MARTA officials pushed back -- gently -- Monday on an legislative proposal to further restrict their ability to run their own shop and change the makeup of the transit agency board to provide more oversight to north Fulton and DeKalb county mayors.
MARTA board chairman Frederick Daniels, speaking to the legislative committee charged with MARTA oversight, warned that the proposal would mean bringing on new members who’d face a steep learning curve. Educating them on a “very complex organization” could disrupt the board’s oversight, he said.
“Upheaval does not allow for continuity,” said Daniels, who took no position on the merit of allowing mayoral appointments. “We feel we are being held accountable for the misconduct and lack of oversight of others.”
MARTOC Committee Chairman state Rep. Mike Jacobs, R-Atlanta, said north Fulton mayors are an important voice of transit now for that region. Under his proposal they would have two of the three Fulton County board appointments, now made by the county commission.
His proposal does not allow for south Fulton mayors to pick the representative from that region, leaving that in the hands of the county commission. DeKalb mayors would also get to make one of that county’s four appointments to the MARTA board.
Jacobs scheduled Monday’s meeting to get feedback from MARTA officials on several changes he has proposed to the MARTA act that would affect the transit agency’s ability to enter into contracts with consultants and other professionals, execute leases and contract to run rail into counties that don’t currently have it.
The proposal would also bring under the MARTA ACT previous governance changes, such as reducing Atlanta’s board appointments from four to three members and the DeKalb County Commission’s from five to four. It removes a voting member from the Georgia Department of Transportation and gives a vote to the Georgia Regional Transit Authority.
MARTA officials asked Jacobs and the committee to tweak the bill to ensure the MARTA board retains adequate authority and does not undermine MARTA’s ability to enter into professional contracts and leases.
The officials said they were also concerned that a provision requiring a voter referendum to build rail into counties other than Fulton or DeKalb could be misread to mean that MARTA couldn’t contract with another county to run a light-rail service.
Daniels said that he understood Jacobs’ concerns of a lack oversight on consulting and procurement contracts, but he noted that the current board has already taken measures to ensure more control over the contracts and is working to ensure more competition for contracts.
MARTA’s chief financial officer, Davis Allen, also asked Jacobs to tweak the part of the proposed legislation that would limit MARTA’s ability to enter into leases. The proposal targets MARTA’s ability to enter into complex financial transactions such as selling off rolling stock to investors who then lease the trains back to MARTA so that it can take advantage of depreciation tax benefit. The arrangement, which was practiced by many transit agencies, made $120 million for MARTA until the investments soured with the economy, costing the agency $500,000 as it got out of them.
Legislation isn’t needed since the IRS now prohibits MARTA from entering into any new such transactions, Allen said.
Committee member Doug Stoner, D-Smyrna, said he expected the proposed legislation will be tweaked to address some of MARTA officials’ concerns before it goes to the House and Senate transportation committees.
“We want to make sure we don’t create unintended consequences,” Stoner said.
About the Author
