Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
FILED
Burkett Center effective with the transfer of operational control of school facilities, with
transitional support to be offered by the County Board.
3.
September Payroll
The Jefferson County Board has proposed that the Gardendale Board assume all
payroll obligations for Gardendale Board employees incurred on or after the transfer date
(July 1, 2015). The Gardendale Board has proposed that the County Board assign funds
allocated to the County Board from the Foundation Program in an amount equal to all
salaries and benefits of state earned and federal employees assigned to Gardendale
Schools as of the transfer date for the balance of the current fiscal year (i.e., through
September of 2015).
________________
The parties acknowledge your statutory authority to "explain the true intent and
meaning of the school laws (ALA. CODE 16-4-4)," to "decide all controversies and
disputes regarding the proper administration of the public school system" (ALA. CODE
16-4-4), and to enter binding determinations regarding "matters seriously affecting the
educational interest" (ALA. CODE 16-4-8). The parties request that you exercise that
authority to resolve the issues described above. The parties look forward to presenting
their positions on these important matters to you and will await your direction regarding
the process for doing so.
Thank you for your assistance. Please let us know what additional information, if
any, would facilitate your review.
Respectfully,
FILED
Bishop
CARL JOHNSON
CARLJOHNSON@ BISHOPCOLVIN.COM
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
Alabama State Superintendent of Education
Post Office Box 302101
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
RE:
By Hand Delivery
205.251.2881
Fax 205.254.3987
Page 2 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
delay or avoid altogether the most onerous financial, legal, and operational burdens associated
with school system start-up and administration while enjoying independent control over school
system decisionmaking. Under the City Board's approach, these burdens- including the
provision of equivalent facilities for more than 1,200 displaced Jefferson County students,
meeting payroll obligations for City Board employees who will be educating Gardendale
students, and educating Gardendale's most severely disabled students for many years to
come--would be retained by the County Board.
This brand of "cherry-picking" offends basic legal and equitable principles, and is rooted
in the misguided notion that county boards of education exist for the purpose of nurturing and
facilitating the formation of independent municipal systems. To the contrary, it is the municipal
system or its sponsoring city that must make provision for equivalent facilities to any county
residents displaced by the formation of the city system. Moreover, when, as here, the county
system is operating under a federal desegregation order, I the city system may not as a matter of
law assume independent status if doing so would be at the expense of remaining county
students. 2
SIOIiI
A "city" within the meaning of this title shall include all incorporated municipalities of 5,000 or more inhabitants,
according to the last or any succeeding federal census, or according to the last or any succeeding census taken under
the provisions of Sections I 1-47-90 through I 1-47-95. BUI see fn. 10, infra (establishing a 2,500 population
threshold as of the date of Gardendale's incorporation).
The general administration and supervision of the public schools and educational interest of each city shall be
vested in a board of education, to be composed of five members who shall be residents of the city, and who shall not
be members of the city councilor commission.
The city board of education is hereby vested with all the powers necessary or proper for the administration and
management of the free public schools within such city and adjacent territory to the city which has been annexed as
a part of the school district which includes a city having a city board of education.
6 When a municipality under the jurisdiction of a county board of education attains a population of 5,000 or more,
according to the last decennial or any subsequent federal census, the schools of the municipality may remain under
the control of the county board by agreement between that board and the city council of the municipality, which
agreement shall be expressed in resolutions adopted by and spread upon the minutes of the two authorities. If the
municipality does not enter into such an agreement, the control of the school or schools of the territory within the
municipality shall be vested in a city board of education, and thereafter the district school tax collected in the city
Page 3 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
and practical application of 16-8-20 to these circumstances has recently been reaffirmed by
Justice Bolin:
If we assume that a hypothetical county governing body desired to levy
a sales tax pursuant to 40-12-4 for the purpose of providing funding
for the construction of a school building or to retire school-board debt,
and if the school board or boards affected resolved that such a plan was
desired expenditure, a consideration of the potential scenarios arising
from this hypothetical further buttresses the above statutory
interpretation. Consider first an example of a county having only one
school system-a county board of education. Should that county
governing body levy a 40-12-4 tax, the proceeds from the tax would
be paid to that single county board of education. The county board
could then either use the revenues to service or to retire existing schoolconstruction debt, or it could incur new debt and pledge the revenues as
a source of payment for that debt, as its desires or needs may dictate .
Thereafter, should a ne'w school system in that county come into
existence, only two possibilities could exist. If there 'was a county
school building taken in by the area of the new system, then 16-8-20
et seq., Ala.Code 1975, 'wouldprovidefor the building transfer and any
transactions necessary concerning any existing indebtedness on the
bllilding, together "with ''providing the same or equivalent school
facilities Jor the children in that part oj the territory in the school
district or districts not ''providing the same or equivalent school
facilities Jor the children in that part of the territory in the school
district or districts not annexed or made a part oj such city." Thus the
new ~ystem "would be obligated to pay for any indebtedness on that
school, as ""veil as negotiating with the county board to provide jar
shall be paid over to the custodian of city school fund and the district school tax collected in the contiguous territory
shall be paid over to the custodian of county school funds; provided, that so much of the proceeds of the special
school tax collected in the original school tax district as may be required for the retirement of outstanding warrants
issued against such tax, including the interest thereon, shall be paid over to the proper official or authority to be used
for such purpose.
7 When any part of the territory embracing a school under the supervision and control of the county board of
education is annexed to a city having a city board of education by extension of the corporate limits of such city, the
county board of education shall retain supervision and control of said school and for school purposes shall retain the
same control of the territory and revenues which it exercised prior to such annexation, for the purpose of using and
devoting said school to the benefit of all children who were or would be entitled to the use and benefit of the school
so long as it was a county school until an agreement has been made between the county board of education and the
city board of education, and the city councilor commission or other governing body of the city to which the territory
was annexed, with reference to the matter of existing indebtedness and of providing the same or equivalent school
facilities for the children in that part of the territory in the same district or districts not annexed or made a party of
such city.
Page 4 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
students 'who previously attended that school but who did not live in the
area of the new municipal system. However, 40-12-4(b) would then
apply to the new system, as the hypothetical county would now have
more than one local school board, and the following year the new
system would begin receiving its pro rata distribution of tax revenues as
determined by the Foundation Program formula. These revenues could
then be used to pay the negotiated (or arbitrated pursuant to 16-8-21)
consideration for the former county school building now located in the
new school system. Considering the other possible example, i.e., if
there were no county school building located in the area of the new
municipal system, the new system would not owe the county board
anything, but would then begin to receive its 41-12-4(b) Foundation
Program formula revenues, which it, the local school board, could use
for its own school construction. 8
Chism did not involve a school system formation issue, per se. Justice Bolin's illustrative
reference to and explanation of ALA. CODE 16-8-20 nonetheless cogently captures the
operative statutory premise that has governed every school system formation in the modern era.
The language of ALA. CODE 16-8-20 imposes an affirmative obligation on the newly
formed city system to ensure that students who formerly attended schools within the city and
provide "the same or equivalent school facilities" as a condition to the city system assuming
independent operational status. For systems that are subject to a federal desegregation order, the
equivalency standard becomes a constitutional mandate such that a newly formed system may
not assume control over school facilities if doing so would come at the expense of remaining
county students, including those students who are displaced by the formation of the city system:
Against these considerations, Emporia advances arguments that a
separate system is necessary to achieve "quality education" for city
residents, and that it is unfair, in any event, to force the city to
continue to send its children to schools over which the city, because of
the character of its alTangement with the county, has very little
control. These arguments are entitled to consideration by a court
exercising its equitable discretion where they are directed to the
feasibility or practicality of the proposed remedy. See Swann v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, supra, at 402 U. S. 31.
But, as we said in Green v. County School Board, supra, the
availability of "more promising courses of action" to dismantle a dual
system "at the least ... , places a heavy burden upon the board to
Page 5 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
Wright v. Council of Emporia, 407 U.S . 451, 92 S.Ct. 2196, 33 L. Ed. 2d 51 (1972)(emphasis supplied); See also
The Nation, May 15,2014, "How a 'New Secessionist' Movement is Threatening to Worsen School Segregation and
Widen Inequalities." (attached as Exhibit A) (citing Gardendale as a case study in a trend that threatens to
exacerbate resource disparities between wealthy and poor communities and sweep away any remnants of
desegregation.)
Page 6 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
These statutory and constitutional principles are shaped and informed by traditional equitable
precepts, and operate here to prevent Gardendale from deferring, shifting, and avoiding critical
educational, financial, and administrative obligations in a way that places the burdens of school
system formation on the backs of the county residents and taxpayers from whom the
administrative divorce is sought.
10
II Tit. 52 148 Code of Ala. (Recomp. 1958) (A city within the meaning of this title shall include all incorporated
municipalities of twenty-five hundred or more inhabitants, according to the last or any succeeding federal census, or
according to the last or any succeeding census taken under the provisions of sections 481 to 484, inclusive of Title
37 of the Code of Alabama of 1940.)
12 See. e.g.. www.al.com article dated 1114114 ("Gardendale Considers Renewing I Percent Sales Tax")(noting that
revenue from the tax is expected to generate $2.7 million in the first year and be used for debt service; community
and economic development; the establishment of an emergency reserve fund; and capital purchases and projects)
(attached as Exhibit C).
13
The total cost of improvements to Gardendale schools since 2000 is approximately $59,000,000.00.
Page 7 of 15
December 12, 2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
Approximately 1,200 students who live outside the city limits attend one of the
Gardendale schools. The Gardendale High School attendance zone l4 is large and serves students
from five separate elementary schools: Gardendale Elementary, Snow Rogers Elementary, Mt.
Olive Elementary, Brookville Elementary and Fultondale Elementary. Of those feeder schools,
only Gardendale and Snow Rogers Elementary Schools are in the Gardendale City school
district, but even those schools include students who do not reside within Gardendale. IS The
high and middle schools were constructed to serve all students in the zone, whether from
Gardendale, Mt. Olive, North Smithfield, Brookside, and beyond. As an example, Gardendale
High School clln'ently serves just under 1,100 students, almost half of whom do not live in the
City of Gardendale, and is still not at capacity.
In allocating the proceeds of the county-wide bond issue for capital purposes, the County
Board made a special effort to provide new facilities in all attendance zones so that all students
could realize the benefits of the building program. Gardendale High School was that facility for
the entire Gardendale zone. The decision to spend generously to construct Gardendale High
School was made so that all students in the zone could attend a new school with the finest
available amenities, including a career teclmical facility that is second to none. Indeed, the
Career Technical Center serves many students who live outside the Gardendale attendance zone.
It was designed as a "hub" facility to provide career teclmical opportunities not only to students
in the Gardendale High School zone, but also to 353 children who attend five other high schools.
