CSD Annexation Blog: Annexing All Proposed Areas Will Create Space and Money Challenges
Decatur Metro | October 3, 2012As you may have already read in the comments from yesterday’s annexation post, the City Schools of Decatur have just launched an informative annexation blog, which thus far has provided enrollment projections with and without a potential Decatur annexation and the CSD annexation work-group’s detailed report on the effects of a Decatur annexation on the school system.
The stated findings of the report are as follows…
- Annexation accelerates the eventual need for construction (e.g., additional buildings, renovations).
- Annexation causes CSD to need additional revenue.
- False: just removing paying tuition students will alleviate this challenge.
- Annexation causes a cash flow challenge at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year.
After a very detailed analysis, the work-group is projecting that an annexation of all the potential parcels would increase 2014 enrollments by 274 students. By 2018 that number could get as high as 450 new students. To come up with revenue to teach the new students, CSD would either need to cut programs and/or staff or raise the millage rate by 1 point, after the loss in revenue from paying tuition students is accounted for. Additionally, CSD would need time to create a reserve fund in advance to pay all the new teachers at the beginning of the 2014-15 school year, even before taxes are collected from all the new residents. That’s the “cash flow challenge” referenced in item #4.
However, it should be noted that this is an overall estimate of what a complete and total annexation of all the suggested parcels by the city would do to CSD’s enrollment levels. The way the potential annexation areas have been chosen by the city thus far sounds like an “anything and everything” approach. This is fine in the initial phases, but the city will eventually need to open up about what the final areas under consideration for annexation include. All that said, CSD’s base for this analysis may ultimately be too big or too small to lend itself to any fiscal analysis of an annexation’s impact. Let’s hope that we can see both the final CSD and city revenue/expense projections by area in enough time before the city commission is slated to make a decision on this in mid-December.
I like the frank tone of the start of this blog. CSD openly shares that they are a bit nervous about whether an anonymous blog will work for them. “This is City Schools of Decatur’s first tentative foray into blogging. In particular, the anonymity purported by many bloggers and encouraged by some blogs leads CSD to grow nervous about this venture. However, CSD is willing to try with these provisos:….” Kudos for trying something that doesn’t feel completely comfortable but is responsive to community requests for dialog. Muchos kudos!
This is great work by CSD.
So far they have:
1) formed a committee of staff, city employees, regional administrators and community members.
2) developed financial and enrollment forecasts
3) evaluated capital improvement implications (New schools, etc)
4) developed cash flow requirements
5) contemplated the implied increased milage rate
6) established a timetable for public hearings
7) created a blog to inform and engage the public
[I'm sure I'm missing some things]
Way to go CSD.
“All that said, CSD’s base for this analysis may ultimately be too big or too small to lend itself to any fiscal analysis of an annexation’s impact. Let’s hope that we can see both the final CSD and city revenue/expense projections by area in enough time before the city commission is slated to make a decision on this in mid-December.”
Agreed. There should be no reason to rush annexation. As far as I can tell the City Commission driving the timetable. So if we’re provided with a revised area list shortly before Thanksgiving, with a commission vote scheduled in Mid-December, the effect (if not the intention) may be to preclude a full and complete vetting of the impact.
Revisions at Thanksgiving and a vote right before the Christmas break. Why?
I assume the time-table is based on getting it to the State legislature for the Jan 2013 session.
Any idea why the city feels this has to be done by Jan. 2013? Couldn’t they slow down, extend the evaluation period and be ready in Jan. 2014, assuming they choose to proceed with all or part of the annexation? Or, is there some legislation or other concern responsible for this urgency?
I’ll ask the mayor this, along with this whole “all or nothing” directive.
Could be, DM. That consideration needs to be weighed against a rather compressed schedule for public review and input precisely during the holiday season when public review and input is hardest to come by.
The current annexation proposal doesn’t even include the 740 homes in Midway Woods that are under consideration, but not actively mentioned by COD. Peggy Meriss attended their meeting last week. In the limited time she was given she was very thorough, however, her numbers DID NOT include the potential impact of including all 740 homes + the currently proposed annexation. Midway Woods Neighborhood Association is actively petitioning to be included in the Area D, which why the individual residents are signing their own against.
Thanks to folks (586 page views – my own excluded) who have visited http://www.csdecatur.net/annexationblog…not many comments (4) yet. We’d love to hear from you!
Best,
Thomas, representing the Annexation Workgroup
Thanks DM for posting this front and center. It’s probably the most important issue facing our city right now. This data from CSD suggests that those of us who support Decatur schools should strongly oppose residential annexation.
Commercial annexation, on the other hand…might very well prime the budgetary pump for subsequent residential annexations.
I believe CSD’s findings include the commercial properties and the revenues they generate. Even with those commercial properties, the proposed annexation will put a financial strain on the schools (and taxpayers).
Like others before me, I was implying that COD annex, for now at least, only those areas that are predominately commercial. Since my original post, however, I read a comment from the moderator of the new CSD annexation blog that at one of their recent public sessions the Mayor indicated that the city would only consider annexation of all the proposed areas together (“all or nothing” was the given quote) rather than pick and choose a la carte style. I asked why and am awaiting a response. Perhaps someone here can provide greater clarity?
