Decatur City Commission unanimously votes in favor of its unreasonable annexation plan

Decatur's City Commission discussed its annexation plan during a working session at 6:30pm today and voted to support its Annexation Master Plan that includes large swaths of commercial property along North Decatur Road.

The vote included some modifications:
 - that the language include a statement to clarify that the Commission's vote is contingent on the School Board also approving the annexation plan and
- that sections of the proposed annexation area A that currently have Atlanta addresses be removed from the map (East Lake area), and that residences in area A that are located east of Jordan Lane be removed from the annexation map (due to "service difficulties" in reaching that area).

MANA's acting President Lynn Ganim and Secretary and schools liaison Tanya Myers spoke during the comment session. Ms. Ganim noted that we have repeatedly conveyed our concerns to Decatur and will continue to strenuously oppose this unreasonable annexation plan and will do so directly to the DeKalb Delegation. Ms Ganim also pointed that in its website, Decatur describes itself as "a neighborly city" but this annexation plan is anything but. Ms. Myers highlighted that non-residents support Decatur in many ways, from shopping at its businesses to being part of community groups and churches and volunteering. Ms Myers encouraged Decatur to contemplate the importance of maintaining positive relationships with neighbors, in particular in view of the annexation being poised to cause irreparable damage to DeKalb schools and the children it serves (by diverting funds from a large student population to Decatur's much smaller student attendance zone. This impact is calculated at  $5 million + dollars/year right now, a figure that will grow as commercial areas are further developed.

Two Decatur residents spoke against the annexation plan. One speaker voiced a common concern: that Decatur is underestimating the number of children that are likely to flood its school system. "Parents will do anything to secure a good education" and that probably means that many more families than expected will trade square footage for condos and apartments.

MANA is preparing a statement to the DeKalb Delegation that will be posted soon, along with contact information for our representatives.

Google-mapped!

The all-seeing Google car made the rounds around the neighborhood today...

Further confirmation: Decatur will not annex the Medlock Park neighborhood

SUMMARY: MANA Board members (again) met with City of Decatur officials and contacted the City of Decatur Schools Superintendent to discuss the possibility of the Medlock Park neighborhood being annexed to City of Decatur. Each party deferred to the others’ authority but as is clear in the information below, (1) annexation is the purview of the City Commission and they oppose the idea of annexing the Medlock Park neighborhood and (2) the school system is also against annexing the Medlock Park neighborhood.

Annexation to Decatur is not an option and our neighborhood should move on to considering other alternatives while continuing to oppose City of Decatur’s commercial annexation. Whether we join a city or remain unincorporated, Decatur's unreasonable commercial annexation plan (1) negatively impacts our neighborhood going forward (i.e. zoning, traffic) and (2) undermines the County’s commercial tax base that funds our DeKalb County schools.

---

MEETING WITH CITY OF DECATUR [December 2, 2014]

Several representatives from MANA attended a meeting with City of Decatur Mayor Jim Baskett, City Manager Peggy Merriss, and Senator-elect Elena Parent to discuss the possibility of Decatur’s annexing the Medlock neighborhood. Many thanks go to neighbors Donna Skelcy and Kirsten Widner for their excellent summaries of the meeting, which are combined and reproduced here.
The mayor and the city manager acknowledged receipt of the petitions from various surrounding areas but will not act on those petitions or any other requests for annexation into their city before the end of the year.

• Decatur is at the end of a long-term annexation planning process. It has been very systematic, and they are not inclined to make ad hoc changes to it at this point. 

• They both stated that, working in conjunction with consultants and the City of Decatur schools, they have created a Decatur Master plan which contains the commercial and residential areas they hope to annex. They worked closely with the Decatur School Board in devising their Master plan because the school board is very concerned about the total number of students that the City Schools can reasonably accommodate.. The school district is already anticipating a doubling of their student population by 2020 without any annexation. Because of that, the School Board has serious concerns about adding the students that would come with our additional 1400 homes

• There will be no changes to that master plan this year. They suggested that, because they are working hand-in-hand with the school board, we talk to the school board and attempt to convince them to accept our neighborhood into the city of Decatur at some time in the future. They did admit that only the city commission, not the school board, has the legal power to annex our neighborhood into Decatur, but that the City Commission has agreed to only go forward with annexation that was supported by both elected bodies.