Gardendale schools were built with county funds to serve those students to the same
extent as Gardendale residents, and the law entitles such residents and others moving into the
zone that the schools were built to serve and to continue to enjoy "the same or equivalent
facilities" that would have been available to them but for the city system's separation from the
county. That obligation is not met by a transitional arrangement that allows students currently
enrolled in Gardendale schools to remain in the schools while shutting the door to all others. Nor
is it met by shifting the burden to the county system or the disenfranchised students themsel ves
to find those students another school home or a new place to live. Even if a school with
comparable facilities could be identified, no such school with adequate capacity is within
14 The Gardendale High School zone includes Bragg Middle School as well. The middle school and high school
attendance zones are the same.
15 At Gardendale and Snow Rogers Elementary Schools, over 10% of students live outside the City limits. The
other feeder schools in the zone are comprise almost exclusively of children who do not live in the City of
Gardendale.
FILED
Page 8 of 15
December 12, 2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
reasonable driving distance from the Gardendale zone,16 and those schools are located in insular
communities with no natural ties to the Gardendale area. Other schools that are in closer
proximity to the current Gardendale zone are either at capacity or are not equivalent in terms of
age, condition, or amenities. The net effect of the Gardendale proposal is to mitigate the adverse
impact of the loss of Gardendale Schools for some attendance zone residents while shifting the
ultimate responsibility for finding and funding equivalent facilities for all other students residing
in the affected area to the County Board, county taxpayers, or to the displaced families.
At best, Gardendale's transition proposal is only a temporary and partial expedient that
effectively "kicks the can down the road," leaving the County Board to devise a solution for
serving the displaced students when the transition period ends, and with no additional resources
for doing so. As between the entity seeking to break away from the county system and the
county system itself, the burden to provide the same or equivalent facilities falls legally and
equitably on the city and/or its school system. The Legislature could not logically have intended
for county boards to bear responsibility for providing "the same or equivalent facilities" when
they have no control over the formation of city school systems and no financial means of doing
so. Here, Gardendale (which has revenue generating capability that the County Board does not)
has had more than a half-century to build resources to meet the statutory obligations it assumed
when it was incorporated, including the provision of equivalent school facilities for displaced
students. The city's decision to spend its revenues in other ways cannot operate to shift that
burden to the county system, county taxpayers, or to the displaced county students that the
schools in question were built to serve.
The City Board should assume payroll obligations incurred after the commencement of
the 2015-2016 contract (scholastic) year for all classifications of employees. The transition date
is logical, natural, and consistent with the Alabama Code. 17 It also corresponds to the City
Board's proposed assumption of responsibility and control over its system and the employees
assigned thereto. Conversely, no law or logic supports the premise that the County Board should
retain payroll obligations after the City Board assumes direct supervisory control over the
affected employees.
Gardendale's position is without any logical, legal, or equitable foundation. In assuming
its payroll obligations when it achieves operational status, the City Board would be doing
nothing different than existing school systems are required to do. Teacher contracts coincide
16 The bus commute for some Gardendale zone residents to the nearest (but nonetheless far flung) schools with
capacity would be in excess of one hour (one way ).
17 ALA . CODE 16-1-1(4) (1975) (Scholastic year begins with the first day of July and end with the thirtieth day of
June each year.)
Page 9 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
with the school year and are paid on a September-August basis with September being the first
payroll of the school year for nine and ten month employees. State reimbursement for these
contracts are on the budget year of October-September. The salary costs that school systems
incur in September for state units are actually reimbursed by the state in October of the following
year. When growing systems earn additional state units based on an increased enrollment during
the previous year, those "units" are hired and employed before school starts in August.
However, with the exception of any current unit funds that may be appropriated, state funds for
those positions are not received until October of the next year. Thus, the "September Payroll"
cost for such units is borne by the school system out of local funds. Additionally, higher
teaching degrees are recognized when they are earned and teachers' pay is adjusted accordingly
even though state reimbursement for the additional pay does not occur until the following year
based on the level of degree reported through the LEAPS process.
The shortfall created by the timing of budget years and contract years is dealt with by
boards throughout the state; It is not unique to start-up systems. For example, Auburn is one of
the fastest growing school systems in the state, having added 1,697 students from 2007-2013.
Because of that growth, state funds based on the previous year's enrollment were not sufficient to
pay for the teachers required to start school the following August, and the "September payroll"
necessarily had to be met from locally raised funds. IS Gardendale's proposal would establish a
special subsidy for start-up systems that is funded by the county district and that established
systems do not enjoy. Gardendale could and should have planned for its "growth" just as other
systems in the state do--that is, without expectation of payment from any other school system(s)
in which the students responsible for the growth were previously enrolled. The playing field
should be level for all systems in the state.
Furthermore, once the City Board assumes operational control of the district, it
automatically becomes a subrecipient for their own federal funds and can immediately draw on
these funds to cover payroll related expenditures for all federally funded employees. The
Gardendale City Board of Education should assume all payroll obligations for all personnel
assigned to Gardendale City Schools for the 2015-2016 scholastic year knowing that it will
receive reimbursement for those expenditures beginning in October. As with any new business,
a new school system requires startup funds for operations until it receives revenue. This logic is
supported by then Assistant State Superintendent Robert Morton's letter to Trussville's mayor of
June 12, 2000:
A new school system would require startup funds from the city. The
school year is July 1 through June 30 and the state fiscal year is
October 1 through September 30. A new school system does not
receive a monthly Foundation Program payment until the end of
October. The city would most likely need to provide funds for salaries
18
This growth led to a proposed local tax increase in Auburn. The referendum did not pass .
Page 10 of15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
and school operations for July through September as well as any cost
prior to July 1. (Attached as Exhibit D).
In this connection, Ala. Code 16-13-231(c) (1975) is also pertinent. Foundation program
funding is based on completion of 180 full instructional days, or the hourly equivalent thereof. If
the local board of education fails to operate any schools the minimum 180 full instructional day
term, or the hourly equivalent thereof, or the minimum term as defined by the State Board of
Education, the Foundation Program allowances for the local board of education are computed
only for the actual period the schools are in session that school year. Because the County Board
will have completed its 180 day school year at the end of May 2015, it will have earned and is
due all of the FY 2015 foundation program allocation.
The State Foundation Program by design funds payroll expenditures based on prior year
data. Payroll positions, rates of pay, and level of degree are reported to the State in October of
each year. This data is then llsed to determine State allocations for the following fiscal year. For
example, staffing information was reported to the State in October of 20 14. That data will
determine funding for the FY 2016 fiscal year. State reimbursement is thus a year in arrears--a
fact of financial life well known to the City Board. Again, the City Board has had more than five
decades to accrue sufficient revenues to cover its start-up costs. Every school system that has
formed in recent years has understood this reality and has planned accordingly. Requiring the
County Board to subsidize the education of City students would run counter to the principle that
City school formation should not come at the expense of the remaining County school students
who would be deprived ofthe benefit of state funds on both the front and back ends of the
arrears based reimbursement cycle.
The City Board would compel the County Board to retain responsibility for providing
special education services to some 26 Gardendale students who are currently enrolled in the
William E. Burkett Center in Morris, Alabama. Under the City Board's proposal, those services
would be provided until the students in question, some of whom are as young as 3 years old,
maintain their eligibility for services under law. Because this obligation extends to the students'
22nd birthday, the County Board would be required to assume the substantial liabilities
associated providing such services, in some cases, through the 2027-2028 school year.
The City Board's request is without merit and is utterly inconsistent with the basic
premise of independent municipal operation and control. 19 A school system that belatedly and
manipulatively asserts its "right" to independence from County Board control some half a
19
Page 11 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
century after its obligation to provide educational services to its residents was incurred cannot be
heard to protest that it is unwilling or unable 20 to meet the heavy and open ended financial and
legal obligations associated with providing individualized services to the most severely disabled
segment of its student population.
What is more, in order to meet the City Board's demand for extraordinary services,
County students will suffer. The Burkett Center is operating at capacity. It was designed to
serve 65 students; it is currently serving 89 students, and more non-Gardendale students are
currently on a waiting list to be served at the Center. They would presumably be required to
extend their wait indefinitely until the Gardendale students matriculate through their programs at
Burkett. Demands for special services at the Burkett Center have grown measurably in recent
years. For example, storage space at the Center has been commandeered and converted to
classroom use and new staff has been hired to meet the burgeoning needs presented by the
County's growing population of multi-handicapped students.
The County Board does not provide the services sought by Gardendale to any other area
school district. The City Board's demand would thus mandate an entitlement and preference for
Gardendale students that is not extended to any other school district's students. Such enforced
prioritization would unfairly block other deserving county residents (who live throughout the
school district) from receiving services at Burkett and would expose the County Board to
liability claims from such students based on the IDEIA 21 (denial of a free appropriate public
education), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 22 (discrimination in providing of services to disabled
students), or the Americans with Disabilities Act. 23
The County Board has offered to work in good faith with City Board staff to facilitate a
smooth and appropriate transition from the Burkett Center to City Board programs. The effort
will include full IEP reviews, any required staff orientation regarding student needs, and
participation in transitional IEP meetings. No child will be summarily cut off or be deprived of
needed services. While the County Board stands ready to offer transitional support in assisting
the City Board to assume and meet its statutory obligations, it should not be held accountable for
any failure on the part of the City Board to do so. Nor should it be held liable to any parent of a
County student who cannot access services at the Burkett Center because of a special entitlement
and preference conferred on Gardendale students.
20 To date, the City Board has not suggested that it lacks the space or physical resources to serve its exceptional
educational population.
21
22
29 U.S.c. 794.
23
Page 12 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
Responses to
Specific Requestsfor Information
The Jefferson County Board of Education provides the following information in response
to the specific requests for information set forth in your letter of November 25, 2014.
1.
Map showing the current attendance zones for schools located within the city limits
of Gardendale.
Map showing the proposed future attendance zones for those Jefferson County
students residing outside the city limits of Gardendale but in a current attendance
zone for the student to attend the schools located within the city limits of
Gardendale.
Capacity issues for Jefferson County schools outside of Gardendale that will be
impacted by the students allowed to attend schools in Gardendale but reside outside
of Gardendale:
a. Capacity issues if Gardendale allows students currently attending to
continue attending Gardendale schools. (Students that will be newly
enrolled in Jefferson County schools.)
Page 13 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
4.
5.
Page 14 of 15
December 12, 2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
7.
Explanation of Jefferson County's position for Gardendale salaries and benefits for
the month of September 2015.
a. Earned unit calculated funds for Foundation Program (state and local).
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Page 15 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
9.
Explanation of Gardendale's position for Gardendale salaries and benefits for the
month of September 2015.
a. Earned unit calculated funds for Foundation Program (state and local).
b. Federal program funded employees.
c. Transportation employees.
Response: To be provided by City Board.
10.
Any and all documentation relevant to the State Superintendent's review of this
matter.
Response: See a({ached.
