UPDATE: Click here to view the City Manager’s annexation Powerpoint presentation from last night. Total and student populations by area are included, along with next steps including the questions…
- Is the City Commission interested in moving forward?
- If so, which areas?
- Will petitions be considered for additional areas? Should the deadline be November 6th?
———————————————————–
OK, I must admit that we’re playing a bit of catch up with this chapter in the ongoing annexation story and this post will probably be updated at least once today.
Last night the Decatur City Commission held its open work session regarding the potential annexation of areas in the map above. Patch is reporting some of the highlighted facts from the meeting including that a full-fledged annexation of all these areas would increase the residential population to 2,028, with 230 students at the start and nearly double that 8-10 years from now.
Added revenue would be $1 million to the city and $1.7 million to the school system. However, the one “yet to be determined” piece is the cost to the city and school system.
I’m guessing most folks will need to see that last piece before they make a final determination.
The powerpoint from last night’s meeting should be posted on the city’s website some time today. More when we have it.
Hmm…I’m very interested to see the projected cost delta for CSD under this annexation scenario.
At first blush, the added students would bring revenue of around $7,400/student (falling to $3,700/student if the student population doubles). Current per-student spending is around $11,000 (FY11 operating budget divided by enrolled students). This makes me skeptical that annexation is worth it from the school system perspective, but I’ll reserve judgment until I see the final numbers.
I’m hoping there are student and cost breakdowns per annexation section. These overview figures aren’t really all that helpful, since these individual areas haven’t even been filtered through yet. As the City Manager told us the last time, these are just the any and all annexation areas.
From a purely rational perspective, I’m guess they need to see if they can figure out a way to create an annexation area that is likely to get 51% of the vote, but also not flood the school system. That ain’t easy since residential areas have both the students and the larger %s of the “yes” votes.
I’m building a pro-forma per proposed area.
Sniff. I love you man!
For those who don’t know, a “pro-forma” is a spreadsheet.
I thought it was a bra.
Regarding the incremental revenue per student, the $11,000 per student is a mix of local tax revenue and state QBE funding, while the $1.7 million is only the local property tax revenue. The additional students would also bring additional state funding.
CSD’s FY 2013 budget anticipates $23.9 million of local tax revenue. At 3,630 students that works out to $6,577 per student. This suggests that the 240 incremental students might be a net positive.
On the other hand, the budget also included $4.8 million of spending from reserves. Including this amount as local (rather than offsetting the state austerity cuts), the total local funding would be $7,900 per student, making the annexed students look less attractive from a local funding perspective.
You would also need to consider whether or not the additional students will displace tuition-paying students, which would offset the incremental property tax revenue.
Thanks – that’s really helpful insight into the financial dynamics at play here.
It’s nice to see the City and Schools working closely together on this. Last night the Mayor pointed out at least twice that any final decision would require that both the City and School come out ahead. Or at least that was the impression I was left with.
I think the implied next step is for the City and Schools to produce forecasts for revenue and the expenses necessary to support the proposed areas.
The city provided a list of items, including a new fire station, street lights, sidewalks, etc., that would be needed. Given that we’ve just built/rebuilt two stations, those numbers and debt service are pretty easy to estimate.
Station #2 was budgeted at $1.6 and annual operating expenses for the department are about $3.3m. So if we assume that it’s a smaller station, call it $750k a year in operating costs and another $200 a year in capital costs. I think there was a statement that we’d need one additional police officer.
City revenue from last nights meeting was pegged at about $1m. So it looks like it’s a break even proposition for the city before other Decatur amenities.
The school numbers are less favorable.
Again, great to see the attention turning to the numbers early. Happy with the transparency and approach this go around.
BIG props to Peggy Merriss on her presentation of City’s annexation plan. Certainly a much better work session tone than the last time it was discussed. It was also terrific to get a feel for how well she and Dr. Edwards are working together to project how this will affect the schools.
Key costs that Peggy cited, saying City will continue to identify:
City:
Street lights, building inspection services, codes enforcement, grounds & streets maintenance, right of way responsibilities, sanitation services (PAYT), sidewalks maintenance/repair, additional copies of Decatur Focus. Probable need for Fire Station company in North area and 1 additional traffic officer (as the only added DPD officer).
CSD:
Classrooms, teachers, teaching support staff, bus routes.
(Westchester due to reopen for 2014-15 school year. Very tight w/ projected City schedule.)
(Will be back to add what I can later.)
Per the third fire station, construction of such a station would necessitate the purchase/condemnation of property and thus reduce ultimate tax revenues.
Are there footprint requirements for new fire stations imposed either through State law or underwriting requirements? Anyone? Buehller?
I was thinking it would end up at suburban plaza. Or perhaps better yet, we could condemn the property on the south west or north west corner of Folkner and Church. This would breathe life back into the traffic circle contemplated there.
Remember that his is not an “all or nothing” deal. Any of the areas may or may not be annexed depending on the desires of the residents and the net cost benefit to the City.
Speaking as a resident of the purple quadrant who recently joined the City (as the line runs through my house), I don’t think the purple quadrant gets to vote on the annexation as it is considered a “commercial annexation” due to its proximity to the Publix shopping center and can be swallowed into the City without a “Yea” vote of its residents. (If I am recalling this correctly from the last time annexation of our street was discussed). I wouldn’t be surprised if the same was true of the neighborhoods immediately adjoining Suburban Plaza.
I think the coulnty should have a say for commercial areas. Decatur only wants it for the revenue. Why should Dekalb give it away without a fight?
You’ll have to get state law changed to fix that. The County can influence the situation by getting the legislature to vote against it, but that’s about it.
