A presentation given by the Sizemore Group at a School Board work session last night projects that Decatur’s student enrollment will rise to almost 7,400 without annexation by 2020.
And while many here have worried that annexation could overwhelm the school system with students, the analysis presented to the School Board showed that a large majority of the growth in the next 5 years will come from inside the current city limits, even if student population in the annex areas nearly doubles in the next 5 years.
As such, without annexation the report anticipates CSD having to raise the millage rate a full point to 21.5 mills, and even that wouldn’t cover expenses in the aggressive enrollment projection scenario. By annexing the areas in the City of Decatur’s Master Plan, the school system would anticipate more than 4 million dollars a year for the school system, which would keep it in the black thru 2020. (see slide 18).
As the report presentation puts it, “Enrollment from the area of the City of Decatur drives the NEED for a New School but…Annexation drives WHERE the school should be built.”
With enrollment growth, many have wondered where these children will be taught. The report provides a couple of different options for elementary school education. On the southside of the city, it recommends an addition to Winnona Park Elementary of either 23 or 12 classrooms. With the 12 classroom scenario, College Heights would also need to be converted to a K-3. On the northside of the city, the report recommends building a new K-3 and 4/5 Academy in annexation area “B”, and whether Glennwood was also expanded would determine the size of the new K-3 in the annexation area. All scenarios net out to around $37 million in cost to accommodate at these lower grades.
Renovations to the middle school and high school will cost almost 83 million, resulting in a total cost estimate of around $138 million.
We’ve only shown a selection of slides above so definitely check out the full presentation yourself HERE. Also see Decaturish’s report from the meeting last night.
hold on lemme get my popcorn
One of my favorites asterisks of all time:
“*Does not include Land Cost”
Putting land costs aside, are there parcels of land big enough to build 2 more schools?
It’s an annexation issue and a schools issue, for sure, but this is also a big issue for the size and cost of Decatur’s municipal debt — I’ve lost count how high it has become. Does anyone know how we compare with other cities of our size?
The stakes seem high enough here that I would think an “outside” or second objective review of the assumptions, data, and analyses is in order. The reason that I say “outside” is that I believe that the Sizemore Group has always been the group used by CSD for enrollment projections. I’m still disappointed with the enrollment projections they presented in 2004 that did not identify the groundswell in young families and young children that was already becoming obvious in the community nor that an inflection point was about to occur that would reverse the direction of enrollment change. It would be incredibly unfortunate if there’s unrecognized flaws in these current projections of costs, revenue, and enrollment from annexation. Annexation effects must be harder to predict than simple enrollment within the borders of CSD. I want some really smart and really experienced folks to agree (or not) with the Sizemore predictions. If we go ahead and annex and then find out our projections don’t pan out, can we un-annex areas?
I seem to recall the 2004 projections being done by Rosser, the construction firm handling CSD renovations — though this task was quite likely subbed out. Maybe it was subbed to Sizemore, but I don’t recall hearing their name at the time.
There’s a January 2004 presentation still out there in cyberland that mentions Sizemore as doing the demographic trends and forecasting. See wwwDOTpowershowDOTcom/view1/1c432e-ZDc1Z/CITY_SCHOOLS_OF_DECATUR_Strategic_Planning_Session_Day_One_powerpoint_ppt_presentation. But I think a second opinion, double-check, whatever you want to call it, would be wise even if it wasn’t Sizemore doing the projections. The higher the stakes, the more careful you need to be about how the decision is made. Emotion and group think can bias even smart, well-intentioned folks.
“I’m still disappointed with the enrollment projections they presented in 2004”
In their defense, they could not have predicted the APS cheating scandal or the accreditation problems in DeKalb which, as others have pointed out, certainly played a role.
But the inflection point occurred before those events surfaced. And people on the ground could see it coming–there were babies in strollers in places that had been dominated by seniors for years. But those babies weren’t showing up in the data sources chosen. Another objective opinion or two might have helped.
“Annexation effects must be harder to predict than simple enrollment within the borders of CSD.”
Almost certainly. But they seem to be saying that, without annexation, it’s not possible to absorb the increase in enrollment that will come from within the existing borders. The obvious take-away is that any potential annex must have an existing school that can be acquired or relatively cheaper land that can be bought. But if it’s an existing school, they’d have to annex at least some of the surrounding residential, so how much capacity would that really add?
There are residents in the annexation area being considered who simply cannot afford to pay higher taxes. What happens to them?
They take advantage of the windfall increase in their property value, sell and move to Tucker.
Easy for some, not so easy for others, especially seniors who have been in their homes for decades.
Being forced out of one’s home is tragic.
Government is just another word for things we do together, like force people out of their homes . . .
(rolling eyes)
I believe that the seniors behind us who were recently annexed saw little change (in the order of less than $100) to their yearly tax bill.
