From the City Schools of Decatur website…
Are you interested in learning more about the proposed general obligation bond, rising enrollment and master plan?
Please join City Schools of Decatur on March 31, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. OR 6:30 p.m. in the Board of Education Room at the Central Office at Beacon Hill (125 Electric Avenue) for an opportunity to learn more about these important topics.
Which questions would you like answered in this session?
Does the Board still support annexation, giving the latest bill filed in the GA legislature? Is so, why?
Is there concern that the City designates apartments as “Commerical”; which makes apartments look attractive on paper, when the opposite is true (from a tax income/student impact perspective).
I keep seeing variations on this theme: Having apartments classified as Commercial is some sort of sleight of hand intended to obscure some darker reality. But as I understand it, it’s actually nothing more than a by-product of how land has been classified, developed, financed and taxed over the past half century or longer.
Specifically, it all boils down to how land has been zoned for decades. These single-use designations (residential, commercial, etc.) have, in turn, dictated every aspect of how the real estate business functions — from what a piece of land is worth, to the financial products available to finance it, to the manner in which it’s designated and taxed.
When the city refers to an apartment building as Commercial (again, as I presently understand it) they are simply working within the accepted industry silos of where revenue comes from and reflecting the fact that it produces what’s classified as Commercial revenue.
That’s not to say that, now that mixing of uses is becoming more prevalent, we don’t deserve a more nuanced look at detailed costs associated with particular apartment scenarios. We absolutely do. But I’m not among those who see conspiracy or ill-intent behind every door. What I see is a system, with all the data it has available, that is not particularly helpful to the finer-grain calculations we’re trying to do.
Can someone from the real estate / finance realm chime in on this?
I’m not one of those who claims conspiracy, but as I noted in another comment, it should be a simple matter to add one more category-residential/commercial–and provide those percentages. Then no one can claim the numbers are being goosed.
I suspect, though, that the apartments make up a high portion of the value counted as “commercial”.
I’m sure it’s easy to add the category but who has the data? These are independent commercial properties in another jurisdiction. Where do we get the data from? I’m all for contacting every single project management office and pushing for whatever kid counts they have (if they even have them) or perhaps working with DeKalb Schools to parse students by address but I think we all agree that that will take time.
That’s what I’m getting at. What we’re hearing from the city at this moment, to me, reflects currently available data as it’s provided. We can go deeper but it’s not just a matter of adding a column.
As I said, I do agree we need the data to evaluate and trust that better numbers are forthcoming. I just question that such numbers are easily obtained.
I’m not talking about that level of data, e.g. kid counts. Just a separate percentage breakdown for apartments. You’d have commercial, residential, and mixed. Why would that be complicated?
I’m not suggesting that level would be complicated. I just don’t know how helpful it would be. Those are a different product that, based on occupancy, likely perform differently than our apartments downtown are expected to perform. But different in what ways? Without the occupancy breakdowns, knowing that some percentage of “Commercial” is actually “Residential Commercial” just leads to a whole new line of speculation. I’d like to get to something a little more reality-based if at all possible. How many kids can be expected from more “garden-style” or less-walkable apartments? And I know it’s hard.
“But different in what ways?”
I think it’s reasonable to assume there will be more kids in rental complexes than in the owner-occupied downtown complexes–because we already know there are more kids in those existing apartment complexes. It sounds like you are coming pretty close to saying that if the apartments weren’t counted as residential or separated out, the “headline” numbers for this annexation would be even more alarming to some people. That’s the leg on which those who see conspiracy can stand on.
Comment above should read “if the apartments WERE counted as residential…”
Absolutely the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m saying (and have said explicitly a couple times) that the numbers, in meaningful form, are critical but that they are outside the easily available data. Thus, the reason we’re not seeing them at this stage is not, I don’t believe, an effort to obscure anything. What I think we’re seeing is a scramble to find the kind of numbers that can fuel valid decision-making. If they don’t materialize, there’ll be every reason for criticism. But I don’t think that criticism if warranted just yet.
“Thus, the reason we’re not seeing them at this stage is not, I don’t believe, an effort to obscure anything. ”
But we are seeing one set of numbers, which is the 66% commercial, 28% residential breakdown. For those who don’t know that the percentage for commercial includes apartments, this could be misleading information. I’d argue this city-provided number is less helpful than breaking out apartments into a separate category and letting people decide based on that information.