When responding to Kecia Cunningham on whether the scenarios capture the majority of folks who’ve expressed interest in annexation, Peggy said that there’s been no real interest from folks in A or B (then added there’s been some in B), but you have to go up the residential corridors to get to the gateways. Sounded to me like it meant the residents will get to have their say, but it’d be appreciated if DM will get clarification for us.
[Peggy said B1 has had fairly significant interest; C1 north end and south end- petitions have come and gone over the years; D has some active interest with a petition turned in yesterday. I think it was also Peggy who said, “Let us know what you’re thinking. Petitions can be for or against.” All Commissioners are expecting, as Kecia put it, “a lively discussion of the pros and cons.”]
Please take East Lake, Kirkwood, Druid Hills and the rest of DeKalb in Atlanta next.
Annexing an area that is already part of another city would be difficult as best.
I can’t zoom in, but if it includes unincorporated Avondale, that would certainly give that area a MUCH needed facelift….
Update in post above. Includes a link to the Powerpoint presentation from last night.
I didn’t read the power point. I assume it is very, very obvious to everyone working on this project that we already have crowding issues in CSD and that the system would need to demonstrate real clear, and likely dramatic, strategies to manage annexation.
That said I fully support some annexation that helps make sense of certain unusual situations. I know there are blocks where all but a few houses are in the city/or part of the house is in but part is out.. Some of those students might be tuition right now so it wouldn’t be a student population increase.
I’m sure the Methodist Children’s Home is a wonderful organization that does great work, but how would the annexation of this parcel fit into the city’s stated annexation parameters of being revenue positive while not overburdening the CSD and other resources?
It seems to be a tax-exempt charity that houses disadvantaged children. Wouldn’t these children go to CSD? If so, how does this square with the city’s stated annexation objectives?
This could be a way to control future development, in the event the Childrens’ Home decides to sell.
From time to time there are rumblings about the Methodist Children’s Home closing. If that were to come to pass, and it was part of the city, that would be a big chunk of land for the city to buy and do something with – like build a school. In the short term, it seems like a big burden on the school system if it were to be annexed.
Seems like they could just buy this if and when it went for sale. If they owned it, the could make it part of the city. Why pre emptively annex this parcel?
Can a city do that? Buy a property that isn’t in its borders? Does the property have to be contiguous to the city? Could we buy a small coastal island and then annex it?
I’m pretty sure there are parts of Conyers that aren’t contiguous. During the Olympics, I think they bought and annexed some Rockdale County land for the equestrian venue. Not positive, though.
We need a thread on what locations we REALLY want to annex, not just contiguous areas!
Annexation of any residential area makes no financial sense, and I have seen no solid argument for it. Property owner interest and the fact someone bought a house that is in two jurisdictions are not reasons. Controlling the egress and ingress is a fallacy because those borders will alway be somewhere.
Conventional wisdom argues that only commercial annexation yields a net positive. With the state of APS and DCSS, Decatur is the most desirable location for anyone who wants to live in town and can’t afford/doesn’t choose private school. Thrive and other snatch and grab developers will be patrolling those neighborhoods for teardowns and remodels, which will lead to even more school-age children. Right now, there are nearly two dozen houses in a ten block area around my house in some stage of remodel/rebuild, waiting for dozens of new school-age children to move in. Those families are not even accounted for in CSD enrollment projections right now. I am not even going to bring up the expansion of what we will need in public services for 2,000-3,000 new residents.
Someone offer an argument for this large-parcel residential annexation. I don’t even understand why it is on the table.
You do make very good points vis-a-vis residential annexation. I’m curious what kind of response your post will bring from those who seem to think higher-than-expected school enrollment rates are simply signs of CSD’s “success story” (with the concomitant implication that it’s not really anything to be concerned about)…
An annexed area must be contiguous to a city, even if that’s done by a sliver of land a few feet wide. Owning property does not automatically place it within a city’s corporate boundary.
Ok, so the coastal islands are out since they are not contiguous (yet). But can the City buy contiguous property outside of its borders with the thought that it can annex that property later should it become advantageous to do so? Is that a common strategy for strategically annexing contigous properties?
No, but it could be done.
This part of the thread is interesting because It’s the first I’ve heard of any consideration of the City buying the property, or even of the Methodist Home closing, and I’ve followed this and other blogs about as long as they’ve been around.
A city is a corporation. I’m sure they can buy real estate if they want. Moreover, it would be contiguous based on the map. They could then just annex the property through the legislature. Why would anyone object if Decatur already owns it?
I don’t understand why this parcel is under consideration, when it brings in only $2,500 in tax revenues and may put many children in the school system. Is “responding to parcel owner interest” the only reason this is included? Shouldn’t the city manager be a gatekeeper for these types of properties which don’t meet the city goals and tell the owners thanks but no thanks?
Three good reasons for annexing it:
1) It’s one of the partial parcels– some of its frontage is in the City.
2) Decatur’s Urban Garden is there, yet the City won’t be able to just adapt as it grows because they don’t have development oversight for it
3) It would expand the City’s ability to really make a difference with service projects. For example, right now it can’t be an official MLK Day project because it involves Dekalb’s sanitation, and it’d also be too risky liability wise to officially send volunteers onto property outside of City borders.
I don’t see how this is a partial parcel. The map has it completely outside of the city according the bold lines on the power point. It is on the other side of Coumbia Drive from the Decatur city limits, and it is not subdivided, so how is it a partial parcel?
Service projects and the community garden are not listed on the objectives for annexation. While these may be worthy objectives for some residents, they are not include in the city’s own criteria.
Well, I used the “phone a City friend” option before commenting, so I’m certain I’m right on the frontage being partially in the City, even though I can’t rattle off the exact area it entails. (The person’s not heard anything about the City wanting to buying the property.)