This is a good effort. Obviously, it paints a picture that the impact on the schools will be substantial. It would be more helpful if it included capital costs however, because if the analysis is revenue v. costs, then costs will be understated significantly if new schools must be built. I’m not sure how the middle and high school can more than double students without extremely high capital costs or new schools.
It’s hard to see how additional revenues would justify these costs, not to mention that the quality of education would be diminished with overcrowded schools.
Seems to me that CSD is the golden goose that should be preserved, and the city should focus on raising revenues organically by encouraging redevelopment within the existing city limits that minimizes the enrollment in the schools. I know they are trying to do this, and have only had limited success, but annexation seems like a fiscal disaster and an impatient move that compromises one of the city’s biggest assets.
Amen, Decatur has been patient to build a quality downtown, and it should continue to build the tax base by adding rooftops and offices around the MARTA station. A diverse group of households – empty-nesters, recent graduates, singles/couples and increasingly young families are looking for multi-family housing. Decatur has a great location for those groups. We are taking our attention away from the area that have the best economic benefit and lowest cost – downtown.
Well said, Moderate.
+1
I just really don’t get the rush to annex. Why by December? I thought CoD said a month or so ago that they were just looking exploring the idea of annexation in a very preliminary way – and now we are looking at a vote in two months? There has to be more to this than evening up the borders, responding to resident interest and getting a bigger mix of property types. There has to be factors/influences that are not currently being shared, particularly with regard to annexing residential or non-profit property. I think that things would possibly go better for the annexation proponents if they could explain what the rush is and explain ALL of the motives.
Not everyone likes it, but the truth is that without CSD, City of Decatur would be more like City of Stone Mountain… kind of like CoD was in the 80s… when downtown was pretty much a ghost town. The school system is what draws new residents who buy houses. The school system is why City of Decatur’s property values did not crater along with the rest of the state over the past few years. The cool shops and stores are wonderful and create the unique style that Decatur is famous for, but they attract visitors, not residents. I think the City Commission is playing with fire here, and they need to come up with a better and fuller explanation for why they are doing so.
Maybe I am misunderstanding, but in the comments section of the new blog, the “CSD Moderator” writes that the annexation parcels are only to be considered in an “all or nothing” manner. This contradicts what I have read on this blog thus far. Can someone clarify?
I’m trying to get clarification.
Moderate–great comments above. I agree wholeheartedly.
While we are awaiting clarification about the “all or nothing” approach, my guess is that since some parcels are largely commercial and thus create more revenue, and other parcels are mostly residential and create more expenses (CSD attendance being the primary expense), I think they will either annex all of the parcels or none. The city might be accused of grabbing up only parcels that will bring in more revenue if they choose just the commerical ones, and it will certainly not make fiscal sense to annex just the residential ones.
Meanwhile, I am also very concerned about Midway Woods–Peggy Merris did indeed attend their neighborhood association meeting, and this is a HUGE area that is not even included in the offical “Annexation Discussion.” Most of the residents in that area are in favor of the annexation, while a minority are opposed. Read the comments from Unincorporated Dekalb and check out the Midway Woods Neighborhood Association’s website.
What is this all about? Why is this not included in the map or Annexation Proposal? There are 740 homes here, folks!!!
The one other thing I’ve been meaning to say about this, I think it may be incorrect to assume that the City Manager’s appearance at these surrounding neighborhood events is evidence that the city wants to annex these neighborhoods. It seems like they are just trying to be responsive and help the neighbors consolidate the facts on annexation before making a decision either way.
From a fiscal POV, pure residential annexation is not a good idea for the COD, so the burden of proof is already on the pro-annexation folks to make the case why its fiscally feasible for the city.
There are two questions here. Whether the commission will pick and choose among the several areas; and whether the areas themselves will change–grow or shrink. The second seems somewhat likely, since the City is actively soliciting petitions through early November. Regarding the first, the mayor had said at the August work session that it wasn’t political feasible to pick and choose; but politics is obviously a fluid game. He could change his mind or be overruled by the other commissioners.
OK, so… the question for the mayor is, “Why isn’t it politically feasible to pick and choose?” Will the legislature not approve it? Will DeKalb complain? Will it make us look naughty? I think that the City needs to answer questions like that before they move forward. Those are the kinds of things that are not being shared with the residents/taxpayers. I think we are entitled to answers to questions like this.
I think everyone is misconstruing the Mayor’s comment. He is trying to say that we can’t do a series of annexations over time, in onesie/twosies. The process requires the state legislature and Governor to approve, so we’d have to go back to that well over and over and over. In order to avoid that, the plan is to review all potential annexation areas, decide on which ones make sense, package them into a single plan/proposal, and THEN go through the state government process.
So it’s not that it’s either ALL annexation areas or NONE – it’s that we’re only going to go through this annexation process once. So let’s carefully review the individual areas, forecast the impacts, and make an informed proposal.
