibility from the two nearly-parallel high-speed circumferential roads did shift travel patterns. By I 983, or more accurately, perhaps, the year in which 2 million persons will live in the six-county area, the new road will be needed between Marietta and Stone Mountain. Thereafter, this new route should be extended around the region on a schedule that can be determined later, especially after an updated . regional development plan is adopted that recognizes the impact and the opportunities from this freeway. The proposed system indicates the sections that will most likely be required next by proposing establishment of the rights-of-way before 1983 in the northwest , southwest and east areas. Similarly, the proposal calls for right-of-way acquisition before 1983 for F-56 South between 1-285 and 1-75 South. This road will be needed ultimately , and the means of financing-for example, through a system of urban toll roads-could justify its earlier construction. The best location between the Lakewood Freeway Extension and I-7 5 South would pass close to Forest Park and offer this area of Clayton County more traffic service than the previously discussed location. However, it is recognized that more ideal location will be more difficult to achieve. The new northwest freeway should be located as close to South Cobb Drive as conditions permit to bring it within the area of influence of the Smyrna-Marietta urban corridor. 9 �PROGRAM FOR ACTION The next step forward in Atlanta's transportation work is for the Policy and Technical Coordinating Committees to review and act on the proposals presented here. Adoption of a transportation plan by the Policy Committee is the fundamental, immediate objective. This general plan will be recommended to the individual area governments and the major agencies involved for their approvals. It will then become a meaningful policy statement for undertaking the program. Establishment of an orderly and effective program will require entering into an implementation phase of activity. Essentially, it will be a phase of further project definition, coordination, financial planning, scheduling and control to assure that the program as ultimately implemented attains the objectives of the adopted general plan. The work will include those engineering, operations planning and community planning steps which Federal programs specify and which good financial and planning judgement would require, including the participation of the new citizen advisory group. These particular steps will occupy the large part of Atlanta's transportation planning energies for the next year. Certain steps will continue into the l 970's, in coordination with an organized process that will provide periodic review and refinement of the adopted general plan. There will be need for a continuous planning procedure. The highway program will need to establish a schedule of early project actions, make preliminary engineering and joint community-transit-highway development studies and determine the means of financing the new freeway and arterial projects. A large-scale traffic operations planning task will be useful in developing the arterial road network. The Highway Department may wish to determine if it can and should participate in financing transit projects which contribute to reducing highway demands, in accordance with evolving Federal policy which permits use of highway funds under prescribed conditions. Transit will need the same kinds of implementation steps as highways, and other kinds as well. Major areas needing attention are advanced operations planning for busways, the restructuring of local bus services, new approaches to vehicle design, and marketing efforts to build a more positive attitude toward use of the new system. Inclusion of busways in the program provides an opportunity, and establishes an obligation, to apply innovative thinking in general as well as in the development of several specific components of the system. Atlanta will find the Federal government anxious to cooperate in financing vehicle design and system control research, passenger service demonstrations and experiments, and construction of test facilities in order to advance its own commitment to find improved urban transportation systems. There will be need for city and regional planning steps to exploit the transportation plans. Zoning and land use near transit stations can be altered where economic and environm~ntal impact studies support it. Development incentives can be considered as one means of accomplishing coordinated, joint projects. 10 �There are a number of locations in the region where development will be different from that in the official development plans and transportation forecast data- Sandy Springs, East Lake, parts of Atlanta's central business district, etc.-and this will need to be reflected in the advanced transportation planning work. The latest regional development plan work, now underway for a 1988 plan, will need to be adjusted to reflect the transportation policies. After its adoption, it, in turn, will be fed back into future refinements of the transportation plan and program , as a part of the continuing planning proces~. A means for financing the transit, freeway, and arterial program will be needed and this could require new legislation. Toll highways and bridges, central area parking fees, bond issues and otp.er means warrant investigation. Limiting the use of automobiles in the central area in peak periods may become a required step in the 1970's. All such programs should be consistent with the adopted general plan and be reviewed by the Policy Committee. The U.S. Department of Transportation has initiated a nation-wide, 15-month project that seeks major improvements in the implementation process. It will be concerned, for example, with institutional arrangements and citizen involvement. While oriented toward central city transportation problems, it will be meaningful to Atlanta's overall regional task. Atlanta has been selected as one of the cities to be included in the study project, and the Policy Committee will want to work closely with the project to be certain that it contributes timely assistance to the implementation work of the Committee. Substantial progress on the above tasks will be n.eeded before the major elements of the highway and transit programs can be brought into the final construction design and land acquisition stage. It is clear that there are strong arguments for early action to implement these steps so that Atlanta's transportation program can move forward with speed and confidence. 11 �I FREDERICK .J. WAl. T.::RS 441a DAv1osoN Avc:r-uc: l ATJ..ANTA, GEORGIA 30:518 May 21, 1969 Mr. Everett Millican, City ..A.J.derman City Hall 56 Mitchell Sti·eet, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia. Dear Sir: Each tirne I arn involved in one of Atlanta's now f amous t raffi c jams on the expressway, I remernber your vigorous battle to defeat the Rapid Transit program in the elections last fall. When I further contemplate the tens of thousands of hours that are l ost daily by irate motorists in Atlanta, I wonder how in clear conscience you could have opposed the means of alleviating these frustrating traffic situati ons. At the time of your op p os iti on you promised an alternative, but I have seen no alternative and I think the people of Atlanta, · from everything that I can judge in conver sati on, are f ed up with the procrastinating, do-nothing policy which you have pursued. You may be sure that the mer.nories of these people will be long at the next election. Perhaps I have rnisjudged you - perhaps you have presented a workable alternative. If so, I would certainly be glad to know ab out it or any other plans that you may have as an elected representative of the people of Atlanta to try to save the one thing that can stifle Atlanta I s growth_ and progress toward a brilliant future. Yours very truly, FJW:eh Dear Mr. Mayor : . u erb efforts toward makin.g Atlanta one of the In view of your lively i~t~re s t and s:: u should have a copy of this letter which greatest of American c1t1es, I thoug t yo .. - - 1 1 ~ • ~ ,;,,a-I have addressed to M r._ Millican. vV~ ~ , , - 7 -- - - ~ �I August 14. 1969 Mr . Roy A . Blount Vice Chairman Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Glenn Building Atlanta. Georgia 30303 Dear· M.r . Blount: As Mayor Allen is out of the city, this will acknowledge your letter of August 11th, regarding a meeting to describe the tra.n it program. I will bring thi matter to Mr. Allen~s attention upon hi return to the ci.ty. Sine rely, Mrs-. Ann M . Moses Executive Sec,:etary AMM:lrd �METROPQLITAN ATLANTA RAPID T.RANSIT AUTHORITY GLENN_ BUILDING / ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524-5711 OFFICERS: Richard H . Rich, Chairman Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman August 11, 1969 Edmund W . Hughes, Secretary Henry L. Stuart, General Manager Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Ga. 30303 Dear Mayor Allen: At its regular meeting August 5th the Transit Authority Board adopted a two-year program designed to be responsive to the request of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study Policy Committee to develop a new transit proposal using as a guide the Voorhees recommendations. Obviously, the Transit Authority's two-year program is meaningless unless it has the enthusiastic support of the Local Governments involved. We feel that this proposed program is in good form now, including its budget, and I would like an opportunity for some detailed, informal discussion of it with you and such Aldermen, officials and staff members as you think appropriate. May I suggest that you select a convenient time during . the first week of September, with the exception of the afternoon of Tuesday, September 2nd, which is our regular oard meet~·~-~ Vice Ch air man . RAB: JJ cc: Mr . Charles L . Davis Di r e c tor o f Finance Cit y of At lanta Mr . Milton Farris MARTA Board of Directors Mr . w. Stell Hui e Counsel , MARTA �July 16,. 1969 Mr. Lomrie C . King, Jr. President Atl nta Branch, NAACP 859--1/2 Hunter Street,. N. W. Atl nta, Georgia D ar Lonnie: I appreciate your note , and I am giving car ful conaider tion to ,t he on ~cancy which occ.u.rs through the city on the Metropolitan Atlant Rapid Tr nsit AQthority. 1t i my understanding that th · oth r vacancy occur through the county. Sincer ly,. Ivan Allen, Jr. IAJr :am �NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE ATLANTA BRANCH 859½ HUNTER STREET, N.W., SUITE 105, ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30314 524-8054 J uly 15, 1969 LONNIE C, K ING , JR. PRESIDENT REBA GRE~NWOO O 1ST VICE PRES IDENT REV . SAMUE L WILLIAMS 2 ND VICE PRES IDENT MAYNARD JACKSON 3RD V ICE PRES IDE NT EUN ICE COOPER SECRETARY PEGGY CH URCH ASST. SECRETARY IRA JAC~SON TREASURER The Honorable Ivan Al len , Jr . Mayor , City of At lanta 68 Mitche ll Street, s . W. Atlanta, Georgia 30300 Dear Mr . Mayor: The Atlanta NAACP takes note of the fact that there will soon be two vacancies on the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Autho rity . It is our feeling that many of the problems that the Authority has had in generating support in the black community can be traced to inadequate representation of the black community in the process of formulating the plans for a much needed Rapid Transit System in the Atlanta area . It is our hope that you will take advantage of the upcoming vacancies to increase the participation of the black community at the policy-making and plan-making level. As always the NAACP stands ready to assist you in your efforts to assure continued growth of the city of Atlanta. Sincerely yours, ~CK,~ Lonnie C. King, Jr. President Atlanta Branch NAACP LCX/h �ALLEN J. ELLENDl!R, LA., CHAIRMAN SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, FLA. JAMES O. EASTLAND, MISS. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, GA. B. EVERETT JORDAN, N.C. GEORGE MCGOVERN, S . OAK . JAMES B. ALLEN, ALA. ' GEORGE D. AIKEN, VT• MILTON R. YOUNG , N. OAK. JACK MILLER, IOWA CARL T . CURTI S, NEBR . MARLOW W . COOK, KY. ROBERT DOLE, KANS . COTYS M . MOUSER, CHIEF CLERK COMMITrEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY WASHINGTON, D . C. 20510 September 18, 1969 Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor City of Atlanta Atlanta, Georgia Dear Ivan: Thank you very much for sending me a copy of your recent letter to the Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Your courtesy is indeed appreciated, and in an effort to be of assistance on the matter outlined in your correspondence , I, too, have contacted Mr. Villarreal. When I have received a reply, you will certainly hear from me again. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely, �Rot-1~! ~1 JJ:c 2 f !: This ~e~orandu~ describes an action process for improvir.s :he transportation serving Atl2nta Ce::r,ter City ,.fr,ich n2s been developed jointly by Atlanta age~cies a~d che Ce~ter Gities Transpo=t2tion Project Team. T'he process is called O:?ER./1.TIO~ E ·::'f ;:RCi::?T ai1d wi ll hs.ve a r.umoer o~ steps, sta:c~ing wich initiatio~ cf a new shuttle bus service on Dece~ber 1, 1969, which ~ will lead in successive steps to the eventual develo?rnent of a complete trans~o rta tion syste~ for the center city as part of the region's basic tr~n s?or t a tion system . 'i'::..·0r·::,; tKn:- ta::i.or:. an<l the Ur b:m Hass Tran:;port:1::ion J\u1,1in:i. s trator for u.ction ' to h0J.p solve r,roblc:ns brought Oil by t he ::_;ro·~.·th c.ncl C:,p~nSi0!1 of CC: nter c::.:: v . co;.1bine the. cn -:::cgy .'.:!;:d resources of AtL.:nta 2~d th e Urb,::m Mass Tr ~rns it ,\c- · r.1inL;::,ration to c!ch j_eve / 2. ser ies of specific action g.93-ls ove::r ti:nc. �CLNTI::R CITY Gl{Ol·JTE: ATLA:,TA, THE CENTER OF TEE SOUTHEAST ·:, Since 1960, Atlante:' s Cen ter City has gro,,m bey·ond . a:;_1 predictions. __ Duri::. ,> . t;1ese past nir.. ve.:11,·s .,. c. e · almost eight million sa·uare f ee t of office spac e has been added co t he Atlar.ta Cent er Cit cent. .r u-' an increase of 175 per- The t rend i s expected to continu e , with both ple'1ners and dev e lopers fo~esceing rapid urban ~xpansion -- p~rhaps at a rate leading all o ther citi2s of compa rabl e si ze . Planners anticir~te that emplo y.~cnt in the centr a l city will doubl e within the next t wo decad es , a nd with redevelopment spa c e contiguo'-:1 s to the already hi~h2.y developed core, build ers a re actively keeping p2.ce ,,ith their -e--,. p f- ~ ~ "{1,-01J"$ -~·--=t .: 0!16. Sev e ral reasons for recent growth also insure it s ccntinuati6n. Atlanta o:: te:1 cor: s i cl 2red )< t he natior. ' s next frontier for accel e ~a ted deve l o p2ent and eco nomic growth . The city has beco~e the gatewa y to this rc g io:i. ' of vast potential,- a,1d. re·;, tain s a position unpa r a lleled, in fact unchalleng'2d, by other_ c:::;:-eas of u rba niz a tion. 1ore tha n four-fifths of the nation's 500 1-:: r gest ~orpora- tio ~, s r-,ave est a blish2.d b2. ses in At l anta for operc.tions i :l.. the So1..'.theast, --~ ... and a re. expecr: ed to incr ea s e 'their de;:1an~s for space as the r eg io:c ·dev_~-1:ops. •· As in the pa s t , location within th 2 reg ion ha s a posi t ive ef fect on gr6wth. The c~ty i s neariy mid-center i n the Sou thea st Reg ion, ~nd with the exc~~tion o i wat er, enjQy s exc e ll ent s e rvice by all fo rm s of t rans portation~ As a c ent er for t j~ di stribu tio n o ~ scrv ic es and t he rc:;ion. Unl ess unfo r2scea bl e ev en t s occur, i ts l oca t ion wi ll beco::-.e i nc~e2sing l y sig ~ific ant i n loc a tion d ec i sion s fo r bot h business a~d gov e r n·8ent growth ;)rog r ams . �, . ·t-. i::ost si<:nif ic«nt 0-:>:ro,;,,i t11· catal:,•st -·, tl1e r0 1 i.1L~ J..onsnip · · · or~ 1 oc;1:;_ bus :i i1L~.;s _ .L::; ancl gove:rn::-,ent 2.nd how they \-mrk together in direct i n~ cont:im.:~d ce~teT city ccv.:::::top~2nt . In &bstr.:1ct i on t:his is o f ten stated as the ,:busin0 s::; spi ...: rit o f . :.\tla'Qta . ' based on. ~ o pti~ism ste~:~1ing from a proud .ar1.C. S!)C:Ctcicula~ g:rl!;b"..:h record -- a ser..s-2 of certainty that ).tlanta h olds a key to the futu r e ·o ~ the Southeast. !ri reality this means a stro ng and 2r t ic u lite bcsiness Q-0\ CO:!'.:::t.:nity ,-mrking uitl: ~v erv.r:-.2nt to provid e _directio~ and coo :rdit:.aticn f o r ---._:nticip a ted l ev -2ls o: grm-1 th. No ~here is the bus i n2ss-2 overn~ent relati on- ,.___ ~ ip nor 2 e v i d e nt o r vi a bl e than in th e c e ~t e r cit f , f or a l l acknowledge tha t i f this are a is to ~bs orb a doubli~g in s iz e of th e alr6 a dy h~~ hly ci ,;:v2l op e: d core, st.:ch a pa :::-tnc:. s h ip is 1~2 q_t.::i.s it e fo-::: its prop e r g u i d e,!!~ . r esa i n th e e c onon ic Pl ac ning efforts a cce:pt thi s as a given . m0 t rooo li t a n re n ion. a n d h'O rk for it s continu ::it j_o r. with a n .'.lv o wecl d is tast e for a V.:ls tly d e ce n t ra l iz ed c i ty. The " Re:g io nal DC:!ve l o:_:;:,1e nt Pl an '~ (1962) c a ll s for a str-o :1g . r, cen :: ra l 2.r ea , wi t h th e City o f Atl 2n t a 's "1 98 3 Land Us e ? l a n" spe cii" ic a lly ci t ir,g the c 2n t:r al a r ea es 11 • so complex i t r e qu i r es a w2 ll con ceived, well d e v e l o ped, 2nd we ll execut e d p lan of it s O h'i:1. " S'.:) C:Cic:! l t rans? o r t at ion s t t.:dies h2.v e a l s o ackno,dedge d i:he c e :1ter ci ty as urri c u e &n d r e qu1t·ing ·-.__.; - .-2 c::. f ic d e t a i l ed enal ys i s o f it s o wn . To f u lf ill t hese spec i 2 l n eeds f o r c e ,1 '.:er c i ty ? l a r.n ing , a.n eL:bora tc stLldy de s ign ( t h e CQ-;-,cral are a st1.:dy) h a s ·c2c:1 cl e v e l oFed as a j oin t c ity- bes:;..,1cs s co r.-,r::u nit y atte:-;,p t to c h aY t th e· cou -::: s a 2~d needs o f center city gr o wt h ~ PRO:iT.:-:~,; O? CO:;Gf.STION A?( D ACC ESS Cente: r c ity growt h h as not, o f c o u rse, evolv e d wit t ~~ t c r e ating ? ro bl e~ s . . \ ' itb few c.:-:cept i o,1 s d c v c!lo1; i:1.::nt h;..is t 2 kC!lc pl a ce upo i1 ~ lit t: l e ch;, ;·::-c-e J i,1:d �sit r~EcrGndu~, agencies are busy at revising a plan which should win enthusinstic a2?roval. Mayor Allen perh2ps best sums up such concerns in his state:i:ent that, "We cannot accon..-.odate any ~ore traffic on our ·:.::·:isting street ~atterns. And there is not enough money on God's green earth to change st:rect patterns i:1 Atlanta." G.:=ri,.~ lo:--:; rc.:·.::;i-. :~l2.::-.::-.~.::..::,- :~r~- . efforts have no~ included coordinated interi=~steps for relief of center city conge:stio:L Such steps are critically needed, and this progra~, along with the Central Area Study, are designed for ju s t th~t purpose. ?rol>l e:'rr,s of co::g estion · a::d access are not jGst 2nticipat ed; there are s2v ere proble~ s now. A ;oo<l exa:.1 pl e c..t,AS Go~ ~- :J .· c~'-e.~ vr.:.C.,fD G. in ti:e Atl"'":-.t:a JO\.!l·c, a l- Co~~::: :i.t ui::io ,'l ~:--t icl e f ollo{,_,i ng the mid - day t r2£ f i c tie- up l a s t July 3. Thu r s~ay , chok ing int e:--sec iions and clogg i ng ma in art er i e s in the c i ty . ~~ d out of . manr publ i c t ransi t sc hedules wet e wrec ked as some bu se s .c ,... i '"' J.V~ a s long dS a n how.r in ~otio nl cs s lines of si::-L":).e r i ng c a rs Fr2eway p:co}:i;:1ity, t hen, and im~rovec1. ou ter c:::::-ea ar t erial st r ee ts hi ve ·--- v ast l y i ncreased the p~o p~nsi ty f or u sa3e of the automob i l e as a r::eans of tr a n s~ortation t o t he c ent ra l city. Center c i ty pa r king ~a c i:i~ies have been g:cm-,ing to acco,:Lrno clat e th0 d er:,-2nci, yet s tree t pa t te'!:'nS rema in fix ec., often un~hl e t o pas s ~the high v ol u~es o f both v ehicles ana p~Je s trians . v Over -c.::.i)Dcity i s e l-. , c ( <./ ;., I< "'b,,~ a f.J.ct c:.nd me2.sura ble in ho;,irs per day . Given the c:z- pected . growth :i.n the center ci~y with no :i.r::p rov<:;:nent in c:ccess1 t¾a~-:?..'.;~ , (./) ll"-1\e.. ~......-dc7""0V~'.::1C2'?2'C-:.=-t y coulcl be a r ea lity . Cc,P1/11:9 tiecl a I/... cfcy C,c:)Y'._y e..r/-.1:ri-, ,; �Of S?~C~~l concern ar~ access pro1lens of ccnt~r city residcncial ~cig~bor~oods, ?articulrirly thos~ in ~odel city and NDP project are a s. Alt~cugh public transit is available, most resi2ents a~e considered _captive riders wi.t:1 -specic.-1 ne2ds and der.~ands on _center city transportatior:.'. _,. technic.::l gr.2.:-:..: a?plic.2. t ior.. is now pe.-,din:; (EOA-:·Li\:{TA) :for study of neighbor~,ood access proble:~.s not only within tl1e ce!lter city but to suburban e.::!_)loyz,e:nt cent e rs as well. It is anticipated that thi~ program. of interi~ steps ~ould be inst~u~ental in resolving thase problems. The rapid transit program will of course r2lieve problem s of center city access, yet an operational status is ye ars away. Until -the~, congestion mW-.d t',•l-1-4-},,1, . con.tinu e s to ~oun~, and interi::-t progY.s.!::s for- i Lrpro'\1 :.:-.12r1 t ~ ov. e r shc. C.o;-;2d by the desire to see the prim.:?.ry ra~icl trc.nsit system app r ov ed a nc oyera-_ tiona l. As ?r ev i ously s t a ted, At lanta is currently cx? e r i2ncing sever e cent e r city acc ess a nd cong2s tion proble~ s. T~e rapid tr a nsit progr2s has yet to b8 approved by the vo te rs, and is at leas t eight to t e n years awa y f~o~ an o f r e:l i ev:;.n 6 c en-t e r_· city co nges tion probl err..s . to t his nee d f or a n i n ter im pr o~rara ha s ~een found t hro~sh the .........._____ DO':c' CCT? • Uncoor2 i na t ed ~nd un nr ticul c. t ed i deas c.nd c oncept s for inter i ra .................. _ solution s faun~ i n various pl ann i n3 and trEnsi t 2geccies have with t he ~i- " rect ~elp and inspir~tion cf the c ~~ter cities consottiu~ been rl ev 2l cpei �' ' .. ccnt2r city access and nl!cvi~tin~ cong e stion prool2ms. The first s:cp ,,,, e~ploys existin~ transit tech~olos y, local equipra~nt, and lo c~l'~ina ncin~, (M/10-~ ~~ 2.n c:pplicati_or: of ne.F technology anc hardware as q p2r::canent cen- ter city dist=~-~tion syste~ co~?lernentin; the proposed prisary rapid tran~ sit systes. Inter8ediate steps er:,ploy_ irc1prov2r.1e,,cs on tcc1molo~y, harch,•arc, and application, with v ar iou s arr&ngements of local-fc ~e ral financia l suppo:ct. . A key element, ne&rly re~uisiie for thC:-! succe s s £0:c ~ , will be the developrr:eni: of the wa y. 2. Of'E ?MlON \NTl_'.:-~l:,fT t*•"'·*·.::.~·::_; ; ~ ~ - !;iOnitorir.g process for each step along In thi s wa y the p& rt icula-.c charact eristics o.: : e2.ch step c 2n help rl2~ermine the program =or the ~ext. \ NTf /:G c; ?'t°" G_/4·:e c::::.o::-. ::::.·,-ce:.:.:..e::.¥.: is C?F'S(~T Ic:, }J d i vided ir,to three ;ener&l ste~)s , eac~1 b-..: ilding u p0~-. the succ2ss of t he o:1e(s) b efo re. By mainc:a i!1 in 6 the non icoring syste:~1 i n c1 cl, stl!p , l arge qu an tit ies of ·inforr.,2tion ~-. 'ill b e: avail2b lc for ;lan~ing the n ext. Thu s , co~tinuous feedbhc k will s hape zr.d d i r ect: service c haracteristics f rom i nitia l steps. The initia l step i s divicied into two phases . The fi rst ,_. _a 1 00% loc2.l e f: or·t, i s S?onsored by both Qity a nd bu siness ccn~unity . s ervic e by Dcc e!T'.ber l 2 high f:c e qu ency shutt l e bu s op e ration roi:ted t:htoi.:gh the ce.ntcr city· and t er;-'.:inating a t existing 1forth c.,nd s··ou th par k.ins f2cil iti es located just ou tside the c ente r city. The. service result s from a jo int effo ~t betwe~n t he City of At l ante , Atlanta Transit Cornp~ny , and the busi1")_ess cor.:::1ur.it y to pr ovid e i f.'2.ediate relief f or ce·.:1ter city co:lr,estio:1 . The se::::-vice is aim2d prinarily at the ctiver co;;::::~1t e.r , with hopes of inter- cepting hi3 a t the periphery parking f2cilities (both locat ed on the 2xpr2ssway systE::n) c:.nd bussi!:':g hin to cente:c cH y cJ:)loy::i.e.nt. The shuttle service .· �·s 1. I'OLL \,•i_ LL't·.-ott t • pr··c••, ,~11~. _ _ ~ _ _ Curr· cn~.L-)• , - ~... and have proved most successful -- one, •..,o ~ ~·r,,1Ltl~ · opc143.215.248.55ion . L c s~?\'. ~L -ices arc in 3 special application, is nuurly an identica l service conce pt as this first ph2se of Step·r. The service is beir-g o:-;er2t2d betx,.::en Georgia State U::1ive~:sity, a· dow:1tow11 school uith very limited parking facilities, and tbe sa2e south p2rking facility as proposed in this first phase of Step I. The other shuttle operation is the 'Shoppers S;:,2cic1l: 1 routed within the cer.ter c·ity, serv"ir,g m2.~or ratail outlets. / . �i r: i n th e fcr 8 o= a G~a nt. D220. or additional routes, , ::-. -:~ ,- 1 ' - ...... ,r .... - · ; At th e us e o f n or e par~ing f acilities. tioi~s of S t: .::? I, and i s expc ct .:::d to ::-e qu i;:-e: cons id 2r 2.ble c apit.:11 i:1ve::s t::-.2nt. I t i s :::.n t his step t h a t r,c,., t c ch::1ology will b e: er,:;_) lo y cd a r.d a 12.r ge e :q 2:1siori of services ::,ut i:1.::0 c::.:2.:: t . Ki~d ':r1e nc\·i tech nology will r:-.0:.:-e t h an of i ~~rovements t o b e dev eloped • .-"" ·.:·; ·•.-,1 , ·_; .-- .,_ - ~·_ - i On'-' ~ f o·~- f "-r.,d ,"'r.. ~" -l ~ c. - ~ ·.::c1· .· c-<· ·s ·· r- ',, ~ ~- '-'· · -· ,.1·i.1. , . .., - l DC.· "1.· o ·r.~ , ; r.·, 1·.., - Ll·.cc··. •. ·"-"·6 . , t hi s 1 s t 2?) and wil l incl uJe not only C2pital s~ants for constr uction , bu: tec~~ i ca l study gran ts a s we ll. See p II c an a l so se e t h e init iat i on o f s ~2cif ic acce ss- l i~k-ups t o · __ t he ~od2l Cit ~es en~ ND? proj act a r eas , if the i r st~di2s find it desir~bl~ . i n ooe:r at i on is a Model Ci: i a s s~ut t l e bus . / ~· Hhich The 2oni t oring pro gr 22 2 s deve lo?ed by t ~e CCT c eau will i n St 2? I ~ give ~ over t o loc a l agencies f or opera t i on ; whe~e it wi ll ~ot o ~ly be Dain~ a i nsd , bet revis2d i n ant i cipct ~on of and pr eparat i on £or St2p I I I. ... 0 • S;::ep III ~i: l bcco2e a par t of t h e lo ~gcr r ange transit ? l arin in~ .· c~~ �I .., criei:.t.:!t~on. the ~ltimate ~cal is to see ir~to cpcr2tirm c, permanent s2co~dary distrib~~ion ~yste~a within the center city in full cor.~pli_?::!el,t of the regicn-=.l r .~ pid transit · sys-c.e:,·:J'{.. , z.rcd er,,bodyi:1g those -successful service a:pplic:ition~ of Stf:ps I ai,<l II. The Step II monitoring operation will be oriented ~ow~rds this St e p III systen conce?t, an2 the St e p III planning tim e frame ccc;atible with the lon~ ra~ge prim2.ry syste:~1 progra:n such that cc;-,~ plii::entary, syst2r.1s ccc~ 02 insurec.. -- . .. ~ �I different facets. l. B.::.si c Policv ~-r~~ing :::1d Coorc.: iP..ation O?er2tio:.1. L:tercept h.:,s been considered es part of the basic transportc.ticn progren .of the Atlante- erea. It is being d::SC:ussed and reviewed by tl-.e ?Olicy 1 1 -r:-..c:. c- - .-:- i1~• 0 1 a~ta c.-n.d coo··a.:,-,"t1·n° "'~.: -' ·L,_._ .-:..e Po".1.i·cy Co-.-,:"'_,_-i~._r..-,e" • • -'-••L.;, or·~ -oc.;.. ,- ·--·t--"c,.._.,,,;., .<, c..,__ .•-,,.. _ u . .--,, •• ) i·nclu..:i;no ' ~ •(..:._. 0 \..'1 a '-"0 and i::he_ Pl2.nnL1g c.!1.d Developillent Com:--:1ittee cf the City of Atla nta's Bo2.rd of P.l<len:2n, a ::e:. the Bo~rcl of Directors of Ce ntral Atlanta Progress. . The t e ch nical op -2::-.::.tior,,s of th2 .Atlc.nta R23~0T! !-:8 t~opolit2:1 Plan!Ling Co-r.-:..~ission. 2. ':i.'h e Ce n t re. ::.. ope r at io:: . 1 sponsore d ' by t he City o f Atlan t a and Ce ~tr al Atlacca · P~ ogress a~d t he Metrop o lit~n At l i n t a t\.u t hority, c:r~~1 the St2t2 }:i gL1\·J 2:y De pt. c.~er..c ies prir:,2ry r2 s p o:-:.si':> ili ty, u:1.d e r t his ove:.:-a l l poli cy fr ar,:2uork, f or t h e sp e: ci fic lo r:;_; rc.-,,is plan:1ir.g o f p ub l i c t rc::us p o :?'.' tc:tion fs c i l i t ies 2.:id se:.---v:::.ces z.s the y a ff ec;: ce~te= ci t y. .,f\~ OIJcra t ion I nt erce) t wi l l b e tied i n to ~, g oir:g pla ::1n i:.:g p rog r ~~s o f tnese ~gencies. 3.  :onito!:"i n '.!, - During Step µ of O;:i2.r2.tion Int2.:::ce pt , fr~2 CCT Tea::: -..,ill b e r es pc nsibl e: for the t e chnica l wa r~"( r e ~ui::ed to r.:on i tor ope rati on u·:-,d er ·t:2 d i r e c t io,1 of a Wo rki n:3 Co::·,mi t tee c 0t-:.sis ting o f t he Cicy o f A:.: l a nt a , ~-:ARTA , C2:.·,..::.·al _L..tlE:-,t a P rogr ess , a::.d the Atlant2.. T:::- 2..nsi t Co:;:~-:,2:;1y . In subsequ ent · s te?s , t h is tech:1ical worR wi ll oe 2.:0s orbsd by _·l o c2.l agE.nci.:::::;, r.--,os t ~ 4. likely b th e Ce:1 tr 2 l Ar -22. Stucy .:ecS!. Ini t iall y the City of At l a~ta will b2 t~e applicant ' f o r fade::al applications co~ing .. I· --¢~ c.irectly out of- Ope:c&:.:io:i Interc2? t, �• I:-"\ The AtL:nt a Trc:nsit Syste:-.: will opera te t he service in t Le. first step of Opera~ion Intercept. The OJ eration of subscque~t s~rvices will d~~en d . on the ~esponsibilities as s ~gned to v£~ious of the:: operating e.sen cies cm;,::.ng out of the b us ic tr 2nsportatio:1. plar:;.-.::.ng process. -... __ .. / �I. I. AC':.' I\iITIES 7.G DATE A. The idea for this projec t was generated out cf the in~ craction ~2twe en the Center City's Project Team and various groups _in Atlanta during Phase I of t he CCT Project. Officials of tte Atla~ta Transit Sys~e~s, the C),~l!f-5 Cer.:::r2l Atl..::nta ?:::-og-:-e.ss, the City Pla~n~ng Depart~en t, a::-..d 4"-~.;t..~ began --- to develop ideas on quick ac tion projects to hsln solve so~e of the center city's i r::o,edia te transportation ··. :.co~le::ls . B. W½e n Phase II of the CCTP ~es £nnounce d by Secretary Volpe in Se~Y~c~1ber 1~69, Atlc.nt.:?. was ready to r.,i:!ke 2. specific p:.-oposa l for 2.:1. i:,.;;-:c- dia tc ac tion prog r an to nrovidc ah nll-~uy shu ttle bus se rvic e connect ing ter to cli:iv e:!.-s o ff the c:<~n-essw;:y conr,e ctor- 2 n d downtm-m arteri2. ls before the y r22c~2d the mos t congest ed areas. The CCT Cafe Tea m me t 1~ Atla~ta on Se; ~2reb2= 24 , were present ed with t ~c p:.coj cct conc ept , made fi 2ld i nS'.)ec cio,1s o f the propo s c-d r oute , ri-.1d gen-2::-,:lly cc1dor s cd t he ;_:n:oJ c~t a~_4= suitable expe riment ·for Phase II of the CC~P . C. A ~orki ~g t eam from the Atl a~t~ 7 r a n sit Company , the Ci t y of Ac- · l a ~ta (?la~n i ng Department ) , Central Atlanta Progress, a nd the CCT? began to put tog2 thcr a co~pl ete progr~~ for thi s opera tion. 1. This inclu ded:. ?r0pa ration of an opcration2l plan by ATS f or a fiv2~bu s , a l l - day s ~ut t lc s e rvice, ope rat:.~g &t 10-~ i c ute headwavs l r om the t wo ?ark~ . .,16 ,: lo t s t h::-J ugh th e ho2art c £ the COi·rn t oi-; n a rea , includ i ng pl ans for �I ,.J ?3iking lo t operations, oper utinJ costs, fares, uua r ev e nue c s t~ 2a tos. 2. Cle arance by the city for use of the t ~o publicelly cwne::<l pa~kin~ facilities. 3. Tht: dm-: n::own business co77,:;:e:1ity, th-rough the ir org~ni z2tior-, Ce:.1tr::::l .'-',.tl &,:ta Progress, . have 2greed to S'upport the p:roj-2ct fir.2.nci2: :..y in the in~ e rin betwe en the time service will start on Decern~er 1 and the ti;;,e lJXl'A will be 2.bl e to su·;)'port the project throu:;h c!2~onstr2tion .s.r:.i c2pit.:1l grants. 4. Pre~ a r at ion o: thi s OPERAT IO~ IKTS~CE?T seraor&nden by the worki~g group which is designed to obtain ill~A support a ~d g uicance for this D. ·--...- The r:,2 ct ing with Ad.-r,i ni s tra tor \'a ill' a rre.::.l on :tfove:rrber -' i s exne ct ec! to be t he l 2 st of the i ni ::ia l phase s o f the O? Cr 2 : ion. ---a r e r- o ~-1 We r e2dy to roll. --·- ,I I. 1969, ·-._"!;- P 2·:':::D:CXl'E .\ CT IO:N / A. On Dece2ber 1, At lan t a Transit will b eg in t he new shut tle bus t hroug~, c e::ntr2 l c ity ;::ro:n the Stcidiu::: ~:-,d Ci vi c Cen ter- parking fifty' c er:t f2"{"e will be c harged :f or this servi c e. 1 · .., • A I nclud ed in th i s ,-, ill be the co~t of a l l-d2y pc:rk i ng 2nd rou~d tr i p bus fare . Those p2sse~~ers who use the bu s service wih:: ou t pa~~i~g will be charJed 15¢ ~er ride . �ousiness cor.1ic:unity \1:1 0, in .2dditio11, v.'ill pick ur, the costs of pror:,o tion. P.:irkin;; will be provi~l:!d by ::he c ity . lks.::s . .:ind o;,cr2t ion s \·! ill DC:: pro- costs o:;: publicity' a re eX:J2Cted to run about \ !2 Th2 net c0sts of O? e ration_, 2re expected to be 2.bout $~ , OGO per vic:ed . by AtL1nt.:i. 'Tr3nsit. $ 'fl1e mcm:n initially. E. J12st prior to begiuning i:r:e s 2.rvice, the CCT ceari , working with the A:la~ta age~cies, will develop a pro3ra~ of son ito r i ng the shuttle bus s ervice . This pro gr am will include: 1. s ~udi es of th e O?erations of th e s ervi c e , i~cl~ ding 0-D and arterials :o d eccr~ine irnpac i:s. 2. Studies of the c ~rr 2ct anrl ~o : e~t i a l market for th e service, i~cluding e nalysis o~ the char acter i s tics of t he current riders .. 3. Aualysis of the eco no::1ics o f the opera tion i nc lu d i l1i ·-cos~-s:,;:: and r ~venues , us er attit~2e towa r d fares , abili t y to pGy , br eak-even co s~ s for se:rv ice, etc. / Lf. Stud~es of other .::,re2.s a:id ro:.iti:.:-,gs wheore simil ar shuttle s ervice could be applied inc l uding an inv2ntory of fringe pGrking si:es; route loc&ticns, new central city ~evelopraents, etc. 5. Analysi ~ of the oppc:..c-. : Llnities fo:::- new U :chl~olo g iu, l ilnova- t io ~ a t s~b s c qucnt s tag es of the pr oject , includ i ng new v2hicl 2 s, s2p2r 2 te �1-J·.,.•,'·. ·1 ·,·-·..;• l, .( \,1.·1~• , 6. J)'-.'l1':) l- ~ •' .•·. \l1\l•·r· .,.-., ~ <· t··1L •• ., 1'01\ <.. , •,1,! 1 •1·ll·'t'-C>t· ·" J. • 1\ l1 ,I -- ,·1l]l. ·'t· I I :• ', Jt>J 11' l 0 J • 0 Assistance to ~:lanta in preparing applications ~or fE:cleral For this ,:i.on itori,,g opcratio:.1·, the CC'I' At lan-ta tear:1. h a s requested a bu-!get of $75,000 frc::-, the fl.!nds av ..: il2ble to the CCT Project for city ?'l'.'G~ ccts. C. Alo;:1g wi t~--. this ::-. onitorin~ effo :- t, Atlc:.nt a ho? es to have t he Centrel Area Study plann ing progra~ in full operation during De ce~bei. T~e st a rt-~~ of t~is proz r a~ is depend ent on the a pprova l of t ~e t e c~nic a l st udies gra~t a pplicu tion for $300,C JO ( $2CO,COO f rom i he fe d eral gov ern~ cossOnity through Cen: ra l At l ant a ? r o;~ess are co- spo~soring this p=ogra3 ,.,:,.ich i s €=:-: pec t ed , a long with t h2 ?L:nnin3 ac t :i.vit ic:.; of A:·S.P C, A).TS , .:..:-.d ~~R7A, to pr ovirl e the ov e r a ll plnnn i~z f r 2me~c=~ f or sub sique nt s t~ges of O?E:<...-:\.°J::IOX l);'.i.'ERCEPT . The CCT t 1::ai11 expc:: ct-s t o worl< along u i th tl'-.e CAS p::o- ---... prove3 e;:1ts :;_:1 Central Atlar...:a a~G t o develo? syst~ms to o!)t a i:i. b z.si .:L... ~--::-:abo~t t ne co~ditions af[ ~c ting i ts ? rc s2nt ar.d f uture dev elop~ent. 122 CCT Atla n~a t2a~ is re~uesting a t otal of $87, 0 00 fr om ~ ~e CCTP budg2t f or cit y project s f 9r this purpose . As s~~ing the gen2ra l endorser-.ent of [~<TA fo r O?~R..'\TIO:, I :.\"TERC:::?7 , the workin3 g.::-oup ir. Atl2ntc1 Hill b e;i:'. lo prepare -t-~ appl icat ion s f o r- f u::.ds o car:::-y tte oper atio n pasc .the i~itial three rront h start -up per io6 i n to t he co~~inua tion of t~e Ste? I and the d 2v eloprn2nt of Steps II ind III. h'e exD~ -::t these a!_)pl ic 2tions to :JC of t ~-10 kines initi2lly: �11 new bus e s tha t c2n be used to expand ti1e shuttle service ~u the l~tter stag2s of Step I co s upplc~cnt or rcpJ.ace t he e x istin~ equip~cGt tha t will ·be put into oµeration i ,!lmedi2tely. We no w esti:n.:ite the cost of the bus(;S and other equip~e~t to be approxima tely $500,000. 2. A de~onstrzcion grant &ppl±cation to provid 2 the funds re- "c;_ui-:- ed to t2st out r.ew a nd inproved ;;; ..c.: ttl e service to allow :or c:-: per:...mentation with f ~rcs a n~ ch arges to provide additio na l ir.duc emen t s for p~~r ons to permit promo tion fo r exp and ed s ervic es , to provid 2 whatever rei ~h urseraen t is re qu i red to the Atla nta Tr an sit Co~pany for un r e covered cost s of oper&ti~g th e serv ic e , a nd to bagir. the p ~ocess of des i g~ i~g new ~q u ipment , ~ ehi clc s , sta tio~s , righc s of way t hac will be need e d f or St e p II of t he o~era t ion . We expe ct tha t t his initial d e~ons t r~t io n wi l l co s t a p- . pc· - -- i·-,-::t- -:-. l y $?8.u'"' 000 - V .o'\. •· • ' - \.- \.:.,: - ) • It i s ?Oss ible t hat o t he r ap; lica tion s nay be f or thcoming fro3 this proc 2s s. I n any c 2. se , ,,Je · wou l d lit 2 t o requ:::s t t h e.t U?·'.'~'A allow O i.l :!'." ,,or:c:.r:.g t ea~ t o k ee p in v e ry clo s e tol!c h with various of t he UXTA s te.E f , to s e c\ '.:he ir a d- ., .. v i c e and guid a~ce on the proper and reo s t sui t ~bl e wa y t o tions . We also a ,1tic:.p a te tha t U:-ff.-\ i t se l f r.:ay want to i.: se the c; .... c- ~ J... - ' L. l. ..... o :E O? : :i:L:\T IOi:\ l:'\TE:lC~PT t o t r y ou t so:ne new types of _v ehicl e s t :·.2t r ent l y ~va ilabl e a nd sui t able ~or this s erv ice. 2 ::-e cur - ~ e f eel tt ~~ cl ~s e ~orking rel.~. t i on s with L: -:TA s taff wi l l be esse:-ttia l dt,ri ng this pr o.:'.: e ss . E. Dui·ing t h:'..s sa2e per io d we expec t t"ha t ~-:..\RT:\ will b egi:-. '.: :1.:; te ch- ni c~l wor k req uired to d e t a il the reg ional r ap i d t~ansi t iys t2~ p ian~ i n~ .. �VYiT~. !10\·l h2 :5 un der cons:i.<lcr2Lion .:.n appl::.cation for a tech,:ic.::;l stecl:f.e:.,; grant of$- - - - - - for th i s pur pose. J6st a s with the CAS planning pro- the regional transport a tion planning body in Atlanta, th e Atlanta Atea Tra~sporia tioi St ~:dy, and will be reliant on and sup?orted by th e Atlanta 2t-::-o;,olit~n Reg iona l ? l.:rnning Co,!1;nissio!!, ,-:hich ,-, ill in sc1re coo r dination of key inp..; t s to bo th ?:?.·oces ses. 'I'h2 CCT te &fil will he l p thc.s 2 2gencies, z.s :requested, to d evelo:J 2.nd syster.-,2 tize v2.rious element s of these work pro; r a~s 2~d o~tputs. III. TP~ LATTER STAGES OF STEP 1 · A. Ey t he fir st o f ::--:.:tr c h 1 970 we 1·-'0"cl:l.d hope to h 2.ve the de::-.0::-,s t-::2 - tio n ;ra~t ~P? li ca ti on ap?roved which wil l a l low ~o r con t i~u&~ion .:.~d improvc:::2r:t of tlic s e rvic e . As s oon as possib l e ' we w::i,1 l d hope to ~12ve the ca~ it 2 l gr=nt a ppl i c£tion a pprov ed in order to. pe~~i t t h2 earli Qs t .no s si-. bl e d.e liv.:::.- y of n ew bu ses . -..... B. Tte CCT tC'.D.::1 wi ll co nt ir,u c its r:·.onitoring opernt ion s on t:-iis prov ed and expancl ed ser v ic e . iii'.:-:- Ptior to _he end of ti s contra c tual oblig a - ,r t ions in J une 1_~70 i t wi ll o.re~_are - - eoo~-L IJ c.l .J- ,. J.. St ep I of OP:-:'.::L".TIOX.S IXTE~CEP'i' fo r .:'~~ J. .s.:1.t a -0 v cl u a t~ ~a E~~ r~su l ts of L.-.:. C:.. _ .. ,..:::, l,')fl'A. • _,,.___ Thi s r epo r t wi ll cont 2.in :re:co:::,::2nda f ions f or Ste p II .s:nd III b f the . O:?E~.ATim~ , and if fca - · sib l e wil l p;ovide a basis f or _supJleffien t ar y or a<lditio~al 2pplic~t iona to G~ITA fo~ de~onstrations and ca pita l grants. These mig~t cover: �I • c:.d3ptabl2 to the n e eds a f this p3. rticul a~. s e r v ice tt:a n co nve:1ti.o·.-,.:::.: buses. 2. Dev 2lop:r,ent of e:-: clusive rig hts of way in central city <llon·~ with S?ecially designed station stops anrl ot h er facilities. 3. Exp,::rnsion of s e rvice to p 2.rk::.ng faciliti es i n othe r locations outside t~e central city bus adj ecent to ex p r essways or major arterials. 4. Re l a tion o f : hi s servic e t o centra l city re sid e n tial na~g n- c·,, 1 (..-., .,..._ 1... y the mod e l cities ne i g hborhoods. borhoo<ls, ,..;-' C::.~ .,,.- ~.; ~- - Ar:. thi s point i ,1 t h e O? C: r~ t i o n , ,-:e s hoi.: ld b e a bl e to d e t er::, ir.e w:.2ther a s iv e l anes , acd s t a tions will p=ov i de 2 syste~ to h a ndl e the c e 2 r -t2r~ gro •.-;th in c o:;:.":'.uter tr c:f fi c to CO\·n,toc-:r:1 ex:::ec ted a s a r esult o f co nt inL,ed c en ter city d e velo pmen t. We s hould b e a ~ l e to d e t ermi n e how a f i n~l f orm o f t ~ is s erv i ce c a n beco~e a b a s ic par t of th e trans?o r ta:ion s y s t em for <low:1t ow"G. . T:ie CCT t e aiT, will a l s o set u p p ro c e c.c!r e s to tra ns f er i t s r..oni- to r- i ng o pero.t ion s to l o c a l o rg2.::i z~~:: i o:'.s b efo r e C. i't i s ter;:nir.ated .--- ·-:_c:- As a r l-su l t oi . t h i s eff o r- t, we ex?ect to hav e ~cicli t i o n2.:=. .o.pi!. i c a - t icns £ o r S t ep r::: c1L,Ju t two y e ~rs. of 0P.F~\TI0N n-:;Tm~c:PT i ,1 1). i.:::-. is a n ticipa t ed to l as t \,:~hi l e it i s too e:n r l y to estima t e c os t s i:o r t,h esc, t lw i r r:10.~1,itucc 1:·ti g h t b e as f allows : Technical St ud ies 2. Dc:i:ons·:: r 2 t ions $8 0C> DOO - $1,500,000 3. Cnp:i.tal gru n t s $2- 4 r.:illion . �- ,·. T" A. Step II would j cgin wi:h :he acceptanc2 by U~~A of thc s 2 s up ple- mcntary or addi{ i on~l grant requests. This would start the process of des :.gnir.g and devclcpil:g nc:w v2hicl.2~, 9 .::: tt:ir.,; up c:,:clu si·Jc r::.3h::s o i: ,_.,;;,.y Ei:;: - . - tn::..s ' . ?roves Gc::Slrc. ' ~-· . bl_2 ) , putting . . st2 t 1-0;-., . J p_._c:.t·p:,;Jrr:i. , ~r. , 2na oc"e;r rc=:ciin s . -. - . antici:iar:2 Step II ,·7ill involve ::-.ore const::-uction 2nd invest2 ~:1t ::_n faci- Ti,e p;.·i:,.cipal .f ecitu:::-e c f Step II ,,~2-y be the . dcvel o;,:-:i~:,t o f r.:::~; vr:hi- cles esp2ci2.2.ly desi.~ncd for this servic2 -- 1:-1 ith lo,-,e r pl~tf oYins > r:~o r e s.2.-rvice tDc:. t fits i:: tnC:! o~s t ~tc., in ord e r to dev e lo? the kind I n add i t i on , we a~t i c i ?2 t e t ha ; -- ch&~~es mi ght b e made in sidew2l~s a~d s tre ~~s to pr ovide 3?2Ci a l t~ r~ou ts, 2r.d oth2r fc:. cilit i e s t ~a t n 2 y prov e ne c essa r y. B. During the d 2velop~ent and 0 ?2 r 2t ion of PHa se Il~ a ~onitor i ng - ·Th i s coul·d b e---:-- pro gra~ s imil ar t o tha t conduct ed in Phase I wil l g o on . th2 r esr,or1s i bility of th e CAS progr 2;-,1 ,.,:, i ch will have. b e en wo rkir.g wi:::h t ~e CC~ tea~ dur ir.; Step I. / C. D-..i-.:-ing t;, i s s ar:ie pe!: iod , AATS 2~,d ?·L-\RTA will be f i r:..in9 up the b asi c p la~ a nd p~ogra~ f or the reg io~a l ra?- . ~r ansit sys t em . sub- c:.:-ea pl 2r.:-_:!.c~ proce:ss wi ll b 2 c'. ev elo:)i-:1g the S?ecifics c~ty sys t c~ r equi red to suppl e~ent c ~2 0i: t he ce::. tc.r bas ::.c reg iona l s ys ~en. This wo=k w:!.11 TCGvide t he b2 sis fo r a s pecific l on~ te rm plan· ... .. . cS.i.1 G . . p::-ugra.m �l I c0:1t2::- city · circulation, which ':!ill inclucl~ t·J1c b2.sic p20?le r:over syste::,s to C:ist:ribut e trav2l .:.: rs within the do,, ntm-.1 r. are.:i to 0 , . par,o.nz and from rapicl transit stations , -:-· ':) .: l .; ~.; , c..., d - uC.J.._..:.,. .L _ _(:!:-' > (..i,.!1 -:cy · dow,,towr: cente-:..·s; 2nd pedestri2.n, goods, v.:.:hic.:lar · r,1ovc:.,C!r!t, and offstr e et pnrkin~ faci l ities. This system plan will also i~clude a specific ti~e phase action progr am for imple3 entatio~ and sp e cific plans fer organi.zation3l responsibility. D. This planning will result in about two-three years in re~uests to 1:-iTA for th e i::.::ile2 2ntation of v.::rious p<::.·;: s of Atl2r..t~' s basic plar! . This r:-.ight ir...:.:lude: 1. i CC~n i c a l s tudy gr c nts do de~ailed d2 s ~gn of s peci :: ::_c a cil:'..ties. 2. Cap ital gr2 ~ . . for co~~ t r uc:ic n b f these i a cilities. 3. ·Demo,.s t r 2. t i on graats fo r te s t i n~ out new "~ eople rr.over" faciliti es re cui r ed as ? c r t of the b ~s i c pl a n. -. . ._ ·---~ Thi s pE.ck~g 2: o f ir.prov2r.:Qn t s fo r a c ent e::- c i t y s yst e.n ( exc lusive o f the sys t en ) will proba b l y c o st in r;-, ill i on (,-.rhi c h sho ul d V. oe o:: che cke d ~vith :-~\:ZTA) . P'."I.,'.,_S::: :i: II OT<' OP2RATIC:-l I };TERC::PT i n to t h2 J2velopment p=o g:::-a,:: :Z or i r. pler. e:n tin3 ti,e h::,s ic pl ai1. 1·:e exp e c t the plc. ,, to b-2 i:,:pL:: :-.,on. t e:d �...... -·---··· ~· . ... .; . ·---~---;:-- 21 in a specif ~c tim~-?ha sed s ~~ucncc so ch2t there will be n conti nuous p::-o~r&!!l of p1:El.sin:-;; in n..3w e~er,,2nts to t he basic do~-;nto,;.;!", clistr ibut i c .·. sys-- · tc~ acd phasing uu t others, ~nclu<ling s~~v ices cstabl ish(::d 2a r li0~ i n · OP~~R..'-1.TIC~; I?\'C::'.RCEPT tlnt \;ill no l'ong e r b e need<:=c. Based 0,1. the ? la:1 , w~ c 1•,·-olo ,,·c_. 'fo' r cer:ter city circulat ion ~-1ill be ci ev e:l o _?ed expect tha t new ~., Li.;;. • ur, 1· c; i. .. - a~d te s ced in t h is p~ase , including po ssible noving bel t s or coa vey0=s to p~r: orm or s ~?pl e~enc the fu nctions of t he shuttle bu s of ?hasa I 2nd t~a more exotic fa cilities oper2t ion in Pha se II. i s viewed as pro c2ss w~ i c h ties t oget he r in a s e n s i ~le way raany pieces of circulation system dev2~op=ent f o r centr a l At l anta . We see t~i s as a uniq~e apprcac~ , bl2ndin~ action ~nd pl 2nning into a m~tu~lly ~o~patib le and supportin~ ?roc ess which i s able to respond to the needs of a growing cen tr al Atlan ta ov.e:::- !::::.r.:2 . success. U:.·f'I'A ' s SL!pport for t :-iis whole oper.:::t:ion will be k2y to it s Atlanta ' s a 6 e~cies have alre ~d y be~un the tooling u p process for ·- - Serv i c e wi ll i ::deed be O?erat i ng b y DecE::-::jer 1. - ·Fro.n···now on , · ~-,e ,-:·ou ld like to rs2.::.ain cl os.:: co:it cct wit':1 the UHrA sta:;: r a h igh l evel of : co0:::dinc1tion in prepa-.::-ing and e:--:ecuting the subs eqcs::-,t s tS?S i ~ t~e process. �OPERATIO~~ I l'f f D.C~PT m ~f:\ :\ctioi1 on l·b'1ito r ing & Sho ;_-t Rc:.nge n TERCf?T P l a nn i :1-2; E~ s i c ?la n~i:1g Xov 19" 9 Pro3 r2~ sc~o outlin~s 01?Ef<..:\.'.r IO~ . Il':TE?CEPT t: St e p I A7S st.:ir: s slm~tle Gcn e r 1 1 endorsement of approich at mrrA meetings in Kovc::-,ber Ik e 1969 CCT Team st &r~s mo nitoring o~erations ( see work pr ogram) f irst p:coj ect .;; / '61..1 s s2rv1. ce using P. cur re~ t ly &va ila ble \; 1 • ~ · c qu i p;:ie nt Ci t y ~ske s ap~l i c~tio-i1 c:o E ·G'A t o buy n ew buses (including . ! I ·- - - ·I .:.._,_ so?:J.e cxp2ri:-.".er!ta l CAS ?rogr&~ beg ins proc~ss c:C G2,12lcp i 1-!; b 2.si c pl::i:: · 2.:':.d progr.~:n fo -.c C2:1 t !:"&l At:Lc.nta wo143.215.248.55ng wi t h CCI tea2 (l:!t'.IA Tec"r-,,: ical st-1dy) v e h ici2s ) \~ ..... ,. J. .C 1 ..._ ~ew conv e~tio na l i bu s12s d2li'\'er2d and ,...,.-"'_ _J 1970 put i n to c p~~at ion CCl te2ms continu ~s racnitcri~g 2 Qd helps prepar e bas ic p~osr2Ds for Ph3ses I I and III · ( tests conduc ccd on exper i m~ntal vc~i c les )  :.;.1<.T.\ oc,rs ins 2r:d ~oLr:c. of cetail0J r,:2~~ in8 of basic rapid ·c r ansit syst e_:1 CL--:.-~Ti'l( ':'.2chnic2.l Study ) 'I ! \ ( I J..: ,1e 197 0 , ' ,;·-- - -I t o E -',T,\ for 2. d:::.~.:onstrat i on program t o I t es t out n ew h& r dwa re &cd =ou tings 2nd I ~, ..,. St ep CCT E?{CS exD2.c::l servic e I ,-:;_r ATS o:: :.:.:.":.'."fi'A expand £. :. ::.·\ 1 :ice a s de terD~ned ~n t ~~ Ge2onstr2.tion proj ec t . c:l??lic2.tion / <---------··--·> -c:!7 J~:; e- 1972 .., _ _r Ste:p II I . . 0?..:··:.·~·,tio:: of per,1.1a·~~n~ sy ~te:~ ~or Cen- - At lants agenc i es car=y on with nonito :::.:.,:.i ectivities and interire pl &nning . . . ---... C1~S-~-:..~:..~~·~- d2cj_Q2 0:1 b2sic pl 2~ for Ce~~ ~il. Atla~ta, i~cluCing l in2 h~ul ~~d dist~ibut:ioi:1 syst2::: C:i.ty ( or ~1ARTA) r!1ctl-;.es ~~pl i c atio~ f or capitEl gran t s f or constrectio~ of Cent~al At lanta di strib~ tion syst2~ ( inclcding peopl e: .:::ov (:rs ) I •1-·-.J .. -· -: �. OPERA'l'IC:-;: I ~TERCEPT J t!/tJ &!/l1 C //c'7 P-7 1. Progri.'1.'. } :2rr.o outline s w~ole str2tegy for OPER.~L~J~ I~TERCEPT Xov. 2. m-:TA enclo!'."scs bc.1si~ progra:n ~ov. 10-20, 1969 3. ATS st;;r ts s h~:ttl e bu s s e rvice with currently SV 2. il& Ole e qu :!..p,,1ent Dec. l, 1969 CCT ~ea~ st s rts mo nitor ing opera tions (first )rejec t s in wo r k program) Nov. 24-~0c l, 1$ 69 4. 5. CAS p~c g r a n p=oc2ss o f deveJ.o?ing ba si c pla n and prog r a~ f or Cc~ tra l Atl a ~ ~a working with t e··.,-, ( l,s ·l'.°'\'i7 S r·, q--., .~ 'J_1'.._..;' l.,~1-: , : ; " ·\ T ~ i -:,.,T) (:.~T ._ ..:.;_J. :. l lJ.;.L .J ~1r...,;"'"'7 !.}.,_ F::: _ _. ._, G'~ .1,'. \_~:_'\ U 6. 7, 1969 .1. ; l.. 1 .. _ ... .... \..,e'.° ~ C~ ty reakc s a ; ?li c~t ion f or c u;i t a l and de~onst rs iion fo r Pha se I t o C~~A t o buy new bus e s (i"i1c:ludi:!g e:::~?eri:aent~:l vehic l e s > if -:.·a.;. SO -~, - ~ A de s ires ) 7 • D2 c . · 1969 . ,-ot1·1ci or ,.:; .,, -., ·,] r. --l ·:-·-o.~ " Cl l 1..::L ]111l .. '-- '-* ....._ s ~ud i es r eqJi r e t to p lan ~ ~ d ~c cid2 on b a s ic r :iJ id tr~"1s it sys t 2:n ( AS SC;:~i":: S U:-:T.-\. TECrl~I CAL · v",..,-" .\ .. ..... -1..\. .J. ... h1,..11..::. nr:-• ,:.:. i,· ~ ~ -.:-:- ? -n· - G'. 0 J... 1 \,,,,;, - ......,_.._ (._,. _ .1-.....\.... J z.n- ~1~r 1970 ST UD~ES GRJ:u-;;'i') 8. - As re s ul t o f. 6, ATS g et s deliv ery o f n2w bu s es ar..C :_:, u ts thi::~:1 :I.."r:to op er .::-~t i or.. 0~1 s :-..u ::t l e s cr- ·u..-~ .-i ~L.b0 v .:..L~~e (.;-- "Cl -- · 9. 10 . 1· - e s ~-; ,._ - -"" · .~ (!'·10 · ,.,._ "'" ~- 1 .'\. _ ,~ ..__ -i. i • . . IC l,.• ~ l.. <.;....._ ' V".._ " t.. 41 i· cl c ~~) ~fa r - :,:;, r 1 978 CC'!' c: 02.~ contir.uc s r::or,it oriug a _n d he l p s pre pz,.re b 2s ic pro,;ram for Phases II 2nc: III c..: 0:i?:ER...\TIO~ Ci t y ( o r :-IP.n.TA) r.cc:~""2s a pp l ic:::tion to 1I'.1TA f or . a 143.215.248.55ons trat i on proj e ct for ?~as e I I of INTERCE?T - - p r o;; r 2.:.1 invo l ves t 2 st s of n2u :,2.rdu2re , ro~tings, serv ic e expansion, i i f2asi~ le Jun2 197 0 11 . CC1 p:oj e ct e nds Ju::e 1 97 0 12. At:; (o:- NMff).. '.) c ,~:10.n d s shut t l e sc:r-v ici':! u pon rec e ip t of dcno~st!'."ation gran t , begins operat i ons wit h new feacu=es Jur.c I 13 . lL.-. 1970 t o Ju ~:e 19n An nro~riace Atlanta agencies ( CAS ) continue monitoring activ ities as par t of t he d c~o~stracio n project grant J t: ne 1970 to June 1$72 C.--'.S-~·fARTA co~:·!_)lete i-. .)rk on o ,, Ei.c pL.n, incl;.!ding· syste::1 for· Cc:1t~.:"!l ...:lantc=c 1-: i:::-1 line h .:::ul c:.. ;.1d d~s~ r~bJ ticn :eat~ ~2s (su~w~y , pe ople movers, J2.1:-Jun('! :'..972 �n2lls, street, pedestrian goods ~ov22ent systcns, 15~ 1.)';")onn ,,, ( ~-:..~ ~ l\. \..Ji\..c'-:1-'! appc::rt~:r.::;, etc.), incJ..udi:1g TI:·~E .L._., .. ~.:oval t,y loc&l 2.ut:10~:ities) .1. 15. 1 ,. _o. Ci-ty ?-!AR'I'A ;;;,::.:-:-:: c.!?plica::ion for C2'.")it..:: grants for constructio~ of basic Ccntrnl Atlancn distri-,-,, ~,., ·b <..:.!':iC'--6 - - ·· ·' o ,.... -·- C-:.' · "l)n,',G"' .< b .,-;on ~L..L ~./-..JI...Cf:1, ... T~~rr. _ _Li, JL "0 .... '~ l-C... U....J .. .1.\.\.J 1\....iU.l Jur:~ 1972 Operations bc;ia on con~truc~ion &~d operation of parts o~ system, incluciing p~ople movers~ etc. 1973-1975 -. . ._ ·---~ ' \, �RICHARD B. RUSSELL, GA., CHAIRMAN ALLEN J. ELLENDER, LA. JOHN L. MC CL ELLAN, ARK. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, WASH . S PESSARD L. HOLLAND, FLA. JOHN C . STENNIS, MISS. JOHN O. PASTORE, R.I. ALAN BIBLE, NEV. ROBERT C . BYRO, W.VA. GALE W. MC GEE, WYO. MIKE MANSFIELD, MONT. WILLIAM PROXMIRE, WIS . RALPH YARBOROUGH, TEX. JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, N. MEX. MILTON R. YOUNG, N. OAK. KARLE. MUNDT, S. oAJ<. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, MAINE ROMAN L. HRUSKA , NEBR . GORDON ALLOTT, COLO . NORRIS COTTON, N . H. CLIFF ORD P. CASE , N.J. HIRAM L. FONG, HAWAII J. CALEB BOGGS, DEL. JAMES B. PEARSON, KANS. COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS WASHINGTON, THOMAS J. SCOTT, CHIEF CLERK WM. W. WOODRUFF, COUNSEL 0.C. 20510 September 17 , 1969 Honorable Ivan Allen , Jr . , May or Ci ty of Atla n ta Atlan ta , Geo rg ia Dear Ivan: Permit me t o a c knowledge and tha nk y o u for sending me a copy of y o ur l etter t o t h e Admi nistrato r o f the Urban Mass Tr a nspo rtatio n Adm i n i stration relative t o Atlanta ' s applicatio n f o r Department of Transpo rtatio n ass i stance in develo ping a SubArea Transpo rtation Study f o r Central Atlanta. Needless to say, I am anxious to be o f any possible assistance and I have been glad to get in touch with the Urban Mass Transportation Administration on this matter . I shall, of course , send you any reply received . With best wishes and cordial �Sundby, Journal-Constitution,11/23/60 Atlanta . In ' Excellent Position' For Federal Funds, He Says By BILL COLLINS ) The U.S. secreta ry of transportalion says Atlanta will b~ i ' ra n excellent position ., to get two-thirds of the money for a rapid ~a~sit . tern from the fede ral government. - · .John \ olpe. former governor of i\1assachu etts and one of the front_-runners for the vice presidential nod at r~.&143.215.248.554'.=:.{' the 1968 Repub- i"" · ~if~~· lican presid n- 1 i.::,::, .,. ial convenli n I _.,;:t~ ·. I ":1~,/;at ~'.;~~ '"';:&,ti -::::..,.:..1 '.;r..i.i.Y'~.- lo address the l l th a n n u a l ~!~i143.215.248.55I o~ ;l~~ H,M Al ~-1{/;ff>: ;]f fere,1ce of State ,/ ~~l J\.,M;.~ i ~-- e g i s 1ati,-e r~-~-~/1 lNtbil Leaders. John , ·011,c The secretan:. at·a news conference before: his speech, explained the :'; ixon administrali n's SIO billion. 12-year public transportation bill and said Atlan ta "ma~· gel the jump on other cities· • fo · funds under the bill. if the measure is approved by Congress. · He said the bill would author- . ize him to make '3.1 billion 1 available 11nmeciia Lei_ LIJJU" ii.s I being sign ed into law. The iederal money would be spent over five years. - He a l-o aid-Atlanta-;-~uld be "in an excel! nt position" to get a federal grant totaling twothirds of the cost o[ -a rapid transit system because of the planning (t ha done and also because it is one of ftve...'.'~eqJer cj!i~s." VOLPE POl:'\TED OUT, however, that under the proposed bill no one state could get more than 12 1~ per cent of the total appropriation. He also told newsmen the Vietnam war i not draining fund s he ha s requested for hi s department and ad ded. "The administration and the di r ector of the Bureau of the Budget have approved the hrn transportati on bills l ha, e requested." Volpe a'.I· the two mea ures he would like to see enacted include the 10. l-billion public transporta tion bill and the ai rport-ai rwa>·· bill which would provide S2 .5 billion for air-traffic control and $2.5 billion for construction of new airports and explansion of existing fac,ililies . He said the ad ministration is concerned about in-fli ght crashes and f -c l. th airport;iirways bill would h Ip diminish th e po ibility of futur collisions. ¥. ith $2.5 billion of the airp.orl-airn·;:i>·s bill, Volpe explained. the fed ral government " ould work towards d vclopmcnt of a fully automa lrd system e iJ.:.:lU! ffic control s·yst m. "THE OTHER . 2.5 billion "\ould be used to help build 900 . ~1rports and expand 2,700 airfields around the country" Volpr said. ' Thf . secr~tary said the ixon adm;f's(rat1on ~opes to restrict the ~umber of mcomin g flights a~ f 'e of the nation 's busiest a1rpor_ts and to better control .the fl _1ghts at 22 other airports rncludmg Atlanta· . ' I_n his remarks to the 800 legisJati:'e leaders attending the fou11-day conference. Volpe _c~lked ~bou_t the need for federa1-srace-1oca1 government cooo- ! • I I eration in solving the nation's problems. I "Much of the glamour power and I prestige that once surrounded state Capitols shifted to Washington in the pa st 25 yea rs," he said. "And when the power went to Washington, man y of the talented young men went also. I Washinglon has been the mecc.a forfyoung A m e r i c a n s who wa 1ted lo dedicate their li ves to ful jillment of the American · dr ~a m, " he added. I \ OLPE A10 there has been ! a trend towards reversin g the I gro wing depcndenc on the fed- I era! government in the past few . year!:#. "This new trend first became stron e ly evident und r President J.ohn son," he added. ' 'But P residenl 1 ixon has gone a slep furth er. He ha s proposed a prngram of revenue sharing betw en Lhe stal s and Wa shingto n. And, although it is a mod es! beginning, it wi ll be stepped up, Volpe said. �u �• CITY OF .ATL~TT.A CITY HALL June 23, 196 9 ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR R. EARL LANDERS , Administrati ve Assi st ant MRS . ANN M. MOSES, Executive Secretary DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Director of Governmental Li aison Mr. John A. Volpe Secretary o'f Transportation Washington, D. C. Mr. C. C. Villarreal, Administrator Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Washington, D. C. 20590 Gentlemen: Atlanta's Central Area has and will continue to experience a growth rate that only a handful of cities in the world have ever experienced. Employment, travel and other Central City activities will double between 1961 and 1983. Obviously, this growth will impose many transportation and development problems. Over the years, the cooperative efforts of public agencies and private groups, working toward mutually agreed-upon goals, have resulted in the devel b pment of Atlanta as the Southeast's premier metropolis. Although we take pride in our generation's accomplishments, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. We must instead redouble our efforts in the future to assure that the dynamic growth which lies immediately ahead will be relevantly planned and developed for the citizens of tomorrow. The Atlanta Area Transportation Policy Committee through its respective staffs and consultants has worked closely with the Urban Mass Transit Administration staff and its consultants in the development of a series of logical decisions on procedures to be followed relative to a trans port~tion p r ogram for technical study. The transportation program for technical study is characterized by : �Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal Pag e Two June 23, 1969 1. The continuation of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study (AA TS) Plan, approved in principle and adopted as a guide to be followed by the Atlanta Area Transportation Study Policy Committee and the City of Atlanta. 2. Synchronization of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority's (MAR TA) proposed application for tech_nical studies with Item 1 above. 3. Synchronization of the Central Area Study, a sub-area transportation study for the Central Area of Atlanta with Item 1 above. This is a unique team effort between the City of Atlanta and Atlanta's business community. As mentioned earlier , the Atlanta Area Transportation Study has been adopted as a guide to be followed for further transportation studies. This action provides an important step in Atlanta's history and link with the Central City Transportation Project. Though we have talked in the past in theory and fact about our urban transportation problems and solutions, we have never had the resources or opportunity to_follow through with them. The Central City Transportation Project would afford us an opportunity and the necessary resources to test transportation approaches and so lutions, such as our 11 busways proposal", and further to detail improvements to our transportation network. The CCT team of consultants headed by Arthur D. Little; Skidmore, O wens and Merrill; Wilbur Smith and A s sociates; and the Real Estate Research Corporation has worked very well with our local public and private agencies in the developme nt of Phase 1 of this undertakin g. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for allowing the City of Atlanta to participate along with the above consultants in Phase 1 of the Central City Transportation Project. It has proven to be most meaningful to us. . The Department of Transportation is also to be commended for its · keen awareness and willingness to tackle the transportation problems of urban cities. The CCT project can be most h e lpful to the City of Atlanta in the development of local transportation and related programs. In addition, the experience gained here can be of great help to you and your department in developing subsequent transportation policies which. will lead toward meeting our national transportation goals. �Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal Page Three June 23, 1969 We are very proud of the comprehensive, broad based transportation planning efforts being conduct e d here in Atlanta. We would earnestly request that Atlanta be included as one of those cities to be studied under Phase II of the Central Cities Transportation project. In our view, this project serves to compliment the planning effort now being put forth in the Atlanta region. & yo\,,,u.,.r_s_,_-..J~ Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor ~ ~ /i?w/~~,,d-.,.,.