As for the Urban Garden and service projects, while they don’t match the City’s stated annexation objectives, they fit perfectly with the City’s Vision from the 2010 Strategic Plan:
Principle A: Manage growth while retaining character
Principle B: Encourage a diverse and engaged community
Principle C: Serve as good stewards of the environment and community resources
Principle D: Support a safe, healthy, lifelong community
“The person’s not heard anything about the City wanting to buying the property.”
Of course not. I don’t know where this rumor started.
I don’t think it’s a rumor. It was comment/question above:
Moderate says:
August 21, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Seems like they could just buy this if and when it went for sale. If they owned it, the could make it part of the city. Why pre emptively annex this parcel?
Honesty, you could make an argument for almost anything that will fit within those statements. However, those are not the specific parameters outlined by the city for annexation in this specific case. Why then, is this acquisition being considered?
I have 3 children in CSD, and the more children there are in the system, then the more students per teacher there are, and less individual attention my child gets. I am compassionate toward others, but I have an ultimate responsibility to my children and the eleted officials have a responsibility to the taxpayers and their children. The acquisition of this property will raise taxes and stretch CSD resources. These are antithetical to the stated goals of the city.
There are other places to put a garden and do charitable work in the city.
Deanne, noone is disputing that goals 2 or 3 aren’t worthwhile, but it doesn’t mean that annexation (or the use of public funds) is the appropriate vehicle. Regarding No. 2, moving the garden would take 1 man and 1 tiller 1 day’s work (and I am confident there would be many volunteers to help relocate the garden if necessary). Regarding No. 3, there are many organizations, both public and private, that could spearhead service projects on this property. We absoletely do not need to annex the property just to lend a helping hand. No. 1 is irrelevant in this case. We can just as easily de-annex the strip located in the CoD to solve the “problem”. Simply put, your concerns can be addressed without unduly burdening CSD (if that is in fact the case – noone has provided any specific figures).
(Oh Lordy! It’s as if Walrus, Dawgfan, and Keith F conspired and decided, “She’s got a soft spot for Dawgfan. Let’s send him in!” I’m picturing Walrus going, “OMG! She’s much worse than JOHN LEWIS ever thought of being!” and Keith F’s torn between his strong libertarian outlook and his love of community gardening. :0)
The City put the UMCH parcel on the list, not me. I fully agree with Pat’s take that this is a very worthwhile and meaningful community opportunity to explore, and to be honest, I’d rather not take from the joy to be found in it by discussing it on this particular thread. However, it has to at least be in the mix if we want to consider it for annexation because the slots for the children have to be factored into CSD’s counts. To me, the chief reason for the City to annex it is so that the City can officially support volunteer efforts and direct resources there. It’s a fact of life that every good community endeavor starts up with lots of enthusiastic support, but to keep a program going takes real dedication and hard work. The City would need to be able to devote attention to tending to it, which means it’d have to have official standing to do it. (To UMCH folks- This is clunkily worded . I don’t mean to imply in any way that Decatur would be charging in to tell y’all how to do things. My intention is for our community to be able to support y’all in every way that y’all would find helpful.)
Dawgfan, you didn’t mean to downplay how much work has gone into this garden, so I won’t fuss at you over it. The name is misleading. It has the potential to return to being a full sized farm, and with that possibility, bring to life other wonderful things, including DM’s dream for a food co-op (which I’d love to see go into the last site tossed around on here—the City owned railroad depot).
However necessary it is to pinpoint costs associated with taking on the United Methodist Children’s Home for calculations purposes, it’s most distressing to hear children being discussed as burdens. I’d like to think that the better part of each of us would willingly pay a few dollars more to be able to say that we, as a community, want to wrap our arms around these kids and do all we can to make them feel cherished. Not every child who enters their doors requires special services, but they all need the sense of security that comes from feeling like they matter so that they can thrive where they’ve been planted. This is the one parcel that I feel most strongly should be annexed for the right and best reasons.
+ 1000
I don’t argue with the good work that is done there, but why does it need to be annexed into the city? Why can’t this organization continue to do their good work outside the city?
Thank you for sharing your compassionate point of view. I wholeheartedly agree. I think that helping children and developing an urban garden are good goals for the city.
Like they say, you can put your money into care, nutrition and education on the front end or you can put it into bigger prisons on the back end. One way or the other, though, you’re gonna pay.
There’s certainly so many special needs of all sorts among resident families–kids with ADHD, autism spectrum, dyslexia, other specific learning disorders, giftedness, behavioral deficits, dyspraxia, emotional deficits, speech and hearing disorders, asthma and other medical disabilities, etc.that CSD should consider any child joining the system as a potential special need child. All parents should realize that, just because your child is a “typical” child requiring no extra services at the preK, or 5th grade, or even 8th grade level, doesn’t mean that they won’t start needing them at some point before they graduate from high school. CSD has to be ready to provide services and accomodations to any student who qualifies legally at any point for services. There’s no upper limit to the obligations of a school system to legally address special needs. And to maintain AYP, not to mention to develop the full individual potential of all students, it has to give special attention to many students who do not qualify for a special needs or gifted designation as well. My point isn’t that there won’t be a lot of special needs at the Methodist Home but that this factor should be considered for the residential properties as well.
Thanks for your reasoned comment. There are factors to consider here, and annexation should be handled in a very deliberate manner.
These children are in fact being served, they are being served by Dekalb County. The point is that the county as a whole can afford to absorb the expenses in excess of taxes that this facility generates better than the City of Decatur as a subset of the county.
Who is talking about depriving these kids a thing? No one that I have seen posting. The issue is what makes sense fo rthe City as a whole and yes, finances, for both the City and school system is a big factor that ought rightly to play a big part of the discussion.