Conclusion
If it ever did, the Jefferson County Board of Education no longer has the luxury of
underwriting the formation of separate school districts. Its focus-and that of the State
Superintendent-must be on assuring that the formation of a municipal district does not result in
a windfall for the city district and a corresponding loss or disadvantage for the county students
impacted by the separation. That legal and equitable mandate is achieved here by requiring
Gardendale or its Board of Education to (1 )provide resources that will enable the County Board
to construct facilities of equivalent quality and utility to those appropriated by the City Board;
(2) pay its employees to educate its students from the date it becomes their employer; and (3)
assume its legal responsibility to provide appropriate special education services to all of its
students.
Respectfully submitted,
rl/~~
Carl Johnson
Lvk..J
Whit Colvin
c:
Exhibit A
How a 'New Secessionist' Movement Is Threatening to Worsen School Segregation and Widen Inequalities I Parents United for Public Schools
....
651-999-7391
--~--------. ---~----
Home
About Us
At the Capitol
News
Events
Education Issues
Parents In Action
Services
Contact Us
Home News and Events ;) How a 'New Seces.sionist' Movement Is Threatening to Worsen School Segrega tion and Widen Inequalities
[1,..-------011 Search I
I
....
CATEGORIES::!Q!1, CAPITOL
TAGS: INTEGRATION, RACiAL SEGREGATION
II
I
I
A new secessionist movement, anchored in the South, provides yet another remin der thal "separate"
still means "unequal" when it comes to the racial dynamics of the nation's public schools.
Email:
The small middle-class town of Gardendale, Alabama, outside Birmingham, voted on November 12 to
secede from the Jefferson County school district and then to raise taxes on themselves to finance the
solo venture. Then, in March, Gardendale'S 14,000 residents finally got their own Board of Education.
Soon after his appointment, one new board member, Clayton "Dick" Lee \II, a banker and father of two,
said he aspires to build a "best in class" school system "which exceeds the capabi lities of the system
which we are exiting."
Zip Code:
Subscribe
As Gardendale officials try to construct that "best in class" system in their prosperous community,
they've relied on advice from their neighbors to the east in Trussville, a wealthy white suburb that broke
away from the county schools in 2005. Gardendale, where about 86 percent of residents are white, is the
fourth district since the late 1980s to secede from Jefferson County's schools. About half the students in
Jefferson County's schools are either African-American or Latino, and 57 percent of students receive
free or reduced lunch, the standard marker for poverty in public education.
~'.
December 9,2014
With 36,000 students, Jefferson County's shrinking catchment area is emblematic of a new secessionism
in which cities, towns, even unincorporated areas renounce membership in a larger school district to
strike out on their own. A trend befitting our individualistic times, secessionism, in many cases, cracks
apart well-established, broadly defined educational communities intu ever more narrow and ever more
racially homogeneous ones. Sixty years after Brown v. Board oj'Educatioll, new break away districts
threaten to exacerbate resource disparities between wealthy and puor (ummunities and sweep away any
remnants of desegregation.
http://www.parenlsunited.orolcaoitol/how-a-new-secessinnist-mnvpmpnl-ic:-thrp::Itpninn..In.....nr .. o..- .. ~h~1
December 7, 2014
~~~M~~" ~- ~~-'
GIVE NOW
How a 'New Secessionist' Movement Is Threatening to Worsen School Segregation and Widen Inequalities I Parents United for Public Schools
I
I
20~:DX
-J
How a 'New Secessionist' Movement Is Threatening to Worsen School Segregation and Widen Inequalities I Parents United for Public Schools
economic stability and enhance a particular image. I can respect the interest in that and their right to du
this. I just worry that we've gotten away from thinking about the larger community."
The desire for "good schools" drives people's decisions about where to live. And as research by Professor
Jennifer Holme of the University of Texas-Austin has shown, white people's presumptions about "good
schools" are driven by "status ideologies" formed by race and class biases. Secessionism makes it even
easier to act on such prejudices because it creates school districts that are starkly identified by the race
and social class of students. Home values, tied to a schuol district's reputation, will likely go up or go
down accordingly, further aiding a community's ascension or decline .
Parents and educators fighting against secessionism in their communities caution that the phenomenon
shouldn't be seen only as a manifestation of white people's desire to avoid sharing classrooms with
African-Americans. In many places-Memphis, Baton Rouge, much of Alabama-housing segregation is
so extreme that post-desegregation, individual schools tend to be racially segregated even if a school
district as a whole enrolls a racial mix of students. Beginning in the 1990s, a series of Supreme
Court decisions made it easier for school districts that had been under desegregation orders to be freed
from judicial oversight. Post-desegregation, many school boards in the South went on to redraw school
attendance boundaries coterminous with racially segregated neighborhood configurations. The
proposed new city of St. George in Louisiana would be nearly a quarter African-American, according to
some estimates .The city of Baton Rouge is about 55 percent African-American.
Nowadays, it mlly be tax dollars, benefits of economic growth, or power on school boards that
secessionists would prefer not to share. Perhaps secessionists don't want to be associated with a lowerstatus school district that posts lackluster test scores. Even if we aSSUllle non-racial motivations,
secessionism could still undermine the hard-won racial diversity lingering in some schools.
East Baton Rouge provides a case in point. Like a lot of other big districts in the South, it operates
several well-regarded racially diverse magnet schools. Originally created under desegregation, the
popular programs were retained even after they were released from court supervision. East Baton Rouge
Parish's school superintendent Bernard Taylor has said that magnet schools may not survive under SI".
George's incorporation. The new district would siphon a large share of the district's white students and
a chunk of the tax dollars that pay for the specialized programs.
"[ very strongly prefer that my children attend racially diverse schools," said Tania Nyman, a white
mother of two, who is Hying to prevent creation of new districts in Buton Rouge. "I believe that a public
school system that is truly public and welcomes all children in the entire community is a really, really
important foundation [or democracy. But I suppose that sounds velY old-rashioned. Doesn't it?"
Helping parents have a voice at the places where school policy alld {ullding decisions are lIlade. Sigllllp co receive lIpdflCes clld aCtlOIl alerts {rom Parencs Unired'
Parents Ullited {or Public Schools 11667 Snelling Ave N I Saint Palll, MN 55/081 (65/) 999-739/
~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~/
Exhibit B
Gardendale - Bhamwiki
Gardendale
From Bhamwiki
Gardendale is a city of 13,893 located on 22.54 square
miles of northern Jefferson County. It was incorporated
in 1955.
City of Gardendale
-WELCO\IE TO-
GARDENDALE
Incorporated
1955
Population
13,893
Mayor
Othell Phillips
School
district
Government
Web site
cityofgardendale. com
(http://www.cityofgardendale.com/)
- - - - - ----
Contents
1 Geography
2 Demographics
2.1 Gardendale's Population, 1960-2010
3 Government
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Geography
h++~.IJ..
FILED
Gardendale - 8hamwiki
U. S. Highway 31 is the north-south artery that defines the center of Gardendale, with recent development
occuring westward at interchanges with 1-65. Exit 271, 10 miles north of the 1-20/59 interchange in
Birmingham gives access to Fieldstown Road; Exit 272 to Mount Olive Road.
The town of Monis is six miles north of Gardendale while Fultondale is adjacent to the south. The
unincorporated community of Mount Olive lies to the east, portions of which have been annexed by
Gardendale. Gardendale is about nine miles north of Birmingham.
Demographics
As of the census of201O, there were 13,893 people residing in the city's 6,040 housing units. The
population density was 616.lImP with housing units at an average density of 257.9/mF. The racial makeup
of the city was 97% White and 1.5% Black. 0.65% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.
In 2000, there were 4,733 households out of which 28.8% had children under the age of 18 living with
them, 61.3% were married couples living together, 9.6% had a female householder with no husband
present, and 26.6% were non-families. 24.6% of all households were made up of individuals and 11.7% had
someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.42 and the
average family size was 2.88.
In the city the population was spread out with 21.5% under the age of 18,7.4% from 18 to 24, 26.9% from
25 to 44,25.6% from 45 to 64, and 18.6% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 42 years.
For every 100 females there were 87.8 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 83.5
males.
The median income for a household in the city was $45,786, and the median income for a family was
$56,929. Males had a median income of$36,714 versus $29,039 for females. The per capita income for the
city was $22,673. About 3.5% of families and 5.1 % of the population were below the poverty line,
including 7.0% of those under age 18 and 7.3% of those age 65 or over.
The Jefferson County Board of Equalization evaluated 4,215 homes in Gardendale and determined that
their average market value for 2007 was $164,515, a 5.0% increase since 2006.
~ear
pop.
%change
;~960 I 4J721 I
:1970 I 6 J 537 I +38.5%
:1980
:1990
:2000
:2010
I
I
I
I
I
7 J928
9 J 251
11 J 626
13 J 893
I
I
I
I
+21. 3%
+16.7%
+25.7%
+19.5%
Government
Mayor of Gardendale Othell Phillips is currently serving his first tenn in office. Administrative offices are
located in the Gardendale City Hall at 970 Main Street. The city operates a fire department, police
department, a park and recreation department, a public works department, an inspections department, and a
Gardendale - Bhamwiki
public library.
Gardendale is divided into five wards, each of which elects one representative to the City Council. The
current council are:
The council meets twice a month, on the first and third Monday evenings at City Hall.
Gardendale's schools (Gardendale High School, Bragg Middle School, Snow Rogers Elementary School,
Gardendale Elementary School and Mount Olive Elementary School) are in the Jefferson County School
System.
The North Jefferson Satellite of the Jefferson County Courthouse is located at 651 Main Street in
Gardendale.
See also
References
"Gardendale, Alabama." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 11 Feb 2007, 01:12 UTe. Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc. 8 Mar 2007 [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Gardendale%2C_ Alabama&oldid= 107208252).
External links
City of Gardendale (http://www.cityofgardendale.com) official website
Jefferson County
Topics
Cities
Adamsville I Bessemer (seat) I Birmingham (seat) I Brighton I Brookside I Cardiff I Center Point I Clay I
County Line I Fairfield I Fultondale I Gardendale I Graysville I Homewood I Hoover I Hueytown I
Irondale I Kimberly I Leeds I Lipscomb I Maytown I Midfield I Morris I Mountain Brook I Mulga I North
"'l& __ t.
. .,...
. .
Gardendale - Bhamwiki
Johns I Pinson I Pleasant Grove I Sylvan Springs I Tarrant I Trafford I Trussville I Vestavia Hills I Warrior I
West Jefferson
Exhibit C
1211212014
AL
Gardendale considers renewing 1 percent sales tax that is set to
expire Dec. 31
Sarah A. McCarty
I Follow on
~I
~._j'l .... _
__ J _ I _
Exhibit D
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
(!I
.#
EXhibit 7
State of Alabama
Department of Education
Ed Richardson
State Superintendent of Education
June 12,2000
Alabama
State Board
of Education
9""
9. p. -Z>~
?,t~
District II
VtWid? '8~.4.
District VI
SMd'14
fh.
-<"9
District VII
V . &d
-<.ek~
Secretary and
becutive Officer
, dt --:l
,:. Jj
Uli
->
B. Facilities. Would the city system assume the school facilities in the
city limits or construct new facilities? If the city system assumed the
present facilities would the county system receive any compensation for
the facilities? If there is any indebtedness associated with faciliti~s
fairness would require that the indebtedness be assumed also but would
the city system be in a position to decline acceptance of any facility?
