There’s a new series of questions on Decatur’s Open City Hall from City Schools of Decatur gauging resident reactions to solutions to deal with Decatur’s rising enrollment levels. Here’s the intro…
In order to gauge the opinion of residents of the City of Decatur, City Schools of Decatur (CSD) is using the city’s online tool, Open City Hall, and asking that you complete this short survey.
Currently CSD is experiencing unprecedented enrollment growth. The School Board and Superintendent have been studying enrollment projections for a number of years. Ten years ago, CSD’s enrollment was approximately 2,200. Today at 4,336 students, enrollment has surpassed the highest previous historic level. By 2020, using low growth estimates, enrollment is slated to be over 6,500. Additional information is available for review on the CSD website at www.csdecatur.net.
And here are the questions being posed…
- Are you aware that, according to Georgia Department of Education guidelines, CSD schools are currently at capacity?
- Would you support $60 million in bond financing that meets 89% of the projected low growth enrollment needs and increases property taxes on a $500,000 home by approximately $545 per year.
- Would you support $75 million in bond financing that meets 93% of the projected low growth enrollment needs and increases property taxes on a $500,000 home by approximately $680 per year?
- Would you support $82 million in bond financing that meets 100% of the projected low growth enrollment needs and increases taxes on a $500,000 home by approximately $744 a year?
- Would you support any of the following alternatives to building new facilities (check all that apply):
- Do you have children enrolled in City Schools of Decatur (CSD)?
- How many years have you lived in the City of Decatur?
- Do you have any other comments about school funding?
Go provide your feedback!
Decatur could have annexed Medlock and gotten an elementary school and plenty of land to build an adjacent middle school plus the old Ford dealership on Lawrenceville Highway for another school when needed. But the city didn’t want ‘those’ people so the chance was lost.
Decatur can go pound sand when LaVista Hills is your northern border.
pure class
So address me instead of the argument. Meanwhile the city is increasingly surrounded. No land, no more schools. Or maybe you can get one of the churches to leave. That’ll be good for the city’s image.
You got outplayed and outfoxed by a bunch of newbies. How does that feel?
Like a rolling stone.
BTW, if you’re going to say that people can “pound sand”, you can probably bet that you’ll likely distract someone from your argument.
Who is the “you” that you are referring to in your comments?
I think you know from reading many, many posts on DM related to this topic that most COD residents felt like they had no power or say in this discussion at all.
Hopefully the CoD and CSD leaders don’t take into account rear-view mirror commentary that frankly doesn’t address the question at all. While I am unclear if you live in the CoD (I take from the implied ‘your northern border’ comment, you may not), I believe the responses that are aggregated should be from Residents of CoD only.
Am I missing something re: ‘Chance is Lost’? Did Medlock get annexed or not? While I see lots of stuff that Medlock/MANA is against, it is unclear to me what it is ‘for’ in 2015/2016. Maybe you can clear that up for us since Decaturites (admittedly, I am one of them) are going to be busy pounding sand.
In addition to the concern over adding roughly 1,400 households to the mix, there was also uncertainty about whether an existing school (in an annexed area) gets conveyed to the new school system. But, as noted, nothing has changed on the annexation front. Couldn’t Decatur still annex Medlock? Even now, if Decatur wanted to annex Medlock, do you think that Medlock residents would turn Decatur down?
I am not sure about pounding sand, but your suggestion that Decatur could have annexed Medlock might be a good middle ground to consider if the city wants to pursue annexation north to get more commercial properties. Some combination of commercial/residential boundary increase and creative development in the existing city seems appropriate. Keeping strong schools and strong community should be the priorities. Not cherry picking OR sand pounding.
I like the part where you accused us all of being bigots. That was awesome.
You know there is still a referendum to go, right? Don’t assume Lavista Hills will exist. There are plenty of NDH residents and others who do not want to be in such a city.
I like the idea presented by several people in Decatur’s Open City that families with kids in the system either lose their homestead exemption or just pay higher school taxes.
+1, love this idea!
Are you aware of the tax savings of the homestead exemption in CoD? It’s flea pee. The exemption makes a nice difference on the county taxes, but the CoD exemption is only about $115. I don’t think that would provide the money you’re thinking it would.
