Superintendent Recommends Moving CSD Central Office to Beacon Hill
Decatur Metro | July 4, 2012In preparation for the Decatur School Board’s July 10th meeting, Superintendent Phyllis Edwards has provided a good summary of the available options of where to move the City Schools of Decatur’s Central Office in anticipation of reopening Westchester Elementary as an elementary school. As mentioned at the Decatur City Commission meeting on Monday, the School Board is scheduled to make a final decision on this topic at the July 10th meeting.
So without further ado, here’s the Superintendent’s note to the Board…
For the last year we have discussed increasing enrollment and the need to place the last school building (Westchester) back into the mix as a school. This means that the central office must be relocated.
Discussions have been held with the city leaders in our search for options. There is an opportunity to locate the central office in the current Beacon Hill building. The building would allow the system to have approximately the same amount of space as currently used at Westchester. The building can be designed to meet the system’s needs of parking, board room space, and program management space so central office personnel will not be located in school buildings where there is little space. It will also provide a sense of community and honor to the neighbors and families that cherished this building when it was an operational school. For the sake of history and community, this would be a positive move. It is also a plausible choice because it does not utilize spaces on other campuses that could be utilized for future expansion if needed. The building would be built by the city and when finished the school system would purchase the space. The drawback is the price (last price received: $5.9 million) which exceeds what our initial estimate was for the new central office. However, the city is able to allow the school system to fund the cost over time.
Another option is to build on the DHS campus, on the space between the current DHS campus and the Decatur Housing Authority. With this option, the constructed space would need to be trimmed back to approximately 15,000 square feet. It is estimated that there might be additional costs relative to site preparation which could bring the cost to $4.5 million. This option would not afford room for growth, either at the central office level and would certainly limit options for DHS needs in the future.
Staff has looked at rental space inside the city and just outside the city. The costs reduce dramatically if we relocate outside of the city limits. There are spaces outside the city which might be rented or bought for a reasonable amount. Regardless of purchase, funds would need to be utilized to convert the space into the Central Office.
Rental costs for space inside the city vary but we received an average cost of $20.00 a square foot. Depending on the size of the space rented, the costs could average up to a $500,000 per year to rent space. When I explored the option some years ago, the cost I received was approximately $300,000 annually. That amount also did not afford us the parking needed for a central office nor the space for a Board Room. In my opinion, this is not a sound option because if we rent space funds are drawn away from the operating budget at a time when we need every dollar to continue to provide quality education and programs.
For the above reasons, I recommend moving forward with an agreement with the city to relocate into the Beacon Hill complex, using $3 million as the down payment from SPLOST and financing the rest of the cost over an extended period. If the Board agrees, I will collaborate with the city for the development of an interagency agreement which would be placed before both governmental bodies.
This news just made my 4th! Hooray! Now let’s vote on this recommendation and get on with it.
Full circle. Well done. I could have done without the circular journey of closures and reconfigurations, then constant new building and reassignments and trailers, now back to all of the original elementary schools back in service, but all’s well that ends well. Good for Westchester, the school building, good for Westchester, the community, good for Beacon Hill Center and the surrounding community, and good for Central Office which can now walk to most of the schools and good places for lunch. Plus there’s always been too much of a disconnect between Decatur Rec, the DHA Community Center, and CSD. With them all in the same area, maybe there will be more synergy.
P.S. to future Westchesterites–there’s some mean prickly weeds that have been allowed to overgrow some areas–you’ll want to clear out–the roots have to be dug out or they grow back immediately. There’s an underground sprinkler system that may or may not still work after all the lawn parking. The marquee may light up if still connected. And that motto on the marquee–Westchester, A Community Learning for LIfe!–was the product of a true communal process of input and feedback. Enjoy!
Don’t get in too big of a hurry – the new space is at least 2 years off.
Yea, that’s why I know it’s for future PTAs and SLTs to take on, not us former Westchesterites. But some of those things may take that long. Or other stuff. For example, FAVE never got any CSD funding for a playground. It took some energetic parents to quickly raise $40,000 or so for one and the the 5th graders barely got to see it by the time it got there and they were graduating. Not sure what shape the Westchester playground is in, but it’s probably not too early to start organizing and planning!
I want to clarify that CSD contributed $15,000 to the playground effort at F.AVE.
Thanks Margaret for your awesome work on the FAVE playground!
Sorry, I did not know that. Thanks for making sure the playground happened. It would not have happened without the leadership of you and other parents who put the issue on the table, organized the effort, researched the options, and worked with the school system. And thanks to the many people and organizations who donated money to it, including some of the elementary school PTA/PTOs. I also thank CSD for the $15,000 and wish it could have funded the whole playground. My understanding is that this is not the first playground in CSD or other public school systems in Georgia that have had to be funded largely by parent fundraising.
