While we’ve been spending much of our time in recent days participating in 6-word play, many of the Decatur City Commission candidates have been laying out platforms, asking questions and proposing solutions on their own candidacy blogs. With the election fast approaching, and a much-anticipated online debate just a week away, I think it’s high time we took a closer look at some of the issues being addressed by the candidates, don’t you?  Thus begins the series…

On October 3rd, First District candidate James Radford addressed the recent large-scale annexation attempt by the city on his blog and stated…

There were problems with the way the commission dealt with the annexation issue this past term. Namely, the failure to adequately evaluate the impact that annexation will have on our school system.

Radford goes on to detail the issues discovered within the financial impact calculations of the city’s annexation report and the subsequent report by CSD in response to these exposed issues.  Out of this series of events, he concluded…

It is critical that the school board be deeply involved in any large-scale annexation decision. They must be given a BINDING VOTE on any large-scale annexations. That is the only way to ensure that the impact on the schools is the number one priority. As Commissioner, I will recognize that the City’s business and CSD’s business are, in many regards, one and the same. Especially on the issue of annexation, there must be very close communication, and nothing should be done that will weaken our schools.

Due to unforeseen circumstances, the school board has had to move it’s special session to discuss the potential DeVry annexation until Thursday.  I assume it will be at the same time and place: 630p @ Westchester.

I’ve also confirmed that I was incorrect to insinuate in the previous post that the Superintendent was ready to support the annexation.  Just add it to the list of times I’ve been tripped up by legalese.

Thanks to Judd for the tip and to Asst. Superintendent Thomas Van Soelen for confirming.

As the mayor has noted on multiple occasions in the past, the city of Decatur long looked at annexation as one of the only ways of decreasing the property tax burden on residents.  By bringing more commercial property inside the city limits, the city and commission hoped to bring down the 85% of city revenue currently shouldered by residential property owners.

However, annexation was never seriously considered by the city until this past year.  And its subsequent failure, due in part to inaccurate estimates of student costs and a struggling economy has colored all future conversations on the topic.

With the recent announcement that DeVry University has requested to have it’s massive, old DeKalb Industrial campus annexed into the city, many of the old concerns about additional burdens on the city bubbled to the surface again.  Specifically, concerning the cost of students and the over-crowding of schools.

But do all of the same concerns about student costs and over-crowding of schools still apply?  The short answer from the city, who actively pursued DeVry to seek annexation, is “No.”

According to city planner Amanda Thompson, even if a developer wanted to shun the new mixed-use zoning laid upon the district and simply build a bunch of single-detached townhomes (the most family-friendly thing allowed by zoning), the city wouldn’t allow it.

DeVry has expressed in their application that they want to build a mixed use development and that is the intent laid out in this zoning district. The city’s development department would not accept a single use site plan for the property. Could the developer argue with us in court? Yes, but not successfully since DeVry’s application would be part of their conditional approval of the regulating site plan.

So, while not completely outlawed, it seems like the construction of a family-magnet single-family home community is near impossible.  But what about families living in apartments and condos in the new mixed-use district?

Peggy Merriss’ statement to the CSD school board on Tuesday, reported by InDecatur, addresses this concern… Read the rest of this entry »

As I’m sure many of you already know, the city commission voted last night to accept the 11 Midway Road parcels that sought annexation into the city of Decatur (well 10 of 15 voters among those parcels did.)  The AJC’s April Hunt has a summary of the vote that was posted earlier today.

I wasn’t there obviously, so be as skeptical as you’d like about my opinion – pieced together with sealing wax and commissioner saliva – but it seems that the city commission just wasn’t ready to an about-face and start denying annexation requests, even though the note from Peggy Merriss (page 67 of materials for the meeting) indicated that this annexation didn’t really fall under the city’s annexation deferral plan since “it was recommend the City Commission should not accept single or small lot annexation applications that are randomly placed in mid-block areas of adjacent streets that do not support the City’s interest in clarifying city limits.”

I still stand by my earlier metaphor: the hornet’s nest has been kicked.  Look no further than the Superintendent’s striking note to the commission on page 81 of the materials that essentially states “Please deny any further annexations in this area.”  Wow.  Now there’s a difference of positions!

Going forward, I think we can all agree that it wouldn’t be all that prudent for the city to continue to accept annexations while the school system struggles under a bloated school system.  But lord, it would be even worse if we simply started blanketly denying annexations with nothing more than a request from CSD in our hands.

So I resurrect my old call that for the sake of CSD, the city commission needs to figure out where it stands on annexation now, not in 2011.

I wonder how this latest nugget of info will affect the annexation debate.

This paragraph in particular is about as comforting as your 4th Quarter 401k statement…

But given financial challenges that stretch over the forseeable future, [DeKalb Superintendent] Lewis unveiled no major initiatives. Speaking off the cuff as he introduced some of his staff, Lewis said what will likely be DeKalb’s rallying cry going forward: “No matter the challenges, we always seem to rise to the occasion.”

Ummm….Huzzah?

I can’t even begin to imagine the turf war that would break out if/when the county needs to come up with a list of schools to close.

Tonight, the Decatur City Commission will hear a motion (pdf) to defer a vote on annexation until 2011.

While this announcement caught us all off-guard last week, in my opinion, it didn’t come as a total surprise.

Without any solid data on student enrollment figures, the city commission had little choice to defer the motion.  There were many other valid reasons given in the City Manager’s note to the commission on why to wait, and we heard many personal concerns from residents in the annex areas about an increase in taxes and whatnot.  But at the end of the day, the real issue surrounding this yearlong marathon issue was that no one ever provided any revised data that showed the monetary benefits of annexation given the cost of taking on additional students.