I would hope that CoD wouldn’t be out to give people who may not be able to afford the city no option but to move.
I’d think the rate increase would have less of an effect than the increase in assessed value, in most cases. And assessments, according to some here, have been inconsistent and unpredictable.
I agree with your suggestion of a second opinion on the data. This is too big of an issue to just go with it.
I also agree that seniors may have troubles sticking around if the City does not offer tax relief for even current rates, much less increased taxes. We are 10 years behind on doing this and have lost valuable residents from our community.
I wish the City would come up with a creative tax solution for households who do not have, and do not plan to have kids in the school system. My family would gladly stick around and pay my taxes for a “kidless” tax reduction incentive. Maybe a 10-20% discount for not using the school system. That way I am still contributing financially and CSD can count on at least one home not adding to the population.
Interesting idea, but implementing it could be hard. What would happen if the kidless people getting the tax break ended up with a kid, due to an unplanned pregnancy occurred or a becoming a custodian of a child whose parents died? Would they have to pay back taxes or a penalty?
I don’t really care for this idea, even though it would benefit me financially. I don’t have kids, but I was once a kid who went to public schools, and I benefited from them. And hopefully I’ll benefit in the future when today’s kids are productive and supporting my SS and Medicare benefits.
Moreover, to an extent, you do get to pay less taxes if you don’t have kids in school because you buy a smaller place that is taxed less (though I do wish this relationship was more direct). If you don’t buy a smaller place, that’s on you.
Yes, I agree it would probably be hard to put in place. And I have no problem continuing to pay the taxes I do now in order to support a system I do not directly use.
My point is that our community should look for ideas that keep the perpetual revenue positive households here, and entice new ones to move in. If the City raises all of our taxes, I will look hard at moving out. However, if the City does that, but also gives my household a tax break to offset the increase, I am more likely to stick around.
One thing we all tend to do is act like a household with kids being revenue negative is a permanent condition, and that’s a fallacy when taking the long view. I’ve been here a good while and plan to stay so, assuming I stay relatively healthy, Decatur’s gonna get somewhere around a half century out of me. 12 of those years, I’ll have a kid in CSD and be a little on the negative side. But the remaining 35-40 years, I’m tax-positive.
In the end, I’m a financial contributor to the city’s well being, even with the kid. My household will impact CSD for 12 out of maybe 35 or 40 years. Not everyone’s story, obviously, but not a unique one either. Houses have “kids in the system” for the moment, not the duration.
Trudy, unfortunately there’s not all that much that can be done. I don’t know how great of a problem that would be, but I agree that there should at least be an economic hardship grace period for low-income residents newly forced to pay Decatur’s higher taxes.
Reverse mortgages to pay tax bills? 🙂
Are those legit?
Sometimes, but you have to have a substantial amount of equity in the property.
I believe they are legit but expensive as compared to other investments.
Reverse mortgages are legit. You have to go with a reputable bank (yeah, I know) I helped my father do one, huge relief for his monthly expenses.
Having your house value go up so much that you can’t afford the property taxes is a first world problem.
It may be a first world problem but it still is a serious one for seniors who don’t want to leave what they thought was their last home in a community with which they are familiar. It’s not easy for many seniors to move to a new area, especially if it isn’t their choice but because they can’t handle the taxes. The profit they make on selling their home may not mean much at that age if what they really value is staying in their family home.
I get all of that but it’s still a first world problem. And I made that comment because there are a lot of people here who like to make fun of our neighbors for voicing their first wold problems.
Anybody who is elderly can apply for the generous homestead exemptions to minimize the tax impact. I can’t wait to be elderly in Decatur myself.
My understanding is that in Dekalb those exemptions kick in at 60. In Decatur not until 80. So people in their 60s and 70s may already be retired and see a large increase.
It stinks, Trudy. But about all you can do is vote no, and if it passes anyway, sell. Personally, I believe a simple majority is too low a threshold for annexation.
At one condo complex, unit values would have to triple for some to pay their mortgages. There have been only a handful of sales in the last six years – and those sold at less than 1/3 of what the owners paid.
Not trying to be insensitive, but why should that change CoD’s plans? Those individuals either made a poor investment or were greatly impacted by the Great Recession, neither of which CoD had anything to do with. Are you really suggesting that CoD should scrap its plans b/c of a financial hardship on these individuals which will exist whether or not they are annexed?
+1
I suggested nothing. Simply made a statement.
Well, if it’s a large complex, it should at least generate a lot of “No” votes.
Simple solution: Turn CSD into private schools. $15K per year per kid should reduce the demand pretty quickly. Problem immediately solved. Not kidding. For most already here, still beats Dekalb Co or shipping to Paideia/Pius. Democrat wailing and gnashing of teeth can begin now……
Totally! And for those who can’t afford it, maybe they can clean the toilets at the schools or something. OR I hear there’s tons of available space in prisons. Those are free, right?