Furthermore, I feel strongly that educating children is everyone’s responsibility. Not just that of those with children in the schools. Do we want a nation of idiots? If not, then we are all responsible for educating the masses. If so, then go ahead and opt out of supporting the schools with your taxes and we’ll see where that gets us all.
I agree with your comments.
Except when my neighbors doth protest to their little kiddos classes getting too big because it will impact their child’s ability to learn, I do get a wee bit pissy that I am being asked to contribute more. I am not willing to subsidize a private school-like education for my neighbors kids. No matter how cute they may be.
Co-sign.
“Flea pee.” That’s funny right there.
I wish they would have provided information regarding borrowing costs- as in interest rates are super low right now, and likely to rise for any future borrowings needed to cover what we don’t fund now. Perhaps borrowing cost info also could be provided on a per 500,000 home value basis, for $20m at 4% and 20m at 5%, 6%, in order to see some costs that may be incurred with a second round of borrowing should residents only support $60m vs $80m. (This wouldn’t include rising costs of building either)
CSD is either asking these questions because 1) they care about our answers or 2) they want it to appear as though they care about our answers even though they already have an idea of what they are going to do.
I hope it is No. 1, but I have bad feeling it may be No. 2. And I unfortunately don’t think they have any answers to the predicament we are going to be in in 2020.
I remember all too well the tree ordinance questions on Open City Hall, and how the vast majority of responses indicated people were opposed to it in its proposed form–but seems the City Commissioners just flat ignored those responses. Makes me feel like this is deja vu all over again (to badly paraphrase Mr. Berra).
Frankly, on the issue of school overcrowding, it doesn’t really matter much what people would “prefer”. There are limited options available. For example, If there simply isn’t room for more trailers, then it doesn’t matter that most people would be against split shifts. There’s no choice.
Double-decker trailers.
If it were #1 they would have started asking these questiona months/years ago. This reeks of another faux feedback charade and an overly simplistic way of settling a disagreement between the super and the board. Remember, the board pushed for the full 82 mil against the advice of the super.
To clarify, it is not really CSD that’s asking the questions, it’s the city government, which are completely different organizations. And as we’ve learned over the past year or two, they almost don’t know each other exist, they are so completely out of touch.
Since COD and the city commisioners have been shown to be completely clueless about the school system and it’s challenges, I don’t see an ulterior motive or preconceived plan on their part. They really have no plan. Whether that’s better or worse than the conspiracy theory option, I don’t know.
Other than the forum used, where is the COD involved? The description seems to clearly state that CSD is asking the questions. Is this a part of some stated effort toward cohesion?
COD is the ultimate entity that will decide what gets put on the ballot (or not)- CSD can’t do that on its own. Both entities are trying to gage citizen support for varying levels of financing. The School Board recommended the $82, but the City Commissioners only have to take that as a recommendation. If the Commissioners don’t see significant support for the $82, they likely won’t put that much on the ballot- they don’t want to put something on the ballot that is likely to fail.
Someone posted an insightful comment a few weeks back that CSD has a pulse of students entering the system now, but it will pass through the school system in 8 – 10 years. After that CSD may have excess capacity relative to demand if new schools are built unless many of the recently arriving families are replaced by other families with young kids. Fernbank elementary is moving out of the Avondale middle school building after the school year. Maybe CSD should lease it.
Not sure how I feel about this idea as many details would have to be worked out, but someone I know who lives in AE thinks AE students should merge with CSD. We have lots of students, and they have school buildings. Of course there is a legal obstacle of AE not having its own school system (and it may not own the school buildings located in AE), but it is an interesting idea. Of course, a simpler solution may be leasing the building – may be a ten year term with several ten year tenant options.
“Of course, a simpler solution may be leasing the building – may be a ten year term with several ten year tenant options.”
Can a system lease a building and house students outside of its geographic jurisdiction?
I thought CSD said at one point leasing space at an APS school (maybe one south of Hosea) was on the table to solve for short term 4/5 academy overflow, so I’m thinking it is likely legal.
