CSD Workgroup Recommends Opposing Proposed Annexation Areas
Decatur Metro | October 24, 2012There’s a new report out by the CSD Annexation Workgroup on the CSD Annexation blog and its extensive. It includes not only the workgroups final three recommendations, which includes opposing the currently proposed annexation areas, but also financial and enrollment evaluations by annexation area
I haven’t had sufficient time to digest this entire report yet, but wanted to give folks the link now, so you can start reading/conversing and not have to wait for my clumsy summary. The workgroup’s own summary notes that CSD is “hampered” by the lack of available space both to renovate existing school buildings or to build another elementary school (on a mandated 6 acres of land) to accommodate new students as result of annexation. They go on to assert that overburdening classrooms will “change the scope and delivery” of the school system’s educational services. And raising the millage rate – since as enrollment rises, state funding is simultaneously declining – threatens to drive some current city residents out of the city.
The workgroup recommends 1) opposing the currently proposed annexation areas, 2) but supporting annexation of partial parcels. And 3) continuing to collaborate with the city on potential annexation areas.
Chime in below with additional observations from the report you deem interesting and/or important. There’s a lot in there.
Latest from Decaturish
Admittedly, there is a lot to digest there, and I haven’t digested it all. But, I see nothing remotely close to a “maybe” in there. Indeed, it’s pretty much a “he** no.” I really hope it can carry the day.
This report seems to quantify and validate many of the fears people have expressed here regarding the impact on the schools.
It seems as though the city needs to decide whether it wants to annex commercial properties exclusively or almost exclusively (with residential there so that there is contiguous land). The CSD report seems to hint that they would support that. If that looks like a ruthless gerymandered land-grab, then the city has to be willing to take the heat for that. Such a move is not unprecedented. Certainly, the annexation of the College Avenue by Decatur and Avondale Estates was an exclusively commercial annexation. I don’t recall much blowback from that decision once it was voted on.
Otherwise, grow organically and find creative ways to engineer the re-development of existing commercial property in the city.
The thing is, I might still be willing to theoretcially support annexation if there were super, gamechanging reasons for taking the short term pain for a long term gain. However, the city leaders have either kept any such motives to themselves or cited nebulous advantages like “gateway” and “responding to interest from adjacent homeowners.” Based on that, it is not even a close call to oppose annexation.
More evidence that the climate of opinion within Decatur is strongly against the current annexation proposals. It’s time for the members of the city commission and Mayor Bill Floyd to publicly come out against the current crop of proposals. If the commission is still seriously entertaining the proposals, it’s going against the feelings of the overwhelming majority of Decatur residents.
If the commission is still seriously entertaining the proposals, it’s going against the feelings of the overwhelming majority of Decatur residents.
That’s my sense too from the comments on this blog and elsewhere. DM–interested in setting up up a “in favor”/”opposed” annexation poll linked to from here (in your copious spare time)? Obviously, on-line polls like these have big limitations, but I’d be curious to see the results, and they might reveal something despite the limitations.
Yeah, but what’s the point? I haven’t read any responses on here that were in favor of annexation. Of course, maybe those people just aren’t speaking up. But I will say this is the first time in my 4 or so years of reading DM that EVERYone on here is in agreement!
+1 Tiptoe, and LOL!
You spoke too soon!
It wouldn’t be DM if some of us didn’t get irritated with others. But I’ve learned a lot from this thread, as I always do when reading DM. Better living through DM!
Did I miss the referendum on this?
This is a good idea. In addition, I suggest to the City that they invest in a more systematic sampling of residents before proceeding. No survey method is perfect but a telephone survey could be done relatively quickly and would tell the City more about the will of the people than just who calls their Commissioners pro or con, who shows up for meetings, or who posts on DM or Patch! The cost seems worth it considering the costs of annexation to CSD, COD, and residents.
Why wait for them to ask us? The email addresses for the mayor and commissioners is on the CoD website A lot of people here very strongly about this, so why not speak up?
Oh, I agree that citizens who feel strongly one way or another should speak up. Squeaky wheels do get the grease but you have to be sure to outsqueak any wheels that turn the opposite way. And that sort of input can be dismissed as being from the opinionated few. Solid population-based data, even if not 100% perfect, can be particularly persuasive. Of course, we could find out that the silent majority is FOR annexation, but at least we would know how city residents really feel.
Wow… annexing a bunch of voters that don’t want to be annexed and ticking off what is probably a large majority of existing voters. That’s no way to be re-elected. When are the next Commission elections?
According to CoD website, the terms of Fred Boykin and Patti Garrett end in 2013. The terms of Bill Floyd, Jim Baskett and Kecia Cunningham end in 2015.