So, would the Beacon Hill complex be used for anything else besides CSD central office? Isn’t that where the police station is currently located, and isn’t there a master plan going forward for the building. I’m confused about the end goal for this building.
It would be a new police station and municipal court, CSD offices, artist spaces, Active Living space, space for interpretation of the history of the facility and neighborhood, and outdoor performance courtyard.
Would it also serve growlers and frozen yogurt?
OK, let’s review….
The supt. now says the cost of this move is $5.9 million to get into Beacon—-not $4 – 5 million reported only a few weeks ago. Anyone want to guess on the final cost if implemented?
The release favoring Beacon Hill also lists as a reason,”…It is also a plausible choice because it does not utilize spaces on other campuses that could be utilized for future expansion if needed. …”
Could this be an admission that Westchester should not ever have been closed in the first place? I find it interesting that this rational is used when it favors the recommendation, but not when it didn’t as when Westchester was closed. Also, does CSD have information on future enrollment levels they ought to share and inform of us its long term demands on school resources?
Enrollment is used as the reason for all the changes and perhaps rightfully so, a quick review of the numbers: the 1998 enrollment at the time of the first ESPLOST was 3,000, falling as low as 2,360 in 2006 and back up to ~3,250 in 2011 (ann. report.)
This 13 year variance is not, as far as I can find, been studied or anticipated in a very structured way. Only reacted to. I would like to see a long term study put in place that monitors our little city’s school aged population on an ongoing basis. It might save us some cash.
The reason I think this is important is, the taxpayers spent a little over $2million to refit Westchester as part of the original ESPLOST in 1997. I really don’t know how much was spent to convert it to administrative offices, or, how much it will cost to convert it back to a school.
A case may be made that all that might have been/will be another $2million.
The supt suggests a course that will add almost $6 million to the tab to move the central offices.
So, all told we have/will spend about $10million on these changes.
All without a long term plan to monitor enrollment.
The other choices the supt suggests, locating on the high school’s property, is a bit less costly at $4.5 million, but,”…This option would not afford room for growth, either at the central office level and would certainly limit options for DHS needs in the future…”
This suggests that there will be a need for growth at the high school and the central offices. Why?
What is CSD anticipating, if they are at all, or is this another way to justify the choice the superintendent desires, Beacon Hill? IS there a plan in place to anticipate enrollment needs in the future?
Finally, the rental choices the supt. outlines are sketchy at best. Mentioned is a $20/sqft rate inside the city limits and a $500k annual cost.
In reading of the school budget proposed for 2013 I found two line items, General Administration & Central Services cost an annualized $1.65 million. Hard to tell from reading it just what those dollars cover. Does the central office pay “rent” now in some line item? The supt. should be asked about that.
The rental/purchase choices outside the city limits are briefly discussed,”…Staff has looked at rental space inside the city and just outside the city. The costs reduce dramatically if we relocate outside of the city limits. There are spaces outside the city which might be rented or bought for a reasonable amount…” However, no other detail is offered. And, it is also mentioned that,”…Regardless of purchase, funds would need to be utilized to convert the space into the Central Office…” But again no other information is offered. Would it be less than the $6 million recommendation? Nobody knows from this press release.
Reopening Westchester is our goal. But spending taxpayer money to make this move, and, suggesting the most expensive option as the recommendation, needs to be vetted with some really detailed financial review of all the options.
Put them on the table.
I think that the anticipation for DHS is that the gazillion K-3 kids that we have now in CSD will eventually hit high school.. presuming their moms don’t take them out beforehand…. Not that I would do such a thing.
I like the Beacon choice the best for many reasons. Too tired to lay them out now… most of them have been covered above.
It’s not a gazillion, it’s something like 3,300 – maybe 3,400 now, about 400 more than we had when Westchester was remodeled under ESPLOST.
Say that trend maintains itself, I would agree then that the HS may need to expand, but CSD does not present any data on how many of those kids WILL stay through the whole system, or, that these enrollment numbers will continue. That’s entirely my point. They don’t plan for them, they don’t survey the population to any detailed extent, so they return after 4 or 5 years and say, hey we need money.
I think we all should expect more of them than this.
$6 million ought to be seen as a big deal to move into Beacon. $4.5 million as an alternative to move onto DHS ought to be evaluated vs. future expansion plans for DHS, do they have any data to back it up? Right now its just a sentence on a press release.