Yes
That’s actually a very interesting idea. As they’d say up New England way, the Decatur / Avondale Estates Consolidated School System. We pick up school buildings and a whole lot of commercial redevelopment revenue potential, they get out of DeKalb Schools, and we all manage to keep some sense of walkable or bikeable neighborhood schools.
In that scenario, then, AE would pay AE city taxes, Decatur school taxes, and DeKalb taxes for some services. Hmm…
Once you’re divvying up, does it matter all that much how? AE currently pays AE city taxes and DeKalb service taxes. It’s just another line item. I think people are much more focused on how the lines add up and if they feel they’re getting value for their dollar.
You’re always a thoughtful commenter on this blog so I’m curious about how “picking up some school buildings” would work out. Avondale Elementary’s current population is about 99% non AE residents. Where would those students go? Would you include the Museum School in this strategy and disrupt the education of students from all over AE, Midway Woods, and other neighborhoods? I get that all these city hood efforts are playing hardball and that Decatur needs to adapt some real-politik strategies. I also get that AE might have some real interest in such a proposal. But how much is Decatur willing to dismantle other students’ educations to ensure room for its own?
All good questions, Jake, and can’t say that I have the specific answers. If 99% of the people attending the buildings in question are, as you say, from outside AE, then presumably they’re being bussed. I don’t know that it’s altogether disruptive to take a student being bussed to a school and instead bus them, and all their fellow students, to a different school. That doesn’t seem to be on the level of hardball to me.
Further, something along these lines would shore up local attendance in local school buildings which a lot of people, from educators to smart growthers to health and exercise advocates, are in favor of.
As I said, though, you’ve asked some very detail specific questions that are above the general considerations that makes something potentially interesting as a possibility. I don’t know the answers but, should this be something that demonstrates even a snowball’s chance in hell of being viable, I’ll certainly dig deeper.
It’s just a tough situation; Avondale Elementary could be a school that hundreds of students walk to, but the community has no faith in the school. That’s a complicated topic for another thread; I know that many AE residents truly reached out to the school and tried to get involved over the years. As a Dekalb teacher, it pains me that so many of us have lost trust in the school system. That lack of trust is well earned by the system, don’t get me wrong. When it comes down to it, none of us want our own child to be the test case for whether a school has turned the corner or not. But maybe all of us, COD residents included, need to help publicize the very real progress that many Dekalb schools have made and the many schools that have maintained their excellence through all the nonsense. Some of those convinced that COD is the only alternative if they want to live in- town might be surprised that they have other options that, while not as top-notch as COD, are still very good (and not as crowded!). I’m surprised that a stealth p.r. campaign to rehab Dekalb’s image hasn’t already begun on this blog! Stage some pics of graffiti covered trailers at Renfroe (it can be Latin slogans or something) compared with the palatial campus at Peachtree Middle!
It’s an interesting idea, but I think’s it’s far-fetched, at best. Heck, the conventional, mostly straight-forward process of annexation didn’t really come close to happening here. This would seem to be much more of a lift. But I am curious about the possibility of leasing empty buildings outside of the city limits.
I remember somebody mentioned East Lake elementary on 4th Ave. as a possible place to rent. It’s vacant right now, but probably in decent shape, and only a couple of blocks south of our border.
This really does seem like one of those rare win-win situations. The county would get rental income for a school that is currently unoccupied, and Decatur gets to relieve some of the pressure on the school system in the short and medium term. At the moment annexation is off the table, so why not look into something like this that doesn’t carry so much political ill-will?
That sounds like a great possibility to pursue!
Finding an ‘outside of city limits’ solution is one that merits significant investigation. That being said, I am also guessing that transportation, resourcing and whatever other red-tape might be some significant challenges we will have to overcome.
As a result, seems like we should be investigating that option for our early childhood folks. Find a bigger place, handle more kids and have fewer red-tape/transportation issues since I think early childhood would be treated a little differently regulatory wise…
“Finding an ‘outside of city limits’ solution is one that merits significant investigation. ”
Apparently not one CSD has considered though. It’s not mentioned in the survey.
With the exception of the School of the Arts and Dekalb Co School System file storage , the Avondale High School building is virtually empty. This seems like an opportunity for leasing that is just a stone’s throw from downtown Decatur.
