Box 21, Folder 6, Document 2

Box 21, Folder 6, Document 2

je ee





BALVIOOS8GY HAVIS'INATUO'YIWWAWH

Table 1. ELEMENTS IN RECOMMENDED COST ALLOCATION FORMULA FOR MARTA CONSTRUCTION: PERCENT
DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION, PROPERTY TAX DIGEST, AND EMPLOYMENT, 1965 and 1983





























Population (1) Tax Digest (2) Employment (3). — Proposed
Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Allocation

County 1965 1983 1965 1983 1965 1983 Formula
Fulton .§7.1% 50.5% 63.1% 56.1% 78.8% 72.6% 66.7%
DeKalb 31.1 34.2 28.4 31.7 15.3 19.2 24.1
Clayton 6.7 9.0 5.6 7.8 4.1 5.3 5.9
Gwinnett 5.1 6.3 2.9 4.4 1.8 2.9. 3.3

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Notes: Relative weights used in arriving at formula are shown in parentheses.
Both 1965 and 1983 figures are weighted accordingly. The property tax
digests were put on a comparable basis for each jurisdiction (100% of
market value).

-19-




bud

tid

wooed bee bot bend bid bod tLud bud bud LJ ti] tJ aul

* aamiane, Se Satna 8

a ee ten 1.





Table 2. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CAPITAL FUNDS FOR
THE 30-MILE RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM









(000,000)
Drawdown2! Availability of Funds
(cunul.) ' Federal State Local 2/ Total Cumulative
1969 $ 25 $ 25 $ 4 $ 25 $ 54 $ 54
1970 54. : 25 4 29 83
1971 102 25 4 35 64 147
1972 .158 25 4 29 176
1973 207 4 50 54 230
1974 258 4 4 234
~1975 298 4 50 54 288
1976 320 . 4 30 34 322
1977 332 1 9 10 332
$100 $33 $199 $332

1/ Preliminary schedule of needs for land
purchase and construction established
by the engineers.

2/ MARTA revenue bonds supported by local
government underwriting or general ob-
ligation bonds of local governments
issued for rapid transit purposes.

It is noted that the above schedule of fund availability, as preliminary
set forth, does not directly match the schedule of fund needs. This is
simply because both sets of figures are necessarily tentative and preliminary.
Both will be altered in the course of time. The development of such a
preliminary table is necessary, however, in order to set the general dimen-
sions of the financial impact of MARTA operations upon the local governments.
Bond issues are tentatively sized and spaced to meet anticipated conditions
in the bond market as well as provide the funds as needed. In practice,

there may be more issues of smaller sizes or fewer issues of larger sizes

than indicated in this preliminary table.

=2]-<-

WAMMER.CREEME.GILER AGBOGCtATER — HH!

we





Ss pee eRe gag a



a
— or |

——s

|









These points are shown in the following table:

Table 4. ATLANTA COMPARED WITH OTHER METROPOLITAN
AREAS ON PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS, 1964-65





Metropolitan 38 Largest

Atlanta Metropolitan Areas
1/ cae Median) ..



Per capita revenues
to local governments
from property sources $95.52 $129.94

Property revenue as " 4
percent of revenue
from local sources 59.6% 67.3%

Property revenue as
percent of revenue
from all sources 43.7% 48.6%

1/ All local governments in Metropolitan
Atlanta combined.

Financing rapid transit through the property tax would involve a
straightforward set of operations. The local governments would execute 7
contracts with MARTA under which MARTA would agree to perform the functions
of operating a rapid transit system and the governments would obligate

themselves to underwrite the capital costs of the system under specified

conditions and specified ceilings. As already described, one method of

financing would be the issuance of general obligation bonds by the local

_ governments with the payment of the proceeds to the authority, such bonds

being supported by property tax levies within the constitional limitations
established for such bonds. The alternative method would be the levy of

specific millage rates to produce periodic payments to MARTA for the

=-37=-



HAMMER.OREENE.BILER AGBBOOIATER