The transfer of school property is subject to negotiation of an agreement
between the school boards. In most cases classroom buildings in the city
become property of the city school system without remuneration. However.
the city school system would usually be required to make debt payments (if
any) on such property.
D. School District. Would the city system be able to draw a district that
includes all children attending Trussville schools at this time? If they are
included would a property tax earmarked for education countywide go to
the system in which the property is located or be dispersed based on
enrollment?
The drawing of attendance zones for a city school system for Trussville may
have to be decided by the judicial system. Item A. Funding addresses the
distribution of local taxes.
In order to complete a feasibility study for a separate school system tentative
answers to the questions above are needed. Attendance zones would be ~n
important factor in estimating state funds for a new school system.
This letter is not intended to encourage or discourage the formation of a city
school system in Trussville nor should the answers to your questions be
considered authoritative.
!fyou need additional information, please let us know.
Sincerely,
R.~J. M~
Robert L. Morton
Assistant State Superintendent
Administrative and Financial Services
RLMlDWH
Exhibit E
CORNER
,,~
Exhibit F
CORNER
,,~
o
D
Birmingham City
fultondale Zone
Displaced Are
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Exhibit G
Total
ADM
1277.00
117.77
Vocational 353 / 3
TOTAL STUDENTS
1394.67
1394.67
x
150
209,200.50
158.36
$33,187,500.00
Exhibit H
Grade
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bragg Middle
Bragg Middle
7
8
Bragg Middle
9 Gardendale High
10 Gardendale High
11 Gardendale High
12 Gardendale High
TOTAL
In Gardendale City
174
153
211
161
154
166
147
168
182
142
148
177
124
2107
Outside Gardendale
63
77
66
63
84
74
120
115
127
130
130
125
103
1277
Grade
In Gardendale City
K
1
2
3
4
5
138
125
164
134
124
132
School
Grade
In Gardendale City
Snow
Snow
Snow
Snow
Snow
Snow
K
1
2
3
4
5
32
24
44
21
22
26
School
Grade
In Gardendale City
Mt. Olive
Mt. Olive
Mt. Olive
Mt. Olive
Mt. Olive
Mt. Olive
K
1
2
3
4
5
4
4
3
6
6
8
School
Gardendale
Gardendale
Gardendale
Gardendale
Gardendale
Gardendale
Elem
Elem
Elem
Elem
Elem
Elem
Rogers
Rogers
Rogers
Rogers
Rogers
Rogers
Total
237
230
277
234
238
240
267
283
309
272
278
302
277
3384
Outside
Gardendale
19
14
21
13
20
17
Total
Outside
Gardendale
1
6
2
2
4
6
Total
Outside
Gardendale
43
57
43
48
60
51
Total
157
139
185
147
144
149
33
30
46
23
26
32
47
61
46
54
68
59
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
FILED
Bishop
CarlJohnson
CARLJOHNSON@BlSHOPCOLVIN.COM
RE:
Gardendale's separation will displace some 1,200 County students who are
currently enrolled in Gardendale Schools (and for whom the schools in
question were built to serve) as well as future generations of County
students who would otherwise have been entitled to attend those schools;
State law (Ala. Code 16-8-20) imposes on newly formed city boards of
education the obligationto provide the same or equivalent facilities for
students who are displaced by its assumption of control over the schools
within municipal boundaries, and the United States Constitution prohibits
newly formed city systems from arrogating county school facilities or
resources if doing so would come at the expense of the remaining county
students;
205.251.2881
Fax 205.254.3987
strength of an ostensible "gift" from the county system in the form of the
debt-free, $51,000,000.00 educational palace that is Gardendale High
School;
Gardendale not only demands deeds for schools, at least one of which
(Gardendale High School) would operate at well under half capacity, it
would have the County Board assume payroll obligations for Gardendale
employees to teach Gardendale students through September of 2015. Such
a requirement would create a special subsidy for a start-up system that is
not available to existing systems (including Jefferson County), which must
regularly make up for beginning-of-the-year payroll delays and shortfalls
in state funding with local funds.
The City Board's formal submission does nothing to call these basic premises into
question. On the other hand, it amply confirms the skewed, city-centric tenor of
Gardendale's position: County school systems serve as little more than platforms on
which to build city systemson the cities' terms and timetables. Under the "evolving
sense of fairness" standard posited by the Gardendale Board as the lodestar of school
system formation, the County Board would not only carry the City's educational
responsibilities until the City decides to assume them, but would be expected to
subsidize, sacrifice, and otherwise underwrite that initiative at the expense of County
students.
Plainly, neither the County Board nor the State Superintendent operates under
such a mandate.' If anything, the text and tenor ofthe law point to the opposite
conclusion. Whatever course is ultimately charted for a newly formed city system, its
students begin academic life in the city system on precisely the same footing as the
county students they leave behind. In any case, Gardendale's submissiontellingly
recast as a "report" setting forth its "intentions and expectations"^is largely predicated
on contradictory postulates and illusory misstatements.
1.
Gardendale concedes that 16-8-20 has been relied on by city and county boards
for guidance in the school formation context. It nonetheless asserts that the statute
provides no support for the County Board's request for funding to replace facilities that,
even under Gardendale's proposal, would ultimately be unavailable to County residents
who would have otherwise attended schools in the City of Gardendale. The operative
language of and intent underlying 16-8-20 could not be more straightforward: The city
board whose formation displaces county students bears the obligation of providing the
same or equivalent facilities for displaced county students. That requirement is not met
by a temporary transitional plan that phases out students residing in the Gardendale
attendance zone who currently attend Gardendale schools, and that apparently closes the
door altogether for other attendance zone residents.
Moreover, Gardendale has advanced no legal or logical rationale for
distinguishing the analysis to be applied when county schools are annexed and when they
are incorporated into a newly formed school district. The pathway to exclusion is
different but the practical results and effects of the processes are identical. The
Legislature has not adopted a separate provision for system formation because it has not
had to. As Gardendale itself acknowledges, boards of education have long recognized
that 16-8-20 controls both processes. Indeed, Gardendale freely acknowledges its
responsibility to assume the limited indebtedness that attaches to some of the Gardendale
schools. The source of that obligation is 16-8-20, Gardendale may not select which
statutory obligation it will meet and which it will choose to disregard as "unlawful" when
both emanate from the same code provision.
In any event, by its terms, 16-8-20 compels the provision of equivalent services
not only to children who are not annexed by a city having its own school system, but to
children who reside in the portion of the county school attendance zone that is not
' Noris theState Superintendent's role to devise or implement a policy that isaimed at pennitting theCity of
Gardendale and the City Board "to provide the best educational opportunities Tor the children of Gardendale"
(Gardendale Submission, p. 2). Self-evidently, the State Superintendent's responsibilities extend to all students in
the state and to all students affected by school system formation in equal measure.
otherwise "made a part of such city." All statutory language is presumed to have
meaning, to have been purposely adopted, and to have a field ofoperation.^ The statute
undeniably extends the City's obligation to provide the same or equivalent facilities to
students who are excluded from the schools either because they are not annexed or
because they are not otherwise "made a part of such city." Apart from annexation, the
only way that a student could not be "made a part of a city with a board of education
would be by the process of school system formation. Thus, 16-8-20 governs the school
formation process both logically and textually. Any other interpretation would
true intent and meaning ofthe school laws.'^ That authority should be exercised here to
confirm what an Alabama Supreme Court Justice has affirmed^ and Gardendale itselfhas
effectively conceded: 16-8-20 and the obligations it imposes require municipal school
systems to provide the same or equivalent facilities to students who would otherwise be
excluded from the schools to which they would otherwise be assigned whether the
exclusion is occasioned by annexation or school system formation.
2.
1074 (Ala. 2006) (It is presumed the Legislature doesnot enactmeaningless, vainor futile statutes) citingDruid
City Hosd. Bd. v. Epperson. 378 So.2d 696,699 (Ala. 1979)(same). See also Weathers v. City of Oxford. 895 So.2d
305,309 (Ala.Civ.App. 2004)(Legislature will not be presumed to have done a futile thing in enactinga statute;
presumption is that Legislature intended a just and reasonable construction and did not enacta statutewith no
practical meaning).
^Abramson v. Hard. 229 Ala. 2,7, 155 So. 590,593 (1934)(" "Another occasion for construing a statute is where
uncertainty as to its meaning arises not alone from ambiguity of the language employed, but from the factthat
giving a literal interpretation of the words will leadto suchunreasonable, unjust or absurd consequences as to
compel a convictionthat they could not have been intended by the legislature.");Pleasure Island Ambulatory
Surgery Ctr.. LLC v. State Health Planning & Dev. Agency. 38 So. 3d 739, 742 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008X "[w]here the
literal interpretation of thestatute would lead to absurd consequences or thwart the obvious purpose of thestatute,
thecourt may deviate from such an interpretation." quoting Reeder v. Geneva Cnty. Bd. of Educ.. 586 So. 2d222,
223 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991).
to adopt an "open door" attendance policy^ that, once again, appears to apply only to
students who are currently enrolled in Gardendale schools. That pronouncement was
issued only days after Gardendale had protested in its initial submission that it had been
unable to publicly clarify its position regarding out-of-district attendance. In any case,
the statement clarifies little and concretely commits to even less.
proposal underscores the infirmities ofvirtually any such plan.' In short, Gardendale's
open door policy is more accurately understood as a "back door" policy.
3.
The most straightforward and effective plan for avoiding educational disruption
and assuring the continuity and fairness that Gardendale purports to seek is for
*Whatever its precise substantive purport, a press release announcing an inieni to adopt a policy has nobinding
affect on the Gardendale Board. Even if sucha policy wereto be enacted, it could be repealed, modified, or
interpretedat the whim of the Board.
' Jefferson County agreed to such a transition plan when Trussville formed its school system in2005. Precisely
these kinds of complications and others, including overcrowding and thecreation of unnatural attendance patterns,
continue to impair the effectiveness ofthose arrangements. Whether different circumstances may have impelled
other school systems to enterinto such agreements, Jefferson County should not be made to repeat thatmistake.
Gardendale to provide for the construction ofthe facilities required to meet statutory and
constitutional equivalency standards. Indeed, that is the only practical means ofmeeting
those mandates fiilly and on a permanent basis.