That is a fair interpretation of the comment, but I still question whether the commission should attempt to accomplish this by year end. If the annexation map changes, all of the models and studies will have to be updated, and that takes time. How can we make an “informed” proposal or decision if we don’t have all of the available data (or at least time to verify the data that was hastily thrown together in the 11th hour)?
DM, did you get a response as to whether the current timeline can be extended?
I think they are trying to work within a timeline that allows the final proposal to make the state legislature’s deadline for next year. I agree that it may end up being too rushed, in which case we could just take a bit longer and submit in the following year. But in my career experience, there’s no harm in trying and failing to make an aggressive goal or timeline – you make more progress than you otherwise would.
One general comment – there seems to be an automatic cynical/suspicious reaction by many here to the city’s goals or processes. While that reaction is certainly valid when it comes to Federal, State, or DeKalb county governments, I think that our Decatur city government deserves a little bit more benefit of the doubt. As I’ve said often here – our community is right-sized, and our residents have significant levels of oversight and input. The city government simply can’t get away with shenanigans, and so they don’t try.
So my advice is for everyone take a deep breath and hold on for more clarifications.
Thank you so much for this clarification. It makes so much more sense and is in line with what we’ve previously been hearing from the city. If DM can verify this was the mayor’s true statement, I think the moderator of the CSD blog needs to provide immediate clarification.
I also agree with you about the cynical/suspicious reactions here. I really don’t think the city officials would have anything to gain by annexing a whole bunch of areas that would raise our taxes and overcrowd our schools. What would be their motivation???
Yes. I’ll directly quote him so you can get the full scope of what he’s saying regarding that piece…
“The decision will not be rushed. We will make sure that we have the best information available and then decide. It is, however, in nobody’s best interest to drag this out, one way or the other. It is being done openly, we are encouraging participation by all and are doing our best to gage support in the areas under consideration and inside the city. We need complete and reliable information to make the best decision. As of today there is no preconceived opinion as to what should be done. We have had numerous requests for annexation and have had them on hold for over a year in order to study this properly. In my opinion we at least owe thorough study to those asking AND to all of us who live here now, so we don’t make a quick or wrong decision.”
Psst…pass it on. I heard Peggy and the mayor talking that they wanted to annex all of the residential areas of Dekalb (because they felt bad for the kids), destroy our tax base, and then skip town. Then they did that muhahaha laugh, so I know it is an evil scheme they’re perpetrating.
I’m not trying to say that anyone is up to no good. I just think that they haven’t spent the time to give a full explanation… and this is the second time we have been through this so there is less excuse for mediocre communication. I just think the people who are pushing this should step up to the plate and explain and not create an appearance of unwillingness to fully research/communicate by imposing a very tight timetable without explaining why we need to be in such a panic to annex. So far, it seems to me that this hasn’t happened. I don’t think it’s too much to ask… even of our own Commissioners who are … yes… very nice and ethical.
I’m also not thrilled that I find out only through a comment on Decatur Metro that Peggy Merris met with Midway Woods at a public meeting that involved annexing an additional 700 or so houses that aren’t in the current plan.
The motivation to do the annexation quickly may be to preempt the City of DeKalb proposal that has been floated in the past.
Another possibility that I have heard recently is that a few of the commissioners are thinking of not running next time around. Therefore, they want to get this done while they are in office. Pushing it off to 2014 would be after the next election in November 2013.
I agree that the city leaders should be given the benefity of the doubt, and I am willing to hear more information before I make my conclusions. I live here because the city leaders are responsive and seem to “think the way I do.”
That being said, the city leaders have done a poor job explaining the benefits of annexation. The “goals of annexation” on the original power point were very vague and aspirational. In contrast, the cost of annexation are very specific and real. The negatives are filling the vacuum. Moreover, some of the annexation parcels don’t seem a good fit, but instead of the city leaders acting as a gatekeeper and saying “thanks for your inquiry, but sorry”, they seem to be trying to shoehorn some parcels into annexation that do not meet the city’s own stated criteria. This hurts the credibility of the annexation effort and makes people question whether there are unstated motives at work. “Responding to interest” is not a goal of annexation. It is a phone call.
I understand why people are asking questions, and I don’t think it is cynical or suspicious to do so. It is a consequence of a inconsistent communications by the city leaders.
I will keep my mind open and hope for a more complete presentation.
Have any comments gotten through the moderator?
http://decaturannexation.blogspot.com/
1802 page views
14 comments
Hope you decide to participate.
Again, well said Moderate.
Re. the CSD attempt at blogging, it’s too bad they are so worried about anonymous comments. DM and other blogs prove that you can have a thoughtful, honest and respectful conversation about the issues without using your name. There are many legitimate reasons why parents might want to voice their concerns anonymously.
I love your screen name. I can’t stand it that I didn’t think of it first. But does “prima donna” refer to you or to your offspring? I love it either way.
Oh, grazie! Definitely not me.
Seems like the focus is always on CSD. What about consideration of the impact on other city services, such as fire, police, engineering,recreation, and sanitation????