I have a vague memory (well, many vague memories these days…. actually not many vivid ones at all anymore… wait what was I talking about?…..) that the Mayor has said that this is his last term. Of course, even if my cortex has somehow gotten this right the guy could change his mind.
Am I reading the FAQ under the Annexation page on the CoD website correctly? Do only the residents in the proposed annexation area get to vote on whether or not to be annexed? Asked another way, do the current residents of CoD not get to vote in the referendum?
No, and when I mentioned an objection to that before on here in another annexation thread, I got lectured about how we need to trust our elected officials to decide in our best interest.
Looks like, perhaps, you’re referring to me, but that wasn’t at all what I said. I said not voting in the referendum is not the same as not having a voice in the decision. You had a say when you chose your southside commissioners. You can have a say any time you want by calling them, emailing them, or chasing them down in the Village. You can harangue the bejeeze out of them to your heart’s content because their job is to serve you.
The suggestion that casting a referendum vote on annexation carries a larger opportunity for influence than what I just described is just silly.
You can trust ‘em or not trust ‘em as much as you want. That’s the beauty of the system. It works either way.
Scott, it isn’t that I disagree with you, but there is a major flaw in your argument. If the majority of current residents of CoD are opposed to this, and the commissioners proceed anyway, our only recourse is to vote them out after the annexation and after the damage is done. On something this important, we should have a direct say on the matter.
I wonder if there is a possibility of Decaturites recalling the current council if they violated the will of the people on this? Maybe a new council could reverse things before the state proceeded with the next step of annexation?
You can read more about Georgia annexation laws and procedures at this Georgia Municipal Association link: http://www.gmanet.com/Publications.aspx?CNID=19950.
Articles 4 (Annexation by Resolution and Referendum) and 7 (County Objection Procedure) may be of particular interest.
Well, that’s how it felt. And I believe there was someone else who also lectured
“Do only the residents in the proposed annexation area get to vote on whether or not to be annexed? Asked another way, do the current residents of CoD not get to vote in the referendum?”
That’s Georgia state law. If you don’t like it, complain to your state representative. COD is simply following the law.
You’re not, by chance, confusing that with the law that says the commercial properties (in any area) can’t vote, are you? I can’t imagine what law says that some residents (voters) can vote on any single issue that affects them, while other residents (voters) can’t. I do, however, believe that the commission thinks (right or wrong) that it is acting in the best interest of its residents.
Georgia law says that people who live in an area that potentially would be annexed can vote on whether or not they want to be annexed. Commercial property owners do not have the opportunity to vote (witness the recent annexation along College Ave). People who already are in an incorporated area that proposes to annex another, unincorporated, area (i.e. current residents of COD) do not have a direct vote on the annexation issue.
There is one other form of public input that is relevant here: the 2010 Strategic Plan. That plan was the product of considerable public input by a great many residents, myself included. ANd it was, I believe, in some fashion formally adopted by the City Commission, yes?
The Strategic Plan does recommend, as “Task 9B” exploration of “annexation options in partnership with the City Schools of Decatur that expand the property tax base and enhance school operations.” I don’t think anyone would dispute that it is the job of CSD, and not the Commission, to evaluate whether annexation enhances school operations or not. If CSD rejects annexation because it’s determined to be detrimental to the school system, for the Commission then to approve it would be in direct violation of the Strategic Plan that the Decatur public has provided.
That being said, I agree with Scott that at this juncture the most effective way to have an impact is to contact them and show up to meetings. And don’t neglect the School Board meeting next Monday either. The more Decatur residents are seen to be attuned to this, the better.
One thing that hasn’t been brought up in this process is that the DeKalb legislative delegation would have to approve within themselves and then introduce in the state legislature an enabling law. If the delegation doesn’t agree to do that or if the legislature doesn’t pass it, nothing would happen. The City Commission does not have the final say.
This is absolutely true. People in the annexation areas and in the City of Decatur need to contact the DeKalb delegation too.
On the topic of a poll, I cannot imagine why anyone would vote for annexation unless you are in unincorporated Dekalb and want your property annexed so your kids can go to CSD.
If the fiscal analysis fails, and there is not net positive revenue, then what is the benefit of annexation for a current Decatur resident?
The city should stay small and grow from within. If the schools continue to be top shelf, there will be more businesses that want to locate here, which will serve as a catalyst for further redevelopment of the city’s commercial areas generating higher tax revenue. These are likely to be smaller, boutique businesses rather than a major company, but that fits the current identity of the city anyway. If the “scope and delivery” of education at CSD changes, then Decatur could lose its draw and be fiscally unable to reach the goals it has set for itself.
