Decatur’s School Property Title Ownership Saga
Decatur Metro | October 5, 2009 | 12:29 pmThe City Schools of Decatur often prides itself on the many things that make it stand out from other Atlanta and Georgia school systems; charter status, teacher retention, a nationally renowned walk/bike-to-school program, just to name a few.
But there’s at least one unique characteristic that the school system wished it could shake – it’s quite possibly the only school system in the state of Georgia that doesn’t hold the title of it’s own buildings.
As Assistant Superintendent Thomas Van Soelen notes, “Although there may be others, we don’t know of any other Georgia school districts that do not own title to land. CSD built the buildings, maintains the property (inside and out), but cannot take advantage of opportunities that owning title offers.”
So, who owns the property?
You’ll have to look across town to City Hall for the answer. Yep, the city holds all school titles. Why? City Manager Peggy Merriss explains…
“The City Schools of Decatur were formed as part of the charter of the City of Decatur and do not have a charter separate from the City….the Superintendent was appointed by the Board of Education, the Board was appointed by the City Commission and the City Commission actually approved the School System budget.” This setup gave the city control of school property “so that an appointed board could not acquire or dispose of property without elected body oversight.”
All of that was fine and dandy up until about 15 years ago when Georgia added a state constitutional amendment that required that all school boards across the state be elected and all superintendents be appointed. This statewide legislation turned the school board, which was once just an arm of Decatur’s city government into a relatively separate functioning body overnight.
However, many of the old structures of government have remained in place, among them school property title ownership. And over the years, CSD has struggled with this awkward ownership set-up. Van Soelen notes “CSD does not have its own Bond rating on Wall Street. Instead, we collaborate with the city in order to acquire needed capital. Even a recent example, the College Heights Early Childhood Learning Center, required an extensive process with the city in order to work with the Patillo Foundation (Early Learning Property Management). The city needed to lease us the land in order to arrange for the financial agreements with Patillo.”
So while this process has been functional in the past, with two elected boards making decisions, at times it hasn’t been all that efficient. And that is how the upcoming renovation of 5th Avenue Elementary has brought this complicated relationship to a head.
With Decatur’s student enrollment on the rise, and the approved school reconfiguration hinged on a reopened and renovated 5th Avenue Elementary by the 2011-2012 school year, CSD’s administration and school board are more anxious than ever to acquire school property titles with hopes of speeding up the process.
Back in early September, the Superintendent sent a letter to the Mayor asking about renewing talks about CSD acquiring school titles, in the midst of the 5th Avenue renovation. The city has responded and during tonight’s city commission meeting will discuss and vote on whether it should take a first step in rectifying this issue by transferring the 5th Avenue’s property over to the Board of Education.
However, there looks to be at least one condition the city will include if they decide to transfer the deed.
While keeping the city commission in control of school property has meant a lot more red tape for all parties over the years, it has allowed the city a final say on school development projects that have an inevitable effect on the city’s overall development pattern. So, in order to retain a voice in the development of school property, the city manager has requested that the city commission approve a zoning change from “residential” to “institutional” for the property, which would “allow the Planning Commission and City Commission in the future to hold public hearings and make recommendations and decisions about any changes to the development footprint.”
So tonight may be the night when CSD finally begins to see some resolution on this long-standing issue. But don’t think that everything will be resolved after a vote tonight. While the future ownership of 5th Avenue Elementary may be decided, the Superintendent and school board have been very upfront about wanting to acquire titles for ALL school property.
5th Avenue may be just a first step toward that ultimate goal.
Related Posts:
-
April 16, 2015 Decatur School Board to Ask for $75 Million Bond (1)
-
April 16, 2015 School Board Approves Tuition Increase for College Heights “Birth to Age 3” Program (70)
-
April 21, 2015 City Commission and School Board To Hold Work Session Next Monday To Discuss $75M Bond (0)
I’m glad the city is taking an active interest in maintaining development oversight. Our School Board’s focus and expertise is education, not community planning and development. They should never be the final say in how land is used or how school infrastructure is integrated with surrounding neighborhoods. They’re too myopic — rightly so — in their priorities.