~ William Maynard, Ch AA TS Policy Committee IAJr. /WM:fy �January 13, 1966 Mr. Glenn E . B nnett, Sec retary The Interim Study Com.miss i on of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Glenn Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Glenn: In connection with your letter of January llth asking for my appointment to th Fillanc Committee of the Metropolitaii Atlanta Ra ·d Tran it Autho~ity, tbi is to advi ·t hat Mr. R. Earl L ndel'EJ , my Admim. r tiAs i , 11 s rve in thi capa.c ty. Sine rely your , Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor IAJr/br CC: Mr. Landers/ � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document MINUTES OF THE FORTIETH MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY MAY 6, 1969 The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority held its regular meeting on May 6, 1969 at 3:30 P.M. in the Conference Room, 619 Glenn Building, Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: . Dr. Sanford s. Atwood (DeKalb County) M. c. Bishop (Fulton County) Roy A. Blount (DeKalb County) s. Truett Cathy (Clayton County) Rawson Haverty (City of Atlanta) K. A. McMillon (Gwinnett County) L. D. Milton (City of Atlanta) John c. Staton (Fulton County) MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard H. Rich (City of Atlanta) John c. Wilson (City of Atlanta) OTHERS PRESENT: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority H. L. Stuart, General Manage r E. w. Nelson, Chief Engineer King Elli ott, Public Information Director Edmund W. Hughes, Authority Se cretary H. N. J ohnson, Administ rative Assistant Consul t ants w. o. Salter, PBQ&D, San Fra n ci sco J. A. Coil and Ray Gustaf s on , PBT B, At l ant a E. E. Gilcreas e, PBQ&D, St. Louis Don Hyde, PBQ&D, Ne w Yo r k w. Stell Hui e , Huie and Harla nd Robert Keith , Al an M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., McLean, Va. Others Jan Richey, Planning Dept., City of Atlanta Edgar E. Schukraft, southwest Atla~ta Association Andy Springer, Greater Atlanta Traffic & Safety Council Jeff Wingfield, Atlanta Region Met~opolitan Planning Comroission Aubrey Couch, Decatur/DeKalb Development Association �The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman. MINUTES Minutes of the April meeting had been mailed to the members and upon motion by Mro Bishop, seconded by Mr. Haverty, they were unanimous~y approved. FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Blount stated that the annual audit prepared by Arthur Andersen & co. for the year ended December 31, 1968 needed to be approved. It had previously been mailed to the members. Upon motion by Mr. Haverty, seconded by Mro Bishop, it was unanimously accepted and the General Manager was directed to furnish appropriate officials of the Local Governments with a copy. The Financial Report as of April 30, 1969 was presented by the General Manager. Staff and administrative costs were running within the budget and were expected to remain so through the duration of the current budget (June 30, 1969). No sums had been expended for technical studies during the period and support of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study was continuing. The c. & s. General Account reflected a balance of some $40,000 although this amount had been considerably reduced since preparation of the financial statement due to a ·number of sizable bills having been received. Interest earnings on investment of excess funds was higher than had been projected. Appropriations from the Local Governments were up to date for the first six months with the exception of Gwinnett County whose second payment was expected shortly. Upon motion by Mr. Bishop, seconded by Mr. Cathy, the financial statement was unanimously approved and is attached and made a part of these Minutes. Mr. Stuart stated that the budget adopted for the first six months of 1969 would have to be adjusted in June following further c onsi d eration of the Voorhees report and that the Financial Planning Committee would meet soon to discuss budget requi reme nt s coveri ng the Authority's f uture wor k program. REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER u. s. Mr. Stuart had visited Mr. Carlos Villarreal, Administrator, Department of Transportation, Washington, D. c., on April 23rd, and other members of DOT, and had discussed an approach to the Vorhees recommendations in view of a new application to be submitted for federal funds to implement certain elements of work necessary to accelerate the work program. - 2 - �REPORT OF CHIEF ENGINEER Mr. Nelson called on Mr . Coil of PBTB for a report of their work during April ~ Mr. Coil advised that a written progress report had already been furnished to the Directors . He also introduced Mr. Don Hyde, their transit consultant from New York. Mro Nelson stated that Mr . Gilcrease and he had briefed the Board at the previous two Board meetings on the Atlanta Area Transportation Study (AATS), and that on April 10th at a joint meeting of the AATS Policy Committee and Technical Coordinating Committee Messrs . Tom Deen and Bob Keith of . Alan M. Voorhees and Associates had presented a recommended transportation plan for the Atlanta - area and described their findings and documentation in support of the plan. Because some of the Board members were unable to attend the April 10th meeting held in the offices of the State Highway Department, Mr . Bob Keith of the Voorhees firm was present to make a report on their AATS work and recommendations . Mr . Nelson introduced Mr . Keith who presented their findings with the aid of viewgraphs e The recommended transportation plan was identified as Plan D-4 and major features of the plan included: 1. A $421 million transit program, with construction costs estimated to be $158 million for rapid rail, $263 million for busways , and $54 million for vehicles, for a total cost of $475 million . The transit system would have 64 miles of private right-of-way routes , of which 10 miles would be for rapid rai l and 54 miles f or busways , including an expanded local and feeder bus network . 2. A $1 , 058 million program of improvement to arterial and collector streets. This would include approximately 732 miles o f new and improved arteri al streets, 803 miles of new and improved collector streets. 3. A $508 million program of new and improved freeways, including a second outer loop approximately four to five miles from the present I -285 perimeter r oute . This would include 91 miles of new free ways and 54 miles of improved existing freeways , in addition to some 176 miles of existing freeways not to be improved . Some 40 miles of additional right of way were recommended for advance acquisit ion . Cost estimates were in 1969 l evels and did not include inflation, escalation or bond issue costs . A summary report of the highlights of the recommended transportation plan was passed out to the Boa rd members e In clos ing , Mr . Keith said that wor k under their p re s ent contract was about c omple t e d a nd whe n f ini s h e d a b ound technical report of their findings and recommendations would be furnished the Authority. - 3 - �REPORT OF COUNSEL Mr. Huie reported that the Governor had again vetoed the rapid transit technical amendments bill (S. B. 162). ADJOURNMENT The Vice Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:45 P.M. NEXT MEETING June 3, 1969. ~4:~L__ L Edmund W. Hughe~/&>-::z..__ Secretary. - 4 - �PROPOSED EXPRESS TRANSIT SYSTEM r-7 I I r I I I .J I I L- 1, r' L __. _j - -\ \ l...______ LJ / ( '--- _J' FULTON CO ~ DEKALB_ _ CLAYTON CO. LEGEND ·0 V ••• BUSWA Y RAIL RAPID PERIMETER HIGHWAY �7 PROPOSED FREEWAY SYSTEM r;==~~ ~~==-=~==r;~=-=(-,-J==-=-;;;......;;.;;;=---=-7, -~ '"" 'I \ I \ ' I ~---- 1 I I I I ! !I I /8 ~I I ~ ••• '*rurlW ~c .... 1N --·-- _J_p_~ ClAY1 . I ~ 0 ' I@ 1- \ [b~~ 143.215.248.55----=-=~""!!'°"~'co=-=='b--=======~=~~--~-=--,.-=-=-=--~~=--~==-~ - ------ LEGEND NEW FREEWAYS - - RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FUTURE FREEWAY 1968 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION -=-==-= COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT �PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING FREEWAYS n I r-·JI ~ r I.... J ' -J" J ~ / Alli.MU. CITY r 1 r-..--J 1-- I I I ~ r r' I I I L-7 ·- ~ J 'II rJ r ___...J ~ ~41«1 I L nn $('Alf IN - ! I L .J HENI( co CO r·z >~~ /. J~\ -f \<?.,.,I"' ., -~" // cl (/ ~ ' I@ £_ -, -~tCO \ LEGEN D IMPROVEMEN TS 19 68 FREEWAY SYSTEM OPEN OR UNDER CONSTRUCT ION COMMITTED INTERSTATE PROJECT • �EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT SYSTEM 7' FENCE-T 7" FENCE RAIL RAPID 7' F ENCE OPEN GROUND 7 FENCE BUSWAY RAIL RAPID BUSWAY AERIAL STRUCTURE ·;:?{ . . ·. �PROJECTS BY MILES PROPOSED HIGHWAY SYSTEM Type Miles FREEWAYS, TOTAL SYSTEM ............................... ... ... 321 NEW,OUTSIDE 1-285 .. ....... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. ............ 47 NEW, INSIDE 1-285 .. .... ....... ..... ......... .. ............ ..... 44 IMPROVED EXISTING ..... .. .... ... ....... ................. ..... . 54 EXISTING, NOT IMPROVED .... ........... ..... .. .... .... ... 176 ARTERIALS, NEW AND IMPROVED .......................... 732 COLLECTORS, NEW AND IMPROVED ................. ... ... 803 RIGHTS-OF-WAY, FUTURE FREEWAYS ............. ............ 40 �ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR PROPOSED 1983 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM HIGHWAY Millions of Dollars (New routes and improved existing) FREEWAYS 508 ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS TOTAL 1,058 $ 1,566 TRANSIT (Excludes rolling stock/vehicles) RAPID RAIL 158 BUSWAYS 263 TOTAL $ 421 TOT AL PROGRAM $ 1,987 �INNER CITY JOB ACCESSIBILITY WITH ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT SYSTEMS JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES OF EAGAN HOMES RESIDENTS BY TRANSIT AN EXAMPLE FOR A CLOSE -IN NEIGHBORHOOD SERVED WELL BY EXPRESS TR.A.NSIT 330,000 RAIL & BUSWAY-D LARGE BUSWAY-E 280,000 270,000 MARTA RAIL-B 70,000 SURFACE TRANSIT-A SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES JOBS WITHIN 30 MINUTES �PLAN B (MARTA SYSTEM) \ 66 MILES .\ \ \ ' '\ , r-1 I I I r-..J I I I I 1 - ..J r-.J I ~-_J I I I I I L. 7 LEGEND -- - RAIL RAPID . . PER IMETER HIGHWAY �TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D-1 70 MILES - I __ J _J OEKA}B_ _ _ CLAYTON CO LEGEND •• • 11 'o u I@ .. , I~ BUSWAYS RA IL RAPID PER IMETER HIGHWAY �. I TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM D-3 70 MILES ) \~ 2 I ·1~, ,JI I - -:~LANT_: cn\- 1 L---,-- / I 18 \ ' ' \ 143.215.248.55 ,,-(,~-:/' I u, , i::, , , , , ' ,_z< -» ,!: I I I ,' l '~ ~ , i _,J ~~ /' ' ·1 ~1 • ' \ ,, I,,- L, slr-J I _L ! 1-7 £------/ r~ ,.--___.__ ,I ~ /" / I 10 ! 1,__,,__ __ _ ___ ,..J r-7 I I I I I r-J I ~ , '~ r-- I 7 L- \ I ' •7 --J I II . J I I ~ I \ I , / f\~ I I I _ __ -\ f \./) I I rJ I I - -, - - , ~r' I f-~1-~;~~j r-- , ', . . I ATLA"ITA cnv~-.Jr,a..., I I '1 ,' r---'- - J · ,I ! , L. I I I.. ,', , r-, I = -~ ~_,,,, I .:.-:-:--=-~:: _J OEICA_LB_ __ Ft.JlTON CO. r_, ~ I CL.6.YTON CO ••• I 0 u LEGEND BUS WAYS RA I L RAP ID PER IMETER HIGHWAY �TRANSIT TEST SYSTEM E-2 72 MILES \ ' ATLANTA i I c,rv _Jr l rr L-7 rJ: L 7 ~7 I L -, / 1 z, . . ½ r L---\ I ....J I I I / ,_ e,~ .s11:i . ,o I ).UlTON :.L ---·- _J JJ co DEKALB_ __ CLAYTON CO. ' LEGEND •• d u z 0 I~ ~ l~ ••• - BUSWAYS RA I L RAP ID PER IMETER HIGHWAY. �SUMMARY OF HIGHLIGHTS RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM The attached papers provide brief statements and exhibits that summarize the findings and proposals from the past fourteen months of investigation of Atlanta's transportation needs. While technically sound, the papers are in draft form and are now presented only for the convenience of the Policy and Technical Coordinating Committee in its near-future work. This material, together with all prior work of the study project, is· being developed into a complete Technical Report for the Committees. A Part of the Presentation to the Policy and Technical Coordinating Committees of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study by: £l4I\V ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Westgate Research Park McLean, Virginia April 10, 1969 �FEATURESOFTHEPROPOSEDPROGRAM 1. · A $421 million transit program of rapid rail and busway construction is proposed to permit the Atlanta region to grow to its full potential and to provide th e means for its people to enjoy the social and economic opportunities that Atlanta can provide. An additional $54 million is tentatively estimated as required for transit vehicles, for a total program cost of $475 million. 2. A major highway program is needed to complete the freeway system already underway for the inner region, an d to set a framework of highways for the outer portion of the region . A $508 million program of freeways is proposed . 3. In addition, a major expansion of past efforts for improving arterial and collector streets is needed for the freeway and transit programs to function effectively and to create a modern system of local street service. A $ 1,058 million program is proposed to accomplish this by the early l 980's. The transit program provides for that system which, among all" major alternatives analyzed 4. which provide Uptown ex press service, gives the most service per dollar of invested capital, the lowest cost per ride, scores well on other measures and may be built in stages if required. The small additional cost per ride to provide Uptown rail service is proposed as acceptable in view o f other benefits that will result. 5. The transit system has 64 miles of private right-of-way routes, of which IO miles are fo r rapid rail and 54 miles are for busways, and an expanded local and feeder bus network that includes operation on certain outer area freeways. This system will carry twice as many passengers as the present Atlanta Transit System service and it will carry them further , faster and in more comfort. The proposed transit system will have a construction cost 17 percent less than MARTA'S 6. 66-mile rail rapid transit proposal of 1968, yet will have about the same total mileage. The system will carry I 0- 15,000 more passengers per day than would have been carried by that system. There will be no significant change in annual transit system operating costs, between all-rail and the proposed system . The proposed transit system will provide more service for most areas inside the Perimeter 7. Highway than the all-rail proposal, and only in Marietta will direct express service be less, i!1 any significant measure, than the all-rail proposal. Accessibility for inner city residents will be improved- many will be able to reach four or five times as many jobs by transit in 30 minutes of door-to-door travel as they could if local, surface transit were all that was available. �8. Properly encouraged and coordinated , real estate development near transit stations and busway access points will give a new structural framework to the region , around which many other beneficial policies and practices can be based. Well executed , the transit program can be a catalyst for a better region. 9. The busway elements of the plan can-provide even greater benefits than have been estimated if a comprehensive research and development program is established immediately , in cooperation with industry and the Federal government. Research into vehicle design, automation in various components, propulsion systems and operating techniques all offer potential benefits. 10. The highway program is designed to provide a rational communication network for people who will use automobiles to do business, shop and carry out the many social activities of tomorrow's society. The system is not designed to eliminate congestion , for this is not viewed as a practical goal. In the l 980's, in peak periods, the proposed system will be much like today . However, in the off-peak periods-which represent nearly 90 percent of the hours in the yearthere will be substantial benefits to travelers. 11. The proposed highway system will provide a substantial time saving fo r motorists compared with the initial highway system concept with which the study began a year ago. Principal new features are the central area tunnel to the northwest and the outer beltway north of but close to 1-285. While specific data on savings cannot be quoted - the proposed system is a composit selected from two alternatives-the difference in the two tested alternatives was a 10 percent time saving over the initial system tested. Most elements of the second alternative are in the proposed system. 12. The cost of the proposed highway program is about the same as for the initial system that was studied. The system has 91 miles of new freeway and 54 miles of im provements to existing freeways and will result in a total freeway network of approximately 321 miles within the sixcounty area. 13. Most of the new freeway routes are "corridor" locations only, that is, they are approximate as to location and general design. The next step is to identify the best way to build the highway into the existing development , especially in a way to assist the community in gaining the facilities it needs at the same time the transportation facility is provided. A number of corridors also call for transit routes and stations to be designed jointly with the highway- community development effort. 14. The arterial and collector street system included in the highway recommendations is fundamentally that developed by the AATS staff following analysis of earlier forecasts of highway travel and review with area planning and traffic engineering staffs. This system represents a general plan indicating the approximate locations and scope of the arterial-collector system. It 2 �will require further study and refinement as the final freeway and transit routes are determined and as future development occurs. The traffic operations study procedures advocated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (TOPICS) will be useful in this work. A development and improvement program of major proportions is required and it will require a major financial undertaking. 15. In the Central Business District of Atlanta the proposed program will mean 10,000 fewer parking spaces than if only a local, surface transit system were available. The benefit for peak hour motorists on CBD streets and on the CBD approaches to the freeway ramps will be enormous, for a large portion of those 10,000 parking spaces would have been used by peak hour motorists. 3 �TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES This section provides highlights and a selected list of comments on the findings resulting from a comprehensive search for the right transit system for the Atlanta region. Because there are no existing fixed facilities for transit service that can limit development of a new system and because of Atlanta's kind of land development and community patterns, there is a wide range of possibilities to be evaluated. At the same time, as will be seen below, the selection of the "best system," after all the evaluation work, is not a simple task. The selection process depends upon rather clear-cut agreement as to Atlanta's transit objectives, and on this there is not a single opinion. The proposed transit system is believed to be the best for Atlanta yet there are options available that could make a good choice under certain conditions. Atlanta, as any other city, must consider a number of factors in deciding what is best. To demonstrate this the ten most relevant system alternatives have been compared on an Evaluation Summary Chart. The Chart must be interpreted and used with great care because many significant bits of information are omitted on a signle chart. In addition , the ranking system used for each factor can produce a distorted summary , or net, ranking figure. Nevertheless, the Chart is a useful tool for systematic appraisal of the many choices. Major F indings The alternative systems shown on the Chart have been developed from the testing of five basic systems known as A, B, C, D, and E. The results from these five tests have been previously reported and one system, A, consisting entirely of local, surface transit, has been rejected. From these five tests, however, a long list of possible refinements and new configurations were considered, and the ten most meaningful alternatives selected for comparison here. The " best" plan- the one proposed for development - is Test System D-4. While not ranking as "best" on any individual item, its composite ranking does indicate its leading position. If emphasis is placed on particular objectives, it would be reasonable to consider three other alternatives as acceptable- these three are D-3, E-2 and D-1. In summary, the following alternatives stand out above all the others: Best D-4, 10 miles of rapid rail and a large busway network. 4 �Acceptable D:3, 27 miles of rapid rail and a large busway net~ork. E-2, 6 miles of rapid rail and a large busway network. D-1, 15 miles of rapid rail plus a large busway network. One major issue that was recognized early in the study work was whether to serve the developing "Uptown" area of Central Atlanta with grade-separated, P,Xpress transit in view of the need for underground transit construction. The Evaluation Summary Chart shows the difference in capital cost per ride for the "best" system without Uptown express service and the "best" ~-ystem with Uptown express service. Because Uptown service will cost only one cent per ride more than Non-Uptown service, 22 cents versus 21 cents, it is proposed that Uptown express service be provided. Among other benefits, the inducement to development here should more than offset the added capital cost. Among the "best" and "acceptable" plans listed above, only Test System D-1 does not provide Uptown service. Evaluation Factors Review 1. Lowest Total Cost and Cost per Ride. The lowest cost per ride system is provided by the small busway system Plan C, but this system does little for Atlanta's transportation problems. It would give much better service to the present transit riders, would attract a small number of auto users, and could be expanded to a larger system, but a policy of aiming now for this little a transit improvement would be ineffective and would likely have a negative impact on potential urban developments. If a least-cost per ride system is preferred over other community objectives, the one that should be first considered in Plan C-1. In this alternative, the Plan C busway routes are expanded by 11 miles and a 2-mile rail distributor is added from the Stadium to North Avenue but Uptown express service is not provided. It would provide a 44-mile system which could be expanded later although not into exactly the system that is recommended. An ultimately expanded system would have a higher capital cost in the long run , but there would be an offsetting saving because some costs would have been deferred for a number of years. 2. Traffic Impact. The system that attracts the most riders and, therefore, makes the largest impact on traffic, is Plan E-2. The cost per ride is higher than for the recommended plan-10 percent higher on capital cost per ride, 3 percent higher on total annual cost per ride-but it is less costly per ride than the all-rail plan considered last year by MARTA. Its construction cannot be staged over time as readily as the other acceptable plans but if it were built as a single program, it would be a good system. Further, it is the only plan, among the major alternatives considered to be acceptable, that provides direct express service into the Model Cities-Stadium area. 5 �I 3. Operational/Physical Feasibility. For technical feasibility, Plan B, the all-rail plan, rates high because its general performance as an operating system is well established. In contrast, busway systems have not been built. Even thouih the assumptions involved in the Atlanta busway concepts require no technological breakthroughs, or complex or unproven mechanical equipment, prudence requires recognition of the lack of operating experience with this innovative system. The more miles of busway in the proposal, the more care is required not to over-extend initial busway construction commitments. Plan B is not ranked best on the Chart because its present design has capacity limitations that would be approached by the forecasted demand. 4. Staging Possibilities. The best systems to develop from a staging and flexibility point are small busway plans. The least desirable is an all-rail plan principally because for any given amount of initial capital it buys the least amount of express service mileage. Except for the "Non-Uptown" systems, Plans E-1, D-4 (the proposed plan) and D-3 are best for staging because substantial mileage can be obtained in an initial stage, and the ultimate system can vary from present thinking if future information suggests it should. 5. Community Objectives. The fundam ental objectives of the individual communities and the region are believed best met by Plan E-2 with one exception: it has a higher cost and cannot be staged as readily as other alternatives. It will attract the most riders in nearly all parts of the region, it gives more accessibility to all of Atlanta's present Central Business District, it serves Atlants's inner city residents as well as or better than other alternatives, and it serves the Uptown area with rail subway. Plan E-1 might appear second best for community obj ectives but potential congestion in the Transit Center station rules this out, if the central area is assumed to grow to its forecasted number of jobs in the l 980's. Plans D-3 and D-4 (the proposed plan) are next best. 6. Citizen/Transportation Advisors. The attitudes of citizens, political leaders and transportation people are basic to a system decision. No ratings are given to the alternatives on the Evaluation Chart, but it is expected that each person will, in one way or another, make his own judgement and see how this affects the overall evaluation summary. 7. Summary. The net ranking of each alternative helps to identify the better solutions, but the result should be considered only a gross approximation not to be followed too rigorously. From the findings shown on this Chart and all the tangible and intangible information gathered.in the past year of study, it is proposed that Plan D-4 be selected as the best basis for meeting the transit needs of Atlanta. 6 �8. Note on D-4 Refinement. In evaluating the highway needs, it was concluded that the new northwest freeway in the South Cobb Drive corridor between I-285 and the proposed outer beltway near Marietta could be used by buses in the early l 980's. Therefore, Plan D-4 was shortened along its NW busway following the comparison of the systems evaluated on the Evaluation Summary Chart. 7 �EVALUATION OF HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES The proposed highway system has been selected after analysis of two alternative systems. Prier highway analysis by the Atlanta Area Transportation Study has also been recognized in this process. Four essential points have been identified in thses studies. First, the traffic problems in and near the Atlanta Central Area will worsen substantially if the region grows in the way it is expected to grow. Second, more freeways will be needed inside the Perimeter Highway to achieve a reasonable degree of traffic service in off-peak periods and to keep peak hour traffic at tolerable levels of congestion. Third , there are only a small number of major alternatives to consider, in contrast to the very large number of transit possibilities available , because of the number of existing freeways. Fourth, careful design of added fre eway sections to create a more rational network can produce substantial and meaningful time savings for motorists compared with lesser network designs. The first of the two highway system concepts was analyzed in the first phase of the present study project. From that analysis, the second highway system alternative was developed for a new series of traffic tests, now completed. The second alternative included, by design, several extreme features to demonstrate how far certain new ideas could be carried. For example, no widening of the 4-lane sections of 1-285 was provided in the traffic tests, but a 6-lane outer beltway relatively close to 1-285 was included. The objectives agreed to by the Policy Committee for designing the second highway alternative were : 1. provide a more logical spacing and network arrangement of routes 2. complement possible express transit service 3. encourage less growth in travel demand by altering the location of certain freeways. The growth anticipated for the Atlanta Central Area will produce travel demands that must be met, in part, by development of a major transit program. Compared with most cities, Atlanta has already developed substantial freeway access for its Central Area and only limited additions can be considered. It is proposed that freeway service be added in areas west and northwest of the Central Area, partly to improve access into the business area but mainly to provide a means for keeping traffic not destined for the business area from the Central Business District streets. These added facilities based on traffic forecasts, will mean a three to five percent reduction in transit use in the l 980's. This is proposed to be an acceptable impact on transit in order to provide the accessibility benefits to highway users. Other freeways are proposed inside 1-285 because it is believed that they will be a better solution than forcing excess traffic over the arterial street system. While the freeways will 8 �generate travel demands that would not exist otherwise, the arterial streets of the Atlanta region present a very poor circulation system, and even with a major improvement program would not serve regional travel as well as the development of several new freeways. Also, the studies indicate that inclusion of F-56 South and a new northwest freeway will reduce in a significant way the need for rebuilding of existing freeways-1-75 North and 1775 South-although some improvements are proposed. These new facilities will not have a major impact on transit use. It is to be noted, however, that this evaluation has not had the benefit of preliminary route engineering nor of community development studies and it is imperative that such studies be made as soon as possible to be certain that the proposed network inside· 1-285 can be achieved. In the area o f 1-285 and beyond, the highway plan will have a major impact on the structure, the pattern and intensity of land development. The initial highway studies indicated much more travel would be generated here than previously had been expected, and this led to seeking a highway network that would re-orient future travel patterns. The second phase of highway studies showed that some success could be achieved by locating a new outer beltway (or outer Perimeter Highway) close to the present Perimeter Highway . The impact on travel accessibility from the two nearly-parallel high-speed circumferential roads did shift travel patterns. By I 983, or more accurately, perhaps, the year in which 2 million persons will live in the six-county area, the new road will be needed between Marietta and Stone Mountain. Thereafter, this new route should be extended around the region on a schedule that can be determined later, especially after an updated . regional development plan is adopted that recognizes the impact and the opportunities from this freeway. The proposed system indicates the sections that will most likely be required next by proposing establishment of the rights-of-way before 1983 in the northwest , southwest and east areas. Similarly, the proposal calls for right-of-way acquisition before 1983 for F-56 South between 1-285 and 1-75 South. This road will be needed ultimately , and the means of financing-for example, through a system of urban toll roads-could justify its earlier construction. The best location between the Lakewood Freeway Extension and I-7 5 South would pass close to Forest Park and offer this area of Clayton County more traffic service than the previously discussed location. However, it is recognized that more ideal location will be more difficult to achieve. The new northwest freeway should be located as close to South Cobb Drive as conditions permit to bring it within the area of influence of the Smyrna-Marietta urban corridor. 9 �PROGRAM FOR ACTION The next step forward in Atlanta's transportation work is for the Policy and Technical Coordinating Committees to review and act on the proposals presented here. Adoption of a transportation plan by the Policy Committee is the fundamental, immediate objective. This general plan will be recommended to the individual area governments and the major agencies involved for their approvals. It will then become a meaningful policy statement for undertaking the program. Establishment of an orderly and effective program will require entering into an implementation phase of activity. Essentially, it will be a phase of further project definition, coordination, financial planning, scheduling and control to assure that the program as ultimately implemented attains the objectives of the adopted general plan. The work will include those engineering, operations planning and community planning steps which Federal programs specify and which good financial and planning judgement would require, including the participation of the new citizen advisory group. These particular steps will occupy the large part of Atlanta's transportation planning energies for the next year. Certain steps will continue into the l 970's, in coordination with an organized process that will provide periodic review and refinement of the adopted general plan. There will be need for a continuous planning procedure. The highway program will need to establish a schedule of early project actions, make preliminary engineering and joint community-transit-highway development studies and determine the means of financing the new freeway and arterial projects. A large-scale traffic operations planning task will be useful in developing the arterial road network. The Highway Department may wish to determine if it can and should participate in financing transit projects which contribute to reducing highway demands, in accordance with evolving Federal policy which permits use of highway funds under prescribed conditions. Transit will need the same kinds of implementation steps as highways, and other kinds as well. Major areas needing attention are advanced operations planning for busways, the restructuring of local bus services, new approaches to vehicle design, and marketing efforts to build a more positive attitude toward use of the new system. Inclusion of busways in the program provides an opportunity, and establishes an obligation, to apply innovative thinking in general as well as in the development of several specific components of the system. Atlanta will find the Federal government anxious to cooperate in financing vehicle design and system control research, passenger service demonstrations and experiments, and construction of test facilities in order to advance its own commitment to find improved urban transportation systems. There will be need for city and regional planning steps to exploit the transportation plans. Zoning and land use near transit stations can be altered where economic and environm~ntal impact studies support it. Development incentives can be considered as one means of accomplishing coordinated, joint projects. 10 �There are a number of locations in the region where development will be different from that in the official development plans and transportation forecast data- Sandy Springs, East Lake, parts of Atlanta's central business district, etc.-and this will need to be reflected in the advanced transportation planning work. The latest regional development plan work, now underway for a 1988 plan, will need to be adjusted to reflect the transportation policies. After its adoption, it, in turn, will be fed back into future refinements of the transportation plan and program , as a part of the continuing planning proces~. A means for financing the transit, freeway, and arterial program will be needed and this could require new legislation. Toll highways and bridges, central area parking fees, bond issues and otp.er means warrant investigation. Limiting the use of automobiles in the central area in peak periods may become a required step in the 1970's. All such programs should be consistent with the adopted general plan and be reviewed by the Policy Committee. The U.S. Department of Transportation has initiated a nation-wide, 15-month project that seeks major improvements in the implementation process. It will be concerned, for example, with institutional arrangements and citizen involvement. While oriented toward central city transportation problems, it will be meaningful to Atlanta's overall regional task. Atlanta has been selected as one of the cities to be included in the study project, and the Policy Committee will want to work closely with the project to be certain that it contributes timely assistance to the implementation work of the Committee. Substantial progress on the above tasks will be n.eeded before the major elements of the highway and transit programs can be brought into the final construction design and land acquisition stage. It is clear that there are strong arguments for early action to implement these steps so that Atlanta's transportation program can move forward with speed and confidence. 11 �I FREDERICK .J. WAl. T.::RS 441a DAv1osoN Avc:r-uc: l ATJ..ANTA, GEORGIA 30:518 May 21, 1969 Mr. Everett Millican, City ..A.J.derman City Hall 56 Mitchell Sti·eet, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia. Dear Sir: Each tirne I arn involved in one of Atlanta's now f amous t raffi c jams on the expressway, I remernber your vigorous battle to defeat the Rapid Transit program in the elections last fall. When I further contemplate the tens of thousands of hours that are l ost daily by irate motorists in Atlanta, I wonder how in clear conscience you could have opposed the means of alleviating these frustrating traffic situati ons. At the time of your op p os iti on you promised an alternative, but I have seen no alternative and I think the people of Atlanta, · from everything that I can judge in conver sati on, are f ed up with the procrastinating, do-nothing policy which you have pursued. You may be sure that the mer.nories of these people will be long at the next election. Perhaps I have rnisjudged you - perhaps you have presented a workable alternative. If so, I would certainly be glad to know ab out it or any other plans that you may have as an elected representative of the people of Atlanta to try to save the one thing that can stifle Atlanta I s growth_ and progress toward a brilliant future. Yours very truly, FJW:eh Dear Mr. Mayor : . u erb efforts toward makin.g Atlanta one of the In view of your lively i~t~re s t and s:: u should have a copy of this letter which greatest of American c1t1es, I thoug t yo .. - - 1 1 ~ • ~ ,;,,a-I have addressed to M r._ Millican. vV~ ~ , , - 7 -- - - ~ �I August 14. 1969 Mr . Roy A . Blount Vice Chairman Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Glenn Building Atlanta. Georgia 30303 Dear· M.r . Blount: As Mayor Allen is out of the city, this will acknowledge your letter of August 11th, regarding a meeting to describe the tra.n it program. I will bring thi matter to Mr. Allen~s attention upon hi return to the ci.ty. Sine rely, Mrs-. Ann M . Moses Executive Sec,:etary AMM:lrd �METROPQLITAN ATLANTA RAPID T.RANSIT AUTHORITY GLENN_ BUILDING / ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 / AREA CODE 404 524-5711 OFFICERS: Richard H . Rich, Chairman Roy A. Blount, Vice Chairman August 11, 1969 Edmund W . Hughes, Secretary Henry L. Stuart, General Manager Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Ga. 30303 Dear Mayor Allen: At its regular meeting August 5th the Transit Authority Board adopted a two-year program designed to be responsive to the request of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study Policy Committee to develop a new transit proposal using as a guide the Voorhees recommendations. Obviously, the Transit Authority's two-year program is meaningless unless it has the enthusiastic support of the Local Governments involved. We feel that this proposed program is in good form now, including its budget, and I would like an opportunity for some detailed, informal discussion of it with you and such Aldermen, officials and staff members as you think appropriate. May I suggest that you select a convenient time during . the first week of September, with the exception of the afternoon of Tuesday, September 2nd, which is our regular oard meet~·~-~ Vice Ch air man . RAB: JJ cc: Mr . Charles L . Davis Di r e c tor o f Finance Cit y of At lanta Mr . Milton Farris MARTA Board of Directors Mr . w. Stell Hui e Counsel , MARTA �July 16,. 1969 Mr. Lomrie C . King, Jr. President Atl nta Branch, NAACP 859--1/2 Hunter Street,. N. W. Atl nta, Georgia D ar Lonnie: I appreciate your note , and I am giving car ful conaider tion to ,t he on ~cancy which occ.u.rs through the city on the Metropolitan Atlant Rapid Tr nsit AQthority. 1t i my understanding that th · oth r vacancy occur through the county. Sincer ly,. Ivan Allen, Jr. IAJr :am �NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE ATLANTA BRANCH 859½ HUNTER STREET, N.W., SUITE 105, ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30314 524-8054 J uly 15, 1969 LONNIE C, K ING , JR. PRESIDENT REBA GRE~NWOO O 1ST VICE PRES IDENT REV . SAMUE L WILLIAMS 2 ND VICE PRES IDENT MAYNARD JACKSON 3RD V ICE PRES IDE NT EUN ICE COOPER SECRETARY PEGGY CH URCH ASST. SECRETARY IRA JAC~SON TREASURER The Honorable Ivan Al len , Jr . Mayor , City of At lanta 68 Mitche ll Street, s . W. Atlanta, Georgia 30300 Dear Mr . Mayor: The Atlanta NAACP takes note of the fact that there will soon be two vacancies on the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Autho rity . It is our feeling that many of the problems that the Authority has had in generating support in the black community can be traced to inadequate representation of the black community in the process of formulating the plans for a much needed Rapid Transit System in the Atlanta area . It is our hope that you will take advantage of the upcoming vacancies to increase the participation of the black community at the policy-making and plan-making level. As always the NAACP stands ready to assist you in your efforts to assure continued growth of the city of Atlanta. Sincerely yours, ~CK,~ Lonnie C. King, Jr. President Atlanta Branch NAACP LCX/h �ALLEN J. ELLENDl!R, LA., CHAIRMAN SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, FLA. JAMES O. EASTLAND, MISS. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, GA. B. EVERETT JORDAN, N.C. GEORGE MCGOVERN, S . OAK . JAMES B. ALLEN, ALA. ' GEORGE D. AIKEN, VT• MILTON R. YOUNG , N. OAK. JACK MILLER, IOWA CARL T . CURTI S, NEBR . MARLOW W . COOK, KY. ROBERT DOLE, KANS . COTYS M . MOUSER, CHIEF CLERK COMMITrEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY WASHINGTON, D . C. 20510 September 18, 1969 Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor City of Atlanta Atlanta, Georgia Dear Ivan: Thank you very much for sending me a copy of your recent letter to the Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Your courtesy is indeed appreciated, and in an effort to be of assistance on the matter outlined in your correspondence , I, too, have contacted Mr. Villarreal. When I have received a reply, you will certainly hear from me again. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely, �Rot-1~! ~1 JJ:c 2 f !: This ~e~orandu~ describes an action process for improvir.s :he transportation serving Atl2nta Ce::r,ter City ,.fr,ich n2s been developed jointly by Atlanta age~cies a~d che Ce~ter Gities Transpo=t2tion Project Team. T'he process is called O:?ER./1.TIO~ E ·::'f ;:RCi::?T ai1d wi ll hs.ve a r.umoer o~ steps, sta:c~ing wich initiatio~ cf a new shuttle bus service on Dece~ber 1, 1969, which ~ will lead in successive steps to the eventual develo?rnent of a complete trans~o rta tion syste~ for the center city as part of the region's basic tr~n s?or t a tion system . 'i'::..·0r·::,; tKn:- ta::i.or:. an<l the Ur b:m Hass Tran:;port:1::ion J\u1,1in:i. s trator for u.ction ' to h0J.p solve r,roblc:ns brought Oil by t he ::_;ro·~.·th c.ncl C:,p~nSi0!1 of CC: nter c::.:: v . co;.1bine the. cn -:::cgy .'.:!;:d resources of AtL.:nta 2~d th e Urb,::m Mass Tr ~rns it ,\c- · r.1inL;::,ration to c!ch j_eve / 2. ser ies of specific action g.93-ls ove::r ti:nc. �CLNTI::R CITY Gl{Ol·JTE: ATLA:,TA, THE CENTER OF TEE SOUTHEAST ·:, Since 1960, Atlante:' s Cen ter City has gro,,m bey·ond . a:;_1 predictions. __ Duri::. ,> . t;1ese past nir.. ve.:11,·s .,. c. e · almost eight million sa·uare f ee t of office spac e has been added co t he Atlar.ta Cent er Cit cent. .r u-' an increase of 175 per- The t rend i s expected to continu e , with both ple'1ners and dev e lopers fo~esceing rapid urban ~xpansion -- p~rhaps at a rate leading all o ther citi2s of compa rabl e si ze . Planners anticir~te that emplo y.~cnt in the centr a l city will doubl e within the next t wo decad es , a nd with redevelopment spa c e contiguo'-:1 s to the already hi~h2.y developed core, build ers a re actively keeping p2.ce ,,ith their -e--,. p f- ~ ~ "{1,-01J"$ -~·--=t .: 0!16. Sev e ral reasons for recent growth also insure it s ccntinuati6n. Atlanta o:: te:1 cor: s i cl 2red )< t he natior. ' s next frontier for accel e ~a ted deve l o p2ent and eco nomic growth . The city has beco~e the gatewa y to this rc g io:i. ' of vast potential,- a,1d. re·;, tain s a position unpa r a lleled, in fact unchalleng'2d, by other_ c:::;:-eas of u rba niz a tion. 1ore tha n four-fifths of the nation's 500 1-:: r gest ~orpora- tio ~, s r-,ave est a blish2.d b2. ses in At l anta for operc.tions i :l.. the So1..'.theast, --~ ... and a re. expecr: ed to incr ea s e 'their de;:1an~s for space as the r eg io:c ·dev_~-1:ops. •· As in the pa s t , location within th 2 reg ion ha s a posi t ive ef fect on gr6wth. The c~ty i s neariy mid-center i n the Sou thea st Reg ion, ~nd with the exc~~tion o i wat er, enjQy s exc e ll ent s e rvice by all fo rm s of t rans portation~ As a c ent er for t j~ di stribu tio n o ~ scrv ic es and t he rc:;ion. Unl ess unfo r2scea bl e ev en t s occur, i ts l oca t ion wi ll beco::-.e i nc~e2sing l y sig ~ific ant i n loc a tion d ec i sion s fo r bot h business a~d gov e r n·8ent growth ;)rog r ams . �, . ·t-. i::ost si<:nif ic«nt 0-:>:ro,;,,i t11· catal:,•st -·, tl1e r0 1 i.1L~ J..onsnip · · · or~ 1 oc;1:;_ bus :i i1L~.;s _ .L::; ancl gove:rn::-,ent 2.nd how they \-mrk together in direct i n~ cont:im.:~d ce~teT city ccv.:::::top~2nt . In &bstr.:1ct i on t:his is o f ten stated as the ,:busin0 s::; spi ...: rit o f . :.\tla'Qta . ' based on. ~ o pti~ism ste~:~1ing from a proud .ar1.C. S!)C:Ctcicula~ g:rl!;b"..:h record -- a ser..s-2 of certainty that ).tlanta h olds a key to the futu r e ·o ~ the Southeast. !ri reality this means a stro ng and 2r t ic u lite bcsiness Q-0\ CO:!'.:::t.:nity ,-mrking uitl: ~v erv.r:-.2nt to provid e _directio~ and coo :rdit:.aticn f o r ---._:nticip a ted l ev -2ls o: grm-1 th. No ~here is the bus i n2ss-2 overn~ent relati on- ,.___ ~ ip nor 2 e v i d e nt o r vi a bl e than in th e c e ~t e r cit f , f or a l l acknowledge tha t i f this are a is to ~bs orb a doubli~g in s iz e of th e alr6 a dy h~~ hly ci ,;:v2l op e: d core, st.:ch a pa :::-tnc:. s h ip is 1~2 q_t.::i.s it e fo-::: its prop e r g u i d e,!!~ . r esa i n th e e c onon ic Pl ac ning efforts a cce:pt thi s as a given . m0 t rooo li t a n re n ion. a n d h'O rk for it s continu ::it j_o r. with a n .'.lv o wecl d is tast e for a V.:ls tly d e ce n t ra l iz ed c i ty. The " Re:g io nal DC:!ve l o:_:;:,1e nt Pl an '~ (1962) c a ll s for a str-o :1g . r, cen :: ra l 2.r ea , wi t h th e City o f Atl 2n t a 's "1 98 3 Land Us e ? l a n" spe cii" ic a lly ci t ir,g the c 2n t:r al a r ea es 11 • so complex i t r e qu i r es a w2 ll con ceived, well d e v e l o ped, 2nd we ll execut e d p lan of it s O h'i:1. " S'.:) C:Cic:! l t rans? o r t at ion s t t.:dies h2.v e a l s o ackno,dedge d i:he c e :1ter ci ty as urri c u e &n d r e qu1t·ing ·-.__.; - .-2 c::. f ic d e t a i l ed enal ys i s o f it s o wn . To f u lf ill t hese spec i 2 l n eeds f o r c e ,1 '.:er c i ty ? l a r.n ing , a.n eL:bora tc stLldy de s ign ( t h e CQ-;-,cral are a st1.:dy) h a s ·c2c:1 cl e v e l oFed as a j oin t c ity- bes:;..,1cs s co r.-,r::u nit y atte:-;,p t to c h aY t th e· cou -::: s a 2~d needs o f center city gr o wt h ~ PRO:iT.:-:~,; O? CO:;Gf.STION A?( D ACC ESS Cente: r c ity growt h h as not, o f c o u rse, evolv e d wit t ~~ t c r e ating ? ro bl e~ s . . \ ' itb few c.:-:cept i o,1 s d c v c!lo1; i:1.::nt h;..is t 2 kC!lc pl a ce upo i1 ~ lit t: l e ch;, ;·::-c-e J i,1:d �sit r~EcrGndu~, agencies are busy at revising a plan which should win enthusinstic a2?roval. Mayor Allen perh2ps best sums up such concerns in his state:i:ent that, "We cannot accon..-.odate any ~ore traffic on our ·:.::·:isting street ~atterns. And there is not enough money on God's green earth to change st:rect patterns i:1 Atlanta." G.:=ri,.~ lo:--:; rc.:·.::;i-. :~l2.::-.::-.~.::..::,- :~r~- . efforts have no~ included coordinated interi=~steps for relief of center city conge:stio:L Such steps are critically needed, and this progra~, along with the Central Area Study, are designed for ju s t th~t purpose. ?rol>l e:'rr,s of co::g estion · a::d access are not jGst 2nticipat ed; there are s2v ere proble~ s now. A ;oo<l exa:.1 pl e c..t,AS Go~ ~- :J .· c~'-e.~ vr.:.C.,fD G. in ti:e Atl"'":-.t:a JO\.!l·c, a l- Co~~::: :i.t ui::io ,'l ~:--t icl e f ollo{,_,i ng the mid - day t r2£ f i c tie- up l a s t July 3. Thu r s~ay , chok ing int e:--sec iions and clogg i ng ma in art er i e s in the c i ty . ~~ d out of . manr publ i c t ransi t sc hedules wet e wrec ked as some bu se s .c ,... i '"' J.V~ a s long dS a n how.r in ~otio nl cs s lines of si::-L":).e r i ng c a rs Fr2eway p:co}:i;:1ity, t hen, and im~rovec1. ou ter c:::::-ea ar t erial st r ee ts hi ve ·--- v ast l y i ncreased the p~o p~nsi ty f or u sa3e of the automob i l e as a r::eans of tr a n s~ortation t o t he c ent ra l city. Center c i ty pa r king ~a c i:i~ies have been g:cm-,ing to acco,:Lrno clat e th0 d er:,-2nci, yet s tree t pa t te'!:'nS rema in fix ec., often un~hl e t o pas s ~the high v ol u~es o f both v ehicles ana p~Je s trians . v Over -c.::.i)Dcity i s e l-. , c ( <./ ;., I< "'b,,~ a f.J.ct c:.nd me2.sura ble in ho;,irs per day . Given the c:z- pected . growth :i.n the center ci~y with no :i.r::p rov<:;:nent in c:ccess1 t¾a~-:?..'.;~ , (./) ll"-1\e.. ~......-dc7""0V~'.::1C2'?2'C-:.=-t y coulcl be a r ea lity . Cc,P1/11:9 tiecl a I/... cfcy C,c:)Y'._y e..r/-.1:ri-, ,; �Of S?~C~~l concern ar~ access pro1lens of ccnt~r city residcncial ~cig~bor~oods, ?articulrirly thos~ in ~odel city and NDP project are a s. Alt~cugh public transit is available, most resi2ents a~e considered _captive riders wi.t:1 -specic.-1 ne2ds and der.~ands on _center city transportatior:.'. _,. technic.::l gr.2.:-:..: a?plic.2. t ior.. is now pe.-,din:; (EOA-:·Li\:{TA) :for study of neighbor~,ood access proble:~.s not only within tl1e ce!lter city but to suburban e.::!_)loyz,e:nt cent e rs as well. It is anticipated that thi~ program. of interi~ steps ~ould be inst~u~ental in resolving thase problems. The rapid transit program will of course r2lieve problem s of center city access, yet an operational status is ye ars away. Until -the~, congestion mW-.d t',•l-1-4-},,1, . con.tinu e s to ~oun~, and interi::-t progY.s.!::s for- i Lrpro'\1 :.:-.12r1 t ~ ov. e r shc. C.o;-;2d by the desire to see the prim.:?.ry ra~icl trc.nsit system app r ov ed a nc oyera-_ tiona l. As ?r ev i ously s t a ted, At lanta is currently cx? e r i2ncing sever e cent e r city acc ess a nd cong2s tion proble~ s. T~e rapid tr a nsit progr2s has yet to b8 approved by the vo te rs, and is at leas t eight to t e n years awa y f~o~ an o f r e:l i ev:;.n 6 c en-t e r_· city co nges tion probl err..s . to t his nee d f or a n i n ter im pr o~rara ha s ~een found t hro~sh the .........._____ DO':c' CCT? • Uncoor2 i na t ed ~nd un nr ticul c. t ed i deas c.nd c oncept s for inter i ra .................. _ solution s faun~ i n various pl ann i n3 and trEnsi t 2geccies have with t he ~i- " rect ~elp and inspir~tion cf the c ~~ter cities consottiu~ been rl ev 2l cpei �' ' .. ccnt2r city access and nl!cvi~tin~ cong e stion prool2ms. The first s:cp ,,,, e~ploys existin~ transit tech~olos y, local equipra~nt, and lo c~l'~ina ncin~, (M/10-~ ~~ 2.n c:pplicati_or: of ne.F technology anc hardware as q p2r::canent cen- ter city dist=~-~tion syste~ co~?lernentin; the proposed prisary rapid tran~ sit systes. Inter8ediate steps er:,ploy_ irc1prov2r.1e,,cs on tcc1molo~y, harch,•arc, and application, with v ar iou s arr&ngements of local-fc ~e ral financia l suppo:ct. . A key element, ne&rly re~uisiie for thC:-! succe s s £0:c ~ , will be the developrr:eni: of the wa y. 2. Of'E ?MlON \NTl_'.:-~l:,fT t*•"'·*·.::.~·::_; ; ~ ~ - !;iOnitorir.g process for each step along In thi s wa y the p& rt icula-.c charact eristics o.: : e2.ch step c 2n help rl2~ermine the program =or the ~ext. \ NTf /:G c; ?'t°" G_/4·:e c::::.o::-. ::::.·,-ce:.:.:..e::.¥.: is C?F'S(~T Ic:, }J d i vided ir,to three ;ener&l ste~)s , eac~1 b-..: ilding u p0~-. the succ2ss of t he o:1e(s) b efo re. By mainc:a i!1 in 6 the non icoring syste:~1 i n c1 cl, stl!p , l arge qu an tit ies of ·inforr.,2tion ~-. 'ill b e: avail2b lc for ;lan~ing the n ext. Thu s , co~tinuous feedbhc k will s hape zr.d d i r ect: service c haracteristics f rom i nitia l steps. The initia l step i s divicied into two phases . The fi rst ,_. _a 1 00% loc2.l e f: or·t, i s S?onsored by both Qity a nd bu siness ccn~unity . s ervic e by Dcc e!T'.ber l 2 high f:c e qu ency shutt l e bu s op e ration roi:ted t:htoi.:gh the ce.ntcr city· and t er;-'.:inating a t existing 1forth c.,nd s··ou th par k.ins f2cil iti es located just ou tside the c ente r city. The. service result s from a jo int effo ~t betwe~n t he City of At l ante , Atlanta Transit Cornp~ny , and the busi1")_ess cor.:::1ur.it y to pr ovid e i f.'2.ediate relief f or ce·.:1ter city co:lr,estio:1 . The se::::-vice is aim2d prinarily at the ctiver co;;::::~1t e.r , with hopes of inter- cepting hi3 a t the periphery parking f2cilities (both locat ed on the 2xpr2ssway systE::n) c:.nd bussi!:':g hin to cente:c cH y cJ:)loy::i.e.nt. The shuttle service .· �·s 1. I'OLL \,•i_ LL't·.-ott t • pr··c••, ,~11~. _ _ ~ _ _ Curr· cn~.L-)• , - ~... and have proved most successful -- one, •..,o ~ ~·r,,1Ltl~ · opc143.215.248.55ion . L c s~?\'. ~L -ices arc in 3 special application, is nuurly an identica l service conce pt as this first ph2se of Step·r. The service is beir-g o:-;er2t2d betx,.::en Georgia State U::1ive~:sity, a· dow:1tow11 school uith very limited parking facilities, and tbe sa2e south p2rking facility as proposed in this first phase of Step I. The other shuttle operation is the 'Shoppers S;:,2cic1l: 1 routed within the cer.ter c·ity, serv"ir,g m2.~or ratail outlets. / . �i r: i n th e fcr 8 o= a G~a nt. D220. or additional routes, , ::-. -:~ ,- 1 ' - ...... ,r .... - · ; At th e us e o f n or e par~ing f acilities. tioi~s of S t: .::? I, and i s expc ct .:::d to ::-e qu i;:-e: cons id 2r 2.ble c apit.:11 i:1ve::s t::-.2nt. I t i s :::.n t his step t h a t r,c,., t c ch::1ology will b e: er,:;_) lo y cd a r.d a 12.r ge e :q 2:1siori of services ::,ut i:1.::0 c::.:2.:: t . Ki~d ':r1e nc\·i tech nology will r:-.0:.:-e t h an of i ~~rovements t o b e dev eloped • .-"" ·.:·; ·•.-,1 , ·_; .-- .,_ - ~·_ - i On'-' ~ f o·~- f "-r.,d ,"'r.. ~" -l ~ c. - ~ ·.::c1· .· c-<· ·s ·· r- ',, ~ ~- '-'· · -· ,.1·i.1. , . .., - l DC.· "1.· o ·r.~ , ; r.·, 1·.., - Ll·.cc··. •. ·"-"·6 . , t hi s 1 s t 2?) and wil l incl uJe not only C2pital s~ants for constr uction , bu: tec~~ i ca l study gran ts a s we ll. See p II c an a l so se e t h e init iat i on o f s ~2cif ic acce ss- l i~k-ups t o · __ t he ~od2l Cit ~es en~ ND? proj act a r eas , if the i r st~di2s find it desir~bl~ . i n ooe:r at i on is a Model Ci: i a s s~ut t l e bus . / ~· Hhich The 2oni t oring pro gr 22 2 s deve lo?ed by t ~e CCT c eau will i n St 2? I ~ give ~ over t o loc a l agencies f or opera t i on ; whe~e it wi ll ~ot o ~ly be Dain~ a i nsd , bet revis2d i n ant i cipct ~on of and pr eparat i on £or St2p I I I. ... 0 • S;::ep III ~i: l bcco2e a par t of t h e lo ~gcr r ange transit ? l arin in~ .· c~~ �I .., criei:.t.:!t~on. the ~ltimate ~cal is to see ir~to cpcr2tirm c, permanent s2co~dary distrib~~ion ~yste~a within the center city in full cor.~pli_?::!el,t of the regicn-=.l r .~ pid transit · sys-c.e:,·:J'{.. , z.rcd er,,bodyi:1g those -successful service a:pplic:ition~ of Stf:ps I ai,<l II. The Step II monitoring operation will be oriented ~ow~rds this St e p III systen conce?t, an2 the St e p III planning tim e frame ccc;atible with the lon~ ra~ge prim2.ry syste:~1 progra:n such that cc;-,~ plii::entary, syst2r.1s ccc~ 02 insurec.. -- . .. ~ �I different facets. l. B.::.si c Policv ~-r~~ing :::1d Coorc.: iP..ation O?er2tio:.1. L:tercept h.:,s been considered es part of the basic transportc.ticn progren .of the Atlante- erea. It is being d::SC:ussed and reviewed by tl-.e ?Olicy 1 1 -r:-..c:. c- - .-:- i1~• 0 1 a~ta c.-n.d coo··a.:,-,"t1·n° "'~.: -' ·L,_._ .-:..e Po".1.i·cy Co-.-,:"'_,_-i~._r..-,e" • • -'-••L.;, or·~ -oc.;.. ,- ·--·t--"c,.._.,,,;., .<, c..,__ .•-,,.. _ u . .--,, •• ) i·nclu..:i;no ' ~ •(..:._. 0 \..'1 a '-"0 and i::he_ Pl2.nnL1g c.!1.d Developillent Com:--:1ittee cf the City of Atla nta's Bo2.rd of P.l<len:2n, a ::e:. the Bo~rcl of Directors of Ce ntral Atlanta Progress. . The t e ch nical op -2::-.::.tior,,s of th2 .Atlc.nta R23~0T! !-:8 t~opolit2:1 Plan!Ling Co-r.-:..~ission. 2. ':i.'h e Ce n t re. ::.. ope r at io:: . 1 sponsore d ' by t he City o f Atlan t a and Ce ~tr al Atlacca · P~ ogress a~d t he Metrop o lit~n At l i n t a t\.u t hority, c:r~~1 the St2t2 }:i gL1\·J 2:y De pt. c.~er..c ies prir:,2ry r2 s p o:-:.si':> ili ty, u:1.d e r t his ove:.:-a l l poli cy fr ar,:2uork, f or t h e sp e: ci fic lo r:;_; rc.-,,is plan:1ir.g o f p ub l i c t rc::us p o :?'.' tc:tion fs c i l i t ies 2.:id se:.---v:::.ces z.s the y a ff ec;: ce~te= ci t y. .,f\~ OIJcra t ion I nt erce) t wi l l b e tied i n to ~, g oir:g pla ::1n i:.:g p rog r ~~s o f tnese ~gencies. 3.  :onito!:"i n '.!, - During Step µ of O;:i2.r2.tion Int2.:::ce pt , fr~2 CCT Tea::: -..,ill b e r es pc nsibl e: for the t e chnica l wa r~"( r e ~ui::ed to r.:on i tor ope rati on u·:-,d er ·t:2 d i r e c t io,1 of a Wo rki n:3 Co::·,mi t tee c 0t-:.sis ting o f t he Cicy o f A:.: l a nt a , ~-:ARTA , C2:.·,..::.·al _L..tlE:-,t a P rogr ess , a::.d the Atlant2.. T:::- 2..nsi t Co:;:~-:,2:;1y . In subsequ ent · s te?s , t h is tech:1ical worR wi ll oe 2.:0s orbsd by _·l o c2.l agE.nci.:::::;, r.--,os t ~ 4. likely b th e Ce:1 tr 2 l Ar -22. Stucy .:ecS!. Ini t iall y the City of At l a~ta will b2 t~e applicant ' f o r fade::al applications co~ing .. I· --¢~ c.irectly out of- Ope:c&:.:io:i Interc2? t, �• I:-"\ The AtL:nt a Trc:nsit Syste:-.: will opera te t he service in t Le. first step of Opera~ion Intercept. The OJ eration of subscque~t s~rvices will d~~en d . on the ~esponsibilities as s ~gned to v£~ious of the:: operating e.sen cies cm;,::.ng out of the b us ic tr 2nsportatio:1. plar:;.-.::.ng process. -... __ .. / �I. I. AC':.' I\iITIES 7.G DATE A. The idea for this projec t was generated out cf the in~ craction ~2twe en the Center City's Project Team and various groups _in Atlanta during Phase I of t he CCT Project. Officials of tte Atla~ta Transit Sys~e~s, the C),~l!f-5 Cer.:::r2l Atl..::nta ?:::-og-:-e.ss, the City Pla~n~ng Depart~en t, a::-..d 4"-~.;t..~ began --- to develop ideas on quick ac tion projects to hsln solve so~e of the center city's i r::o,edia te transportation ··. :.co~le::ls . B. W½e n Phase II of the CCTP ~es £nnounce d by Secretary Volpe in Se~Y~c~1ber 1~69, Atlc.nt.:?. was ready to r.,i:!ke 2. specific p:.-oposa l for 2.:1. i:,.;;-:c- dia tc ac tion prog r an to nrovidc ah nll-~uy shu ttle bus se rvic e connect ing ter to cli:iv e:!.-s o ff the c:<~n-essw;:y conr,e ctor- 2 n d downtm-m arteri2. ls before the y r22c~2d the mos t congest ed areas. The CCT Cafe Tea m me t 1~ Atla~ta on Se; ~2reb2= 24 , were present ed with t ~c p:.coj cct conc ept , made fi 2ld i nS'.)ec cio,1s o f the propo s c-d r oute , ri-.1d gen-2::-,:lly cc1dor s cd t he ;_:n:oJ c~t a~_4= suitable expe riment ·for Phase II of the CC~P . C. A ~orki ~g t eam from the Atl a~t~ 7 r a n sit Company , the Ci t y of Ac- · l a ~ta (?la~n i ng Department ) , Central Atlanta Progress, a nd the CCT? began to put tog2 thcr a co~pl ete progr~~ for thi s opera tion. 1. This inclu ded:. ?r0pa ration of an opcration2l plan by ATS f or a fiv2~bu s , a l l - day s ~ut t lc s e rvice, ope rat:.