The leased office space expense alternatives inside and outside of the city limits ought to be detailed.It has not been so far as I have seen
Most of the folks on this blog don’t seem to think beyond the thought of ,”… hey Westchester is reopening…”. I cannot understand why.
It’s form over substance to my mind.
If the politics win, its just money isn’t it? It not yours, is it?
What would you think was O.K. to do if it were your $6 million?
Not trying to be snarky, I just don’t get why folks don’t think this recc. is getting pushed very quickly.
I think the supt. has tapped into the parent population wanting Westchester re opened and the rest be damned.
I think we deserve an open accounting of all the alternatives, then proceed. Not before.
“The leased office space expense alternatives inside and outside of the city limits ought to be detailed. It has not been so far as I have seen”
Remember that SPLOST money cannot be used to lease space – only construct it.
Yep, I get that.
The budget says CSD wants to spend about $1.65 million on Gen Admin & Central Services for 2013.
Are any of those dollars “rent” right now for Westchester, or any other offices in the system?
The budget numbers I saw are moot on that point. But, I expect there are line items somewhere detailing the expenses.
Since leasing/renting would come under the operating budget, I would think we’d want to see a net affect on the ops budget for a rent/lease option.
But, the supt also offered that locations outside the city limits could be purchased as well, but offered no details. I think in that form, SPLOST would cover the expense.
I do know SPLOST will cover land purchases even if they wanted to build new, so….
where are the numbers for that alternative?
I’m not 1000% opposed to CSD Central Office being located outside of COD but I’d prefer it wasn’t. I think it’s hard enough for CSD staff who are working in offices vs. classrooms to stay in touch with the issues for students, families, teachers, and the community. Some of those staff live in Decatur but most don’t. Having them working outside of Decatur would increase the disconnect. Despite the devices glued to our faces, our adult pacifiers, human interaction is still valuable.
OK, if closer is better, then why do they need a central office costing $6 million?
If admin/ central office staff are best used by being in the schools, they should have offices in the schools, but that’s not what they’ve done in the past or suggest they want to do in the future.
And again, there has been no detail on where outside the city limits they even looked.
It’s a small distance to travel anyway, the district is small. I would guess they are not looking very far, if at all.
It’s “nice” to have the offices located on prime real estate in the downtown area, but is that what we really need? The reason for the high cost may be because of the location they are recommending. Also the fact the space they want is desirable by others as well and the city could sell it/ lease it without much work.
They say they want a boardroom. Is that going to be like city hall’s with all the bells’s and whistles?
Why can’t they have board meetings with the public in the schools on a rotating basis?
I am just saying that this looks like more expense than is needed. We ought to make sure the supt. and the board detail all the alternatives before we go forward.
I have no problem with rotating among the schools since they all have nice spaces for Board meetings. In fact, that’s a good way for families and the community to get to know the different schools. Not sure this is how Central Office sees things though. IMHO, this is what happens when the public service/public administration model of government is replaced with the CEO/business model.
I think that many folks understand in much more depth than is immediately obvious. This forum is a great place to put things out in the open, e.g. conflicting statements about cost, but there’s only so much leverage from a blog. A school system, even a good one, is not easy to influence. Slowly moving towards positive tipping points is my hope. Things like the election of the first non-incumbent School Board member in years, the reopening of Glennwood and Westchester as elementary schools, offering CSD 101 to the community (when is that being repeated?), are encouraging. Being glad for that progress is not the same as being blind to other issues.
It’s a tough balance–giving CSD credit for what it does well, vs. corrupt, morally and financially bankrupt systems like DeKalb County Schools, but also recognizing that open citizen scrutiny of even good systems like CSD is important to prevent them from ever becoming a DeKalb.
Is there a CSD 101? I took Decatur 101 in March and it was fantastic. It’s offered once per year. If there’s a CSD 101, I’d take it too.
There is. Well, at least I know they did one recently.
The first CSD 101 class was Fall of 2010, I believe, and the Decatur Education Foundation worked with CSD on it. It would be great if became a staple like Decatur 101. I think Decatur 101 has done fantastic things for the City and its citizens.
In defense of the CSD administration I think it will be hard to forecast enrollment trends at least in the near term. If you look at the disasters on our borders – APS and DeKalb systems – I think you are seeing a lot of interest among families with school age children, young children, even couples thinking about having children in moving to Decatur. That puts upward pressure on home prices which will entice the people with grown children to move out of the city where they can get a cheaper house and lower taxes, but not necessarily a less desirable house. So what you get is a spike in school enrollment. Unless APS and Dekalb get squared away pronto, we are seeing the very beginning of the spike.