Expanding our commercial tax base through annexation has a clear upside for Decatur, and the city has always been upfront about interest in any such opportunities. Given that so much of our downtown real estate is occupied by county facilities and churches, we can never stop looking under the sofa cushions and thinking of every other way possible to find more money. Characterizing that as “greed” or “land grabbing” is silly, IMO, but whatever.
Annexing odds and ends of residential territory in order to clean up boundary anomalies that complicate life for property owners, and/or provide contiguous boundaries with newly annexed commercial tracts, should always be considered.
I have found much of the anti-annexation rhetoric shrill and quite off-putting. Equally annoying are the proponents who bought outside the city limit and now want in because they “come to Decatur all the time and really feel like a part of the community.” And I’m really steamed by how so many people are perfectly comfortable bulldozing their neighbors into it, even if it means forcing them some of them to leave their neighborhoods. And that is exactly what it will mean for some, just as some people who already live in Decatur are being forced out by the rising cost of living here.
It seems pretty clear that annexing all of the proposed areas would swamp the CSD boats, and I can’t imagine the City Commission would opt to do that, so all of this panic and carrying-on about the Mayor and Commissioners having nefarious motives and secret agendas seems a little silly to me, too. On the other hand, I was glad the Mayor was clear the other night that the Commission has no intention of merely rubber-stamping whatever CSD thinks should be done. The city commission and the school system have different missions and charges — closely intertwined, obviously, and they should be closely aligned. But we need for each branch to do its job diligently and somewhat independently. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, there is more to this city than just the school system.
And speaking of process and structure: I could not disagree more with those who think this issue should be determined by a referendum. Precisely because it is very important, and complex, it should not be reduced to a war of the yard signs. Any one of us has considerably more clout lobbying our commissioners than casting a single vote in a referendum. In any case, the commission’s job is not to divine the will of the majority. Their job is to make decisions that maximize benefit for the community as a whole. As to the suggestion that we might “recall the council if they violate the will of the people,” what is the point of electing representatives if we are going to use the threat of recall to hold them hostage on every decision they make? Anyhow, I’d like to know who would ascertain where “the will of the people” lies, and how they would go about it.
Wow, I do feel better.
Residents’ preferences are of course just one part of the decision making process for elected or appointed officials but it’s an important one. Change goes better if either support and buy-in already exist or they are carefully developed. The City is usually very skillful at doing this.
It’s certainly important for everyone to remember that no one on the commission has yet stated their opinion on annexation publicly (that I know of).
Any argument that hinges on the fact that the commission WANTS annexation is basing their disapproval, rage, etc on an assumption at this point.
Agree. Easy to imagine the clamor that would ensue if the City dismissed the notion without due diligence, given the persistence and resolve of some of those requesting to be annexed.
That’s a very good point. We need to ask them now to state their positions. Publicly.
Why? What do we gain by truncating the schedule and pressing them to decide right now? Bearing in mind that this array of possible annexations does not represent one all-or-nothing, up/down decision, and there are a number of possible outcomes, how do we benefit from forcing the commissioners to rush to judgment? Why would all of us not want to use these next several weeks to lobby them, share information and insights with them we feel are relevant and compelling, do everything we can to make sure they understand and support our viewpoint?
Simple, STG. It’s much more comforting when our elected leaders present knee-jerk, placating positions on issues, rather than take the time to listen to constituents, explore options and conflicting goals, and wait on comprehensive data. Sounds great!
Seriously. While we’ve seen the very well presented student forecasting from CSD (thanks to their task force for that), we haven’t (as far as I know) seen the economic forecasting from the city in terms of how the target commercial areas would be rezoned and what the revenue implications of their redevelopment would be over time. How could anyone have solidified their position yet? Personally, I’d consider it a lapse of leadership if they had.
Besides, there’s a special at Big Lots on pitchforks – I’d hate to buy them for nothing.
I kid – you can always use them in Halloween decorations.
Speaking of which, my daughter was psyched by the creepy guys (she told me the correct character name, but I can’t recall it) on Adair in front of the apartment complex. Looking good, guys!
Another winner from STG. Even when I disagree with you, you always have smart, insightful things to say.
backatcha
Well said!!
I’d have no problem agreeing with you across the board, stg (as I often do), except that in the interest of fairness, the opposition to this particular proposed annexation wouldn’t be nearly as “shrill” (as you put it) if the concentration of residential areas wasn’t so high. If this were a straight-up commercial area annexation (which would be a much more solid financial benefit to the COD), I really doubt there would be much hue & cry inside the City. There’d surely be a little, but nowhere near the full-scale opposition being voiced now.