Wow! It took a lot longer to get attacked than I thought it would. But still…..Privatizing would be a much more equitable way of handling this. You have kids, you pay more. No kids, you pay less. Only seems fair. Think of the benefits: reduced property tax, no need to annex, reduced pressure on the schools, etc. I am sure something creative can be done to grandfather the existing needs based students.
The fact is: if you can afford a $500K house, you can afford to pay for school. As it is now, we have well off families being subsidized by lower income people without kids.
BTW – I, too am being subsidized in CSD. I have met the enemy and he is me.
The reason it took so long is because you might as well have proposed building schools on the moon. Not gonna happen, so not worth attacking.
Yes. And it wasn’t an attack. More of an equally preposterous suggestion. But still, I should have left it alone.
“if you can afford a $500K house, you can afford to pay for school”
That is simply not true. I guess maybe if they lived in a $60k house in a bad hood in SW DeKalb, they might be able to pay for one kid’s private school with the savings. But, unless you expect one to make unrealistic sacrifices, the math doesn’t add up.
And don’t forget about the poor suckers, er, victims, who thought they could “afford” those $500K houses by putting 10% down and paying out over 50% of their after-tax income on the mortgage payments!
So you are saying only the rich should live in Decatur? Or that only the children of the rich deserve an education? Maybe the schools should get a financial statement from each family and tell anyone who makes over a certain amount of money that they will not be able to send their kids to CSD and they can just send their kids to private school. That may solve the overcrowding issue. (Of course that is not a serious suggestion) There are plenty of Decaturites who do not have $500,000 mortgages and who could not afford $15,000 per child tuition. And families with $500,000 houses may be living frugally otherwise so they can afford their mortgage and taxes.
I wouldn’t want to pay all that money for only the 30th ranked school anyway. “Sprawling Johns Creek” has much better rankings.
Exactly! You wouldn’t pay it! You would move. Presto…..no overcrowding, no additional tax, no need to annex.
I am glad we all agree.
The City should provide a breakdown of expected revenue increases from the annexation of each area v. the differential cost of expected services for each area. If they are promoting annexation as a fiscal positive, then that is the relevant data.
Of course, the next analysis should be whether the people who have property to be annexed truly want it in substantial numbers. Poor Trudy. She view her home as a sanctuary, not as a balance sheet investment.
This whole annexation process has been shady on the part of the city. It has the look of being open and collaborative, but it is not. The projections are dubious and the criteria for annexation are not followed. It makes you wonder if there are backroom deals going on between city officials and friends..
I don’t know how you can describe those projections as dubious.
In previous years their projections were inaccurate, as they clearly have pointed out, but they’ve recently come up with a model that seems more accurate. What’s most significant about this is that they’ve refined the model continuously over the years to try to get it right. Seeing into the future and predicting what will happen is not as easy as you would first imagine.
I’m very impressed by the lengths the City and the CSD are going and their overall effort to try to understand, and model, the changes we’re facing.
If the model is excellent, the assumptions sound, and the cost analyses defensible, then they should be easily confirmed by an objective, uninvolved, expert outside audit. Something this big merits some extra homework.
You’d be correct if you could specifically point to a flaw or flaws in the methods, process or model.
But if you can’t, then there’s no point of getting another analysis.
If I knew how to do this, I would have already done it. What I do know, from experience, is that consultants, and other experts, Sizemore in particular, don’t always come up with the best answer. Or the one that best fits your individual needs. That’s why it’s recommended that you get a second opinion before major surgery or cancer treatment. That’s why you shop around and do research before huge purchases. And why you get an inspection or two before committing to a house purchase.
I’ll point to one. The assumption that any annexed areas will have 1/3 less than kids than the rest of the city 6 years from now.
Good. Consider yourself deputized as a consultant.
Now just re-run the projections with that new assumption, and show up at the next meeting prepared to argue why your assumption is a better one to make.
How long have you worked for Sizemore?
Most people here find the figures highly questionable. As citizens, it is our right, no, obligation, to question these things, especially ones that don’t pass the smell test. The city has the obligation to support and justify its agenda to our satisfaction, not the other way around.
Not so fast, my friend. In the Peoples Republic of Decatur, your first duty is to blindly flag wave and sing praises to our benevolent leaders. Do not question any of their decisions or people will tell you to shut up unless you’re willing to run for office yourself!
Thanks for the reminder Corso!
That’s a major argument against annexations – their math for estimating kids in areas seems flawed. When Decatur annexed Parkwood a few months ago they stated there are 8 kids there with only 6 in 4 years. They also went on to say that as things currently stood, kids in the neighborhood would be 10 in 4 years as some would reach school age, but they used 6 for their math. This also did not take into account any of the teardowns that have been happening over the last few years (alluding to DawgFan’s point of 1/3 amount of children).