The problem is that we don’t need additional elementary school space, we’ve basically solved the capacity issues there already, and the bulge of students are already in the system in grades K-5 or so.
The middle and high schools just can’t cover the number of students about to come in. I don’t know if 4th Ave elementary can be used as a temporary middle school, but I would guess that it would require some significant investment to suit that age group.
Tee — the information shared in the Informational meeting on 3/31 laid out the following projections. Note that by State DoE standards, we are above max capacity in K-3 by about 300 kids today and at max capacity in the rest of the groups:
2015 Enrollment, 2020 Enrollment (Growth)
K-3 1,663 up to 1,936 (about 16%)
4/5 668 up to 1174 (about 75%)
RMS 932 up to 1735 (about 85%)
DHS 1073 up to 1683 (about 55%)
It does not include College Heights where there are about 315 kids, with 300+ on the wait list
Hey, Brad. Can you clarify the word “standards”? In relation to enrollment, I’ve seen state parameters on class size described as “regulations,” “standards” and “guidelines.”
I’m trying to determine: Are we in violation of something that higher powers could intervene to impose? Or, is class size something left to local discretion with the assumption that state-issued “best practices,” so to speak, will serve as the guide?
Hey Scott – sorry, I don’t know the specifics of the standard, I am quoting from the handout in the meeting.
Scott, here’s a link to the state requirements for classroom sizes. If class sizes are exceeded then state and federal funding is withheld.
https://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/Policy/Documents/Class%20Size%20Information.pdf
The K-3 schools won’t need as many more classrooms each, true, but 4/5 will.
I went to one of the meetings last week and in the handout there is a sheet called “System Wide Space Analysis Summary” which outlines in a low-growth scenario/without annexation how many more classrooms will be needed by 2020 (the classrooms are called IUs–instructional units, I think it stands for):
DHS: needs 31 more IUs by 2020
RMS: needs 54 more
4/5: 24 more needed
K-3s (all 5 combined): 44 more needed
The classrooms predicted are based on GA DOE requirements.
Converting College Heights to an elementary school is an option to get more k-3 classrooms.
For what little it’s worth – the Museum School is not actually in AE.
The 8-10 year bulge is not a sure thing. There are a lot of older Decatur residents who may opt to cash out, need to move to assisted living, or downsize to one of the condos or apartments in the next 10 years- thereby proving more housing stock for families with young kids…
I agree 100 percent. The driver of the school enrollment is obviously the good schools. Why do we expect that to change?
I think CSD with continue to be good, but the surrounding neighborhood schools will become more attractive to upper-middle-class families over the next 10 years due to:
(1) increased gentrification in Kirkwood, East Lake, East Atlanta, Grant Park, and other eastside neighborhoods; and
(2) no space in the charter schools in that area (Drew, ANCS), which means people will either move (and some will) or stay and send their kids to the neighborhood school
The neighborhoods to our west have the advantage of fewer traffic problems, too, if you work closer to downtown.
I never understood the rationale for annexation to solve this problem. It seems that the city needs more revenue to pay for schools, and too many students (driven by high demand for schools).
Increasing taxes takes care of both of these problems. It will raise revenue and reduce demand for housing.
Annexation only takes care of one and potentially makes a new problem with adding new homes.
No one wants their tax bill to increase but there should be ways to shift the tax burden to those that can afford it as some here have discussed.
Several people have also made the case that increased taxes would have the unintended consequence of speeding up development. People without kids would not want to pay over the odds for services they wouldn’t directly benefit from and would move out, and the people who would be willing to pay the higher taxes would have children in the system.
Whatever the ancillary results, pretty much no way taxes are not going up.
Absolutely agree. My only point was that it may not be the magic bullet that’ll solve everything.
why can’t we target the majority of tax increases on households with kids and/ or those who can afford it? Some examples could be (and I have no idea if these are legal):
1. A progressive tax on property value (e.g., a 800k home is taxed at a higher millage rate than a 400k home).
2. A large fee for new construction and/ or teardown.
3. A large fee for using the school system (maybe like a registration fee?).
The other thing that MUST happen is that the City must go through its spending and cut unnecessary items. It just makes me upset every time I go past Beacon Hill to see that fancy new building when we are dealing with this. I mean, why couldn’t the City see this coming and saved a little on that fancy building to spend it on the schools?
