An AJC report from February 5th said that City Schools of Decatur would need around 14 more trailers next year. The post mentioned CSD would need “six to eight more trailers at Decatur High, four trailers at either Westchester Elementary or Glennwood Elementary and two more at Winnona Park Elementary.”
Well, that number seems to have been revised upward and omitted Renfroe, because a new AJC post states that CSD will add 30 trailers next year…
City Schools Decatur will add roughly 30 trailers next year, including 10 to 13 at Renfroe Middle and five or six at Decatur High, with the remaining going to Winnona Park and Glennwood Elementary schools and possibly Westchester Elementary.
The post goes on to say that CSD will spend $9.7 million on approx. 122 trailers over the next five years. And that’s only if the $80 million bond vote passes.
The 30 new trailers should be installed by July.
Oakhurst Elementary trailers photo courtesy of Amanda
Learning cottages.
“Decatur . . .A city of homes, schools, fancy cocktails, learning cottages, and places of worship”
How many shipments of Moon Pies and Mountain Dew will this require?
A first step towards our demand issues would be ensuring that, regardless of what’s happening inside them, the outside of these trailers scream “subpar education.” Make sure they’re ratty as hell and sitting on exposed cinderblock piers. Maybe hire some taggers to come do them up in dangerous looking urban designs and colors.
The good education can be our little secret.
People are doing their research by looking at test scores, not by doing drive-by’s of the parking lots.
Yes, but trailers are divisive and generate press. Stories about serious enrollment problems, punctuated by photos of shabby trailers, can cool demand faster than you can say “when do we get our check for $80 million?”
Put a hitch on them. Presto! Mobile learning.
Alas, N.Fulton had lots of trailers before they opened several new schools (might still have them for all I know), and I don’t think it slowed their growth.
Let’s have a graffiti contest on the trailers. That will discourage the newbies from relocating to the CSD.
I’d honestly be in favor of this. My older son (who is going to Renfroe next year) loves graffiti, especially the artwork in and around the Krog tunnel, and I think having brightly graffitied trailers (not just fugly tagging) would be much cooler than generic beige.
That figure puts each trailer at just under $79k each. Wondering if the school systems buy from the same “$300 government toilet seats” salesman. A quick google shows one can buy a tricked out, 4 bed, 2 bath, fancy kitchen doublewide for around $73k. I would assume these learning cottages are pretty bare bones, no?
I wouldn’t describe them as bare-bones. My Pre-K child is in one this year at College Heights. To me the inside is basically indistinguishable from the regular in-the-building classroom that my older child was in a few years ago. No fancy kitchen, but there is a bathroom. 🙂
Yeah. I’m 99% sure our kids are in the same Learning Cottage and the experience has been pretty fantastic – I’m genuinely impressed by some aspects of it (like the soundproofing – there’s another equally sized classroom on the other side of the wall and you wouldn’t even know it.
This may also have something to do with the hellacious racket a bunch of Pre-K kids can kick up….
They are actually quite nice.
I think Decatur should have an annual kid tax. $1,000.00 to 2,000.00 per kid should do it. That should help.
Developers are routinely charged impact fees. Not an altogether different proposition.
Yep. It would be really interesting for the city to debate / consider this.
Apologies that this question is being posted again, but it is a directly related topic and I’m hoping someone knows why the Calloway property is not being considered as a potential solution to the school enrollement issues – and if it ever was, what happened?.
Is it too late to consider that property for the schools – even if there is an out of pocket cost to change course with the current plan? And if so, what is/was the reasoning? From a comment in a linked post back in August 2013, someone mentioned that the city probably needs commercial development on this space for the tax revenue. But isn’t a large driver of need for the tax revenue to offset the burden of taxes on residents, which primarily fund CSD? Clearly, CSD knows the urgency of finding more space (trailers/cottages, expansion, working with other districts to lease empty facilities, etc.) Has the option of obtaining the Calloway property been fully exhausted and again – how and why? I mean, a few years back CoD simply signed over/gave the actual land and building assets to CSD. Couldn’t we figure out a scenario where that property gets used for the school system – both for classrooms and activities. There would be room for shared greenspace, and parking for students/teachers! What am I missing?