• The Decatur City Commission seeks to adopt their final Master Plan no later than December 15, 2014.

• We stated our objection to their annexing the commercial areas without the residential areas, citing the fact our residents have backyards that abut the commercial areas but would have no voice in determining what goes there. The mayor insisted the City of Decatur's zoning regulations require a transition area and would, thus, protect the Medlock residents from having commercial business right in their backyard. He said the City of Decatur protected another area of the city that had a "non-Decatur" neighborhood abutting their commercial area and those people were satisfied with how it turned out.

• The mayor disagreed with our concern that their annexation of commercial property would affect our ability to get the neighborhood annexed into another city.

• The mayor stated that if the legislature were to force a cram-down of Medlock into the City of Decatur, then Decatur would most likely not move forward with the annexation of commercial areas.

• The mayor attempted to point us to other solutions: i.e. LaVista Hills, City of Atlanta.

• As we did in a previous meeting with Decatur officials, we attempted to sell them on Medlock as a viable addition to their city. We explained we have trails, a nature preserve and a school within our boundaries. The City Manager believes the school belongs solely to DeKalb County and would not be available to the City of Decatur.

• Senator-elect Elena Parent said Decatur's current high tax revenues provide it with more money than other nearby areas. She also mentioned that their residents have made the choice to have higher taxes. Her concern is the loss of commercial revenue that will affect her entire district, which includes large unincorporated areas of the county.

• We explained we needed a statement from the City of Decatur stating that the city refuses to annex the Medlock neighborhood. The City Manager stated that policy statements had to be approved by the entire City Commission.. It could only come from the City Commission. As a compromise, the mayor offered to have us draft a recap of today's meeting which we could send to him and he would then either affirm or dis-affirm the contents of the meeting recap. We agreed to this offer. 

We have since received a statement from the mayor that states, “I am okay with the summary of the meeting with the modifications sent on Friday." Those modifications have been made in the summary above. However, we also refer readers to page B5 of the December 2 Atlanta Journal Constitution where there is this statement: “But Baskett recently reiterated that Decatur wants only the shopping and not the 1,300 homes, which would burden the school system.”

After the meeting with Mayor Baskett and City Manager Merris, we contacted Dr. Phyllis Edwards, Superintendent of the Decatur City Schools, and Mrs. Bernadette Seals, Chair of the Board of Education, to ask them about a possible future annexation of Medlock.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH CITY OF DECATUR SCHOOLS [December 3, 2014]

From acting MANA President Lynn Ganim:

Dr. Edwards and Mrs. Seals, 

Representatives of the Medlock Area Neighborhood Association met yesterday with Mayor Baskett and City Manager Merriss to ask about the possibility of our 1300-plus home neighborhood being annexed into Decatur.  We were told that there is no likelihood of our neighborhood's being annexed into Decatur now, but that a year or so from now things might be different. We also were told that we should talk with people representing the school system to get a definitive answer about our position in the future. 

As you might or might not know, our area is in an awkward position as a virtual island in the midst of areas claimed for new cities or annexation into existing cities.  We need to tell our folks whether or not there is a reasonable hope in the future that Decatur would annex us. 

While we are happy to meet with you at your convenience, we would also be satisfied if you can give us a definitive statement about where the City Schools of Decatur stand when it comes to annexing areas not already on your master plan. We understand that additional annexation is out of the question this year. 

However, do you foresee any future situation where you would consider annexing Medlock?  If so, what would the requirements be for such a move? If you see no realistic possibility in future years, we would appreciate your telling us clearly and without reservation. Our neighborhood, which is feeling extremely unsettled at the moment, would then know how to move forward.  