However, there’s another reason the city may want to keep things the way they currently are — more effective sharing of resources. Decatur taxpayers just dropped a wad on a new performing arts center (among other things), something that should be fully integrated and fully available as a community resource. When school systems have complete control over their facilities, they’re notoriously difficult in making such community use easy and flexible.
Making it as easy as possible for the greater community to better utilize the facilities they’re paying for is how we get the greatest value out of our considerable tax dollars. Autonomous ownership by CSD is not in the best interest of such results.
I tend to agree and think that there’s room for CSD, excellent as it is, to be more cognizant of community taxpayer needs when it comes to fields, buildings, and space in general. Traditionally, it hasn’t shared its space much although becoming a charter system will hopefully shift its perspective some. For example, I hate to mention the “W” word but there’s a gym, cafeteria, field, playground equipment, and who knows what else at Westchester that are hardly used now and I’ve wondered if Decatur Rec or other city organizations could use the space for anything. Maybe not, but it seems like a waste to have it just sit there. Same with Fifth Avenue all these years. Sharing facilities more might be an adjustment for CSD but they still could have locked offices and storage and it might be beneficial for them to bump into community activities more. I know there’s liability issues with having the community in school buildings but couldn’t the city agree to take those on for activities that are outside CSD’s scope? And I understand CSD’s reluctance to keep up grounds that aren’t being used by students but again, if the city could use the space, they could pay for its upkeep.
I’m not real savvy about city and CSD dynamics but it feels like maybe they are a check and balance on each other. If one is embarking on a plan without seeming to consider all the ramifications, the other speaks up–e.g. annexation, e.g. bus parking at Fifth Avenue, e.g. land use issues and neighborhoods.
I’m not real savvy about city and CSD dynamics but it feels like maybe they are a check and balance on each other. If one is embarking on a plan without seeming to consider all the ramifications, the other speaks up–e.g. annexation, e.g. bus parking at Fifth Avenue, e.g. land use issues and neighborhoods.
That is true, Snowflake, but right now the City has all of the power in the situation – they hold title to the property, they can annex if they wanted to without “approval” from the school board, they approve the budget, etc. I don’t think that the City has necessarily abused the power advantage that it has, but there is no question it does have one.
I think it is fair that the school board, as an independent, elected body, have at the very least title to its own buildings, with reasonable restrictions, of course.
Sounds like the balance part of “checks and balances” could be better calibrated. Nonetheless, I like the idea of some “check” on the School Board. It’s similar, if not completely analagous, to the federal government having the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to check and balance one another. I’ll bet some Decatur residents trust the city government more and some trust the School Board more.
Scott, do you think that the commission could add a condition addressing this issue?
That’s a good question, DM. I’m not sure how they could, though it wouldn’t surprise me if Peggy came up with something. Essentially, resource sharing is something that works when the school system has the necessary incentives and motivation (for example, a childless taxpayer base seeing personal value in their high taxes and are therefore not staging some over-the-top revolt…) and the city has the necessary leverage (i.e. control) to make it happen.
I’d liken any city-issued “recommendations for resource sharing” to the design “guidelines” we used to have for downtown, that assumed voluntarily compliance in the interest of playing nice. Then Selig came along to do the CVS development and basically said, “Show me the law that says I have to do it your way,” then ended up building — for the most part — the strip mall they wanted to build, with a couple gimmes to the city thrown in.
Now our downtown development guidelines have the force of actual authority and that’s why they work. I can’t imagine the school board would put a lot of energy into sharing resources unless they had to. After all, it’s complicated and requires addressing issues like scheduling logistics, security and liability, which would require time and energy to get going. Given the relative contentment of our taxpayer base right now, why would they do it unless they were required to? I hope someone from the city can chime in. This is a really wonky issue (though you made it infinitely clearer with your post…).