Re: Parkwood, I personally know one of the handful of Parkwood residents who was on the committee seeking annexation. I kept my mouth shut for a variety of reasons at the time, but although he was one of those touting the whole “we only have 8 school age children” line, he as a 2 year old daughter, and he and his wife aren’t done. I also know that he applied for College Heights the day after the annexation became official.
I drive through Parkwood frequently, and although I admittedly didn’t pay attention prior to their annexation, it seems like a large percentage of that neighborhood has turned over in the last few months.
If you looked at the rest of the presentation, Parkwood was “revenue positive” by a razor thin margin. Had they done the math using 10 kids instead of 6 (the 10 that will actually be there in 4 years, not taking into account anyone moving in or out, or having children) then they’re revenue negative. That’s why I’m especially dubious as to any presentation the city gives us about the math adding up in our favor. The city wanted to annex Parkwood, used the argument that it was revenue positive and changed the numbers and assumptions to support their case.
The numbers on page 8 show that currently Decatur has .52 students per residence. That is expected to climb to .69 students per residence by 2020.
The numbers on page 8 show that Areas A-D currently have .14 students per residence. That is expected to climb to .2 students per residence by 2020.
I feel that the number of students per residence by 2020 in the annexed areas is greatly underestimated. Once those areas are annexed and people start cashing in on their newfound equity so larger homes can be built, the number of kids is going to spike. Assume for a second that in 2020, the number of kids per residence is still has gone up to .35. That’s still over 30% lower than Decatur’s number TODAY. That means ~500 more kids than is projected under these models, or an entire elementary schools worth.
The really frightening scenario is running the numbers based on Areas A-D playing even more catch-up with Decatur’s current student/residence ratio. If Areas A-D match Decatur’s CURRENT ratio by 2020, there is over 1,000 extra kids in the mix.
Thanks for the data-driven response. This is how we need to project the impact of annexation on enrollment. You are correct – annexation will spike our school population, and no one is being realistic enough about this.
Agreed. It simply defies logic to suggest that any annexed area won’t experience a huge spike in the number of school age children per household. Even if those areas doesn’t quiet reach the projected levels within the current boundaries within CoD, I can’t fathom that the annexed areas will have less than 1/3 as many children.
I agree with AHID we need some sort of second opinion on all this. I just can’t feel it’s a good idea to grow bigger to deal with growth. If feels like breaking off more than we can chew, eyes bigger than stomach.
It also seems to me to fundamentally change the kind of town and school system we are. Bigger, spread out, SPRAWLING dare I say….One 4/5, One middle school? Shouldn’t we talk more explicitly about what changes we are likely to face to the overall nature of our city and our schools?
Are we being creative enough? Are we being seduced by the urgency of the land grab? I also believe we are truly underestimating the impact of condos and apartments both within COD and in the proposed annexation….
Putting aside the school enrollment issue, you are right – why are we on this path to annex suburban-styled areas? Our brand is a walkable community with great schools, and annexation diminishes both of these.
I know there’s a land grab going on in DeKalb County right now but we don’t have to play. We are Decatur, we are different.
“Putting aside the school enrollment issue, you are right – why are we on this path to annex suburban-styled areas? Our brand is a walkable community with great schools, and annexation diminishes both of these.”
Glad someone is including this in the debate. To be honest, I don’t want a bunch of car dealerships and a Walmart in Decatur city limits. Of course I recognize the financial benefit such annexation would bring, but I agree that it comes with a price.
I don’t want that type of development either. But that said, as evidenced by our many discussions about Decatur-proper, postal Decatur, Decatur-at-heart, etc., these areas are already a part of our “community” and, frankly, I’m not all that thrilled about being an island in the sprawl. It’s myopic, and plays against larger, more regional interests.
Development pressure ITP will only increase moving forward and, despite certain champions whom I respect, I have very little faith in DeKalb’s ability to muster the political will necessary to change ingrained models and patterns of development. Maybe new cities at our border will have better vision but I’ve yet to hear much of anything indicating what it might be, so I don’t know. Decatur, on the other hand, has both the will and the tools to foster pedestrian-friendly, diverse mixed-use, mixed-type, transit-sensitive development. It’s not my only factor in considering this issue, not by a long shot, but it’s not an inconsequential one either.
Good points. This is such a complicated issue. If I did have a vote on annexation I’m not sure what I’d choose at this point.
I think it’s about size for me – not just what is there. I’d also feel better if I thought Decatur was truly getting right all the mixed use, pedestrian friendly, good street scapeing, green space…long range planning. Not sure I think we are yet. I’ve lived her ten years and it still seems like crossing the tracks as a pedestrian is not pleasant. We have huge new projects underway in the city with a lot of the impact up in the air.