Gardendale's plan would enable it to avoid that obligation by means of a finite
palliative that would leave the County Board and its displaced students no better off in
the long run than they would be were Gardendale to bar nonresidents from the schools
altogether. Assigning the funding obligation to Gardendale is fair because (1)
Gardendale put aside its educational obligations for half a century, shifted them by
default to the County district, and was aroused from its hibernation not because of any
dissatisfaction with educational services provided by the County system, but by the
prospect of gaining control and ownership of state-of-the-art facilities at a fire sale price;
(2) the buildings in question were built to serve all residents in the Gardendale attendance
zone; and (3) Gardendale's plan would yield an extraordinary windfall to the City that
would come at the expense ofthe County's students. As Gardendale's own consultant
confirmed,' Gardendale would be assuming an unusually small amount ofdebt, while the
County Board would be required to incur substantial new debt in order to provide
equivalent facilities for its displaced students. Self-evidently, such circumstances would
create an additional financial burden on the County Board, limit its residual borrowing
capacity, and effectively reverse the normal and natural order (new system assumes debt
on county schools) that even Gardendale concedes should control in this instance.
The adverse impact of school system pullouts is nowhere more pronounced than in
Jefferson County. Gardendale will be the twelfth municipal system to operate in this
county. Such pullouts inevitably erode the county district's school funding resources,
break up longstanding attendance patterns and school communities, exacerbate wealth
and service disparities, and resegregate the affected school districts. Counties become
balkanized into communities of educational haves and have nots. That trend will be the
ultimate fate of the Jefferson County system if the "it's all about us" ethos that permeates
Gardendale's manifesto rules the day.
Short of blocking school system formation, Gardendale can meaningfully mitigate
the deleterious effects of its withdrawal only by meeting its legal and equitable
obligations to (1) pay its employees from the date it assumes operational status and (2)
Harvey Report, Ex. 2, p. 47 (emphasis added; original emphasis deleted).
fund the construction of equivalent school facilities to serve the students who would
otherwise have been entitled to attend Gardendale schools for generations to come. A
token and temporary lease (the "rent" for which would be paid by county district
taxpayers) for some of the affected students hardly satisfies that obligation.
Respectfully submitted,
Carl Johnson
Melissa B. McKie
CJ:myr
End.
c:
Board of Education
GARDENDALE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Public Statement
The Gardendale City Board of Education wishes to articulate its position on thefuture attendance of studoitscunently in
Gardendale schools, butwholive outside of thecity limits of Gardendale. Ourreview andconsideration of attendance
policies fornewly formed systems andrecent Separation Agreements hasrevealed a consistent theme stated as follows:
..."theimmediate removal ofcounty studentsfrom thecity schoolsystem and certain citystudentsfrom thecounty ^stein
is notinthebestinterest ofstudents,families, commttnlties, or therespective schoolsystems, and thatappropriate
measures to easethetransition ofstudentsinto the respective schoolzones are neededand willbenefit both school boards
and thestudents that theyserve."
The Gardendale Board believes that anout-of-district attendance policy which allows allstudents, who are currently
enrolled inGardendale schools orcurrently enrolled inschools ofthe County system that traditionally feed to a Gardendale
school, to complete theireducation in Gardendale is in thebestinterest of all students, families, andour broader
communi^. Tothis end, theGardendale Board confirms itsintent toadopt such an open attendance policy. This
attendance policy will align with applicable federal and state statutes. The terms ofthepolicy will bereleased when the
separation negotiations finm theCounty system arecomplete.
From theoutset of the formal process ofnegotiations between the twoBoards of Education, bothGardendale andthe
County system agreed tomaintain strict confidentiality on all matters related tothe details ofthe Separation until such time
asthere was resolution and the process was finalized The Gardendale Board and itssuperintendent have honored firmly
this confidentiality agreement, and will continue to do so imtil a final separation agreement issigned byboth parties. The
Gardendale Board does confirm that a detailed account ofthe critical issues needing resolution has been sent toState
Superintendent ofEducation Dr. Tommy Bice and we are confident hewill resolve these issues according tothe
aforementioned principleofdoing what is "in the best interestofstudents".
It is firmly understood bytheGardendale Board that this process ofseparation hasproducoi anxiety, concem, and
unanswered questions forall families cunently in theGardendale Zone. Wesympathize wholeheartedly, and look forward
to the time when details canbeshared, andall those impacted cangetback to theexcitement ofputting into action the plan
of a newly formed Gardendale City School System. The establishment of anout-of^istrict attendance policy will ensure
that those individuals wishing to be a port of theGardendale School System maydo so.
919 Sharit Ave, Suite 213 * Gardendale, AL 35071 Phone (205) 38&4440
JCBE Reply Brief
Exhibit 1
Hie determination or the dollar value of a current teacher unit Is defined as the average
dollar value of a teacher unit in the currentfoundation program. The distribution of currentteacfier
units is due by December 1 of each fiscal year. Ifthe number of estimated current teacher units is
inadequate to fulfill the amount of current teacher units actually eamed. then the allocafion due
each local school system shall be prorated to the funds actually available. Should the number of
current teacher units actually eamed be less than the estimated amount, then the estimated
amount in excess of the eamed amount shall be distributed to all local school systems as an
increase in Other Current Expense as inthe 1995 Foundation Program.
Current teacher units are an unfunded liability from the beginning of the academic year until
after December 1 of each academic year when state funds set aside for reimbursement can be
certified as earned. Therefore, local funds must be expended for this purpose. Ifhowavar. Wera
am Insufficient state funds set aside tor the next fiscal year, the amount due each teeai
board of education and unpaid ts a oamanmt financial toss. However, the additional teacher
employedby the additional ADM recorded at ttie beginning of the academic year will be fumfed in
the next year's calculation of the Foundation Program. Growth in enrollment in the proposed
Gardendale CitySchool System could result in additional teacher units in the actual year ofgrowtti.
Cost Factors of the 1995 Foundation Program
The 1995 Foundation Program uses four cost factors to define the dollar allocation per
teacher unit, which are ctfculated at the building site level: (1) Salaries; (2) Ringe Benefits;
(3) instructional Support; and (4) Other Current Expense.
(1) Salaries
Salary Matrix- State Salary Allocation. The 1995Foundation Program uses a salaiy matrix for
reimbursement of teachers' salaries by educational attainment and yews of service. The degree
levels included are bachelor's degree, master's degree, six-year or educalionai specialist degree,
and the doctoral degree. Inaddition, provision is made for non-degree personnelat the bachelor's
level forfive t^es of educational attainment. The experience adjustment is based uponeach three
years of eiqierience for a maximum total of 27 years. After teacher reaches this final step at 27
years of ^rvice, there is no further advancement of salary vrith service time. This creates an
overall 5x10 salary matrix. The relationship between ceils Is recommended annuallybythe State
Boardof Educationand approved by the Legislature.
initially, the matrix calculated a salary allocation schedule from which each localboard of
education was required to pay teachers in their local salary schedule at least 95% of each cell's
value. The residual salary allocation could be used to supplement the localsalary schedule, to
hire additional teachers, or to hire teacher aids. This flexibility was removed In 1997. Each
local board of education is required to developa local salary schedule at least equal to 100%of
the salary matrix by degree and experience for all certificated personnel, federal, state and local
(see following section). Instructional Support Units have been placed on the salary matrix the
same as teachers vwth the exception of principals. The salary cost for instructional support units
Is incremented by a formula determined annually by the State Department of Education. The
state salary matrix for FY 2012-13 follows below in Table 3-4.
Salary Wlatrix - Minimum State Salary Schedule, in 1997, the Legislature approved a
requirement that each local board of education pay no less than 100% of the salary matrix by
cell to each certificated person. The legislature has by statute annually appropriated an
additionalsalary allocation of one percent of salaries; however, for FY 2012-13, this statute was
47
State law requires that a newly formed city school system acquire title to ail property
assodated with the school sites within the city, the equipment di those sites and the
transportation equipment transporting students to those sites. Furthermore, the new dty school
system may also be required to assume responsibility for debt assigned to those sites (subject
to contractual pledge of repayment). According to the records of the Jefferson County Board of
School Commissioners, there Is a potential debt to be assumed of $2,439,834.63 as of May 1,
2013. This debt, however, will be further retired by time of actual financial separation and is
uncommonly small for a newly forming school system to assume.
Long term debt for capital Improvements can occur in several ways for a city school
system. The dty can issue bonds or warrants and provide annually for the debt service from
city revenues, or the city can look to the school board to make the annual debt service
payments. The ioced board of education can issue revenue warrants and pledge proceeds from
the ad valorem taxes earmarked for capital outlay purposes (they can also pledge other tax
revenues for this purpose as well). And the local board, once separated, can participate In an
Alabama Public School and College Authority Pooled Purchase Bond Issue whereby ^e annual
Capital Purchase Allocation from the state Is used to purchase a portion of a largerbond Issue
and the annual apportionment from the state is Intercepted to make debt service payments.
There Is unallocated estimated annual debt service capability of $316,554.54 as a part of the
1995 Capital Purchase Allocation.
V. Instructional Services are those activities dealing directly with the interaction
between teachers and students. Teaching may be providedfor pupils in a school classroom, In
another location such as a home or hospital and in other learning situations such as those
involving co-currlcular activities (includes such activities as field trips, athletics, band and school
clubs), it may also be provided through some other approved medium such as television, radio,
telephone, computersand other areas oftechnology. Thisfunction should include the purchase
of Instructional furniture and equipment, and the repairs and maintenance for this equipment.
Also included here are the activities ofclassroomassistants of any type and substitute teachers
who directly assist In the instructional process. These actiwties are for the most part the
salaries and beneftts for certificated personnel, teachers, at each school site.
This category is the definition of classroom expense. Teachers are a part of instruction
and thus are expenditures of the classroom. For the most part, the instructional senrices costs
in existing schools located within the City of Qardendale are funded through the 1995
Foundation Program and other state aid programs such as Jlne Items allocated through the
State Department of Education, and federally funded programs. Some of these costs are
provided from local funds of the Jefferson County School System and would continue to be
funded through allocation of countywide and proposed Gardendale City School System Tax
District taxes.
However, based upon expectations of taxpayers, citizens, parents, and students of the
proposed Gardendale City School System, Improvements in classroom supplies and equipment
and additional Instructional personnel may be a necessity. Inaddition, additional funding forthe
education of exceptional children may be required based upon the identified educational needs
of students actually in attendance upon separation.
In order to provide for additional
Instructional programs, it Is recommended that new revenues be considered sufficient to
employ, on average, two additional specialized classroom teachers at each school site for a
total of eight. This would cost approximately$642,000 annually based upon the FY2012-13
cost of a teacher unit These additional personnel are not required by any state regulation or by
122
Exhibit 7
State of Alabama
Department of Education
d Richardson
StateSuperintendent of Education
June 12,2000
Alabama
State Board
of Education
pRiident
Vatd'
Oimiall
You requested infoimation on foiming a ciQr school system. State law provides
general guidance for the o'eation of a ci^y school system with much ofthe details
subject to the negotiation of an agreement between the two school boards.
Therefore, the answers (in Italia below) to the following questions you mayhave
are general information and should not be considered as authoritative.
SUt
Diitrialll
9t. lem p. ?W
Oitiriet V
District VI
Saadta /3tjt
9t. Si SStiniiiu
Sectstuyatid
Thelocal match is the egttivalent of10 district mills oflocal ad valorem tax.
