Throwing this question from a previous thread into the spotlight.

Today, we saw a new city commission report on annexation from the City Manager, but no one recalls ever seeing it on the October 20th agenda.

What gives?

UPDATE: Lyn gives us the answer.  Work sessions proceed commission meetings…that’s why the report wasn’t on the agenda.  Future work session notices will be posted online.

Linda Harris writes in to let us know that the first two questions in the city’s new “Open City Hall”forum are now posted online at the city’s website.

This beta public forum will allow residents to voice their opinions directly to the city regarding issues currently being considered by the commission.   You can only post once, so its not really a forum for discussion, but can go back and edit your opinion if you end up changing your mind down the road.  Also, you are required to input your name and address, but have the option of remaining anonymous to site viewers and the city if desired.

The first two questions ask for your stance on annexation and urban farming.   (I might suggest reading through the city manager’s new report of annexation before commenting on the former) Also according to Linda, “The next two questions will be related to transportation and downtown development and the final two will be taxes and greenspace.  We will post them during the next month and leave them up for three months.”

Click here to get right to it!

Sorry for the little hiccup this morning, but apparently my blog-host, WordPress, got “attacked” by something that affected a select few sites…mine included.

I still can’t see my main page, but it seems like most everyone else can.

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.

The AJC just can’t get enough of the idea that Decatur might have used goats to clean up the pathless woodlands area in the cemetery.

They follow up today with a story that refers to goats as “plant-eating hoofers” and reports on Decatur’s early October decision to go with Trees Atlanta’s more traditional methods to get rid of all that kudzu…for now.

InDecatur reported on this back on October 7th, the day after the decision was made…so if you’re looking for timeliness, and less goat-fasination, you might want to stick with us amateurs.