Well, if the suggestion is that I’m somehow against better definitions for what Commercial, in this instance, means on the ground, scratch that. I’m sure it would be helpful for clarifying the issue’s contributing factors. But, once it’s known, I still feel we presently lack the behavioral data which would help us understand what “X number of garden apartment units” actually translates to in terms of predictable impacts. That’s where I’d like to get to.
“But, once it’s known, I still feel we presently lack the behavioral data which would help us understand what “X number of garden apartment units” actually translates to in terms of predictable impacts.”
Agreed. Someone here has claimed there are a “lot” of kids in those apartments near the Big Kroger, but I’d like a more accurate number. Whatever the number, though, apartment complexes aren’t different from regular “commercial” just because of the kids they might contribute to the schools, obviously. They also tend to use other services to a greater extent than most commercial does. On the other hand, there is a “revenue-positive” factor: no homestead exemptions.
Apartments are classified as commercial as per the Assessor’s office. The owner of that parcel will pay an enormous tax bill to the city and some to DeKalb county. That land is zoned multi family, thus commercial.
I don’t think anyone is saying it is a conspiracy, but it is misleading of the city to describe apartments or other multi-family housing as strictly “commercial”. While it may be officially categorized as “commercial” because it adds to the number of students in the schools it is truly categorized as “residential” expense perspective and additional strain on school enrollment and costs. The city’s hope is that residents skeptical or undecided on the annexation will say, “oh commercial business percentage is high so no burden on the schools, good!”.
When the city throws around facts like the percentage breakdown of commercial vs. residential in the annexation discussion it is misleading and not truly accurate because unlike a grocery store or other “commercial” property that pays taxes but does not add an additional expense and increase the number of students, an apartment complex does. The city uses the percentage breakdown as a justification to the city residents that sugar coats the numbers without providing an accurate assessment of the true impact on the schools and the revenue vs. expense breakdown.
The city can continue to list the percentage of commercial vs. residential property, but needs to breakout the percentage of commercial property with residential units. I would also like to see the total number of residential units (yes each unit with the potential to add a student to the schools for both the residential and the commercial areas to be annexed. I would like to know if through this annexation we are adding 2,000 residential units/houses with the potential to add 1 or more students to the schools if they were all occupied by families. I don’t believe the areas to be annexed will be 100% student residential units, but I do believe the city is significantly underestimating the changes to this area if and when it is annexed.
City Commissioners are you listening are you reading this? Please provide true and accurate detailed data on the potential impact of this annexation on the schools. The schools are the crown jewel of the City of Decatur and the primary reason that home values have risen and Decatur has grown as it has. The downtown and other things are great, but the commissioners are naive if they don’t believe the excellent schools are why Decatur is red hot now!
Agree. As Scott says above, I don’t take issue with apartments being zone “commercial.” My concern is that city leaders fail to mention the fact that commercial annexation includes apartments, which will contribute to the rising enrollment of CSD. In fact, when the most recent plan came out, city leaders said it was still a good proposition because it was approx. 80 percent (my number may be off) commercial, but this hides the fact that a large portion of that commercial may be residential apartment complexes.
Bottom line, I just don’t think the city leadership has been particularly transparent on this issue.
“but it is misleading of the city to describe apartments or other multi-family housing as strictly “commercial”. ”
I was under the impression that other multi-family (owner-occupied and thus eligible for homestead exemptions) is counted as residential. Is that not the case?
Apartments don’t get homestead exemptions. There will be one main or a couple of parcels that the owner name of record will be paying the tax bills in. There won’t be any homestead exemptions.
I’m aware that’s true of rental apartments. My question is about owner- occupied townhomes and condos and whether they are counted as commercial or residential.
Owner occupied parcels for condos and townhomes have a separate parcel number and if the residence is the owners primary one, he or she can get a homestead exemption.
Yes, I get the homestead exemption in a multi-family building. But am I counted as commercial or residential?
Townhomes and stacked condos for ownership are zoned multi-family residential. Apartment buildings for rent are zoned commercial.
Pretty much all the stacked condos and townhomes in downtown Decatur are zoned General Commercial, of which residential is an allowable use.
In answer to Brian’s question, I believe it’s defined by how you’re taxed. If you pay residential property tax, you’re counted as Residential, etc.
Here’s the real question: Why annex?
The city’s inferred answer: Higher revenue than costs
Here’s my quantitative breakdown (note I ignore the qualitative questions like: Is this really part of the community, can the school quality be sustained over a bigger base, etc)
Right now the city spends about $45M/year (operating cost), for about 4300 students. That’s about $10,500/yr. I’m not really sure how that cost would scale for more or fewer students. Clearly Decatur needs a lot of capital expenditure for more facilities for more kids.