Sorry @Smith but it is not hard to forecast when you look around and see baby strollers everywhere. We had over 12 kids under the age of 2 on our street when they decided to eliminate an elementary school. Had they taken the time to take a look at where those kids would be in 3 years (NOW) then they would have not closed Westchester & Glenwood.
@Rob – You are right. And those 12 kids under 2 on your street was before APS started talking about sending Lake Claire kids to Coan, Morningside to Buckhead and DeKalb went all the way to hell in a hand basket. I’m saying that 12 could be 24 (new/different) kids on your street in a couple more years.
I think CSD made a severe error when they confounded two very separate but important efforts:
1) Eliminating disparities between CSD elementary schools in terms of funding, quality of instruction, opportunities for students, and diversity
2) Estimating future student enrollment to configure the system most efficiently
CSD wouldn’t listen to information that disputed their assumptions and data about 2) because they believed that jeopardized their efforts around 1). Not surprisingly, they succeeded much better with 1) than with 2).
+1,000
They have to do both 1 & 2. Only we can make them accountable to both.
For too long, we have housed our school administration on the cheap. The offices at the high school were horrible. The arrangement at Westchester was inconvenient. For many of us, our schools are the primary reason we came to Decatur. Even for those of us whose children have aged out of the system, it is glorious to see the kind of young community-centric families that are drawn by our schools. The schools are also one of the major positive forces behind the relative strength of our property values. Even assuming the upward adjustment in estimated costs turns out to be an understatement, amortized over the life of the office, this bill is not an unbearable amount. I could not be more pleased that we build a central office headquarters located and designed to honor the commitment and great work these folks do. I hope the board moves expeditiously to accept the superintendent’s proposal. (No, I have not forgotten to take my meds this morning. For me, this is just the right thing to do, whatever my issues with our leadership.)
I am guessing you will also be making a personal donation to this effort in addition to your sales and property taxes, correct?
So “Can We Talk?” really means “Can *I* talk (and talk and talk and talk) while you all please shut up if you don’t agree with what I’m saying?”
I’ve restored this comment since Can We Talk? has responded to it. A little too “personal attack”-ish for my taste though.
Personal attack? Me?!? Why, I never
I read the “I am guessing you will also be making a personal donation to this effort in addition to your sales and property taxes, correct?” comment to be lowering the debate from a rational discussion about policy to a more personal challenge. But if my esteemed, and waaaaay more diplomatic, colleague Mr. Stubbs did not take offense, then I formally rescind the snark.
DM, in the future, can you please just proactively moderate my comments in any thread even tangentially related to schools and kids? Thanks!
Sure, but I think it’s more of a Tom Stubbs infatuation than anything else!
That may be so. But let’s be clear that this is about his legal skills only. I mean, have you seen his hair?
Tom, I’m joking I may have to refer some folks to you, so please don’t hold my snark against them!
See, this is why I really need a new, anonymous account…
I have seen his hair and I am awed
It would be nice to settle the location of Central Office once and for all. The exact price tag should be frugal enough that we don’t look like DeKalb County but strategic enough so that future needs are taken into account and CSD doesn’t come back in 5 years saying a $2 million dollar expansion is needed. Once a permanent, decent facility (not executive level, but able to serve constituents well) is built, there’ll be less threat to our classroom space. In retrospect, I think the school closures of 2004 were at least partly fueled by the benefit to Central Office. That wasn’t the major issue–the confounded issues of school improvement and equity on the South side and overall enrollment were–but office space may have been a tipping point. Fifth Avenue was too run down by that point to serve as offices so it was down to Westchester, Clairemont, or College Heights. It couldn’t be College Heights politically because another South side school was already closed so College Heights became the ECLC. So it became Westchester or Clairemont, with Westchester losing the political battle and Clairemont immediately receiving a big addition.
I agree. The CSD administrators honestly make a difference in my professional success, especially Thomas Van Soelen. We are fortunate to have competent administrators and they deserve to have offices that are commensurate with that of other professionals.
-That reply was meant as a response to Tom Stubbs
Sorry, really… didn’t mean to be snarky, these forums make things sound harsh sometimes.
My point all along has been CSD has offered only details on the recc. they want, the most expensive one as it turns out.
This supt. has a history of making big changes for big dollars, and its only a $40 million dollar district, small by many fold vs. the other school systems in the area.
I think it’s reasonable to ask for a detailed accounting of all the alternatives:
Beacon Hill site- 5.9 million
DHS site- 4.5 million
Inside city limits lease: $500k/year vs. a current Gen admin & Central services budget of $1.65-what part of that is currently rent?(can’t tell from the budget docs.)