~g &t 10-~ i c ute headwavs l r om the t wo ?ark~ . .,16 ,: lo t s t h::-J ugh th e ho2art c £ the COi·rn t oi-; n a rea , includ i ng pl ans for �I ,.J ?3iking lo t operations, oper utinJ costs, fares, uua r ev e nue c s t~ 2a tos. 2. Cle arance by the city for use of the t ~o publicelly cwne::<l pa~kin~ facilities. 3. Tht: dm-: n::own business co77,:;:e:1ity, th-rough the ir org~ni z2tior-, Ce:.1tr::::l .'-',.tl &,:ta Progress, . have 2greed to S'upport the p:roj-2ct fir.2.nci2: :..y in the in~ e rin betwe en the time service will start on Decern~er 1 and the ti;;,e lJXl'A will be 2.bl e to su·;)'port the project throu:;h c!2~onstr2tion .s.r:.i c2pit.:1l grants. 4. Pre~ a r at ion o: thi s OPERAT IO~ IKTS~CE?T seraor&nden by the worki~g group which is designed to obtain ill~A support a ~d g uicance for this D. ·--...- The r:,2 ct ing with Ad.-r,i ni s tra tor \'a ill' a rre.::.l on :tfove:rrber -' i s exne ct ec! to be t he l 2 st of the i ni ::ia l phase s o f the O? Cr 2 : ion. ---a r e r- o ~-1 We r e2dy to roll. --·- ,I I. 1969, ·-._"!;- P 2·:':::D:CXl'E .\ CT IO:N / A. On Dece2ber 1, At lan t a Transit will b eg in t he new shut tle bus t hroug~, c e::ntr2 l c ity ;::ro:n the Stcidiu::: ~:-,d Ci vi c Cen ter- parking fifty' c er:t f2"{"e will be c harged :f or this servi c e. 1 · .., • A I nclud ed in th i s ,-, ill be the co~t of a l l-d2y pc:rk i ng 2nd rou~d tr i p bus fare . Those p2sse~~ers who use the bu s service wih:: ou t pa~~i~g will be charJed 15¢ ~er ride . �ousiness cor.1ic:unity \1:1 0, in .2dditio11, v.'ill pick ur, the costs of pror:,o tion. P.:irkin;; will be provi~l:!d by ::he c ity . lks.::s . .:ind o;,cr2t ion s \·! ill DC:: pro- costs o:;: publicity' a re eX:J2Cted to run about \ !2 Th2 net c0sts of O? e ration_, 2re expected to be 2.bout $~ , OGO per vic:ed . by AtL1nt.:i. 'Tr3nsit. $ 'fl1e mcm:n initially. E. J12st prior to begiuning i:r:e s 2.rvice, the CCT ceari , working with the A:la~ta age~cies, will develop a pro3ra~ of son ito r i ng the shuttle bus s ervice . This pro gr am will include: 1. s ~udi es of th e O?erations of th e s ervi c e , i~cl~ ding 0-D and arterials :o d eccr~ine irnpac i:s. 2. Studies of the c ~rr 2ct anrl ~o : e~t i a l market for th e service, i~cluding e nalysis o~ the char acter i s tics of t he current riders .. 3. Aualysis of the eco no::1ics o f the opera tion i nc lu d i l1i ·-cos~-s:,;:: and r ~venues , us er attit~2e towa r d fares , abili t y to pGy , br eak-even co s~ s for se:rv ice, etc. / Lf. Stud~es of other .::,re2.s a:id ro:.iti:.:-,gs wheore simil ar shuttle s ervice could be applied inc l uding an inv2ntory of fringe pGrking si:es; route loc&ticns, new central city ~evelopraents, etc. 5. Analysi ~ of the oppc:..c-. : Llnities fo:::- new U :chl~olo g iu, l ilnova- t io ~ a t s~b s c qucnt s tag es of the pr oject , includ i ng new v2hicl 2 s, s2p2r 2 te �1-J·.,.•,'·. ·1 ·,·-·..;• l, .( \,1.·1~• , 6. J)'-.'l1':) l- ~ •' .•·. \l1\l•·r· .,.-., ~ <· t··1L •• ., 1'01\ <.. , •,1,! 1 •1·ll·'t'-C>t· ·" J. • 1\ l1 ,I -- ,·1l]l. ·'t· I I :• ', Jt>J 11' l 0 J • 0 Assistance to ~:lanta in preparing applications ~or fE:cleral For this ,:i.on itori,,g opcratio:.1·, the CC'I' At lan-ta tear:1. h a s requested a bu-!get of $75,000 frc::-, the fl.!nds av ..: il2ble to the CCT Project for city ?'l'.'G~ ccts. C. Alo;:1g wi t~--. this ::-. onitorin~ effo :- t, Atlc:.nt a ho? es to have t he Centrel Area Study plann ing progra~ in full operation during De ce~bei. T~e st a rt-~~ of t~is proz r a~ is depend ent on the a pprova l of t ~e t e c~nic a l st udies gra~t a pplicu tion for $300,C JO ( $2CO,COO f rom i he fe d eral gov ern~ cossOnity through Cen: ra l At l ant a ? r o;~ess are co- spo~soring this p=ogra3 ,.,:,.ich i s €=:-: pec t ed , a long with t h2 ?L:nnin3 ac t :i.vit ic:.; of A:·S.P C, A).TS , .:..:-.d ~~R7A, to pr ovirl e the ov e r a ll plnnn i~z f r 2me~c=~ f or sub sique nt s t~ges of O?E:<...-:\.°J::IOX l);'.i.'ERCEPT . The CCT t 1::ai11 expc:: ct-s t o worl< along u i th tl'-.e CAS p::o- ---... prove3 e;:1ts :;_:1 Central Atlar...:a a~G t o develo? syst~ms to o!)t a i:i. b z.si .:L... ~--::-:abo~t t ne co~ditions af[ ~c ting i ts ? rc s2nt ar.d f uture dev elop~ent. 122 CCT Atla n~a t2a~ is re~uesting a t otal of $87, 0 00 fr om ~ ~e CCTP budg2t f or cit y project s f 9r this purpose . As s~~ing the gen2ra l endorser-.ent of [~<TA fo r O?~R..'\TIO:, I :.\"TERC:::?7 , the workin3 g.::-oup ir. Atl2ntc1 Hill b e;i:'. lo prepare -t-~ appl icat ion s f o r- f u::.ds o car:::-y tte oper atio n pasc .the i~itial three rront h start -up per io6 i n to t he co~~inua tion of t~e Ste? I and the d 2v eloprn2nt of Steps II ind III. h'e exD~ -::t these a!_)pl ic 2tions to :JC of t ~-10 kines initi2lly: �11 new bus e s tha t c2n be used to expand ti1e shuttle service ~u the l~tter stag2s of Step I co s upplc~cnt or rcpJ.ace t he e x istin~ equip~cGt tha t will ·be put into oµeration i ,!lmedi2tely. We no w esti:n.:ite the cost of the bus(;S and other equip~e~t to be approxima tely $500,000. 2. A de~onstrzcion grant &ppl±cation to provid 2 the funds re- "c;_ui-:- ed to t2st out r.ew a nd inproved ;;; ..c.: ttl e service to allow :or c:-: per:...mentation with f ~rcs a n~ ch arges to provide additio na l ir.duc emen t s for p~~r ons to permit promo tion fo r exp and ed s ervic es , to provid 2 whatever rei ~h urseraen t is re qu i red to the Atla nta Tr an sit Co~pany for un r e covered cost s of oper&ti~g th e serv ic e , a nd to bagir. the p ~ocess of des i g~ i~g new ~q u ipment , ~ ehi clc s , sta tio~s , righc s of way t hac will be need e d f or St e p II of t he o~era t ion . We expe ct tha t t his initial d e~ons t r~t io n wi l l co s t a p- . pc· - -- i·-,-::t- -:-. l y $?8.u'"' 000 - V .o'\. •· • ' - \.- \.:.,: - ) • It i s ?Oss ible t hat o t he r ap; lica tion s nay be f or thcoming fro3 this proc 2s s. I n any c 2. se , ,,Je · wou l d lit 2 t o requ:::s t t h e.t U?·'.'~'A allow O i.l :!'." ,,or:c:.r:.g t ea~ t o k ee p in v e ry clo s e tol!c h with various of t he UXTA s te.E f , to s e c\ '.:he ir a d- ., .. v i c e and guid a~ce on the proper and reo s t sui t ~bl e wa y t o tions . We also a ,1tic:.p a te tha t U:-ff.-\ i t se l f r.:ay want to i.: se the c; .... c- ~ J... - ' L. l. ..... o :E O? : :i:L:\T IOi:\ l:'\TE:lC~PT t o t r y ou t so:ne new types of _v ehicl e s t :·.2t r ent l y ~va ilabl e a nd sui t able ~or this s erv ice. 2 ::-e cur - ~ e f eel tt ~~ cl ~s e ~orking rel.~. t i on s with L: -:TA s taff wi l l be esse:-ttia l dt,ri ng this pr o.:'.: e ss . E. Dui·ing t h:'..s sa2e per io d we expec t t"ha t ~-:..\RT:\ will b egi:-. '.: :1.:; te ch- ni c~l wor k req uired to d e t a il the reg ional r ap i d t~ansi t iys t2~ p ian~ i n~ .. �VYiT~. !10\·l h2 :5 un der cons:i.<lcr2Lion .:.n appl::.cation for a tech,:ic.::;l stecl:f.e:.,; grant of$- - - - - - for th i s pur pose. J6st a s with the CAS planning pro- the regional transport a tion planning body in Atlanta, th e Atlanta Atea Tra~sporia tioi St ~:dy, and will be reliant on and sup?orted by th e Atlanta 2t-::-o;,olit~n Reg iona l ? l.:rnning Co,!1;nissio!!, ,-:hich ,-, ill in sc1re coo r dination of key inp..; t s to bo th ?:?.·oces ses. 'I'h2 CCT te &fil will he l p thc.s 2 2gencies, z.s :requested, to d evelo:J 2.nd syster.-,2 tize v2.rious element s of these work pro; r a~s 2~d o~tputs. III. TP~ LATTER STAGES OF STEP 1 · A. Ey t he fir st o f ::--:.:tr c h 1 970 we 1·-'0"cl:l.d hope to h 2.ve the de::-.0::-,s t-::2 - tio n ;ra~t ~P? li ca ti on ap?roved which wil l a l low ~o r con t i~u&~ion .:.~d improvc:::2r:t of tlic s e rvic e . As s oon as possib l e ' we w::i,1 l d hope to ~12ve the ca~ it 2 l gr=nt a ppl i c£tion a pprov ed in order to. pe~~i t t h2 earli Qs t .no s si-. bl e d.e liv.:::.- y of n ew bu ses . -..... B. Tte CCT tC'.D.::1 wi ll co nt ir,u c its r:·.onitoring opernt ion s on t:-iis prov ed and expancl ed ser v ic e . iii'.:-:- Ptior to _he end of ti s contra c tual oblig a - ,r t ions in J une 1_~70 i t wi ll o.re~_are - - eoo~-L IJ c.l .J- ,. J.. St ep I of OP:-:'.::L".TIOX.S IXTE~CEP'i' fo r .:'~~ J. .s.:1.t a -0 v cl u a t~ ~a E~~ r~su l ts of L.-.:. C:.. _ .. ,..:::, l,')fl'A. • _,,.___ Thi s r epo r t wi ll cont 2.in :re:co:::,::2nda f ions f or Ste p II .s:nd III b f the . O:?E~.ATim~ , and if fca - · sib l e wil l p;ovide a basis f or _supJleffien t ar y or a<lditio~al 2pplic~t iona to G~ITA fo~ de~onstrations and ca pita l grants. These mig~t cover: �I • c:.d3ptabl2 to the n e eds a f this p3. rticul a~. s e r v ice tt:a n co nve:1ti.o·.-,.:::.: buses. 2. Dev 2lop:r,ent of e:-: clusive rig hts of way in central city <llon·~ with S?ecially designed station stops anrl ot h er facilities. 3. Exp,::rnsion of s e rvice to p 2.rk::.ng faciliti es i n othe r locations outside t~e central city bus adj ecent to ex p r essways or major arterials. 4. Re l a tion o f : hi s servic e t o centra l city re sid e n tial na~g n- c·,, 1 (..-., .,..._ 1... y the mod e l cities ne i g hborhoods. borhoo<ls, ,..;-' C::.~ .,,.- ~.; ~- - Ar:. thi s point i ,1 t h e O? C: r~ t i o n , ,-:e s hoi.: ld b e a bl e to d e t er::, ir.e w:.2ther a s iv e l anes , acd s t a tions will p=ov i de 2 syste~ to h a ndl e the c e 2 r -t2r~ gro •.-;th in c o:;:.":'.uter tr c:f fi c to CO\·n,toc-:r:1 ex:::ec ted a s a r esult o f co nt inL,ed c en ter city d e velo pmen t. We s hould b e a ~ l e to d e t ermi n e how a f i n~l f orm o f t ~ is s erv i ce c a n beco~e a b a s ic par t of th e trans?o r ta:ion s y s t em for <low:1t ow"G. . T:ie CCT t e aiT, will a l s o set u p p ro c e c.c!r e s to tra ns f er i t s r..oni- to r- i ng o pero.t ion s to l o c a l o rg2.::i z~~:: i o:'.s b efo r e C. i't i s ter;:nir.ated .--- ·-:_c:- As a r l-su l t oi . t h i s eff o r- t, we ex?ect to hav e ~cicli t i o n2.:=. .o.pi!. i c a - t icns £ o r S t ep r::: c1L,Ju t two y e ~rs. of 0P.F~\TI0N n-:;Tm~c:PT i ,1 1). i.:::-. is a n ticipa t ed to l as t \,:~hi l e it i s too e:n r l y to estima t e c os t s i:o r t,h esc, t lw i r r:10.~1,itucc 1:·ti g h t b e as f allows : Technical St ud ies 2. Dc:i:ons·:: r 2 t ions $8 0C> DOO - $1,500,000 3. Cnp:i.tal gru n t s $2- 4 r.:illion . �- ,·. T" A. Step II would j cgin wi:h :he acceptanc2 by U~~A of thc s 2 s up ple- mcntary or addi{ i on~l grant requests. This would start the process of des :.gnir.g and devclcpil:g nc:w v2hicl.2~, 9 .::: tt:ir.,; up c:,:clu si·Jc r::.3h::s o i: ,_.,;;,.y Ei:;: - . - tn::..s ' . ?roves Gc::Slrc. ' ~-· . bl_2 ) , putting . . st2 t 1-0;-., . J p_._c:.t·p:,;Jrr:i. , ~r. , 2na oc"e;r rc=:ciin s . -. - . antici:iar:2 Step II ,·7ill involve ::-.ore const::-uction 2nd invest2 ~:1t ::_n faci- Ti,e p;.·i:,.cipal .f ecitu:::-e c f Step II ,,~2-y be the . dcvel o;,:-:i~:,t o f r.:::~; vr:hi- cles esp2ci2.2.ly desi.~ncd for this servic2 -- 1:-1 ith lo,-,e r pl~tf oYins > r:~o r e s.2.-rvice tDc:. t fits i:: tnC:! o~s t ~tc., in ord e r to dev e lo? the kind I n add i t i on , we a~t i c i ?2 t e t ha ; -- ch&~~es mi ght b e made in sidew2l~s a~d s tre ~~s to pr ovide 3?2Ci a l t~ r~ou ts, 2r.d oth2r fc:. cilit i e s t ~a t n 2 y prov e ne c essa r y. B. During the d 2velop~ent and 0 ?2 r 2t ion of PHa se Il~ a ~onitor i ng - ·Th i s coul·d b e---:-- pro gra~ s imil ar t o tha t conduct ed in Phase I wil l g o on . th2 r esr,or1s i bility of th e CAS progr 2;-,1 ,.,:, i ch will have. b e en wo rkir.g wi:::h t ~e CC~ tea~ dur ir.; Step I. / C. D-..i-.:-ing t;, i s s ar:ie pe!: iod , AATS 2~,d ?·L-\RTA will be f i r:..in9 up the b asi c p la~ a nd p~ogra~ f or the reg io~a l ra?- . ~r ansit sys t em . sub- c:.:-ea pl 2r.:-_:!.c~ proce:ss wi ll b 2 c'. ev elo:)i-:1g the S?ecifics c~ty sys t c~ r equi red to suppl e~ent c ~2 0i: t he ce::. tc.r bas ::.c reg iona l s ys ~en. This wo=k w:!.11 TCGvide t he b2 sis fo r a s pecific l on~ te rm plan· ... .. . cS.i.1 G . . p::-ugra.m �l I c0:1t2::- city · circulation, which ':!ill inclucl~ t·J1c b2.sic p20?le r:over syste::,s to C:ist:ribut e trav2l .:.: rs within the do,, ntm-.1 r. are.:i to 0 , . par,o.nz and from rapicl transit stations , -:-· ':) .: l .; ~.; , c..., d - uC.J.._..:.,. .L _ _(:!:-' > (..i,.!1 -:cy · dow,,towr: cente-:..·s; 2nd pedestri2.n, goods, v.:.:hic.:lar · r,1ovc:.,C!r!t, and offstr e et pnrkin~ faci l ities. This system plan will also i~clude a specific ti~e phase action progr am for imple3 entatio~ and sp e cific plans fer organi.zation3l responsibility. D. This planning will result in about two-three years in re~uests to 1:-iTA for th e i::.::ile2 2ntation of v.::rious p<::.·;: s of Atl2r..t~' s basic plar! . This r:-.ight ir...:.:lude: 1. i CC~n i c a l s tudy gr c nts do de~ailed d2 s ~gn of s peci :: ::_c a cil:'..ties. 2. Cap ital gr2 ~ . . for co~~ t r uc:ic n b f these i a cilities. 3. ·Demo,.s t r 2. t i on graats fo r te s t i n~ out new "~ eople rr.over" faciliti es re cui r ed as ? c r t of the b ~s i c pl a n. -. . ._ ·---~ Thi s pE.ck~g 2: o f ir.prov2r.:Qn t s fo r a c ent e::- c i t y s yst e.n ( exc lusive o f the sys t en ) will proba b l y c o st in r;-, ill i on (,-.rhi c h sho ul d V. oe o:: che cke d ~vith :-~\:ZTA) . P'."I.,'.,_S::: :i: II OT<' OP2RATIC:-l I };TERC::PT i n to t h2 J2velopment p=o g:::-a,:: :Z or i r. pler. e:n tin3 ti,e h::,s ic pl ai1. 1·:e exp e c t the plc. ,, to b-2 i:,:pL:: :-.,on. t e:d �...... -·---··· ~· . ... .; . ·---~---;:-- 21 in a specif ~c tim~-?ha sed s ~~ucncc so ch2t there will be n conti nuous p::-o~r&!!l of p1:El.sin:-;; in n..3w e~er,,2nts to t he basic do~-;nto,;.;!", clistr ibut i c .·. sys-- · tc~ acd phasing uu t others, ~nclu<ling s~~v ices cstabl ish(::d 2a r li0~ i n · OP~~R..'-1.TIC~; I?\'C::'.RCEPT tlnt \;ill no l'ong e r b e need<:=c. Based 0,1. the ? la:1 , w~ c 1•,·-olo ,,·c_. 'fo' r cer:ter city circulat ion ~-1ill be ci ev e:l o _?ed expect tha t new ~., Li.;;. • ur, 1· c; i. .. - a~d te s ced in t h is p~ase , including po ssible noving bel t s or coa vey0=s to p~r: orm or s ~?pl e~enc the fu nctions of t he shuttle bu s of ?hasa I 2nd t~a more exotic fa cilities oper2t ion in Pha se II. i s viewed as pro c2ss w~ i c h ties t oget he r in a s e n s i ~le way raany pieces of circulation system dev2~op=ent f o r centr a l At l anta . We see t~i s as a uniq~e apprcac~ , bl2ndin~ action ~nd pl 2nning into a m~tu~lly ~o~patib le and supportin~ ?roc ess which i s able to respond to the needs of a growing cen tr al Atlan ta ov.e:::- !::::.r.:2 . success. U:.·f'I'A ' s SL!pport for t :-iis whole oper.:::t:ion will be k2y to it s Atlanta ' s a 6 e~cies have alre ~d y be~un the tooling u p process for ·- - Serv i c e wi ll i ::deed be O?erat i ng b y DecE::-::jer 1. - ·Fro.n···now on , · ~-,e ,-:·ou ld like to rs2.::.ain cl os.:: co:it cct wit':1 the UHrA sta:;: r a h igh l evel of : co0:::dinc1tion in prepa-.::-ing and e:--:ecuting the subs eqcs::-,t s tS?S i ~ t~e process. �OPERATIO~~ I l'f f D.C~PT m ~f:\ :\ctioi1 on l·b'1ito r ing & Sho ;_-t Rc:.nge n TERCf?T P l a nn i :1-2; E~ s i c ?la n~i:1g Xov 19" 9 Pro3 r2~ sc~o outlin~s 01?Ef<..:\.'.r IO~ . Il':TE?CEPT t: St e p I A7S st.:ir: s slm~tle Gcn e r 1 1 endorsement of approich at mrrA meetings in Kovc::-,ber Ik e 1969 CCT Team st &r~s mo nitoring o~erations ( see work pr ogram) f irst p:coj ect .;; / '61..1 s s2rv1. ce using P. cur re~ t ly &va ila ble \; 1 • ~ · c qu i p;:ie nt Ci t y ~ske s ap~l i c~tio-i1 c:o E ·G'A t o buy n ew buses (including . ! I ·- - - ·I .:.._,_ so?:J.e cxp2ri:-.".er!ta l CAS ?rogr&~ beg ins proc~ss c:C G2,12lcp i 1-!; b 2.si c pl::i:: · 2.:':.d progr.~:n fo -.c C2:1 t !:"&l At:Lc.nta wo143.215.248.55ng wi t h CCI tea2 (l:!t'.IA Tec"r-,,: ical st-1dy) v e h ici2s ) \~ ..... ,. J. .C 1 ..._ ~ew conv e~tio na l i bu s12s d2li'\'er2d and ,...,.-"'_ _J 1970 put i n to c p~~at ion CCl te2ms continu ~s racnitcri~g 2 Qd helps prepar e bas ic p~osr2Ds for Ph3ses I I and III · ( tests conduc ccd on exper i m~ntal vc~i c les )  :.;.1<.T.\ oc,rs ins 2r:d ~oLr:c. of cetail0J r,:2~~ in8 of basic rapid ·c r ansit syst e_:1 CL--:.-~Ti'l( ':'.2chnic2.l Study ) 'I ! \ ( I J..: ,1e 197 0 , ' ,;·-- - -I t o E -',T,\ for 2. d:::.~.:onstrat i on program t o I t es t out n ew h& r dwa re &cd =ou tings 2nd I ~, ..,. St ep CCT E?{CS exD2.c::l servic e I ,-:;_r ATS o:: :.:.:.":.'."fi'A expand £. :. ::.·\ 1 :ice a s de terD~ned ~n t ~~ Ge2onstr2.tion proj ec t . c:l??lic2.tion / <---------··--·> -c:!7 J~:; e- 1972 .., _ _r Ste:p II I . . 0?..:··:.·~·,tio:: of per,1.1a·~~n~ sy ~te:~ ~or Cen- - At lants agenc i es car=y on with nonito :::.:.,:.i ectivities and interire pl &nning . . . ---... C1~S-~-:..~:..~~·~- d2cj_Q2 0:1 b2sic pl 2~ for Ce~~ ~il. Atla~ta, i~cluCing l in2 h~ul ~~d dist~ibut:ioi:1 syst2::: C:i.ty ( or ~1ARTA) r!1ctl-;.es ~~pl i c atio~ f or capitEl gran t s f or constrectio~ of Cent~al At lanta di strib~ tion syst2~ ( inclcding peopl e: .:::ov (:rs ) I •1-·-.J .. -· -: �. OPERA'l'IC:-;: I ~TERCEPT J t!/tJ &!/l1 C //c'7 P-7 1. Progri.'1.'. } :2rr.o outline s w~ole str2tegy for OPER.~L~J~ I~TERCEPT Xov. 2. m-:TA enclo!'."scs bc.1si~ progra:n ~ov. 10-20, 1969 3. ATS st;;r ts s h~:ttl e bu s s e rvice with currently SV 2. il& Ole e qu :!..p,,1ent Dec. l, 1969 CCT ~ea~ st s rts mo nitor ing opera tions (first )rejec t s in wo r k program) Nov. 24-~0c l, 1$ 69 4. 5. CAS p~c g r a n p=oc2ss o f deveJ.o?ing ba si c pla n and prog r a~ f or Cc~ tra l Atl a ~ ~a working with t e··.,-, ( l,s ·l'.°'\'i7 S r·, q--., .~ 'J_1'.._..;' l.,~1-: , : ; " ·\ T ~ i -:,.,T) (:.~T ._ ..:.;_J. :. l lJ.;.L .J ~1r...,;"'"'7 !.}.,_ F::: _ _. ._, G'~ .1,'. \_~:_'\ U 6. 7, 1969 .1. ; l.. 1 .. _ ... .... \..,e'.° ~ C~ ty reakc s a ; ?li c~t ion f or c u;i t a l and de~onst rs iion fo r Pha se I t o C~~A t o buy new bus e s (i"i1c:ludi:!g e:::~?eri:aent~:l vehic l e s > if -:.·a.;. SO -~, - ~ A de s ires ) 7 • D2 c . · 1969 . ,-ot1·1ci or ,.:; .,, -., ·,] r. --l ·:-·-o.~ " Cl l 1..::L ]111l .. '-- '-* ....._ s ~ud i es r eqJi r e t to p lan ~ ~ d ~c cid2 on b a s ic r :iJ id tr~"1s it sys t 2:n ( AS SC;:~i":: S U:-:T.-\. TECrl~I CAL · v",..,-" .\ .. ..... -1..\. .J. ... h1,..11..::. nr:-• ,:.:. i,· ~ ~ -.:-:- ? -n· - G'. 0 J... 1 \,,,,;, - ......,_.._ (._,. _ .1-.....\.... J z.n- ~1~r 1970 ST UD~ES GRJ:u-;;'i') 8. - As re s ul t o f. 6, ATS g et s deliv ery o f n2w bu s es ar..C :_:, u ts thi::~:1 :I.."r:to op er .::-~t i or.. 0~1 s :-..u ::t l e s cr- ·u..-~ .-i ~L.b0 v .:..L~~e (.;-- "Cl -- · 9. 10 . 1· - e s ~-; ,._ - -"" · .~ (!'·10 · ,.,._ "'" ~- 1 .'\. _ ,~ ..__ -i. i • . . IC l,.• ~ l.. <.;....._ ' V".._ " t.. 41 i· cl c ~~) ~fa r - :,:;, r 1 978 CC'!' c: 02.~ contir.uc s r::or,it oriug a _n d he l p s pre pz,.re b 2s ic pro,;ram for Phases II 2nc: III c..: 0:i?:ER...\TIO~ Ci t y ( o r :-IP.n.TA) r.cc:~""2s a pp l ic:::tion to 1I'.1TA f or . a 143.215.248.55ons trat i on proj e ct for ?~as e I I of INTERCE?T - - p r o;; r 2.:.1 invo l ves t 2 st s of n2u :,2.rdu2re , ro~tings, serv ic e expansion, i i f2asi~ le Jun2 197 0 11 . CC1 p:oj e ct e nds Ju::e 1 97 0 12. At:; (o:- NMff).. '.) c ,~:10.n d s shut t l e sc:r-v ici':! u pon rec e ip t of dcno~st!'."ation gran t , begins operat i ons wit h new feacu=es Jur.c I 13 . lL.-. 1970 t o Ju ~:e 19n An nro~riace Atlanta agencies ( CAS ) continue monitoring activ ities as par t of t he d c~o~stracio n project grant J t: ne 1970 to June 1$72 C.--'.S-~·fARTA co~:·!_)lete i-. .)rk on o ,, Ei.c pL.n, incl;.!ding· syste::1 for· Cc:1t~.:"!l ...:lantc=c 1-: i:::-1 line h .:::ul c:.. ;.1d d~s~ r~bJ ticn :eat~ ~2s (su~w~y , pe ople movers, J2.1:-Jun('! :'..972 �n2lls, street, pedestrian goods ~ov22ent systcns, 15~ 1.)';")onn ,,, ( ~-:..~ ~ l\. \..Ji\..c'-:1-'! appc::rt~:r.::;, etc.), incJ..udi:1g TI:·~E .L._., .. ~.:oval t,y loc&l 2.ut:10~:ities) .1. 15. 1 ,. _o. Ci-ty ?-!AR'I'A ;;;,::.:-:-:: c.!?plica::ion for C2'.")it..:: grants for constructio~ of basic Ccntrnl Atlancn distri-,-,, ~,., ·b <..:.!':iC'--6 - - ·· ·' o ,.... -·- C-:.' · "l)n,',G"' .< b .,-;on ~L..L ~./-..JI...Cf:1, ... T~~rr. _ _Li, JL "0 .... '~ l-C... U....J .. .1.\.\.J 1\....iU.l Jur:~ 1972 Operations bc;ia on con~truc~ion &~d operation of parts o~ system, incluciing p~ople movers~ etc. 1973-1975 -. . ._ ·---~ ' \, �RICHARD B. RUSSELL, GA., CHAIRMAN ALLEN J. ELLENDER, LA. JOHN L. MC CL ELLAN, ARK. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, WASH . S PESSARD L. HOLLAND, FLA. JOHN C . STENNIS, MISS. JOHN O. PASTORE, R.I. ALAN BIBLE, NEV. ROBERT C . BYRO, W.VA. GALE W. MC GEE, WYO. MIKE MANSFIELD, MONT. WILLIAM PROXMIRE, WIS . RALPH YARBOROUGH, TEX. JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, N. MEX. MILTON R. YOUNG, N. OAK. KARLE. MUNDT, S. oAJ<. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, MAINE ROMAN L. HRUSKA , NEBR . GORDON ALLOTT, COLO . NORRIS COTTON, N . H. CLIFF ORD P. CASE , N.J. HIRAM L. FONG, HAWAII J. CALEB BOGGS, DEL. JAMES B. PEARSON, KANS. COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS WASHINGTON, THOMAS J. SCOTT, CHIEF CLERK WM. W. WOODRUFF, COUNSEL 0.C. 20510 September 17 , 1969 Honorable Ivan Allen , Jr . , May or Ci ty of Atla n ta Atlan ta , Geo rg ia Dear Ivan: Permit me t o a c knowledge and tha nk y o u for sending me a copy of y o ur l etter t o t h e Admi nistrato r o f the Urban Mass Tr a nspo rtatio n Adm i n i stration relative t o Atlanta ' s applicatio n f o r Department of Transpo rtatio n ass i stance in develo ping a SubArea Transpo rtation Study f o r Central Atlanta. Needless to say, I am anxious to be o f any possible assistance and I have been glad to get in touch with the Urban Mass Transportation Administration on this matter . I shall, of course , send you any reply received . With best wishes and cordial �Sundby, Journal-Constitution,11/23/60 Atlanta . In ' Excellent Position' For Federal Funds, He Says By BILL COLLINS ) The U.S. secreta ry of transportalion says Atlanta will b~ i ' ra n excellent position ., to get two-thirds of the money for a rapid ~a~sit . tern from the fede ral government. - · .John \ olpe. former governor of i\1assachu etts and one of the front_-runners for the vice presidential nod at r~.&143.215.248.554'.=:.{' the 1968 Repub- i"" · ~if~~· lican presid n- 1 i.::,::, .,. ial convenli n I _.,;:t~ ·. I ":1~,/;at ~'.;~~ '"';:&,ti -::::..,.:..1 '.;r..i.i.Y'~.- lo address the l l th a n n u a l ~!~i143.215.248.55I o~ ;l~~ H,M Al ~-1{/;ff>: ;]f fere,1ce of State ,/ ~~l J\.,M;.~ i ~-- e g i s 1ati,-e r~-~-~/1 lNtbil Leaders. John , ·011,c The secretan:. at·a news conference before: his speech, explained the :'; ixon administrali n's SIO billion. 12-year public transportation bill and said Atlan ta "ma~· gel the jump on other cities· • fo · funds under the bill. if the measure is approved by Congress. · He said the bill would author- . ize him to make '3.1 billion 1 available 11nmeciia Lei_ LIJJU" ii.s I being sign ed into law. The iederal money would be spent over five years. - He a l-o aid-Atlanta-;-~uld be "in an excel! nt position" to get a federal grant totaling twothirds of the cost o[ -a rapid transit system because of the planning (t ha done and also because it is one of ftve...'.'~eqJer cj!i~s." VOLPE POl:'\TED OUT, however, that under the proposed bill no one state could get more than 12 1~ per cent of the total appropriation. He also told newsmen the Vietnam war i not draining fund s he ha s requested for hi s department and ad ded. "The administration and the di r ector of the Bureau of the Budget have approved the hrn transportati on bills l ha, e requested." Volpe a'.I· the two mea ures he would like to see enacted include the 10. l-billion public transporta tion bill and the ai rport-ai rwa>·· bill which would provide S2 .5 billion for air-traffic control and $2.5 billion for construction of new airports and explansion of existing fac,ililies . He said the ad ministration is concerned about in-fli ght crashes and f -c l. th airport;iirways bill would h Ip diminish th e po ibility of futur collisions. ¥. ith $2.5 billion of the airp.orl-airn·;:i>·s bill, Volpe explained. the fed ral government " ould work towards d vclopmcnt of a fully automa lrd system e iJ.:.:lU! ffic control s·yst m. "THE OTHER . 2.5 billion "\ould be used to help build 900 . ~1rports and expand 2,700 airfields around the country" Volpr said. ' Thf . secr~tary said the ixon adm;f's(rat1on ~opes to restrict the ~umber of mcomin g flights a~ f 'e of the nation 's busiest a1rpor_ts and to better control .the fl _1ghts at 22 other airports rncludmg Atlanta· . ' I_n his remarks to the 800 legisJati:'e leaders attending the fou11-day conference. Volpe _c~lked ~bou_t the need for federa1-srace-1oca1 government cooo- ! • I I eration in solving the nation's problems. I "Much of the glamour power and I prestige that once surrounded state Capitols shifted to Washington in the pa st 25 yea rs," he said. "And when the power went to Washington, man y of the talented young men went also. I Washinglon has been the mecc.a forfyoung A m e r i c a n s who wa 1ted lo dedicate their li ves to ful jillment of the American · dr ~a m, " he added. I \ OLPE A10 there has been ! a trend towards reversin g the I gro wing depcndenc on the fed- I era! government in the past few . year!:#. "This new trend first became stron e ly evident und r President J.ohn son," he added. ' 'But P residenl 1 ixon has gone a slep furth er. He ha s proposed a prngram of revenue sharing betw en Lhe stal s and Wa shingto n. And, although it is a mod es! beginning, it wi ll be stepped up, Volpe said. �u �• CITY OF .ATL~TT.A CITY HALL June 23, 196 9 ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR R. EARL LANDERS , Administrati ve Assi st ant MRS . ANN M. MOSES, Executive Secretary DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Director of Governmental Li aison Mr. John A. Volpe Secretary o'f Transportation Washington, D. C. Mr. C. C. Villarreal, Administrator Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Washington, D. C. 20590 Gentlemen: Atlanta's Central Area has and will continue to experience a growth rate that only a handful of cities in the world have ever experienced. Employment, travel and other Central City activities will double between 1961 and 1983. Obviously, this growth will impose many transportation and development problems. Over the years, the cooperative efforts of public agencies and private groups, working toward mutually agreed-upon goals, have resulted in the devel b pment of Atlanta as the Southeast's premier metropolis. Although we take pride in our generation's accomplishments, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. We must instead redouble our efforts in the future to assure that the dynamic growth which lies immediately ahead will be relevantly planned and developed for the citizens of tomorrow. The Atlanta Area Transportation Policy Committee through its respective staffs and consultants has worked closely with the Urban Mass Transit Administration staff and its consultants in the development of a series of logical decisions on procedures to be followed relative to a trans port~tion p r ogram for technical study. The transportation program for technical study is characterized by : �Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal Pag e Two June 23, 1969 1. The continuation of the Atlanta Area Transportation Study (AA TS) Plan, approved in principle and adopted as a guide to be followed by the Atlanta Area Transportation Study Policy Committee and the City of Atlanta. 2. Synchronization of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority's (MAR TA) proposed application for tech_nical studies with Item 1 above. 3. Synchronization of the Central Area Study, a sub-area transportation study for the Central Area of Atlanta with Item 1 above. This is a unique team effort between the City of Atlanta and Atlanta's business community. As mentioned earlier , the Atlanta Area Transportation Study has been adopted as a guide to be followed for further transportation studies. This action provides an important step in Atlanta's history and link with the Central City Transportation Project. Though we have talked in the past in theory and fact about our urban transportation problems and solutions, we have never had the resources or opportunity to_follow through with them. The Central City Transportation Project would afford us an opportunity and the necessary resources to test transportation approaches and so lutions, such as our 11 busways proposal", and further to detail improvements to our transportation network. The CCT team of consultants headed by Arthur D. Little; Skidmore, O wens and Merrill; Wilbur Smith and A s sociates; and the Real Estate Research Corporation has worked very well with our local public and private agencies in the developme nt of Phase 1 of this undertakin g. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for allowing the City of Atlanta to participate along with the above consultants in Phase 1 of the Central City Transportation Project. It has proven to be most meaningful to us. . The Department of Transportation is also to be commended for its · keen awareness and willingness to tackle the transportation problems of urban cities. The CCT project can be most h e lpful to the City of Atlanta in the development of local transportation and related programs. In addition, the experience gained here can be of great help to you and your department in developing subsequent transportation policies which. will lead toward meeting our national transportation goals. �Messrs. Volpe and Villarreal Page Three June 23, 1969 We are very proud of the comprehensive, broad based transportation planning efforts being conduct e d here in Atlanta. We would earnestly request that Atlanta be included as one of those cities to be studied under Phase II of the Central Cities Transportation project. In our view, this project serves to compliment the planning effort now being put forth in the Atlanta region. & yo\,,,u.,.r_s_,_-..J~ Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor ~ ~ /i?w/~~,,d-.,.,.~ William Maynard, Ch AA TS Policy Committee IAJr. /WM:fy �January 13, 1966 Mr. Glenn E . B nnett, Sec retary The Interim Study Com.miss i on of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Glenn Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Glenn: In connection with your letter of January llth asking for my appointment to th Fillanc Committee of the Metropolitaii Atlanta Ra ·d Tran it Autho~ity, tbi is to advi ·t hat Mr. R. Earl L ndel'EJ , my Admim. r tiAs i , 11 s rve in thi capa.c ty. Sine rely your , Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor IAJr/br CC: Mr. Landers/ � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 9, Complete Folder Box 6 Box 6 Folder 9 Folder topic: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/8fa3102be4f96acd9466206e5c8cf359.pdf b7a747b24d7826b790eadf463cca9633 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. CENTRAL COMPUTERIZED POLICE RECORD SYSTEM METROPOLITAN ATLANTA COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Atlanta, Georgia Duration of project 12 months Project cost $65,000.00 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document CENTRAL COMPUTERIZED POLICE RECORD SYSTEM METROPOLITAN ATLANTA COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Atlanta, Georgia Duration of project - 12 months Project cost - $65,000.00  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 6, Document 5 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 6 Folder topic: Metropol | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/7d19e54503c17abcd16c228b3cacf995.pdf a0101bb1f1d79e6eee771afed88c5487 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. - - ------~ =-==:-----==-===~--:------~ July 11. 1966 Mr. Char1 City City City tl t. D vi Com troll r of tl nt B 11 t # Geo i 30303 ar Ch :rli a r gr ing g ugg rown ion . .. in 1 • th t you brought. up . ring C ould li q O y- �r. Cbarl L. n vi cost, then the d l n •. u th m rg o hould fund t.o with Atlant • fort n try to c - tt full in or You c rt inly hould nd to you t will be h tio not b July 11 # 1966 - 2 - on thi xp ct. t.ing . for your augg tion .. Your L C::,-Jr. yn r,ro CCI ngin Jtr. Mr. ~: Mr. v ry ~ruly, r r•Pl nn r � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document July 11, 1966 - Mr. Charles L. Davis City Comptroller City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Charlie: Your letter of July 7 regarding Brown Engineering Company's presentation has some good suggestions. I would like to comment on some items that you brought up. Atlanta Metropol submitted an application for a grant of $65,000. This is the only figure that has been approved by Metropol and by the Council of Local Governments. Jack Harrell of Brown Engineering talked with Dr. Emmerich of the Department of Justice and suggested amending the ap- plication to increase the grant to $100,000. Dr. Emmerich was to talk with his superiors and then let Metropol know how to proceed, To date we have no further word. Any amended application should be considered by both Metropol an@ MACLOG before being submitted officially. We have no commitment to Brown Engineering. Brown's Wash- ington office learned of our application and decided that they would like to be our consultants. We should investi- gate further and pick the best qualified firm. Before we consider a contract with Brown Engineering or any- one else I recommend that we reach an understanding on several other matters. For example, is Atlanta willing to provide the computer service for Metropol? If so, then ob- viously Atlanta should have a major voice in the selection of the computer consultant. If preliminary studies indicate that Metropol is able and willing to pay its share of the am tiie re i nil _ stitial nee puede les seein eat ee 2 ————————— ————— Mr. Charles L. Davis -~2- July 11, 1966 cost, then the design work should be merged with Atlanta's plans. We should avoid duplication of effort and try to use the funds to speed up the work. We will be happy to distribute to the committee full infor- mation on this project when received. You certainly should not be expected to act on something handed to you at a meeting. Thanks for your suggestions. Yours very truly, oe, WMJr irc Engineer-Planner ec: Mr. Alan Kiepper Mr. Harold McCart an Barl Landers + Dan Sweat Mr. George Berry  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 6, Document 4 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 6 Folder topic: Metropol | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/57ef453bac3fe2b2f572bff2b3d8d964.pdf 8abf78c5c31e3acfe99b841fda53d338 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. July 14 , 1966 Mr . Wayne Moore , Jr. Engi neer - Planner Atlanta Metropol 900 Gl-2nn Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Moore : I am constantly asked questions concerning the Metropol application for the computer system development. Would it be possible for me to obtain a copy of the application submitted to the Justice Department? The City of Atlanta is considering submission of an application which should tie in to the Metropol pplication as I understand it. However , without full knowledge of what is in the Metropol application, I fear that there could be some duplic tion and this we would like to prevent. Sincerely yours. Dan Sweat DS:fy � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document July 14, 1966 Mr. Wayne Moore, Jr. Engineer-Planner Atlanta Metropol 900 Glenn Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Moore: I am constantly asked questions concerning the Metropol application for the computer system development. Would it be possible for me to obtain a copy of the application submitted to the Justice Department? The City of Atlanta is considering submission of an application which should tie in to the Metropol application as I understand it. However, without full knowledge of what is in the Metropol application, I fear that there could be some duplication and this we would like to pregent. Sincerely yours, Dan Sweat DS:fy  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 6, Document 3 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 6 Folder topic: Metropol | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/8aa194bb188da9e4218f5658d445cada.pdf c117bca94fe0489cd5a53eb83111ce67 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. REQUEST FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE FUNDS The necessity for central computerized police records for the Metropolitan Area of Atlanta was clearly demonstrated by the 1965 activities of Atlanta Metropol. This group of area policemen met together , trained together and worked together in efforts to find and solv e their mutual problems to the satisfaction of all concerned. The problem of police records, standardization of report forms and computers came to the forefront in Metropol when it was discovered, through dayto_- day work with the various departments, that no universal method was used in keeping records in the 49 different departments. Considering the fact that the city limits of Atlanta borders on six other independent police jurisdictions, it is obvious that many problems cross city limits and that information from one department would be valuable to others. The multiplicity of files delays this e x change of information. A look at the entire Metropolitan Atlanta Area shows a similar situation e x ists , but on an e x panded scale . This fivecounty area is some 1 , 724 square miles in ex tent . Its population is about 1,200,000 or approx imately one-fourth that of the State of Georgia. Of the 33 cities of Georgia with a population of 10,000 or more, nine are found in this Metropolitan Atlanta Area. It includes five county governments and 44 municipal gover nments. This proposed project has been planned in three phases. Phase one will i nvolve the five-county area of Metropolitan Atlanta and wi ll se r ve as a model for the remainder of the state; phase two will include the entire state with regional me e tings planned and field assistance being given to any department t hat is i nterested in using the services or setti ng up a s i milar s y stem; phase three will also be statewide and will be an added attempt to e x tend the use of this s y stem to depa rtments that were unable to come in under phase two . F ield ass i stance and regional meetings are also planned for this third phase . PHASE ONE : Ea ch o f the 4 9 depar tments in the Metropolitan Area has i ts own s y stem of keeping r ecords as well as its own s et of r epo rt f orms . To begin with , an i nventory of the r e c o rd s y s tems and r epor t forms of each department would be mad e to d ete rmin e the n eed . This f irst step in phase one wo u ld b e d o ne large ly b y sub- cont r act to competent c o n s u l tant s wo rking u n d er the Me tropolitan Atl an ta Counc i l o f Lo cal Governments wi th techni c a l a s sistan ce fr om t he Metro p o l S t eer i ng Commi tte e. - 1 - �Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds ( Cont ' d.) After this inventory is complete, an advisory committee (consisting primarily of members of the Metropol Steering Committee, the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation), wor~ing with the Project staff, will prepare a standard set of report forms, record systems, and files that would be suitable for use by all police jurisd{ctions in the area. This material would be graduated so that a small police department could use only a portion if it desired, but the portion used would be . compatible with the whole system. This material would be prepared in such form as to be readily adaptable to the use of data processing equipment. The feasibility of using central electronic data processing equipment would be studied. This study would cover the use of existing equipment, equipment on order, commercial units, or new installations. It is conceivable that a start might be made under one system, then progress to other units as they become available or the use of the system is expanded. The study would include a proposal for sharing the cost of the data processing between the governments included. When the inventory is complete, standard report forms are developed and the cost of the system is determined, those persons responsible for its operation would then be trained. A short course in this type instruction is planned as part of the project and will include the police chiefs, persons who will fill in the report forms , keypunch operators and others who might be affected. As this system is developed , members of the advisory committee will be making frequent evaluations of each thing that is done. Use will be made of two existing committees for these progress checks on the project. One , the Steering Committee of Metropol , the o ther, the Data Processing Study Committee of the Council of Local Gove r nments. The former, composed of experienced law e n forcement officers , would provide the needed technical pol ice experience and knowledge for standardization o f files , reco r ds and reports . The latter committee is made up of men with data processing background , budget and management skills . Th i s group would be admirable for reviewing the program development , the cost sharing plans, and the implementation of the computer part of the project. Both groups are already organ ized and active as seen by the annual report of MACLOG - ( Appendix A of t his application). - 2 - �Reques t for Law Enfo rcement Assistance Fun ds (Co n t 1 d. ) When phase one has been completed , members of the staff of the Institute of Gove rnmen t at t he Uni versity of Georgia will make an over-all evaluation of the value of the project and suggest methods of i mpr ov ement . By ma king this evaluation, they will be in a better pos i t i o n t o c arry out phases two and three of the project . In the in itial phase of the project , as in the remaining two, the police departmen ts wi ll be t he target groups or the groups most affected , a l th ough the ent i re state will benefit because of increased effic i ency in police work. This project is designed to d emons t rate the added capabilities a police department gains by h aving c omputer-fast access to central area-wide fil es. As phase one is designed to serve as a model fo r the rema inder of the state, computer capabilities will be demons t rated before the two final phases of this project are i n i t i ated o The es t imated comple ti on t i me of th e three phases is one year each . Phase one will se r ve as a model for the state, but will include only the f ive-county Metr opolitan Atlanta Area. This phase will be c onduc ted by competent pe r sonnel from the Atlanta area, while phases t wo and t h r ee wi ll be administered by the Ins titute of Gover nment o f the Un i versity of Georgia, Athens, Georgia . A b r e a kdown of the es timated time schedule for phase one is as follows: A. An i n ven t or y of th e reco rd s and re po rt forms used by all p o l i c e d e partmen ts in the area befo r e co nduct ing t he invento ry , all the police chi e fs wi ll be c a lled i n to a meeting in which an explana t i o n of t h e purpose of the i nventory will be g i ven - estimat ed completion time for this step is two month s . B. Des i g n i n g t he s y s t em, standardizing of r e p o r t fo r ms , sys tem a n alysi s , a n d de t ermining the cos t of t h e e n ti r e s y s t em , a.s well as the c ost t o e ach jur i sd i ct i on us i ng the system - estima ted comple ti o n time is s ix months . C. Or i e n tat ion g i ven to pol i ce chiefs , persons r e sponsib l e for fil l i n g o u t r epo rt fo r ms , keypunch operator s , etc o - a s h ort cour se in t h is typ e i n s tr u ction i s p l anned - es t i ma te d compl etion time is one mo nt h . - 3 - �Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont ' d . ) D. Coding of system . Contingent on approval of operating contract between cities and counties. Estimated completion time is six months. E. Evaluation b y competent personnel during development of s y stem as well as a.'."ter the system has been in operation - estimated time for final evaluations is one-two months. F. Publication of complete report on project for distribution to interested police departments estimated time two months. Total estimated time required to carry out phase one of this proposed project, 12 months. Phase two of the project will be expanded to include departments throughout the state . With the regional meetings planned and the vast amount of f i eld assistance that will be required, it is e x pected that another 12 months will be necessary to complete phase two. Phase three is similar to phase two in that it will consist of regional meetings and a great amount of field assistance. This phase i s designed to pick up those smaller departments in the state that were unable to come in. when phase two was { n ope r atio n and should also be completed in 12 months. FINANCIAL RESOURCES I tem iz ed Estimate of Project Cost. PHASE ONE: A. B. C. D. E. F. No te: Inven t ory o f r ecords and reports Systems Anal y s i s and Design Or ientat i o n a n d Sh ort Courses Co ding of Sy stem 1 00 h o urs of IBM 7040 compute r t i me Eval uati o n Publicati o n of Repo r ts Traveling Exp ens e Telephone - Po s t age - e tc . No capital outlay inc luded i n the abo ve estimate. - 4 - $ 5,000 22 , 500 4, 000 . 15 , 000 10,000 2 , 000 3, 000 3, 000 5 00 $ 6 5 , 000 �Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) Local Contribution: 3 months of Coordinator's time. 3 months of Asst. Coordinator; Administrative overhead for above two employees. All office space, conference rooms for project. ARMPC staff time - artists, research personnel, and stenographers. Police staff personnel for technical assistance. Any capital outlay required. It is contemplated that contracts will be negotiated between local governments to install and operate the system if it is found to be feasible and within the capabilities of the local governments. No part of the requested funds would be spent on capital outlay. PHASE TWO: PHASE THREE: No funds requested at this time for these parts of the over-all project. No funds requested at this time for these parts of the over-all project . In phase one of this proposed project , the work would be done under the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments with assistance being given by the Steering Committee of Atlanta Metropol . The Council of Local Governments has available two full - time employees to coordinate the activity, with complete staff support furnished , under contract, by Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. All of the facilities of ARMPC , such as office space , co n ference room , printing equipment , e tc., would be available when needed. Since ARMPC has in itiated many activities and projects involving Federal aid , th e i r assistance in the administration of phase one will be e x tr emel y valuable. - 5 - �Request for Law Enforcemen t Assistance Funds (Cont ' d. ) The Counci l of Governments ' biggest accomplishment to date has been the organization of the area policemen into a group known as Atlanta Metropol. This group was organized -in June, 1965, and set thr ee pr i me objectives as a beginning - better communications, better training and better ciooperation. To date, th~y have been extremely successful in all their endeavors. Their accomplishments through December 31, 1965 are listed in the 1965 Annual Report of the Metropol i tan Atlanta Council of Local Governments - ( Appendix . A). Since then, Metropol has started its fourth training institute with 52 men having less than two years ' experience being trai ned . Th ey also have definite plans for a week-long administrative school for top level officers beginning March 28. This school will include men from throughout the state and an attendance of 150 is expected. In this school , as in all the others, Metropol will be given a great amount o f assistance from the Federal Bureau o f Investigation. The latest accomplishment of Metropol ( since the completion o f the 1 965 Annual Report) was an IBM demonstration it sponsored January 19 in which the capabilities of computers in police work were demonstrated. As stated in a previous paragraph, Atl anta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission and At l anta Metropol can be exp e cte d to be very cooperative in car r ying out phase o n e of the project. Others who can be expected to cooperate are the staff members of the Ins titute of Government a t the University o f Georgia and the computer division of Georgia State College . During phases two and three of the project , the above mentioned agencies, as well a s the Council o f Local Governments, will a s si s t the I nsti t ute o f Government at the University o f Georgi a in every way possible . For assistance thus far on this proj ect , the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been contacted and can be expected to partici p ate in all t hre e phases of the project . As previously stated , phase one o f this project wil l be do ne under the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments with assistance from At l anta Metropol. From these two groups and from several outs ide sources, an advisory committee will be f ormed that will develop the gu i d e lines to be followed in each step o f phase one. By dev e lopi ng t h ese g u ide lines and seeing the e n d r e sul ts, t h is g r oup can mak e their e v a luations - 6 - �Request for Law Enforcemen t Assistance Funds ( Co n t ' d o) as the projec t progresses r a t her than an over-all evaluation when i t i s complete . For a n over-all evalua t ion of phase one, members of t h e s ta f f of t he I ns t itute of Government at the University of Geo r g ia wil l take over . Since they are respons i ble for carry ing ou t pha ses two and three of this project , it is . onl y reasonabl e t h a t t hey would be the logical group to determine t he effec tiven ess of phase one. From this , they can dete r mine whether it would be profitable to continue with the two fina l phas e s . As clearly sta ted in t he ex plana t ion of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, i ts p r imary purpose is to identify workable solutions t o the nat i o n ' s c r ime control problems . We feel that we have s uch a s olut ion i n our proposed project. It will onl y have loc a l i mpac t i n phase one , but this impact will be increased and i nc l ude the entire state in phases two and three . Ot h er s t a te s could certainly profit by the basic work done on pol i ce re co r d s a nd f i les . The feasibility study on data proce ssing should be a valuable guide to states consider i ng t he use o f s uch e qu i pment . A full report of phase one wi ll be pr inted in s u f f i c i ent quanti t ies to provide copies for i nte r e sted gov e r nment s. Th i s typ e s ystem h as been tri ed and is operating' successfully in certain areas o f the cou ntry , but it would def i nitely be an i nnovatio n f o r the Me tropol itan Atlanta Ar ea and for the State of Geo r g ia. Our p roposed p r oject i s designed as an act i on p r o gram as we pl an t o comput€r ize the police records of t he ma j o rity of t he poli c e department s in the state within thre e y ears. I n e s sence , t h is p r oject proposes to move law enfo rcement wo rk fr om it s p r e s e nt an ti quated level to a s oph i s ticated , mo dern , e l e c tron i c a g e level , wi thout going through the time - consuming e vo l u tionary process that otherwise wi ll b e re qu ired . The ul t ima te goal i s the reduct i on of c rime. - 7 - � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document REQUEST FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE FUNDS The necessity for central computerized police records for the Metropolitan Area of Atlanta was clearly demonstrated by the 1965 activities of Atlanta Metropol. This group of area policemen met together, trained together and worked together in efforts to find and solve their mutual problems to the sat- isfaction of all concerned. The problem of police records, standardization of report forms and computers came to the forefront in Metropol when it was discovered, through day- to-day work with the various departments, that no universal method was used in keeping records in the 49 different depart- ments. Considering the fact that the city limits of Atlanta borders on six other independent police jurisdictions, it is obvious that many problems cross city limits and that infor- mation from one department would be valuable to others. The multiplicity of files delays this exchange of information. A look at the entire Metropolitan Atlanta Area shows a simi- lar situation exists, but on an expanded scale. This five- county area is some 1,724 square miles in extent. Its popu- lation is about 1,200,000 or approximately one-fourth that of the State of Georgia. Of the 33 cities of Georgia with a population of 10,000 or more, nine are found in this Metro- politan Atlanta Area. It includes five county governments and 44 municipal governments. This proposed project has been planned in three phases. Phase one will involve the five-county area of Metropoli- tan Atlanta and will serve as a model for the remainder of the state; phase two will include the entire state with regional meetings planned and field assistance being given to any department that is interested in using the services or setting up a similar system; phase three will also be statewide and will be an added attempt to extend the use of this system to departments that were unable to come in under phase two. Field assistance and regional meetings are also planned for this third phase. PHASE ONE: Each of the 49 departments in the Metropolitan Area has its own system of keeping records as well as its own set of report forms. To begin with, an inventory of the record systems and report forms of each department would be made to determine the need. This first step in phase one would be done largely by sub-contract to competent consultants working under the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments with technical assistance from the Metropol Steering Committee. Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) After this inventory is complete, an advisory committee (con- sisting primarily of members of the Metropol Steering Committee, the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation), working with the Project staff, will prepare a standard set of report forms, record systems, and files that would be suitable for use by all police juris- dictions in the area. This material would be graduated so that a small police department could use only a portion if it desired, but the portion used would be compatible with the whole system. This material would be prepared in such form as to be readily adaptable to the use of data processing equipment. The feasibility of using central electronic data processing equipment would be studied. This study would cover the use of existing equipment, equipment on order, commercial units, or new installations. It is conceivable that a start might be made under one system, then progress to other units as they become available or the use of the system is expanded. The study would include a proposal for sharing the cost of the data processing between the governments included. When the inventory is complete, standard report forms are developed and the cost of the system is determined, those per- sons responsible for its operation would then be trained. A short course in this type instruction is planned as part of the project and will include the police chiefs, persons who will fill in the report forms, keypunch operators and others who might be affected. As this system is developed, members of the advisory committee will be making frequent evaluations of each thing that is done. Use will be made of two existing committees for these progress checks on the project. One, the Steering Committee of Metro- pol, the other, the Data Processing Study Committee of the Council of Local Governments. The former, composed of exper- ienced law enforcement officers, would provide the needed technical police experience and knowledge for standardization of files, records and reports. The latter committee is made up of men with data processing background, budget and manage- ment skills. This group would be admirable for reviewing the program development, the cost sharing plans, and the implemen- tation of the computer part of the project. Both groups are already organized and active as seen by the annual report of MACLOG — ( Appendix A of this application). a Bo  Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) When phase one has been completed, members of the staff of the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia will make an over-all evaluation of the value of the project and suggest methods of improvement. By making this evaluation, they will be in a better position to carry out phases two and three of the project. In the initial phase of the project, as in the remaining two, the police departments will be the target groups or the groups most affected, although the entire state will benefit because of increased efficiency in police work. This project is designed to demonstrate the added capabilities a police department gains by having computer-fast access to central area-wide files. As phase one is designed to serve as a model for the remainder of the state, computer capabilities will be demonstrated before the two final phases of this pro- ject are initiated, The estimated completion time of the three phases is one year each. Phase one will serve as a model for the state, but will include only the five-county Metropolitan Atlanta Area. This phase will be conducted by competent personnel from the Atlanta area, while phases two and three will be administered by the Institute of Government of the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. A breakdown of the estimated time schedule for phase one is as follows: A. An inventory of the records and report forms used by all police departments in the area - before conducting the inventory, all the police chiefs will be called in to a meeting in which an explanation of the purpose of the inventory will be given - estimated completion time for this step is two months. B. Designing the system, standardizing of report forms, system analysis, and determining the cost of the entire system, as well as the cost to each jurisdiction using the system - esti- mated completion time is six months. C. Orientation given to police chiefs, persons responsible for filling out report forms, key- punch operators, etc. - a short course in this type instruction is planned - estimated completion time is one month, Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) D. Coding of system. Contingent on approval of operating contract between cities and counties. Estimated completion time is six months. E. Evaluation by competent personnel during devel- opment of system as well as after the system has been in operation - estimated time for final evaluations is one-two months. F. Publication of complete report on project for distribution to interested police departments - estimated time two months. Total estimated time required to carry out phase one of this pro- posed project, 12 months. Phase two of the project will be expanded to include departments throughout the state. With the regional meetings planned and the vast amount of field assistance that will be required, it is expected that another 12 months will be necessary to complete phase two. Phase three is similar to phase two in that it will consist of regional meetings and a great amount of field assis- tance. This phase is designed to pick up those smaller depart- ments in the state that were unable to come in when phase two was in operation and should also be completed in 12 months. FINANCIAL RESOURCES Itemized Estimate of Project Cost. PHASE ONE: A. Inventory of records and reports $ 5,000 B. Systems Analysis and Design 22,500 C. Orientation and Short Courses 4,000. D. Coding of System 15,000 100 hours of IBM 7040 computer time 10,000 E. Evaluation 2,000 F. Publication of Reports 3,000 Traveling Expense 3,000 Telephone - Postage - etc. 500 $ 65,000 Note: No capital outlay included in the above estimate. Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) Local Contribution: 3 months of Coordinator's time. 3 months of Asst. Coordinator. Administrative overhead for above two employees. All office space, conference rooms for project. ARMPC staff time - artists, research personnel, and stenographers. Police staff personnel for technical assistance. Any capital outlay required. It is contemplated that contracts will be negotiated between local governments to install and operate the system if it is found to be feasible and within the capa- bilities of the local governments. No part of the requested funds would be spent on capital outlay. PHASE TWO: No funds requested at this time for these parts of the over-all project. PHASE THREE: No funds requested at this time for these parts of the over-all project. In phase one of this proposed project, the work would be done under the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments with assistance being given by the Steering Committee of Atlanta Metropol. The Council of Local Governments has avail- able two full-time employees to coordinate the activity, with complete staff support furnished, under contract, by Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. All of the facili- ties of ARMPC, such as office space, conference room, print- ing equipment, etc., would be available when needed. Since ARMPC has initiated many activities and projects involving Federal aid, their assistance in the administration of phase one will be extremely valuable. Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) The Council of Governments’ biggest accomplishment to date has been the organization of the area policemen into a group known as Atlanta Metropol. This group was organized in June, 1965, and set three prime objectives as a beginning - better commun- ications, better training and better cooperation. To date, they have been extremely successful in all their endeavors. Their accomplishments through December 31, 1965 are listed in the 1965 Annual Report of the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments - ( Appendix A). Since then, Metropol has started its fourth training institute with 52 men having less _than two years' experience being trained. They also have definite plans for a week-long administrative school for top level officers beginning March 28. This school will include men from throughout the state and an attendance of 150 is expected. In this school, as in all the others, Metropol will be given a great amount of assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The latest accomplishment of Metropol (since the completion of the 1965 Annual Report) was an IBM demonstration it sponsored January 19 in which the capabilities of computers in police work were demonstrated. As stated in a previous paragraph, Atlanta Region Metropoli- tan Planning Commission and Atlanta Metropol can be expected to be very cooperative in carrying out phase one of the pro- ject. Others who can be expected to cooperate are the staff members of the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia and the computer division of Georgia State College. During phases two and three of the project, the above men- tioned agencies, as well as the Council of Local Governments, will assist the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia in every way possible. For assistance thus far on this project, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been contacted and can be expected to participate in all three phases of the project. As previously stated, phase one of this project will be done under the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments with assistance from Atlanta Metropol. From these two groups and from several outside sources, an advisory committee will be formed that will develop the guidelines to be followed in each step of phase one. By developing these guidelines and seeing the end results, this group can make their evaluations = = Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) as the project progresses rather than an over-all evaluation when it is complete. For an over-all evaluation of phase one, members of the staff of the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia will take over. Since they are respon- sible for carrying out phases two and three of this project, it is.only reasonable that they would be the logical group to determine the effectiveness of phase one. From this, they can determine whether it would be profitable to continue with the two final phases. . As clearly stated in the explanation of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, its primary purpose is to identify workable solutions to the nation's crime control problems. We feel that we have such a solution in our proposed project. It will only have local impact in phase one, but this impact will be increased and include the entire state in phases two and three. Other states could certainly profit by the basic work done on police records and files. The feasibility study on data processing should be a valuable guide to states con- sidering the use of such equipment. A full report of phase one will be printed in sufficient quantities to provide copies for interested governments. This type system has been tried and is operating successfully in certain areas of the country, but it would definitely be an innovation for the Metropolitan Atlanta Area and for the State of Georgia. Our proposed project is designed as an action program as we plan to computerize the police records of the majority of the police departments in the state within three years. In essence, this project proposes to move law enforcement work from its present antiquated level to a sophisticated, modern, electronic age level, without going through the time-consuming evolutionary process that other- wise will be required. The ultimate goal is the reduction of crime.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 6, Document 2 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 6 Folder topic: Metropol | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/7d84b45b33c34ee8052f5cc987dcbfc6.pdf 624303d633db98a404595f0b876d0129 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. r- ATLANTA METROPOL 90 0 GLENN BUILD I NG • ATLANTA , G A . 3 0303 • PHONE 5 22 - 7577 July 15, 1966 Mr. Dan Sweat City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: You asked for a copy of the Metropol application for the computer systems development. Enclosed is a copy of the original application. There has been meetings and phone calls relative to this project and at the present we are expecting to be asked to submit an amended application. There have been no recent developments. I think it is very desirable that we avoid dupli cation of effort and e x pense, and will be glad to work with you in any way I can . Yours very truly, ~Engineer-oo~ j Planner WMJr : sh Enclosure � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Dt ATLANTA pry F) METROPOL 900 GLENN BUILDING + ATLANTA, GA. 30303 : PHONE 522-7577 July 15, 1966 Mr. Dan Sweat City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: You asked for a copy of the Metropol application for the computer systems development. Enclosed is a copy of the original application. There has been meetings and phone calls relative to this project and at the present we are expecting to be asked to submit an amended application. There have been no recent developments. I think it is very desirable that we avoid dupli- cation of effort and expense, and will be glad to work with you in any way I can. Yours very truly, Way Moore, Jr. d Engineer~Planner WMJr:sh Enclosure  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 6, Document 1 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 6 Folder topic: Metropol | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/6ed2f7aa4e01dbe54fbeb0f34bdb59d3.pdf 3b20d08684275d929bdb69009a6325d7 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. r- ATLANTA METROPOL 90 0 GLENN BUILD I NG • ATLANTA , G A . 3 0303 • PHONE 5 22 - 7577 July 15, 1966 Mr. Dan Sweat City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: You asked for a copy of the Metropol application for the computer systems development. Enclosed is a copy of the original application. There has been meetings and phone calls relative to this project and at the present we are expecting to be asked to submit an amended application. There have been no recent developments. I think it is very desirable that we avoid dupli cation of effort and e x pense, and will be glad to work with you in any way I can . Yours very truly, ~Engineer-oo~ j Planner WMJr : sh Enclosure �REQUEST FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE FUNDS The necessity for central computerized police records for the Metropolitan Area of Atlanta was clearly demonstrated by the 1965 activities of Atlanta Metropol. This group of area policemen met together , trained together and worked together in efforts to find and solv e their mutual problems to the satisfaction of all concerned. The problem of police records, standardization of report forms and computers came to the forefront in Metropol when it was discovered, through dayto_- day work with the various departments, that no universal method was used in keeping records in the 49 different departments. Considering the fact that the city limits of Atlanta borders on six other independent police jurisdictions, it is obvious that many problems cross city limits and that information from one department would be valuable to others. The multiplicity of files delays this e x change of information. A look at the entire Metropolitan Atlanta Area shows a similar situation e x ists , but on an e x panded scale . This fivecounty area is some 1 , 724 square miles in ex tent . Its population is about 1,200,000 or approx imately one-fourth that of the State of Georgia. Of the 33 cities of Georgia with a population of 10,000 or more, nine are found in this Metropolitan Atlanta Area. It includes five county governments and 44 municipal gover nments. This proposed project has been planned in three phases. Phase one will i nvolve the five-county area of Metropolitan Atlanta and wi ll se r ve as a model for the remainder of the state; phase two will include the entire state with regional me e tings planned and field assistance being given to any department t hat is i nterested in using the services or setti ng up a s i milar s y stem; phase three will also be statewide and will be an added attempt to e x tend the use of this s y stem to depa rtments that were unable to come in under phase two . F ield ass i stance and regional meetings are also planned for this third phase . PHASE ONE : Ea ch o f the 4 9 depar tments in the Metropolitan Area has i ts own s y stem of keeping r ecords as well as its own s et of r epo rt f orms . To begin with , an i nventory of the r e c o rd s y s tems and r epor t forms of each department would be mad e to d ete rmin e the n eed . This f irst step in phase one wo u ld b e d o ne large ly b y sub- cont r act to competent c o n s u l tant s wo rking u n d er the Me tropolitan Atl an ta Counc i l o f Lo cal Governments wi th techni c a l a s sistan ce fr om t he Metro p o l S t eer i ng Commi tte e. - 1 - �Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds ( Cont ' d.) After this inventory is complete, an advisory committee (consisting primarily of members of the Metropol Steering Committee, the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation), wor~ing with the Project staff, will prepare a standard set of report forms, record systems, and files that would be suitable for use by all police jurisd{ctions in the area. This material would be graduated so that a small police department could use only a portion if it desired, but the portion used would be . compatible with the whole system. This material would be prepared in such form as to be readily adaptable to the use of data processing equipment. The feasibility of using central electronic data processing equipment would be studied. This study would cover the use of existing equipment, equipment on order, commercial units, or new installations. It is conceivable that a start might be made under one system, then progress to other units as they become available or the use of the system is expanded. The study would include a proposal for sharing the cost of the data processing between the governments included. When the inventory is complete, standard report forms are developed and the cost of the system is determined, those persons responsible for its operation would then be trained. A short course in this type instruction is planned as part of the project and will include the police chiefs, persons who will fill in the report forms , keypunch operators and others who might be affected. As this system is developed , members of the advisory committee will be making frequent evaluations of each thing that is done. Use will be made of two existing committees for these progress checks on the project. One , the Steering Committee of Metropol , the o ther, the Data Processing Study Committee of the Council of Local Gove r nments. The former, composed of experienced law e n forcement officers , would provide the needed technical pol ice experience and knowledge for standardization o f files , reco r ds and reports . The latter committee is made up of men with data processing background , budget and management skills . Th i s group would be admirable for reviewing the program development , the cost sharing plans, and the implementation of the computer part of the project. Both groups are already organ ized and active as seen by the annual report of MACLOG - ( Appendix A of t his application). - 2 - �Reques t for Law Enfo rcement Assistance Fun ds (Co n t 1 d. ) When phase one has been completed , members of the staff of the Institute of Gove rnmen t at t he Uni versity of Georgia will make an over-all evaluation of the value of the project and suggest methods of i mpr ov ement . By ma king this evaluation, they will be in a better pos i t i o n t o c arry out phases two and three of the project . In the in itial phase of the project , as in the remaining two, the police departmen ts wi ll be t he target groups or the groups most affected , a l th ough the ent i re state will benefit because of increased effic i ency in police work. This project is designed to d emons t rate the added capabilities a police department gains by h aving c omputer-fast access to central area-wide fil es. As phase one is designed to serve as a model fo r the rema inder of the state, computer capabilities will be demons t rated before the two final phases of this project are i n i t i ated o The es t imated comple ti on t i me of th e three phases is one year each . Phase one will se r ve as a model for the state, but will include only the f ive-county Metr opolitan Atlanta Area. This phase will be c onduc ted by competent pe r sonnel from the Atlanta area, while phases t wo and t h r ee wi ll be administered by the Ins titute of Gover nment o f the Un i versity of Georgia, Athens, Georgia . A b r e a kdown of the es timated time schedule for phase one is as follows: A. An i n ven t or y of th e reco rd s and re po rt forms used by all p o l i c e d e partmen ts in the area befo r e co nduct ing t he invento ry , all the police chi e fs wi ll be c a lled i n to a meeting in which an explana t i o n of t h e purpose of the i nventory will be g i ven - estimat ed completion time for this step is two month s . B. Des i g n i n g t he s y s t em, standardizing of r e p o r t fo r ms , sys tem a n alysi s , a n d de t ermining the cos t of t h e e n ti r e s y s t em , a.s well as the c ost t o e ach jur i sd i ct i on us i ng the system - estima ted comple ti o n time is s ix months . C. Or i e n tat ion g i ven to pol i ce chiefs , persons r e sponsib l e for fil l i n g o u t r epo rt fo r ms , keypunch operator s , etc o - a s h ort cour se in t h is typ e i n s tr u ction i s p l anned - es t i ma te d compl etion time is one mo nt h . - 3 - �Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont ' d . ) D. Coding of system . Contingent on approval of operating contract between cities and counties. Estimated completion time is six months. E. Evaluation b y competent personnel during development of s y stem as well as a.'."ter the system has been in operation - estimated time for final evaluations is one-two months. F. Publication of complete report on project for distribution to interested police departments estimated time two months. Total estimated time required to carry out phase one of this proposed project, 12 months. Phase two of the project will be expanded to include departments throughout the state . With the regional meetings planned and the vast amount of f i eld assistance that will be required, it is e x pected that another 12 months will be necessary to complete phase two. Phase three is similar to phase two in that it will consist of regional meetings and a great amount of field assistance. This phase i s designed to pick up those smaller departments in the state that were unable to come in. when phase two was { n ope r atio n and should also be completed in 12 months. FINANCIAL RESOURCES I tem iz ed Estimate of Project Cost. PHASE ONE: A. B. C. D. E. F. No te: Inven t ory o f r ecords and reports Systems Anal y s i s and Design Or ientat i o n a n d Sh ort Courses Co ding of Sy stem 1 00 h o urs of IBM 7040 compute r t i me Eval uati o n Publicati o n of Repo r ts Traveling Exp ens e Telephone - Po s t age - e tc . No capital outlay inc luded i n the abo ve estimate. - 4 - $ 5,000 22 , 500 4, 000 . 15 , 000 10,000 2 , 000 3, 000 3, 000 5 00 $ 6 5 , 000 �Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) Local Contribution: 3 months of Coordinator's time. 3 months of Asst. Coordinator; Administrative overhead for above two employees. All office space, conference rooms for project. ARMPC staff time - artists, research personnel, and stenographers. Police staff personnel for technical assistance. Any capital outlay required. It is contemplated that contracts will be negotiated between local governments to install and operate the system if it is found to be feasible and within the capabilities of the local governments. No part of the requested funds would be spent on capital outlay. PHASE TWO: PHASE THREE: No funds requested at this time for these parts of the over-all project. No funds requested at this time for these parts of the over-all project . In phase one of this proposed project , the work would be done under the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments with assistance being given by the Steering Committee of Atlanta Metropol . The Council of Local Governments has available two full - time employees to coordinate the activity, with complete staff support furnished , under contract, by Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. All of the facilities of ARMPC , such as office space , co n ference room , printing equipment , e tc., would be available when needed. Since ARMPC has in itiated many activities and projects involving Federal aid , th e i r assistance in the administration of phase one will be e x tr emel y valuable. - 5 - �Request for Law Enforcemen t Assistance Funds (Cont ' d. ) The Counci l of Governments ' biggest accomplishment to date has been the organization of the area policemen into a group known as Atlanta Metropol. This group was organized -in June, 1965, and set thr ee pr i me objectives as a beginning - better communications, better training and better ciooperation. To date, th~y have been extremely successful in all their endeavors. Their accomplishments through December 31, 1965 are listed in the 1965 Annual Report of the Metropol i tan Atlanta Council of Local Governments - ( Appendix . A). Since then, Metropol has started its fourth training institute with 52 men having less than two years ' experience being trai ned . Th ey also have definite plans for a week-long administrative school for top level officers beginning March 28. This school will include men from throughout the state and an attendance of 150 is expected. In this school , as in all the others, Metropol will be given a great amount o f assistance from the Federal Bureau o f Investigation. The latest accomplishment of Metropol ( since the completion o f the 1 965 Annual Report) was an IBM demonstration it sponsored January 19 in which the capabilities of computers in police work were demonstrated. As stated in a previous paragraph, Atl anta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission and At l anta Metropol can be exp e cte d to be very cooperative in car r ying out phase o n e of the project. Others who can be expected to cooperate are the staff members of the Ins titute of Government a t the University o f Georgia and the computer division of Georgia State College . During phases two and three of the project , the above mentioned agencies, as well a s the Council o f Local Governments, will a s si s t the I nsti t ute o f Government at the University o f Georgi a in every way possible . For assistance thus far on this proj ect , the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been contacted and can be expected to partici p ate in all t hre e phases of the project . As previously stated , phase one o f this project wil l be do ne under the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments with assistance from At l anta Metropol. From these two groups and from several outs ide sources, an advisory committee will be f ormed that will develop the gu i d e lines to be followed in each step o f phase one. By dev e lopi ng t h ese g u ide lines and seeing the e n d r e sul ts, t h is g r oup can mak e their e v a luations - 6 - �Request for Law Enforcemen t Assistance Funds ( Co n t ' d o) as the projec t progresses r a t her than an over-all evaluation when i t i s complete . For a n over-all evalua t ion of phase one, members of t h e s ta f f of t he I ns t itute of Government at the University of Geo r g ia wil l take over . Since they are respons i ble for carry ing ou t pha ses two and three of this project , it is . onl y reasonabl e t h a t t hey would be the logical group to determine t he effec tiven ess of phase one. From this , they can dete r mine whether it would be profitable to continue with the two fina l phas e s . As clearly sta ted in t he ex plana t ion of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, i ts p r imary purpose is to identify workable solutions t o the nat i o n ' s c r ime control problems . We feel that we have s uch a s olut ion i n our proposed project. It will onl y have loc a l i mpac t i n phase one , but this impact will be increased and i nc l ude the entire state in phases two and three . Ot h er s t a te s could certainly profit by the basic work done on pol i ce re co r d s a nd f i les . The feasibility study on data proce ssing should be a valuable guide to states consider i ng t he use o f s uch e qu i pment . A full report of phase one wi ll be pr inted in s u f f i c i ent quanti t ies to provide copies for i nte r e sted gov e r nment s. Th i s typ e s ystem h as been tri ed and is operating' successfully in certain areas o f the cou ntry , but it would def i nitely be an i nnovatio n f o r the Me tropol itan Atlanta Ar ea and for the State of Geo r g ia. Our p roposed p r oject i s designed as an act i on p r o gram as we pl an t o comput€r ize the police records of t he ma j o rity of t he poli c e department s in the state within thre e y ears. I n e s sence , t h is p r oject proposes to move law enfo rcement wo rk fr om it s p r e s e nt an ti quated level to a s oph i s ticated , mo dern , e l e c tron i c a g e level , wi thout going through the time - consuming e vo l u tionary process that otherwise wi ll b e re qu ired . The ul t ima te goal i s the reduct i on of c rime. - 7 - �July 14 , 1966 Mr . Wayne Moore , Jr. Engi neer - Planner Atlanta Metropol 900 Gl-2nn Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Moore : I am constantly asked questions concerning the Metropol application for the computer system development. Would it be possible for me to obtain a copy of the application submitted to the Justice Department? The City of Atlanta is considering submission of an application which should tie in to the Metropol pplication as I understand it. However , without full knowledge of what is in the Metropol application, I fear that there could be some duplic tion and this we would like to prevent. Sincerely yours. Dan Sweat DS:fy �- - ------~ =-==:-----==-===~--:------~ July 11. 1966 Mr. Char1 City City City tl t. D vi Com troll r of tl nt B 11 t # Geo i 30303 ar Ch :rli a r gr ing g ugg rown ion . .. in 1 • th t you brought. up . ring C ould li q O y- �r. Cbarl L. n vi cost, then the d l n •. u th m rg o hould fund t.o with Atlant • fort n try to c - tt full in or You c rt inly hould nd to you t will be h tio not b July 11 # 1966 - 2 - on thi xp ct. t.ing . for your augg tion .. Your L C::,-Jr. yn r,ro CCI ngin Jtr. Mr. ~: Mr. v ry ~ruly, r r•Pl nn r �CENTRAL COMPUTERIZED POLICE RECORD SYSTEM METROPOLITAN ATLANTA COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Atlanta, Georgia Duration of project 12 months Project cost $65,000.00 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Dt ATLANTA pry F) METROPOL 900 GLENN BUILDING + ATLANTA, GA. 30303 : PHONE 522-7577 July 15, 1966 Mr. Dan Sweat City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: You asked for a copy of the Metropol application for the computer systems development. Enclosed is a copy of the original application. There has been meetings and phone calls relative to this project and at the present we are expecting to be asked to submit an amended application. There have been no recent developments. I think it is very desirable that we avoid dupli- cation of effort and expense, and will be glad to work with you in any way I can. Yours very truly, Way Moore, Jr. d Engineer~Planner WMJr:sh Enclosure  REQUEST FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE FUNDS The necessity for central computerized police records for the Metropolitan Area of Atlanta was clearly demonstrated by the 1965 activities of Atlanta Metropol. This group of area policemen met together, trained together and worked together in efforts to find and solve their mutual problems to the sat- isfaction of all concerned. The problem of police records, standardization of report forms and computers came to the forefront in Metropol when it was discovered, through day- to-day work with the various departments, that no universal method was used in keeping records in the 49 different depart- ments. Considering the fact that the city limits of Atlanta borders on six other independent police jurisdictions, it is obvious that many problems cross city limits and that infor- mation from one department would be valuable to others. The multiplicity of files delays this exchange of information. A look at the entire Metropolitan Atlanta Area shows a simi- lar situation exists, but on an expanded scale. This five- county area is some 1,724 square miles in extent. Its popu- lation is about 1,200,000 or approximately one-fourth that of the State of Georgia. Of the 33 cities of Georgia with a population of 10,000 or more, nine are found in this Metro- politan Atlanta Area. It includes five county governments and 44 municipal governments. This proposed project has been planned in three phases. Phase one will involve the five-county area of Metropoli- tan Atlanta and will serve as a model for the remainder of the state; phase two will include the entire state with regional meetings planned and field assistance being given to any department that is interested in using the services or setting up a similar system; phase three will also be statewide and will be an added attempt to extend the use of this system to departments that were unable to come in under phase two. Field assistance and regional meetings are also planned for this third phase. PHASE ONE: Each of the 49 departments in the Metropolitan Area has its own system of keeping records as well as its own set of report forms. To begin with, an inventory of the record systems and report forms of each department would be made to determine the need. This first step in phase one would be done largely by sub-contract to competent consultants working under the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments with technical assistance from the Metropol Steering Committee. Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) After this inventory is complete, an advisory committee (con- sisting primarily of members of the Metropol Steering Committee, the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation), working with the Project staff, will prepare a standard set of report forms, record systems, and files that would be suitable for use by all police juris- dictions in the area. This material would be graduated so that a small police department could use only a portion if it desired, but the portion used would be compatible with the whole system. This material would be prepared in such form as to be readily adaptable to the use of data processing equipment. The feasibility of using central electronic data processing equipment would be studied. This study would cover the use of existing equipment, equipment on order, commercial units, or new installations. It is conceivable that a start might be made under one system, then progress to other units as they become available or the use of the system is expanded. The study would include a proposal for sharing the cost of the data processing between the governments included. When the inventory is complete, standard report forms are developed and the cost of the system is determined, those per- sons responsible for its operation would then be trained. A short course in this type instruction is planned as part of the project and will include the police chiefs, persons who will fill in the report forms, keypunch operators and others who might be affected. As this system is developed, members of the advisory committee will be making frequent evaluations of each thing that is done. Use will be made of two existing committees for these progress checks on the project. One, the Steering Committee of Metro- pol, the other, the Data Processing Study Committee of the Council of Local Governments. The former, composed of exper- ienced law enforcement officers, would provide the needed technical police experience and knowledge for standardization of files, records and reports. The latter committee is made up of men with data processing background, budget and manage- ment skills. This group would be admirable for reviewing the program development, the cost sharing plans, and the implemen- tation of the computer part of the project. Both groups are already organized and active as seen by the annual report of MACLOG — ( Appendix A of this application). a Bo  Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) When phase one has been completed, members of the staff of the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia will make an over-all evaluation of the value of the project and suggest methods of improvement. By making this evaluation, they will be in a better position to carry out phases two and three of the project. In the initial phase of the project, as in the remaining two, the police departments will be the target groups or the groups most affected, although the entire state will benefit because of increased efficiency in police work. This project is designed to demonstrate the added capabilities a police department gains by having computer-fast access to central area-wide files. As phase one is designed to serve as a model for the remainder of the state, computer capabilities will be demonstrated before the two final phases of this pro- ject are initiated, The estimated completion time of the three phases is one year each. Phase one will serve as a model for the state, but will include only the five-county Metropolitan Atlanta Area. This phase will be conducted by competent personnel from the Atlanta area, while phases two and three will be administered by the Institute of Government of the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. A breakdown of the estimated time schedule for phase one is as follows: A. An inventory of the records and report forms used by all police departments in the area - before conducting the inventory, all the police chiefs will be called in to a meeting in which an explanation of the purpose of the inventory will be given - estimated completion time for this step is two months. B. Designing the system, standardizing of report forms, system analysis, and determining the cost of the entire system, as well as the cost to each jurisdiction using the system - esti- mated completion time is six months. C. Orientation given to police chiefs, persons responsible for filling out report forms, key- punch operators, etc. - a short course in this type instruction is planned - estimated completion time is one month, Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) D. Coding of system. Contingent on approval of operating contract between cities and counties. Estimated completion time is six months. E. Evaluation by competent personnel during devel- opment of system as well as after the system has been in operation - estimated time for final evaluations is one-two months. F. Publication of complete report on project for distribution to interested police departments - estimated time two months. Total estimated time required to carry out phase one of this pro- posed project, 12 months. Phase two of the project will be expanded to include departments throughout the state. With the regional meetings planned and the vast amount of field assistance that will be required, it is expected that another 12 months will be necessary to complete phase two. Phase three is similar to phase two in that it will consist of regional meetings and a great amount of field assis- tance. This phase is designed to pick up those smaller depart- ments in the state that were unable to come in when phase two was in operation and should also be completed in 12 months. FINANCIAL RESOURCES Itemized Estimate of Project Cost. PHASE ONE: A. Inventory of records and reports $ 5,000 B. Systems Analysis and Design 22,500 C. Orientation and Short Courses 4,000. D. Coding of System 15,000 100 hours of IBM 7040 computer time 10,000 E. Evaluation 2,000 F. Publication of Reports 3,000 Traveling Expense 3,000 Telephone - Postage - etc. 500 $ 65,000 Note: No capital outlay included in the above estimate. Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) Local Contribution: 3 months of Coordinator's time. 3 months of Asst. Coordinator. Administrative overhead for above two employees. All office space, conference rooms for project. ARMPC staff time - artists, research personnel, and stenographers. Police staff personnel for technical assistance. Any capital outlay required. It is contemplated that contracts will be negotiated between local governments to install and operate the system if it is found to be feasible and within the capa- bilities of the local governments. No part of the requested funds would be spent on capital outlay. PHASE TWO: No funds requested at this time for these parts of the over-all project. PHASE THREE: No funds requested at this time for these parts of the over-all project. In phase one of this proposed project, the work would be done under the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments with assistance being given by the Steering Committee of Atlanta Metropol. The Council of Local Governments has avail- able two full-time employees to coordinate the activity, with complete staff support furnished, under contract, by Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. All of the facili- ties of ARMPC, such as office space, conference room, print- ing equipment, etc., would be available when needed. Since ARMPC has initiated many activities and projects involving Federal aid, their assistance in the administration of phase one will be extremely valuable. Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) The Council of Governments’ biggest accomplishment to date has been the organization of the area policemen into a group known as Atlanta Metropol. This group was organized in June, 1965, and set three prime objectives as a beginning - better commun- ications, better training and better cooperation. To date, they have been extremely successful in all their endeavors. Their accomplishments through December 31, 1965 are listed in the 1965 Annual Report of the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments - ( Appendix A). Since then, Metropol has started its fourth training institute with 52 men having less _than two years' experience being trained. They also have definite plans for a week-long administrative school for top level officers beginning March 28. This school will include men from throughout the state and an attendance of 150 is expected. In this school, as in all the others, Metropol will be given a great amount of assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The latest accomplishment of Metropol (since the completion of the 1965 Annual Report) was an IBM demonstration it sponsored January 19 in which the capabilities of computers in police work were demonstrated. As stated in a previous paragraph, Atlanta Region Metropoli- tan Planning Commission and Atlanta Metropol can be expected to be very cooperative in carrying out phase one of the pro- ject. Others who can be expected to cooperate are the staff members of the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia and the computer division of Georgia State College. During phases two and three of the project, the above men- tioned agencies, as well as the Council of Local Governments, will assist the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia in every way possible. For assistance thus far on this project, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been contacted and can be expected to participate in all three phases of the project. As previously stated, phase one of this project will be done under the Metropolitan Atlanta Council of Local Governments with assistance from Atlanta Metropol. From these two groups and from several outside sources, an advisory committee will be formed that will develop the guidelines to be followed in each step of phase one. By developing these guidelines and seeing the end results, this group can make their evaluations = = Request for Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (Cont'd.) as the project progresses rather than an over-all evaluation when it is complete. For an over-all evaluation of phase one, members of the staff of the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia will take over. Since they are respon- sible for carrying out phases two and three of this project, it is.only reasonable that they would be the logical group to determine the effectiveness of phase one. From this, they can determine whether it would be profitable to continue with the two final phases. . As clearly stated in the explanation of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, its primary purpose is to identify workable solutions to the nation's crime control problems. We feel that we have such a solution in our proposed project. It will only have local impact in phase one, but this impact will be increased and include the entire state in phases two and three. Other states could certainly profit by the basic work done on police records and files. The feasibility study on data processing should be a valuable guide to states con- sidering the use of such equipment. A full report of phase one will be printed in sufficient quantities to provide copies for interested governments. This type system has been tried and is operating successfully in certain areas of the country, but it would definitely be an innovation for the Metropolitan Atlanta Area and for the State of Georgia. Our proposed project is designed as an action program as we plan to computerize the police records of the majority of the police departments in the state within three years. In essence, this project proposes to move law enforcement work from its present antiquated level to a sophisticated, modern, electronic age level, without going through the time-consuming evolutionary process that other- wise will be required. The ultimate goal is the reduction of crime.  July 14, 1966 Mr. Wayne Moore, Jr. Engineer-Planner Atlanta Metropol 900 Glenn Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Moore: I am constantly asked questions concerning the Metropol application for the computer system development. Would it be possible for me to obtain a copy of the application submitted to the Justice Department? The City of Atlanta is considering submission of an application which should tie in to the Metropol application as I understand it. However, without full knowledge of what is in the Metropol application, I fear that there could be some duplication and this we would like to pregent. Sincerely yours, Dan Sweat DS:fy  July 11, 1966 - Mr. Charles L. Davis City Comptroller City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Charlie: Your letter of July 7 regarding Brown Engineering Company's presentation has some good suggestions. I would like to comment on some items that you brought up. Atlanta Metropol submitted an application for a grant of $65,000. This is the only figure that has been approved by Metropol and by the Council of Local Governments. Jack Harrell of Brown Engineering talked with Dr. Emmerich of the Department of Justice and suggested amending the ap- plication to increase the grant to $100,000. Dr. Emmerich was to talk with his superiors and then let Metropol know how to proceed, To date we have no further word. Any amended application should be considered by both Metropol an@ MACLOG before being submitted officially. We have no commitment to Brown Engineering. Brown's Wash- ington office learned of our application and decided that they would like to be our consultants. We should investi- gate further and pick the best qualified firm. Before we consider a contract with Brown Engineering or any- one else I recommend that we reach an understanding on several other matters. For example, is Atlanta willing to provide the computer service for Metropol? If so, then ob- viously Atlanta should have a major voice in the selection of the computer consultant. If preliminary studies indicate that Metropol is able and willing to pay its share of the am tiie re i nil _ stitial nee puede les seein eat ee 2 ————————— ————— Mr. Charles L. Davis -~2- July 11, 1966 cost, then the design work should be merged with Atlanta's plans. We should avoid duplication of effort and try to use the funds to speed up the work. We will be happy to distribute to the committee full infor- mation on this project when received. You certainly should not be expected to act on something handed to you at a meeting. Thanks for your suggestions. Yours very truly, oe, WMJr irc Engineer-Planner ec: Mr. Alan Kiepper Mr. Harold McCart an Barl Landers + Dan Sweat Mr. George Berry CENTRAL COMPUTERIZED POLICE RECORD SYSTEM METROPOLITAN ATLANTA COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Atlanta, Georgia Duration of project - 12 months Project cost - $65,000.00  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 6, Complete Folder Box 6 Box 6 Folder 6 Folder topic: Metropol | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/0de7073c394b9d3180d5869f790b20fb.pdf 47d452b85bab8ef8e97bc757f8599da7 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 525 MARSHALL. STREET P. 0 . BOX . . I DECATUR. GEORGI A 30030 a,un ,Av11oux TH£ DEKALB NEW ERA · RltCOIIO \ / 1ucu,.. , YICC l'IIIIID&Nf I ' T.H,~ Ll,";';'0NIA O~. ~RVllA IDltOII a:>UBL 19HINQ J. II. • oAT IIIOHT VICI l'll&I IDlPff •u1 INI II NAHAGUI PRINTING COPY Of NOT!CE GEORGIA, DeKalb County TP Personall y appeared before the undersigned office r au thqrJ zep by low to administer oaths, BRITT FAYSSOUX, who, bt::?ing. dµly sworn, deposes and states Of\ oath that he is Genera l Mqnag·er of' the New Era Publishing Company, Inc., a Georgia corpo.ro~ion, and is authorized to mcnlkie this offidavit on its behalf. Deponent overs that the New &m iP,utblishi-ng Company, Inc. is the pv.b:l,isher of the DeKdJb INlcw ;Ero, o newspaper published in the .C,i 1t.y of Decatur, bt'1n91,df general c irculat ion and be ing the legal .organ for the cotJrlt.y ,of DeKalb, and further overs that legal .no:t.ice, a tr uc copy df .·-'h' · h ere t o o ttoc h ed, .............................. Notice or In·ten,t w ,c'h 1s ,,.-, ......... I • I ! .. t.~.J~.~t,t?.t.J.1:".~,...143.215.248.55 15:21, 29 December 2017 (EST)tJ,.~&t.~J.~ti~m............ NOTICE Of JNHt-ffjO'tl .. jN'f!lOUUCE LOCAL U :GL'4..ATION' · NoUco Is herclly Rtvon of !nto11Uon \o Introduce tho J ,1114J rY, 1~~1 :aos•lon ol lhe. C o11cr.1I A~st•mhly of pdotG)•, • 11111 lo ro 'o • tahll., h a l,oc.1I ~,'Juc.\qon Commission In AllanlJ and fullon ' c o\in\y lo conllnuo a BlU!ly Of lho dosJrahh/fy \md f0~.- \11l11ly Of comhlntng tho •ys_\ume of Fulton County and ol \he c'lly ol Atlanta, lnclutll111t t ho portion lhor,,ol Oo.Kal_b CounlJI to provl,le !or tho or~:,nJuUon ~n\l functJon• Ing of aald conomls~lon) ' afl\l for other 1""· purponcs. This IJccombor 27, 1988, A,C. L>Urner .' Al\ornoy, City of All~~I~ Doard of l::duC11Uon ,hmoa P, Grolon Allornoy, Fulton cou~1., .143.215.248.55 15:21, 29 December 2017 (EST) gchod/ : lyµ,c' f.ir or Educallon l•tl•3T was duly .: RUb- lii,hcd oncc 1 0 ·week for ....:t ......... wee-ks os required by .low, tthe d do tes of p~l>licdtion ·being .... ~~.l'.1~.~-~.1. .. ~,... r~~-'=1.~.r.1. .. ~g,.a ......... . ., and Januwr7 19., 1967 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .. •••••••••••••• ••• .. ••••••••••••••• .. ••••• .. ••• ••••• .. •a•••••••• • ••••••••• ••• • •• .I . . · · · · · · · ···· ·········;143.215.248.55ii ~:: : : : Sworn to and subscribed bcfor~ me· this ..... .I. ....day of //(<:t:.~~-.?....... .. ,.. , 196.7.. /JS/ ~;,.~_;-t.>J. fl'~'··z··FlSt L-:-~, -~"J... /.I. ~ ·.1...4..C.. · • , ' J. .. ..... · .... . . . .. . . ..·,./ . .. /.. N,.,tcr\· f'ubhc lo!. , N,.h,., .. :· . v< · ~ •.,'• ·" l.1';tt 11-, c..,..,., ... ,,n h,.,.\..f,.t,. 21, 1911 . 0 (SEAL) -Y-. B. No., 623 Pa·.;-:- 6 • �PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT. STATE OF OEORGIA,-County of Fulton. B~fore me, the undersigned, a ..... Jiq~?F.Y. .f\lb.lJ-9 ....•... , this day per- . sonally came .... ~ ... l!r!1A~. ~~!l!P.~?P. .....••••. , who, being first duly sworn, ac\!ording to law, says that be is the ... J:'.i:143.215.248.55P.~I].~ ..... of the Daily Report Com• pany, publishers of the Fulton County Daily Rcpo~, official newspaper published I at Atlanta, in said county and State, and that the publication, of which the an- nexed ls a true copy, was published in said paper on the ...• -~~!=Jl... ~ ..........• . . . . . . . . . . . . days o·r ...I?~<:~!111?~:i: days of ......-l~1;1µ.B:i;y ••••••••• , ..••. ,19.?~., and on the ... ?,. -~~,. .~q~!i.... 1~ 7.• As provided by law. .J.;i1v.1.v.f dt.~.µ,.1 i rr -1•., t,hll :: h n 1,, r ·1l J::1l11rn1 Inn Commh,lnn In l\llnnln nnrl Fulto n Co1111tr l•l rontl11,i,, n ~t 11rlv or thr ,!r ~lrnhllll 1,· :,,~cl rrn::lhllllv or rnmhlnln<'. I hr :-rhnol w sl1·m·~ or 1-·11 1ro11 ,11111 :1\· n111I nf Iii,• Cltv oC Atliln!n. l11rli'11l!n1· !!11• "nrllnn tlw : rur l\'1111: In Jld{alh Cn tml\'; fo llro\'lrlr for 1hr N ·: ~111 ·,'.,' \ilon 11111! C1111rllnnlt11: of ~n!cl rnmml~11,Jc,": nntl fur nthrr p·1··,,,, ,;r~ . Thi! r>rtl'ml.,rr Zi. Jfl,; •; _ I\ . C. l.:i'ln•rr l\t'.nr:wr, Cl:y of J\11 " :, t " "" "' rrl or F.rlt1<' ,1tlnn J~mr, P . Groton Atto~nr\'. Fulton Count,· · nnud of Fdutn llon Dt-c lt, l~M. Jan & 13 20, 1961 i ' I II s/ Frank ~empton ·-NOTtn: - - -or· - f'.'JTf:"ITI0:-1 TO l"ITIIOr>t'<'F l,OC.\L l.r.C:l!--1, \TIO"/ Noller I.• lwrrhl' 1:1,·,·11 nC lnfrn11011 tn lnlrodu,r lntn thr ,Inn• unn· , ll> G7 .<t'.<~11111 nf thr (,r1H'rnl A,,,',:nhl\' or r.,•nn:111 . n Bill to i I ,·~ I ' I Subscribed and sworn to before me this .....~Q~!t... day of ...... . . f;:iz:~~i ;~i/4-. .~n£~1s/ Milc;ired N. LazenbyO · "I~ "-····~t · •· •, • • 0 0 0 _.. . • 0 ., e •• ' ' O I , 0 ,0 • ' • 0 ' ' ), (/ I •i :.~I •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (SEAL) H.B. No. 623 • Page 7 •• .,. �# iii- •* <^•- I H.B. No. 623 , / 7c. . . , ^ By; Messrs. Walling, Harris, Farrar and Levitas of the 118th, Higginbotham, Westlake and Davis of the 119th, Winkles of the 120th, Longino of the 122nd, Cook of the 123rd, Adams of the 125th, Cox of the 127th, Dillon of the 128th, Cames of the 129th, Lambros of the 130th, Sims of the 131st, Grier of the .132nd, Alexander of the 133rd, Daugherty of the 134th, Brown of the 135th, ' Bond of the 136th, Hamilton of the 137th, McClatchey of the 138th, Townsend ii' I / '> ' ' ' 'iii k ' I > 4 ' t \(" . , " 1 1 ' b ' '! ' , 1 .1 h i 1 ' ' , of the 140th, and Egan of the 141st. I ( 1 A BILL i I'll ' " ) T' . ( (-r ' t i To be entitled an Act To Re-establish a Local Education Commission ' '"i -a'- in Atlanta and Fulton County to continue the study of the desirability and feasibility of combining the school systems of Fulton County and of the City of Atlanta, including the portion thereof lying in DeKalb County; to provide that said Commission shall draft a plan or plans, together with proposed Constitutional amendments and legislation, for the combining of such school systems and submit same to members of the General Assembly from Fulton and DeKalb Counties; to provide for the organization of said Commission; to provide for the publication of said plan or plans; to provide for allocation of funds by the Boards of Education of Atlanta and Fulton County for the operation of the Commission; to provide for i&Mi M M ff, • ' .rvr ' i' > authority to accept donations; and for other purposes. Whereas, by Resolution approved March 18, 1964 (Ga. L. 1964, p. 3171) '-ij' ^ I < ( ' there was created in Atlanta and Fulton County a Local Education Commission to study the desirability and feasibility of combining the school system of Fulton County and of the City of Atlanta; and Whereas, said Commission filed its report, recommending that said school systems be combined; and Whereas, by Resolution approved March 15, 1966 (Ga. L. 1966 p. 3413) said Commission was re-established for the purpose of drafting a plan or plans, together with proposed Constitutional amendments and legislation, for the combining of such school systems, for consideration by the members of the General Assembly; and Whereas, said Commission has presented its interim progress report, which . indicates that additional time will be required to complete the work of the Commission; and Whereas, it is desirable to re-establish said Commission for the purpose of completing the work of the Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same; H. B. No. 623 Page 1 «)'«;!!> I �1 1i It SECTION 1 There is hereby re-established in Fulton County and the City of Atlanta a Commission to continue the study of the desirability and feasibility of combining & the school systems of Fulton County and the City of Atlanta, including the portion thereof lying in DeKalb County., Said Conmission shall be known as the Local Education Commission, of said county, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission. ,tK Said Commission shall be composed of twenty-one (21) members, classified into , the following positions: (a) Two ex-officio positions, to be filled by the 'i < <JU 1 'h'v' '• 1 , ' llJ'f,, "W' . , < /* T , ^ Superintendent of the Atlanta Public Schools and the Superintendent of the Fulton County Public Schools; (b) six ex-officio representative positions, which shall be filled originally by Ed S. Cook representing the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; W. L. Robinson, representing the Board of Education of Fulton If si ' ' s, County; Earl Landers, representing the City of Atlanta government; Alan Kiepper, representing the Fulton County Commissioners; Mrs, Ethel Brooks, representing the classroom teachers of the City of Atlanta; and Mrs. Nona K. Ford, representing the classroom teachers of the Fulton County Public Schools and; (c) the following voting members of said Commission: Dr. R. H. Brisbane, J. H. Cawthon, Dr. Rufus E, Clement, JohnT. Cunningham, Otis M. Jackson, Thomas M. Miller, A. B. Padgett, Mrs. A. L. Riter, Martham Sanders, Wallace ®'Im'-; s'.iit -li,.: 'f!. fifii pr tax, v,i i ,) i.; i ':. ' H. Stewart, W. Kenneth Stringer, WiViiam M. Teem III and Fred J, Turner. SECTION 2 Each individual herein named to the Commission shall serve thereon until the Commission is discharged as hereinafter provided, unless he shall refuse to serve or shall die or resign. Whenever a vacancy on the Commission results from the fact that a member refuses to serve or dies or resigns, the vacancy shall be filled by majority vote of the remaining members of the Commission as follows: If the vacancy is in a representative position, it shall be filled by a person who is then a member of the class represented; if the vacancy is in one of the voting positions, it shall be filled by a citizen then residing in the City of Atlanta or in Fulton County outside the City of Atlanta. Notwithstanding - if W-' Vv '.tfii V .O »ll' , My ' 'IW V' '1' I anything else herein stated, if a vacancy takes place in a representative or voting position originally filled by a citizen residing in the City of Atlanta, such vacancy shall be filled by a citizen then residing in the City of Atlanta and in the county wherein the person originally filling said position resided; and if a vacancy takes place in a position originally filled by a citizen residing in Fulton County outside the City of Atlanta, such vacancy shall be filled by a citizen then r^^iding in Fulton County outside of the City of Atlanta. A Ki<', »',('•' yi' -f.i ' ■ ^ f|« iri < *: . (•. ••:' •> !*• V'.' !' < ! :. ' S:; j " rT)(/ . 'h.,'^ V . vd'. ^> ,' 'V, I 'ii.' ,.'>' . , 'f . r.iS^ ).' .1 J.'T, v> 't \ )| H. B. No. 623 Page 2 ' / S' fc ^ S 5 ^ ^ ' S1l\ 't'U ' ^ -v ^ i ^ gf I'ti J ' 'u '-ivh �majority of the persons serving as ms:'.n.bers of the Commission shall constitute a quo:::-um to do business but a less number may adjourn from time to time. The Commission shall eler..::t a Ch:1trman, a Vice-Chairman and a Secretary- Treasurer . from its membership. T½.<3 Corn.mil.,sion shall adopt , from time to time, such rules, regulations and modes of ,procedure -a s it deems expedient for the orderly dispatch of 'its busines .r3 . ThE: Gomrr:d.ssion shc.11 keep minutes and records of its meetings. A montr,ly sta te.:ment of ,s.11 disbursements of the funds hereinafter _pro_vided, properly vouched for, shall be furnished to the Boards ·of Education of Fulton County a.nd of th,,~ City of Atl.'inta. The fi~st meeting of the Commission shall be held within 3 121 days after the ap:p,roval of this Ac'i. by the Governor, at a place and time mutu;.31ly a·g reed upon by the members thereof representing the Boards of Education. o'f Fulton County and of the City of Atlanta . Said Boards of Education, or· eith.er 1.:>f them, upon application by the C ommis sion, shall provide suitable office s pac,~ and meet ing room.f, for the Commiss ion. SEC'J.'ION 3 It sha 7d be the function a nd du'ty of said Commi.ss ion to continue the study of the f~ducational sys tems of F u.lton County and of the City of Atlanta, including the: portion thereof lying in ·DeKalb Count y, for the P.i~pose of considerh1g the desirability and foi:.3 i .bility of combining said school systems, and to ~ubrnit to the General Assemb 1.y of the St,;1.te of Georgia as hereinafter provided o, plan or plans , together w,: ith proposed Constitutional amendments and I legisk1tkm, for the combining of sue ;h school systems, and such plan or plans sh-?;ll include any changes in politil: al a.nd administrative a nd fiscal structure 'of either or both of said systems w r 1kh the Commission deems de sirable and ' feasible . f 3ECTION 4 The said Commission shal l have the power and authority to hold public hearings and any judg~ of the sui: 1f ~rior court upon application signed by the Cl:Birman and Secretary-Treasurer · of the Commission sha.11 issue a subpoena for the attendance of ,my witnes~; or the production of any books, papers or records. In mo.kJng such study f J .1 e Commission is authorized to call upon the State of Georgia or any of its a~ Ji encies or institutions for any aid or assistance which can be render 'f ?d it, and to call upon the various departments of the county and municipalitiE ~1 assistance. Said commission I 3, including the law departments, for such may employ such special, technical and clerical H . B . No. 623 Page 3 , � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document > New Era Publishing Company tne. §25 MARSHALL STREET P, 0. BOX 411 QAITT FAYOGOUR DECATUR. GEORGIA 30030 Gkecutive VICE PALOIDENT B0ITOR Jd. RX. BOATRIGHT vice FAcoIDEN? OUGINEDO MANMADE GEORGIA, DeKalb County Personally oppeared before the undersigned officer authorized by law to administer oaths, BRITT FAYSSOUX, who, being duly sworn, deposes and states on cath that he is General Manager of the New Era Publishing Company, Inc., a Georgia corporation, and is authorized to make this affidavit on its behalf. Deponent avers that the New €ra Publishing Company, Inc. is the publisher of the DeKalb New Era, a newspaper published in the City of Decatur, being of general circulation and being the legal .argan for the courity of DeKalb, and further avers that legal notice, a SOON eee eee ee to Introduce Local Legislation............ was duly. pub- lished once'o week for ....3.ccc. weeks as required by Jaw, ithe dates of publicdtion being .... January.,S, January L2e......, And Januery 19, 1967 sasha day of Qtech , 196.2. Odgee cece ete eee teeee 3/ Gazol Ys er 7 v fe ALF Ob hediber oA Pees eeeaetee ieee Notery g “heres Public Se "tae at Larsa My Cérranon tajerotfeb. 21, 197) 9 (SEAL) uy. B, No. 622 Pas 6 THe DEKALa New Era-Recoro Tue LitHoNIA OosenveR PUBLIGHING PRINTING COPY OF NOTICE ee nae | NOTICE OF INTENTION TO JNTRODUCE LOCAL LEGIM,ATION : Notice is hereby g}von of Intention to Introduco the Janyary, 1067 -sesulon of the Goneral Assembly of Georgia, a DMI to ro~ establish a Loca} Educitjon Commission tn Atlanta and Fulton County te continue a aludy of the dostranlifty ‘nd foyatollity of combining the schoo! systema of Fulton County and of the City of Atlanta, including tho portion thereof ty)n¢' in DeKalb County, to provide for the organization and function- ing of ‘ald conrmisalon," and for other purposes, eh This Decombor 27, 1068, A,C, Lalimer Alttornoy, Clty of Atlanta Board of Education Jamos P, Groton oonty oars Allornoy, Fulton County r of education vie Kept 1.9-3T ———a PUBLISHER’S AFFIDAVIT. STATE OF GEORGIA,—County of Fulton. Before me, the undersigned, a..... Notary, Public... ....., this day per- ‘gonally came ........frank,Kempton ........, , who, being first duly sworn, according to law, says that he is the... President, .... of the Daily Report Com- pany, publishers of the Fulton County Daily Report, official newspaper published at Atlanta, in said county and State, and that the publication, of which the an- nexed is a true copy, was published in said paper on the ..... RIER Cok hat data cet idea eisGRaae daysof ... December __,,..19.9, and on the ...9»,.13,, 20th, days of ...... Janpary,.,......, 1997..As8 provided by law. Laank ingles s/ Frank Kempton eae bes NOTICE OF INTENTION TO INTRONUCE LOCAL LEGISLATION Nollee ta hereby elvenoof Inten- tlon to Intreduce Inte the Jnan- linry, ae spon of the General Assembly of Grorein, a Tl to ‘ ire-establish Dara!) Education Subscribed and sworn to before me Commission in Atlanta and Ful- ton County to conthiie no study of the desirably aed feasibility ‘ j 30th of combinine the school systems this Be ee ee day of ete eere of Fulton County ane of the City of Atlanta. Ineludine the rertton thereof Iving In DeKalb County: * January eeeene 19. 