” I mean, why couldn’t the City see this coming and saved a little on that fancy building to spend it on the schools?”
Dwelling on things you would have done differently in hindsight doesn’t help.
“or those who can afford it? ”
Aren’t you making unfounded assumptions?
I’m fairly certain your items #1 and #3 are not options Decatur could implement independently (my idea would be to impose additional tax on a square footage basis and require certified measurements of square footage in order to qualify for homestead exemptions, which I also don’t think could be done independently). As for a “large fee” on tear downs, it may be legally possible but would probably invite lawsuits and would be politically unpopular, to say the least. It might also encourage even bigger houses in order to recoup the fee. Instead, perhaps there is a way to legally slow down the permitting process?
It may depend on state law if developers could be charged a school fee. In many states when a new housing development is build the developer gives land for a school. That isn’t possible in Decatur, but a “school impact fee” might be, if it is legal.
A school impact fee seems to make a lot of sense at face value. Of course, it would have worked even better if put in place 10 years ago but ten years ago many folks were still convinced that the school population was declining.
Yeah, probably way too late for such a fee to have much of an impact, unless it’s a very big dollar amount.
Decatur is 85% residential currently. All the annexation proposals have been majority commercial, which should in theory help lessen the burden on the residential properties to pay into the school system. The unresolved issues that keep swirling here are the whole “kids in apartments/condos” that we can’t quantify well enough and the school space issue.
We can all blame each other until the cows come home but really our hand is being unceremoniously forced by two macro issues.
1. 85% residential – I’m not sure who to blame for this. Maybe all the commission members from the 1910s to the 1940s who seem to have brought in all the residential neighborhoods?
2. A good school system – I guess we blame DeKalb and Atlanta for not keeping up?
“The unresolved issues that keep swirling here are the whole “kids in apartments/condos” and the school space issue.”
That may be true for Decatur residents, but since we don’t get a vote on annexation anyway, the real unresolved issue is that Decatur’s annexation plans will have a hard time getting past legislative roadblocks, i.e. the DeKalb delegation.
That’s indeed a roadblock for a potential resolution. I was attempting to lay out the underlying causes of Decatur’s current situation.
Annexation is not intended to solve the school situation. It is entirely about improving the city’s financial footing by increasing the ratio of commercial property. The current ratio of 15% commercial is significantly below benchmarks and creates enough uncertainty about the sustainability of our town that city leaders have an obligation to address it.
One means that the city has used to address this is to foster more commercial development in downtown, which has been occurring over the past 20 years.
Annexation has become a more realistic option recently due to the collapse of Dekalb County’s government, and our city leaders have an obligation to analyze and pursue a path that helps with our commercial tax base.
That’s all that annexation is about. Nothing else.
The school situation will be impacted by annexation and is certainly a consideration, but is not a driver.
Really? I had understood that this was about financing new schools. I guess I was not paying close enough attention.
If that’s true, then I am REALLY against it. Our city is spoiled with riches already. Skyrocketing property values will only help to fill its coffers. Who cares if it’s only 15% commercial; we are doing fine. Why would we risk the jewel of this community (the school system) just to get richer?
“I had understood that this was about financing new schools.”
Schools have to be financed regardless. Some think annexation can prevent tax increases to finance those schools; I’m skeptical of that and would not favor annexation for that reason alone. But I also thought the other goal of annexation was to acquire land for new schools. If school space can be acquired some other way as some have suggested, I’d like to know why that isn’t being considered as an alternative to annexation. I’d also like to know who is actively looking into possible alternatives. If money can be saved by leasing vacant schools outside of city limits rather than building, this revenue-positive taxpayer would be interested in hearing more about that.
One thing I am unclear on, and hope someone with more knowledge on the current situation can help, is there not a way for the city to prevent further expansion? Not letting more condos, more apartments and larger homes? I understand the need for growth and the opportunity for more tax money, but it seems like there is a NET loss as a result of needed a large bond just to accommodate the growth.