* (The collection of local taxes beyond the required 10 mills has no effect on
FOUNDATION PROGRAM funds.) The other state appropriations are
designated for capital purchases, at-risk students, school nurses, exit exam
remediation, preschool students, and student transportation (although a dty_
Executive OfReet
JUN \ 4 illllO
ftlJCB%k$ly Brief
Exhibit 3
r\
(V.
between the school boards. In most cases dassroom buil^gs in the city
become property ofthe dty school ^tem without remunerdion. However,
the city school syst&n would taudly be required to make debt payments (if
any) on suchproperty.
^ between the two school boards (subjed to the approval of the State
Superintendent ofEducation). Ala. Code 16-24-2 states "...the continuing
service status ofteachers involved in such dmnges is in no wayJeopardized."
(Teachersretain tenure.) In the most recentformation ofa cityschool system
all current employees of the schoob (unless dismbsed by the county school
tystem) were allowed to remain at their position unless the employee chose
and was acceptedat anotherassignment in the county schoolsystem.
-,.5
c.
Eugene A. Melton
Page 3
June 12,2000
D. Sebool District Would the city system be able to draw a district that
includes all children attending Truss^le schools at this time? Ifthqr are
inclnded would a property tax earmarked for education countywide go to
the system In which the property is located or be dispersed based on
enrollment?
Robert L. Morton
AssistantState Superintendent
FILED
Alan K. Zeigler
Direct: (205) 521-8257
Fax: (205) 488-6257
azeigler@babc.com
Alan K. Zeigler
AKZ:lmc
Enclosures
cc:
INTRODUCTION
This response is submitted by Donald B. Sweeney, Jr., and Alan K. Zeigler, of Bradley
Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, Alabama, as counsel to the Gardendale City Board of
Education (the City Board), to the statement filed by counsel to the Jefferson County Board of
Education (the County Board), regarding the formation of the Gardendale City Board of
Education and its efforts to exercise, commencing July 1, 2015, the general administration and
supervision of the public schools in the City of Gardendale (the City).
FALSE STATUTORY PREMISE UNDERLYING THE COUNTY BOARDS ARGUMENT
The matter now before the State Superintendent is not an annexation by a city of
territory on which a school is located. This is a material fact that is not disputed. Since this is
not an annexation, the annexation statute [Alabama Code section 16-8-20] relied upon by the
County Board has no application.
If the State Superintendent were to resolve the critical issue before him based on an
inapplicable statute, the Superintendent would err as a matter of law.
There is no annexation involved in this instance. The City seeks to exercise its
statutory right, pursuant to Alabama Code section 16-11-2(b), related to the general
administration and supervision of the public schools and educational interest of the City. The
annexation statute is inapplicable. When a city annexes property on which a school is located,
certain issues between the citys board of education and the county board arise but, under the
laws of Alabama, those issues are to be presented to a board of arbitration and not the State
Superintendent. Those issues must be resolved by a board of arbitration, pursuant to Alabama
Code sections 16-8-21 and 16-8-22. Since there is no annexation in the matter at hand and the
statutory procedure for resolving annexation-related disputes does not apply, the parties have
agreed to bring the unresolved issues to the State Superintendent pursuant to the provisions of
Alabama Code section 16-4-8.
The County Board erroneously relies on an inapplicable statute Alabama Code
section 16-8-20 to advance the myth that the City Board must pay an Exit Fee for the right to
form a city school system, namely, the sum $33,187,500.
1
If the State Superintendent were to impose a financial burden on the City Board or on
the City based on an inapplicable statute, the Superintendent would err as a matter of law.
In forming its own board of education, the City of Gardendale has done what at least
70 other cities in Alabama have done. The County Board has attempted to inhibit the Citys
exercise of this unquestioned right by presenting vague concerns related to an ongoing federal
desegregation case, by campaigning against the Citys efforts to raise school revenue, by
suggesting that Gardendale did not want certain students and by insinuating that the Citys action
would result in large number of students who would either face arduous bus rides or be
completely without schools. None of these misleading tactics should be allowed to thwart the
rightful, stated and clear commitment of the citizens of Gardendale to govern the schools within
the Citys corporate limits.
A recurring theme in several of the separations in recent years has been a concern that
the realignment of attendance zones not disrupt the educational process. It is not unusual to find
as the basis for separation agreements statements such as the following:
The parties have agreed that immediate removal of County Students from
City Schools and certain City Students from County Schools is not in the best
interest of students, families, communities, or the respective school systems, and
that appropriate measures to ease the transition of students into the respective
school zones are needed and will benefit both schools boards and the students
they serve.
With its Open Door Attendance Policy, the City Board hopes to inject this sentiment into the
issues related to the City Board and its operation of the four schools located in the City of
Gardendale.
On November 6, 2013, less than a week before the City of Gardendales successful
election on the levy of a new municipal ad valorem tax, the County Boards President posted an
opinion on the website al.com, which is widely read in the City. The opinion was captioned
Does Gardendale need its own district? One paragraph of the opinion read as follows:
The right of a community to consider forming its own independent school
district is one that the Jefferson County Board of Education respects. If
Gardendale does indeed ultimately form its own school district, we will work
together with city leaders to ensure a smooth transition so that both Jefferson
County and Gardendale students are well served with neither group of students
being at an academic disadvantage as a result of the formation of a new
Gardendale school district.
The City Boards Open Door Attendance Policy is intended to avoid any such disadvantage and
the City Board and the Gardendale community at-large is concerned and disappointed that the
County Boards actions are not consistent with their then-leaders published policy statement.
I.
At the first meeting between representatives of the City Board and the County Board
to discuss the separation issues, the Stout case was mentioned and it was agreed that all concerns
about desegregation were before the U. S. District Court having jurisdiction in the Stout case and
that, with regard to desegregation, each board would stand on its own. The City Board is keenly
aware of the federal courts involvement in desegregation in Jefferson County and stands ready
to address any concerns in that court. The County Board raises the issue of the Stout case as if it
were a pall to be cast over Gardendales plan to assume operational control of the four schools
located in the City. The Stout case was filed in 1971, more than 30 years before both Leeds and
Trussville were allowed to separate from the County Board. The U. S. Department of Justice
precleared both the Leeds and the Trussville separations.
A city in Alabama with a population of 5,000 or more that exercises its statutory right
(section 16-11-2 of the Code of Alabama 1975) to form a separate and independent board of
education is not cherry-picking when it elects to exercise that right. There is nothing about
this action that offends law and equity and it should not offend the board of education in the
county in which the newly-formed city board of education is located. To date, counting the City
Board, at least 71 Alabama cities have formed their own boards of education.
The County Board misapprehends the purpose of Alabama Code section 16-8-20 when
it states that the section . . . imposes an affirmative obligation on the newly formed city
system to provide certain school facilities. There is nothing in section 16-8-20 to support the
County Boards position. As discussed in our report dated December 12, 2014, Code section
16-8-20 addresses instances in which a city annexes territory on which a school is located.
There has been no annexation by the City here. The question before the State Superintendent
here deals solely with ownership of school buildings when a city forms its own board of
education. There is nothing in the law of Alabama that supports the County Boards imposition
of an Exit Fee of $33,187,500 on the City Board. There is no legal predicate whatsoever for this
Exit Fee. There is nothing in our law that permits this punitive measure. Had the Legislature of
Alabama viewed school buildings as assets that could be bartered and dealt with in this manner,
it could have authorized such; it did not.
Contrary to the County Boards argument, section 16-8-20 does not impose any
obligation on a newly formed school system, much less the obligation to pay an Exit Fee of
$33,187,500 based solely on the premise that a county system with reduced (or flat) student
enrollment over the last decade needs to build additional school buildings. The current SAFE
report indicates the County Board now has an excess capacity for at least 13,000 students.
Counsel for the County Board writes of every school system formation in the modern
era. A careful examination of the facts surrounding the eight school separations that have
occurred in Alabama in this century, beginning with the Leeds City Board separating from the
County Board in 2003 [Leeds, Trussville, Saraland, Chickasaw, Satsuma, Pelham, Pike Road and
Alabaster] reveals no such Exit Fee ever being allowed.
3
The City Boards Open Door Attendance Policy will permit students who live in the
traditional Gardendale attendance zone (but outside the corporate limits of the City) to continue
attending Gardendale schools provided that the County Board consents to the district ad valorem
tax-sharing agreement used in Trussville, Alabaster and Pelham (and also in Pike Road, in
connection with its high school students who will attend Montgomery County schools until such
time as the Pike Road system builds a high school). A tax-sharing agreement with respect to the
district ad valorem tax is the practical way of allowing the district revenues to follow the
students; by law (section 16-13-31), countywide tax revenues follow the students.
Counsel for the County Board suggests that the City of Gardendale is somehow
derelict in its duties because it did not enter into an agreement respecting its schools with the
County Board when the population of the City first exceeded 5,000. Section 16-13-199 of the
Alabama Code 1975 addresses the disposition of county school funds in such instances and the
proper and timely retirement of outstanding school warrant indebtedness, but it is clear here that
the County Board has not in any way been harmed or prejudiced by a shortcoming that allegedly
occurred more than a half-century ago. More often than not, Code section 16-13-199 is
observed in the breach; we point out that there is nothing that would have prevented the County
Board from initiating a discussion of this matter with the City 55 years ago. The County Boards
complaints more than 50 years after the fact are neither reasonable nor actionable.
In supporting its levy of the $33,187,500 Exit Fee, the County Board relies heavily on
several sentences written by Justice Bolin in the Chism case. Chism v. Jefferson Co., 954 So. 2d
1058 (2006). Justice Bolin dissented in the Chism case and his reasoning was not accepted by a
majority of the Court; only one of the Courts nine justices, Mr. Justice Parker, concurred with
Justice Bolin. Justice Bolins concern, expressed in his dissent, centered on the appropriate
distribution of a countywide sales tax for schools levied under section 40-12-4 of the Alabama
Code. The Chism case offers no support for the County Boards position. It is ironic that the
majority opinion in the Chism case, not Justice Bolins dissent, is what allowed the County
Board to receive more than $300,000,000 in grants from the Jefferson County Commission for
capital school improvements in 2006 and 2007.
The only legal basis for a county board to assert to deny a city from exercising its
statutory right to administer and supervise the public schools in the city would be jurisdictional,
that is, that the city has a population of less than 5,000 and, accordingly, falls outside the
purview of the statute. The County Board argues that this separation should not be allowed on
the grounds that Gardendale has greater revenue generating capability than the County Board.
It is true that the City Board is the beneficiary of 10 mills of annual ad valorem tax recently
levied by the City for school purposes but the County Boards supposition is not, and should not
be allowed to serve as, an impediment to the City Boards exercise of its statutory right to
administer and supervise the schools in Gardendale. All county boards of education in Alabama
indeed, all city boards as well have the same opportunity to take steps under the Lid Bill
Amendment (also known as Amendment No. 373 to the Alabama Constitution) to raise the rate
of any existing ad valorem tax.