67 This December 27, 184, A.C. Latimer s/ Mildred N. ae to provide for the errantration And functioning of sald commis- sion: and for other proses, Mhcle il. Hagel, Z Attorney, Cis of Allantn Roard of eoen Ae do meat he seeepeceses Education ws, wpe at r. penton ; SEAL) torney, ton County Roird of ( Education Dee 39, 1966, Jan 6 13 20, 1967 ; H. B. No. 623 S Page 7 “sy  f ?D } fowrk + JE: jH is ys Hai Ne 62s Coe er +s By: Messrs. Walling, Harris, Farrar and Lev:tas of the 118th, Higginbotham, Westlake and Davis of the 119th, Winkles of the 120th, Longino of the 122nd, Cook of the 123rd, Adams of the 125th, Cox of the 127th, Dillon of the 128th, Carnes of the 129th, Lambros of the 130th, Sims of the 13lst, Grier of the 132nd, Alexander of the 133rd, Daugherty of the 134th, Brown of the 135th, Bond of the 136th, Hamilton of the 137th, McClatchey of the 138th, Townsend of the 140th, and Egan of the 141st. A BILL To be entitled an Act To Re-establish a Local Education Commission in Atlanta and Fulton County to continue the study of the desirability and feasibility of combining the school systems of Fulton County and of the City of Atlanta, including the portion thereof lying in DeKalb County; to provide that said Commission shall draft a plan or plans, together with proposed Constitutional amendments and legislation, for the combining of such school systems and submit same to members of the General As sembly from Fulton and DeKalb Counties} to provide for the organization of said Commission; to provide for the publication of said plan or plans; to provide for allocation of funds by the Boards of Education of Atlanta and Fulton County for the operation of the Commission; to provide for authority to accept donations; and for other purposes. Whereas, by Resolution approved March 18, 1964 (Ga. L. 1964, p. 317 1) there was created in Atlanta and Fuiton County a Local Education Commission to study the desizability and feasibility of combining the school system of Fulton County and of the City of Atlanta; and Whereas, said Commission filed its report, recommending that said school systems be combined; and Whereas, by Resolution approved March 15, 1966 (Ga. L. 1966 p. 3413) said Commission was re~established for the purpose of drafting a plan or plans, together with proposed Constitutional amendments and legislation, for the combining of such school systems, for consideration by the members of the General Assembly; and Whereas, said Commission has presented its interim progress report, which indicates that additional time will be required to complete the work of the Commission; and Whereas, it is desirable to re-establish said Commission for the purpose of completing the work of the Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same: %, | 38 H. B. No. 623 Page 1  SECTION 1 There is hereby re-established in Fulton County and the City of Atlanta a Commission to continue the study of the desizrabitity and feasibility of combining the school systems of Futton County and the City of Atlanta, including the portion thereof lying in DeKalb County._ Said Commission shall ke known as the Local Education Commission, of said county, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission". Said Commission sha!l be composed of twenty~one ‘21) members, classified into the following positions: {a} Two ex-officio positions, to be filled by the Superintendent of the Atlanta Public Schools and the Sup erintendent of the Fulton County Public Schools; (b} six ex-officio representative positions, which shall be filled originally by Ed S. Cook representing the Eoard of Education of the City of Atlanta; W. L. Robinson, representing the Board of Education of Fulton County; Earl Landers, representing the City of Atlanta government; Alan Kiepper, representing the Fulton County Commissioners; Mrs. Ethel Brooks, representing the classroom teachers of the City of Atlanta; and Mrs. Nona K. Ford, representing the classroom teachers of the Fulton County Public Schools and; (c) the following voting members of said Commission: Dr. R. H. Brisbane, Je H. Cawthon, Dr. Rufus E. Clement, John i. Cunningham, Otis M. Jackson, Thomas M. Miller, A. B. Padgett, Mrs. A. Le Riter, Martham Sanders, Wallace H. Stewart, W. Kenneth Stringer, Wii.tam M. Teem Ili and Fred J. Turner. SECTION 2 Each individual herein named to the Commission shall serve thereon until the Commission is discharged as hereinafter provided, unless he shall refuse to serve or shal! die or resign. Whenever a vacancy on the Commission results from the fact that a member refuses to serve or dies or resigns, the vacancy shall be filled by majority vote of the remaining members of the Commission as follows: If the vacancy is in a representative position, it shall be filled by a person who is then a member of the class represented; if the vacancy is in one of the voting positions, it shall be filled by a citizen then residing in the City of Atlanta or in Fulton County outside the City of Atlanta. Notwithstanding anything else herein stated, if a vacancy takes place in a representat.ve or voting position originally filled by a citizen residing in the City of Atlanta, such vacancy shall be filled by a citizen “hen residing in the City of Atlanta and in the county wherein the person originally filling said position resided; ana if a vacancy takes place in a position originally filled by a citizen residing in Fulton County outside the City of Atlanta, such vacancy shall be filled by a ¢ citizen then raiding in Fulton County outside of the City of Atlanta. A H. B. No. 623 Page 2 majority of the persons serving as members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum to do business but a less number may adjourn from time to time. The Gommission shall elect a Chairman, @ Vice-Chairman and a Secretary-Treasurer from its membership, The Commission shall adopt, from time to time, such rules, regulations and modes of procedure as it deems expedient for the orderly dispatch of its business. The Commission shall keep minutes and records of its meetings. A monthly statement of all disbursements of the funds hereinafter Provided, properly vouched for, shall be furnished to the Boards of Education of Fulton County and of thv2 City of Atlant2. The first meeting of the Commission shall be held within 3) days after the approval of this Act by the Governor, at a place and time mutually agreed upon byr the members thereof representing the Boards of Education of Fulton County ancl of the City of Atlanta. Said Boards of Education, or either tof them, upon application by the Commission, shall provide suitable office s pace and meeting rooms; for the Commission. SEC'JION 3 it sha’\] be the function and du't-y of said Commission to continue the study of the educational systems of F1:iton County and of the City of Atlanta, including the: portion thereof lying in ‘DeKalb County, for the purpose of considering the desirability and fess i. bility of combining said school systems, and to Subrait to the General Assemb].y of the State of Georgia as hereinafter provided a. plan or plans, together writh proposed Constitutional amendments and legislation, for the combining of suczh school systems, and such plan or plans shell include any changes in politits al and administrative and fiscal structure ‘of either or both of said systems wttich the Commission deems desirable and ° feasible. fSECTION 4 The s@id Commission shall have the powe;y and authority to hold public hearings and any judge of the suf 2rior court upon application signed by the Chairman and Secretary-Treasurer’ of the Commission shall issue a subpoena for the attendance of any witness; or the production of any books, papers or records. in m@king such study 1:] 1e Commission is authorized to call upon the State of Georgia or any of its acy anctes or institutions for any aid or assistance which can be rendes¢ 2d it, and to call upon the various departments of the couniy and municipalities; 3, including the law departments, for such assistance. Said commission } may employ such special, technical and clerical & H. B. No. 623 Page 3 4]  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 2, Document 28 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 2 Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/22f832e4c1808221f2f666af2664a0e0.pdf 05b33e31de82565e9b8d2790be60f83a Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. assisunce, includ.n. but not UntUed to attorneys, accountants. educational consultants, as may be necessary to assemble the required da. and information, to analyse the same and draft the report and the , 'C 1 1 , till < ^ ^ -yt a l|] for submission to the General Assembly as hereinafter provided. The Commlss ' I ' I. i' , H i, ' > '• i'lUHB a " » is authorized to enter Into a contract with persons or agencies for providing any . J)K or all of the d.ata and Information required in carrying out the purposes o M -i commission. The Commission shall reimburse the Individual members of - Commission for their actual out-of-pochet expenses Incurred by authority 'r'.irirUjRRIIIMffiVC I :k\'A 1 iiji and while on business for the Commission. SECTION 5 The official plan or plans, when signed by a ma)ority of said Commission sh-11 be filed by said Commission with the Representatives of rulton an liil i 4ist 42nd, and 43rd Districts in the General Assembly of Georgia and with the Clerks of the Superior Courts having iurlsdiction in Fulton and DeKalb Counties iV'f cat ib cL^^^ Of the General Assembly following January 1, 1968o At least 60 ays P filing any of the aforesaid plans ^ the Commission shall submit a ra copy thereof to each of the aforesaid Boards of Education, for comments and sugges (la t 'W V. . ""I'lhthe V * nS J revisions. The Commission shall provide for the publication and distributton of a reasonable number of copies of its plan or plans and by supporting repor /'<! Ht>t T»^ i 1 ,(fiWi)'|i rith the City Clerk of the City of Atlanta on the first day of the next session Id .');1 ' f. "Mf' (J i il '^1 'li'i.t' '!'< > 1" nil > *1. 't ' 'ij " i ' p ^ ' . . i, I ' ' (t Hi i I1' - U i. >{ 'Si k, t . »* i prepared by the Commtssion ot previous Commission. When its fina plan or plans have been filed as hereinabove provided, the Commission shall there y • j 1 'tI 1 I ih't' .' H be discharged a SECTION 6 . The Board of Education of the City of Atlanta is hereby authorized and directed to allocate the sum of $6,000.00 and the Board of Education of Fulton county is hereby authorized and directed to allocate the sum of . ,'ii'f." 1 purpose Of carrying out the purposes of this Act, which are declared to be educational functions of said Boards of Education. Requisitions for sums up to the total amounts hereby directed to be aiiocated shall be signed by the s iW'v-r/: iL hP i' ' i f f/ii I' % ,1 4 Chairman and Secreta.y-Treasurer of said Commission and shall be paid by the ^ offiotal in charge of the funds thus altocated. Said Boards of Education are farther authorized to allocate and expend such additional funds as in their %. 5 ^ ^ i * UN. t / t ^ ? I P discretion they may determine to be necessary to carry out tne ° Act, provld&i that such additional allocations and expenditures shall be sha ' ^1 ♦ H. B. No, 623 t Page 4 li;.' I I V '."J. ', tV, r - vt':/"- i, : ,1 Ki <fl H (t �by said Boards on a ratio of 60% from the Atlanta Board of Education and 40% from the Fulton County Board of Education. •f-' l.VP;'.' SECTION 7 , The commission is authorized to accept donations in any form from any t y .. V,iff.iii:,Wtii'if', T> > I' 1 li'll'li; .I," source and use the same in any way the Commission may deem advisable to J I', . « effectuate the aims and purposes of the Commission. SECTION 8 i ll n It is hereby found, determined and declared that the re-estabiishment M' of the commission and the carrying out of its purpose is in all respects for the benefit of the people of the City of Atlanta and Fulton County and is a public ' ' ( 1 1 1 ( t V j It ' '» purpose and that the Commission will be performing an essential educational function in the exercise of the power conferred upon it by this Act. C ' 1 . SECTION 9 This Act, being for the welfare of the citizens of Atlanta and of Pulton county, shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes thereof. 1 tit "ft, SECTION 10 The provisions of this Act are severable and if any of its provisions shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent iurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. SECTION 11 p ii , ' I t'r I I' > . . ' • " ' 11 f >•)<< A copy of notice of intention to apply for this local legislation and affidavits showing the publication of such notice as required by idw are . attached hereto and made a part of this bill, and it is hereby declared that all of the requirements of the Constitution of the State of Georgia of 1945, relating to publication of notice of intention to apply for the passage of this local legislation, have been complied with for the enactment of this law. SECTION 12 All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are hereby repealed. H. B. No. 623 Page 5 ^1 . I ^ j>i � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document assistance, including but not limited to attorneys, accountants, actuaries, and educational consultsnts, as may be necesséry to assemble the required dats and information, to analyze the same and draft the report and the plen or plans for submission to the General Assembly ss hereinafter provided. The Commission is authorized to enter into a contract with persons or agencies for providing any or all of the d2ts and information required in carrying out the purposes of the Commission. The Commission shall reimburse the individual members of the Commission for their actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by authority of and while on business for the Commission. SECTION 5 The official plan or plans, when signed by a majority of szid Commission shall be filed by said Commission with the Representatives of Fulton and DeKalb Counties and the Senators of the 34th, 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th, 40th, 4lst, 42nd, and 43rd Districts in the General Assembly of Georgia and with the Clerks of the Superior Courts having jurisdiction in Fulton and DeKalb Counties and with the City Clerk of the City of Atlanta on the first day of the next session of the General Assembly following j2nuery 1, 1968. At least 60 days prior to filing any of the aforesaid plans, the Commission shall submit a draft copy thereof to each of the aforesaid Bozrds of Education, for comments and suggested revisions . The Gommission shall provide for the publication and distribution of a reasonable number of copies of its plan or plans and by supporting reports prepared by the Commission or previous Commission. When its final plan or plans have been filed as hereinabove provided, the Commission shall thereby be discharged. / SECTION 6 The Beard of Education of the City of Atlanta is hereby authorized and directed to allocate the sum of $6,900.00 and the Board of Education of Fulton County is hereby authorized and directed to allocate the sum of $4,000. 00, for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of this Act, which are declared to be educational functions of said Boards of Education. Requisitions for sums up to the total amounts hereby directed to be allocated shall be signed by the Chairman and Secretar y-ireasurer of ¢ sid Commission and shall be paid by the official in charge of the funds thus sVocated, Said Boards of Fducation are - further authorized to allocate and expend such additional funds as in their discretion they may determine to be necessary to carry out the purposes of this ¢ <0d 1 na . 4 Act, provi déd that such additional allocations and expenditures shall be shared H. B. No. 623 Page 4  by said Boards ona ratio of 60% from the Atlanta Board of Education and 40% from the Fulton County Board of Education. SECTION 7 The Commission is authorized to accept donations in any form from any source and use the same in any way the Commission may deem advisable to effectuate the aims and purposes of the Commission. SECTION 8 It is hereby found, determined and declared that the re-establishment of the Commission and the carrying out of its purpose is in all respects for the benefit of the people cf the City of Atlanta and Fulton County and is a public purpose and that the Commission will be performing an essential educational function in the exercise of the power conferred upon it by this Act. SECTION 9 This Act, being for the welfare of the citizens of Atlanta and of Fulton County, shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes thereof. SECTION 10- The provisions of this Act are severable and if any of its provisions shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. SECTION 11 A copy of notice of intention to apply for this local legislation and affidavits showing the publication of such notice as required by law are attached hereto and made a part of this bill, and it is hereby declared that all of the requirements of the Constitution of the State of Georgia of 1945, relating to publication of notice of intention to apply for the passage of this local legislation, have been complied with for the enactment of this law. SECTION 12 All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are hereby repealed. H. B. No. 623 Page 5  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 2, Document 27 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 2 Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/dfa2237a387d44a407fee033eff09ca2.pdf 232cf89e2a3b18589d00470d02f3dc32 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. FINANCilJG THE PUBLIC SCHOOIS OF ATIANTA AND FULTON COUNTY A STUDY CONDUCTED FOR THE LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION BY DR. R. L. JOHNS (Revised by Dr. R. L. Johns - June 21, 1967) �FINANCING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY A comprehensive approach to a study of the financing of the public schools in Atlanta and Fulton County would involve an appraisal of the future policies of tne State of Georgia and the federal government for school financing as well _as a study of local school financing. Since such an appraisal is beyond the scope of this study, this section of the report will deal primarily with problems of local school financing in the two districts. However, most authorities on school financing anticipate that in the future there will be further increases in school financial support from the federal government and state governments as well as from local school districts. Although the public schools will no doubt receive increased funos in the future from both state and federal sources, strong local financial support of the public schools will have to be maintained by all districts that desire something better than a mediocre quality level ~f education for their children. The following matters are treated in this section of the report: revenue receipts, current expenditures, ta..xpp.y.ing ability and local effort to support education, indebtedness, equalization that would result from consolidation, non- pr operty local taxes and financial arrangements that would need to be made i f t he two districts were consolidated. Revenue Receipts Table I shows the budgeted revenue r eceipts of the Atlanta and Fulton County school systems. It will be noted f r om this Table that 55 -4 percent of the revenue of the Atlanta City schools is derived from the district property tax as compared with 28.4 percent in Fulton County. are deceiving. However, both of these percentage figures �-2Just what percent of the revenue receipts of each school system is provided by property truces levied on property located in each district? It will be noted that the Atlanta City Council paid $2,835,045 in 1966 for the debt service on bonds the City issued to construct school buildings. This amounts to 5.3 percent of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City Board of Education. This added to the 55.4 percent derived from the district property tax makes a total of 60.7 percent of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City schools derived from property taxes in 1966-67. It will be noted that Fulton County receives $1,762,892 from the county-wide tax (1½ mills) and $780,000 from a direct appropriation from the County Comm:fssion and $720,000 from the County Commission for Teacher Retirement. total of $3,262,892 from these two sources. This makes a If it is assumed that the appropria- tion from the County Commission is also derived from property taxes, what part of this total is paid on property located in Fulton County but outside of the City of Atlanta? Since only about 19 percent of the digest of Fulton County lies out si de of the City of Atlanta, only approximately 19 percent of this amount, or $619, 949, is paid on the property in Fulton County lying outsi de the City of Atlant a, and $2, 642,943 on the pr operty in the City of Atlanta. This repr esents only approximately 3. 6 percent of the r evenue r ecei pts of t he Fult on County Board. It will also be noted t hat 7.8 percent of the r evenue r eceipt s of t he Fult on County dist rict i s der i ved from the 5½mill levy f or debt s ervice . These two amounts, that is, 3 .6 percent pl us 7.8 percent added t o 28.4 percent make a t otal of 39.8 per cent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County Board of Educat i on obtained frOdl property taxes paid on property located in Fulton County outside of the City of Atlanta. The Fulton County Board of Educati on r ecei ves 40. 8 percent of its revenue from the state Minimum Foundation Program appropriations as eompared with 32.3 percent for the City of Atlanta. The Minimum Foundation Program law was designed �-3to equalize educational opportunities among school districts that vary greatly in wealth. The l½ mill county-wide tax levied in all of Fulton County but al- located exclusively to the Fulton County Board also provides for considerable financial equalization at the local leveL opportunity is sound public policy. The equalization of educational Later in this report, it is shown that the . adjusted gross digest is 32 percent greater per pupil in the City of Atlanta than in Fulton County. Table I shows the revenue receipts of the Atlanta Schools totaled $530.01 per pupil in 1966-67 as compared with $571.07 in Fulton County. This means that the State Minimum Foundation Program. Law together with the l½ mill county-iwide levy and the direct appropriation from the County Commission have gone a long way toward equalizing the financial support of the two systems. It should not be inferred from this comment, however, that educational opportunities are equal in the two school systems. The Atlanta City school system provides kindergartens which are not provided in the Fulton County system. If Fulton County provided kindergartens, the revenue receipts per pupil in that school system would probably be no more than the revenue receipts per pupil in the Atlanta system. Both systems will benefit substantially in 1967-68 from increases from the Minimum Foundation Program Appropriation provided by the 1967 Legislature. It is estimated that the City of Atlanta will receive an increase of approximately $1,863,000 from this source and Fulton County approximately $1,075,000. �I r~ TABLE I - SOURCES OF REVENUE OF ATIANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67 (BUDGETED REVENUES 1966-67., DATA FURNISHED BY CITY AND COUNTY SCHOOL OFFICIALS) SOURCE District Property tax for operation ATLANTA Amount Percent $29.,686,415 55.4 FULTON COUNTY Amount Percent $ 4,922.,451 1,762,892 10.2 County Commission (for General Expenses) 780.,000 4.5 Intangible Taxes Z30,000 1.3 County Commission (for Teacher Retirement) 720,000 # 4.2 County Wide Property Tax State Minimum Foundation Program 40.8 17.,322.,038 32.3 7,074,761 other State Funds 425.,013 .8 0 Vocational Funds 628,449 1.2 58,000 .3 National Defense Education Act 520.,781 1.0 65,400 .4 Fulton County School District 5½mill levy f or debt service Federal Impacted Area Funds 1,350.,000 # 7.8 210.,000 1.2 802,366 1.5 City Council Payments for Debt Service on Sch . Bonds 2.,835.,045 # 5.3 other Income 1.,358,747 2.5 159., 500 .9 $53 ., 578.,854 100. 0 $17,333,004 100.n Tot al Revenue Receipts Beginning Cash Balance Sub-Total Federal FundsElem. & Sec. Act. 1965 GRAND TOTAL 532.,250 818.,609 54.,111.,104 18.,151,613 2.,519,743 461,383 $56,630.,847 $18.,612.,996 Not Included in the operating budgeto continued- �TABLE I - (Cont.) ATIANTA Amount SOURCE Average Daily Attendance Ja.n. 1., 1967 Revenue Receipts Per Pupil in ADA 101,068 $530.01 Percent FULTON COUNTY Percent Amount 30,352 $571.07 Excludes federal funds received under the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 which cannot be used for the regular school program. �-4The federal revenues received from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 are also shown in Table I. These revenues are shown separately be- cause they are all earmarked for special purposes by the federal government and cannot be expended for the regular school program. Practically all of these revenues must be expended for compensatory education for the children of the disadvantaged. ·current Expenditures In Table II an analysis of the budgeted current expenditures of the two school systems for 1966-67 is presented. Both systems expend 75 percent or more of total current expenditures for instruction. This is typical practice in large school systems. Caution should be exercised in comparing the different percentage allocations given to the same expenditure functions in the two systems. These systems differ considerably in their bases of financial support, the spread of population and other factors. For example, Fulton County allocates 2.8 percent of its current expenditures to transportation but Atlanta spends no funds for pupil transportation. Atlanta expended approximately $486.07 per pupil for 1966-67 and Fulton County $517.07 for current operating expenses. The Research Division of the National Education Association estimated that the average current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance for the 50 states and the District of Columbia was $564 in 1966-67. Therefore, the current expenditures per. pupil in both the Atlanta and Fulton County School systems are very low when compared with the national average. �TABIE II CURRENT EXPENDITURES OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67 (BUDGETED EXPENDITURES FOR 1966-67) ACCOUNT FUNCTION ATIANTA Amount FULTON COUNTY Percent 1. Administration $1,796.,920 3.7 2 ._ Instruction 36,977,443 3. Operation of Plant Percent Amount 309,784 2.0 75.3 12,149,333 77.4 4,224,543 8.6 1,228,200 7.8 2,810,500 5.7 663,550 4.2 5. Health Services 96,368 .2 6. Food Services 41,209 .l $ 4. Maintenance of Plant 7. Transportation 8. Fixed Charges 9. other TOTAL Average Daily Attendance January 1967 Current Expenditures Per Pupil in ADA 0 2,417,800 754,819* 49,119,602 101,068 $486.07 4.9 1.5 100.0 0 9,300 .l 444,160 2.8 889,368** 5.7 0 15,693,695 100.0 30,352 $517.06 nata furnished by county and city school officials. Expenditure accounts do not include expenditures from federal funds received from the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. This account consists principally of undistributed expenditures made from federal funds received under the National Defense Education Act. , Includes $720,000 employees' contribution t o teachers' retirement paid by the County Commission. �-5Financial Ability The best measure of the relative local taxpaying ability of the Atlanta and Fulton County school systems is the gross property digest per pupil in average daily attendance computed on the basis of 100 percent valuation. This is due to the fact that most local school revenue is derived from property truces. Following is the adjusted 100 percent gross di~est for 1966 of the Atlanta City Scho~l district estimated by the State Revenue Department: Atlanta City in Fulton County $4,141,663,000 Atlanta City in DeKalb County 173,149,000 Total $4,314,812,000 The average daily attendance of the Atlanta City schools was 101,068 in January, 1967. Therefore, the gross digest of the Atlanta City school district adjusted on a 100 percent basis was $42,692 per pupil. The 1966 gross digest of the Fulton County school district adjusted on a 100 percent basis was $982,348,000 according to data furnished by the State Revenue Department. The gross aigest includes the valuation of homesteads even though homesteads up to a valuation of $2,000 are exempted frcm County operating levies for schools. It is necessary to include the valuation of homesteads in order to compute an accurate measure of the relative wealth of the two districts. The ADA of the Fulton County schools in January was 30,352. par pupil in ADA was $32,365. The gross digest Therefore, the Atlanta City school system has a gross digest approximately 32 percent greater than the Fulton County school system. However, each of these school systems has considerably more wealth per pupil than the average school district in the United States. �-6Local Financial Effort, to Support, Education A valid measure of local ta.x effort to support schools ccµi be obtained by dividing the taxes paid on the property located in each school district by the adjusted 100 percent gross digest of that district. . It is difficult to compute exactly the local ta.x effort of the Atlanta City District because a part of that district is in DeKalb. County. However, the follow- ing is a fairly close approximation for 1966-67. 1. District property ta.x 2. Payments of City Council for debt service on school bonds 2,835,045 The portion of the l½ mill county-wide ta.x and the portion of the appropriations made by the County Commission which was paid on property located in the City 2,642,243 3. $29,686,415 TorAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS $35,164,403 The 100 percent gross digest of the Atlanta school district for 1966 was $4,314,812,000. The total local taxes for schools divided by the gross digest equals .00815 or approximately 8.2 mills on the adjusted 100 percent gross digest or true value of property. The local taxes for schools in the Fulton County school district in 1966-67 were as follows: 1. District property tax 2. The portion of the l½ mill county-wide ta.x and the appropriation made by the County Commission which was paid on property located in the county district 3. Fulton County district levy of mills for debt service $4,922,451 5½ TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS 619,949 1,350,000 $6,892,400 �-7The 1966 gross digest of the County school system on 100 percent basis was $982,348,000. The total local taxes for schools divided by the gross digest equals .007016 or approximately 7 mills on the gross digest on true valuation of property. It is evident that the Atlanta City school district made a greater local tax effort in proportion to its ability to support schqols than Fulton County. If the Fulton County school district had made as great a tax effort in proportion to its ability as the Atlanta school dist~ict in 1966-67, it would have raised _.OOll34 times $982,348,000 or $1,ll3,983 in additional local revenue in 1966-67. Special attention is directed to the fact that Fulton County could not legally have made this extra local effort in 1966-67. The District levied 25 mills of operating taxes which was the legal limit it could levy. property was assessed at less than 25 percent of true value. Furthermore, However, the limita- tions on the taxing power of the Fulton County Board of Education will be eased somewhat in the future because of the ruling of the court in the McLennan vs St at e Revenue Commission case. The court ruled that all property must be assessed at a uniform percent of true value regar dless of the class of property or where it was l ocated. Upon the ruling, the Revenue Commissi oner ordered that all county digests be based on assessing all propert y at 40 percent of true value. This will make it possible to increase considerably t he local revenues of the Fulton County school district beginning wit h t he 1967-68 fiscal year. Ther e are no legal limits on the amount of mills which the Atlanta City Board of Educat ion may levy for the oper ation of the public schools of the ci ty. Therefor e, t here ar e no legal barrier s to increasing local school support f ~r schools in Atlanta.. Actually the local truces for schools are extremely low bot h in Atlanta and Fulton County when compared with t he school t axes levied in other sections of the nation. Recently one of the members of the staff making this survey . �-8participated in a study of school financing in all school districts of 20,000 population or more in Illinois . It was found that the average school district in Illinois levied local property taxes for schools equivalent to 12 mills on the 100 percent true valuation of property. This is almost fifty percent greater local effort than the City of Atlanta and 71 percent greater local tax effort for schools than in the Fulton County sc~ool district. Indebtedness The bonded indebtedness of the Atlanta City Council for schools totaled $52,905,000 in 1967. This was less than 3.8 percent of the unadjusted gross digest. The bonded indebtedness of the Fulton County school district was $22,661,000 in 1967. This was 9.1 percent of the unadjusted gross digest of the county s chool district. This is close to the 10 percent constitutional limit on school indebtedness for the Fulton County district. However, the bonded indebtedness margin of Fulton County will be greatly increased when the property di gest i s raised from an estimated 25 percent of true value to 40 percent. The unad justed 1966 gr oss digest for the Fulton County district was approximately $248,ooo,ooo. Assuming that the 1966 digest was at 25 per cent of true value, the 1967 digest at 40 percent of true value should be appr oximately $400, 000 , 000 allowing f or a reasonable amount of growth. The present county school i ndebted- ness would be less than 5.7 per cent of the gross digest at a 40 per cent valuation. Another way of l ooking at the indebtedness of the t wo districts is to compute . the percent that the school indebtedness of each district is of the adjusted gross digest of each district at 100 percent of true value. In 1966 this figure for the Atlanta city district was 1.23 percent and for Fulton County 2.31 percent. If the two districts were consolidated, it is assumed that the territory that originally issued the bonds would continue to be responsible for the debt service �-9on the bonds that it had issued. It does not appear that this would work any great hardship on either district because the indebtedness of neither district is excessive. Non-Property Local Taxes Some school districts in the United States have obtained legal authority to levy non-property local taxes for schools. against this practice. There are arguments both for and Following are some arguments against the levy of local non-property taxes for schools: 1. Usually only urban or metropolitan school districts are able to derive substantial funds from this source. 2. The state can collect most types of local non-property taxes more efficiently than local units of government 3, Local non-property taxes for schools place cities in competition with each other for industries. 4 If the larger urban districts are able to levy local non-property taxes f or schools , they may not support a state financing program which helps t he l ess f ortunate s chool dist ricts. 5. Same types of local non- pr operty t axes make it possibl e for wealt hy districts t o shift a part of the incidence of t heir taxes on the residents of less wealthy districts . Some arguments for t he levy of l ocal non-property taxes f or schools are as follows: 1. growing. The property tax is a regressive tax and public resistance to it is If we maintain the vigor of local school support., many believe that a source of local revenue more nearly related to ability to pay than the property tax must be found. 2. The more progressive areas of a state desire a better quality program than the legislature is usually willing to provide from non-property state taxes. �-10Those areas should be given the authority to provide this higher quality program from some local source other than the property tax. 3. It is possible to select types of local non-property taxes the burden of which cannot be shifted to the taxpayers of less wealthy areas. 4. The cost of administering local non-property taxes can be held to a reasonable level by using the state's tax collection machinery or by levying local non-property taxes by metropolitan areas rather than by individual school districts. 5. The taxpayer should be given the choice of what type or types of local taxes he will levy for schools in order to broaden the base of local taxation. As has been pointed out above, local property taxes for schools are very low both in Atlanta and in Fulton County. There is considerable leeway in both districts for increasing local property taxes for schools without those truces becoming burdensome. Therefore, there is no :immediate urgency for the considera- tion of obtaining the authority to levy local non-property taxes for schools. If the Atlanta and Fulton County school authorities decide to study the possibility of levying local non- property tax.es, it is recommended that consideration be given to the following: 1. That any local non-property t axes that are levied for schools in the Atlanta area be levied over the entire metropolitan area of Atlanta including all school districts in the following counties: Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett. 2. That a metropolitan school taxing authority be established with the sole responsibility for collecting any local non-property taxes for schools authorized by law and for apportioning such taxes among the several school districts in the five counties named above in proportion to the average daily attendance of pupils. �-ll- 3. That only those types of non-property local taxes be levied, the burden of which cannot be shifted to ta:xpayers residing outside of· the Atlanta metropolitan area. Financing Education in a Reorganized District A number of reports have been presented to the people of the Fulton County and Atlanta school districts in which arguments for t he two districts have been set forth. review those arguments . and against the consolidation of It is not the purpose of this report to Therefore, the discussions of school finance presented in this study have been focused primarily on the financing of schools in each district rather -than on the financing of schools in a consolidated district. Certain suggestions particularly concerning the level of school financing have already been presented. Those suggestions are as applicable to the financing of education in Atlanta and Fulton County as separate school districts as they would be applicable to the financing of education in a consolidated district. It would no doubt be possible to provide reasonably adequate school financing in each of the t wo distr icts operating as separate districts. However , if the t wo di stricts were consolidated, it would be possible to establish a more equi table and more efficient financing pl an. I t has already been pointed out that the 1966 gross digest adjusted at 100 percent in t he City of Atlanta was $42,692 per pupil in ADA and in the Fulton County district $32,365. If t he two dist ricts were consoli- dated, the gross digest at 100 percent valuation f or t he consolidated district would be $40 ,307 per pupil. It has also been pointed out tha.t the taxpayers i n the Fulton County s chool dist r ict are making a l ower tax effort to support schools in proportion to ability than t he t axpayers i n the Atlanta City distr i ct. There- fore, consolidation of the two dist ricts would equalize the wealth back of each child and it wuld also equalize the tax effort to support schools in the AtlantaFulton County consolidated district. Consolidation would also simplify local .financing because there would no longer be a. need for the special l½ mill .county �-12equalizing levy or direct appropriations from the County Commission. It has been suggested in other studies presented to the Local Education Commission of Atlanta and Fulton County that the consolidation of the two districts might result in the loss of some state school funds under present methods of state apportionment. If there is anything in present state laws that would place a penalty on desirable reorganization of school districts, the laws should be amended and the .penalties eliminated. This should not be a difficult undertaking. As has already been pointed out, improvements in school financing should be - made in the Atlanta and Fulton County school districts regardless of whether they are consolidated. If the two districts are consolidated, consideration should be given to the following financial recommendations: l. The Board of the consolidated district should be given the same power for levying taxes for school operation as that now possessed by the Atlanta City Board of Education and it should be fiscally independent of any other local body. 2. The Board should be given the power to issue bonds for capital outlay purposes -up to a reasonable percent of the gross digest. The Board should also be given the power to obtain t ax anticipat i on loans to be r epaid within t he f iscal year. 3. Homestead exemption f rom school t axes should be abolished i n the reorganized district. 4. Present outstanding bonds should be retired in accordance with the com- mitments made at the time of issuance but all new bonds should be issued on a district-wide basis and retired from truces levied throughout the consolidated district. �Estimated Local Tax Levy Needed for Financing Schools in the Reorganized Distr ict It is difficult to make an accurate estimate of the local tax levy needed for fi nancing schools in the reorganized district for a number of reasons . The local tax levy for schools in the combined Atlanta- Fulton County School District will depend upon a number of facto r s including the foll.owi ng : the per cent of true value at which property is assessed , the quality and quantity of education provided , the economic growth rate of Atlanta and Fulton County and the additional amounts of revenue to be received in the future f r om state and federal sources , Assumptions must be made with respect to all of these items in order to estimate the pr obable tax levy in the combined district . In Table III , the estimates of the gross digest of the combined Atlanta and Fulton County School District for the years 1966-69 are pre s ented . It will be noted that estimates at 100 per cent of true value and a t 40 per cent of t r ue value are both presented , TABLE III YEAR 1966~~ 1967 1968 1969 ESTIMATED GROSS DIGEST OF ATT__ANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMBINED 1966 - 1969 GROSS DI GEST AT 100 PER GROSS DIGEST AT 40 PER CENT TRUE VALUE CENT TRUE VALUE $5,2 97} 160 , 000 5,519 , 641 , 000 5, 751 , 466 , 000 5,993 , 027 , 000 $2 , 118,864 , 000 2,207,856 , 000 2 , 300 , 586, 000 2,397 ,211 , 000 ~~Actual data repor ted by the Sta te Revenue Department The 40 per c ent es timat e i s used f or computing t he es t imated tax levy b ecause of the or der of the Revenue Commis sioner t hat property be assessed uniformly t hroughout t he state at 40 per cent of t r ue value , It was �- 2 estimated that the gross digest would i ncr ease a t the rate of 4.2 per cent annually . Tha t was the approximate growth r ate . us ed i n the estima t es pres ented on p , 15 of Distric t Re organiza tion For Bet ter Schools in Atlanta and Fulton C0un.ty Repor t of the Loca l Educa tion Corrnnis sion of Atl anta and Fulton Count y , Ge orgia, February 1966. In Tabl e IVJ estimate s are pr esented of anticipated revenue s of the reor ga nized di s tri ct from non-local s ources , estimated budget requirement s , estimated local t ax revenue needed and estimated loca l school tax levy needed f or s chool operati on . Thes e estimates are for opera tion only and do not include revenues and expenditures needed fo r ca pita l outlay a nd debt ser vice . The methods used in making the estimates are s et fo r th in the footnotes to Table I V. It will be noted that the average es timat ed tax r a te fo r the two dis trict s oper ating a s s eparate dist ri cts i n 1967- 68 is 18. 3 mi lls but tha t t he estimated tax rate for the firs t year of operation as a c ombined di strict i s 21 . 4 mills . This is due to the fa ct that i t will take a considerable i ncr ease in school r evenue t o pr ovide kinder gartens for the Fulton County childr en a nd to i ncrea s e the genera l l evel of educati onal opportunity provided in the re organi zed sys t em. It will als o be observed tha t t he estimated l ocal t ax levy for 1969-70 i s 23 .2 mills. This is probably an over estimate becaus e i t i s based on t he as sumption that the 1969 State Legislature will not make any incr ease in the Foundation Program allotment per tea cher , I f the 1969 legis l a tur e would make the same propor- t ionat e i ncreas e in t he per teacher al lotment in the Foundation Program t ha t it made in 1967 , the es t imated l ocal tax l evy fo r s chools in the reorgani zed district would be only approximately 22, 0 mills. �- 3 .. Attention is partj,cul~rly directeq to the fact that t hese estirr~ted tax levies are paseq on - 11, ta.:x: digest at 40 per cent of true value, A tax levy of 23, 2 m!il~ An ~ tax digest At 40 per cent of true value is equivalent t A a t~x +evy ~f only 9, ~8 mills on a tax digest at 100 per cent true ve.+ue , Thh is not. a high l~pal tax levy for schools when comparecl. w:i.th ~chool. t a:x;es levied in 1 p.ding school systems in other sections of the coµp.tr y, �TABLE IV SOURCE OF REVENUE ESTIMA. TED OPERATING REVENUES FOR ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY DISTRICTS COMBINED AND ESTIMATED LOCAL OPERATING TAX LEVY NEEDED FOR SCHOOLS BASED ON A GROSS DIGEST AT 40 PER CENT OF TRUE VALUE 1967-1969 1967- 68 1968-69 1969- 70 (Estimated as (Estimated as (Estima ted as separate discombined comb i ned tricts) district) district) STATE FUNDS Vocational Funds National Defense Education Act Federal Impacted Area Funds Other Income Estimated income excluding income from local taxes # $27 , 759 ,812 704,983 $28,509,327 724 , 018 $29 , 279,079 743 , 566 602)008 618, 262 634 , 955 1 , 039 , 700 1,559,240 1,067,772 1,601,339 1 , 096 , 602 1,644,575 31,665,743 32 , 520 , 718 33,398 ,777 Estimated Operating Budget Requirement"s-l:- 72,110 , 626 81,832,188 89,111 , 499 Estimated Local Tax Funds Needed 40,444 , 883 49 , 311,470 55 , 712 , 722 Gross Digest Estimated at 40 per cent true value Estimated Tax Levy for Schools Operation in mills 2 , 207 ,856,000 18. 3 21.4 23 . 2 State funds for 1967-68 were ·estimated by adding $2, 938, 000 to the sta te funds r ecei ved by the two systems for 1966-67. This is the estimated additional state revenue pr ovided for the two systems by the 1967 Le gislature . The estimated s tate fund s f or subsequent year s wa s increased 2 . 7 per cent annually which is about t he estimated annual incr ease in attendanc e of the combined systems . The estimates f or other non-local sources of revenue were also i ncr eased 2 . 7 per cent annual ly for the same r ea son. This method may over es t imate some sources . and underestimate other sources. -l~Data t aken from P. 21 of Distr ict Reorgani zation fo r Better School s i n Atlanta and Fulton County. Repor t of the Local Education Cormnis sion of Atlanta and Fulton County, Ge orgia , February 1966. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document FINANCING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY A STUDY CONDUCTED FOR THE LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION BY DR. R. L. JOHNS (Revised by Dr. R. L. Johns - June 21, 1967) FINANCING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY A comprehensive approach to a study of the financing of the public schools in Atlanta and Fulton County would involve an appraisal of the future policies of the State of Georgia and the federal government for school financing as well as a study of local school financing. Since such an appraisal is beyond the scope of this study, this section of the report will deal primarily with problems of local school financing in the two districts. However, most authorities on school financing anticipate that in the future there will be further increases in school financial support from the federal government and state governments as well as from local school districts. Although the public schools will no doubt receive increased funds in the future from both state and federal sources, strong local financial support of the public schools will have to be maintained by all districts that desire something better than a mediocre quality level cf education for their children. The following matters are treated in this section of the report: revenue receipts, current expenditures, taxpaying ability and local effort to support education, indebtedness, equalization that would result from consolida- tion, non-property local taxes and financial arrangements that would need to be made if the two districts were consolidated. Revenue Rece Table I shows the budgeted revenue receipts of the Atlanta and Fulton County school systems. It will be noted from this Table that 55.4 percent of the revenue of the Atlanta City schools is derived from the district property tax as compared with 28.4, percent in Fulton County. However, both of these percentage figures are deceiving. «Dis Just what percent of the revenue receipts of each school system is provided by property taxes levied on property located in each district? It will be noted that the Atlanta City Council paid $2,835,045 in 1966 for the debt service on bonds the City issued to construct school buildings. This amounts to 5.3 percent of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City Board of Education. This added to the 55.4 percent derived from the district property tax makes a total of 60.7 “percent of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City schools derived from property taxes in 1966-67. It will be noted that Fulton County receives $1,762,892 from the county-wide tax (14 mills) and $780,000 from a direct appropriation from the County Commission and $720,000 from the County Commission for Teacher Retirement. This makes a total of $3,262,892 from these two sources. If it is assumed that the appropria- tion from the County Commission is also derived from property taxes, what part of this total is paid on property located in Fulton County but outside of the City of Atlanta? Since only about 19 percent of the digest of Fulton County lies outside of the City of Atlanta, only approximately 19 percent of this amount, or $619,949, is paid on the property in Fulton County lying outside the City of Atlanta, and $2,642,943 on the property in the City of Atlanta. This represents only approximately 3.6 percent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County Board. It will also be noted that 7.8 percent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County district is derived from the 5% mill levy for debt service. These two amounts, that is, 3.6 percent plus 7.8 percent added to 28.4 percent make a total of 39.8 percent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County Board of Education obtained from property taxes paid on property located in Fulton County outside of the City of Atlanta. The Fulton County Board of Education receives 40.8 percent of its revenue from the state Minimum Foundation Program appropriations as compared with 32.3 percent for the City of Atlanta. The Minimum Foundation Program law was designed a to equalize educational opportunities among school districts that vary greatly in wealth. The 13 mill county-wide tax levied in all of Fulton County but al- located exclusively to the Fulton County Board also provides for considerable financial equalization at the local level. The equalization of educational opportunity is sound public policy. Later in this report, it is shown that the .adjusted gross digest is 32 percent greater per pupil in the City of Atlanta than in Fulton County. Table I shows the revenue receipts of the Atlanta Schools totaled $530.01 per pupil in 1966-67 as compared with $571.07 in Fulton County. This means that the State Minimum Foundation Program Law together with the 13 mill county-wide levy and the direct appropriation from the County Commission have gone a long way toward equalizing the financial support of the two systems. It should not be inferred from this comment, however, that educational opportuni- ties are equal in the two school systems. The Atlanta City school system provides kindergartens which are not provided in the Fulton County system. If Fulton County provided kindergartens, the revenue receipts per pupil in that school system would probably be no more than the revenue receipts per pupil in the Atlanta system. Both systems will benefit substantially in 1967-68 from increases from the Minimum Foundation Program Appropriation provided by the 1967 Legislature. It is estimated that the City of Atlanta will receive an increase of approximately $1,863,000 from this source and Fulton County approximately $1,075,000. TABLE I - SOURCES OF REVENUE OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67 (BUDGETED REVENUES 1966-67, DATA FURNISHED BY CITY AND COUNTY SCHOOL OFFICIALS) SOURCE ATLANTA FULTON COUNTY Amount Percent Amount Percent District Property tax for operation $29 ,686 415 55k $ 4,922,451 28.4 County Wide Property Tax 1,762,892 10.2 County Commission (for General Expenses ) 780,000 4.5 Intangible Taxes 230,000 1.3 County Commission (for # Teacher Retirement ) 720,000 4.2 State Minimum Foundation Program 17,322,038 32.3 7,074,761 40.8 Other State Funds 425,013 8 0 nee Vocational Funds 628,449 352 58,000 ‘3 National Defense Education Act 520,781 1.0 65,400 4 Fulton ae School 4 District 52 mill levy Sin 0 . for debt service 45320200 we Federal Impacted Area Funds 802,366 Led 210,000 1.2 City Council Payments for # Debt Service on Sch. Bonds 2,835,045 5.3 Other Income 1,358,747 205 159,500 9 Total Revenue Receipts $53,578,854 100.0 $17,333,004 100.0 Beginning Cash Balance 532,250 om 818,609 a= Sub-Total 54,111,104 —_ 18,151,613 -- Federal Funds- Elem. & Sec. Act. 1965 2,519,743 = 461,383 = GRAND TOTAL $56,630,847 <= $18,612,996 <— # Not Included in the operating budget. continued==- TABLE I - (Cont.) SOURCE ATLANTA FULTON COUNTY Amount Percent. Amount Percent Average Daily Attendance Jan. 1, 1967 101,068 30,352 Revenue Receipts Per Pupil in ADA * $530.01 $571.07 % Excludes federal funds received under the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 which cannot be used for the regular school program. af The federal revenues received from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 are also shown in Table I. These revenues are shown separately be- cause they are all earmarked for special purposes by the federal government and cannot be expended for the regular school program. Practically all of these revenues must be expended for compensatory education for the children of the disadvantaged. ‘Current Expenditures In Table II an analysis of the budgeted current expenditures of the two school systems for 1966-67 is presented. Both systems expend 75 percent or more of total current expenditures for instruction. This is typical practice in large school systems. Caution should be exercised in comparing the different percentage allocations given to the same expenditure functions in the two systems. These systems differ considerably in their bases of financial support, the spread of population and other factors. For example, Fulton County allocates 2.8 percent of its current expenditures to transportation but Atlanta spends no funds for pupil transporta- tion. Atlanta expended approximately $486.07 per pupil for 1966-67 and Fulton County $517.07 for current operating expenses. The Research Division of the National Education Association estimated that the average current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance for the 50 states and the District of Columbia was $564 in 1966-67. Therefore, the current expenditures per pupil in both the Atlanta and Fulton County School systems are very low when compared with the national average. TABLE II CURRENT EXPENDITURES OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67 tt (BUDGETED EXPENDITURES FOR 1966-67) ACCOUNT ATIANTA FULTON COUNTY FUNCTION Amount Percent Amount Percent 1. Administration $1,796,920 3.7 $ 309,784 2.0 2.. Instruction 365977 s4h3 75.3 12,149,333 77-4 3. Operation of Plant hy 22h5543 8.6 1,228,200 7.8 4, Maintenance of Plant 2,810,500 5.7 663,550 4.2 5. Health Services . 96 368 22 0 -- 6. Food Services 41,209 ok 9,300 ol 7. Transportation 0 -- Lhd, 5160 2.8 8. Fixed Charges 2,417,800 4.9 889,368* 5.7 9. Other 754,819%* 1:65 0 -- TOTAL 49,119,602 100.0 15,693,695 100.0 Average Daily Attendance January 1967 101,068 30,352 Current Expenditures Per Pupil in ADA $486.07 $517.06 Mata furnished by county and city school officials. Expenditure accounts do not include expenditures from federal funds received from the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. *This account consists principally of undistributed expenditures made from federal funds received under the National Defense Education Act. **Includes $720,000 employees! contribution to teachers! retirement paid by the County Commission. =i Financial Ability The best measure of the relative local taxpaying ability of the Atlanta and Fulton County school systems is the gross property digest per pupil in average daily attendance computed on the basis of 100 percent valuation. This is due to the fact that most local school revenue is derived from property taxes. Following is the adjusted 100 percent gross digest for 1966 of the Atlanta City School district estimated by the State Revenue Department: Atlanta City in Fulton County $4,141,663 ,000 Atlanta City in DeKalb County 173,149 000 Total $4,314, 812,000 The average daily attendance of the Atlanta City schools was 101,068 in January, 1967. Therefore, the gross digest of the Atlanta City school district adjusted on a 100 percent basis was $42,692 per pupil. The 1966 gross digest of the Fulton County school district adjusted on a 100 percent basis was $982,348,000 according to data furnished by the State Revenue Department. The gross digest includes the valuation of homesteads even though homesteads up to a valuation of $2,000 are exempted from County operating levies for schools. It is necessary to include the valuation of homesteads in order to compute an accurate measure of the relative wealth of the two districts. The ADA of the Fulton County schools in January was 30,352. The gross digest per pupil in ADA was $32,365. Therefore, the Atlanta City school system has a gross digest approximately 32 percent greater than the Fulton County school system. However, each of these school systems has considerably more wealth per pupil than the average school district in the United States. Local Financial Effort to Support Education A valid measure of local tax effort to support schools can be obtained by dividing the taxes paid on the property located in each school district by the adjusted 100 percent gross digest of that district. It is difficult to compute exactly the local tax effort of the Atlanta City District because a part of that district is in DeKalb. County. However, the follow~ ing is a fairly close approximation for 1966-67. 