This CSD-moderated blog offers the public to virtually talk about proposed annexation. This blog is governed by the CSD Code of Ethics for Responsible Blogging (see the first post on October 2, 2012).
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Annexation Workgroup Update Presentation to Board of Education
The Annexation Workgroup was asked by Dr. Edwards to offer an update to the Board of Education at their regularly-scheduled monthly meeting on October 9, 2012. Click here to access the presentation.
Thanks for sharing the presentation. When will the recommendation from the work group be available for review. I could not tell by the timeline listed at the end of the presentation.
Is there any initial feedback from the BOE based on the presentation? I am still not seeing how annexation makes sense.
Based on the annexation area shown would the Publix shopping center at the corner of N. Decatur and Clairmont be included? Would the city receive tax money from commercial properties? Why did I think the annexation area being reviewed was the Midway Woods area.
Sorry for all the questions...just trying to make sure I am fully informed. Thanks
Thanks for coming here and asking. Recommendation will go the board on 111312. We hope to have it ready at least by 110112.
Board members were very curious about how annexation impacts long-range enrollment planning for CSD. We were also asked to examine other revenue methodologies (which aligns beautifully with what we told them our next steps are on the last slide).
Publix would be included. Yes - taxes from commercial would go to the city.
Annexation is being talked about in several areas of the city; Midway has possibly had more press than the others.
I am concerned by the undertones to the comment: "consider other revenue projection methodologies".
In my experience when people start angling for using other methodologies or calculations they are simply seeking to fit the data to the outcome they want, in this case annexation.
The current methodology is logical and presents a very clear picture; Annexation of residential zones is a bad idea for Decatur and CSD.
The numbers on slide 9 of the presentation are not showing (nor printing) clearly. Can I assume the upper grid on page 10 is the same as the lower grid on page 9?
I'm a bit confused about the numbering, but here's what I think you are asking. Make sure you are playing the powerpoint as a slide show - critical to understanding slide 8. Slide 8 starts out as enrollment without annexation, then up on a mouse click it turns into enrollment with annexation. Slide 9 offers the last 8 rows of the "with annexation" and "without annexation" slides in aggregate.
Thank you, moderator. Viewing it in slide show mode helps.
I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, so I will state my preference here. It is an emphatic NO to this annexation plan, primarily due to the impact on City Schools of Decatur. The "without annexation" enrollment projections, which average a 9% increase per year over the next six years, already present a significant challenge to the current infrastructure. The "with annexation" projections are frightening, averaging almost 14%. Additionally, the cash flow challenges, projected funding shortfall, and potential for increased taxes and/or cutting programs are significant negatives to this proposal.
I am not wholly against annexation; I believe there is some opportunity there. But the aggressive timeline and projected negative impact clearly indicate we need to say NO at this point, step back and reevaluate.
Thanks for sharing the presentation. When will the recommendation from the work group be available for review. I could not tell by the timeline listed at the end of the presentation.
ReplyDeleteIs there any initial feedback from the BOE based on the presentation? I am still not seeing how annexation makes sense.
Based on the annexation area shown would the Publix shopping center at the corner of N. Decatur and Clairmont be included? Would the city receive tax money from commercial properties? Why did I think the annexation area being reviewed was the Midway Woods area.
Sorry for all the questions...just trying to make sure I am fully informed. Thanks
Thanks for coming here and asking.
DeleteRecommendation will go the board on 111312. We hope to have it ready at least by 110112.
Board members were very curious about how annexation impacts long-range enrollment planning for CSD. We were also asked to examine other revenue methodologies (which aligns beautifully with what we told them our next steps are on the last slide).
Publix would be included. Yes - taxes from commercial would go to the city.
Annexation is being talked about in several areas of the city; Midway has possibly had more press than the others.
I am concerned by the undertones to the comment: "consider other revenue projection methodologies".
DeleteIn my experience when people start angling for using other methodologies or calculations they are simply seeking to fit the data to the outcome they want, in this case annexation.
The current methodology is logical and presents a very clear picture; Annexation of residential zones is a bad idea for Decatur and CSD.
The numbers on slide 9 of the presentation are not showing (nor printing) clearly. Can I assume the upper grid on page 10 is the same as the lower grid on page 9?
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit confused about the numbering, but here's what I think you are asking. Make sure you are playing the powerpoint as a slide show - critical to understanding slide 8.
DeleteSlide 8 starts out as enrollment without annexation, then up on a mouse click it turns into enrollment with annexation.
Slide 9 offers the last 8 rows of the "with annexation" and "without annexation" slides in aggregate.
Thank you, moderator. Viewing it in slide show mode helps.
DeleteI am unable to attend tonight's meeting, so I will state my preference here. It is an emphatic NO to this annexation plan, primarily due to the impact on City Schools of Decatur. The "without annexation" enrollment projections, which average a 9% increase per year over the next six years, already present a significant challenge to the current infrastructure. The "with annexation" projections are frightening, averaging almost 14%. Additionally, the cash flow challenges, projected funding shortfall, and potential for increased taxes and/or cutting programs are significant negatives to this proposal.
I am not wholly against annexation; I believe there is some opportunity there. But the aggressive timeline and projected negative impact clearly indicate we need to say NO at this point, step back and reevaluate.