Contrary to the oblique assertions of the County Board, the taxpayers of Alabama at
the city, county and state level fund the public schools in Alabama. It would be
unconscionable to impose the Exit Fee burden on the taxpayers of Gardendale.
Inherent in the County Board's position is the feeling that a county board might,
somehow, construct hub schools and otherwise orchestrate things in a way that could estop
cities from forming separate and independent boards of education. That is not the law in
Alabama. The County Board knew, when it spent a portion of the more than $300,000,000 in
Jefferson County grants to make capital improvements within the corporate limits of Gardendale,
that it would not own those improvements if Gardendale formed its own board of education. The
County Board had significant experience with the City of Trussville, almost a decade before
Trussville formed its own system, regarding the construction and ownership of the Paine
Elementary and Middle Schools. The County Board would not build these schools in Trussville
and the City stepped up, borrowed the funds and built the two schools. Presumably, the County
Board declined to build the elementary schools in Trussville because it was well-known in the
community that Trussville might someday form its own school system and, accordingly, would
assume ownership of whatever the County Board built in the City. Only a few years before the
County Board decided to spend a portion of its grant money for the construction in Gardendale,
the Leeds system and the Trussville system were formed and separated from the County Board
and the County Board saw without exception or qualification that each separating city school
system took title to the schools located within their corporate limits.
II.
The City Board will be prepared, on July 1, 2015, to provide specialized services for
those of its students who require specialized education services. When it proposed that those
twelve Gardendale-resident school-age students be allowed to remain in the Burkett Center, with
the City Board paying the full costs, the City Board did not realize (considering the County
Boards massive $300,000,000+ capital building program in the past several years) that the
Center was beyond capacity and that it currently serves more than the number of students for
which it was designed. As stated earlier, our proposal that the Gardendale students be allowed to
continue at Burkett was motivated by our concern for the well-being of the students and that they
not experience any disruption; we were not attempting nor will we attempt to avoid our
responsibility.
III.
Everyone who is familiar with Alabama public school finance is aware that the
scholastic or academic year (July 1 June 30) does not coincide with the States fiscal year
(October 1 September 30) or its method of funding public schools. This presents what is
sometimes referred to as the September Payroll Issue. In other words, this is the question: is
a newly-formed system entitled to a pro rata share of Foundation Program funds for the students
it educates in August and September of the first school year, before the traditional state funding
5
begins in October? In six of the separations that have occurred since 2003, the newly-formed
school systems were allowed their fair share of Foundation Program funds with the county board
being responsible for funding the payment of salaries and benefits for all state-earned positions
assigned to the newly-formed city school system through the end of the then current fiscal year.
In short, this means for the September payroll. This was the case in Leeds in 2003, in Saraland
in 2008, in Chickasaw and Satsuma in 2012, in Alabaster in 2013 and in Pelham in 2014. This
was not an effort to take money away from county students; rather, it is the only practical way of
allowing the State funds to benefit the students in the newly-formed city system.
The County Boards reliance on Mr. Robert Mortons letter to the Mayor of Trussville
in 2000, five years before the City of Trussville assumed the operational responsibility for the
schools in the City of Trussville, is misplaced. The County Board fails to quote the closing
sentiment in Mr. Mortons letter (see Exhibit F to the statement filed by the County Board)
which reads:
This letter is not intended to encourage or discourage the formation of a
city school system in Trussville nor should the answers to your questions be
considered authoritative. (Emphasis supplied.)
The first clause of Mr. Mortons sentence tacitly recognized that the State Department of
Education lacks the power to determine whether or not, and under what terms, a city may form
its own board of education that is clearly the province of the Legislature and the second
clause acknowledged that Mr. Morton did not presume that his answers to the Mayor of
Trussville would have any precedential value. In fact, as stated above, six of the eight newlyformed systems in the modern era were allowed their fair share of Foundation Program funds.
Allowing the City Board to receive a pro rata share of the State Allocation for
September (the share being based on the number of Gardendale students who were included in
the formula on which the County Boards allocation was determined) is both fair and consistent
with the practice in recent years. School systems throughout the State look to the State
Department on policy matters and policies and practices should be uniform. The September
Payroll Issue is not about a county board being burdened with payroll obligations when it does
not have supervisory authority; it is about fairness and equity.
APPENDIX
The City Board is concerned that some of the information provided in the County
Boards statement is not accurate or, at least, has not been presented fairly and, accordingly, has
included as an Appendix to this response a rebuttal to certain of the information and to
conclusions that it feels lack adequate factual support.
CONCLUSION
The City Board reiterates its invitation to Dr. Bice, asking that he visit the schools in
Gardendale, talk to the parents, the Board and the Superintendent and experience the excitement
in the City and in the surrounding communities about the Gardendale City School System and
understand further how the City Board will best serve the interests of the students.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan K. Zeigler
As counsel to the Gardendale City Board of
Education
SERVICE
I hereby certify and confirm that copies of the foregoing Response, together with the
attachment referred to therein, were sent electronically to Messrs. Johnson and Colvin, as
counsel to the Jefferson County Board of Education, and to the Office of General Counsel, State
of Alabama Department of Education (to the attention of Mr. Larry Craven and Ms. Juliana
Dean), at the same time the Response was sent electronically to Dr. Bice, this 19th day of
December, 2014.
Alan K. Zeigler
Page 1 of 5
December 19, 2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
__________________
Rebuttal of the Gardendale City Board of Education to the
Jefferson County Board Position Statement
The Gardendale City Board of Education provides the following information in response
to the County Boards submission of December 12, 2014. The attached documentation provides
clarification to certain submitted data relative to the critical issues.
1. Correction of Gardendale Zone Enrollment Numbers as provided to the Gardendale City
Board of Education on October 17, 2014 by Jefferson County Schools (i.e. General Student
Population, Students Enrolled in Career Tech, and Students Enrolled at the William E.
Burkett Center).
Jefferson County Board Point of Correction page 13 of 15; Response #4 (General Student
Population and Career Tech Enrollment):
The number of students (1,277) on which the projection is based includes both displaced
Gardendale attendance zone students, and 353 Career Tech students from the County school
district who are served at the regional career tech center currently housed at Gardendale
High School.
Page 2 of 5
December 19, 2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
__________________
program. The County Board has not made any
proposals with respect to this continued opportunity.
2. Refuting the Jefferson County Schools claim that Gardendale zoned students outside of the
city boundaries will not have accessibility to facilities that are equivalent in terms of age,
condition, or amenities. Also to be negated is the claim that facilities within the proximity of
the Gardendale zone are at capacity with current (FY15) enrollment.
City Board Note:
Page 3 of 5
December 19, 2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
__________________
Attachment D1
Attachment D2
Attachment D3
Attachment D4
Attachment D5
Attachment E2
Attachment E3
Attachment E4
Attachment E5
Page 4 of 5
December 19, 2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
__________________
Jefferson County Board Point of Correction page 7 of 15 (Proximity to Alternative
Facilities with Capacity):
Even if a school with comparable facilities could be identified, no such school with adequate
capacity is within reasonable driving distance from the Gardendale zone, 16 and those
schools are located in insular communities with no natural ties to the Gardendale area.
Other schools that are in closer proximity to the current Gardendale zone are either at
capacity or are not equivalent in terms of the age, condition, or amenities.
Footnote 16: 16 The bus commute for some Gardendale zone residents to the nearest (but
nonetheless far flung) schools with capacity would be in excess of one hour (one way).
3. Jefferson County Board Effort to Thwart the Gardendale Community Campaign to levy a
school tax.
Page 5 of 5
December 19, 2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
__________________
4. Prior Separation Agreements between municipal systems and county systems have focused
on negotiations for compromise in what was deemed the best interest of students. There has
been no effort on the part of the County Boards Leadership to entertain any method of
negotiation related to the Critical Issues now before Dr. Thomas Bice.
Prior Separation Negotiations with reference to serving the best interest of students
(Provided as Attachment I)
Attachment I1
Attachment I2
Attachment I3
Attachment A
Total
Students
921
190
335
859
1079
3384
Inside City
Limits
817
169
33
497
591
2107
Outside City
Limits
104
21
302
362
488
1277
Jeffco
Ed
GZS
0
0
0
362
488
850
Employee Gardendale
Children
Residents
0
0
0
5
9
14
0
0
0
6
3
9
Annex
Other
Into
City
City
Transfers
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
10
36
31
60
41
Gardendale
City
GZS
0
0
0
317
409
726
Gardendale Zone Students (GZS) are only the students that attend Bragg Middle School and
Gardendale High School in grades 6th-12th. Therefore, elementary students who attend
Gardendale, Snow Rogers, and Mt. Olive Elementary Schools cannot be included in Gardendale
Zone Student numbers as Jefferson County claims because they have an elementary zone
school to attend if they live outside the city limits of Gardendale.
Mt. Olive
North Smithfield
Brookside
Gardendale
Annex into the City
Employees Child
Residents of City
GZS
Other City Transfers
Total Students
591
36
9
3
639
639
409
31
440
Other Cities / Transfers - Other Cities Transfers cannot be counted in Inside City Limits or Outside City
Limits Gardendale Zone Students because they have their own home school to attend and therefore
would not be displaced.
Forestdale
Morris
Fultondale
Huffman
Center Point
10
Pinson
Warrior
Chalkville
Mt.Brook
West Jefferson
Total
31
Mt. Olive
North Smithfield
Brookside
Gardendale
Annex into the City
Employees Child
Residents of City
GZS
Other City Transfers
Total Students
497
24
5
6
532
532
317
10
327
Fultondale
Hueytown
Warrior
Pinson
Ensley
Total
10
Gardendale
Annex into the City
Employee Child
Resident of City
GZS
Other Elementary
Zone Students
Total Students
# of Students
817
30
21
10
0
43
921
878
43
Gardendale Zone Students (GZS) are only the students that attend Bragg Middle School and
Gardendale High School in grades 6th-12th. Therefore, elementary students who attend
Gardendale Elementary cannot be included in Gardendale Zone Student numbers as Jefferson
County claims because they have an elementary zone school to attend if they live outside the city
limits of Gardendale.
25
Fultondale Elementary
Bryan Elementary
Special Education
8
43
Snow Rogers
Annex into the City
Employee Child
Resident of City
GZS
Other Elementary
Zone Students
Total Students
# of Students
169
9
2
1
0
9
190
181
Gardendale Zone Students (GZS) are only the students that attend Bragg Middle School and
Gardendale High School in grades 6th-12th. Therefore, elementary students who attend Snow
Rogers Elementary cannot be included in Gardendale Zone Student numbers as Jefferson County
claims because they have an elementary zone school to attend if they live outside the city limits
of Gardendale.
Fultondale Elementary
Pinson Elementary
Birmingham/Fairfield
Mt.Olive Elementary
2
21
Attachment B
Attachment C
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Attachment D1
Mortimer Jordan HS
Corner HS
GHS
Bragg
Brookville Elem.