However, there’s no good cost breakdown on the proposal. If you take a look at the simple breakeven for students, there will be $7.9M of annual incremental revenue. At the previous cost/student, that’s about 750 students.
Given that whatever level of students Decatur Terrace has now will not hold – it will be at the rate of students/population now for Oakhurst in 5-7 years. Is that 200 students for 144 homes?
So how many apartment units are currently extant? 2 and 3 bedrooms are more appealing to families, so there is not a good metric currently within the city limits of Decatur for those apartments along Dekalb ind. The housing authority has much bigger apartments than average – perhaps that’s a good student/unit calc?
Anyone know the number of units in what’s being annexed? I wouldn’t worry as much about new construction in the annexed area, since new construction = new revenue as well.
Any thoughts? I’m still not sure about the annexation, but if your reasoning is improved revenue relative to student population, it needs to be justified.
“I wouldn’t worry as much about new construction in the annexed area, since new construction = new revenue as well.”
Not sure what you mean here. The existing apartments in the annex would be “new revenue” to Decatur as well. Maybe not as much per square foot or whatever, but substantial nonetheless.
The revenue from new construction is not calculated in the current $7.9M, so is above the current estimate the city is using. That is the “new revenue” above and beyond the current plan.
Not to mention the $100k per house in Decatur Terrace “gifted” to them through increased property values. They get the vote, not the current residents. What do you think they will choose?
Area B has roughly 1,600 apartments, which illustrates my point. Without any baseline data, I have no idea how many enrollments that would typically lead to.
” Without any baseline data, I have no idea how many enrollments that would typically lead to.”
Presumably, neither does the City. Yet someone from the City (Merris?) refers to “very low school utilization rates”. Maybe they should at least know how many students are there now before making such statements, or, more importantly, before deciding to annex 1600 apartments.
Presumably, indeed. I have no idea if the City’s doing the grunt research of drilling down on verified enrollment numbers. My assumption is that they are but they don’t have them yet. Other’s mileage may vary.
From a real estate perspective, 2 bedroom units are more desirable than 1 bedroom units. From what I’ve read, there will be more one bedroom units than two and three bedroom units. I guess we will see how it plays out.
Wish I had a vote on annexation. It would be a big NO. The leaders of the City which includes the City Council and School Board are losing credibility fast. Not good when close to $100M in bonds are coming up for a vote.
I truly hope these annexation plans are dead in the water for this year in the legislature, as by all indications they are. If there are 1600 apartments in the proposed annex as Scott cites (and does that even include the complex being built now next to Patel Plaza?), and we don’t even know how many school-age kids are in them now, why would we want to go through with this?
Pending construction is not included in that number.
Then the total is closer to 2000 (not counting what’s being built in the current city limits). Given the number of 2 and 3 BR units in those complexes, I could easily see this adding up to an additional 500-600 students as soon as the annexation is official.
The CSD annexation numbers released last fall indicated 747 new enrollments projected for the whole shebang so you’re probably not far off.
“The CSD annexation numbers released last fall indicated 747 new enrollments projected…”
And that was when we were still planning on getting the commercial revenue from Suburban Plaza, Emory Commons, etc. I assume.
Does anyone know the format of the meetings tomorrow? Town hall? Give and take? Presentation only? Public comments of 3 minutes each?
In terms of questions I’d like answered, I still need the basics, e.g.:
1) Exactly what costs will covered by the amount of the bond being requested? What would have to be dropped if the bond was reduced by 10%? By 25%? By 50%?
2) What will happen if the bond doesn’t pass in ?November?
3) What will be the impact on annual taxes if the bond passes, e.g. for a property assessed at X, what will the increase be annually? For a property assessed at 2X? At 3X?
4) What is current enrollment and projected enrollment? How confident are we in the projected enrollment? What could change that would affect that prediction?
5) In addition to a short summary of the master plan, I’d like to know what it doesn’t cover–e.g. does it cover scenarios if annexation occurs? If enrollment increases faster than predicted? Slower? The possibility of reconsidering the 4/5 model? How does the superintendent’s departure affect the master plan or other planning?
A question I’d add to that concerns timing. If annexation and the bond issue happen, how long will it be before a new school opens? I think it’s safe to assume there will be a gap between annexation becoming official and the opening of a new school(s), so during that period where do all the additional kids go? And what if annexation happens but the bond issue fails? No new schools?