You’re not kidding it’s wonky. I started asking questions weeks ago and when I started receiving responses, I was like “Oh man, what have I gotten myself into.” Glad the post helped clear some things up though. I especially thought the background that Peggy gave was important to understanding the current state of things.
It will be interesting to see whether any of the commissioners take up your particular issue this evening. If not, then I guess we’ll have to wait until they consider a DHS property title transition, for the very reason you mentioned.
However, you may be underestimating CSD’s willingness. Another piece of the city commission meeting tonight is providing $73,400 to Lord Cultural Resources to create an Arts Master Plan. Among the partners, City Schools of Decatur for the explicit reason that they “have just completed a 500-seat auditorium /performing arts venue.”
What I kind of find funny about this debate is that the school buildings today, whose title is held by the City, are not particularly assissible to the City at large. If the Schools held title, why does anyone think they would become less assessible? If they remained in the City’s hands, what would magically happen that would make them more assissible when they have been in the City’s hands all the while.
If title is transferred, they may actually become more assessible, since the Schools have complete ownership of them, and may feel a public duty to open the doors for all taxpayers to use. Whereas before, what incentive did they have to open them up for more public useage since they didn’t really own them? The City may have held title, but they really didn’t care about using the buildings.
I think that getting rid of the status quo would actually help the situation.
Pete — No one thinks they’ll become less accessible. The issue is how to make them more accessible.
Until now, there’s never been a compelling enough reason to make them accessible to the greater community, and no one was demanding it. Our facilities were either outdated or times were flush and no one was thinking about maximizing overall community value. Both of these have since changed.
So, if the community begins to demand increased access and utilization, the question is how to best facilitate it. I can tell you, CSD would have no incentive to go to the trouble unless some larger authority controlling the property required it. Thinking CSD would feel a “duty” is wishful thinking. It never pans out that way.
That’s right, DM, and it reinforces my point: CSD is not driving the Cultural Arts Master Planning process. The city is. And that’s the way it should be. Retaining control of CSD property is just an implementation tactic (and a good one) towards this, and other, goals (green space/recreation goals, for example).
I can tell you, CSD would have no incentive to go to the trouble unless some larger authority controlling the property required it. Thinking CSD would feel a “duty” is wishful thinking. It never pans out that way.
I think your a just flat out wrong on this one Scott. Having title of the schools being held in the City’s name is sort of like the schools being a tenant and having an absentee landlord.
Scott: Are you opposed to the proposal Peggy is putting before the Commission tonight? I don’t feel very attuned to the nuances here, but it seems like a reasonable compromise (or part of a compromise).
Both branches of our local government can be myopic when it comes to development. Particularly when there are over-crowded schools, development greatly affects both, though in ways each is best suited to assess for itself.
Thanks for the great explainer on this issue. I had only a vague idea about this arraignment or its ramifications.
I hope the resolution proceeds cautiously though. Currently, I see close cooperation and communication between CSD and Decatur regarding annexation and school development projects. I like the fact that both bodies consult and consider each other’s needs before moving on an issue. I don’t think this would happen (as much) if CSD had title to the properties. It’s cumbersome and perhaps accidental, but I think it’s part of Decatur’s unique success in the area.
See my previous comments, Judd. As best I can tell from DM’s write-up, Peggy is suggesting transfer of ownership with the city retaining oversight on development/build-out issues. That oversight is something I support, but I’d prefer the city retain title in order to accomplish it.
I can, and have, detailed a variety of possible additional advantages to the community by retaining the current set-up. In DM’s write-up, the Assistant Superintendent refers to CSD “taking advantage of opportunities that owning title offers” but doesn’t say what those opportunities are.
Maybe someone from CSD could spell out the benefits to we the taxpayers. But until they can, all I see is verifiable taxpayer advantages in the current set up vs. speculative desires on the part of CSD. Why would I or anyone want to support that?