Does it look to anyone like we are being set up for the future merger of Decatur and Avondale Estates, or at least a joint venture on schools? Both cities are like minded on development strategy, and the annexation maps merge to form seamless boundaries.
Decatur is holding off on merging the areas Avondale wants (Farmer’s Market, Rio Circle) even though the businesses in Rio circle want Decatur and reject AE. Avondale has more undeveloped commercial but does not have a good reputation for development, which Decatur has.
Decatur is planning new schools. Avondale has facilities (buildings) but not the critical mass of students.
Seems like Decatur is strong where AE is weak and vice versa.
This was brought up in a previous thread, maybe as a joke, but I really think you’re onto something. My wife and I have been noting for a while that, now that Decatur offers little in the way of incubation space, AE was emerging as our new “funky district.”
I actually think the pairing is weirder in concept than it would be in execution.
” the future merger of Decatur and Avondale Estates, or at least a joint venture on schools? ”
An interesting idea. It’s very difficult politically to create a new school system, but I’m not sure what the rules would be for a merger. Can’t say I’ve ever heard of a city school system merging with a portion of a county system. It wouldn’t be exactly a merger though, would it? It’d be more like an annexation that only affected schools. I’d guess people without children there would strongly object to it.
I completely agree that they are severely underestimating the student population changes but it also might drive down the prices of homes with a larger supply. Sadly, for me, is that all this annexation makes Decatur no longer Decatur. We might as well be sprawling Johns Creek.
Bigger is better, says Sizemore.
Long time lurker, first time poster……this is the first issue in my years of lurking on this site that has compelled me to post….choosing to annex is being presented as a long-term solution to our growing student population, but I would argue its a short term solution that will create a long-term problem. There are really only two long-term outcomes for our city if we move forward with this annexation plan #1 – we continue to have good schools and .69 students per household in the current city limits (pointed out by Eh…bola) will extend to the annexed areas and we have the same problem #2 – our schools “slip” and .69 students per household falls inside the city limits and this solves the problem……….neither of these outcomes are acceptable…….only true solution is higher taxes for the current city limits. Over the years the gap between unincorporated Dekalb and COD taxes has narrowed…..its just the reality if we want to keep our small town in the city…
Judging by the last year I feel that it doesn’t matter what we, the residents, feel or say about annexation. It’s going to happen because the commissioners have drawn a map, worked with surrounding cities and have their mind made up. We need to start shifting our focus on how to solve our current and future school capacity issues and make Decatur an even better place to live.
#1: If we’re putting money into expanding our schools, we should take annexation into the equation and possibly build out over current estimates.
#2: Have someone else other than Dekalb County do home estimates for taxes. They’ve proven to be haphazard appraisers, and this is something Decatur should do for themselves.
Yes, before taxes are raised, the uneven appraisal issue should be addressed and the revenue from currently undervalued property tapped into. Even if it’s not enough, any tax increase would be fair to all.
The City of Decatur probably likes DeKalb County doing the appraisals so that it deflects the blame from itself. Decatur wants revenues, and its citizens pay enormous taxes, so why not have DeKalb County take the heat? I don’t have any knowledge of Decatur pushing for higher appraisals from DeKalb however.
If you look at your tax bill, the portion that DeKalb county gets is about 10%. Decatur gets 85-90%, at least on my bill. I doubt all these appeals, including mine, are really worth the extra couple hundred bucks to DeKalb. For Decatur however, it’s 10X that amount. Makes you wonder.
I also can’t say with any certainty that the cost of Decatur taking over this role will be met with equal and offsetting tax revenue. It just seems that if everyone were on equal footing with their home valuation and tax basis, then as a community we could increase millage rates and it would affect everyone in a fair manner. If we’re going to annex residential, and it is my belief this will definitely happen, how quickly is Dekalb going to get around to raising the new annexed homes’ valuations? We already have confirmed tales of inequity around our small community – homes that were torn down and resold but still have tax valuations of 150K. It is my belief if we had a Decatur-specific tax assessor we wouldn’t have residential or commercial taxes slipping through the cracks. The “need” to annex may be far less than is being reported.
YES THIS! If we were all assessed at true fair market value, the milage rate would actually have to be reduced, at least for the short term, because the city wide tax revenue would go way up. The way it is now, anyone that recently bought a home is assessed close to sales price the following tax year (or at least they are suppose to be, randomly they sometimes are not), and this year a few of us were randomly gouged to fair market value by the assessors. Meanwhile, most others skate at way below fair market value. Those at fair market value are paying more than their fair share.
Decatur, please take over the assessment process and fix this problem! I have a feeling it is just as unfair in the commercial properties.