I’m glad you included those clamouring to get in, because that’s my particular beef with the current annexation being put forth. I’m not against giving children a good education, and I know that having good schools is very important not only to stable/increasing property values, but helps support an overall thriving community. The downside, for people like you & me (households w/o kids) is that we shoulder a significant tax burden for a service that we don’t use (and yes, as I’ve often said on this blog before, I’m quite aware that investing in children’s future helps ensure my Social Security, so forth & so on, but I look at it as a trade-off– I pay now, and they pay later). At some point, as others have already pointed out, the tax burden becomes a bit much to bear. It’s going to get there sooner rather than later, if areas that are purely residential are annexed. Finally, and (to me, the most important factor), there are those of us who see an increasingly homogenized city as a less-than-ideal place to live, who think that our decreasing diversity is NOT a good thing, and don’t want Decatur to lose the character that drew us here. All of these factors are perfectly logical, and reasonable, grounds for objection. Since residents don’t get a vote, they’d bloody well better be “shrill” in their opposition.
I’ve mostly appreciated the stewardship of the City’s management team (including the Commissioners), but that doesn’t mean I’m so comfortable with it that I’m going to blindly trust that they’ll always use their power wisely. I don’t think people are overreacting when they get upset at the prospect of higher taxes for a decrease in the quality of services (whether they be schools or municipal services). To the contrary– I think complacency breeds eventual chaos, and I for one am not willing to pull my forelock and tell the Commission, “Not my will, but thine.”
I feel better now, too!
Hey, Cuba. I think we pretty much agree. You are a more patient person. I don’t think the City has put a big emphasis on residential annexation. I think the visual impression created by the map has created the feeling among some that the City is invested in residential annexation. But the map simply reflects the areas the City agreed to consider, which are driven in turn by the relentless clamor from those who want in. At some point, the City had to sit down and listen to them, consider their requests in good faith, and give them answers. Like you, I have been generally satisfied with the stewardship of our city, and I would be mighty surprised if the commission chose this moment to veer off toward crazy town with a bunch of big residential annexations that come up on the wrong side of any cost-benefit analysis. I wholeheartedly, fervently agree that we all need to communicate our thoughts and opinions to our commissioners. It’s their job to welcome and consider input and it’s our job to provide it. I just think a lot of the opining has been narrowly focused and short-sighted and WAY too quick to start throwing rotten vegetables at the City and the commissioners. All the huffing and puffing is not helping illuminate and articulate the larger, more compelling case against large-scale residential annexation. It’s just clouding the issues and stirring up ill will unnecessarily.
I can dig where you’re coming from, hermana.
I am gravely concerned about the proposed annexation and the financial burden it will place on our city services and school system. As a 13 year resident of Decatur I have seen the lows and the recent highs. Let’s not make a mistake that will cost us in the future.
I have yet to hear any yet to be explanation or report by the City or the Commission members as to why we should move forward with the proposed annexation. In my review it will cost us more than it will generate so why take on a financial burden? It seems as though the city would be better served by annexing commercial properties exclusively or including residential near those properties so that there is contiguous land. This makes more sense.
Threadjack to Amendment One (but it also affects schools)–just heard about this:
Tomorrow night (Thursday)
Informational Forum on Amendment 1
Oakhurst Presbyterian, corner of East Lake and 2nd Ave.
6:30 to 8:30 PM
Sponsored by Organization of DeKalb Educators, Atlantan Building Leadership for Empowerment, and DeKalb NAACP
I’ve sent emails to the City of Decatur commissioners who represent my district, Kecia Cunningham and Patti Garrett, asking them about their positions on annexation. I’ll report here what I learn.
I think it would be great for others to also write their commissioners to ask their position. To find out who represents you on the commission, you can find a map here:
http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2524
If you’re in District 1, your commissioners are Bill Floyd and Fred Boykin. For district 2, your commissioners are Kecia Cunningham and Patti Garrett.
Their email addresses can be found at
http://www.decaturga.com/index.aspx?page=112
You are also represented by Jim Baskett, the At-Large Commissioner.