The reason stated by Thomas in DM’s write-up, and by Peggy and Valarie in the supporting materials to this evening’s meeting, have to do with facilitating the financing for the renovation. I’m guessing this decision wasn’t made in isolation.
Judd,
Disclaimer: I’m running for the District 1a School Board seat. So take my post with however many grains of salt you wish.
I am concerned that the CSD may be obligating itself and the City Commission by extension to financial obilgations for the the next 25 years without voter approval. After all, SPLOST III is already allocated out to Sept. 2012 before considering the $10 million in financing be asked for 5th Avenue and Renfroe ($8 million and $2 million respectively). So any actions committed today will potentially commit us to SPLOST IV and on. -Before voters approve it. If Dekalb voters fail to approve SPLOST IV-VIII we find ourselves in a situation where the mill rate must be raised and programs and services cut.
I’m concerned that the same enrollment projections which show that primary grade overcrowding will continue for several years, also predicts overcrowding in the middle and high school around 2014. I fear that we may be committing ourselves to a solution today which is not flexible enough to deal with overcrowding at Renfroe and DHS tomorrow. The end affect being, that we may be looking at yet another reconfiguration in 5 years time.
If the city gives title to the CSD, it will facilitate the financing required to build capacity back up after our recent reconfiguration which precipitated the current overcrowding problem. A solution which will facilitate a solution to the current problem while maintaining a layer of oversight sounds good. Though I must admit I am not intimately familiar with the nuances of the proposed solution.
The track record of community sharing of facilities in the past appears to have been one in which Decatur Parks and Rec (Active Living) has provided space for the schools. I think making the CSD work through the City to finance debt may involve additional delay, effort, and time. But the additional dialog required and implicit checks and balances may be worth it.
Garrett
—
Garrett Goebel
[email protected]
http://DecaturForGarrett.org
678.561.0027
Oh, boy. The dreaded student projections. They are central to many issues. I know you’ve looked at this a lot, Garrett. I don’t know exactly what methods CSD used for their current projections. I think the enrollment for this year was lower than projected, but of course that means very little in the long term.
In any case, what you’re talking about is organic growth of the city, which is an awful lot to handle. And that underscores just how vital it is for CSD to be an active participant in planning decisions, which involves the question adding artificial growth on top of that. We wouldn’t want the City myopically planning without awareness of how they were impacting the schools. (That was for you, Scott.)
What’s wrong with each entity contributing based on their expertise and role in the community? Perhaps you’ve failed to notice my multiple posts today advocating collaborative decision making when it comes to school-related development and use decisions.
To be honest, you’re the last person I expected to be arguing against the city and CSD working — or being forced to work — together. I thought that was your thing.
What did I write that implied what you say I’m arguing? I said that CSD should take an active role in planning, because it greatly impacts them. That’s collaboration, no?
Hmmm. I don’t recall saying anything about decisions in isolation.
Thanks for the info but if that’s the crux of the reason, and the example provided was something successfully dealt with in the context of the current relationship, it hardly seems like compelling rationale for wholesale change. I stand by what I’ve been saying: a deal where the city — and we the taxpayer — give up more than we get back is not a good deal.
I agree with Ridgelandistan. The current situation necessitates greater collaboration between entities and that’s ultimately in our best interest.
How do you facilitate collaboration when one party (the City) holds all of the keys (literally)? They hold all of the power in the relationship. You can only have collaboration when all parties are equal.
The Schools should hold title to school property without hand holding from the City Commission. They are an independent, elected board that we entrust with over 2/3rds of our tax dollars. If you have problems with any of the members, then express yourself at the polls. But to say that the City somehow manages School property better than the schools themselves is an very strange argument.
Judd — If you agree with collaboration, then why the aggressive tone towards my posts? The school board’s expertise is education; the city commission’s is running a city. All I’ve said all day is that we should leverage each’s expertise based on the situation to the fullest advantage of the community. Each can and should provide insights to the other, but ultimately each should hold responsibility for what they do best.
