Arriving at 450
Decatur Metro | November 22, 2008 | 11:21 pmUPDATE: 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?
The Rosser calculation is apparently more complex than what they is shown in their presentation so this video needs to be updated a bit. Hopefully we will see an updated video or report soon using what Rosser now says was actually their methodology. My understanding is that the numbers are still much higher than 450, but we will see them soon hopefully.
Pat Harold
Thank you for taking the time to analyze the Rosser Report and putting your findings on video.
And thanks DM for posting it on your blog.
Thanks MrFixIt. I’ve updated the post to reflect this development.
I had a hunch when I finally had the time to go back and take a closer look at the presentation that we were making a big assumption when we took the “441” for the final estimate of new students.
Like everyone else, I look forward to getting details on the methodology…hopefully before Dec. 1st!
The guys who did this video have recalculated using Rosser’s latest claimed methodology (which is different than the methodology shown on Rosser’s presentation – an issue for another day). The Rosser number is still way too low. My expectation is that our YouTube friends will be back with part deux soon.
Now, that being said, the methodology in the video is a perfectly valid way to project population. If you project using live births – you tend to lose some babies as they move out.. but you also gain some toddlers/preschoolers who move in but weren’t “born” in the given census tract so they weren’t counted. Therefore, the video above presents a very plausible outcome.
The video posted was made several days ago to outline some of the issues and questions I have around annexation. Since I made the video I have been involved in a number of very informative, civil and productive meetings with city officials. As a part of this, I have gotten more insight into how Rosser came up with its numbers. I hope to have a video update with in the next day or two.
The feedback we have gotten about our questions suggests some technical differences in Rosser’s method of calculating their 450 – 500 estimate. However when taking this into account, the current annexation map and working through the math; it would seem the low end estimate for new students as a result of annexation is still 900 or more.
I’ll try to get an updated video on these points, but the net economic effect to the schools suggested in the video is basically the same.
Thanks Patrick. Appreciated.
Since I’m only hearing little pieces of info secondhand, I’m trying to overly cautious in my “reporting”…making sure that if something isn’t entirely accurate that it is so noted.
Okay. Now that I’ve seen some important defects in Rosser’s projections and methodology, I looked again at their May 2008 presenation (download available at CSD site). First, i notice that from 1997-2007 CSD enrollment has declined 12.5%, though moving back up in the last couple of years. Hmmm. I keep hearing about the massive crisis the schools are facing — only to get worse unless something radical is done (read “annexation”), and so forth. Turn to projections without annexation (p. 15). Bottom line has City of D live births — presumably hard data — then projected out to 2017. Some variance, but overall pretty flat. Top lines: K & Grade 1, very flat all the way across. No real increase in birth rate or incoming students. BUT: the projection of total students from 2007-17 goes up 24.8 %. How does this work? Where do they get the big increases??
Here’s the upshot from Rosser’s reply. We were wrong in thinking that they based their projections on the methodology that, to our eyes (as well as many others we showed it to), their May presentation indicated. Their methodology we think still undercounts, insofar as it doesn’t take into account people moving in, but it’s logical, straightforward, and arrives at what we think is a more plausible (low end) number than 450, especially when we update it by taking into account the latest version of the map (which they didn’t have, no fault of theirs). Based on the data from their reply and taking into account the new map, we arrive at a minimum of 911 new students from the annexed areas for 2010 and 971 for 2011 (the new would-be start date for students after annexation).
If the percentage of students per resident approaches what’s now in the city, the high-end is over 1300 (based on 2000 census numbers). There seems now to be a consensus around these numbers among the people we’ve talked to. Needless to say, since we spend $9300 per student, these new numbers profoundly affect the financial projections and the decision about annexation needs to be now based on the new numbers.
Let me add that everyone we have talked to in the admin offices of the schools have been extremely responsive and conscientious. We can be very proud of the folks running CSD.
P.S. That’s $9300 per student annually — not including capital expenses, which CSD estimates at $220,000 per classroom. That’s to provide facilities for 900-1300 new students. The cost of the proposed annexation is enormous.