Exactly. I think the argument that if you don’t support the annexation of this parcel that you are non-compasionate is a cheap shot and really misses the point. The city has limited resources, and absorbing this parcel would have an outsized cost to a small school district like CSD compared to Dekalb County. Adding possibly many students without any corresponding taxes to pay for it will only drain resources away from students currently in the CSD school system.
That argument seems to have welled up from somewhere inside of you, Moderate. I didn’t make it.
I offered up my three reasons for why UMHC would be a good candidate for annexation, then spoke separately from my heart on what’s troubled me whenever UMHC has come up in the annexation talk on blogs. I believe we’re allowed– welcomed, even– to share our thoughts for contemplation here amongst our Decatur Metro community. Sometimes it’s the very things that seem like non factors that end up counting the most when all’s said and done. Further, I never said every support resource has to come from CSD. With the City’s rallying outreach, many community resources could unite to lift these kids up to unbelievable heights.
Well said – “to share our thoughts for contemplation here amongst our Decatur Metro community”
This is an excellent example of where a purely economic analysis can’t adequately contemplate a complete ‘cost’/benefit analysis.
The cost side can be easily quantified in a way that can generally develop consensus agreement. There have been many examples in this discussion where people have provided pieces of that analysis. I’m pretty confident that we’ll have something that describes the cost side of the equation next week.
As for the benefit side, from a purely economic perspective, those number have already been presented. I think there is already a general consensus on the revenue. There is some more tweaking to go, but for the most part it’s pretty well described. (Although I’m a bit surprised we haven’t heard about the prospect of a change in sales tax policy?)
As for the intangible and non-economic benefits, this is a great forum for that discussion. However, I question if “Annexation” is the right vehicle. The 2010 Strategic Plan is pretty clear about the conditions that we’ll consider annexation and those are purely economic.
With that said, regardless of how this annexation effort ends up, I think we should evaluate how to address our increasing relationship with this property and it’s current owner/occupant(s) and stakeholders.
So far a piecemeal approach is clouding an holistic approach. The example of the community farm to table has been cited. Additionally, there has been some ‘planning’ of East Decatur Station that also ‘touches’ the property.
It would be my preference that we separate this parcel from further annexation discussions that are inherently financial and establish an independent process to help all the parties develop a comprehensive long range plan. (North Ga. UMC, UMCH, CSD, DeKalb County & City of Decatur – others?) I would note that from a legal perspective, if all the parties wish to include this parcel in the CoD it’s very easy to do. No referendum is needed. So it sets up nicely as a separate matter.
In my opinion, until this happens, we won’t be able to effectively develop a great plan to serve the interest of all involved, and most importantly, the kids, nor will we be able to draw out the diversity of non-economic reasons to incorporate this parcel.
I agree that it should be separated, as it does not fit within the city annexation parameters. I would love to hear other reasons for its inclusion, but I think the impact on the CSD should be fully explored so that the taxpayers with children in the school are fully informed and understand what full costs and benefits are.
I never suggested you weren’t entitled to your opinion. I’m glad to hear it. My point is simply that the city has annexation objectives that it established to guide this process. If there are criteria outside that their own parameters that are part of the calculus, then these should be added to the objectives or fully disclosed so people can make an informed decision.
I am entitled to my opinion. I don’t think the acquisition of this parcel fits within the city’s stated objectives. I don’t see the considerable costs of this acquisition outweighing the benefits, but if there is more than meets the eye, then I will be glad to hear it. However, the math or revenues and expenditures matter, and I beleive that children in our school system currently should take priority over children outside, and people who make those arguments on blogs or wherever, certainly deserve to have their opinions heard too.
The fact is that there are hundreds of families with school aged children within the city limits who do not have their children in CSD. Should they decide to suddenly do so, would you begrudge them their rightful place in our already overly crowded schools? They are not paying city taxes for their own children-they (and I am included in here as well), are paying them for *yours*. That is a choice they make, and I don’t begrudge your children one penny of the taxes I pay for city schools. And yes, I do understand that taxes from all city residents–whether they have children in CSD or not–go in some measure for the schools. But I can’t help but feel just how sad it is to have such an us vs. them mentality and to be so greedy with the amazing wealth you are privileged to have.
Greedy? Are you serious? Spend your money how you see fit. Just don’t spend mine.
And most of the wealth accumulated in this country is through hard work and risk taking, and has very little to do with privilege. The vast majority actively earned their wealth. They didn’t passively come into it.
I’m sorry, DawgFan. I didn’t mean that the privilege of living within the boundaries of an excellent school system was undeserved or accidental. If my post came across this way, I apologize. I was simply responding to Moderate’s claim that annexation is a problem primarily for families with kids in CSD, and that their needs were somehow more important than any other issues with regards to annexation. I do spend my money how I see fit. I never claimed to do otherwise; but my taxes pay for those things I deem important, as well as the excellent schools in CoD–which my children do not directly benefit from. And I am glad to pay the taxes as part and parcel of living in such a great community. However, some of the comments here are kind of sad and demonstrate the mentality I referenced. Please don’t take my comments as a personal attack; I just felt the need to remind folks that there are many families who do pay for CSD who choose not to benefit from this, and that perhaps there is no place for such a fearful view of acquired residents.
I understand your point, but I don’t think anyone is implying their needs are more important. But, would you agree that those residents of CoD with students at CSD would be more directly affected by this? I think that is the point others are trying to make. Further, if your children (assuming you have any) and their education were negatively affected, wouldn’t you oppose this effort, especially given the fact that you, like most people in CoD, have worked hard and made sacrifices just to have your children in a good school?
