School Chairman: Decatur Commissioners “Not on Board”, “On the Fence” Regarding School Bond Referendum
Decatur Metro | | 9:59 amA blurb from Bill Banks hidden in the AJC’s County by County news from yesterday…
Decatur school board chairman Marc Wisniewski admitted that city commissioners are “not on board, they’re on the fence,” about getting a $59.5 million bond referendum on the Nov. 5 ballot. The referendum would finance extensive renovations to Decatur High and Renfroe Middle schools. Regarding a joint Aug. 5 meeting between the board and commissioners, he said, “[the board] will have to some educating, some convincing.” He added that if the referendum is delayed to next year, both schools would eventually need trailers or have to go to split sessions.
This is also what we’ve been hearing.
Trailers not great, but ok. Split sessions sound horrible. But also think that a decision this big should be given all the time it needs. My experience is that we live with School Board decisions for the entire school career of our children; they are not easily modified or undone. Would like to know more about the Commissioners’ hesitation. I have a lot of respect for their financial stewardship.
The City Commission has been quite creative in financing its spending binge of late. The projects of renovating both the Rec Center and the downtown fire station were paid for largely with the Build America bonds. To qualify the contiguous parcels of land were declared urban blights. The bonds are more expensive than those that could have been obtained through a General Obligation Bond Referendum. Those bonds didn’t have to be assumed after a public referendum unlike the funding CSD is seeking. Those Build America bonds did raise the mileage rate on a permanent basis however (30 years worth of obligation is fairly permanent).
The schools don’t have the same flexibility afforded to the City Commission. Unlike the CSD, the City Commission accomplished its acquisition of the money without the hue and cry that the School Board endures as they face changes to the demands on their budget. Why wasn’t anyone curious about the budget of the Beacon Hill facility for the police? The money is coming from some place. Where are the voices of the concerned? They certainly weren’t heard when the Build America Bonds were obtained.
At Home in Decatur makes a lot of sense. However, we need to keep in mind that the middle school and high school student bodies are expected to DOUBLE IN FIVE YEARS. Double. That’s mind-boggling. We can’t have trailers and split sessions as the alternative, especially not the long-term alternative.
I’m all for a long-term solution and don’t think we should put our heads in the sand about the impending student explosion. School crowding that impacted the desirability of our schools would impact all of Decatur, our home values, and our quality of life. Just want to make sure it’s a solid decision, there’s no red flags, and Board member and Commissioner/City concerns have been thoroughly addressed. Maybe this will all be resolved at the August 5 meeting or maybe a one year delay is in order.
At Home in Decatur, thanks for this second post. You are right that the decision needs to be solid (I love that word). Also love “don’t think we should put our heads in the sand about the impending student explosion.” Great way to put it! It’s definitely an explosion!
I’m a little annoyed by the suggestion that the obstacle is that city commission needs to be “educated,” as though they simply aren’t making the effort to gather and assess information. This runs contrary to every interaction or experience I’ve ever had with our elected reps.
More likely is the fact that the school board operates on behalf of the children. That (and parents) is their primary constituency and I commend them for moving forward with considered focus on their charge. But the city commission operates on behalf of everyone in the community and, thus, has a lot more weighing of priorities on their plate. We may, arguably, have had sufficient community conversation about growth projections and the need for facilities and the various growth scenarios on the table but I haven’t seen comparable discourse about, for example, how it will ultimately impact individual taxes and what that will do to other, more fragile aspects of our community that we purport to value.
If consideration of these issues, and the desire to operate on behalf of all residents, is the basis for the commission’s hesitation then I say more power to them. A year’s delay may ripple out to some inconveniences and/or challenges to manage but there’ll be nothing catastrophic about it. At least not in my (parent with a kid in the system) view.
Or, just yell “TRAILERS” loud enough. If that’s what ends up defining our examination of the issue, we’ll fully deserve whatever it is we end up with.
Well said, Scott.
A one year delay that allows the entire City to understand the details and weigh all the issues of the situation and the plan will not have long term consequences for the school system.
Decatur citizens have a history of giving strong support and generous funding to CSD. I believe that support and funding will continue but I do feel taxpayers, especially those who are not CSD parents, need more time to study available information and communicate with the City Commission and the BOE before a final decision is made on this large expansion plan.
I strongly believe this plan should come up for a vote on a November ballot, either 2013 or 2014. I hope we do not find ourselves dealing with a special referendum at an off time of year like the previous school bond issue. That lead to extra expense and very low voter turn out.
I have never been impressed with the degree of awareness of the issues facing CSD from some of our commissioners, the two large-scale annexation proposals being the two most massive, but by no means the only, examples. Downright clueless, I’d say.
That said, $59 million is an awfully large number, which I’m sure could use thorough vetting, and I see nothing wrong with the Commission performing its own due diligence; as the next school board seated in January may also feel the need to do.
For what it’s worth, public debt since 2006, by my tally:
CSD, $21.4 million
City $71.8 million.
