James Radford Calls For Giving CSD “Binding Vote” Regarding Large-Scale Annexation
Decatur Metro | October 15, 2009While 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.
Latest from Decaturish
Granted, the City doesn’t have a great track record in terms of coordinating with the school system about issues and decisions that obviously have substantial impacts on the latter. And I would stipulate that the quality of our school system is an integral part of the quality of life in our community, not to mention an important piece of our individual property values. However, do we really want to enshrine the schools as the be-all, end-all, number-one, trump-everything-else priority in all situations? I’m honestly asking, I don’t know what I think. I need some convincing either way.
I think the only situation being suggested, STG, is large-scale annexations (where clearly potential school impacts — perhaps big ones — exist and must be addressed). I’m not aware of suggestions by any candidate to significantly involve CSD in any of the city’s other operational matters.
I meant to say “in all large-scale annexation situations.” Again, I honestly don’t know (yet) what I think. But something is making my antennae twitch. What if we encounter a situation where some people think a particular annexation would “weaken” the schools, but others make a case that the school system could (and should) adapt? Don’t we want the two governing entities to work together, as opposed to giving one express veto power over the other?
I read Radford’s proposal as an attempt to encourage the two entities to work together and bring more balance to the decision-making process, rather than tilt the balance in CSD’s favor. If, as a matter of policy, the School Board gets a vote, I suspect they’d be brought into the deliberation process much earlier and in greater depth, and the total impact would be better researched than it was last time around.
Well, he’s now got my vote! The last annexation attempt was a mess, and it was so obvious that they were just using the folks in the south side residential areas to force in the northside residential area… which were needed in order to get at much of the commercial up there.
The whole thing smelled gawd-awful and showed a total disregard for northside neighbors or any interest (including schools) that did not revolve around appropriating property to get more tax money.
Hey, and hat’s off to Radford for being, so far as I’m aware, the only candidate that is taking a stand of any sort on large-scale annexation. The proposal last year would have grown the city’s population by almost 50%, and that’s before the mixed-use development that it’s hoped would come in. And the Commission has said it would reconsider the issue in 2011. I can’t think of a bigger issue confronting the city.
OK. I’m willing to do this dance again Judd.
Here’s my issue with inferring that the commission’s consideration of annexation is the biggest issue confronting the city. That view doesn’t zoom out far enough.
We must also ask WHY is the city looking at annexation? It will reply, “because we’re trying to lower the residential property tax.” They aren’t just a bunch of robber barons looking to get in fights with property owners.
The cost of taxes in this city must be a pretty big problem if the city is willing to dive into something as complex and volatile as annexation. And that’s always been my issue with this annexation conversation. Those most concerned about the enrollment impact, aren’t usually concerned about their taxes going up. So now it’s a class struggle. The wealthy Decaturites want to protect their school system, while the less wealthy population wants lower taxes so they don’t have to move out.
I agree that the school system should be involved in this decision, but your further comments about 50% population growth and whatnot, seem to argue against annexation entirely. If that’s the case, then I would like to know your stance on city taxes. Do we need to be providing more relief? And if so, how?
Well first, my simple point is that the idea of growing the city by 50% is a huge deal and the fact that only Radford is talking about it is striking and unfortunate.
But you raise a very good question, DM. Why is the city looking at such a big undertaking? And what we hear is “to lower taxes.” So, would annexation lower taxes? So far as the annexation proposal considered last year is concerned, the answer is no, it would raise them.
The larger portion of our local taxes goes to the schools, so this would be an obviously important place to look first if you want to lower taxes. The city report on annexation had the schools making a slight financial gain to just breaking even — but those numbers were bad. In addition to the notoriously low student count, which led to a low estimate of expenditures, as Radford points out, the calculation was putting 60 kids in a classroom and so greatly underestimating how many new classrooms would be needed. Many other problems to wonkish to bore everyone with here. But when corrected, the slight financial gain for the schools turns into a big loss. That means a tax hike on the larger school side of the tax bill.
So I take issue with your contrast of wealthy Decaturites willing to pay higher taxes to support the schools versus poorer Decaturites wanting to lower taxes. Even setting aside the assumption that there aren’t lower-income people in Decatur precisely for the sake of the schools and wealthy Decaturites who want their taxes lowered (why inject class into this?), if one looks at the OVERALL tax bill, the argument for large-scale annexation looks like a loser.
Now, it’s possible that when the City has said that annexation would lower city taxes, they mean CITY taxes, as distinguished from SCHOOL taxes. Note: Decatur taxes are about 50% higher than in unincorporated DeKalb. Contrary to conventional wisdom, most of that difference does not come from the school side. School taxes are 19% in Decatur, non-school taxes are 185% higher. (You can check my math using the tax calculator at the City’s website.) Now if I were the City, sure, I wouldn’t like the look of that and I’d be looking to lower my half of the tax burden. But as a tax payer, I’m concerned about the overall tax bill.
Add to this that if you ask any homeowner is Decatur: How does the reputation of CSD affect your property value? everyone sees that the schools keep values up, whether you have kids in the system or not. If CSD takes a hit, if property values take a hit, then tax revenue to both City and Schools take a hit. That means either a cut in services or raise in taxes.
Should read “school taxes are 19% higher” …
OK, and now we’re quickly back to where I got stuck with your assertions the first time, so please help me out. (I guess I could have used more wonkiness). The city saw annexation as a valid option to increase tax revenue because it would increase the percentage of commercial vs. residential in the city. Why doesn’t increasing the percentage of total commercial space (which pays for school taxes and overpays for city services) from a meager 15% work?
In terms of class, I was making the observation about PRIORITIES. I’m sorry you take issue with it, but if someone can’t pay their taxes, that’s going to be a higher priority, no matter how much you care about the school system.
I was responding to your statement that annexation was our biggest issue. For many, that’s just not true.
Yes, increasing the percentage of revenue from commercial vs residential would seem to be a gain, especially for the schools, since commercial property doesn’t add any expense to the schools. (Though if we were more financially dependent on revenue from commercial property right now, we’d be hurting more than we are. But in the long term, a gain, I think.) But the proposal for annexation we were asked to consider, and which I assume is what is still on the table, included a whole lot of residential, which came with students, which cost money … as it turns out, much more money that was going to be brought in. It’s just math, pretty simple once you get into it, and the math was upside down.
So part of my point is that the issue is not Schools versus Lower Taxes. Even if all one cared about was the taxes — not the schools and hence property values, or having our officers police the strip club and several new major intersections, or other city staff having to handle a large new population and so forth — just taxes, the proposal was a loser. Maybe not for the city side of the tax ledger (believe it or not, I haven’t looked into that part in detail), but for the overall tax bill.
So, a big ol’ majority commercial annexation might be just the ticket, right? Just not the one that was originally proposed.
And BTW, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if the city brings back that exact same proposal.
My views on annexation can be found here on my campaign site:
http://www.fredboykin.com/annexation.php