Outside city limits- “considerably less” per the supt’s. press release but no other detail
SPLOST could be used to build or buy land outside the city limits– if it were less expensive isn’t that something we would want to do with our tax dollars?
J_T- I really don’t believe I am just talking and talking and talking.Everyone can respond if they wish, most folks don’t. I have been reading the comments on this string and frankly most seem to have the view of “just do it”.
I really don’t get that.
Westchester was supposed to “solve” the admin offices issues. It didn’t.
The underlying problem to these expenses remains that CSD does not do the statistical research to know on an on going basis what the enrollments will be.
I think for a small a district as we are, that is a doable thing.
It might save us a bunch of bucks if we knew within some limits what enrollment would be,
After all, when ESPLOST improved many of the school buildings in 1997-8, enrollment was 3,000, but then fell to a low of about 2350 by 2006 and is now looking like it will be 3400-3500 or so.
Where is the planning for that? I don’t see it and because it is not there, we are looking to spend $6mm more to “fix” it again.
Yikes, is accountability that hard to accept?
I am going for my coffee now, sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention.
The enrollment committee did statistical analysis of enrollment this past Spring. There’s actually an update of how enrollments for next year are stacking up against the aggressive projection model. Going to post about that it in a bit.
Spoiler alert: Kindergarten and 1st grade are already above their aggressive projections for next year, and enrollment continues through the summer.
Re “Kindergarten and 1st grade are already above their aggressive projections for next year, and enrollment continues through the summer.”:
OMG. Before money is spent adding on to Fifth Avenue, does there need to be analysis about whether even an addiition is going to be adequate? It sounds like the upcoming tsunami of students may be too much for any single 4/5 school. FAVE is already 3 stories–kind of 4 stories depending on where you start and how you count. Is it allowable to add more stories? What is the next move? Move to all K-5s and add as much on to each of those schools as land/building code will allow? Build a new school? Maybe the Beacon Hill facility needs to go back to being a school? Too bad Trinity High School was torn down. Is the DeVry campus usable? Can we claim eminent domain and take over St. Thomas More? First Baptist? The Big H?
Wait for the post!! (Guess I did that too myself.)
What about resurrecting the Ponce de Leon School, where the Post Office now stands?
Yup, given the trajectory of the USPS and the lack of community love for that particular facility, THAT location should become available again momentarily!
No offense was taken by me. Can We Talk makes good points and skepticism is always a good trait when it comes to the public fisc. I just think a good headquarters with excellent training facilities sends the signal I want to send to prospective administrators and teachers about how much we care. I don’t want to spend money just to spend money, but the dollars this community has invested in our school system has paid some pretty good dividends.
BTW, have you seen these docs created by the Enrollment Committee?
https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=4052&AID=353190&MID=23730
https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=4052&AID=353195&MID=23730
Thanks for posting this.
This effort from January would appear to confirm the case for increased enrollments, especially when viewed on slide 7 for the upcoming years in the middle and high school.
Rolling the 4 year cohorts together for DHS along with a 3 year cohort for Renfroe suggests an increased enrollment for those schools of between 3-400 students each by 2022 at an annual average rate of about 5% per year. (that is, if everyone who starts also finishes within the system.)
Looking at the primary grades there is still work to be done. The graph on slide 3 shows that enrollment increases seem to last 4-6 years or so before falling again.Though this time it is lasting longer.
The recommendations from the study agree that they need to,”…Develop an annual process involving stakeholders to validate enrollment projection formula with other data sources…”
and also add realtors and website tracking.
This is because their primary data remains current enrollment numbers, wait lists and home building/census data as their primary sources.These are backward looking numbers.
Which still leads us back to, yes Westchester is needed as a school building, and how much does the community need to spend to relocate the central offices to do it?
Summarized from the supt’s. press release.
1. $6 million to Beacon Hill (supt. recc.)
2. $4.5 million to DHS- (given growth projections prob. not a good choice)
3. Lease/Rent Inside city limits $500k/month vs. $1.65million Gen. Admin & Central Svcs. budget with no information on net effect of this choice on the operating budget.
4. “Considerably cheaper” to lease/build outside city limits- but no information on where or how much.(buying land & building allows the use of SPLOST)
Decatur has become an expensive place to build/refurbish office space. I think it is still incumbent on citizens and the board to be prudent with tax dollars and make sure we spend them as smartly as possible.
To me, that means if locating just outside the city limits can save $1-2 million, we should look very hard at it.