1. District property tax $29 686,415 2. Payments of City Council for debt service on school bonds 2,835,045 3. The portion of the 13 mill county-wide tax and the portion of the appropriations made by the County Commission which was paid on property located in the City 2.642.943 TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS $35,164,403 The 100 percent gross digest of the Atlanta school district for 1966 was $4,314,812,000. The total local taxes for schools divided by the gross digest equals .00815 or approximately 8.2 mills on the adjusted 100 percent gross digest or true value of property. The local taxes for schools in the Fulton County school district in 1966-67 were as follows: 1. District property tax $ 4,922,451 2. The portion of the 14 mill county-wide tax and the appropriation made by the County Commission which was paid on property located in the county district 619,949 3. Fulton County district levy of 53 mills for debt service 1,350,000 TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS $ 6,892,400 = Ja The 1966 gross digest of the County school system on 100 percent basis was $982,348,000. The total local taxes for schools divided by the gross digest equals .007016 or approximately 7 mills on the gross digest on true valuation of property. It is evident that the Atlanta City school district made a greater local tax effort in proportion to its ability to support schools than Fulton County. If the Fulton County school district had made as great a tax effort in proportion to its ability as the Atlanta school district in 1966-67, it would have raised -001134 times $982,348,000 or $1,113,983 in additional local revenue in 1966-67. Special attention is directed to the fact that Fulton County could not legally have made this extra local effort in 1966-67. The District levied 25 mills of operating taxes which was the legal limit it could levy. Furthermore, property was assessed at less than 25 percent of true value. However, the limita- tions on the taxing power of the Fulton County Board of Education will be eased somewhat in the future because of the ruling of the court in the McLennon vs State Revenue Commission case. The court ruled that all property must be assessed at a uniform percent of true value regardless of the class of property or where it was located. Upon the ruling, the Revenue Commissioner ordered that all county digests be based on assessing all property at 40 percent of true value. This will make it possible to increase considerably the local revenues of the Fulton County school district beginning with the 1967-68 fiscal year. There are no legal limits on the amount of mills which the Atlanta City Board of Education may levy for the operation of the public schools of the city. Therefore, there are no legal barriers to increasing local school support fcr schools in Atlanta. Actually the local taxes for schools are extremely low both in Atlanta and Fulton County when compared with the school taxes levied in other sections of the nation. Recently one of the members of the staff making this survey  -8- participated in a study of school financing in all school districts of 20,000 population or more in Illinois. It was found that the average school district in Illinois levied local property taxes for schools equivalent to 12 mills on the 100 percent true valuation of property. This is almost fifty percent greater local effort than the City of Atlanta and 71 percent greater local tax effort for schools than in the Fulton County school district. Indebtedness The bonded indebtedness of the Atlanta City Council for schools totaled $52,905,000 in 1967. This was less than 3.8 percent of the unadjusted gross digest. The bonded indebtedness of the Fulton County school district was $22,661,000 in 1967. This was 9.1 percent of the unadjusted gross digest of the county school district. This is close to the 10 percent constitutional limit on school indebtedness for the Fulton County district. However, the bonded indebtedness margin of Fulton County will be greatly increased when the property digest is raised from an estimated 25 percent of true value to 40 percent. The unadjusted 1966 gross digest for the Fulton County district was approximately $248,000,000. Assuming that the 1966 digest was at 25 percent of true value, the 1967 digest at 40 percent of true value should be approximately $400,000,000 allowing for a reasonable amount of growth. The present county school indebted- ness would be less than 5.7 percent of the gross digest at a 40 percent valuation. Another way of looking at the indebtedness of the two districts is to compute the percent that the school indebtedness of each district is of the adjusted gross digest of each district at 100 percent of true value. In 1966 this figure for the Atlanta city district was 1.23 percent and for Fulton County 2.31 percent. If the two districts were consolidated, it is assumed that the territory that originally issued the bonds would continue to be responsible for the debt service -9— on the bonds that it had issued. It does not appear that this would work any great hardship on either district because the indebtedness of neither district is excessive. Non=-Property Local Taxes Some school districts in the United States have obtained legal authority to levy non=-property local taxes for schools. There are arguments both for and against this practice. Following are some arguments against the levy of local non~property taxes for schools: 1. Usually only urban or metropolitan school districts are able to derive substantial funds from this source. 2. The state can collect most types of local non-property taxes more efficiently than local units of government 3. Local non-property taxes for schools place cities in competition with each other for industries. 4 If the larger urban districts are able to levy local non=-property taxes for schools, they may not support a state financing program which helps the less fortunate school districts. 5. Some types of local non=property taxes make it possible for wealthy districts to shift a part of the incidence of their taxes on the residents of less wealthy districts. Some arguments for the levy of local non-property taxes for schools are as follows: 1. The property tax is a reneebaiin tax and public resistance to it is growing. If we maintain the vigor of local school support, many believe that a source of local revenue more nearly related to ability to pay than the property tax must be found. 2. The more progressive areas of a state desire a better quality program than the legislature is usually willing to provide from non-property state taxes. On Those areas should be given the authority to provide this higher quality program from some local source other than the property tax. 3. It is possible to select types of local non-property taxes the burden of which cannot be shifted to the taxpayers of less wealthy areas. 4. The cost of administering local non-property taxes can be held to a reasonable level by using the state's tax collection machinery or by levying local iohetoneety taxes by metropolitan areas rather than by individual school districts. 5. The taxpayer should be given the choice of what type or types of local taxes he will levy for schools in order to broaden the base of local taxation. As has been pointed out above, local property taxes for schools are very low both in Atlanta and in Fulton County. There is considerable leeway in both districts for increasing local property taxes for schools without those taxes becoming burdensome. Therefore, there is no immediate urgency for the considera- tion of obtaining the authority to levy local non-property taxes for schools. If the Atlanta and Fulton County school authorities decide to study the possibility of levying local non-property taxes, it is recommended that considera- tion be given to the following: 1. That any local non=-property taxes that are levied for schools in the Atlanta area be levied over the entire metropolitan area of Atlanta including all school districts in the following counties: Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett. 2. That a metropolitan school taxing authority be established with the sole responsibility for collecting any local non=property taxes for schools authorized by law and for apportioning such taxes among the several school districts in the five counties named above in proportion to the average daily attendance of pupils. 4435 3. That only those types of non-property local taxes be levied, the burden of which cannot be shifted to taxpayers residing outside of the Atlanta metropolitan area. Financing Education in a Reorganized District A number of reports have been presented to the people of the Fulton County and Atlanta school districts in which arguments for and against the consolidation of the tio districts have been set forth. It is not the purpose of this report to review those arguments. Therefore, the discussions of school finance presented in this study have been focused primarily on the financing of schools in each dis- trict rather than on the financing of schools in a consolidated district. Certain suggestions particularly concerning the level of school financing have already been presented. Those suggestions are as applicable to the financing of education in Atlanta and Fulton County as separate school districts as they would be applicable to the financing of education in a consolidated district. It would no doubt be possible to provide reasonably adequate school financing in each of the two districts operating as separate districts. However, if the two districts were consolidated, it would be possible to establish a more equitable and more efficient financing plan. It has already been pointed out that the 1966 gross digest adjusted at 100 percent in the City of Atlanta was $42,692 per pupil in ADA and in the Fulton County district $32,365. If the two districts were consoli- dated, the gross digest at 100 percent valuation for the consolidated district would be $40,307 per pupil. It has also been pointed out that the taxpayers in the Fulton County school district are making a lower tax effort to support schools in proportion to ability than the taxpayers in the Atlanta City district. There- fore, consolidation of the two districts would equalize the wealth back of each child and it would also equalize the tax effort to support schools in the Atlanta- Fulton County consolidated district. Consolidation would also simplify local financing because there would no longer be a need for the special 13 mill county equalizing levy or direct appropriations from the County Commission. It has been suggested in other studies presented to the Local Education Com- mission of Atlanta and Fulton County that the consolidation of the two districts might result in the loss of some state school funds under present methods of state apportionment. If there is anything in present state laws that would place a penalty on desirable reorganization of school districts, the laws should be amended and the penalties eliminated. This should not be a difficult undertaking. As has already been pointed out, improvements in school financing should be made in the Atlanta and Fulton County school districts regardless of whether they are consolidated. If the two districts are consolidated, consideration should be given to the following financial recommendations: 1. The Board of the consolidated district should be given the same power for levying taxes for school operation as that now possessed by the Atlanta City Board of Education and it should be fiscally independent of any other local body. 2. The Board should be given the power to issue bonds for capital outlay purposes up to a reasonable percent of the gross digest. The Board should also be given the power to obtain tax anticipation loans to be repaid within the fiscal year. | 3. Homestead exemption from school taxes should be abolished in the re=- organized district. 4. Present outstanding bonds should be retired in accordance with the com- mitments made at the time of issuance but all new bonds should be issued on a district-wide basis and retired from taxes levied throughout the consolidated district. Estimated Local Tax Levy Needed for Financing Schools in the Reorganized District It is difficult to make an accurate estimate of the local tax levy needed for financing schools in the reorganized district for a number of reasons, The local tax levy for schools in the combined Atlanta-Fulton County School District will depend upon a number of factors including the following: the per cent of true value at which property is assessed, the quality and quantity of education provided, the economic growth rate of Atlanta and Fulton County and the additional amounts of revenue to be received in the future from state and federal sources. Assumptions must be made with respect to all of these items in order to estimate the probable tax levy in the combined district. In Table ITI, the estimates of the gross digest of the combined Atlanta and Fulton County School District for the years 1966-69 are presented, It will be noted that estimates at 100 per cent of true value and at 40 per cent of true value are both presented, TABLE III ESTIMATED GROSS DIGEST OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS: COMBINED 1966 - 1969 GROSS DIGEST AT 100 PER GROSS DIGEST AT 40 PER YEAR CENT TRUE VALUE CENT TRUE VALUE 1966" $5,297,160,000 $2,118, 864,000 1967 5,519,641,000 2,207,856,000 1968 5,751,466 ,000 2, 300,586,000 1969 5 993,027,000 2,397,211,000 *Actual data reported by the State Revenue Department The 40 per cent estimate is used for computing the estimated tax levy because of the order of the Revenue Commissioner that property be assessed uniformly throughout the state at 40 per cent of true value. It was aw ie estimated that the gross digest would increase at the rate of 4.2 per cent annually. That was the approximate growth rate used in the estimates presented on p. 15 of District Reorganization For Better Schools in Atlanta and Fulton County Report of the Local Education Commission of Atlanta and Fulton County, Georgia, February 1966. In Table IV, estimates are presented of anticipated revenues of the reorganized district from non-local sources. estimated budget requirements, estimated local tax revenue needed and estimated local school tax levy needed for school operation. These estimates are for operation only and do not include revenues and expenditures needed for capital outlay and debt service. The methods used in making the estimates are set forth in the footnotes to Table IV, It will be noted that the average estimated tax rate for the two districts operating as separate districts in 1967-68 is 18.3 mills but that the estimated tax rate for the first year of operation as a combined district is 21.4 milis. This is due to the fact that it will take a considerable increase in school revenue to provide kindergartens for the Fulton County children and to increase the general level of educational opportunity provided in the reorganized system, It will also be observed that the estimated local tax levy for 1969-70 is 23.2 mills. This is probably an over estimate because it is based on the assumption that the 1969 State Legislature will not make any increase in the Foundation Program allotment per teacher. If the 1969 legislature would make the same propor- tionate increase in the per teacher allotment in the Foundation Program that it made in 1967, the estimated local tax levy for schools in the reorganized district would be only approximately 22.0 mills.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 2, Document 26 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 2 Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/1a5897a08582693dad55671b8aaec475.pdf 81d88d13ce0b01fbc7c134cd34695223 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. REPORT OF THE CONSULTANTS on CERTAIN PERSONNEL PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED MERGER of the FULTON COUNTY - ATLANTA SCHOOL SYSTEMS JUNE 19, 1967 WILLARDS. ELSBREE and JOHN E. PHAY CONSULTANTS �Report of the Consultant s on Certain Personnel Problems Relati ng to the Propo3ed Merger of the Fulton County Atlanta School Systems, June 19, 1967 This report dea l s with the implications of merging the certificated and non-certificated per sonnel of the two current school systems - Fulton County and Atlanta . The question of the soundness of the merger itself was deemed to be outsi de the province of this study. The consultants have proceeded on the a s sumption that a merger is contemplated; that if - effected , it is essential to unify personnel policies and practices , and that specific procedure s for dealing with the employee groups in the two school systems should be spelled out. Perhaps the two most important personnel problems that must be resolved if a merger i s to be effected are the establishment of equitable salary and wage policies and the determination of how present and future pension and retirement provisions are to be administered. Certain other poli cie s and practices must also be unified if the merger is to deal f airly with the employed personnel. Sick leave , insur- ance provi s ions , and tenur e r egulations must somehow be brought into harmony - otherwise morale wi ll suffer and the objectives of the merger will not be fully r ealized . In or de r to obtai n the data and information needed to arrive at recommended pr ocedures the consultants assembled , with the help of the Coordi na tor of the Met ro politan School Deve lopment Council , pertinent published materi a l s f r om each of t he schoo l syst ems involved and they interviewed executives re sponsible f or the administration and supervision of the per sonnel poli cies. Included i n t he l ist of t hose int erviewed were : �the Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia, the Deputy Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia, the Director of Finance for Fulton County Board of Education, the Assistant Director of Finance for Fulton County Board of Education, the Controller of the Atlanta School System, the Assistant Controller of the Atlanta School System, the Superintendent of Schools in each system, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel in Atlanta, the Coordinator of the Metropolitan School Development Council, the Director of Non-certificated Personnel in Atlanta, the Secretary for the Atlanta General Pension Fund, the Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent of Schools, Atlanta. Many official reports were examined together with policy statements in an effort to learn the basis for existing practices. The fact that salary policies were undergoing major revisions has been noted and the proposals contained in thi s report take full account of these changes . It should be pointed out that many personnel policies are subject to revision almost annually o Salary levels in particular are very unstable and inflation has forced boards of education and public boardsgenerally to boost salaries and wages more frequently than was true a few years ago . Because of this i nstabi lity any calculations of future costs are bound to be unreliable . The best that can be done is to make what appears to be �reasonable assumptions and show their implications . Salaries of Certificated Personnel With the merger of the Atlanta and Fulton County School systems an immediate concern of the several thousand individuals employed will be what will be my salary for next year? It is the opinion of the consultants that a basic salary schedule should be developed for the certificated personnel of the merged systems but that such only after the merger is consumated. a schedule should be developed The preparation of a salary schedule that has good possibilitie s of wide and enthusiastic reception should involve many people in its development. Representatives of organized pro- fessional groups, area specialists and supervisory and administrative personnel should have a part in the preparation of the basic salary program, Until the merger occurs , similar professional organizations will continue to exist for both Atlanta and Fulton County. After merger , many organiza- tions will be consolidated and at that time the new organizations may be appropriately represented . The same situation obtains for representatives of area specialists and the supervisory and administrative staff . A salary schedule that could be reconnnended by consultants prior to the merger of the systems and without the involvement of representatives from the new groups would be premature . Therefore, it is reconnnended that after merger �4 a salary study committee composed of representatives of all certificated groups and areas be appointed to consider salary schedules and salary policies for the new systemo With the decision reached that any new salary schedules should be developed only after merger of the systems, the consultants examined the possibilities of what salary provisions might be best for innnediate application following the merger and during the transition periodo The same treatment , salarywise, of all personnel in the new system is a prerequisite in determining salary policies for the new system. It was found that the two salary schedules could be merged and after careful review and examination the consultants came to the conclusion that retention of the salary schedules of the Atlanta System and the placement of the Fulton County per sonnel on the Atlanta schedules is the best solution possible with the merging of the two systems . To make such a t r ansfer from one salary schedule to another it is recommended that the following rules be applied : 1. No employee ' s s alary wi l l be reduced . 2. Teachers and other certifi cated per sonnel will be placed on the appropriate 1967-68 Atlanta School Sys tem' s sal ary schedule, on the step stipulating a salary t hat is equal to or next higher i n amount t o t he current s alary being paid . �5 3. Any Fulton County employee whose salary is higher on his present salary schedule than it would be on the same step of the Atlanta salary schedule will be paid this higher salary amount, but when and if eligible in subsequent years he will proceed according to the provisions of the appropriate salary scale. 4. For employees new to the merged system, a maximum of five years' service in other school systems will be accepted on a year by year basis . Such a person, with five years' experience, would enter on step 6 of the salary schedule. 5. Salary scale incentives applicable to the Bachelor's and Master's degree scales will be established following steps 4, 8, and 12. Teachers will be allowed to proceed on these salary scales only after completing six semester hours of approved college or university credit, or its equivalent, in in-service programs approved by the Board of Education . To make the salary changes by the application of the above rules it was estimated by the Coordinator of Metropolitan School Development Council that the cost increase will be approximately$ During the transition period there should be established a salary study connnittee, as indicated earlier in this section , to ascertain the adequacy of the salary schedules and policies in operation and to recommend any changes that promise to produce better salary arrangements . In addi t ion, �6 a review should be made to ascertain whether or not individual employees have been appropriately classified and -given correct placement on the salary schedules. Wages of Non-certificated Employees A similar approach is suggested for arriving at appropriate wage policies for the non-certificated workers in the county and the city school systems. Atlanta has recently adopted a classification plan recommended by the Public Administration Service. These schedules have been developed after much study and it appears logical to fit the non- certificated school employees from the county into the basic Atlanta pattern. ences in the length of the work year in some categories. There are differThis calls for minor adjustments but is not a serious obstacle to unifying the two groups. Bus drivers are employed in the county but are not employed by the Atlanta School System. The current wages paid bus drivers should be continued for the time being and the pay levels assessed when salar ie s and wage s gener ally are being reviewed . In the case of custodians it would be necessary to reclassify the Fulton County employee s in order t o achieve parity. This i s not a difficult t a sk and if the merger is voted , temporar y cl assifica t i ons could be made in tho se cases where t he job descriptions were not clear and final a ssignments made a f t er individual case s were reviewed. According to est imat es made by the Coor dinator of t he Metro politan School Development Council, the cost of bringing all the non-certificated employees under a single tent i f the At l ant a pay scales were applied is $543 , 756 . This assumes that no consolidation in jobs will be made and the same number of employees are retained . Retirement Provisions Both Fulton County and the City of Atlanta maintain local pensi on and �- I 7 retirement systems for their employees . This practice is of fairly long standing and, as ha s been the case in other Amer ican cities and counties, it arose because of the obvious need to provide employees with protection against the vicissitudes of advanced age and the local community against the inefficiency which results when workers, past the prime of life , are retained on the job . Unfortunately the history of local pension plans has not been too favorable . Even when· they have maintained a solvent position, which many have not, they have seldom pr ovided the pr otec tion to new members that was guaranteed by those established and administered by the State ~ As a result , they have rapidly diminished in number and state plans have supplanted them . The l atter because of l arger member ships , the spreading of risks, and greater resources , have supplied the certificated staff with superior protection . Mor eover , state employees' retirement systems are increasingl y providi ng coverage f or the. non-cert i f icated employees i n school systems . The pr oblem confr onting Fulton County and Atlanta with respect to pension and retirement is not unlike t hat f ound i n many other systems. The funds required represent a t remendous investment and the accrued l iabi l iti e s r un into milli ons of dollars, The ultimate so l ution in t he minds of t he consultants lies in moving the responsibility as quickly as possible from the l ocal system to t he St a t e and t he abandonment of any local ret irement for new cert ificated per sonnel . This cannot be achi eved quickly nor painlessly. While the pro- posal to merge the two school systems poses some knotty problems with respect to employee retirement , a reasonable solution can probably be worked out. 1 �8 With the merger of the two systems, it is recommended that the policies with respect to retirement and- pension provisions listed below be adopted by the various boards concerned : 1. All~ certificated personnel will secure membership under the Teachers Retirement System of Georgi a . 2. All~ non-certificated personnel wi ll secur e membership in the social security program provided under the Federal Insurance Compensation Act. 3. All certificated personnel who are members of retirements systems operated by either the Atlanta General Employees ' Pension Fund Board or by the Fulton County School Pension Board may withdraw their personal contributions to their pension fund if and when they become members of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia. 4. Members of the retirement system oper ated by the Atlanta Pension Board who wish to continue to be covered by the provisions of such board may continue thei r member ship , and the Atlanta Pension Board will continue to administer and be r esponsi ble for all pension liabilitie s fo r such personnel as re quired by their current connnitments . Futur e change s i n pension benefi ts will be avai lable to such member s. 5. The Fulton Count y Boar d of Connnissioners will assume all obligat i ons , l iabili ties , and connnitments of t he Fulton "County School Pension Fund Boar d . 6. Member s of the r etirement sys tem oper ated by the Fulton County School Pension Board may at t heir option t r ansfer their member ship t o a new Fult on County pension system to be administer ed by the Fulton County Boar d of Connnissi oner s or i t s de signat e and retain �9 all of the rights and benefit s they held under the system operated by the Fulton County School Pension Board. 7. Commitment s for membe1s who have retired under the pension systems operated by either the Atlanta Pens ion Board or by the Fulton County School Peneion Boar d shall have all such commitments honored by the Atlanta Pension Board or by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners re spectively. Insurance The practice of providing group life a,_~d personal accident insurance for employees is connnendable and should be continued. I t is reconnnended that: 1. Employees of the At~anta and Fulton County school systems who have retained their school system sponsored insurance policies and who are retired will have their benefits and vested rights under their policy protected by the Atlanta City Board of Aldermen and the Fulton County Boar d of Commissioners, respectively, and such boards will manage and make any annual payments due i nsurance companies that exceeds the amount required of the employees under the provisions of the policy. 2. At the time of the mer ger , gr oup life and personal a ccident insurance contracts be cancelled and a new contract agreement be entered into with a commercial company t hat will pr ovi de the best policy at the l owe st rate. Tenure Joh security should not be placed in j eopar dy for an employee of the two sch•.iol systems because of t he merger. 1 .. Tenure policies for the new It i s recommended that : sys tem · be e tablished for the several classes of personnel employed and that the policies �10 fo r each clas si f ication be tho se now ex t ant in either the Atlanta School System or t he Ful~on County Schoo l System that are more generous to the i ndi vid .al employee. 2. Employees holding t enure in either of the t wo systems concerned at the time of merge r be automatically pr ovided t enure in the new systeltl. 3. Any probationary period served in the two systems concerned and prior to the mer ger of the two systems will be accepted at full value for tenure considerat i ons in t he mer ged system. Leaves of Absence and Vacat ions The emoluments and rights earned under provi sions that now exist for the personnel in the Atlanta and Ful t on Count y schools should be protected . It is reconnnended that the provisions tha t are most generous t o the employees , tha t now exist in ei t her of t he t wo school sys t ems concerned, be adopted fo r the new merged system with res pect t o sick leave , maternity leave , ber eavement leave, mi lit ary leave, pr ofessio nal study leave, emer gency leave and vacations . Records With the merger of the two systems, it is anticipa t ed t ha t changes wi l l be needed i n bo t h acc ounting and personnel r ec ords systems . With moder n office e quipment and el ectronic data proce s3ing 1nachinery, the wor k of business, acc ounting, financial and statistical offices ·can be handled with dispatch . Moreover, information on personnel can be secured i n a s many ways as ne eded in short periods of time. In order for t he new sys t em to be able to function efficiently, it is reconnnended that as soon a s the merger is voted, specialists i n systems data processing be employed to plan for the merging of data of the two school systems together with programs for fast retrieval of such data , �11 Combining the Central Office Staff Personnel A merger nearly always requires some consolidation of central office personnel . Hence, the pro cedures for determining how the unified system should assign the current centr al office employees needs to be spelled out . The two systems as might be expected have several comparable central office positions and in some instances the merger, in the interest of economy, might necessitate the assignment of certain officials to posts outside the central office. This fa ct together with the need to reassess existing assignments calls for the exercise of both judgment and diplomacy on the part of those charged with the r esponsibility of building a new central organization . The consultants believe that the wisest procedure to follow in merging the two central staffs is as follows: 1. The new Board of Education shoul d choo se a superintendent of schools for the system 2, and an associate superintendent. The Board of Education should appoint a connnittee to make recommendations as to the assignment of personnel to the new system central office positions , This connnittee should be composed of the super intendent of schools, who should act as chairman, the assoc iate superintendent of schools, and two officials currently responsible for the recruitment, selection and assignment of personnel in the two systems being merged. 3. The officials cur rently responsible for the recruitment, selection and assignment of personnel should make reconnnendations to the superintendent of schools regarding the assignment of secretaries, clerks and custodial workers needed for service in the central headquarters . �12 4. In making a ssignments , consi derati on should be given to the age , experience and personal fitness of the i ndividual employee for the job to be filled , 5. All central office employees should be housed under one roof and adequate fac i lities should be provided to facilitate the work . � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document REPORT OF THE CONSULTANTS on CERTAIN PERSONNEL PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED MERGER of the FULTON COUNTY — ATLANTA SCHOOL SYSTEMS JUNE 19, 1967 WILLARD S. ELSBREE and JOHN E. PHAY CONSULTANTS Report of the Consultants on Certain Personnel Problems Relating to the Proposed Merger of the Fulton County - Atlanta School Systems, June 19, 1967 This report deals with the implications of merging the certificated and non-certificated personnel of the two current school systems — Fulton County and Atlanta. The question of the soundness of the merger itself was deemed to be outside the province of this study. The consultants have proceeded on the assumption that a merger is contemplated; that if effected, it is essential to unify personnel policies and practices, and that specific procedures for dealing with the employee groups in the two school systems should be spelled out. Perhaps the two most important personnel problems that must be re- solved if a merger is to be effected are the establishment of equitable salary and wage policies and the determination of how present and future pension and retirement provisions are to be administered. Certain other policies and practices must also be unified if the merger is to deal fairly with the employed personnel. Sick leave, insur- ance provisions, and tenure regulations must somehow be brought into harmony — otherwise morale will suffer and the objectives of the merger will not be fully realized. In order to obtain the data and information needed to arrive at recom- mended procedures the consultants assembled, with the help of the Coordinator of the Metropolitan School Development Council, pertinent published materials from each of the school systems involved and they interviewed executives responsible for the administration and supervision of the personnel policies. Included in the list of those interviewed were: the Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia, the Deputy Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia, the Director of Finance for Fulton County Board of Education, the Assistant Director of Finance for Fulton County Board of Education, the Controller of the Atlanta School System, the Assistant Controller of the Atlanta School System, the Superintendent of Schools in each system, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel in Atlanta, the Coordinator of the Metropolitan School Development Council, the Director of Non-certificated Personnel in Atlanta, the Secretary for the Atlanta General Pension Fund, the Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent of Schools, Atlanta. Many official reports were examined together with policy statements in an effort to learn the basis for existing practices. The fact that salary policies were undergoing major revisions has been noted and the proposals contained in this report take full account of these changes. It should be pointed out that many personnel policies are subject to revision almost annually, Salary levels in particular are very unstable and inflation has forced boards of education and public boards generally to boost salaries and wages more frequently than was true a few years ago. Because of this instability any calculations of future costs are bound to be unreliable, The best that can be done is to make what appears to be reasonable assumptions and show their implications. Salaries of Certificated Personnel With the merger of the Atlanta and Fulton County School systems an immediate concern of the several thousand individuals employed will be - iat will be my salary for next year? It is the opinion of the consultants that a basic salary schedule should be developed for the certificated per- sonnel of the merged systems but that such a schedule should be developed only after the merger is consumated. The preparation of a salary schedule that has good possibilities of wide and enthusiastic reception should in- volve many people in its development. Representatives of organized pro- fessional groups, area specialists and supervisory and administrative per- sonnel should have a part in the preparation of the basic salary program. Until the merger occurs, similar professional organizations will continue to exist for both Atlanta and Fulton County. After merger, many organiza- tions will be consolidated and at that time the new organizations may be appropriately represented. The same situation obtains for representatives of area specialists and the supervisory and administrative staff. A salary schedule that could be recommended by consultants prior to the merger of the systems and without the involvement of representatives from the new groups would be premature, Therefore, it is recommended that after merger a salary study committee composed of representatives of all certificated groups and areas be appointed to consider salary schedules and salary . policies for the new system. With the decision reached that any new salary schedules should be developed only after merger of the systems, the consultants examined the possibilities of what salary provisions ee be best for immediate appli- cation following the merger and during the transition period. The same treatment, salarywise, of all personnel in the new system is a prerequisite in determining salary policies for the new system. It was found that the two salary schedules could be merged and after careful review and examination the consultants came to the conclusion that retention of the salary schedules of the Atlanta System and the placement of the Fulton County personnel on the Atlanta schedules is the best solution possible with the merging of the two systems. To make such a transfer from one salary schedule to another it is recommended that the following rules be applied: 1, No employee's salary will be reduced. 2, Teachers and other certificated personnel will be placed on the appropriate 1967-68 Atlanta School System's salary schedule, on the step stipulating a salary that is equal to or next higher in amount to the current salary being paid, 3. Any Fulton County employee whose salary is higher on his present salary schedule than it would be on the same step of the Atlanta salary schedule will be paid this higher salary amount, but when and if eligible in subsequent years he will proceed according to the provisions of the appropriate salary scale. 4, For employees new to the merged system, a maximum of five years' service in other school systems will be accepted on a year by year basis. Such a person, with five years' experience, would enter on step 6 of the salary schedule. 5. Salary scale incentives applicable to the Bachelor's and Master's degree scales will be established following steps 4, 8, and 12. Teachers will be allowed to proceed on these salary scales only after completing six semester hours of approved college or university credit, or its equivalent, in in-service programs approved by the Board of Education, To make the salary changes by the application of the above rules it was estimated by the Coordinator of Metropolitan School Development Council that the cost increase will be approximately $ During the transition period there should be established a salary study committee, as indicated earlier in this section, to ascertain the adequacy of the salary schedules and policies in operation and to recommend any changes that promise to produce better salary arrangements, In addition,  a review should be made to ascertain whether or not individual employees have been appropriately classified and given correct placement on the salary schedules. Wages of Non-certificated Employees A similar approach is suggested for arriving at appropriate wage policies for the non=-certificated workers in the county and the city school systems. Atlanta has recently adopted a classification plan recommended by the Public Administration Service. These schedules have been developed after much study and it appears logical to fit the non-certificated school employees from the county into the basic Atlanta pattern. There are differ- ences in the length of the work year in some categories. This calls for minor adjustments but is not a serious obstacle to unifying the two groups. Bus drivers are employed in the county but are not employed by the Atlanta School System. The current wages paid bus drivers should be continued for the time being and the pay levels assessed when salaries and wages generally are being reviewed. In the case of custodians it would be necessary to reclassify the Fulton County employees in order to achieve parity. This is not a difficult task and if the merger is voted, temporary classifications could be made in those cases where the job descriptions were not clear and final assignments made after individual cases were reviewed. According to estimates made by the Coordinator of the Metropolitan School Development Council, the cost of bringing all the non-certificated employees under a single tent if the Atlanta pay scales were applied is $543,756. This assumes that no consolidation in jobs will be made and the same number of employees are retained, Retirement Provisions Both Fulton County and the City of Atlanta maintain local pension and retirement systems for their employees. This practice is of fairly long standing and, as has been the case in other American cities and counties, it arose because of the obvious need to provide employees with protection against the vicissitudes of advanced age and the local community against the inefficiency which results when workers, past the prime of life, are retained on the job. e Unfortunately the history of local pension plans has not been too favorable. Even when’ they have maintained a solvent position, which many have not, they have seldom provided the protection to new members that was guaranteed by those established and administered by the State. Asa result, they have rapidly diminished in number and state plans have sup- planted them. The latter because of larger memberships, the spreading of risks, and greater resources, have supplied the certificated staff with superior protection, Moreover, state employees! retirement systems are increasingly providing coverage for the non-certificated employees in school systems. The problem confronting Fulton County and Atlanta with respect to pension and retirement is not unlike that found in many other systems. The funds required represent a tremendous investment and the accrued lia- bilities run into millions of dollars. The ultimate solution in the minds of the consultants lies in moving the responsibility as quickly as possible from the local system to the State and the abandonment of any local retirement for new certificated personnel, This cannot be achieved quickly nor painlessly. While the pro- posal to merge the two school systems poses some knotty problems with re- spect to employee retirement, a reasonable solution can probably be worked out. With the merger of the two systems, it is recommended that the policies with respect to retirement and pension provisions listed below be adopted by the various boards concerned: 1. All new certificated personnel will secure membership under the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia. All new non-certificated personnel will secure membership in the social security program provided under the Federal Insurance Com- pensation Act. All certificated personnel who are members of retirements systems operated by either the Atlanta General Employees' Pension Fund Board or by the Fulton County School Pension Board may withdraw their personal contributions to their pension fund if and when they become members of the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia. Members of the retirement system operated by the Atlanta Pension Board who wish to continue to be covered by the provisions of such board may continue their membership, and the Atlanta Pension Board will continue to administer and be responsible for all pension liabilities for such personnel as required by their cur- rent commitments, Future changes in pension benefits will be available to such members, The Fulton County Board of Commissioners will assume all obliga- tions, liabilities, and commitments of the Fulton County School Pension Fund Board, Members of the retirement system operated by the Fulton County School Pension Board may at their option transfer their membership to a new Fulton County pension system to be administered by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners or its designate and retain all of the rights and benefits they heid under the system oper- ated by the Fuiton County School Pension Board. Commitments for members who have retired under the pension systems operated by either the Atlanta Pension Board or by the Fulton County School Pension Board shall have all such commitments honored by the Atlanta Pension Board or by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners respectively. Insurance The practice of providing group iife and personal accident insurance for employees is commendable and should be continued. It is recommended that: k Tenure Employees of the Atlanta and Fulton County school systems who have retained their school system sponsored insurance policies and who are retired will have their benefits and vested rights under their policy protected by the Atlanta City Board of Aldermen and the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, respectively, and such boards will manage and make any annual payments due insurance companies that exceeds the amount required of the employees under the pro- visions of the policy. At the time of the merger, group life and personal accident in- surance contracts be cancelled and a new contract agreement be entered into with a commercial company that wiil provide the best policy at the lowest rate. Job security should not be placed in jeopardy for an employee of the two school systems because of the merger. It is recommended that: Ls Tenure policies for the new system be established for the several classes of personnel employed and that the policies 10 for each classification be these now extant in either the Atlanta School System or the Fulton County School System that are more generous to the individual employes. 2. Employees holding tenure in either of the two systems concerned at the time of merger be automatically provided tenure in the new system, 3. Any probationary period served in the two systems concerned and prior to the merger of the two systems will be accepted at full value for tenure considerations in the merged system. Leaves of Absence and Vacations The emoluments and rights earned under provisions that now exist for the personnel in the Atlanta and Fulton County schools should be protected, It is recommended that the provisions that are most generous to the em- ployees, that now exist in either of the two school systems concerned, be adopted for the new merged system with respect to sick leave, maternity leave, bereavement leave, military leave, professional study leave, emergency leave and vacations. Records With the merger of the two systems, it is anticipated that changes will be needed in both accounting and personnel records systems. With modern office equipment and electronic data processing machinery, the work of business, accounting, financial and statistical offices can be handled with dispatch. Moreover, information on personnel can be secured in as many ways as needed in short periods of time. In order for the new system to be able to function efficiently, it is recommended that as soon as the merger is voted, specialists in systems data processing be employed to plan for the merging of data of the two schocl systems together with progiams for fast retrieval of such data, il Combining the Central Office Staff Personnel A merger nearly always requires some consolidation of central office personnel, Hence, the procedures for determining how the unified system should assign the current central office employees needs to be spelled out. The two systems as might be expected have several comparable central office positions and in some instances the merger, in the interest of economy, might necessitate the assignment of certain officials to posts outside the central office, This fact together with the need to reassess existing assignments calls for the exercise of both judgment and diplomacy on the part of those charged with the responsibility of building a new central organization, The consultants believe that the wisest procedure to follow in merging the two central staffs is as follows: 1. The new Board of Education should choose a superintendent of schools for the system and an associate superintendent. 2. The Board of Education should appoint a committee to make recom— mendations as to the assignment of personnel to the new system central office positions, This committee should be composed of the superintendent of schools, who should act as chairman, the associate superintendent of schools, and two officials current~ ly responsible for the recruitment, selection and assignment of personnel in the two systems being merged. 3. The officials currently responsible for the recruitment, selection and assignment of personnel should make recommendations to the superintendent of schools regarding the assignment of secretaries, clerks and custodial workers needed for service in the central headquarters, 12 In making assignments, consideration should be given to the age, experience and personal fitness of the individual employee for the job to be filled. All central office employees should be housed under one roof and adequate facilities should be provided to facilitate the work.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 2, Document 25 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 2 Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/fa0cb302e21acc5aeb5a98e7d0fabe3a.pdf e55fa7bb870911046a2563582f855546 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. FINANCING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY '. ' A comprehensive approach to a study of the financing of the public ' _, i:· schools in Atlanta and Fulton Cqunty would involve an appraisal of the future policies of the State of Georgia and the federal government foi · school financing a we ll as a study or local school financing. i . . Since such an appraisal is beyond the scope of this study, this section of the report will deal primarily wi~h problems of local school financing in the two districts. However, most authorities on school financing anticipate that in the future there will be further increases in school !I. i financial support from the federal government and state governments as well as from local school districts. Although the public schools will no doubt receive increased funds in the future from both state and I' I federal sources, strong local financial support of the public schools I I I will have to be maintained by all districts that desire something better than a mediocre quality level of education for their children. The following matters are treated in this section of the report: revenue receipts, current expenditures, taxpaying ability and local effort to support education, indebtedness, equalization that would result from consolidation, non-property local taxes and financial arrangements that would need to be made if the two districts were conso lidated. I • Revenue Receipts l I Table I shows the budgeted reven ue receipts of the Atlanta and Fulton County school systems. It will be noted from this Table that 55.4 per '. �-2- cent of the revenue of the Atlanta City schools is derived from the district property tax as compared with 29.6 per cent in Fulton County. However, both of these percentage figures are deceiving. Just what per cent of the revenue receipts of each school system i s provided by property taxes levied on property located in each district? It will be noted that the A~lanta City Council paid $2,835,045 in 1966 for the debt service on bonds the City iss~ed to construct school buildings. This amounts to 5.3 per cent of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City board of education. Th i s added to the 55.4 per cent derived from the district property tax makes a total of 60.7 per cent of the revenue ' receipts of the Atl ant a Cit y schools derived from property taxes in 1966-67. It will be no t e d th a t Fu lton County receivis $1,762,892 from the county- wide tax ( 1½ mi ll s ) a nd $780;000 from a direct appropriation from the County Commission. sources. This makes a total of $2,542,892 from these two If it is a ssumed that t he appropriation from the County Commis- sion is also de ri ve d f rom prope r t y taxes , what part of this total is paid on prope r t y located i n Fu l t on County but outside of the City of Atla nta? Since only about 19 per cent of the digest of Ful t on County lies outside of the City of At l an ta, only app roxima t ely 19 per cent of t his amount, or $483,149, is pa id on t he prope rty in Fulton County l y ing outside the city of Atlanta, and $2 , 059,743 on the propert y in t he City of Atlanta. This represents only ap proximatel y 3.2 per cent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County board. It wil l a l so be noted that 8.1 per cent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County district is derived from th e 5½ mill levy for debt service. These two amounts, that is, 3.2 per cent plus 8. 1 per cent a dded to 29.6 per cent make a total of 40.9 per cent of the revenue receipts o f the Fulton County board of education obtained from property taxes pa i d on property located In Fulton County outside of the City of Atlanta. �-3- The Fulton Coun ty board of education receives 42.6 per cent of its · revenue from t he state Mi n imum Foundation Program appropriations as compared with 32.3 per cent for t he City of Atlanta. The Minimum Foundation Program law was des i gned to equalize educational opportunities among school districts that vary g rea tl y in wealth. The 1-½ mill countyw.ide tax levied in all of Fulton County but allocated exclusively to the Fulton County board also provides f o r considerable financial equalization at the local level. policy. . The equalization of educationa l opportunity is sound public Later in this report , it is shown tha t the adjusted gross digest is 32 per cent greater per pupil in t he City of Atlanta than in Fulton County. ' Table I shows the revenue receipts of the Atlanta Schools totaled $530.01 per pup il in 1966-67 as compared with $547.35 in Fulton County. This means tha t the State Minimum Foundation Program Law tQgether w_ith the 1-½ mi l l county-w ide levy and the direct appropriation from t he County Commission have gone a long way toward equalizing the financi a l su pport of the two systems. It should not be inferred from this comment, however, that educational opportunities are equal in the two school systems. The Atlanta City school sys tem provides kindergartens which are not provided in the Fulton County system. If Fulton County provided kindergartens, the revenue receipts per pupil in that school system wou ld probably be l ess t han the reven ue receipts per pupil in the Atlanta system. Both systems will benefit substantially in 1967-68 from increases from the Minimum Foundation Program Appropriation provided by t_he 1967 Legislatu re . It is estimated t hat the City of Atl anta wil l receive an increa se of approximately $1,863,000 from this source and Fulton County approximately $1,075,000. �TA BLE I - SO URC ES OF RE VENUE OF ATLA NTA AND FULTON CO-UNTY SCHOOL SYSTE MS 1966-67 (B UD GET ED REV ENU ES 1966-67, DATA FURN ISHE D BY CITY AND COU NTY SCHOOL OF FI CIALS). SOURCE Dis t ric t Proper t y tax for · ope ra t ion ATLANTA Per cent Amo unt $29 ,686 ,-415 ' .-r FULTON COU NTY Amount Per cent $ 4 , 922,451 29.6 1,762 , 892 10.6 County Commi s s ion 780,000 4.7 Intangibl e Taxes 230 , 000 1.4 42.6 .55.4 County Wide Proper t y Tax State Min imum Foundat ion Prog ram Othe r State Funds Vocat ional Funds Na t iona l Defence Education Act 17,322, 038 32 .3 7, 074 ,76 1 425 , 013 628 ,449 .8 0 1. 2 58 , 000 .3 520,781 1. 0 65 ,400 .4 Ful t on County Schoo l Dis t r ic t 5½ mi 11 lev, for debt service Fede ral Impacted Area Funds 802,3 66 1.5 Ci ty Co unc il Payments f or Debt Service on Sch. Bond• 2,835,0451 s.3 Other Income 1, 358,747 2.5 Total Revenue Re ceipts 53,578,854 100.0 Beginning Cash Balance Sub-Total Fede ral Funds El em. & Sec. Act. 1961 GRAND TOTAL 1,3 50 , 000# 8. l 210, 000 1.3 159,500 1.0 $ 16 , 613 I 004 532,250 818 , 609 54, 111 , 104 17, 431,6 13 2,519,743 461,383 $56,630,847 $ 17,892,996 100 . 0 Not Incl uded in the operating budget . Continued-- �TABLE I - (Con t.) SOURCE Ave rage Dai 1y Attendance Jan . 1, 1967 Revenue Receipt s Per Pup i 1 in ADA~\- ATLANTA Amoun t Per cent FULTON COUNTY Amount Per cent 101 , 068 30 , 352 $ 530-. 0 1 $ 547.35 Excludes federal funds received under the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 which cannot be used for the regular school program. ' . ,,:· �-4The federal revenue s rece ived f rom t he Eleme ntary an d Secon da r y Educa tion Ac t of 1965 are a l so shown in Tab l e 1. These reve nues are shown s epa rately because they are al l earmarked f o r s pecia l purpos e s by the feder a l gover nme nt a nd can not be exp ende d for t he re gular sc hool p rog ram . Prac t icall y a l l of t hese reven ues mus t b~ expen ded for compen- sa tory ed uca t ion for the chi l dren of the disadvantaged . Cur rent Expe nditu res In Tab le 2 a n a nal ysi s of the budgeted curr en t expendi t ures of t he two s chool systems f or 1966- 67 is presen ted. Bo t h s ystems expe nd 75 pe r cent or mo re of total curren t ex pen d itu res for in s t ruc tion . Th i s i s ty pi ca l p ra ctice in large schoo l systems. Ca ut ion s hou l d be exercised in comparing t he different percenta ge all ocation s given to the same ex pendit ure functions in t he t wo systems. The se systems differ cons i derably i n t heir bases of fin anc ia l sup port , t he spread of popu l ation a nd ot her facto r s . al locates 3.0 per cent of its Fo r exampl e , Fu lton County current expenditu res to tra ns po r t at ion but At l an ta spends no funds for pup i l transpo rtat ion . The difference between the two systems i n curren t expen di t ure s per pupil is negligible. Fulton County $493.34. Atlanta budgeted $486.07 per pupil for 1966- 67 and The Research Division of the National Education Ass ociation estimated that the average current expe nditure per pupil in average daily attendance for the 50 states and t he District of Columbia was $564 In 1966-67. Therefo re, the current expenditures per pupil in both the Atlanta and Fulton County School systems are very low when compared with the national average. �TABLE 11 CURRENT EXPENDITURES OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67# (BU DG ETED EXPENDITURES FOR 1966-67) ACCOUNT FUNCTION 1. Adm in istration 2. Instruc t ion 3. _Ope r at ion of Pl ant ATLANTA Amoun t $1, 796,920 Per ce nt FULTON COUNTY Amount Per cent 3.7 $ 309,784 2. l 36,977 ,443 75.3 12,149,333 81. 1 4,224,543 8.G 1,228,200 8.2 2,810,500 5.7 663.550 4.4 96,368 .2 0 - - 4. Maintenance of Plan t " 5. Health Servi ces ' 6. Food Services 4 l, 209 9. Other 9,3 00 .l 0 - 444, 160 3.0 2,417,800 4.9 169,368 1. 1 1.5 0 7. Transportation 8. Fixed Charges •1 754,819* - TOTAL Average Daily Attendance Jan. 1967 49, 119,602 101,068 Current Expenditur ~s Per Pupi 1 in ADA $486.07 100.0 14 ,973,695 100. 0 30,352 $4~3-34 Data furnished by county and cit y schoo l off icial s. Expenditure accounts do not include expenditures from federal funds received from the Elemen- . tary and Secondary Act of 1965. This account consists principally of undistributed expenditures made from federal funds received under the National Defence Education Act. �-5I Financi~l Abil i1:_y . r·;· The best measure of the relative local taxpaying ability of the Atlanta and Fulton Co unty s chool systems is the: gross property digest per pupil in average daily attendance computed on the basis of 100 per cent valuation . This is due to the fact ihat most local school revenue is derived from property taxes. Following is t he adjus t ed 100 percent gross digest for 1966 of the Atlanta City School district estimated by the State Revenue Department: Atlanta City in Fulton County $. 