I also would like to give the City a chance to put together the financial numbers for the advantages of the annexations. Obviously, the mostly residential parcels are a no win for CSD and probably COD. However, the commercial annexations may have a major impact in the long term future on the financials of the city and CSD. Most current residents seem to be focused only on the very near term population issues in CSD. Regardless of the annexation, we are in trouble. The continuing gentrification of southside neighborhoods, the flipping of houses from older families to younger families with children all over the city is not going to stop. Without commercial property to help, CSD is going to have to raise millage anyway. The new 4/5 is too small in one or two years, most of the K-3s need trailers still and it is going to get worse. Our boutique high school is likely to jump to 3A or even 4A in a few years. Get used to classrooms of 25 to 30 children and millage of 25 for CSD. Less than 20% commercial is a bad option for the future. At least COD is looking to the future and trying something. The best CSD can do is react to overcrowding and be the party of no.
thank you!
The last two sentences feel a bit harsh…at the October 9, 2012 meeting, the Board of Education approved a master planner to assist us in our long-term projections. He immediately began his work. We are trying to assume a proactive stance. Additionally, the third recommendation from the Annexation Workgroup is to “Continue to collaborate with the City of Decatur to assess possible annexation areas.” That is more than a “no.”
The jibe is meant to remind CSD and commenters on the blog that this is not just about the here and now of the school system. I do not count out the great job of the annexation work group. They have pointed out that several of the parcels are non starters for both COD and CSD. However, the work group and their opinions on their results are CSD centric (rightfully so as CSD formed the work group). There is more to this city than just CSD. CSD may commandeer 2/3 of the property taxes, but it only really serves 1/4 of the households (other than helping the awesome property values – for which we are all grateful). My comment is intended to remind that it is more important to find ways that both COD and CSD can benefit than to just throw down a gauntlet and chant – NO MORE KIDS, NO MORE KIDS…
In my opinion, the role of CSD in maintaining proprty values moves it into the category of serving all Decatur households. That is a big deal these last few years. Higher property values also helps put money in the City’s coffers, so they are no doubt grateful too.
+1 If it wasn’t for the reasonably-sized, good quality, neighborhood schools in Decatur, the great teachers, and the warm, friendly school community, we’d be long gone out of Georgia. Everytime I’ve looked longingly towards mountains or ocean, my kids have insisted that they are Decatur born, bred, and loyal. Families drawn to the Decatur school environment may be revenue neutral but they definitely helped hold up the property values in Decatur during this past recession. The role of schools and family homeowners in Decatur’s economic/political stability is complex and not trivial.
Jumped to 3A effective this year
Thanks. I knew it was coming – just didn’t know it had already happened. 4A is on the horizon. If 5A happens, one solution would be to have students storm the Callaway building and take the property from the county by force! For the needed expansion.
I encourage everyone with an opinion on this to write or call your commissioner. I emailed mine yesterday and had a response back within a couple hours asking if my note could be forwarded on to Peggy Merriss, who is collecting and reviewing input from residents. I know that DM has wide readership, but don’t let that lull you into thinking that you don’t need to “officially” voice an opinion to your elected representatives.
Thanks for this, as it’s exactly what’s needed for reasoned consideration and discourse among the commission once a formal proposal is scheduled for a vote. We’re still all free to don our tinfoil hats and ponder the scope of their secret conspiracy hellbent on bankrupting the town, but this works a lot better.
Tin Foil Hat Festival?
There’s a festival for that…
I’ve heard back from commissioners Cunningham and Garrett. They say they haven’t formed a position yet.
They also said that Peggy Merriss, the city manager, is keeping a careful tally of emails for and against annexation. If you have an opinion, and I know most everyone here at DM does, send emails to your commissioners and to her.
Again, to find out who represents you on the commission, you can find a map here:
http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2524
If you’re in District 1, your commissioners are Bill Floyd and Fred Boykin. For district 2, your commissioners are Kecia Cunningham and Patti Garrett.
Their email addresses can be found at
http://www.decaturga.com/index.aspx?page=112
As smg notes, above, Jim Baskett is the at large commissioner, and an email to him would also not be remiss.
Can someone tell me why the City of Decatur doesn’t share in the sales tax (like other cities do) generated in the City and whether this can be changed? I’m clueless on this issue, but it would seem to me that the City does deserve some of the sales tax from those who shop in the City, including me. I live just outside the City in Area B-1, and I have a serious problem being dragged into paying more property taxes after 20 years because folks barely 20 years old chose the wrong property to buy. I’d have no problem, however, in paying any (or even extra) sales tax when I shop in the City.
I am subject to an expert chiming in here, but I don’t think Decatur is treated any differently from any other City in DeKalb or Georgia as regards this issue. As a matter of fact, Decatur does get direct sales tax revenue from the education SPLOST. And, with the recent Georgia Supreme Court ruling, Decatur now does get its share of the HOST sales tax revenue. You might want to contact Andrea Arnold at the City to get a definitive statement.