We’ve had a lot of admirable folks doing diligent number crunching to determine student impacts and, as Judd says, the cost could very well be enormous. But enormous costs are not really a problem, so long as they are more than offset by other means. So here’s the question:
Is there equally intensive number crunching going on to determine the tax income projections for the commercial land? Obviously, especially in Area 3, if that land became regulated by a Decatur zoning overlay — as well as better services and schools — its value potential would presumably increase over time. Much of the “Green Zone” is ripe for redevelopment. Are there citizens working with the city on these projections as well? How are those numbers shaping up?
Clearly, if the impact is, say, 2 million in new costs but, say, 2.5 million in new revenue that’s a much different story than if those numbers are reversed. Any insights, Judd?
It seems to me that to go to all this hassle (read: $$$$) for everyone involved, the case should be – on its face – REALLY compelling. In my opinion, if we’re REALLY worried about the impact of 25 or 30 children will have on our schools, we shouldn’t be do this. If we’re REALLY doing this for half-a-million dollars in revenue, then we shouldn’t be doing this. Those numbers are simply not compelling, they’re just shoehorns. We need to do a lot better on all sides for this to be really worth doing.
Yeah Scott…here’s the place where I always get stuck in this analysis.
If its so darn expensive to educate these kids, how are any of us affording it now? If we can up the total percentage of commercial within the city limits, don’t we come out on top in the long run regardless of the total % of school age kids in the annexation area 10 years from now? (as long as it doesn’t exceed the % in the current city limits) Or is the cost of additional classroom space so cost prohibitive that we’ll never recoup it before the city goes bankrupt and we have to sell it for parts?
Ultimately, I concur with your point: If we’re going to be aggressive about student projections, shouldn’t we also be aggressive about commercial revenue?
But I agree with Baron too. If this is going to be done, the estimates shouldn’t be off at all. If nothing else, its bad PR.
We asked the City Manager if the revenue numbers were solid, and she said yes: They are straightforward from the tax digest and recent. Now maybe there’s some scenario about how those numbers will go up with future develpment in 5, 10, 15, 20 years. So if the argument is we’ll take a massive budget hit now for the sake of gains in a decade or more, that’s an argument to make. All I know with any confidence is that the cost of annexation is FAR more than has been put forward.
I think we need to look at who owns what in the proposed annexation parcels.
I think this would answer a lot of questions.
Perhaps some folks think it would be easier to get future projects done if it was under the aegis of City of Dec as opposed to Dekalb county.
Not that I know anything but it’s just a thought.
As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you’ve eliminated the possible the impossible is the only answer.”
Does Scott work for the City?
It doesn’t matter what it costs as long as we can pay for it? A bit simplistic if you ask me. Especially considering the retail areas under consideration.
Sheeez. Talk about a mischaracterization. What I said was that, if annexation results in greater revenue than expenditure, it’s hardly a sky-is-falling scenario, no matter how many students. People are making this discourse solely about schools. Without a doubt they’re a huge component but, at the end of the day, annexation is about solvency and the potential for tax relief.
Maybe there’ll be a boatload more students than projected right now. What I asked was, if that proves true, are the costs still offset by projected revenues or will we have a colossal mess on our hands? How can that be determined without looking at both sides of the balance sheet?
I haven’t made up my mind yet because the conversation hasn’t yet gotten around to a thoughtful examination of both pros and cons. There’s got to be more than a few non-Dark Overlord conspiracy buff citizens who’d welcome the info.
I personally would rather pay higher taxes and have a better school system. The influx of 1000 more students into our system would change its whole character, and not for the better, and I vote no on that.
It’s not a conspiracy it’s business. Everybody is looking out for their own interests.
Understanding that allows you to think the unthinkable. Following the money is usually a good way to understand otherwise inexplicable things.
Like why Rosser would undersell the problems that might arise from annexation.
Politics is like magic. Get people to focus on something else while you pull the rabbit out of the hat. A really good politician taught me that. Put schools in a political equation and that’s all people see.
Take a step back and look at the big picture. You’re right schools are only part of the picture.
Annexation may be the best thing since sliced bread for Decatur I don’t know. But at this point I don’t think our esteemed city gov does either.
I wouldn’t bet the cities future on the Rosser study would you?