4, 141,663,000 · Atlanta City in DeKa lb County 173 , 149,000 Tota 1· $ 4,314,812,000 The average dally a t t e ndance ~f the At1~nta City schools was 101,068 in Janua ry, 1967. Therefo re, t he gross digest of the At l anta Ci t y ~chool ~i strict adju s ted on a 100 pe r cent basis was $42,692 . per pupil. The 1966 . gross digest of t he Fu l ton Count y school d istrict adjusted ·on a 100 per cent basis was $982, 348 , 000 according t o da ta f urn,i shed by t he State Revenue Department. The gros s dige st .include s t he va l uat ion of homesteads even though homesteads up .to a valuat ion of $2, 000 are exempted from County operating levies for schools. It is necessary to include the valuation of homesteads in order to compute an accurate mea sure of the relative wealth of the two districts. · County schools in January was 30,352. was $32,365. The ADA of the Fulton · The gross digest per pupil In ADA Therefore, the Atlanta City schoo·1 system has a gross digest approximately 32 per cent greater than the Fulton·County school system. However, each of these school systems has considerably more wealth per pupil than the average school district In the United States. .,I �-6.Local Financial Effort to Support Education A valid measure of local tax effort to suppor t sch6ols can be obtained by dividing the taxes paid on the property . located in each school district by tbe adjusted 100 per cent gross digest of that district. It is difficult to compute exactly the local tax effort ~f the Atlanta City District because a part of that district is in DeKalb .:. County. However, the following is a fairly close approximation for 1966-67 . r. District property tax 2. Payments of City Council for debt ~ service on school bonds 2,835,045 The portion of the 1½ mill countywide tax and the portion of the approximation made by the County Commission which was paid on property located in the City 2,059,743 3. $29,686,415 TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS $ 34,581,203 The 100 per cent gross digest of the Atlanta school district for 1966 was $4~314,812,000 • . The total local taxes for schools .divided by the gross digest equals .008 o r 8 mills on the adjusted 100 per cent gross digest or true value of property. The local taxes for schools in the Fulton County school district In 1966-67 were as follows: $. 4,922,451 1. Dis tric t property tax 2. The portioh of the l½ mill countywide tax and the appropriation made by the County Commission which was paid on property located in the county district 3. Fulton County district levy of mills for debt service 483; 149 S½ TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS 1,350,000 $ 6,755,600 �I i . -7I' ' The 1966 gross dig~st of the County school system on lOO per cent basis was $982,348,000. The total local taxes fo~ schools divided by the gross digest equals .006877 or approximately 6. 9 mills on the gross digest on true valuation of property. It is evident that the Atlanta City school district made a greater local tax effort in proportion to its ability to support schools than Fulton County. If the Fulton County schopl district had made as great a tax effort In proportion to its ability as the Atlanta school district in 1966-67, it would have raised .001123 times $982,348,000 or $1,103,176 in additional local revenue in 1966-67. Special attention is directed to the fact that Fulton County could not legally have made this extra local effort in 1966-67. The District levied 25 mills of operating taxes which was the legal limit it could levy. Furthermore~ property was assessed at less than 25 percent of true value. However, the limitations on the taxing power of the Fulton County '. board of educa tion wi l l be eased somewhat in the future because of the ruling of the cour t in the Mclennon vs State Revenue Commission case. The cour t ru l ed tha t all proper ty must be assessed at a uniform percent of t rue va l ue regar dless of the c l ass of prope r ty o r whe re it was locat ed. Upon t he r ul •ing, the Revenue Commi s sioner o rde red that a l l count y d i ge sts be based on assessing all property a t 40 pe r ~ent of t r ue value. Th is wi l l ~ake it possible to increase consi dera bly th e loca l reven ue s of the Fulton County school district beginning with t he 1967-68 f isca l year. There are no legal limits on the amount of mills which the Atlanta City board of education may levy for the operation of the public schools of the ~Jty. Therefore, there ar~ no legal barriers to Increasing local school support for schools in Atlanta. (· '· �-8Actually the loca·J taxes for schools are extremely ·low both in Atlanta and in Fulton County when compared with - the school taxes levied in other sections of the nation. Recently one of the members of the staff making this survey participated in a study of school financing in all school districts of 20,000 population or more in Illinois. It was found that the average school district in Illinois levied local property taxes for schools equivalent to 12 mills on the 100 per cent true valuation of property. This is a fifty per cent greater local effort than the City of Atlanta. The local tax effort for schools in the Fulton County school district is only 58 per cent of the average effort in Illinois. Indebtedness The bonded indebtedness of the Atlanta City Council for schools totaled $52,905,000 in 1967. This was less than 3.8 per cent of the unadjusted gross digest. The . bonded indebtedness of the Fulton County school district was $22,661,000 in 1967. This was 9. 1 per cent of the unadjusted gross digest of the county school distri ct . This Is close to the 10 per cent consti- tutional limit on school indebtedness for the Fulton County district. However, the bonded indeb ted ness margin of Fulton County will be greatly increased when the property digest i s raised from an estimated 25 per cent of t rue value to 40 per cent. The unadjusted 1966 gross digest for the Fulton County district was approximatel y $248,000,000. Assuming that the 1966 digest was at 25 per cent of true value,the 1967 digest at ~O per cent of true value should be approximately $400,000,000 allowing for a reasonable amount of growth. than The present county school Indebtedness wouid be less 5.7 per cent of the gross digest at a 40 per cent valuation. �-9Another way of looking at the indebtedness of the two districts is to compute the pe~ cent that the school ind~btidness of each district is of the _a djusted gross dig·est of each district at 100 per cent of true value. In 1966 this figure for the Atlanta city district was 1.23 per cent and for Fulton County 2.31 per cen t. If . the ·two districts - were consolidated, it is assumed. that the territory that originally issued the bonds would continue to be responsibJe for the debt service on the - bonds that it had Issued. It does not appear that this would work any great hardship on either district because the indebtedness of neither district is excessive. Non-Property Local Taxes Some school districts in the United States have obtained . legal authority to levy non-property local taxes for schools. both for and against this practice. There are arguments Following are some arguments against the levy· of local non-property taxes for schools: 1. Usually only urban or metropolitan school districts are able to derive substantial funds from this source. 2. The state can collect most types of local non- property taxes more efficiently than local untts of government. 3. Local non-property taxes for schools place cities in competition with each other for industries. 4. If the larger urban districts are able to .levy local non-property taxes for schools, they may not support a state f i nancing program which helps the less · fottunate school districts. 5. Some type!,; of local non- property taxes make it possible for wealthy districts to shift a part of the incidence of their taxes on the residentj of less wealthy dlstricts • . I; .. d· �-10Some arguments fo r the levy of local non-propert~ taxes for schools are as follows: 1. The property tax is a regressive tax and public resistance to it is growing. If we main ta in the vigor of local school support, many believe that a source of loca l revenue more nearly related to ability to pay than the property tax must be found. 2. The more progressive areas of . a state desire a better quality program tha n the legi slature is usually willing to provide from nonproperty state taxes. Those areas should be given the authority to provide this higher quality program from some local source other than the property tax. 3. It is possible to select types of local non-property taxes the burden of which can not be shifted to the taxpayers of less wealthy areas. ' ! 4. The cost of administering local non-property taxes can be held to a reasonable level by using the state's tax collection machinery or by levying local non-property taxes by metropolitan areas rather than by ind ividual school districts. 5. The taxpayer should be given the choice of what type or types of local taxes he will kvy for schools in order to broaden the base of local taxation. As has been pointed out above, local property taxes for schools are very l ow both in Atlanta and in Fulton County. There is considerable leeway in both districts for increasing local property taxes for schools without those taxes becoming burdensome. · Therefore, there is no immediate urgency for the consideration of obtaining the authority to levy local non-property taxes for schools. �-11- If the Atl a nta and Fulton County school authorities - decide to study the possibility of levying local non-property taxes, it is recommended that consideration be given to t he following: 1. That any local non-property taxes that are levied for schools in the AtlaAta area be lev ied over the entire metropolitan area of Atlanta including all school districts in the following counties: Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett . 2. That a metropol itan s chool taxing authority be established with the sole responsi bil ity for collecting any local non-property taxes for schools authorized by law and for apportioning such t axes among the several school dis tricts in the f i ve counties named above in proportion to the average daily attendance of pupils. 3. That only t hos e types of non-property local taxes be levied, the burden of which cannot be shifted to tax payers residing outside of the Atl anta metropolitan area . Financing Education in a Reorganized District A number of reports have been presented to the people of the Fulton County and Atlanta School distric ts in which arguments for and against the consol itation of the two districts have been set forth. the purpose of this report to review those arguments. It is not Therefore, the di scuss ions of schoo l finance presented in this study have been focu sed primarily on the financing of schools in each district rather than on the financing of schools in a consolidated district. Certain suggestions particularly concerning the level of school financ ing have already been presented. Those suggestions are as app li cab l e to the financing of education in Atlanta and Fulton County as separate school districts as they wou 1d be app li cab 1e to the financing of education in a conso 1 i dated district. �-12- It wou ld no dou~t be possi ble to provide reasonably adequate sch~ol financing in each of t he t wo districts operating as separate districts. However, if the two districts were consolidated, it would be possible to establish a more equitable and more efficient financing plan. It has already been pointed ou t t ha t the 1966 gross digest adjusted at 100 per cent in t he ci ty of Atla nta ~ as $42,692 · per pupil In ADA and in the Fulton County district $32 ,365. If the two d1stricts were consolidated, the '. gross diges t at 100 per cent valuation· for the consolidated district would be $40,307 per pupil. It has also been pointed out that the taxpayers in the Fulton Coun ty schoo l district are making a lower tax effort to support schools in propo rtion to ability than the taxpayers•in the Atlanta City district . Therefore, consolidation of the two districts would equalize the weal t h. back of each child and it would also equalize the tax effort to suppor t schools in the Atl anta-Fulton County consolidated district. Consolidati on would a l so simplify local financing because there would no longer be a need for t he special l½ mill couhty equalizing levy or direct appropr iations from the County Commi ss ion. It has been s uggested in other st udies presented to the Local Education Commission of At l ant a a nd Fulton Cou nty that the consolidation of the two districts migh t resu l t i n t he l oss of some state school funds under present me t hods of s tate apportionment . If there is anything in present state laws that would place a penalty on des i r able reorganization of school districts, the Jaws shou l d be amended and the penalties eliminated. This should not be a difficu l t undertaking. As has already been po i nted out , improvements in s chool f inancing should be made In the Atlanta and Fulton County school distr i cts regard l ess ' .. r·i· �-13of whether they are consolidated. If . the two districts are consolidated, consideration should be given to the following financial recommendations: 1. The board of the consolidated district should be given the same power for levying taxes for school operation as that now possessed by the Atlanta City Board of Education and it should be fiscally independent of any other local body. · , I ·I 2. The board should be given th e power to issue bonds for capital . outlay purposes up to a reasonable per cent of the gross digest. The board should also be given the power to obtain tax anticipation loans to be repaid within the fiscal year. 3. Homestead exemption from school taxes should be abolished in the reorganized dtstrict. 4. Present outstanding bonds should be retired in accordance with the convnitments made at the time of issuance but all new bonds should be issued on a district-wide basis and retired from taxes levied thro~ghout the consolidated district. . . �BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES The primary purpose of business administration is to provide the services netessary for obtaining the maximum return per dollar invested In public education. It is not the pu r pose of business administration to minimize educational expenditures. Business and industry have long been aware of the fact :that t he investment .of additional fu nds In an enterprls-e wi 11 freque ntly return more profi t s per dolla r -invested than a smaller Investment. Thi s same pril'lcip le applies to the educational enterp ri se. However, wasteful or ineffici ent ex pend i ture of fu nds ~anno~ be Justified by the returns rece i ved In either business or education. A limited survey was made of the bus iness administration service s and policies of the Atlanta an d Fulton County school systems. Th i s survey was made f irst to dete rm i.ne t he adequacy of t he bus iness adminis tration services of each school system and second to dete rmine whet her major economies in business adminis tra tion could be obtained by the conso l_idation of the two systems. The f i ndi ng s of that su rvey are set forth be low. Atlanta Ci ty School Sys tem The At lan ta City schoo l system has a we l l developed program of busines s a dm i n is t ration serv ices typical of cities the size of Atl anta. Except fo r s ta ff organization, business admin istrati on policies are generally consistent woth the policies recommended by authorit ies on school bus iness mana gement. Organh:atlon. The organization for school business management does no t follow the.pattern generally recommended by authorities in this fiel d. Fi nance, Inc luding administration of t he budget, Is under the supervision of a comptroller appointed by the Atlanta Ci ty boa rd of education and he Is directly ' ·I f �-2- responsible to the boai d. Legally the comptroller is not required to report to the _superintenden t noi is he under the supervis1on of the superintendent. i In practice however he works closely with the superintendent. An assistant superi~tendent for school plant planning and construction reports directly to the :superintend~ nt . All ot her busine~s administr~tion services are under the direction of an assistant-superintendent for administrative services who -~ W:.!.E _<!Lrectly to the superintendent. Th e services under the supervi n of the assis t ant superintendent for administrative services include the following : ~urchasing, school plant operation and maintenance, food ~ervices, records center, warehousi ng, .inventory, print shop, statistical services and school detective services. Autho r ities on school business management usually recommend that all business administration s e rvi ce s should be coordinated by one assistant superintendent directly responsible to the superintendent. Howeve r, if thos e services are divided among two or more assistant superintenden ts, each of these superintendents should report directly to the superintendent. The disa dvantage of this latter system as compared with· the system usually recommended is that the superintendent of schools is required to coord .i nate the different administrative services rat her t ha n the assistant superintendent for business a ffa irs . rhe system of orga n ization now use d by ·At lanta viola te s the princ ipal of coo rdination of the ac t ivities of an o r ganization through a single executive. Potentially this system could cause friction and lack of coordination in t he administration of the Atlanta public schools. That it has not done so is a credit to the educational and business executives of the A~lanta school s ys tem. '. ,r' ' �-3Facilities and Equi pment. Office f acilit ies for t he business admini- · I stration staff are provided for in a central admin istrative bu il ding for the Atlanta City board of education. ' Another bu ilding , located approximately- one. block from the adminis trative office building, is being renovated to house . re~ords and data process ing eq uipment. When t his i~ done fairly adequate office space will be ava ilable for t he business administration staff at present. However, the central off i ce building is located on a limited site with inadequate parking facilitie s. It would be diffi cu lt a ~d expens iv~ to expand the present central office fac ili ti es of the Atlanta City board of education. Sophis ticated data proces sing equ ipme nt i s in proces s of be i ng installed. That equipmen t includes an IBM 360 computer, tape and dis~ sys tem and related equipment includ ing a 1428 document reade r. When th is system is in full ope r - ation, the fina ncial accounting system, the central record system for warehouses and othe r record systems involving da t a processing can be greatly improved. All other business administration services are housed in a newly constructed educational se r vices building. This is an excellent building located near an expressway and it is served by a railroad siding. The site is fairl y adequate. The building houses the school plant maintenance shop ; warehousing for school supplies and school plant maintenance and custodial supplies, storage for schoo l food service, the print shop and other t ypes of educational services. The warehousing and storage facilities of the educational services building are efficiently arranged for accessions to and withdrawals from stock. At the time this building was constructed it was thought to be adequate for all the ,< storage and warehousing needs of the Atlanta system. However, it was soon found necessary to utilize the ~Id abandoned city jail building to store old �' ·· •' : - 4- school furniture and ce rtain other ty pes of non-rapidly moving stock. While not ideal, t his buildi ng is s til l usefu l for th~s type of storage. School Plant Maintenance . The At lanta Ci ty board of education operates a city owned school plan t ma in tenance shop. It is adequately staffed with employees of the Ci ty board of educati on and we ll equipped. Experience has shown t hat. a proper ly operate~ school plant maintenance shop can not only save money on school plan t maintenance but that Jt usually provides better service tpan when school_ plan t maintenance is pr6vlded for by job contract. The board has developed a program for the repair and maintenance of school buildings and ~ this policy not only exte nds the life of a bui l ding but it also reduces the Some di fficulty has been . number of hazards to pupil s and s chool employees. experienced In obtainin g employees with t he desired skit .t s. School transpo r tation Is not provided for at public expense by the Atlan ta City board of educati on . Budgetary Procedures. Work on the budget starts approximately six months before the beginning of the fiscal year. prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The budget is not always ap proved Best practice dictates that the ,' budget be approved prior to the beginn ing of the fiscal year. However, it is reported that delays In receiving tax di gests and estimates of revenue sometimes make it difficult to approve t he budget in final form prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The comptroller has primary responsibility for preparing the budget document. However, the comptroller consults with the superintendent, the assistant superintendents and the area superintendents before he prepares the budget. area superintendents consult with the principals. The There seems to be no fo rma l �,------------- - - 5- arrangemen t s fo r providing opportuni ties for classroom teachers or their representat ives to partic ipa te in t he formulation of the budget. Certain items, including ins tructional supplies, library expenditures, . band equipment and janitorial su pplies, are budgeted by individual schools. The budget for 1966-67 is a formi dable document consisting of more than 160 pages. tin it It contains detailed financial schedules of re143.215.248.55ues and expenditures, cos ts, and comparisons of the proposed_ budget with receipts and expend i • t_ures for previ ous years. understood by laymen. attended. This Is a technical document and is not readily The board holds public hearings but they are not well The board is fiscally independent and adopts its budget without being subject to review by · any other local body. to make the board fiscal ly independent. It .fs sound pub I i c pol Icy Under t his policy the public is able to fix responsib ility fo r t he school budget because the board of education is the sole responsible body. Howeve r , as taxes inc rease in the fu t ure and the public becomes more tax conscious, t he board may need to develop better methods than it is now using to commun icate the educational needs of the pupi ls to the public. Financial Accounting and Audit ing. The financial accounting system utilized in the Atlanta City schools conforms with the principal accounting standards and account classifications reconvnended by t he United States Office of Education. This is important in order that t he financial data for the Atl anta City school system may be comparab le not only with other school systems In Georgia but also comparable with the financi al data from other school systems throughout the nation. The accounting system is completely mechanized by the use of the data processing equipment already described. Accrual or encumbrance �-6- accounting is used. Thjs is essential for close budget control. Under accrual accounting, a budget account is encumbered as soon as an obligation is incurred against that account. The accounts of the Atlanta City schools are audited annually by a firm of certified public accountan t s. The board requires the principal of each school to keep a uniform system of account records of internal accounts. co11ec~ed at individual schools . Internal accounts consist of funds These accounts are also audited annuallyo The accounti ng and auditing procedures of the Atlanta City school system are in accord with standard practice. Purchasing Procedures. All items of any importance used by the Atlanta City schools are cent r ally purchased in quantities on competitive bids. policy undoubtedly saves large sums of money annually. This The construction of central warehousing facilities and the establishment of an efficient distribution system made it practicable for t he board to establish its broad policy · of central purchasing. Business Administration, School Lunch Rooms. provided for school lunch rooms. Central supervision is All school lunch rooms receive federal aid in the form of cash and commodities. From 60 to 70 percent of the pupils participate in the school lunch p rogram. This compares very favorably with a national part icipation average of only 35 percent. The board provides for central purchasing and central accounting for all school lunch rooms. The business administration policies of the board for the operation of school lunch rooms are in line with best practice. Insurance and Bonding. School buildings are insured for 100 percent '.I . , ,; �r I -7of appraised wor t h on blanke t f ire and extended coverage policies. The board deals with one agen t who re prese nts the Association of Independent Insurance Agents. Build ing s and equ ipment are insured at an appraised value of $77,736,493 a t an ann ua l cost of $53,000. ' sometimes find it advisab le to be self insurers. Large school systems However, since the amount of money expended for f ire insurance in the Atlanta City school system is relatively small , very little money cou ld be saved by a self-insurance program. All officia ls and employees who handle ~funds in the Atlanta City school system are bonded . The board pays t he cost of the bonds. Workman's Compensation insurance is provided for all the employees of . _: the board. The boa r d is sel f-insurer for t his type of insurance. Income Management and Depository Security. The board has been able during the past few years t o keep a sufficient working ba]ance on hand to pay all current obligations when due. tax anticipation loans. Therefore t he board has not been requi red t o obtain The board does not have the authority to bo rrow money. All borrowing, eithe r on short term loan·s or bonds, mus t be done by the Atlan ta City Council for t he board of educa ti on. The board fo ll ows the soun d policy of operating on a balance d budget and it carries over a reasonable working balance from one fiscal year into the next year. The board wisely follows the policy of investing i'ts idle funds in appropriate United States Government obligations. in In t erest earnings from this ~ouri.:e It obtained $302,301.24 in 1965-66. The board requires its depository bank to escrow collateral in another bank in the amount of $500,000 in order to protect the funds it has on deposi t. The balances in the depository sometimes exceed this amount . Howeve r, the board '. .. ,.;' - 1 �-8- follows the pol icy of promp t l y inves ti ng its idle funds and this provides some protection . Fringe Benefi ts for Em ployeeso The following fringe benefits are provided for all employee s of t he board , both certificated and uncertificated: r'e tirement, sick leave , me dical and hospitalization insurance and a limited amoun t of li fe insur ance . Both the board and the empl oyee participate in - financing mos t of these be ne fit s. Boards of educati on must participate in making provis ions for thes e benefits if they compete on equal terms with the private sector of the economy i n obtai ning needed personnel. The Fulton Co unty Schoo l System The Ful t on Coun t y boa rd of e duca tion has provided fairly adequate business adminis t ration se rv ices for the public schools of the County. The busine ss adminis tra t ion pol ic ies a re basically sound. As indicated below , improvements t hat need to be made involve increasing the s ize of staff and provid i ng for a ddi t iona l space and equipme nt rat he r than any change in ope ratin g policies. Organ izat ion. The pr incipal busines s admi nistration services are unde r the di r ec t ion of an assi s tant supe r i nten dent for maintenance and operation and a di rec t o r of fi na nce. di rect ly to the super i ntende nt . Ea ch of thes e of fi cial s report s The assistant supe r intende nt f o r mai n- tenance and opera tions supe r vis e s school pl ant opera ti on and ma intena nce, warehous i ng and s t ora ge and dis t ri bution serv ices , school plant planning and purchas i ng . Th e director of finance and h i s staf f kee p all accounts, administer t he budge t and audit Inte rnal accounts. In addition , schoo l transpor ta ti on is supervised by t he director of attendance and transpo rtation and the d i rector of the s chool l unch program is under the supe r visi on of the �' I' ,, r';· -9- assistant supe rinte nden t for curri c ulum. This latter arrangement is a 1 ittle unus ual beca use the central servi ces provided for the school lunch program at the county l evel have more rela t ionship t o finance , accounting, purchasing and s torage and distribut ion which are business adminis t ration services, than to cu rr icu lum. It is generally considered good organization policy to organize simi iar t yees of operations in the same organizational units. All the top off ic ia l s re~ponsible fbr bus-iness administration services report to the s upe r in tendent r a ther t han directly to the board. This is sound policy because it prov ides for central coordination of all educational serv ices at t he coun ty l evel. It appea rs t hat the staff employed by the board for accounting, purchasi ng , budget a dmi n i stratron , etc., is inadequate in size to provide for these serv ices . The staff provided for these services is as fo ll ows: a d irector of fi nance and a ss i sta nt , a purchasing agent, an a dm ini s t r ative assistant, f our bookkeepe rs, and t hree secre ta ries. This is a ve ry small staff f o r these services in a schoo l s ys tem with a budget exceeding sixteen mi l li on dollars annually. Fac i litie s a nd Equi pment . The ce ntra l s t a ff f or bus iness ma na gement i s hous ed in offi ce s pace provide d in t he Ful t on County Court House. Thi s space is ina deq uate . Data process i ng equ i pment is not avai l ab l e. used fo r payro ll purpos~s and account records. Accounting machines are If Fulton County remains a separate school sys tem , the board should investigate the poss ibility of Ins ta lli ng or renting certa i n t ypes of data processing equi pment. �-10- The board has cons t ruc t ed an excellent educational services bui l ding on a site some d ista nce from the cour t house. centrally adjacent to an expre ssway . Th_is bui-1:ding is located However, it was constructed on a very limited site with but littl e room for parking or expansion. ,that another story can be added to the present structure. It is understood However, this too would become inadequate in a few years and parking space is already inadequate. There fore the present site should be expanded if possible. The educational services building houses the school plant maintenance shop, warehousing for school supplies , school plant maintenance and custodial supplies and storage for school furnit ure , instructional materials and supplies. a very useful building. This is It makes it possible for the board to do quantity pur- chasing on competitive bids. Thi s policy is not possible without adequate ware- housing and a distribution system. The board has ' established a centrally located S·chool Plant Maintenance . school plant maintenance s hop located in the educational services building . It is well equpped and staffed with personnel possessing the necessary sk il ls . Reports from t he State Depa rtmen t of Education indicate that the board has an excellent school plant maintenance program. However, it is reported that some additional employees are needed. School Bus Maintenance. The board operates 78 county-owned buses and contracts for eight other buses. The policy of district ownership and operation of school buses almost al ways results in better service at a lower unit cost than contract transportation. The provision of school transportation is not a simple matter in the Fulton County school district because of its geography. The district is divided into two separate parts by the Atlanta City School I �-11- district. It is approximately 70 miles between a schoo1 in the northern part of Fulton County and a ichool located in the southern part ~f the County school district. Road and traffic conditions vary from the conditions typically found in rural Georgia to conditions usually found in a densely settled metropol itan area. The board contracts for bus maintenance and inspection with a private garage at a cost of $1,300 per month. Parts used in repairing buses are "bil led to the board at list price less 10 .percent . . Buses appear to be well · maintained and very few road failures are experienced. The operator of the garage with whom the board contracts for its bus maintenance takes a genuine pride in maintaining school buses. He appears to h~v~ the interest ~nd enthusiasm of a board empl oyee. The board has explored the possibility of constructing its own school bus repair shop and operating it. Available evidence does not indicate that the board could save money by establishing its own shop as long as it is able to contract for its bus maintenance at so favorable a rate. The contractor operates a branch shop in the nort he rn part of the County which does light repairs a nd inspections. This reduces the amount of empty mileage traveled by buses . The board puys its gasoline for school buses from filling sta tions. Discounts are received at only a few stations. The board has considered purchasing its own tank truck and serving its own buses. However, schools · are so widely separated that this method would probably not save very much money. The board could probably save some money on its gasoline 'purchases if filling stations were required to bid for the board's business. '. ' �-12- Financial Accounting and Auditing . The financial accounting system follows in general the account classification for receipts and expenditures recommended by the United Sta tes Office of Education. state requirements . It also conforms to The accounts of the Fulton County schools can readily ' be compared with the accounts of school systems not only in Georgia but also throughout the Nation. As poin te d out above , data processing equipment is not available for keeping financial accoun ts. Furthermore,· the s taff provided for accounting, purchasing and budget administration is insufficient in number to provide all of the se rvices needed . on an accrual basis . For example, expenditure accounts are not kept This should be done in order to provide a more efficient method of budget control. If Fu lton County is continued as a separate school system, accrual accounting s hou l d be installed along with data processing equipment. The accounts of the board have been audited eight times during the past f our years, four ti mes by state auditors and four times by independent certified public accountants. The board requires school principals to maintain a uniform system of accounts for al I of the internal funds handled at school cente=rs. . These accounts are audited annually. Budgetary Procedures. The director of finance is assigned the res- ponsibility of preparing the budget document. As pointed out above, he is directly responsible to the superintendent and works under his supervision in preparing the budget. He also works with the assistant superintendentSp director of Instruction, principals and others In preparing the budget. �1-- -13- Work is started on the budget from 6 to 12 months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year but it is not always approved in final form by the beginning of the fiscal year. The budget is a technical budget not readily understood by the lay public. Detailed schedules of anticipated receipts _and proposed expenditures by function and object are presented. In addition certain unit costs and data for the previous year are i ncluded in the budget. Program accounting is not used In interpretihg the budget. Budget hearings are held but they are not well att~nded. The budget is advertised in the newspaper and a dopted by the board at a later date as prescribed by law. The boar d is fi scally independent' and its budget is not subject to review by any ot her local body. However, as school costs continue to increase and the public becomes more tax conscious, the board will undoubtedly find it advisable to deve lop more adequate means than are now used to communicate school needs to t he public. Purchasing Procedures. The boar d purchases all important items in quantity and requires competitive bids for all items costing in excess of $150.00. money. This policy undoubtedly resu lts in the saving of considerable Quantity buying requires storage and a distribution system. The educational services building and t he distribution system established in connection with it greatly facilitates quantity purchasing. Business Administration of the School Lunch Program. The board provides some central supervision for the school lunch program but it does not provide for central accounting and purchasing for school lunch rooms. Central account- ing and central purchasing usually resu lt in considerable savings for the �-14- school lunch program • . Howeve r as pointed out above, distribution is a problem in Fulton County beca use of the remoteness of many schools from a central warehouse. The educational se rvi ces building is not equipped for food storage but this deficiency could be remedied. It is believed that considerable money could be saved by centr?l accounting and purchasing for school lunch rooms. However, these services could not be provided without expanding the b~siness management s taff. Approxima te ly 61 percent of the pupils enrolled participate in the school lunch program . All school s either receive federal aid in the form of cash and commod it ies or conmodities only. Insurance a nd Bonding. fidelity bond . Al l employees· are under a blanket position Principa l s are also under a name bond. The board pays the '. ,,j' · cost of all bonds . The board carri e& fire and extended coverage insurance under the Public and Institutional Property Plan. Under this form of insurance (avai lable only to publi c institutions) t he board insures a buiiding and its contents for replacement cost rather than appra ised cost. This g ives the board rather compl ete coverage but it is a fair ly .expensive type of insurance. The board pays $50,755.66 annually for carrying fire and extended coverage Insurance on buil dings and equipment ins ured at a replacement value of $32,773 ,199.92. This may appear rather expe nsive when compared with the insurance costs of the Atlanta City system. However, insurance rates a re greatly affected by the fire protection ava ilable and the City of Atlanta has far better fire protection than Is ava ilable in most sections of Fulton County. �-15- Income Manageme nt and Depos ito ry Security. The board has been able to carry a su fficient workin g bala nce t o be abl _e to pay Its current obi igations on ti me without having to resort to tax anticipation loans . This is good po licy. The board has operated on a balanced budget and has carried over a reasonable working bal ance from on~ f!scal year to another. The board wise l y fol lows._ the pol icy of investing idle funds in United States Government securiti es. It realized $199,640.39 in interest from this source dur ing the 1965-66 fis cal year. The boa rd does not follow standard procedures for protecting its funds in depositories. The standard procedure is to require the board's depository bank to protect the board's deposits by escrowing in another bank, government securiti es in an amount equal to the maximum balance carried by the board. In 1 ieu of t h i s pol icy the Fulton County board of education keeps its f unds in 10 bank accounts and attempts to invest funds not needed during a given mon th as quickly as possible. During the period of heavy tax collections, the board may receive as much as $2,000,000 in a single remittance. While these fun ds are invested in United States Government obliga tions promptly, nevertheless the board should have some protection for its funds in depositories in the form of escrowed collateral. Fringe Benefits for Employees. The board provides the following fringe benefits for all of its employees both cert ifica ted and non-certificated: retirement, sic~ leave, medi cal and hospita lization insurance and a limited .,l amount of life insurance. ! the costs of most of these benefits. I The employer and the employee share in financing These are the same types of benefits provided by the Atlanta City board of education for its employees. ,i ., '. ' _. r•i ' �'i I • I Summary The business administration policies of the Atlanta City school sy,s tem and the Fulton County school system ·a re both basically sound. The available evidence indicates that no great amount of money could be saved by consolidating the business administration operations of the two systems. Few if any business administration personnel could be eliminated by the consolidation of the two systems. It might be necessary and desirable to change a few titles and to do some reorganization but the services of all of the present employees would be needed. Both ~ducattona l services buildings would still be needed because of the shortage of warehousing and storage space. The consolidation of the two systems would not elimina t e the great distances between schools which cause distribution problems . If the two systems were consolidated and public transportation provided for qualifying pupils who now live in the city of Atlanta , different arrangements for the mai nt~nance and ope ration of ~chool buses would have to be ma de. Those arrangements would probably involve the construction of two school bus repa i r s hops , one l ocated in t he nor t hern half of the reorganized dis t r i ct and the ot he r in t he sout·he r n ha 1f . From t he standpoint of bus ine s s a dm i nistration, t he c h ief sa ving i n consoli dat ing t he two school distr ic t s would be the elimi nati on of t he cost o f one da ta processing system. The newl y i nstal le d da ta proce ssing sys t em for the Atlanta City schools has sufficient capacity to serve both school systems. All other business administration savings would have to be obtained �-17 - from increases in efficiency derived from economy of scale. for example, consolidation of the two systems would result in increasing the volume 9f specific items submit t ed for bid. The increased volume might result in lower unit costs for some items. Some financial savings could probably be obtained by eliminating certain duplicating educatio~al programs or the provision for better coordination of existing educational progra~s if the two districts were consolidated . Since this section of this report is concerned only with business administration policies, no attempt is made to estimate the amount of savi ngs on t he opera t ion of educational programs that could be obtained through consolidati on . .. r· '· � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document FINANCING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY '. ' A comprehensive approach to a study of the financing of the public ' _, i:· schools in Atlanta and Fulton Cqunty would involve an appraisal of the future policies of the State of Georgia and the federal government foi · school financing a we ll as a study or local school financing. i . . Since such an appraisal is beyond the scope of this study, this section of the report will deal primarily wi~h problems of local school financing in the two districts. However, most authorities on school financing anticipate that in the future there will be further increases in school !I. i financial support from the federal government and state governments as well as from local school districts. Although the public schools will no doubt receive increased funds in the future from both state and I' I federal sources, strong local financial support of the public schools I I I will have to be maintained by all districts that desire something better than a mediocre quality level of education for their children. The following matters are treated in this section of the report: revenue receipts, current expenditures, taxpaying ability and local effort to support education, indebtedness, equalization that would result from consolidation, non-property local taxes and financial arrangements that would need to be made if the two districts were conso lidated. I • Revenue Receipts l I Table I shows the budgeted reven ue receipts of the Atlanta and Fulton County school systems. It will be noted from this Table that 55.4 per '. �-2- cent of the revenue of the Atlanta City schools is derived from the district property tax as compared with 29.6 per cent in Fulton County. However, both of these percentage figures are deceiving. Just what per cent of the revenue receipts of each school system i s provided by property taxes levied on property located in each district? It will be noted that the A~lanta City Council paid $2,835,045 in 1966 for the debt service on bonds the City iss~ed to construct school buildings. This amounts to 5.3 per cent of the revenue receipts of the Atlanta City board of education. Th i s added to the 55.4 per cent derived from the district property tax makes a total of 60.7 per cent of the revenue ' receipts of the Atl ant a Cit y schools derived from property taxes in 1966-67. It will be no t e d th a t Fu lton County receivis $1,762,892 from the county- wide tax ( 1½ mi ll s ) a nd $780;000 from a direct appropriation from the County Commission. sources. This makes a total of $2,542,892 from these two If it is a ssumed that t he appropriation from the County Commis- sion is also de ri ve d f rom prope r t y taxes , what part of this total is paid on prope r t y located i n Fu l t on County but outside of the City of Atla nta? Since only about 19 per cent of the digest of Ful t on County lies outside of the City of At l an ta, only app roxima t ely 19 per cent of t his amount, or $483,149, is pa id on t he prope rty in Fulton County l y ing outside the city of Atlanta, and $2 , 059,743 on the propert y in t he City of Atlanta. This represents only ap proximatel y 3.2 per cent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County board. It wil l a l so be noted that 8.1 per cent of the revenue receipts of the Fulton County district is derived from th e 5½ mill levy for debt service. These two amounts, that is, 3.2 per cent plus 8. 1 per cent a dded to 29.6 per cent make a total of 40.9 per cent of the revenue receipts o f the Fulton County board of education obtained from property taxes pa i d on property located In Fulton County outside of the City of Atlanta. �-3- The Fulton Coun ty board of education receives 42.6 per cent of its · revenue from t he state Mi n imum Foundation Program appropriations as compared with 32.3 per cent for t he City of Atlanta. The Minimum Foundation Program law was des i gned to equalize educational opportunities among school districts that vary g rea tl y in wealth. The 1-½ mill countyw.ide tax levied in all of Fulton County but allocated exclusively to the Fulton County board also provides f o r considerable financial equalization at the local level. policy. . The equalization of educationa l opportunity is sound public Later in this report , it is shown tha t the adjusted gross digest is 32 per cent greater per pupil in t he City of Atlanta than in Fulton County. ' Table I shows the revenue receipts of the Atlanta Schools totaled $530.01 per pup il in 1966-67 as compared with $547.35 in Fulton County. This means tha t the State Minimum Foundation Program Law tQgether w_ith the 1-½ mi l l county-w ide levy and the direct appropriation from t he County Commission have gone a long way toward equalizing the financi a l su pport of the two systems. It should not be inferred from this comment, however, that educational opportunities are equal in the two school systems. The Atlanta City school sys tem provides kindergartens which are not provided in the Fulton County system. If Fulton County provided kindergartens, the revenue receipts per pupil in that school system wou ld probably be l ess t han the reven ue receipts per pupil in the Atlanta system. Both systems will benefit substantially in 1967-68 from increases from the Minimum Foundation Program Appropriation provided by t_he 1967 Legislatu re . It is estimated t hat the City of Atl anta wil l receive an increa se of approximately $1,863,000 from this source and Fulton County approximately $1,075,000. �TA BLE I - SO URC ES OF RE VENUE OF ATLA NTA AND FULTON CO-UNTY SCHOOL SYSTE MS 1966-67 (B UD GET ED REV ENU ES 1966-67, DATA FURN ISHE D BY CITY AND COU NTY SCHOOL OF FI CIALS). SOURCE Dis t ric t Proper t y tax for · ope ra t ion ATLANTA Per cent Amo unt $29 ,686 ,-415 ' .-r FULTON COU NTY Amount Per cent $ 4 , 922,451 29.6 1,762 , 892 10.6 County Commi s s ion 780,000 4.7 Intangibl e Taxes 230 , 000 1.4 42.6 .55.4 County Wide Proper t y Tax State Min imum Foundat ion Prog ram Othe r State Funds Vocat ional Funds Na t iona l Defence Education Act 17,322, 038 32 .3 7, 074 ,76 1 425 , 013 628 ,449 .8 0 1. 2 58 , 000 .3 520,781 1. 0 65 ,400 .4 Ful t on County Schoo l Dis t r ic t 5½ mi 11 lev, for debt service Fede ral Impacted Area Funds 802,3 66 1.5 Ci ty Co unc il Payments f or Debt Service on Sch. Bond• 2,835,0451 s.3 Other Income 1, 358,747 2.5 Total Revenue Re ceipts 53,578,854 100.0 Beginning Cash Balance Sub-Total Fede ral Funds El em. & Sec. Act. 1961 GRAND TOTAL 1,3 50 , 000# 8. l 210, 000 1.3 159,500 1.0 $ 16 , 613 I 004 532,250 818 , 609 54, 111 , 104 17, 431,6 13 2,519,743 461,383 $56,630,847 $ 17,892,996 100 . 0 Not Incl uded in the operating budget . Continued-- �TABLE I - (Con t.) SOURCE Ave rage Dai 1y Attendance Jan . 1, 1967 Revenue Receipt s Per Pup i 1 in ADA~\- ATLANTA Amoun t Per cent FULTON COUNTY Amount Per cent 101 , 068 30 , 352 $ 530-. 0 1 $ 547.35 Excludes federal funds received under the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 which cannot be used for the regular school program. ' . ,,:· �-4The federal revenue s rece ived f rom t he Eleme ntary an d Secon da r y Educa tion Ac t of 1965 are a l so shown in Tab l e 1. These reve nues are shown s epa rately because they are al l earmarked f o r s pecia l purpos e s by the feder a l gover nme nt a nd can not be exp ende d for t he re gular sc hool p rog ram . Prac t icall y a l l of t hese reven ues mus t b~ expen ded for compen- sa tory ed uca t ion for the chi l dren of the disadvantaged . Cur rent Expe nditu res In Tab le 2 a n a nal ysi s of the budgeted curr en t expendi t ures of t he two s chool systems f or 1966- 67 is presen ted. Bo t h s ystems expe nd 75 pe r cent or mo re of total curren t ex pen d itu res for in s t ruc tion . Th i s i s ty pi ca l p ra ctice in large schoo l systems. Ca ut ion s hou l d be exercised in comparing t he different percenta ge all ocation s given to the same ex pendit ure functions in t he t wo systems. The se systems differ cons i derably i n t heir bases of fin anc ia l sup port , t he spread of popu l ation a nd ot her facto r s . al locates 3.0 per cent of its Fo r exampl e , Fu lton County current expenditu res to tra ns po r t at ion but At l an ta spends no funds for pup i l transpo rtat ion . The difference between the two systems i n curren t expen di t ure s per pupil is negligible. Fulton County $493.34. Atlanta budgeted $486.07 per pupil for 1966- 67 and The Research Division of the National Education Ass ociation estimated that the average current expe nditure per pupil in average daily attendance for the 50 states and t he District of Columbia was $564 In 1966-67. Therefo re, the current expenditures per pupil in both the Atlanta and Fulton County School systems are very low when compared with the national average. �TABLE 11 CURRENT EXPENDITURES OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS 1966-67# (BU DG ETED EXPENDITURES FOR 1966-67) ACCOUNT FUNCTION 1. Adm in istration 2. Instruc t ion 3. _Ope r at ion of Pl ant ATLANTA Amoun t $1, 796,920 Per ce nt FULTON COUNTY Amount Per cent 3.7 $ 309,784 2. l 36,977 ,443 75.3 12,149,333 81. 1 4,224,543 8.G 1,228,200 8.2 2,810,500 5.7 663.550 4.4 96,368 .2 0 - - 4. Maintenance of Plan t " 5. Health Servi ces ' 6. Food Services 4 l, 209 9. Other 9,3 00 .l 0 - 444, 160 3.0 2,417,800 4.9 169,368 1. 1 1.5 0 7. Transportation 8. Fixed Charges •1 754,819* - TOTAL Average Daily Attendance Jan. 1967 49, 119,602 101,068 Current Expenditur ~s Per Pupi 1 in ADA $486.07 100.0 14 ,973,695 100. 0 30,352 $4~3-34 Data furnished by county and cit y schoo l off icial s. Expenditure accounts do not include expenditures from federal funds received from the Elemen- . tary and Secondary Act of 1965. This account consists principally of undistributed expenditures made from federal funds received under the National Defence Education Act. �-5I Financi~l Abil i1:_y . r·;· The best measure of the relative local taxpaying ability of the Atlanta and Fulton Co unty s chool systems is the: gross property digest per pupil in average daily attendance computed on the basis of 100 per cent valuation . This is due to the fact ihat most local school revenue is derived from property taxes. Following is t he adjus t ed 100 percent gross digest for 1966 of the Atlanta City School district estimated by the State Revenue Department: Atlanta City in Fulton County $. 4, 141,663,000 · Atlanta City in DeKa lb County 173 , 149,000 Tota 1· $ 4,314,812,000 The average dally a t t e ndance ~f the At1~nta City schools was 101,068 in Janua ry, 1967. Therefo re, t he gross digest of the At l anta Ci t y ~chool ~i strict adju s ted on a 100 pe r cent basis was $42,692 . per pupil. The 1966 . gross digest of t he Fu l ton Count y school d istrict adjusted ·on a 100 per cent basis was $982, 348 , 000 according t o da ta f urn,i shed by t he State Revenue Department. The gros s dige st .include s t he va l uat ion of homesteads even though homesteads up .to a valuat ion of $2, 000 are exempted from County operating levies for schools. It is necessary to include the valuation of homesteads in order to compute an accurate mea sure of the relative wealth of the two districts. · County schools in January was 30,352. was $32,365. The ADA of the Fulton · The gross digest per pupil In ADA Therefore, the Atlanta City schoo·1 system has a gross digest approximately 32 per cent greater than the Fulton·County school system. However, each of these school systems has considerably more wealth per pupil than the average school district In the United States. .,I �-6.Local Financial Effort to Support Education A valid measure of local tax effort to suppor t sch6ols can be obtained by dividing the taxes paid on the property . located in each school district by tbe adjusted 100 per cent gross digest of that district. It is difficult to compute exactly the local tax effort ~f the Atlanta City District because a part of that district is in DeKalb .:. County. However, the following is a fairly close approximation for 1966-67 . r. District property tax 2. Payments of City Council for debt ~ service on school bonds 2,835,045 The portion of the 1½ mill countywide tax and the portion of the approximation made by the County Commission which was paid on property located in the City 2,059,743 3. $29,686,415 TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS $ 34,581,203 The 100 per cent gross digest of the Atlanta school district for 1966 was $4~314,812,000 • . The total local taxes for schools .divided by the gross digest equals .008 o r 8 mills on the adjusted 100 per cent gross digest or true value of property. The local taxes for schools in the Fulton County school district In 1966-67 were as follows: $. 4,922,451 1. Dis tric t property tax 2. The portioh of the l½ mill countywide tax and the appropriation made by the County Commission which was paid on property located in the county district 3. Fulton County district levy of mills for debt service 483; 149 S½ TOTAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS 1,350,000 $ 6,755,600 �I i . -7I' ' The 1966 gross dig~st of the County school system on lOO per cent basis was $982,348,000. The total local taxes fo~ schools divided by the gross digest equals .006877 or approximately 6. 9 mills on the gross digest on true valuation of property. It is evident that the Atlanta City school district made a greater local tax effort in proportion to its ability to support schools than Fulton County. If the Fulton County schopl district had made as great a tax effort In proportion to its ability as the Atlanta school district in 1966-67, it would have raised .001123 times $982,348,000 or $1,103,176 in additional local revenue in 1966-67. Special attention is directed to the fact that Fulton County could not legally have made this extra local effort in 1966-67. The District levied 25 mills of operating taxes which was the legal limit it could levy. Furthermore~ property was assessed at less than 25 percent of true value. However, the limitations on the taxing power of the Fulton County '. board of educa tion wi l l be eased somewhat in the future because of the ruling of the cour t in the Mclennon vs State Revenue Commission case. The cour t ru l ed tha t all proper ty must be assessed at a uniform percent of t rue va l ue regar dless of the c l ass of prope r ty o r whe re it was locat ed. Upon t he r ul •ing, the Revenue Commi s sioner o rde red that a l l count y d i ge sts be based on assessing all property a t 40 pe r ~ent of t r ue value. Th is wi l l ~ake it possible to increase consi dera bly th e loca l reven ue s of the Fulton County school district beginning with t he 1967-68 f isca l year. There are no legal limits on the amount of mills which the Atlanta City board of education may levy for the operation of the public schools of the ~Jty. Therefore, there ar~ no legal barriers to Increasing local school support for schools in Atlanta. (· '· �-8Actually the loca·J taxes for schools are extremely ·low both in Atlanta and in Fulton County when compared with - the school taxes levied in other sections of the nation. Recently one of the members of the staff making this survey participated in a study of school financing in all school districts of 20,000 population or more in Illinois. It was found that the average school district in Illinois levied local property taxes for schools equivalent to 12 mills on the 100 per cent true valuation of property. This is a fifty per cent greater local effort than the City of Atlanta. The local tax effort for schools in the Fulton County school district is only 58 per cent of the average effort in Illinois. Indebtedness The bonded indebtedness of the Atlanta City Council for schools totaled $52,905,000 in 1967. This was less than 3.8 per cent of the unadjusted gross digest. The . bonded indebtedness of the Fulton County school district was $22,661,000 in 1967. This was 9. 1 per cent of the unadjusted gross digest of the county school distri ct . This Is close to the 10 per cent consti- tutional limit on school indebtedness for the Fulton County district. However, the bonded indeb ted ness margin of Fulton County will be greatly increased when the property digest i s raised from an estimated 25 per cent of t rue value to 40 per cent. The unadjusted 1966 gross digest for the Fulton County district was approximatel y $248,000,000. Assuming that the 1966 digest was at 25 per cent of true value,the 1967 digest at ~O per cent of true value should be approximately $400,000,000 allowing for a reasonable amount of growth. than The present county school Indebtedness wouid be less 5.7 per cent of the gross digest at a 40 per cent valuation. �-9Another way of looking at the indebtedness of the two districts is to compute the pe~ cent that the school ind~btidness of each district is of the _a djusted gross dig·est of each district at 100 per cent of true value. In 1966 this figure for the Atlanta city district was 1.23 per cent and for Fulton County 2.31 per cen t. If . the ·two districts - were consolidated, it is assumed. that the territory that originally issued the bonds would continue to be responsibJe for the debt service on the - bonds that it had Issued. It does not appear that this would work any great hardship on either district because the indebtedness of neither district is excessive. Non-Property Local Taxes Some school districts in the United States have obtained . legal authority to levy non-property local taxes for schools. both for and against this practice. There are arguments Following are some arguments against the levy· of local non-property taxes for schools: 1. Usually only urban or metropolitan school districts are able to derive substantial funds from this source. 