Valid questions, DawgFan, and thank you so much for your thoughtful approach. Perhaps I was just reflecting on what many others in this thread have mentioned: we need more comprehensive data with regard to the number of children in this parcel who would even be attending CSD, as well as more information on how the taxes gained from all areas measure up to the actual number of students. I know many individuals who oppose annexation because they don’t have children and for whom the additional tax burden isn’t worth it. Yet if they are annexed, they are paying taxes and not directly benefiting from the schools (notwithstanding the probable rise in housing prices). And there may be many like my family for whom other considerations are important. They can make their feelings known at the ballot box, but without this information, it seems hasty to assume that annexed properties will burden our schools, when our own booming population is already doing so (this is not a gripe–just an observation regarding CSD’s projections).
So if you agree that different people can have different considerations, and the city objectives for annexation are essentially financial cost benefit based (see power point), and the 2010 Strategic Plan for Decatur reads as follows:
“Explore annexation options in partnership with the City Schools of Decatur that expand the property tax base and enhance school operations” then what in my post above, where I do essentially a revenue v. school operations analysis is so different from the city’s methodology ?
And Trish, seriously, there are not “hundreds” of families sending their children to private schools within CSD’s boundaries. There is no way there could be over 3,000 kids enrolled out of less than 20,000 people total if hundreds of families have their kids in private school. I am also pretty sure that if every single private school family suddenly became CSD families that it would cause the issues many of us worry about with annexation.
Nelliebelle,
Unfortunately, hyperbole and unfounded characterizations of people’s motives seem to be more emotionally satisfying than factual, reasoned analysis. I saw what someone posted about you last night in response to your thoughtful questions regarding annexation, and I thought it was really unfair.
@Nellie–you may be right that I am exaggerating. My only experience is the two private schools my children attend and the number of COD parents I meet there. I’m not being sarcastic at all. I have met more than 100, but it’s entirely possible that “hundreds” (as in as much as 200) could be an exaggeration.
@Moderate–got you the first time. I was trying to express a point of view different than yours and had no intention of making “ugly insinuations”. I’m sorry that we have seemed to misunderstand each other, rather than assuming perhaps we both might have valid points and want the best for COD. However, I took your remark to Nellie to be really snarky and ugly as well. I apologize if you were not, in fact, making snide generalizations.
No worries. I wasn’t singling you out, but I do feel that people who have raised valid questions or objections to annexation have been subjected to unfair labelng and insinuations about movitations. I understand this is an emotional issue.
I haven’t posted much on this blog, but I have followed it a while. I agree with most of the people here on most issues, but I have noticed that those who disagree with the consensus of the group on this blog can be treated with a great deal of hostility, and I don’t think that is productive when discussing these important issues affecting the community.
Fair enough. It seems that we have similar perspectives, but differing priorities (which are frequently emotional), and so it took us a bit of conversation to see one another’s points. Thanks for being willing to work past the hostility. (Virtual handshake). 🙂
I would not begrudge anyone with children inside the city from sending their kids to CSD. That is their right to do so. I feel that the city absolutely should serve the children and residents inside the city. I do not agree with the acquisition of this parcel because I think the benefits do not outweigh the costs. I believe I am entitled to my opinion.
I am unsure why you feel it necessary to attack my character. I don’t think you know me, and I am not greedy or “privileged.” I work for what I have. Also, I am not fearful of “acquired” residents. I think your insinuations are quite ugly.
I couldn’t agree more with Deanne if I tried on this one. Some seem more than willing to take the newly acquired spoils from annexation, but by God DON’T YOU DARE suggest doing anything charitable or compassionate with any of it, or all bets are off.
Charity is not a function of government. This is a Methodist Children’s Home. The Methodist Church is a powerful, wealthy institution with all sorts of tax benefits. Taking tax money from Decatur citizens to support a private charity shouldn’t be even under discussion.
“Taking tax money from Decatur citizens to support a private charity shouldn’t be even under discussion.”
You know as well as do, that it’s not, and that was just my opinion. I think it’s safe to assume the city wouldn’t have expressed interest in the area unless they thought they could get something they wanted out of it, and rightfully so.
I’m just amused at some of the posters are very excited to get a bunch of money they never had for their kids, but react with such disdain with the thought of having to share it with any others, especially those less fortunate children. Sad.
“I’m just amused at some of the posters are very excited to get a bunch of money they never had for their kids, but react with such disdain with the thought of having to share it with any others, especially those less fortunate children. Sad.”
ok, that’s enough. that is just not what people are saying here. I, and others that are speaking rationally, are worried that annexing more kids in than we can pay for will cause the quality of our schools to either go down or else cause higher taxes for the rest of us to pay for. no one is hating on orphans. stop with the cheap shots.
“Added revenue would be $1 million to the city and $1.7 million to the school system.”
We’re talking about over 2 million in revenues, Patch estimated billions in added value, and what exactly are people stuck on? Just making an incredibly obvious observation.
The way I read this the $1.7 million is based on the current valuation for those areas when you do not take out exemptions, which may be quite significant. Also, if you divide it by 300 kids you don’t even cover the CSD’s costs, which is something like $6000-8000 per child. You may notice that I am using 300 instead of 230 because I just do not believe that number is right. It might be right today but make the announcement and it will jump to 300 by the time the schools start taking in the new areas. The way I read it, this is not necessarily money for the schools. If the 1.7 million costs us 2.0 million in operating costs not to mention capital costs for school expansions etc, does this really make any sense?
Make sense? Good question.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see what their motivation is on this particular piece of the puzzle and then decide. Realistically, I doubt the city would annex out of the good of their hearts, so maybe they’re speculating something is going on with that street or property we don’t know about. Considering the sht storm there has been the past 2 times this has come up, it probably looks less attractive than before they made the potential plans knows.