Since most of the property where such developments are physically possible are already zoned for such uses, the city is unable to prevent developments that comply with current zoning. So, in order to slow things down, the city would need to enact a moratorium while it re-zones the properties. But, that also is problematic for several reasons – namely, what would you zone them to? What about the rights of the current owners?
Correct, but, ironically, the City tree ordinance is proving to be a hurdle for at least one potential developer, too — even if their development plans “comply with current zoning.” More on that later.
Curious as to why you say “ironically”. IMO, one of the unstated objectives of the tree ordinance was to slow down single-family residential development. Unless you’re talking about commercial…
HDSF. Sorry for the vagueness. An issue in my neighborhood that might eventually have implications city wide. Uniform development code vs. tree ordinance and how they mesh or don’t mesh well.
There are lots of tools that other cities have used to slow growth, and Decatur should consider some. One idea that was floated here a while back was a demolition fee–charging an extra fee for housing renovations that demolish over a certain percentage of the original structure. Other cities have imposed these to slow tear-downs and to set up trust funds to help deal with the side effects of the new housing. In other cities that often means setting up a fund to create affordable housing, but in Decatur that could be a fund to help with school construction.
Request CSD goes back to the k-5 model and dump the ECHLC at College Heights. That would make a difference. Those 15 or so classrooms at CH would really help.
Don’t we have some kind of commitment to the foundation that paid for the CH renovation? There would probably be a financial penalty. I guess at this point all solutions are expensive.
I still miss K-5. No complaints here about the 4/5 Academy but the sense of community was great at K-5s. And two 4/5s make no sense to me.
At the meeting I attended last week Dr. Edwards said that changing College Heights back to an elementary was a possibility. She did imply she would like the early childhood program moved elsewhere, but they’d have to find a space.
I think there was a commitment to the foundation for a certain amount of years, but maybe that is past now.
I have also wondered at the classroom impact at each school if CSD returns to a k-5 model (with and without college heights). It would be nice to have some data to look at to see if one model would be less expensive (in terms of creating classrooms) than the other. I have no doubt CSD can deliver high quality education under either the k-3/4-5 model or the k-5 model.
Dr. Edwards did say they’d considered building on the Winnona Park campus (as in another building, not merely adding more classes to WP) but that the community impact of losing the green space behind WP is prohibitive.
A less impactful green space that could potentially be explored as an option is the 2.29 acre undeveloped parcel owned by Thankful Baptist Church on E. Hill St. off of Candler. It was gifted to the church in 1986. It would be harder than building on a flat lot (slope, lots of trees and a creek) but as church property it hasn’t been taxed so we wouldn’t be losing taxable revenues on the land. Additional land could be added from the back side of the super long residential lots to the north of the church land. There might also be ability for E. hill to connect through to McDonough St.
+ Many. This is a great idea. The property, currently, offers no meaningful value to either the church or the community. Assuming it was the result of collaborative negotiation, included sufficient parking the church could share on Sundays, and paid the church reasonable, fair market value, it would be a win all around. I also love the idea of a 10′ easement corridor behind the two existing homes connecting the two “campuses” (and would hope that easement could be secured financially rather than thru eminent domain). Pull a two story classroom building up to that corner and, together with the Imperial building, we’d have a terrific frame to the street and gateway to the Oakhurst Village.
You know, I just realized you’re talking about a different parcel I’m not even familiar with. To be clear, my comments above refer to Mead and College and involve what would be an Oakhurst Elementary “annex.” Maybe do both our ideas and, voila, we’re done!
I love the idea of an easement connecting your two Oakhurst campuses- that would be great for the kids.
Point from both of our posts- there ARE lots/areas around town that are possibilities for new school buildings. I hope CSD is being as flexible and creative as possible looking at all the potential options.
Agreed. This is where I have a lot of hope for Dr. Edwards’ replacement. I’ve always been a supporter of Dr. Edwards as it relates to what she’s accomplished academically but I’ve found her fairly “programmatic” (via programs rooted in suburban growth models) as it relates to facilities. We need a superintendent recruited from an urban context who’s better suited to the creative use of physical space within those types of constraints (and possibilities).
Nellie – why ‘dump’ Early Childhood Education?
ECLC helps close achievement gaps and prepare the kids for K-12 education and as a result we spend less on them.