2. The state can collect most types of local non- property taxes more efficiently than local untts of government. 3. Local non-property taxes for schools place cities in competition with each other for industries. 4. If the larger urban districts are able to .levy local non-property taxes for schools, they may not support a state f i nancing program which helps the less · fottunate school districts. 5. Some type!,; of local non- property taxes make it possible for wealthy districts to shift a part of the incidence of their taxes on the residentj of less wealthy dlstricts • . I; .. d· �-10Some arguments fo r the levy of local non-propert~ taxes for schools are as follows: 1. The property tax is a regressive tax and public resistance to it is growing. If we main ta in the vigor of local school support, many believe that a source of loca l revenue more nearly related to ability to pay than the property tax must be found. 2. The more progressive areas of . a state desire a better quality program tha n the legi slature is usually willing to provide from nonproperty state taxes. Those areas should be given the authority to provide this higher quality program from some local source other than the property tax. 3. It is possible to select types of local non-property taxes the burden of which can not be shifted to the taxpayers of less wealthy areas. ' ! 4. The cost of administering local non-property taxes can be held to a reasonable level by using the state's tax collection machinery or by levying local non-property taxes by metropolitan areas rather than by ind ividual school districts. 5. The taxpayer should be given the choice of what type or types of local taxes he will kvy for schools in order to broaden the base of local taxation. As has been pointed out above, local property taxes for schools are very l ow both in Atlanta and in Fulton County. There is considerable leeway in both districts for increasing local property taxes for schools without those taxes becoming burdensome. · Therefore, there is no immediate urgency for the consideration of obtaining the authority to levy local non-property taxes for schools. �-11- If the Atl a nta and Fulton County school authorities - decide to study the possibility of levying local non-property taxes, it is recommended that consideration be given to t he following: 1. That any local non-property taxes that are levied for schools in the AtlaAta area be lev ied over the entire metropolitan area of Atlanta including all school districts in the following counties: Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett . 2. That a metropol itan s chool taxing authority be established with the sole responsi bil ity for collecting any local non-property taxes for schools authorized by law and for apportioning such t axes among the several school dis tricts in the f i ve counties named above in proportion to the average daily attendance of pupils. 3. That only t hos e types of non-property local taxes be levied, the burden of which cannot be shifted to tax payers residing outside of the Atl anta metropolitan area . Financing Education in a Reorganized District A number of reports have been presented to the people of the Fulton County and Atlanta School distric ts in which arguments for and against the consol itation of the two districts have been set forth. the purpose of this report to review those arguments. It is not Therefore, the di scuss ions of schoo l finance presented in this study have been focu sed primarily on the financing of schools in each district rather than on the financing of schools in a consolidated district. Certain suggestions particularly concerning the level of school financ ing have already been presented. Those suggestions are as app li cab l e to the financing of education in Atlanta and Fulton County as separate school districts as they wou 1d be app li cab 1e to the financing of education in a conso 1 i dated district. �-12- It wou ld no dou~t be possi ble to provide reasonably adequate sch~ol financing in each of t he t wo districts operating as separate districts. However, if the two districts were consolidated, it would be possible to establish a more equitable and more efficient financing plan. It has already been pointed ou t t ha t the 1966 gross digest adjusted at 100 per cent in t he ci ty of Atla nta ~ as $42,692 · per pupil In ADA and in the Fulton County district $32 ,365. If the two d1stricts were consolidated, the '. gross diges t at 100 per cent valuation· for the consolidated district would be $40,307 per pupil. It has also been pointed out that the taxpayers in the Fulton Coun ty schoo l district are making a lower tax effort to support schools in propo rtion to ability than the taxpayers•in the Atlanta City district . Therefore, consolidation of the two districts would equalize the weal t h. back of each child and it would also equalize the tax effort to suppor t schools in the Atl anta-Fulton County consolidated district. Consolidati on would a l so simplify local financing because there would no longer be a need for t he special l½ mill couhty equalizing levy or direct appropr iations from the County Commi ss ion. It has been s uggested in other st udies presented to the Local Education Commission of At l ant a a nd Fulton Cou nty that the consolidation of the two districts migh t resu l t i n t he l oss of some state school funds under present me t hods of s tate apportionment . If there is anything in present state laws that would place a penalty on des i r able reorganization of school districts, the Jaws shou l d be amended and the penalties eliminated. This should not be a difficu l t undertaking. As has already been po i nted out , improvements in s chool f inancing should be made In the Atlanta and Fulton County school distr i cts regard l ess ' .. r·i· �-13of whether they are consolidated. If . the two districts are consolidated, consideration should be given to the following financial recommendations: 1. The board of the consolidated district should be given the same power for levying taxes for school operation as that now possessed by the Atlanta City Board of Education and it should be fiscally independent of any other local body. · , I ·I 2. The board should be given th e power to issue bonds for capital . outlay purposes up to a reasonable per cent of the gross digest. The board should also be given the power to obtain tax anticipation loans to be repaid within the fiscal year. 3. Homestead exemption from school taxes should be abolished in the reorganized dtstrict. 4. Present outstanding bonds should be retired in accordance with the convnitments made at the time of issuance but all new bonds should be issued on a district-wide basis and retired from taxes levied thro~ghout the consolidated district. . . �BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES The primary purpose of business administration is to provide the services netessary for obtaining the maximum return per dollar invested In public education. It is not the pu r pose of business administration to minimize educational expenditures. Business and industry have long been aware of the fact :that t he investment .of additional fu nds In an enterprls-e wi 11 freque ntly return more profi t s per dolla r -invested than a smaller Investment. Thi s same pril'lcip le applies to the educational enterp ri se. However, wasteful or ineffici ent ex pend i ture of fu nds ~anno~ be Justified by the returns rece i ved In either business or education. A limited survey was made of the bus iness administration service s and policies of the Atlanta an d Fulton County school systems. Th i s survey was made f irst to dete rm i.ne t he adequacy of t he bus iness adminis tration services of each school system and second to dete rmine whet her major economies in business adminis tra tion could be obtained by the conso l_idation of the two systems. The f i ndi ng s of that su rvey are set forth be low. Atlanta Ci ty School Sys tem The At lan ta City schoo l system has a we l l developed program of busines s a dm i n is t ration serv ices typical of cities the size of Atl anta. Except fo r s ta ff organization, business admin istrati on policies are generally consistent woth the policies recommended by authorit ies on school bus iness mana gement. Organh:atlon. The organization for school business management does no t follow the.pattern generally recommended by authorities in this fiel d. Fi nance, Inc luding administration of t he budget, Is under the supervision of a comptroller appointed by the Atlanta Ci ty boa rd of education and he Is directly ' ·I f �-2- responsible to the boai d. Legally the comptroller is not required to report to the _superintenden t noi is he under the supervis1on of the superintendent. i In practice however he works closely with the superintendent. An assistant superi~tendent for school plant planning and construction reports directly to the :superintend~ nt . All ot her busine~s administr~tion services are under the direction of an assistant-superintendent for administrative services who -~ W:.!.E _<!Lrectly to the superintendent. Th e services under the supervi n of the assis t ant superintendent for administrative services include the following : ~urchasing, school plant operation and maintenance, food ~ervices, records center, warehousi ng, .inventory, print shop, statistical services and school detective services. Autho r ities on school business management usually recommend that all business administration s e rvi ce s should be coordinated by one assistant superintendent directly responsible to the superintendent. Howeve r, if thos e services are divided among two or more assistant superintenden ts, each of these superintendents should report directly to the superintendent. The disa dvantage of this latter system as compared with· the system usually recommended is that the superintendent of schools is required to coord .i nate the different administrative services rat her t ha n the assistant superintendent for business a ffa irs . rhe system of orga n ization now use d by ·At lanta viola te s the princ ipal of coo rdination of the ac t ivities of an o r ganization through a single executive. Potentially this system could cause friction and lack of coordination in t he administration of the Atlanta public schools. That it has not done so is a credit to the educational and business executives of the A~lanta school s ys tem. '. ,r' ' �-3Facilities and Equi pment. Office f acilit ies for t he business admini- · I stration staff are provided for in a central admin istrative bu il ding for the Atlanta City board of education. ' Another bu ilding , located approximately- one. block from the adminis trative office building, is being renovated to house . re~ords and data process ing eq uipment. When t his i~ done fairly adequate office space will be ava ilable for t he business administration staff at present. However, the central off i ce building is located on a limited site with inadequate parking facilitie s. It would be diffi cu lt a ~d expens iv~ to expand the present central office fac ili ti es of the Atlanta City board of education. Sophis ticated data proces sing equ ipme nt i s in proces s of be i ng installed. That equipmen t includes an IBM 360 computer, tape and dis~ sys tem and related equipment includ ing a 1428 document reade r. When th is system is in full ope r - ation, the fina ncial accounting system, the central record system for warehouses and othe r record systems involving da t a processing can be greatly improved. All other business administration services are housed in a newly constructed educational se r vices building. This is an excellent building located near an expressway and it is served by a railroad siding. The site is fairl y adequate. The building houses the school plant maintenance shop ; warehousing for school supplies and school plant maintenance and custodial supplies, storage for schoo l food service, the print shop and other t ypes of educational services. The warehousing and storage facilities of the educational services building are efficiently arranged for accessions to and withdrawals from stock. At the time this building was constructed it was thought to be adequate for all the ,< storage and warehousing needs of the Atlanta system. However, it was soon found necessary to utilize the ~Id abandoned city jail building to store old �' ·· •' : - 4- school furniture and ce rtain other ty pes of non-rapidly moving stock. While not ideal, t his buildi ng is s til l usefu l for th~s type of storage. School Plant Maintenance . The At lanta Ci ty board of education operates a city owned school plan t ma in tenance shop. It is adequately staffed with employees of the Ci ty board of educati on and we ll equipped. Experience has shown t hat. a proper ly operate~ school plant maintenance shop can not only save money on school plan t maintenance but that Jt usually provides better service tpan when school_ plan t maintenance is pr6vlded for by job contract. The board has developed a program for the repair and maintenance of school buildings and ~ this policy not only exte nds the life of a bui l ding but it also reduces the Some di fficulty has been . number of hazards to pupil s and s chool employees. experienced In obtainin g employees with t he desired skit .t s. School transpo r tation Is not provided for at public expense by the Atlan ta City board of educati on . Budgetary Procedures. Work on the budget starts approximately six months before the beginning of the fiscal year. prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The budget is not always ap proved Best practice dictates that the ,' budget be approved prior to the beginn ing of the fiscal year. However, it is reported that delays In receiving tax di gests and estimates of revenue sometimes make it difficult to approve t he budget in final form prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The comptroller has primary responsibility for preparing the budget document. However, the comptroller consults with the superintendent, the assistant superintendents and the area superintendents before he prepares the budget. area superintendents consult with the principals. The There seems to be no fo rma l �,------------- - - 5- arrangemen t s fo r providing opportuni ties for classroom teachers or their representat ives to partic ipa te in t he formulation of the budget. Certain items, including ins tructional supplies, library expenditures, . band equipment and janitorial su pplies, are budgeted by individual schools. The budget for 1966-67 is a formi dable document consisting of more than 160 pages. tin it It contains detailed financial schedules of re143.215.248.55ues and expenditures, cos ts, and comparisons of the proposed_ budget with receipts and expend i • t_ures for previ ous years. understood by laymen. attended. This Is a technical document and is not readily The board holds public hearings but they are not well The board is fiscally independent and adopts its budget without being subject to review by · any other local body. to make the board fiscal ly independent. It .fs sound pub I i c pol Icy Under t his policy the public is able to fix responsib ility fo r t he school budget because the board of education is the sole responsible body. Howeve r , as taxes inc rease in the fu t ure and the public becomes more tax conscious, t he board may need to develop better methods than it is now using to commun icate the educational needs of the pupi ls to the public. Financial Accounting and Audit ing. The financial accounting system utilized in the Atlanta City schools conforms with the principal accounting standards and account classifications reconvnended by t he United States Office of Education. This is important in order that t he financial data for the Atl anta City school system may be comparab le not only with other school systems In Georgia but also comparable with the financi al data from other school systems throughout the nation. The accounting system is completely mechanized by the use of the data processing equipment already described. Accrual or encumbrance �-6- accounting is used. Thjs is essential for close budget control. Under accrual accounting, a budget account is encumbered as soon as an obligation is incurred against that account. The accounts of the Atlanta City schools are audited annually by a firm of certified public accountan t s. The board requires the principal of each school to keep a uniform system of account records of internal accounts. co11ec~ed at individual schools . Internal accounts consist of funds These accounts are also audited annuallyo The accounti ng and auditing procedures of the Atlanta City school system are in accord with standard practice. Purchasing Procedures. All items of any importance used by the Atlanta City schools are cent r ally purchased in quantities on competitive bids. policy undoubtedly saves large sums of money annually. This The construction of central warehousing facilities and the establishment of an efficient distribution system made it practicable for t he board to establish its broad policy · of central purchasing. Business Administration, School Lunch Rooms. provided for school lunch rooms. Central supervision is All school lunch rooms receive federal aid in the form of cash and commodities. From 60 to 70 percent of the pupils participate in the school lunch p rogram. This compares very favorably with a national part icipation average of only 35 percent. The board provides for central purchasing and central accounting for all school lunch rooms. The business administration policies of the board for the operation of school lunch rooms are in line with best practice. Insurance and Bonding. School buildings are insured for 100 percent '.I . , ,; �r I -7of appraised wor t h on blanke t f ire and extended coverage policies. The board deals with one agen t who re prese nts the Association of Independent Insurance Agents. Build ing s and equ ipment are insured at an appraised value of $77,736,493 a t an ann ua l cost of $53,000. ' sometimes find it advisab le to be self insurers. Large school systems However, since the amount of money expended for f ire insurance in the Atlanta City school system is relatively small , very little money cou ld be saved by a self-insurance program. All officia ls and employees who handle ~funds in the Atlanta City school system are bonded . The board pays t he cost of the bonds. Workman's Compensation insurance is provided for all the employees of . _: the board. The boa r d is sel f-insurer for t his type of insurance. Income Management and Depository Security. The board has been able during the past few years t o keep a sufficient working ba]ance on hand to pay all current obligations when due. tax anticipation loans. Therefore t he board has not been requi red t o obtain The board does not have the authority to bo rrow money. All borrowing, eithe r on short term loan·s or bonds, mus t be done by the Atlan ta City Council for t he board of educa ti on. The board fo ll ows the soun d policy of operating on a balance d budget and it carries over a reasonable working balance from one fiscal year into the next year. The board wisely follows the policy of investing i'ts idle funds in appropriate United States Government obligations. in In t erest earnings from this ~ouri.:e It obtained $302,301.24 in 1965-66. The board requires its depository bank to escrow collateral in another bank in the amount of $500,000 in order to protect the funds it has on deposi t. The balances in the depository sometimes exceed this amount . Howeve r, the board '. .. ,.;' - 1 �-8- follows the pol icy of promp t l y inves ti ng its idle funds and this provides some protection . Fringe Benefi ts for Em ployeeso The following fringe benefits are provided for all employee s of t he board , both certificated and uncertificated: r'e tirement, sick leave , me dical and hospitalization insurance and a limited amoun t of li fe insur ance . Both the board and the empl oyee participate in - financing mos t of these be ne fit s. Boards of educati on must participate in making provis ions for thes e benefits if they compete on equal terms with the private sector of the economy i n obtai ning needed personnel. The Fulton Co unty Schoo l System The Ful t on Coun t y boa rd of e duca tion has provided fairly adequate business adminis t ration se rv ices for the public schools of the County. The busine ss adminis tra t ion pol ic ies a re basically sound. As indicated below , improvements t hat need to be made involve increasing the s ize of staff and provid i ng for a ddi t iona l space and equipme nt rat he r than any change in ope ratin g policies. Organ izat ion. The pr incipal busines s admi nistration services are unde r the di r ec t ion of an assi s tant supe r i nten dent for maintenance and operation and a di rec t o r of fi na nce. di rect ly to the super i ntende nt . Ea ch of thes e of fi cial s report s The assistant supe r intende nt f o r mai n- tenance and opera tions supe r vis e s school pl ant opera ti on and ma intena nce, warehous i ng and s t ora ge and dis t ri bution serv ices , school plant planning and purchas i ng . Th e director of finance and h i s staf f kee p all accounts, administer t he budge t and audit Inte rnal accounts. In addition , schoo l transpor ta ti on is supervised by t he director of attendance and transpo rtation and the d i rector of the s chool l unch program is under the supe r visi on of the �' I' ,, r';· -9- assistant supe rinte nden t for curri c ulum. This latter arrangement is a 1 ittle unus ual beca use the central servi ces provided for the school lunch program at the county l evel have more rela t ionship t o finance , accounting, purchasing and s torage and distribut ion which are business adminis t ration services, than to cu rr icu lum. It is generally considered good organization policy to organize simi iar t yees of operations in the same organizational units. All the top off ic ia l s re~ponsible fbr bus-iness administration services report to the s upe r in tendent r a ther t han directly to the board. This is sound policy because it prov ides for central coordination of all educational serv ices at t he coun ty l evel. It appea rs t hat the staff employed by the board for accounting, purchasi ng , budget a dmi n i stratron , etc., is inadequate in size to provide for these serv ices . The staff provided for these services is as fo ll ows: a d irector of fi nance and a ss i sta nt , a purchasing agent, an a dm ini s t r ative assistant, f our bookkeepe rs, and t hree secre ta ries. This is a ve ry small staff f o r these services in a schoo l s ys tem with a budget exceeding sixteen mi l li on dollars annually. Fac i litie s a nd Equi pment . The ce ntra l s t a ff f or bus iness ma na gement i s hous ed in offi ce s pace provide d in t he Ful t on County Court House. Thi s space is ina deq uate . Data process i ng equ i pment is not avai l ab l e. used fo r payro ll purpos~s and account records. Accounting machines are If Fulton County remains a separate school sys tem , the board should investigate the poss ibility of Ins ta lli ng or renting certa i n t ypes of data processing equi pment. �-10- The board has cons t ruc t ed an excellent educational services bui l ding on a site some d ista nce from the cour t house. centrally adjacent to an expre ssway . Th_is bui-1:ding is located However, it was constructed on a very limited site with but littl e room for parking or expansion. ,that another story can be added to the present structure. It is understood However, this too would become inadequate in a few years and parking space is already inadequate. There fore the present site should be expanded if possible. The educational services building houses the school plant maintenance shop, warehousing for school supplies , school plant maintenance and custodial supplies and storage for school furnit ure , instructional materials and supplies. a very useful building. This is It makes it possible for the board to do quantity pur- chasing on competitive bids. Thi s policy is not possible without adequate ware- housing and a distribution system. The board has ' established a centrally located S·chool Plant Maintenance . school plant maintenance s hop located in the educational services building . It is well equpped and staffed with personnel possessing the necessary sk il ls . Reports from t he State Depa rtmen t of Education indicate that the board has an excellent school plant maintenance program. However, it is reported that some additional employees are needed. School Bus Maintenance. The board operates 78 county-owned buses and contracts for eight other buses. The policy of district ownership and operation of school buses almost al ways results in better service at a lower unit cost than contract transportation. The provision of school transportation is not a simple matter in the Fulton County school district because of its geography. The district is divided into two separate parts by the Atlanta City School I �-11- district. It is approximately 70 miles between a schoo1 in the northern part of Fulton County and a ichool located in the southern part ~f the County school district. Road and traffic conditions vary from the conditions typically found in rural Georgia to conditions usually found in a densely settled metropol itan area. The board contracts for bus maintenance and inspection with a private garage at a cost of $1,300 per month. Parts used in repairing buses are "bil led to the board at list price less 10 .percent . . Buses appear to be well · maintained and very few road failures are experienced. The operator of the garage with whom the board contracts for its bus maintenance takes a genuine pride in maintaining school buses. He appears to h~v~ the interest ~nd enthusiasm of a board empl oyee. The board has explored the possibility of constructing its own school bus repair shop and operating it. Available evidence does not indicate that the board could save money by establishing its own shop as long as it is able to contract for its bus maintenance at so favorable a rate. The contractor operates a branch shop in the nort he rn part of the County which does light repairs a nd inspections. This reduces the amount of empty mileage traveled by buses . The board puys its gasoline for school buses from filling sta tions. Discounts are received at only a few stations. The board has considered purchasing its own tank truck and serving its own buses. However, schools · are so widely separated that this method would probably not save very much money. The board could probably save some money on its gasoline 'purchases if filling stations were required to bid for the board's business. '. ' �-12- Financial Accounting and Auditing . The financial accounting system follows in general the account classification for receipts and expenditures recommended by the United Sta tes Office of Education. state requirements . It also conforms to The accounts of the Fulton County schools can readily ' be compared with the accounts of school systems not only in Georgia but also throughout the Nation. As poin te d out above , data processing equipment is not available for keeping financial accoun ts. Furthermore,· the s taff provided for accounting, purchasing and budget administration is insufficient in number to provide all of the se rvices needed . on an accrual basis . For example, expenditure accounts are not kept This should be done in order to provide a more efficient method of budget control. If Fu lton County is continued as a separate school system, accrual accounting s hou l d be installed along with data processing equipment. The accounts of the board have been audited eight times during the past f our years, four ti mes by state auditors and four times by independent certified public accountants. The board requires school principals to maintain a uniform system of accounts for al I of the internal funds handled at school cente=rs. . These accounts are audited annually. Budgetary Procedures. The director of finance is assigned the res- ponsibility of preparing the budget document. As pointed out above, he is directly responsible to the superintendent and works under his supervision in preparing the budget. He also works with the assistant superintendentSp director of Instruction, principals and others In preparing the budget. �1-- -13- Work is started on the budget from 6 to 12 months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year but it is not always approved in final form by the beginning of the fiscal year. The budget is a technical budget not readily understood by the lay public. Detailed schedules of anticipated receipts _and proposed expenditures by function and object are presented. In addition certain unit costs and data for the previous year are i ncluded in the budget. Program accounting is not used In interpretihg the budget. Budget hearings are held but they are not well att~nded. The budget is advertised in the newspaper and a dopted by the board at a later date as prescribed by law. The boar d is fi scally independent' and its budget is not subject to review by any ot her local body. However, as school costs continue to increase and the public becomes more tax conscious, the board will undoubtedly find it advisable to deve lop more adequate means than are now used to communicate school needs to t he public. Purchasing Procedures. The boar d purchases all important items in quantity and requires competitive bids for all items costing in excess of $150.00. money. This policy undoubtedly resu lts in the saving of considerable Quantity buying requires storage and a distribution system. The educational services building and t he distribution system established in connection with it greatly facilitates quantity purchasing. Business Administration of the School Lunch Program. The board provides some central supervision for the school lunch program but it does not provide for central accounting and purchasing for school lunch rooms. Central account- ing and central purchasing usually resu lt in considerable savings for the �-14- school lunch program • . Howeve r as pointed out above, distribution is a problem in Fulton County beca use of the remoteness of many schools from a central warehouse. The educational se rvi ces building is not equipped for food storage but this deficiency could be remedied. It is believed that considerable money could be saved by centr?l accounting and purchasing for school lunch rooms. However, these services could not be provided without expanding the b~siness management s taff. Approxima te ly 61 percent of the pupils enrolled participate in the school lunch program . All school s either receive federal aid in the form of cash and commod it ies or conmodities only. Insurance a nd Bonding. fidelity bond . Al l employees· are under a blanket position Principa l s are also under a name bond. The board pays the '. ,,j' · cost of all bonds . The board carri e& fire and extended coverage insurance under the Public and Institutional Property Plan. Under this form of insurance (avai lable only to publi c institutions) t he board insures a buiiding and its contents for replacement cost rather than appra ised cost. This g ives the board rather compl ete coverage but it is a fair ly .expensive type of insurance. The board pays $50,755.66 annually for carrying fire and extended coverage Insurance on buil dings and equipment ins ured at a replacement value of $32,773 ,199.92. This may appear rather expe nsive when compared with the insurance costs of the Atlanta City system. However, insurance rates a re greatly affected by the fire protection ava ilable and the City of Atlanta has far better fire protection than Is ava ilable in most sections of Fulton County. �-15- Income Manageme nt and Depos ito ry Security. The board has been able to carry a su fficient workin g bala nce t o be abl _e to pay Its current obi igations on ti me without having to resort to tax anticipation loans . This is good po licy. The board has operated on a balanced budget and has carried over a reasonable working bal ance from on~ f!scal year to another. The board wise l y fol lows._ the pol icy of investing idle funds in United States Government securiti es. It realized $199,640.39 in interest from this source dur ing the 1965-66 fis cal year. The boa rd does not follow standard procedures for protecting its funds in depositories. The standard procedure is to require the board's depository bank to protect the board's deposits by escrowing in another bank, government securiti es in an amount equal to the maximum balance carried by the board. In 1 ieu of t h i s pol icy the Fulton County board of education keeps its f unds in 10 bank accounts and attempts to invest funds not needed during a given mon th as quickly as possible. During the period of heavy tax collections, the board may receive as much as $2,000,000 in a single remittance. While these fun ds are invested in United States Government obliga tions promptly, nevertheless the board should have some protection for its funds in depositories in the form of escrowed collateral. Fringe Benefits for Employees. The board provides the following fringe benefits for all of its employees both cert ifica ted and non-certificated: retirement, sic~ leave, medi cal and hospita lization insurance and a limited .,l amount of life insurance. ! the costs of most of these benefits. I The employer and the employee share in financing These are the same types of benefits provided by the Atlanta City board of education for its employees. ,i ., '. ' _. r•i ' �'i I • I Summary The business administration policies of the Atlanta City school sy,s tem and the Fulton County school system ·a re both basically sound. The available evidence indicates that no great amount of money could be saved by consolidating the business administration operations of the two systems. Few if any business administration personnel could be eliminated by the consolidation of the two systems. It might be necessary and desirable to change a few titles and to do some reorganization but the services of all of the present employees would be needed. Both ~ducattona l services buildings would still be needed because of the shortage of warehousing and storage space. The consolidation of the two systems would not elimina t e the great distances between schools which cause distribution problems . If the two systems were consolidated and public transportation provided for qualifying pupils who now live in the city of Atlanta , different arrangements for the mai nt~nance and ope ration of ~chool buses would have to be ma de. Those arrangements would probably involve the construction of two school bus repa i r s hops , one l ocated in t he nor t hern half of the reorganized dis t r i ct and the ot he r in t he sout·he r n ha 1f . From t he standpoint of bus ine s s a dm i nistration, t he c h ief sa ving i n consoli dat ing t he two school distr ic t s would be the elimi nati on of t he cost o f one da ta processing system. The newl y i nstal le d da ta proce ssing sys t em for the Atlanta City schools has sufficient capacity to serve both school systems. All other business administration savings would have to be obtained �-17 - from increases in efficiency derived from economy of scale. for example, consolidation of the two systems would result in increasing the volume 9f specific items submit t ed for bid. The increased volume might result in lower unit costs for some items. Some financial savings could probably be obtained by eliminating certain duplicating educatio~al programs or the provision for better coordination of existing educational progra~s if the two districts were consolidated . Since this section of this report is concerned only with business administration policies, no attempt is made to estimate the amount of savi ngs on t he opera t ion of educational programs that could be obtained through consolidati on . .. r· '· � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 2, Document 24 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 2 Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/170fd287cc067211caace85183f1bea9.pdf 7dde2efca1b9cc9573bf12390640a79f Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION of Atlanta and Fulton County, Geo rg ia CHAIRMAN P. L . VICE CHAIRMAN BARDIN 1440 BANK OF. GEORGIA BUILDING ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 !124-2626 SECRETARY-TREASURER OTIS M. JACKSON W . KENNETH STRI NGER 3121 MAPLE DRIVE, N.E, 1393 PEACHTREE STREET, N . E . ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3030!1 ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30309 237-4729 ·973 . 3579 June $-., 1967 To: Local Education Commission Members, Consultants and Attorneys From: Curtis Henson, Recording Secretary {)_,~ J.f'~ The Local Education Commission will have a luncheon meeting at 12:30 p.m. on June 19th in rooms 1 and 2 of the Atlanta Public Schools' Instructional Services Center, 2930 Forrest Hill Drive, S. W. Members of the Atlanta and Fulton County Boards of Educat i on have been invited to this luncheon. The purpose of this meeting is t o receive t he reports of the studies conducted by Dr. R. L. Johns in finance and business management , and Dr. Willa.rd Elsbree in personnel. In order for us t o make the necessary arrangements for this luncheon, please check the appropriate blank on the enclosed card and return it to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your cooperation. CH:mt Encl. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document we -Yy 7 ( CHAIRMAN P. L. BARDIN 1440 BANK OF GEORGIA BUILDING ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 524-2626 LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION of Atlanta and Fulton County, Georgia VICE CHAIRMAN Otis M. JACKSON 3121 MAPLE DRive, N.E. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30305 237-4729 SECRETARY-TREASURER W. KENNETH STRINGER 1393 PEACHTREE STREET. N.E. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 873-3578 To: From: June &, 1967 REMINDER —— — Local Education Commission Members, Consultants and Attorneys Curtis Henson, Recording Secretary bint Jp2atonm The Local Education Commission will have a luncheon meeting at 12:30 p.m. on June 19th in rooms 1 and 2 of the Atlanta Public Schools! Instructional Services Center, 2930 Forrest Hill Drive, S. W. Members of the Atlanta and Fulton County Boards of Education have been invited to this luncheon. The purpose of this meeting is to receive the reports of the studies conducted by Dr. R. L. Johns in finance and business management, and Dr. Willard Elsbree in personnel. In order for us to make the necessary arrangements for this luncheon, please check the appropriate blank on the enclosed card and return it to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your cooperation. CH smt Enel.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 2, Document 23 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 2 Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/adff7239ae1b0fca6c3e597c32840526.pdf 6496734243ab119eb50e77563f0bba92 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. A RESOLUTION ATIANTA TEACHERS REPRESENTATION ON '£HE LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION OF ATIANTA AND FULTON COUNTY UHEREAS, the legislators were asked to name the presidents of the Atlanta and Fulton County Teacher Associations, as representatives of teachers on the commission, and WdERFAS, this request was made at our dinner conference with the Fulton County delegation and at the formal hearing in the State Capitol, and WHEREAS, the delegation indicated their interest in honoring this request each time it was made, and t]HERFAS, the request was not honored in H. B. 623, and WHEREAS, our presidents are the elected representatives of all professional personnel other than Superintendents, and lri:filREAS, our presidents are lmowledgeable in matters pertaining to the problems involved, and WHEREAS, our presidents act after apprising the organizations of the facts, and WHEREAS, the organization, which is composed of over ninety five percent (95%) of the professional personnel, act as directed, by their constituents, and WHEREAS, the education of our children is vitally involved in the study of problems and decisions reached, and WHEREAS, the future of Metropolitan Atlanta is at stake, and WHEREAS, the livelihood of all employees of the Atlanta and Fulton County Boards of Education is involved in the final solution, and WHEREAS, the past action of the Commission has not appeared to be adequately informed about the total nature of the subject "Better Schools for Atlanta and Fulton County", and UHEREAS, we deny anyone other than our president or his appointed representative the authority to speak, ~,rite or act on our behalf, and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED thAt we are not represented on the Connnission, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we request fonna.l representation as voting bers of the Conmission, occupying vacancies now on the Comnission. ri1em- Adopted: May 15, 1967 The Atlanta Public School Teachers' Association, 197 Central Avenue, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document A RESOLUTION ATLANTA TEACHERS REPRESENTATION ON THE LOCAL EDUCATION COMMISSION OF ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY WHEREAS, the legislators were asked to name the presidents of the Atlanta and Fulton County Teacher Associations, as representatives of teachers on the commission, and WHEREAS, this request was made at our dinner conference with the Fulton County delegation and at the formal hearing in the State Capitol, and WHEREAS, the delegation indicated their interest in honoring this request each time it was made, and WHEREAS, the request was not honored in H. B. 623, and WHEREAS, our presidents are the elected representatives of all professional personnel other than Superintendents, and WHEREAS, our presidents are knowledgeable in matters pertaining to the problems involved, and WHEREAS, our presidents act after apprising the organizations of the facts, and WHEREAS, the organization, which is composed of over ninety five percent (95%) of the professional personnel, act as directed, by their constituents, and WHEREAS, the education of our children is vitally involved in the study of problems and decisions reached, and WHEREAS, the future of Metropolitan Atlanta is at stake, and WHEREAS, the livelihood of all employees of the Atlanta and Fulton County Boards of Education is involved in the final solution, and WHEREAS, the past action of the Commission has not appeared to be adequately informed about the total nature of the subject "Better Schools for Atlanta and Fulton County", and WHEREAS, we deny anyone other than our president or his appointed represen- tative the authority to speak, write or act on our behalf, and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we are not represented on the Commission, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we request formal representation as voting mem- bers of the Commission, occupying vacancies now on the Commission. Adopted: May 15, 1967 The Atlanta Public School Teachers! Association, 197 Central Avenue, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 2, Document 22 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 2 Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/12eba54cbbc4b241b08db30b47e65e48.pdf 17be20a02a1aad321d8408bcdf9b7ee9 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION 19 7 CE N TRAL AV E NUE, S . W. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 ~ @ May 22, 1967 ~- Earl ;{,anders, Adnm. Asst. f o Mayor, eity Hall , Atlanta, Georgia. Dear Mr. Landers: The enclosed Resolution was adopted at our General Meeting on Monday, Hay 15, 1967. We are quite disturbed and concerned about the probler.i. We thought that it was agreed that representation selected and authoriz ed to represent our professional personnel would be chosen by t he Legislature to represent us on the Commission. This was not done. Consequently we are forced to protect our people by expl aining the pr esent situation t o you and requesting proper r epr esentation. Ue shall appreciate your cooperation and help in arriving at a proper and satisfact ory solution. Si ncerel y your s , ·· 1 ~ A. D. JONES, Pre-si en, Atlanta Publ i c Schoo Teachers' As sociation. ADJ:dw Encl. (Resolution) � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 197 CENTRAL AVENUE, S. W. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 jhe fyi ni? ai A ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION May 22, 1967 Mr. Earl. yLanders, Adm. Asst. to Mayor, City Hall, Atlanta, Georgia. Dear Mr. Landers: The enclosed Resolution was adopted at our General Meet- ing on Monday, May 15, 1967. We are quite disturbed and concerned about the problem. We thought that it was agreed that representation selected and authorized to represent our professional personnel would be chosen by the Legislature to represent us on the Commission. This was not done. Consequently we are forced to protect our people by explaining the present situation to you and requesting proper representation, We shall appreciate your cooperation and help in arriving at a proper and satisfactory solution. Sincerely yours, A, D. JONES, President; Atlanta Public Schoo Teachers! Association. ADJ: dw Encl, (Resolution)  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 2, Document 21 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 2 Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/e5fb69467e0407e32fd6fccba5df5344.pdf 53b28ffd0831fce897a75e41fdaf189e Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ( COMMI TTEES OF LOCAL GOVER~ ENT ~ ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY STEERING COMMITTEE Pope Brock, Cha i rman Jac k w. We st Mr s . Ea rl F . Ge i ge r Jo se p h K. Heyman Cliffo rd Oxford J . Y. More l a nd ATLANTA CITY GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE Cli f f o rd Ox f o rd, Cha irman J ose ph M. Mal o of Dr. Samu e l D. Cook Wi l l i am F. Me thvin, Jr. Rob e rt Earl Brown FULT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE Dr . I rving H. Go l ds t e in, DDS , Ch a i r man Free man Str i ckl a nd Max Ho l t J . Y. Mo re l and Ernest w. Ke a pp l e r SUBURBAN AREA STUDY COMMITTEE Jos e ph K. Heyman, Chairman Pa u l E . Pres s l e y J . W. St e p h en s on , Jr . Willi a m T . Mal on e E. Earl Patt on F r ank l in Thoma s F o r f u rt he r informat i on cont a ct: Mi ss Peg Hendr i x Room 336 State Capit o l At l a n ta , Ge o rg i a 30334 572 - 2661 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document COMMITTEES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMIS sion ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY STEERING COMMITTEE Pope Brock, Chairma Jack W. West : Mrs. Earl F. Geiger Joseph K. Heyman Clifford Oxford J. Y. Moreland ATLANTA CITY GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE Clifford Oxford, Chairman Joseph M. Maloof Dr. Samuel D. Cook William F. Methvin, Jr. Robert Earl Brown FULTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE Dr. Irving H. Goldstein, DDS, Chairman Freeman Strickland Max Holt J. Y¥. Moreland Ernest W. Keappler SUBURBAN AREA STUDY COMMITTEE Joseph K. Heyman, Chairman Paul E. Pressley J. W. Stephenson, Jr. William T. Malone E. Earl Patton Franklin Thomas For further information contact: Miss Peg Hendrix Room 336 State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia 30334 572-2661  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 2, Document 20 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 2 Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/18f0345c82596fc25727a1943a989b06.pdf 03844ec00e690720cc8a4c519d56c09b Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. MEMBERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY Chairman : Pop e Br oc k , Chairman of the Board Ful t on Na tional Bank 262 9 Ard e n Road, N. W. At l anta, Geo rgia Bus , Phone Home Phone 875-3411 355-4496 Vi c e - Chairman J ack w. West a ck w. Wes t Contracting Company P. o. Box 6787 Atlanta, Georgia 30315 577-2357 627-8630 Secretary- Treasurer : Mr s , Earl F. Geiger 4291 East Brookhaven Drive, N. W. Atlanta , Georgia 231-3264 Rob e rt Earl Brown P . O. Box 20787 Atlanta Airport At l anta, Ge orgia 767-7501 344-6330 Dr , Samue l D. Cook , Chairman De partme nt of Political Sci enc e At l anta Univ e rsity Atlanta, Ge orgia 523-6431 525-75 12 875-7034 872-6671 873-2777 Trust Company of Georgia Atlanta , Geo rgia 30303 588-7916 233- 0747 Max Holt, Comptroller Dittler Bros., I nc. 355-3423 766-0594 Ernest W. Keap pler 2266 Campb ellton Road:i s. W. Atlanta, Geo rgia 30311 344 -3550 761-3775 378-0174 · 378-0174 Dr. I rving H, Goldstei n, DDS 826 Peachtree Street, N. W. At l anta, Ge orgia J os eph K. Heyman, Senior Vic e President 1375 Se aboard I ndustrial Boul evar d, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30325 William T. Malone 774 Lull.water Road, N. E. Atlanta, Georg ia �Bus. Phone J o seph M, Maloof , Assi stant Vice Pres id ent F irst Fereral Sav ings & Loan Association 40 Mar ietta Stree t, N. W. At lanta, Geo rgia Home Phone 627 - 8405 Willi am F. Met hvin, J r , W. F . Met hv in) J r, Lumber Company P . C . Box 8121, Station F Atla n ta , Geo rgia 876 - 0300 876 - 0300 J . Y . Moreland , Sr. , Princip a l Boo k e r T . Wa s hington Hig h School 12 Chappel Road, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30325 758- 8871 753 - 8276 525 - 3404 237 - 3900 233 -7020 255 -1179 525 - 3404 622- 0872 Clifford Oxford Hatcher, Meyers on, Oxford and I rvin F ir st Federal Building 40 Mar i etta S treet, N. W, At l anta, Georgia 30303 E. Ear l Patton Patton Associates 38 Cld I vy Road, N. E. At l a nta) Georg ia 30305 Paul E o Pr ess l ey Hatcher, Meye rso n, Oxford and I rvin First Federal Building 40 Mar i e tta Stree t, N. W. At l anta, Geo rgia 30303 J . W, Ste ph enso n, Jr", Manag e r ~oll e ge Park Branch Atlanta Fede ral Savings & Loan Asso ciation 3581 Main Stre e t Co ll e g e Park, Ge org i a 761- 0153 Freeman S trickland 12C8 F irs t Natio nal Bank Building At l anta, Geo rgia 30303 588 - 6414 233-2445 Franklin Thomas , Executive Director But l e r Street YMCA 22 But l e r Stre et, N. E. At l anta, Geo rgia 524- 0246 344- 2685 524- 7731 231-4307 Counsel: James B. Pilcher Assoc i ate City Attorney 1114 Willi am- Oli ver Bu ilding At l anta, Ge o rgia 30303 Fo r furth e r informat ion contact: Miss Pe g Hendrix Room 336 State Capitol Atl an t a, Ge orgia 30334 572-2661 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document MEMBERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY Chairman: Bus. Phone Home Phone Pope Brock, Chairman of the Board Fulton National Bank 2629 Arden Road, N, W, Atlanta, Georgia Vice-Chairman Jack W. West Jack W. West Contracting Company P. O. Box 6787 Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Secretary-Treasurer: Mrs. Earl F. Geiger 4291 East Brookhaven Drive, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia Fobert Earl Brown P. O. Box 20787 Atlanta Airport Atlanta, Georgia Dr. Samuel D. Cook, Chairman Department of Political Science Atlanta University Atlanta, Georgia Dr. Irving H. Goldstein, DDS 826 Peachtree Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgla Joseph K. Heyman, Senior Vice President Trust Company of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Max Holt, Comptroller Dittler Bros., Inc. 1375 Seaboard Industrial Boulevard, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30325 Ernest W. Keappler e26E Campbellton Road, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30311 William T. Malone 774 Lullwater Road, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 875-3411 Sf (~2357 767-7501 523-6431 875-7034 588-7916 355-3423 344-3550 378-0174 355-4496 627-8630 231-3264 344-6330 oe5=7512 872-6671 873-2777 233-0747 766-0594 761-3775 - 378-0174 Joseph M. Maloof, Assistant Vice President First Fereral Savings & Loan Association 40 Marietta Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia William F. Methvin, Jr. W. F. Methvin, Jr. Lumber Company P. ©. Box 8121, Station F Atlanta, Georgia J. ¥. Moreland, Sr., Principal Booker T. Washington High School 12 Chappel Road, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30325 Clifford oxford Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford and Irvin First Federal Building 40 Marietta Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 E. Earl Patton Patton Associates 38 cCld Ivy Road, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30305 Paul E. Pressley Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford and Irvin First Federal Building 40 Marietta Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 J. W. Stephenson, Jr., Manager Sollege Park Branch Atlanta Federal Savings & Loan Association 3581 Main Street College Park, Georgia Freeman Strickland 1208 First National Bank Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Franklin Thomas, Executive Director Butler Street YMCA ec Butler Street, N, EB, Atlanta, Georgia Counsel: James B. Pilcher Associate City Attorney 1114 William-Oliver Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 For further information contact: Miss Peg Hendrix Room 336 State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Bus. Phone 525-7681 876-0300 758-8871 525-3404 233-7020 525-3404 761-0153 588-6414 524-0246 524-7731 572-2661 Home Phone 627-8405 876-0300 753-8276 237-3900 255-1179 622-0872 76139845 233-2445 344-2685 231-4307  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 2, Document 19 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 2 Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/df26d31c2e5329b61a9888ab342a618c.pdf deefac02dd4f9ac26b57e27027c38431 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. MEMBERS OF LO..;AL GOVERNMENT COMMI SSION ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY Cha irman : Pope Br ock, Chairma n of the Board Ful t on Nat i onal Bank 2629 Ar den Road , N, W. At l ant a, Georgia Bus. Phone Home Phone 875-3411 355- 4496 Vi c e - Chairman ·ack W. West J ack w. West Cont r act ing Company P . 0, Box 6787 Atlan t a, Ge orgia 30315 577 - 2357 627- 8630 Sec r e t a ry- Treas urer : Mr s . Earl F . Ge i ger 4291 Eas t Brookhav en Drive, N, W, Atlanta , Georgia 231- 3264 Robe r t Earl Brown P . 0 , Box 20787 At l anta Ai.rp ort At l anta, Ge org ia 767- 7501 344- 6330 Dr . Samue l D. Cook, Chai rman Depa r tmen t of Pol itical Sc ienc e At l anta Unive r s ity Atlanta , Ge or gia 523- 6431 525-7512 Dr . I rving H. Gol ds t e in, DDS 826 Peachtree Street , N. W. Atlanta , Ge orgia 875-7034 872-6671 873 . 2777 J os eph K. Heyman, Senior Vic e Pre sident Trust Company of Georgi a Atlanta , Ge orgia 30303 .588- 7916 233-0747 355-3423 766-0594 344-3550 761-3775 378-0174 378-0174 Max Holt, Comptroll er Di ttler Bros . , Inc . 1375 Seaboard Industrial Boul evard J N. Atlanta, Ge orgia 30325 ErneAt w. Keappl e r 2266 Campbellt on Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30311 s. W. William T. Malone 774 Lullwater Road, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia w. �J o s eph M. Ma l oof , Ass i stant Vi ce Pr eside nt F i rst Fereral Sav i ngs & Loan Assoc i at i on 40 Mariet ta Street, N. W. Atlanta , Geo rgia Bus. Phone Home Phone - 525 - 7681 627 - 8405 William F. Methvin, Jr. W. F . Met hv i n ) J r. Lumber Comp any P . o. Box 8121, St a t i on F Atlan ta , Ge org i a 876 - 0300 876 - 0300 · . Y. More l and, Sr . , Principa l Booke r T . Washing t on High Schoo l 12 Chappel Road, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30325 758 - 8871 753 - 8276 525 - 3404 237 - 3900 233 - 7020 255 -1179 525 - 3404 622 - 0872 Cl i ff ord Oxf ord Hatcher, Meyerson , Oxf ord an d Irvin Fi rst Federal Buil ding 40 Marietta Stre et , N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 E . Earl Patton Patt on Ass ociate s 38 Cld I vy Road, N. E. Atlanta) Geo r g ia 303 05 Paul E. Pressley Hatch e r, Meye rson, Oxford and I rvin Fi rs t F e d e r a l Building 40 Mari etta Street , N. W. 30303 Atlanta, Ge org i a J . W. Ste ph enson, J r., Manager Coll ege Park Branch Atlanta Fede r a l Savings & Loan Association 3581 Mai.n Street Coll eg e Park, Ge org i a 761-0153 Fr e eman Strickland 12C8 F irst National Bank Bui l ding Atlanta , Geo r gia 30303 588 - 6414 233 - 2445 Franklin Thomas, Exec utive Director Bu t l e r St r eet YMCA 22 Butl e r Stre et, N. E . At lanta, Georgia .524- 0246 344- 2685 524- 7731 231-4307 Counse l: J ames B. Pi l cher As soc iat e City Attorney 1114 Willia m- Ol iver Bu ilding Atla nt a , Georgia 30303 For further information contact: Mi s s Pe g Hendrix Room 336 State Capitol Atl a nta) Georgia 30334 572- 2661 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ~! > MEMBERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION ATLANTA AND FULTON COUNTY Chairman: Bus. Phone Home Phone Pope Brock, Chairman of the Board Fulton National Bank 2629 Arden Road, N,. W. Atlanta, Georgia Vice-Chairman Jack W. West Jack W. West Contracting Company P. O. Box 6787 Atlanta, Georgia 30315 Secretary-Treasurer: Mrs. Earl F. Geiger 4291 East Brookhaven Drive, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia Robert Earl Brown P. 0. Box 20787 Atlanta Airport Atlanta, Georgla Dr. Samuel D. Cook, Chairman Department of Political Science Atlanta University Atlanta, Georgia Dr. Irving H. Goldstein, DDS 826 Peachtree Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgla Joseph K. Heyman, Senior Vice President Trust Company of Georgia Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Max Holt, Comptroller Dittler Bros., Inc. 1375 Seaboard Industrial Boulevard, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30325 Ernest W. Keappler 2266 Campbellton Road, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30311 William T. Malone 774 Lullwater Road, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 875-3411 577-2357 767-7501 523-6431 875-7034 588-7916 355-3423 344-3550 378-0174 355-4496 627-8630 231-3264 344-6330 525-7512 872-6671 873-2777 233-0747 766-0594 761-3775 378-0174 Joseph M. Maloof, Assistant Vice President First Fereral Savings & Loan Association 40 Marietta Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia William F. Methvin, Jr. W. F. Methvin, Jr. Lumber Company P. ©. Box 8121, Station F Atlanta, Georgia J. ¥. Moreland, Sr., Principal Booker TT’. Washington High School 12 Chappel Road, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30325 Clifford Oxford Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford and Irvin First Federal Building 40 Marietta Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 E. Earl Patton Patton Associates 38 Old Ivy Road, N. E, Atlanta, Georgia 30305 Paul E. Pressley Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford and Irvin First Federal Building 40 Marietta Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 J. W. Stephenson, Jr., Manager College Park Branch Atlanta Federal Savings & Loan Association 3581 Main Street College Park, Georgia Freeman Strickland 1208 First National Bank Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Franklin Thomas, Executive Director Butler Street YMCA ee Butler Street, Ny E, Atlanta, Georgia Counsel: James B. Pilcher Associate City Attorney 1114 William-Oliver Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 For further information contact: Miss Peg Hendrix Room 336 State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Bus. Phone 525-7681 876-0300 758-8871 525-3404 233-7020 525-3404 761-0153 588-6414 524-0246 524-7731 572-2661 Home Phone 627-8405 876-0300 753-8276 237-3900 29a 1179 622-0872 76129845 233-2445 344-2685 231-4307  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 6, Folder 2, Document 18 Box 6 Box 6 Folder 2 Folder topic: R. Earl Landers | Local Education Commission | 1964-1967