While I do agree these things need to be scrutinized from a financial standpoint, that’s not what I was reading in some of the comments. We can debate about interpretation, but that was my opinion and I didn’t feel it was cheap shot. Being completely anti-annexation is one thing, and I actually think there’s a strong argument to be made for that. Keeping it small means manageability, exclusivity, and keeping property values strong, all good things. But being in favor of annexation, for everything except this place, while basically ignoring in the argument that there’s going to be some real revenue flowing in, doesn’t sit right with me. If it doesn’t make sense after reviewing all information then fine, but that’s not what happened in this discussion.
The schools are growing and that can’t be ignored. Perhaps the discussion should be had about the capacity of the schools, and grade reconfiguration in them. Probably better sooner than later, if the city wants annexation support from city residents.
no one is hating on orphans.
Only if they start asking for more or start singing and dancing about tomorrow.
Could someone tell me why bigger is going to be better? This seems to be every bureaucracy’s
dream. But really, i can’t see how this will make decatur better.
Bigger is better only if the numbers and other influencing factors shake out that way. No one with the city is advocating for annexation at this point. They’re simply exploring it.
from the City’s powerpoint presentation:
OBJECTIVES:
• Influence and control development at key gateways.
• Expand and stabilize property tax base.
• Respond to interest from property owners.
• Consolidate partial parcels.
Yep, I found that one interesting. Because our 2010 Strategic Plan only sites this as reasons to explore annexation:
“Explore annexation options in partnership with the City Schools of Decatur that expand the property tax base and enhance school operations.” page 58.
Which looks like bullet 2, with no mention of schools.
“Influence and control development at key gateways.”
Ok, so we take these gateways. Then do we leap frog up to the next “gateways” Lawrenceville Highway and North DeKalb Mall? When does this stop? There is always another gateway.
Two of the key revenue producing properties are Emory Commons and Suburban Plaza. Both are owned by Selig. The City’s track record in dealing with Selig when they built the awful CVS shopping center at Commerce and Ponce is far from successful. The City can spin this anyway they want, but this annexation is for revenue. What right does the City have to poach this commercial property? Doesn’t Decatur have a downtown commercial center with lots of redevelopment potential? That area is already served by fire, police etc. No doubt it is harder to grow tax base than take it.
“The City’s track record in dealing with Selig when they built the awful CVS shopping center at Commerce and Ponce is far from successful.”
They did get Selig to move the CVS from the back corner up to the street corner.
“The City can spin this anyway they want, but this annexation is for revenue. ”
Yep. COD has a much smaller proportion of commercial to residential than most places, and commercial is generally revenue-positive while residential is revenue-negative.
Excellent point re: gateways. Even if we annex all the way to N. Decatur, if you drive a quater mile down Scott, all will you see are abandoned car lots. buildings abandoned mid construction (actually far less than mid) and a few buildings that probably need to be torn down. If you want to control the gateway, you need to annex all the way to 285.
Besides, for the forseeble future (10 to 20 or longer depending on the term of WM’s lease), the ship has sailed on Suburban Plaza. The plans will be approved by Dekalb Co. and there won’t be a thing we can do about it.
Controlling gateways is a legitimate objective, but I am not sure any of the proposed annexations furthers that goal.
” the ship has sailed on Suburban Plaza”
Yeah, as far as WM is concerned, but if the area is annexed, the city will have control over other redevelopment, like outparcels and any other new construction.
True. But to the extent this is designed to “Stop Wal-Mart”, it is counter-productive. And IMHO, I think a large part of the motivation behind this by several people is WM. Pretty smart political move by the mayor actually. Just about the time that anti-WM sentiment is reaching its zenith, out of the blue he suggests exploring annexation of Suburban Plaza to win favor with the Stop WM crowd, but, at the same time, knowing that (i) he can’t do anything about WM and (ii) little of this will come to fruition. (At least, that is a cynical take on the motive behing this annexation)
You are correct that Wal-Mart is a first phase of Selig’s redevelopment plan and other parcels will follow, but the City could have a big legal bill on its hands if it drastically changes the zoning entitlement of the owner. Selig will go to court to protect their development rights. Decatur or DeKalb would need to conduct a large planning study to provide the legal underpinning to reduce the development rights. That study will take sometime, and Selig could file development permits at the first smell of a redevelopment plan. Remember, we live in Georgia where planning and zoning laws are decrepit.
Oscar, you brought a silver lining to this: City of Decatur police would be responsible for patrolling Suburban Plaza (and the Walmartians). Bring it on!
230 students is an entire elementary school.
seriously? with the overcrowding issues already at hand, I can’t even believe this is on the table. projected revenues or not, there is simply not space. unless there is another entire school sitting somewhere in CoD that I am unaware of (besides Westchester), this has got to be one of the most foolish ideas yet.
But, Westchester IS right there, and everybody expects it to reopen as a school. I haven’t crunched the numbers, but wouldn’t opening an entirely new school take care of this concern?
No, my understanding is that opening Westchester is necessary NOW to deal with the current enrollment. Westchester will be reopened regardless of annexatiion. If current enrollment stands, and annexation brings in another 200-800 kids over a several year period, at least one more elementary school will be necessary, the single 4/5 concept may not be viable, and the middle school and high school will be much bigger.
what I liked about moving here last year that the city and the school was a very small school system , this has me nervous just based on the fact we need more schools NOW. This would require even more schools.
This makes me all nervous, like we are on the Bachelor/ette or something, but we can give out more than one rose at the end. But after all of our talking, and cuddling, and smooching, what if they turn us down? What rejection! It would be so hard to see them everyday after that. Awkward.
If the city is going to annex, they are going to have to do it sooner rather than later. Dekalb is going the way of Fulton County. Soon all of Northside Dekalb is encorporated until I-85. Other than Emory Univeristy and parts of Atlanta, there is nothing to stop Brookhaven, Chamblee or Doraville to annex all the way to the city of Decatur borders. Just glad I got out of Dekalb, before it hits the bottom.