I’m no expert but am pretty sure that property assessment is a county duty, by state code.
Don’t think so. Decatur used to handle its own assessments.
I could swear that I learned that too at some COD meeting or class, that COD used to do its own assessments.
In response to “me” from GA DOR website:
Property is assessed at the county level by the Board of Tax Assessors. The State Revenue Commissioner is responsible for examining the digests of counties in Georgia in order to determine that property is assessed uniformly and equally between and within the counties. (O.C.G.A. 48-5-340)
I had wondered about that, too.
“#2: Have someone else other than Dekalb County do home estimates for taxes. They’ve proven to be haphazard appraisers, and this is something Decatur should do for themselves.”
Agreed. At least based on anecdotal information, there is quite a bit of property that is undervalued, particularly commercial.
Why is the City of Decatur looking to rob people who did not buy in City of Decatur by Annexation. If the City of Decatur must raise their milage rates, then that is what they should do. The fact that they are having money problems in no way make me want to join up!
Could someone please rob me and hand me tens of thousands of dollars in equity in my house simultaneously. Where can I sign up?
If the millage rate was increased by a full point, how much would our taxes go up? 5%?
That’s what I calculated. Or put another way, $100 per 100k in assessed value.
You can probably guess how I feel about increasing (unnecessary) taxes, but that is a drop in the bucket. If you can afford a $1MM home, you can pay the extra $1k in taxes. If you live in a $300k home, you can probably find $300 (hell, that is just one less visit to Kimball House per year).
And if Scott is right about increased tax revenue from downtown development, it might be less than that.
I can’t believe that, for once, we agree on taxes! On our condo it would be about $150. One less cocktail per month at Leon’s.
That said, the issue doesn’t seem to be the expense so much as finding the space in COD to put all these kids.
Wait. This impacts cocktails? THROW THE BUMS OUT!
See my post on FFAF. We should accept one of the residential annexations petitions and then immediately condemn the property for a school. Win-win.
We could even do it without annexation. Recall that, prior to 1970, Renfroe Middle School was a standard city block of homes, some quite nice.
Yeah, but since everyone outside of CoD is so eager to condemn us for being selfish and not very good neighbors, we couldn’t give them the satisfaction of being right if we condemned homes within our current city limits.
Plus, condemning within our current city limits would reduce the tax base.
And I wasn’t alive in 1970, and have never heard that piece of trivia before now. Thanks for the info.
Regardless of whether or not you’re serious, this is pretty hilarious. This discussion could use a little more hilarity.
I offer my home up for condemnation as long as the city offers market price. But it doesn’t have a sidewalk.
Suggest the city do what homeowners in Decatur have to do when we dont have space to expand out….. Go UP….
Yeah, agreed, wherever they build a new school they need to forget about the suburban model and make it a mid-rise.
“If you can afford a $1MM home, you can pay the extra $1k in taxes”
Actually, would only be half that, if value is assessed at 50%.
So, we are talking about drastically changing our city to avoid property taxes going up an average of $250 (assuming the median home price is still around $500k)? I have generally been against annexation (especially residential), but I am trying to be open-minded about the benefits. However, hard date like this (assuming you and I are correct) is necessary to evaluate. It seems my fear of a 20% increase may be unfounded.
Yeah, I feel like we’re missing something, though. Is that really supposed to scare people into supporting annexation? A couple hundred dollars per year? It seems to me the bigger concern for those of you with children in school should be the schools becoming much more crowded.
But that increase would cover school expansion. Our schools and classroom sizes will be larger – that ship has sailed. We need to make sure we provide sufficient/excellent facilities.
Kind of a shame that the City didn’t look into acquiring space in the glass building before Devry did. Could have been used for high school classes.
Making bad decisions to avoid taxes increasing is not the right idea. I’m recalling that we were given some rebate a few years back?
Taxes go up by how much? How have taxes changed over time – are we under collecting? How much would be gained correcting that impact? What if our current vacant commercial properties were better utilized?
Is this more about the need for money or the need for space for another school?
I don’t want my city to be a place that’s unaffordable, I want a mix of properties. But spreading out across major roadways and including huge swaths of land seems like a reckless short term response to the urgency of the land grab.
Shouldn’t we see more than one alternative presented? Annex or ELSE……doesn’t seem a critical enough review of options.
Where will they build/house the ECLS? Option 2 states it will cost $4.3 to convert College Heights to a K-3, but it is silent about the costs of a new ECLS. So, (1) the omission is intentional b/c they don’t plan to continue to operate an ECLS, (2) the omission is intentional b/c they are trying to reduce sticker shock so they left the costs off or (3) the omission is an oversight. Regardless, I would like to know their plans for the ECLS.