I am attaching a map so that you can see where our area lies.

Thank you for understanding our concerns and taking the time to respond to this request.

Response from City of Decatur Schools Superintendent Phyllis Edwards

Ms. Ganim: 

 Thank you for contacting me.  I am copying my Board Chair, Mrs. Seals, on my response. 

I understand that you have spoken with the city leaders.  Annexation is really something that rests with the city in terms of authority.  They provided us with the map of areas they were considering.  I have been working on the details of how annexation will affect the schools and the report is on the CSD website. 

The city asked us to provide information and is asking the School Board to weigh in on their efforts toward annexation.  The Board will take up the question on December 9th at 6:30 at our regularly scheduled meeting. 

From my perspective, there are many challenges.  I went into the profession of education (first as a teacher and now as a Superintendent) because I care deeply about providing the best possible education for all children.   Within the 4 square miles of the City of Decatur, there is relatively little space for new school facilities.  The schools that the city has are all very small, neighborhood schools.  They are charming but are on very small areas of land.  I have done everything I possibly can to expand the existing sites. 

The system has grown, actually doubled, since I arrived in 2003. The enrollment is now 4300 student and we are expected to grow to 7000 by 2020. 

To answer your question, the area that you are in, is lovely and I am sure the children and families would be a pleasure to serve.  To date, no one has been able to say definitively whether if an area is annexed, any school within the annexed area is also conveyed to the new school system. 

Another part of the problem is that several existing schools that might be available already have contracts with other entities, International Schools or individual private schools. 

I can deliver a quality education but to do so requires schools and seats for the children.   CSD will be struggling to meet the capital needs and teacher/staff additions - as it stands now- with the existing map.

Please feel free to contact me if I have not answered your question. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Phyllis Edwards
Superintendent

Community Listening Session: City of Decatur Annexation [Dec. 7, 4pm]

The Decatur City Commission and City Schools of Decatur Board Members will host a "listening session" on Decatur's annexation plan.

Sunday, December 8, 4pm
The Church at Decatur Heights
735 Sycamore Drive, Decatur GA 30030

See additional details (including confirmed attendees) at the Decatur-Avondale Patch.

Lost cat now found

Belu came home for Thanksgiving. Yay!

Post-annexation survey update

from the MANA Board

With the holiday and legislative seasons approaching, your MANA Board continues to work to better understand how annexation proposals may impact the County and our neighborhood, and to protect our neighborhood's interests.

BIG PICTURE

A five-member legislative committee has been appointed to finalize maps for DeKalb County city proposals. We approached DeKalb Commissioner Rader to share our survey results and he has suggested that given the larger County-level context, remaining unincorporated is not likely to be a long-term option. This is particularly true if nearby annexation proposals succeed in the 2015 legislative session and elections. At this time, our Medlock neighborhood is not included in any maps to be annexed to a city. Parts of the neighborhood are included in City of Decatur's annexation map, which is worrisome for several reasons.

PROCESS

Remaining unincorporated is the default option.

1) We are continuing to explore our neighborhood annexation options. Please remember that this is a multi-step process. First, we must petition to be "in the map" of a particular proposal. Next, the proposal needs to be approved by the legislature. Then, Medlock neighborhood residents (and others in the annexation map) who are registered to vote would have the chance to vote in favor or against the annexation. As you may recall, this is the rationale we followed last year with the Briarcliff proposal: we joined their map so that, if the proposal was approved by the legislature, all Medlock voters would have the opportunity to voice their wishes at the polls. We do not know what will happen early next year, as far as city proposals being advanced as bills. Several or no city proposals may emerge; some or all proposals may be voted down during the referendum process. We would only vote on a referendum if we are included in that particular map.