I don’t know why interest expressed by people outside the city is a bullet at all. What is in the best interest of current CoD residents should be the bullet. I can’t imagine adding a 10% population bump nets positive for us. How much room is there in these areas for teardowns and single homes on large lots that suddenly become two homes?
I’m against annexation, because the Map of Decatur will lose its little hat and not be nearly as cute.
Uh oh. Like T-SPLOST, I don’t automatically know the right answer on this one. Could the City maybe do an Annexation 101 class for those of us who are civics challenged?
What I do know is that it’s REALLY important to make sound school enrollment projections. This is a unique enough situation that using historic data or the methods of other communities may not be adequate. We need wise, well-vetted projections based on local information from the communities proposed for annexation and lots of citizen input. Anecdotal information from residents may contain clues that are just as useful as official vital statistics. Stroller counts should not be ignored. Neighborhoods full of cheaper, older housing stock and elderly residents may become the next Oakhurst for young couples trying to break into the Decatur housing market.
Can we ask Clark Howard? He’s still my go-to guy for decisions that involve the wise use of financial information.
The Annexation 101 class is a GREAT idea. Something this big should be explained to the masses.
AHID- Yes, you may ask Clark Howard! And you have me very curious about what he’ll say! :0)
(I was trying to wait for Junderscore’s arrival to deal with the Walmartian comment before dipping down to this part of the thread. Already must.bite.tongue on the Selig/CVS comments so as not to disrupt the main topic.)
I’m staying out of this one, Deanne. A few of the comments just make me too sick and sad to think about it.
Just so long as you’ll step in and drop an anvil on someone’s head if it’s needed (in a reasoned and very deliberate manner of course).
If CoD expanded the annexation plan to include Medlock Park area, it could include the property of the former Medlock Elementary School. The property needs work, but it would likely be cheaper to renovate an existing 300-400 student school than build new. And the residents in the annexed areas get their neighborhood school back!
If I’m not mistaken, the Medlock school is already spoken for–and I think active this school year.
True, but only as a charter school and they have done virtually zero to improve the facility or work with the neighborhood to integrate. They needed space, the neighborhood wanted to avoid property blight, and Dekalb Schools wanted some $$. It kinda works, but in my opinion its a short term solution unless the International School can somehow get the community involved and improve the property.
It depends on your perspective. And neighborhood-school relations are a two-way street. I volunteered to help at the ICS workday immediately before school started, and I can assure you that a lot has happened in terms of improvements at the school.
I suppose from the front of the property, it doesn’t look like a lot has happened. After DCSS turned the property over to ICS, ICS had to work with the county to make improvements to the property – many of these were inside the building and required a substantial amount of time to accomplish. Add in permitting, requisite inspections….
I guess I’m also curious what sort of outreach you were expecting from ICS in the first two weeks of the school term? Yes, Medlock Elementary hosted movie nights open to the community but I remember that being much later in the year. I think everyone in the DCSS system this year has experienced the start as being a little bit more chaotic than usual, and it’s the same for ICS. Give them some time, and the neighborhood some time to reach out.
Tanya: I am excited to know about the Charter School , the workday, and everything else you reported on, and I appreciate your perspective on what is happening inside. I look forward to learning more!
It does depend on your perspective — with everything. See my reply below to Jennifer, but I would have liked to have seen the reno plan at least go out in our neighborhood newsletter. Something to look forward to even if it’s not done yet. And I would have liked to see ICS request some community feedback on any exterior modifications before it made it into the plan (if there are any). I also know that several of the parents of ICS students were disappointed in the delays that took place. Many folks volunteered early and often to help out over the summer when time was more plentiful but I don’t think that worked out how they hoped.
Hmmm. What would happen to a DeKalb County-approved charter school if it suddenly fell within COD’s borders? Would it become the responsibility of CSD? A charter school within CSD would provide an interesting dynamic. There’s a lot of short-term and long-term homeschoolers in COD–would they find a charter school attractive? Would a charter school in CSD have a net positive or negative effect on the system as a whole? I can think of plenty of pluses and minuses but cannot even guess the net effect.
Remember that CSD is a Charter System – one of the first in the state.
Charter school and charter system are completely different animals.
A charter school in a charter system?! That might be a first in Georgia. Since a charter school (almost complete local school governance) is pretty darn different from a charter system (only school-specific, not system-wide, issues eligible for local governance–and what cannot be construed as system-wide?), the dynamic of the two together would be interesting. A really good charter school in COD–and the International School certainly sounds like one–would compete somewhat with CSD regular schools. Insomuch as that competition improved customer service, communication, engagement, and service delivery, that would be a positive. But the competition for scarce resources would be problematic.
There are two state wide charter virtual schools already here that I am aware of, GA Cyber academy and Connections academy. These are available to decatur school age kids along with every school age kid in georgia as far as I know. not many from decatur use these.
I would need to look this up to confirm, but I don’t think that one government entity can annex property owned by another. I do know that annexation can’t result in “islands”, so it wouldn’t be possible to annex all the surrounding properties if CoD is unable to annex the school. At the end of the process, the school would have to remain contiguous to Dekalb.
It would’ve been good if they had thought of it sooner. The neighborhood right below the Children’s Home had a big empty elementary school sitting on it for 2 years (Forest Hills). They could’ve gotten tax revenue and a new school building in the process. The Museum School is in there now though, which is good.
JF you are incorrect about the Medlock Property. I was personally involved in the renovation plan for ICS. They have only achieved step 1 with complete financial backing from outside grants etc. The Medlock neighborhood is also now able to attend the school and there are outreach programs planned.
