Last week: Is annexation the right course for Decatur?
The Decatur city commission approved an annexation master plan in mid-December. For it to become official, the city still needs a sponsor for a bill, then a referendum and finally approval from voters in the annexed areas.
Between now and when the General Assembly disbands, Decatur’s map will almost surely get minor alterations. But as currently drawn it adds 1.5 square miles to the current 4.5, and increases the present population of 19,335 by 38 percent or a projected 7,310.
For City Schools Decatur, whose enrollment’s already at an all-time high of 4,334, it’s projected that even without annexation that figure will swell to 7,398 by 2019-20. Annexation could initially add as many as 747 more.
Annexation would prove a huge boon to the city’s real estate tax digest, increasing the current ratio of 85 percent residential/15 percent commercial to 76/24.
But detracters have said this is too much growth too fast for a place occasionally described as quintessential small town. What do you think?
Here’s what readers had to say:
I attended a meeting Nov. 4 at City Hall, and many current residents in city of Decatur expressed reservations about the annexation, saying that it would compromise their small town character, and the quality of their school system. But the current residents have had no vote in their commissioners perusal of annexation
… It is very unfortunate that the city of Decatur has carefully crafted the maps for optimization of inclusion of commercial properties, because the commercial property owners have no vote in the planned referendum. The character of our shopping centers would have no convenient free parking and a very high turnover rate for businesses. I have spoken to several business owners who say the annexation would put them out of business.
… Surely, the COD has known they were unhappy with their ratio of commercial to residential property for the benefit of their tax digest. They should have, long ago, corrected this problem within their current borders. And who would want to be included in this city when it already has problems in funding and planning for their future?
— TheDixieFirefly
I think the proposed annexation is a smart move for both the city and the city school district. Particularly in the northeast quadrant where I live, it will bring a significant commercial district and some undeveloped land that used to be car dealer lots. Those could be prime sites for the additional schools that the school district needs. The city has been very careful to identify residential areas that have a small number of children, so as not to aggravate the existing population boom from the existing city residents.
I live in such a condo development, whose residents are a mix of retirees and young professionals without children. Joining Decatur would certainly improve the quality of our civic life. Most of us bought here because it was within a mile of downtown Decatur, so it’s a good fit for us. It’s the responsibility of elected officials to balance the city’s financial reality against the negative rumors.
— jshipleyj
No, no, and again NO! This is a sneaky way to tax citizens yet more, and this moronic idea will NEVER have my support. Forget about this sickening attempt to provide more funds for Decatur’s coffers. Why not have a Decatur lottery? Consider that the GA lottery brings in huge sums. Pass this statute and leave the poor taxpayers and their properties alone!
— Anne H. Palmer/Attorney at Law/Decatur
So, even though I am a resident of the cty of Decatur, I don’t have a say in the decision to annex areas that would add people and businesses, services to be provided to both, crowding our school system, adding additional employees and making an ideal size city bigger.
I know we have a city commission that decides these things, but it is unfair for the citizens of Decatur not to be able to vote on such an important measure. My hope is that annexation will not be approved and maybe we can start over again and do it the right way.
— An American Patriot
Snellville Mayor Kelly Kautz filed the first of a series of lawsuits against city council members, the city clerk, and the city manager in 2013. The 2014 battle began over the mayor’s desire to fire city clerk Melissa Arnold. As a result, the Snellville City Council passed charter amendments clarifying the mayor and council’s authority regarding hiring and firing.
Seen by Kautz as having a conflict of interest, she also sued to fire the city’s attorney, Tony Powell. The mayor claimed because the city’s charter grants her the authority to appoint a city attorney, it also affords her the sole ability to fire one. The Superior Court of Gwinnett County and the Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed, saying Snellville’s charter gives the city council any governmental powers not expressly granted, including the right to terminate the city attorney.
Ten days into trial against council members, the case was settled without a judge ruling. Arnold resigned with an undisclosed severance package. City Manager Butch Sanders agreed to resign at the end of Dec. 2015.
Left to be determined, who should pay the mayor’s attorney’s fees totaling some $240,000. Kautz’s three attorneys argue the mayor was successful in accomplishing some of her goals.
The city council has agreed to pay the city attorney’s fees totaling $115,000 but argue the mayor isn’t entitled to her fees, because the “prevailing” party is typically the only side to have their fees paid. The city also maintains the decision to sue was the mayor’s and her fees shouldn’t be paid for by taxpayers.
We want your opinion. Should taxpayers pay the mayor’s legal fees? Post comments here or email communitynews@ajc.com.
About the Author