I don’t want the city dictating curriculum and I don’t want the school board practicing land use. Do you? If so, please argue the case.
Pete — The city doesn’t manage the school’s property. The schools build and manage their own operations. Not sure what you’re referring to, but it’s nothing I’m saying.
Scott,
Normally I think you’re a pretty smart commenter on this blog, but on this issue you are not making a lot of sense.
The school board practicing land use? How does holding title to their own buildings practicing land use? The City still dictates the zoning of a particular piece of property and has other regulations as to what you can and can’t to with a piece of property. Am I practicing land use because I hold title of my own property? Doesn’t make any sense.
Yet, if the school board doesn’t hold title to its buildings, then ultimately it is the City who makes the final decision on how the school board can use the property. It is one-sided relationship and power grab by the City. To their credit, it looks like the City finally recognizes this and are trying to change the inequity.
I think your real issue, Scott, is that you have no confidence in the school board. That is an issue you should take up at the ballot box, not an issue that should tie the hands of this and future school boards on how to use school property and finance improvements.
Even though it’s moot at this point, Pete (thanks for the update, Garrett), I do want to try to clarify where I’m coming from. Quite the contrary to the impression you got, I’m a big supporter of our school board. I also trust and respect our current Commission. My take is that each of these groups have specific strengths and that, when you get down to the level of decisions on particular issues, the determination of who makes the final call should fall towards the relevant expertise.
Just as the city shouldn’t be making the call as it relates to curriculum, school personnel, special programs and other aspects of education, I don’t think the school board should be making the final call on growth issues. That doesn’t mean they don’t do their own facilities planning; it simply means there’s a level of oversight from elected officials with greater expertise and responsibility for related community issues outside the purview of the school system. Checks and balances, that’s all.
The other issue is shared community use. I think here we simply disagree over CSD’s potential willingness to co-operate. I’m not skeptical because of some issue I have with our own leadership but, rather, because in a professional capacity I’ve seen it play out that way in countless communities nationwide. Schools have enough on their plates without having to manage such logistics. In the absence of either an inside champion of the idea (which I don’t believe we have) or some external incentives or requirements, they just don’t go down that road.
Of course, with the news, we now know the city will retain final call on growth decisions and that, in my book, is a good thing. On the other point, maybe your faith in CSD’s willingness to take on the challenges of increased community access will prove well placed. I hope so.
Sorry, Scott. I wasn’t meaning to be aggressive in my posts. Funny, I thought you were being a bit touchy. Let’s e-shake and get past it. An inherent disadvantage of the written word versus the spoken word. I’m just unclear as to what specific dangers might lie ahead if CSD gets title to 5th Ave or the other schools, especially with the various provisos attached to it, such as the rezoning. ANd I guess, I agree with Pete that getting title doesn’t equal “practicing land use” or usurping some authority of the City. But on this, I’m open to being persuaded that there’s more at stake. I really don’t have strong opinion.
On the other hand, CSD does have a stake in planning in a way that the City doesn’t have stake in curriculum. A very big stake, as the question of annexation has made very plain. And unless CSD is at the table in some form or other, I haven’t seen much evidence that the City does a good job of considering the impact of its planning on CSD, if it considers it at all. Now as you might say, that’s not their job to assess the impact on CSD. It’s CSD’s job. But they need to be in on the process — collaborating — to do their job.
Fair ’nuff, Judd. And no argument about CSD’s critical voice in annexation considerations, which you know I support. In this case, though, I’ve been speaking to specific design and admin issues at the level of particular school parcels. Hope it didn’t come across that I was painting everything with the same brush.
Okay, enough on all that. On to the next dust up!
It passed unanimously.
Ha!
The resolution was unanimously approved by the city commission.
In addition to authorizing Mayor Floyd to execute a quit claim deed giving 5th Avenue to CSD, there will be a revisionary clause which will revert the property to the City if it stops being used for educational purposes. If the property is sold, proceeds will be split between City and Board. The City getting the land valuation and the Board proceeds from buildings and improvements. Finally, the land will likely be re-zoned as Institutional. This will give the City some oversight when plans are put forth which would change the footprint of schools.