Thanks for your well-thought-out comments, Scott.
I would like to respectfully offer one change to what you wrote, and that is that our School Board operates on behalf of our community in service of educating our children. Last I checked, the board members are popularly elected by citizens of voting age…
But I think this gets at the heart of one of the reasons that I am (and perhaps others are) frustrated with CSD: that they approach planning, community engagement, and outreach from a students/parents perspective with the rest of the community being secondary at best.
I would love to see the day when CSD consistently engages with the broader community in conversation about both the great things they’re doing & the challenges they face.
Thanks, KC. That is a better phrasing. I s’pose I was simplifying to the point of no longer being all that accurate… My point was simply that their decisions tend to reflect their charge, as they should. I’ve always supported CSD as it relates to education and, I’m guessing, I’ll continue to for the foreseeable future.
Re CSD engagement with community at large (i.e. those who fund it!): school leadership teams (SLTs) were supposed to be one mechanism for that engagement. The original system charter required community members. Community membership was problematic for various reasons, including:
– difficulty finding community members willing to commit the time and effort required
– struggle by SLTs to be given a meaningful rather than bureaucratic role–who wants to put in the work if they feel unappreciated or sidelined?
– SLTs might not have been the right level for community engagement given that they are local school governance–what happens in a single school. The CSD system level is where the policy and decisions are made that affect the community at large.
I believe that the current charter, recently approved, no longer requires community participation. But I also heard that the state folks that approve system charters made a site visit and asked COD to follow up with a report on improving the SLTs. This might be an entree for community folks to ask for more engagement too. After all, the community is a huge financial sponsor of COD through property taxes.
From similar experience in booming Gwinnett, so long as there is turf to build a mobile village, double session is not a real option due to accreditation issues, state DOE regs, etc. Schools like Creekland Middle had almost as many classes in trailers as they did inside while waiting for the school addition construction to catch up to the housing boom. The education of the kids did not suffer as they then moved on to Collins Hill HS.
I say plan well, and I appreciate the council & mayor looking out for all taxpayers.
I’m curious where the “doube in five years” projection comes from. IHCH, can you or anyone else point me to the report? Not doubting, just curious. I admit that I have not looked at any data at all. But I assume those projections are based on the huge growth in elementary and pre-elementary population here in Decatur. If so, I wonder whether families will stay here for the long haul and that 2X growth will really play out. I think a lot of families may outgrow their homes and move to the burbs. Just an unscientific thought.
My gut tells me the opposite, RSH. While many are referring to student population growth as a “bubble,” I anticipate that increased enrollment is the new normal for which CSD and CoD must prepare. That being said, I strongly agree that circulation of whatever report CSD is using would be helpful to us all.
It seems to me that parents’ and voters’ faith in CSD’S population growth estimates was shaken during the Westchester-closure period, and that folks need to feel more secure about this capital campaign before getting fully behind it.
Margaret, I agree. If anything I see the current trend of tearing down smaller homes and building bigger ones continuing for the foreseeable future. I would only expect school enrollment to grow over the next 10 years.
Here’s the report, which was produced by the Enrollment Committee, which consisted of members of the community, teachers, administration representatives, etc.
http://csdecatur.net/master-plan/CSD%20FTE%20Projections%20without%20Annexations.pdf
Thank you kindly TeeRuss!
Yes, many thanks to TeeRuss for the link with the forecast figures. I remember seeing the “middle school and high school will double in five years” information in a DecaturMetro article, if I remember correctly. Thanks for the original source!
What better investment can we make than the education of the next generation? Surely the commissioners must regard the entire community, but there are decisions here that will reverberate
much longer and have more significance than a tax increase.
In addition, it’s difficult to understand the doubt of a student population increase. If you look at both APS and Dekalb County, there is no question that people are looking for alternatives to these school systems. What happened with Westchester is just another example of that.
I agree with you Tom–just wish we had a bit more information and perhaps more public discourse about this issue. The Commissioners appear to feel similarly.
However, CSD must tread a fine line between providing information and advocating for the bond referendum (which is prohibited by law).
I’m concerned that the referendum could fail before the Commission or voters if everyone feels too rushed and uninformed.
You’ve certainly got your finger on my pulse.
$59 million bond for CSD is a big pill to swallow.
As a Decaturite without CSD children, if I get even a whiff that this has not been properly vetted or is getting railroaded through, I’ll find it very easy not to support.
Not using the schools, I’ve always been able to justify my higher property taxes by common good arguments, and of course the schools have done very well in all that time.
$59 million really raises that bar and makes me pay a lot closer attention to what is going on.
I’m not sure that the Commission has adequately described the holdup here. CSD is not asking to approve a bond issuance – they are asking the Commission to approve a referendum, at which time We The People will decide whether or not to approve a bond issuance.
What exactly do they need to know in order to do the simple task of adding the referendum to November’s election? If I wasn’t so busy with work lately I’d schedule a 30 minute conference call with them myself to get them over the hump.