And another question about timing: Is there still some plan floating around to not allow new enrollments until some period of time (2017?)after annexation? Or is that off the table?
Honestly the bond is not as big a deal. It is paying for a commitment to the students that has already been made. There will be direct benefit to current residents.
The annexation is a bigger deal. If it goes through it cannot be undone and has been rushed through in a smoke-filled room. It has potential to unnecessarily weaken the city’s finances since the city leaders have clearly not performed due diligence.
I attended the morning meeting today and those issues are all addressed to some extent.
The format is: Dr. Edwards and a panel of “experts” on student projections, facilities, and finance make a presentation. Dr Edwards said all this info and more are on the CSD website.
Everyone gets a nice packet of data when they come in and a card to write questions. After the experts make their presentations they answer questions from the public–there was a 3 minute limit. At the end they collected everyone’s questions with name and email to answer later or make a FAQ with.
I do recommend attending. There was a lot of information and I do need to go back through the packet and look at everything.
They presented several bond options. The lowest was $60 million, the highest $82 million. They also presented data on no bond. They had data on what the tax increases would be for various bond levels and what percentage of projected 2020 students would have classrooms with each level of bond (as well as no bond).
Also, with no bond the school tax would need to increase to 21.5 millage in 2017. With a $60 million bond that increase would not come until 2020. Those calculations are based on a low number growth projections without annexation.
It’s a lot of information to digest and I recommend attending tonight’s session if you are interested in this issue. At the very least I think these sessions will show the school system what the community’s main concerns and questions are.
Oh, and to beat a dead horse, one more question about timing. Except this one’s about the timing of the meeting itself. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have this meeting next week, when we at least will know whether annexation has made it through the legislature or not?
They’ve stated repeatedly that they need to issue these bonds to build capacity even in the absence of any annexation. I guess it’d be nice to have that issue settled, if only temporarily, to keep the whole thing from devolving into an annexation Q&A.
Next week is Spring Break, when many families take vacations and would not be able to make the meeting. The cries of conspiracy would be even louder if they had the meeting next week.
Spring Break was when they held a meeting about new proposed start times a few years ago
I think the question about how many students the proposed annexation would bring into the CoD schools is an important question. It would be useful info, but the real question is not how many students are in the annexed areas. The real question is, how many students will there be coming into the less expensive housing market in the newly annexed areas over the next few years. It has been stated that with or without annexation, homeowners should expect higher taxes to pay for the schools. I wonder if the real benefit of annexation to the CoD is a higher borrowing cap, because by increasing the tax digest, regardless of added students, annexation will raise the ceiling of the bond request amount. If that is the goal, it may be a shortsighted view, because it may raise costs to the point where the additional funds and expenses become a wash, at best. The question I am not hearing from those who live in Decatur, is “How can we reduce the costs per student while maintaining the educational standards?” I have watched Decatur implement ‘road-diets’, and ‘parking-diets’, but no ‘spending-diets’. The annexation plans have never been about anything other than an attempt to solve an impending exposure of a financial under funding problem, of which I think the CoD has been reluctant to claim ownership.
Actually I think it is CoD acting shortsightedly. Like you said, they are not thinking through the future change in enrollments to the potentially annexed territory. There is a good chance the number of people in the annexed area will drive that area underwater over time (more cost than revenue), and will really make our overcrowding and high taxes worse, not better.
How many students are there today – potentially could be more revenue than costs but we don’t know.
Again, what’s the problem that needs to be solved and why is this a solution?
We need board members who will press financial accountability on the city manager or from the school board to the superintendent (that part may be why we’re getting a new one)
“Again, what’s the problem that needs to be solved and why is this a solution?”
As has been described here before, the current projections for the city’s *present* boundaries still have enrollment growing significantly enough that new facilities will be needed. But within our existing boundaries are two obstacles to solving that problem: A lack of buildable land and a potential lack of taxpayers willing to pay the tab in the form of higher taxes.
Thus, annexation, as I understand it, is an effort to: gain underutilized land options that can serve facilities construction; and grow our commercial tax base to pay for it without further burdening residential taxpayers.
Obviously it’s challenging with a lot of thoughts on the matter, but that’s the problem that needs to be solved and the present proposed strategy for solving it.
Looks like the Decatur annexation bill is dead for this year.
ajc.com/news/news/local/decatur-annexation-bill-falls-apart-on-next-to-las/nkkSS/