Personally, living in an area that has been on the annexation list AND a parent of a child with special needs some of the comments have made me sick. Dekalb actually provides more services for special needs than Decatur. The distrust of those of us below the financial median that can afford a house within your city limits makes me sad for your kids.
There is a big difference between being allowed to attend ICS and being accepted to attend. Last I heard (and what we had to do for my child), you must apply for the lottery just like any other charter/magnet school and hope you are chosen. That does not make it a neighborhood school, nor a neighborhood-friendly school. To make ICS a long term solution for Medlock area perhaps the charter needs to be modified to include a set number of reserved spots for neighborhood kids. Don’t know if that’s possible but a nice thought. And perhaps actually sharing their renovation plan with the wider community would be beneficial.
Even if all that were to happen, I still say it would be better for the neighborhood and the school to be annexed and absorbed into CoD. The City has it’s share of problems too, but they don’t even come close to the mismanagement/corruption/stupidity issues in the County. Is it a good idea for Decatur to annex? I can’t really answer that — I guess that will come down to both some dollar calculations and some intangibles.
I hear you about having a neighborhood school back – that was a painful loss for this area.
The current guidelines for how charters are written don’t allow for that sort of selective admissions or so I’ve been told by folks that deal with these things at the state level. Families from the neighborhood must have had some success in the lottery (and I’m sorry if that wasn’t the case for your child), as I keep seeing more folks mentioning that their kids are at ICS this fall.
Maybe Jennifer can share more about the renovation and outreach plans. In reference to your point further up, my guess is that there was some heavy-duty stuff going on inside that simply precluded having non-professional volunteers on the premises until very late in the summer.
+1
Wow, Jennifer. No one has said anything on here that should merit such an overreaction. I get really tired of people implying something elitist is going on just because many of us don’t see the annexing great swaths of unincorporated DeKalb as good for Decatur. We are talking about what works for our community, primarily our school system since it is already overcrowded. And we can do that.
Great swaths? Not sure they are actually great swaths, but perhaps less-than-great-swaths. You’ve made it clear here that you are not for annexation of any areas, regardless of the reason. Nobody wants or thinks its a good idea to overburden the school system. There are some compelling reasons to annex some of the areas on the current map (including gaining ‘gateway’ commercial properties, making the borders of Decatur follow a more logical map based on major roadways, and being open to the financial benefit of an increased taxbase) Of course current residents should have a great amount of input into any possible annexation and I believe C.O.D is presenting that opportunity. I do find it amusing how many short term residents of the city like to declare “we’re full now…..move along” As long as locations outside of the COD aren’t living up to the expecations of the residents, COD will continue to grow, by many means.
Short term residents? I moved to Decatur in 1989. Not really sure how that makes me short term.
didn’t mean you were short term –I have observed that when this comes up, some of the most vocal opposition is from folks who are
I thought you were just being mean to me 🙂
Anyway, I think I understand why, though. It’s how I feel about Oakhurst sometimes. I bought a house over here nearly 15 years ago. I bought it for certain reasons and now it’s changing. I suppose I can understand why people get defensive from that perspective.
It is unfortunate that some resort to personal attacks rather than discuss the issues in a sensible way. Its usually an admission that your argument cannot be countered logically.
People are people so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully
-Depeche Mode
Please come croon to me! :0)
Maybe people in Medlock don’t appreciate their beloved houses being called teardowns and their children labeled as burdens.
Half the houses in Oakhurst are being labeled tear downs. I don’t like it either, but it is what developers are doing and it is what will happen to perfectly good houses in Medlock and Midway Woods when developers run out of houses over here to tear down; I bet it will happen even without annexation over time. There are too many nice yards in Medlock that could suddenly get subdivided. The plain fact is that annexation will bring additional children and the system is already overburdened as it is. Period. Both of these things are facts.
Do we get to vote on annexation? That is just going to be a laugh riot. Will probably be more divisive to our community than school board elections! But seriously, I hope we get to vote, because I am voting no–as much for Decatur as for the annexees…if they wanted to live in Decatur they would move here. I don’t think it’s right to make those changes for them.
The only folks who vote directly are the residential property owners in the proposed areas. Commercial property owners do not have a direct vote. The City Commission will vote whether or not to move forward, then the DeKalb legislative delegation will decide whether or not to introduce the local legislation. Traditionally, the legislature will vote for local legislation as requested by the local delegation.
If you want to have some influence, speak to your Decatur Commissioners and/or members of the DeKalb legislative delegation. BTW, the DeKalb County Commissioners have no direct say-so either, though obviously they can talk to the legislative delegation.
If the 230 number is based on children that live in these zones now, it is almost certainly an underestimate if there are homes currently without children. As soon as the residential areas are annexed, the composition of the residents will begin changing with more families with children moving in. Nice area with big lots and great schools? Ten years and the place will be filled with kids.
Is anyone aware that there is now a big push from the portion of Midway Woods that is contiguous to Zone D, but is not included in the current annexation request, to be added the request for annexation. After attending the Aug. 20 meeting I thought after hearing the Mayor say that only those areas currently considered would be included in their analysis. However, if look at COD website http://www.decaturga.com/index.aspx?page=660 you’ll note there are two petitions both for and against. I believe recently it was changed because now you must indicate which zone you are in AND now includes a space for a write in area. Also Peggy Merriss will be attending Midway Woods Association Meeting at the Columbia Presbyterian Church Sanctuary 7:30pm Wed, September 26 http://www.midwaywoodsneighborhood.com/. There are currently 700 homes in that neighborhood and add that to the other areas and you have a very large influx of students. Could it be that COD is afraid that two of the zones are against annexing so now they are considering including all of Midway Woods? What does that do to their theory of “cleaning up the boundaries?”