It would not surprise me with the overwhelming projected k-12 numbers and building costs if the school system eliminated ECLS. It was started at a time when enrollment was lower and lots of classroom space was available. I would think the preK and special Ed preschool programs could be incorporated into the k-3s. They may not be able to have as many preK classes though. Head Start would have to find a new location. The day care may be moved somewhere else. It may have to be made smaller or even revert back to teachers kids only.
Would love to see those ugly, abandoned car dealership properties put to good use — schools, perhaps?
You could put a big one on the old Banner Ford lot. Is that part of the proposed annexation? Man would there be some awful traffic though.
My kids went to private schools, so missing out on the CSD benefit, I’ve just sort of considered that paying CoD taxes was a good investment in my property. But I live here mostly because I like it. After 20 years my home’s value has at least tripled.
Those taxes might have cost me, maybe, $20K in excess taxes over all those years (compared to unincorporated DeKalb)? I really don’t know for sure, but it isn’t that much.
If I sold today, I’m probably looking at a 30-fold ROI.
Had I sent my kids to CSD, omg! that ROI would be criminally high.
“But I live here mostly because I like it.”
Which is why there are people, like myself, who live here and have no need for the schools. There are better (ranked) schools out there, but I can’t imagine many people would live somewhere like John’s Creek if they weren’t using the schools.
I couldn’t presume to understand the allure of the suburbs and exurbs. Just never been my cup of tea.
But I’ve had people who work for me who live pretty far out there and seemed to enjoy everything about it enough to tolerate the commute.
Two comments to different points made in this thread.
1) Property assessments are uneven in Decatur. We are in the midst of an appeal based on the arbitrary application of market values. In the beginning of this process, staff in the Assessor’s Office commented that CoD is telling the County they need the revenue so assessments could not be kept at the same valuation as they were during the recession. But in researching our appeal, this increase was not evenly applied to all assessments (excluding new construction or permitted renovations as we were told they are not factors), and anecdotally I heard that some assessments actually went down.
2) In all of the DeKalb cityhood and annexation talk, I’ve not seen or heard anything about the Medline Livable Centers Initiative study that the County is pursuing in the Medlock Rd/N.Decatur Rd/Scott Blvd area https://sites.google.com/site/medlinelcistudy/. A lot of the study area is the same as Decatur’s proposed annexation master plan on the north side of the City. And the Sizemore Group is listed as one of the collaboration team members.
The MLC came up briefly at the City work session this past Monday. You can find the power point on the city website.
Saw this over on Decaturish: w w w.decaturish.com/2014/11/atlanta-schools-will-become-charter-system/
Maybe this will help stem the tide of people flooding into Decatur only for the schools. I hope so, at any rate–I don’t begrudge children a good education, but people who choose to live somewhere primarily for schools don’t really give me the impression that they’re interested in anything else about the overall community. It makes me wonder they’ll actually end up being active in helping to help create a better place to live for everyone…or if they’ll simply perch here till their offspring graduate, then decamp for someplace else. If APS can get its act together, maybe people like this will stay put & help make the schools where they live better, so that we can keep Decatur (mostly) an affordable place to live for the rest of us.
You realize that if you already live in CoD boundaries, you do not have a vote. The only say you have in this annexation is to let your city administration know how you feel. Only the RESIDENTS of the proposed annexation areas can vote. (As an aside, have they really got a handle on the number of children in the apartment complexes in the proposed annexation area? There are at least six, by my rough estimation. Might it not make those apartments more appealing to have them in CSD?)
I actually think merger of Decatur and Avondale that Moderate mentioned would be worth thinking more on. Within the Avondale Estates borders, there are an elementary school, a middle school and a high school currently owned by DeKalb School system. If a city that has its own school system combines with an area that does not, any school buildings go to the city with its own school system.
The simple fact is the projections for student enrollments in the annexed areas is so woefully low that I cannot put much value in any of the conclusions in this proposal.
They put in a high growth, and low growth projection, but did not change their projections in the annexed areas to afford any level of sensitivity analysis….
Legislative precedent shows when a commercial zone is annexed, a large residential area around the zone that serves it has to be annexed as well. Otherwise, there isn’t an legislative appetite to support the annexation.
And regardless of LakeBriarSide, Dekalb isn’t going to easily let CoD take what it wants.
There is going to be a whole lot of residential going along with the Plaza area and Emory Commons if CoD wants it… more than current CoD residents realize. And definitely more than anyone will be comfortable with.
“In all of the DeKalb cityhood and annexation talk, I’ve not seen or heard anything about the Medline Livable Centers Initiative study that the County is pursuing in the Medlock Rd/N.Decatur Rd/Scott Blvd area https://sites.google.com/site/medlinelcistudy/. A lot of the study area is the same as Decatur’s proposed annexation master plan on the north side of the City. And the Sizemore Group is listed as one of the collaboration team members.”