2) We have contacted Atlanta Commissioner Alex Wan and our state Representatives Rahn Mayo and Elena Parent with our questions about the process and deadlines for requesting annexation. Their responses on timing were a little contradictory, but we've agreed that early to mid-January is a reasonable date for our neighborhood to commit to a particular proposal. We would show commitment to a proposal through a petition, which we probably would conduct online, with door-to-door follow-up as needed. Petitions cannot be anonymous and petitioners must state their names and addresses. The petition(s) will be addressed to the DeKalb County delegation.

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES

New city to the north: Last summer, we were included in the newly created City of Briarcliff map and supported their feasibility study. That proposal has now merged with the Lakeside proposal to create a new city being called LaVista Hills. Last winter, MANA was disappointed to find that the Briarcliff proposal we had supported was redrawn to abandon important commercial property on North Decatur Road to Decatur. We staunchly believe that our neighborhood and much of this commercial property (particularly Zone B in City of Decatur's annexation plan) are inextricably linked and should remain in the same jurisdiction. We ultimately decided not to request inclusion in the joint Briarcliff/Lakeside map without also including that commercial property, but the option of being annexed into a future city to the north remains open to us, as was stated in the LaVista Hills press release.

Decatur: Because many residents continue to voice an interest in being annexed to Decatur, we have arranged another meeting with the City of Decatur the week after Thanksgiving.  Both Mary Margaret Oliver and Elena Parent have indicated that they will at least try to attend; Rahn Mayo is unavailable for that meeting. Decatur was very clear in their lack of interest in annexing the Medlock neighborhood when we met last September 25 and the MANA Board does not believe that we will receive a different answer.

Atlanta: We are in the process of organizing another information session about the option of annexing to Atlanta. Atlanta Councilman Alex Wan gave us a preview last September and those meeting notes are available here.  We will share meeting details as soon as they are available.

SUMMARY

Annexing to Decatur received the most support in our survey but we have no reason to believe that this is a viable possibility. The next highest level of support went towards remaining unincorporated, long and short-term; if it is true that we will be joining a city in the not-so-distant future, remaining unincorporated is not a viable position long-term. Annexation to a city, if we are contiguous, remains an option as long as we are still unincorporated AND that city is open to the annexation.

Following the meeting with City of Decatur, we will again need to come together to weigh the options that are realistically open to us and decide next steps. A number of MANA residents have stepped forward to help the MANA Board in the coming months. This annexation working group includes individuals representing all viewpoints listed in our survey who, along with your MANA Board, are tasked with collecting, summarizing and sharing information that will help us make informed decisions in the coming months.

Alternative Gift Market @ North Decatur Presbyterian Church [Dec 6]

Alternative Gift Market at North Decatur Presbyterian Church
Saturday, December 6, 10:00 am – 3:00 pm
Press Release, Updated 11/20/14
Contact:  Becky Evans, beckyevans@mindspring.com, 404 378-5288

North Decatur Presbyterian Church invites Medlock  neighborhood  to our annual Alternative Gift Market, Saturday, Dec. 6, 10 am to 3 pm. Children’s Craft Corner provided to engage your children while you shop.

Shop for fair trade*, environmentally sustainable and reasonably priced holiday gifts, including many new items this year. Gifts for sale include olive oil and beautiful carvings from Palestine; hats, scarves, clothing and gifts from Latin America; delicious soup and cookie mixes made in the U.S. supporting people in transition; rugs and other gifts from local refugee and affordable housing initiatives; beautiful beaded jewelry from Rwanda; Haitian goods; fair trade coffee, tea, cocoa and chocolate; and beautiful handmade cards from around the world. NDPC is at 611 Medlock Road at the intersection of Medlock, N. Decatur Rd. and Scott Blvd. Credit Cards, Checks and Cash payment accepted.   Make a difference in the world, one gift at a time!

*What is Fair Trade? (text credit: Fair Trade Federation) 
Fair Trade is an economic partnership based on dialogue, transparency, and respect. Fair trade is not about charity. It is a holistic approach to trade and development that aims to alter the ways in which commerce is conducted, so that trade can empower the poorest of the poor. Fair Trade Organizations seek to create sustainable and positive change in developing and developed countries.