In the city’s master plan, Trinity Street was deemed a second main street (after Ponce). This is a large, contiguous parcel near the core of downtown. It is a prime spot for converting a large institutional use with a large parking lot into a mixed-use development that addresses the public street (and public revenue) in a more pleasing and sustainable way.
The Downtown Development Authority was originally supposed to buy it, but because the DeKalb Schools was going to continue to be a tenant that was not legal (DDAs must use their powers for economic development, and renting to a school district does not meet that test). So the city’s URA (Urban Redevelopment Agency…don’t ask, it’s boring and essentially an arm of the city commission) is now the owner, which means it is still a tax-exempt property. But the city paid real money for this site and would have at least one angry taxpayer if they gave it away to anyone (if they could even do that here, who knows?). But I don’t think we want this property in public hands during this development cycle. If CSD were to get this property, they would have a very large building that I’m guessing does not meet any modern classroom needs. So they’ll spend money to raze the entire site before even thinking of building school facilities that render that property tax-exempt for several more decades.
Short answer: Cousins Properties doesn’t make money building schools but they can do so by building something that fits the city’s downtown master plan, which has been sort of successful in transforming Decatur from [CENSORED] to a nice city in last last ~25 years.
I’ve heard a primary factor for not using the Calloway building is asbestos. And the requisite remediation thereof.
Until the tax digest has been caught up todate. I will not support one dime of addittional taxes. I am speaking for all the citizens in Decatur that have added wisdome and stability to our neighborhoods over the years when NO ONE wanted to live in Decatur.
Done !
I am in full agreement with you that fixing the tax digest is very important, but the reality is that the school system will need the money long before it could happen.
So my yes vote will cancel your no vote, because I recognize decisions need to be made right now, not in some unlikely future where Dekalb County can suddenly make the tax rolls correct (and we’ve already learned why the county is doing it, and not the city). Sucks, I know. But that’s the way it is.
Good luck with that – you expect Dekalb County to get their act together, much less in such a way that benefits Decatur?
I had a couple of thoughts this morning during my run regarding the tax issue.
1) Could the city of decatur fund an employee (or 2) in the county who would be dedicated to updating the assessed values of properties within the city of decatur? I think the expense woudl be off set by the revenue production.
2) If the digest can’t be updated, what about imposing some kind of “flat tax” on families with children within the COD system. If your assessed value would result in taxes above the flat tax, you pay the greater amount. Families with no children in COD schools pay based on their assessed value. This may not be practical, but just trying to think outside the box before we jump to the “let’s just raise taxes.”
While I think your first idea is very interesting, I am not sure it complies with the statute. Essentially, DeKalb would be delegating its statutory duty to the city if someone employed by the city provided the assessments for CoD properties. If DeKalb hired an additional person assigned solely to CoD and billed the city for the costs of that employee, that person would fall under DeKalb’s control and defeat the purpose. But, I like the idea – better assessments without the full costs of running an assessor’s office.
Fixing the tax digest is very important indeed. And what that specifically means is the Commercial tax digest, as unbalanced appraisals have shifted the tax burden to residential. But:
1. That is the City’s responsibility, and so far they have shown zero interest in taking it on.
2. Drawing a line in the sand here, where it hurts CSD, will not get the City’s attention. Particularly, as the City has shown great reluctance to approve putting this bond before the voters already.
So I think this is the wrong battle front. But I won’t complain if attention is drawn to the City’s neglect of the commercial tax digest.
Judd, a couple questions:
1. When you say fixing the Commercial tax digest, do you mean the appraisals (which I thought were the County’s purview) or do you mean increasing our amount of taxable commercial property?
2. If the latter, can you elaborate? We’ve currently got three large commercial projects under construction and two more in the pipeline. How does that show neglect?
The city can’t magically create demand. There are multiple parcels in CoD which are currently zoned (or can easily be re-zoned) commercial, and they have been sitting undeveloped or underdeveloped for years. The city wants those parcels to be re-developed, but until the last year or two, there simply has been no interest.