So the path is now clear to finance 5th Avenue construction.
So the divorce is final.
That’s great for CSD. I suppose they have a freer hand at raising funds for capital projects now.
Conversely the city has a freer hand in annexation, zoning and development density. (i.e. allow more kid friendly residences. ) Over time won’t this tend to usurp the already sketchy school projections that CSD relies on for those same capital projects?
I’m not sure it’s a confidence issue but a recognition that the members of the City Council and City Administration, who often come from business and/or community planning/policy backgrounds, tend have a different kind of expertise than who choose to run for School Board or take CSD leadership positions, who often have educational, professional (law, health,research, etc.) and/or consulting backgrounds. The City tends to be more in touch with community needs and CSD tends to be more in touch with student, teacher, and school needs. My gut instinct is to go with checks and balances vs concentration of power in a small group with a narrow, defined perspective. I realize that this unusual arrangement might make things slower at times but it also might cause more open discussion, valuable feedback, buy-in, acceptance, and trust once decisions are made that affect the whole community. If the issue is that things are too slow or there’s too much red tape, well then let’s work on the process to make it more timely. But if what’s really wanted is less review by the community, I don’t think Decatur residents want that.
Is there a reason why the city and CSD cannot hold title jointly?
Using enrollment numbers from the Georgia OSA site for total enrollment and then subtracting Renfroe enrollment and Decatur High School enrollment, I don’t see the increase in elementary school enrollment. If enrollment is down this year as mentioned above, it seems to be a bouncing up and down. Am I doing something incorrect?
2001-2002 1179 K-5 students
2002-2003 1202 K-5 students
2003-2004 1049 K-5 students
2004-2005 1070 K-5 students
2005-2006 1081 K-5 students
2006-2007 1097 K-5 students
2007-2008 1201 K-5 students
If these numbers are correct, and I’m not sure I’d trust OSA numbers but don’t whose numbers are better, it’s really hard to understand why anyone, especially expensive consultants, thought enrollment was declining back during the 2003-2004 reconfiguration discussions. Evidently, projections of declines and rises in student population are not easy. That argues in favor of flexible configurations that can be easily changed from year to year. We certainly haven’t had that with Glennwood.
Foodie, I got different numbers using the DOE Office of Technology Services… the ones who process the twice yearly FTE counts done by each district. FTE is measured twice yearly, in October and March. I used the March numbers. Here is the OTS website.
http://app.doe.k12.ga.us/ows-bin/owa/fte_pack_ethnicsex.entry_form
Those K-5 numbers are as follows. (I did this quickly and didn’t double check my math, so forgive me if I made a computation error somewhere. Also, don’t tell my kids that I didn’t check my work!) 😉
2001-2002 1154
2002-2003 1074
2003-2004 1039
2004-2005 1048
2005-2006 1080
2006-2007 1124
2007-2008 1222
2008-2009 1347
Thanks Mr. Fixit – That is a good site. Using those numbers and creating a 11 -year span, I still see the same bouncing. I guess after living through a Sky is Falling issue about declining enrollment which cost many $$$$$, I don’t see why we are going through a Sky is Falling issue about increasing enrollment which is also going to cost many $$$$$.
There are enrollment bubbles. Deal with that in any long term plans. Don’t plan for permanent decreased or increased enrollment.
1998- 1999 1303
1999-2000 1287
2000-2001 1217
2001-2002 1154
2002-2003 1074
2003-2004 1039
2004-2005 1048
2005-2006 1080
2006-2007 1124
2007-2008 1222
2008-2009 1347
And don’t forget to look directly at your 2-4 year old population in Decatur because there’s a big clue there about what’s happening next. Don’t buy into consultant projections based on local hospitals because the automobile era allows Decatur Moms to deliver all over Atlanta depending on their hospital and Ob practice preferences.