The city and all of its residents owe Judd Owen and Pat Herold a hardy “Thanks!” for catching the inconsistencies embedded in Rosser’s student enrollment figures and bringing them to light in a methodical and level-headed way.

CSD Mom sends along a note that details the the current recommendation of the school system’s Reconfiguration Committee.  In a nutshell – regardless of annexation, the CSD should move 4th and 5th graders to Renfroe after building an addition for the 2010-2011 school year.

Here are the details with and without annexation thrown into the mix.

Recommendation offered to the superintendent

After extensive learning, dialogue, and consensus-building, the committee offers the following recommendation:

Without Annexation
Option 12 (new option offered 11.19.08)
Keep current configurations for the 2009-2010 school year, adding any necessary mobile units at Clairemont, Oakhurst, and Winnona Park, in order to prepare for Option 9 Make Glennwood a K3, move 4/5 to a building expansion on the Renfroe campus for the 2010-2011 school year

With Annexation
Option 12
Keep current configurations for the 2009-2010 school year, adding any necessary mobile units at Clairemont, Oakhurst, and Winnona Park, in order to prepare for either Option 9 Make Glennwood a K3, move 4/5 to a building expansion on the Renfroe campus for the 2010-2011 school year, or Option 8 (if Option 9 will not meet annexation needs) Make Glennwood and Westchester K3s, move 4/5 to a building expansion on the Renfroe campus for the 2010-2011 school year

Timeline:

a. Superintendent presents multiple options to Board of Education
for February 10, 2009 meeting
b. Board of Education conducts informational sessions and public
hearings (if needed) end of February
c. Board of Education votes on action item March 10, 2009

UPDATE: Confirming my suspicions that the 450 number isn’t just the 441 births from 2000-07 rounded up to 450, MrFixIt reports in the comments that Rosser’s calculation is more complex than just that..though we do not yet have details.  I guess that’s the danger of posting presentations without the audio to go along with it.  Data is easily misinterpreted.

As a result…the video below is inaccurate and will need to be updated.

Pat Harold created this YouTube video showing the issue many have with Rosser’s 450 new students coming from the proposed annexation area. [h/t: InDecatur]

As shown in the Rosser Report, resident births are only calculated from 2000-2006, which comes out to 441 when all is said and done. As has been stated here by Judd and MrFixIt, the problem is that (obviously!) children attend school for 13 years, not seven. So why is it only calculated for seven years?

Are all children in the annexation area NOT immediately transferred from DeKalb to Decatur Schools? Would it only effect younger kids?

And how does the ‘466′ 17 & under number come into play on page 17 of the report?

There’s a new annexation report from City Manager Peggy Merriss now posted on the city’s website, along with a colorful map.

In the report, our city manager lays out the pros and cons of annexation (with residential/commercial mix and just commercial) in detail and states that the commission has to make their decision at the November 17th commission meeting.

Some key takeaways from my first read-through…

• If Decatur does not annex, the city estimates the millage rate will go up between .5 point and 1.5 points assuming “modest” 3% growth in the next two years.
• The city doesn’t need to hold a referendum if the annexation area is over 50% commercial.
• Forrest Hills is much more in favor (3/4 in favor with 50% response rate) of being annexed than Midway Woods (1/2 in favor with 18% response rate)
• The Revenues vs. Expenditures on page 6 are a must-read.  As I read it, the commercial/residential mix provides the city with more excess cash, than just commercial…which seems to go against what many (including myself) originally assumed.

This whole document is a must read for the entire voting public.  Take a look and let’s hear your comments.

Remember the reader that recently asked about putting a Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods in Suburban Plaza? Well, my initial response had been that this plaza wasn’t even within the city limits, so the city commission had little influence on what went in there.

Well folks, that could all change as the city of Decatur thinks about expanding its borders north to N. Decatur Rd. and east along E. College towards the Avondale Estates city limits.

From GoDeKalb….

The Decatur City Commission will receive a staff report at their Jan. 22 meeting concerning possible annexation of approximately a square mile of commercial and residential property.

The city is tentatively looking at extending its northern boundary to North Decatur Road and its eastern boundary to the edge of Avondale Estates. The preliminary annexation plan could include the commercial areas at Sams Crossing and Suburban Plaza, the Forrest Hills residential area and the portion of the Methodist Children’s Home property that sits outside of the city.

Decatur City Manager Peggy Merriss said she did not anticipate the annexation would include DeKalb Medical Center. The annexation could bring 5,000 to 6,000 additional residents to Decatur.

Merriss goes on to say that the city has not “received a petition but there have been inquiries for the potential for annexation,” from residents of these currently unincorporated areas. Like any city annexation vote in the history of mankind, residents of these areas would have to weigh the inevitable property tax increase with the benefit of a more hands-on approach to development, access to Decatur municipal services (free wi-fi for Forrest Hills?) and the city’s school system.

For the city and its current residents the most obvious reason to consider this expansion would be that the city would gain a whole lotta commercial property, which if properly redeveloped, could become a cash cow in the form of property taxes. (I recall Alvin McNeely bringing up this very issue in his failed run for city commissioner-at-large). Most importantly, we could then lay claim to the nation’s very first Waffle House that sits along that portion of E. College.

So, Decatur residents…what do you think about this potential expansion that would increase our city another square mile? Are we ready and willing to redevelop a lot more mid-century commercial development in the form rundown plazas and strip malls?

If not, we might lose E. College to Avondale Estates…

“Avondale Estates Mayor Ed Rieker said in response to Decatur’s efforts, “The board will consider pretty quickly what possibility we might have for annexation. We would be looking mostly at commercial property.”

If approved by the Decatur City Commission and the state General Assembly, residents could be voting on the issue this November.

h/t: InDecatur