Prior to the Decatur City Commission’s discussion and vote last night to hand over the eight remaining Decatur schools to the school system, a resident stood up and asked that the vote be delayed so that – due to the lack of park land in the city’s southeast quadrant – the Commissioners could consider retaining part of Winnona Park Elementary’s field for a city park.

That concern was later acknowledged at the end of the commission’s discussion of the issue, but never really openly considered.  The major concern discussed at last night’s meeting was a single condition in the city/school agreement regarding the potential sale of a school property in the future.  (see #4 on page 20 of last night’s meeting materials)

Commissioner Jim Baskett reiterated many times that he didn’t understand why the city would agree to only receive proceeds from the sale of a school property in the future AFTER debt obligation had been paid off, since the City Commission would have no control over how much debt the School Board decided to take out on a property.

The City Manager pointed out that this agreement was identical to the one created when 5th Avenue was turned over to the school system in late 2009 in order to secure financing for that property’s redevelopment.

Over the next 20 minutes, no other commissioners took up Commissioner Baskett’s position, with both the Mayor and Commissioner Cunningham challenging his assertion.  (Commission Cunningham pointed out that the agreement was similar to action taken in a divorce, where debt is paid off prior to the division of assets.  The Mayor pointed out (I’m paraphrasing here) that the main goal of this agreement was to give the school the land, and not to anticipate land proceeds down the road.  Not to mention that selling off school land couldn’t even be done without compliance by the city commission.)

Many of the silent pauses in the conversation seemed to indicate that while the issue wasn’t entirely cut-and-dry, no one else at the commission table seemed comfortable with delaying a vote based on the assumption that the school board would one day leverage school property “to the hilt” (in Commissioner Baskett’s words) with the explicit intention of keeping land sale proceeds from returning to city coffers.

And then as quickly as the issue was brought up, it was dropped.  (This was shortly after the Mayor pointed out that the condition was actually only expressing “intent” of the current commission and school board, with the City Manager replying that a current commission can’t legally restrict the actions of a future body in such an agreement.)

And it was actually Commissioner Baskett who brought up the motion to adopt the agreement to give CSD control of the eight school properties.

Just another interesting Decatur example of city/school relations, commissioner interaction and the great joys of legal documents!