Top Five Yucky/Non-Decaturish Things About the Annexation:
The fact that the company that is doing the project management for CSD (Rosser) is even allowed to do the demographic study at all is problematic.
Soooo… do any Commissioners own property in the potential annexation areas…? I’ll leave that for y’all to figure out.
OK… getting away from schools… who here thinks that TWO additional police officers are enough to patrol all of the annexation areas? That’s the plan folks. Our friends at City Hall are going to hire 2 officers for more than 7800 citizens, knowing that they are expected to solve the crime problems in Midway and Forrest Hills.
The folks in the annexation areas don’t realize that they aren’t going to like CSD much after the annexation. They don’t see that it won’t even resemble the school system they see now. The City is using CSD to lure folks in knowing that it will be overwhelmed, underfunded and overcrowded when they are done.
Plus… although it’s perfectly legal.. I find it a bit sleazy to be using the southern annexation areas to force the northern areas in. Some folks in the northern areas find it a bit sleazy too…., but they feel powerless.
However,… there are lots of things out there that are legal but sleazy. Not very Decaturish if you ask me. But no one has asked me.
Mr. FixIt – you stated “I find it a bit sleazy to be using the southern annexation areas to force the northern areas “, can you explain. I’m trying to get up to speed on this issue and would like to understand what exactly is going on. The lack of anything “formal” in the way of communication from the City is very disturbing. This annexation will have a dramatic impact on what Decatur looks like in 2 year and it seems that the City’s leaders are too silent on this matter.
Well, sleazy is actually too strong of a word. It’s totally legal and I currently know of no unsavory or illegal business dealings.
I guess unfair or unjust is the better word. Non-Decaturish is also a good word.
MrFixIt…you’re slipping into conspiracy theory again. If you have evidence of uncouth motives by the city or the commission, put it out there and we’ll judge for ourselves.
And if your really that concerned about police, perhaps you’d like to help the city find qualified candidates to fill the numerous open positions currently on the force.
My Bad Mr. FixIT. I should have left off “sleazy” in my question – sorry. What do you mean by “using the southern annexation areas to force the northern areas”? Are they not independent of each other in opting in or out (assuming the City decides to go that way)? How does the Southern area “force” the Northern area to consider themselves for annexation that they might not have otherwise considered? Why do you think the City wants the Southern areas, especially given what appears to be a very uneven Residential vs. Commercial ratio?
Sorry for all the questions.
The amount of short/ long term Decatur Development to match the immediate school growth/costs of a large scale annexation simply does not exist. Period. There is only 1 one again/ off again project (the Trinity Development of various names and owners) in Decatur’s immediate future and that’s not in the annexation zone.
*Decatur can’t force the hand of current property owners who are sitting on underdeveloped sites currently w/in the City’s limits (Selig site @ Commerce & Church & the empty Oakhurt strip mall), so how can anyone expect them to impose their will on underdeveloped, newly annexed sites.
*The Avondale LCI project has still not left the drawing board.
* In the areas to be potentially annexed there are no significant short term development plans. So that means no immediate increase in revenue. In fact, the sites on E. Ponce that have been recently developed (Progressive Site, Enterprise Site, Loft Offices that housed the Obama office) are all positioned for moderate (5 year) to long term (6+ year) holds. So again I ask, where is the development going to come from in the newly annexed sites.
* Won’t the City have to give up some tax incentives in order to “lure” development in the City, so how can you generate revenue when you have to give tax-related perks to potential developers.
* As for the Southern Annexation scenario being used to force a Northern Annexation – he/she is referring to the city adding all of the residential properties (Southern Annexation) to the discussion in order to do 2 things: 1) Appease the folks in Forrest Hills who have always clamored for annexation despite the fact that the City never wanted to do it; and 2) Create an either/or analysis and influence the folks in the City to embrace the Northern annexation (primarily commercial) over the Southern annexation (primarily residential). The City kills 3 birds with one stone: more potential revenue, less services, bye-bye Forrest Hills forever.
* Cartel Properties owns several sites at that Ponce/DeKalb Industrial intersection. And Chuck Bosserman has at least 1holding over there as well.
I agree with the killing of two birds theory but the “Less services” bird will get bigger and hungrier if anything is annexed.