Dublin Core
Title
Box 21, Folder 6, Document 68
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
:
an
F ATLANTA
FICE OF COMPTROLLER
CITY HALL
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
ee,
Hl ti
a ih He
December 5, 1957
CHARLES L. DAVIS
COMPTROLLER
EDGAR A. VAUGHN, JR.
DEPUTY COMPTROLLER
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. R. Earl Landers
FROM: Charles L. Davis QQ
I am enclosing a copy of a draft report made by Mr. Phil Hammer for Rapid
Transit under date of July 19, 1967, as well as a copy of a revised report
made under date of July 31, 1967.
I have had several conferences with Mr. Hammer; and in his original report, he
was proposing to charge the citizens of Atlanta 2 mills at the very outset for
Rapid Transit and increasing to 3 mills by 1971. By a like token, he also pro-
posed to charge DeKalb County 2 mills in 1969 and increasing to a high of 2.8
mills in 1971, then descending for the remainder of the life of the bonds, In
the case of Fulton County, he was proposing to charge 1 mill at the very outset
and increasing to a high of 1.9 mills in 1971, then decreasing for the remaining
life of the bonds, Mr, Hammer stated that this allocation would take into con-
sideration such things as the ability of a government to pay the increase in tax
digest of an area as the result of Rapid Transit and other factors.
In our discussion, I pointed out that this was not a true yardstick, and I felt
the millage should apply county-wide; and in the future if this could be
accomplished, this would not be a hindrance to us an others in annexing other
areas,
In his revised report, Mr. Hammer is proposing a county-wide levy, which can be
found on Page 43, of 1 mill for DeKalb County and 1,5 mills for Fulton County.
These will increase in 1975 to 3 mills in Fulton County and 1,6 mills in DeKalb
County.
I have also noticed in the paper recently that Rapid Transit is proposing to
amend the Transit Act by some eighteen points. Some of these points I am in full
agreement with; such as, clarification between the maximum amount of dollars
approved in the referendum and the millage rate that will be needed to raise the
necessary funds. There are other points I think should be further pursued,
particularly those relating to the investment of Rapid Transit funds and perhaps
the right of eminent domain, It seems as if this has been a very hot point ever
since the Rapid Transit Act was enacted,
an
F ATLANTA
FICE OF COMPTROLLER
CITY HALL
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
ee,
Hl ti
a ih He
December 5, 1957
CHARLES L. DAVIS
COMPTROLLER
EDGAR A. VAUGHN, JR.
DEPUTY COMPTROLLER
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. R. Earl Landers
FROM: Charles L. Davis QQ
I am enclosing a copy of a draft report made by Mr. Phil Hammer for Rapid
Transit under date of July 19, 1967, as well as a copy of a revised report
made under date of July 31, 1967.
I have had several conferences with Mr. Hammer; and in his original report, he
was proposing to charge the citizens of Atlanta 2 mills at the very outset for
Rapid Transit and increasing to 3 mills by 1971. By a like token, he also pro-
posed to charge DeKalb County 2 mills in 1969 and increasing to a high of 2.8
mills in 1971, then descending for the remainder of the life of the bonds, In
the case of Fulton County, he was proposing to charge 1 mill at the very outset
and increasing to a high of 1.9 mills in 1971, then decreasing for the remaining
life of the bonds, Mr, Hammer stated that this allocation would take into con-
sideration such things as the ability of a government to pay the increase in tax
digest of an area as the result of Rapid Transit and other factors.
In our discussion, I pointed out that this was not a true yardstick, and I felt
the millage should apply county-wide; and in the future if this could be
accomplished, this would not be a hindrance to us an others in annexing other
areas,
In his revised report, Mr. Hammer is proposing a county-wide levy, which can be
found on Page 43, of 1 mill for DeKalb County and 1,5 mills for Fulton County.
These will increase in 1975 to 3 mills in Fulton County and 1,6 mills in DeKalb
County.
I have also noticed in the paper recently that Rapid Transit is proposing to
amend the Transit Act by some eighteen points. Some of these points I am in full
agreement with; such as, clarification between the maximum amount of dollars
approved in the referendum and the millage rate that will be needed to raise the
necessary funds. There are other points I think should be further pursued,
particularly those relating to the investment of Rapid Transit funds and perhaps
the right of eminent domain, It seems as if this has been a very hot point ever
since the Rapid Transit Act was enacted,
Comments