It is not a coincidence that the Medline Livable Centers area is in Decatur’s proposed annexation area!! That area is planned for substantial development and renovation, and Decatur sure knew it. It is also not a coincidence that Sizemore Group is listed. Sizemore knows exactly what the Livable Centers plan has in it…
Yes, a long-range plan with substantial redevelopment opportunity and a significant level of community buy makes the area more attractive for annexation. Why does this come as some sort of surprise? Of course Decatur knows it and of course it’s a factor in why that area is so desirable. It’s not like an LCI initiative is some sort of confidential information.
The whole of the conflict in Decatur’s annexation plan is the, in many ways subjective, determination of whether or not targeted areas are high-value enough to ultimately return more in revenue than they take to serve. The Medline area has the highest potential to achieve this. It would be derelict for Decatur leadership to not at least run the projections.
I have a question: how many of the people posting in these comments actually worked on the Medline study? The meetings and charrettes were well-attended, so it’s possible that the majority did.
I know for sure that many, many of the attendees were from the neighborhoods that are being excluded from the annexation and who will take a big tax hit when they are not in the same municipality.
How many of you worked for two or three years meeting with the developer to make sure the Suburban Plaza property would be developed in a way that would be neighborhood-friendly and would not have a tall above-ground parking deck, and would contain a mix of tenants we could patronize? How many of you drew out green spaces and walking/biking paths that are included in the plan?
How many of you worked with the Fuqua Group to get them not to put high-rise dense residential on the Baptist Church property? How many of you made sure there would be sidewalks and tree cover in these areas?
How many of you worked on the redevelopment of the Clairmont/N Decatur Rd intersection to make sure the buildings did not come all the way to the curb as was originally planned? How many of you made sure there were actually sidewalks on that corner (not in the original plans)?
I can assure you that the people in the neighborhoods that will be taking the tax hit worked on all of these things. All that work, with no benefit for them.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not making any suggestion that it’s fair or right or doesn’t suck. Only that implications of conspiracy or shady dealings are unnecessary in circumstances so blatantly obvious.
There are numerous Decatur neighborhoods that can surely commiserate, where neighbors invested years of effort in community improvement, only to see the appeal of those improvements lead to certain shifts and changes (both economic and cultural) that were neither anticipated nor desired.
In terms of “no benefit,” though, I think that’s only true if you look at it through a very restrictive lens. Let’s say worst case scenario materializes and Decatur annexes the area with little or no surrounding residential. The area then builds out in accordance with the LCI (and believe me, this is miles from being any sort of “given”). Even then, while it’s true that DeKalb County (or whatever city ends up annexing Medlock) will be shorted the property tax revenues, everyone in the area will still reap the livability benefits of better development in walkable proximity — playing out in terms of choice, convenience, recreation, etc.
In trying to be creative and get ahead of potential issues (and yes, I understand it might create some more….including purported dilution of the brand), why not consider going big? How about annexing what was to be Druid Hills Charter cluster? Five elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school, plus Emory University….all of which want out of Dekalb county. Thoughts?
We could annex the Druid Hills Country Club, condemn it, and use it for a gorgeous T-12 (toddler to grade 12) campus. There’s plenty of land there!
“Druid Hills Country Club” — never heard of it…
Emory University has a stated preference for Atlanta.
I’m sure they do but they can’t get there without Atlanta annexing at least two DeKalb elementary schools and probably Druid hills high. I can’t see the other feeder school communities allowing that, by itself, to happen. Now, I could see Atlanta annexing the entire area of what was to be Druid hills charter cluster. I have a feeling that these areas are going to be annexed by some municipality and there is only so much land.
This is my opinion, so don’t take it as fact, but my impression is that Emory/Atlanta/Druid Hills are currently simpatico about annexation. The feeder areas are pissed but it remains to be seen if they have enough clout to stop Emory (my opinion: not likely). Atlanta can’t take all of the Druid Hills Charter Cluster because Avondale Elementary is already in a city. Even if it wasn’t that’s a big geographic area and it doesn’t seem likely Atlanta would stretch that far but I guess we’ll see.
The most likely scenario is in fact that Atlanta will annex the entire Fernbank and Briarvista ES areas, and Emory University. This will pass the gen assembly as it 1) is parsimonious 2) is what the residents of those areas want 3) it is economically feasible 4) there is not a huge commercial grab 5) Atlanta can easily absorb and service this area. Yes it sucks for some Dekalb residents that sent their kids (a long distance) to Druid Hills High, but Dekalb county itself is well positioned to deal with this given that the county has a surplus of school space they can use.
+1 on annexing Druid Hills/Emory
If the annexation cannot support the increase in demand for the school system then it should be scaled back. There should not be any increase in the milegage rates to the Decatur rates who already are paying the second highest taxes in the Atlanta Metro area.