Fultondale HS
Minor HS
N. Smithfield
Community
12/18/2014
CornerHighSchoolBhamwiki
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document
1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 28
CornerHighSchool
FromBhamwiki
CornerHighSchoolisafouryearpublichighschoollocatedat10005CornerSchoolRoadwestof
WarriorinnorthwestJeffersonCounty.ItistheoneoffourteenhighschoolsintheJeffersonCountySchool
System.Theschool'scolorsareblackandgoldanditsathleticteamsarecalledthe"YellowJackets".The
principalisRonCooper.
Anewschoolbuildingwascompletedin2010,usingfundsfroma$1billionbondissuesupportedbya1
increaseinJeffersonCountysalestaxesproposedin2005bythenJeffersonCountyCommissionpresident
LarryLangford.ThebuildingwasdesignedbyDavisArchitects.
References
Anderson,MichelleD.(August1,2010)"Birmingham,JeffersonCountytolaunchnewschools
duringcomingschoolyear."BirminghamNews
Externallinks
CornerHighSchool(http://cornerhigh.jefcoed.com/)atjefcoed.com
Retrievedfrom"http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Corner_High_School&oldid=72214"
Categories: Warrior JeffersonCountyschools Highschools 2010buildings
DavisArchitectsbuildings
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon26January2011,at17:15.
Thispagehasbeenaccessed1,340times.
http://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Corner_High_School
1/1
12/17/2014
History
Parents in the Morris area organized for the founding of the new
school, which opened in the fall of 1920. Ninety students were
enrolled at the start of the year, and the first graduating class
consisted of Sudie Counts and Eileen Jenkins, both of whom
became teachers. The faculty consisted of three female teachers
and Mennie Halliman as the school's first principal.
A Mr Gordon took over as principal in 1921. He began the
clearing of a wooded lot that later served as a playground by
sending misbehaving students out to cut down trees and dig up
stumps. Twelve students graduated in the second full year of
classes. Thirteen-year-old Mabel Creel graduated in 1928 as the
valedictorian of her class.
Established
1920
School
type
Public
District
Grades
9-12
Principal
Barbara Snider
Enrollment
931 (2007)
Colors
Mascot
Blue Devils
1920 Blue Devil Drive
Kimberly
Location
Website
mortimerjordanhigh.jefcoed. com
(http://mortimerjordanhigh.jefcoed.com/Pages/Default.aspx)
The school's original building had five rooms, but growth required the addition of a frame building of eight rooms. The school's
first gym was built by the Works Progress Administration in 1936-37, around the same time the lunchroom program was
established. Indoor plumbing and restrooms, fed by pump from Turkey Creek, were installed before 1941. A football and athletic
field was added in the early l 950's.
Jimmie Trotter served as principal for 32 years.
In recent history, the school served grades 7-12. With the opening of North Jefferson Middle
School in the fall of 2004, Mortimer Jordan began serving only grades 9-12.
In 201 L the school moved to a new 232,000 square-foot building at the end of Bone Dry Road
(renamed Blue Devil Drive) in Kimberly. The new campus, designed by Davis Architects,
includes a 650-seat perfonning arts center, a culinary arts kitchen, and several computer and
science labs. Winter Construction built the new facility.
Mortimer Jordan High School
as it looked in the 1960s
The old school building was converted into the new home for the William E. Burkett Center for
handicapped students.
Athletics
The Mortimer Jordan Blue Devils compete in AHSAA Level SA. Region 6. The 1928 boys' basketball team,
coached by Clarence Vines, won a state title and went on to finish second in the national finals in Chicago,
Illinois. The girls' fast pitch softball team, coached by Laura Rickman, has brought home state titles in 1999,
2008, 2009 and 2011 .
The Blue Devils football team, coached by Greg Watts, plays its home games at 4,500-seat Jimmie Trotter
Field, named for the school's long-time principal.
http://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Mortimer_Jordan_High_School
1/2
12/17/2014
Principals
Notable graduates
Peter Willis, NFL quarterback
References
Willis, Ann (1963) "Mortimer Jordan High founded in 1920
(http://www.jefcoed.com/sites/Schools/MortimerJordanHS/Publishingimages/Mortimer%20Jordan%20High%20School.jpg)"
- accessed January 24, 2012
Baker, Jerry (February 29, 2000) "Mortimer Jordan leader set to retire after 32 years." Birmingham News, page 3-B
Montgomery, Ben (October 13, 2011) "Officials cut ribbon at Mortimer Jordan High School". North Jefferson News
"Mortimer Jordan High School (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mortimer- Jordan- High- School)" (December 9,
2011) Wikipedia - accessed January 24, 2012
External links
Mortimer Jordan High School (http://mortimerjordanhigh.jefcoed.com/Pages/Default.aspx) website
Mortimer Jordan High School football history (http://www.ahsths.org/Teams2/teampage.asp?Team=Mortimer%20Jordan)
from AHSFHS.org site
Retrieved from "http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Mortimer_Jordan_High_ School&oldid=839 l 5"
Categories: Jefferson County schools I High schools , 1920 establishments 1 1920 buildings I Old Highway 31 Morris
New Deal projects ; 2011 buildings i Blue Devil Drive I Davis Architects buildings
This page was last modified on 25 January 2012, at 14:43.
This page has been accessed 5,944 times.
http://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Mortimer_Jordan_High_School
212
12/18/2014
FultondaleHighSchoolWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 28
FultondaleHighSchool
Coordinates:33.63161N86.77601W
FromWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia
FultondaleHighSchoolisapublichighschoollocatedinBirmingham,Alabama.474studentsattended
theschoolin2005.ItispartoftheJeffersonCountySchoolSystem.
Itwasformedinthe1960sasNewCastleHighSchoolandthemascotwastheKnightsuntil1972,when
theschoolwasrenamedFultondaleHighSchool.ThemascotwaschangedtotheWildcats,andthecolors
werechangedtoblueandorange.
Contents
1History
2Sports
2.1Boys
2.2Girls
3StateChampionshipTitles
4Band
5Externallinks
History
BeforetherewasaFultondaleHighSchool,studentswholivedinFultondaleandwereingrades19
attendedFultondaleElementarySchool.Studentsingrades1012attendedGardendaleHighSchool.In
1965anewschoolwasbuiltatthepresentFultondalesiteandwasnamedNewCastleHighSchool.In1967
thevocationalbuildingwasadded.Inthefallof1972,studentsfromFultondaleElementaryandthe
SmithfieldareamergedwiththestudentsatNewCastleHighSchool.TheJeffersonCountyBoardof
Educationthenchangedtheschool'snametoFultondaleHighSchool.
Atthetimeofthemergingofschools,JackHazelrigwastheprincipalatFultondaleElementary.Hewas
appointedbytheboardtobetheveryfirstprincipalofFultondaleHighSchool.Theschoolhousedgrades
712initsfirstyearbutwaschangedtoan812schoolthenextyear.FultondaleHighsawitsfirst
graduatingclasswiththeclassof1973.
Startedinthe20132014schoolyear,the6thgradersfromFultondaleElementarybeganattending
FultondaleHighduetoovercrowdingattheelementaryschool.
Sports
Boys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fultondale_High_School
1/3
12/18/2014
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHHFultondaleHighSchoolWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 28
Football
Inthe2011seasontheWildcatsmadeschoolhistorybyenteringintothequarterfinalroundin
theAHSAA2Astateplayoffs.
Inthe2012seasontheWildcatsmadeschoolhistorybygoingbacktobackinthequarterfinal
roundsofthe2Astateplayoffs.Lateroninthe20122013schoolyear,itsawitsfirstSEC
signeetotheUniversityofAlabama,quarterback/freesafetyArDariusStewart.
CrossCountry
Basketball
Wrestling
Baseball
Track
Golf
Inthe2010seasontheWildcatssenttheirfirstindividualgolfertotheAHSAAsubstate
playoffs.
Soccer
Girls
Cheerleading
Volleyball
CrossCountry
Basketball
Inthe20132014season,theteammadeschoolhistorybywinningtheirfirsteverareatitlein
theAHSAAClass2AArea13Tournament.Theywouldhosttheirsubregiongameforthe
firsttimeagainstSulligentHighSchoolandlostthegame3754.
Softball
Track
Tennis
StateChampionshipTitles
Wrestling:1992,1994,1995
Band
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fultondale_High_School
2/3
12/18/2014
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHHFultondaleHighSchoolWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 28
Thebandwasoriginallycalled"TheFultondaleWildcatMarchingBand"andlaternamed"Rainbow
Regiment".Inthefallof2012thebandcelebratedtheir40thanniversary.
Externallinks
FultondaleHighwebsite(http://fultondalehigh.jefcoed.com)
Retrievedfrom"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fultondale_High_School&oldid=612440585"
Categories: Alabamaschoolstubs HighschoolsinBirmingham,Alabama
SchoolsinJeffersonCounty,Alabama PublichighschoolsinAlabama
PublicmiddleschoolsinAlabama
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon11June2014at02:17.
TextisavailableundertheCreativeCommonsAttributionShareAlikeLicenseadditionaltermsmay
apply.Byusingthissite,youagreetotheTermsofUseandPrivacyPolicy.Wikipediaisa
registeredtrademarkoftheWikimediaFoundation,Inc.,anonprofitorganization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fultondale_High_School
3/3
12/18/2014
MinorHighSchoolBhamwiki
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document
1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 28
MinorHighSchool
FromBhamwiki
MinorHighSchoolisacomprehensivepublichigh
schoolintheJeffersonCountySchoolSystem.Itserves
thecommunitiesofMcDonald'sChapel,Edgewater,
Mulga,Bayview,MinorHeights,Docena,Crumley
Chapel,Sandusky,Hillview,Westwood,Adamsville,
Cardiff,Forestdale,GraysvilleandBrooksideinthe
westernpartofJeffersonCounty.Theschoolprovides
bothcollegepreparatoryandcareer/technicalclasses.
Theschool,designedbyarchitectBemPrice,cost
$100,000toconstructandequip.Itopenedin1922with
95studentsandW.C.Pettyasprincipal.Initsfirstfull
academicyear7facultytaughtatotalof301students.
ThefirstgraduatingclassmatriculatedinJune1923with
14takinghomediplomas.
AfirebrokeoutinthechemistrylaboratoryonJanuary
22,1926destroyingmostoftheschool.Itwasrebuilt
andreopenedin1927.Lateradditionsprovideda
gymnasiumandlibraryinadditiontomoreclassrooms.In
1953astateoftheartlightedfootballstadiumwas
completed,withapressboxaddedsevenyearslater.
MinorHighSchool
Established
1922
School
type
Public
District
JeffersonCountySchools
912
DavidPike
1,178(2007)
purpleandwhite
Tigers
2285MinorParkway
Adamsville
www.minortigers.com
(http://www.minortigers.com/index.htm)
Grades
Principal
Enrollment
Colors
Mascot
Location
Website
Newofficesandclassroomswereaddedin1963.Aband
roomandcafeteriawereconstructedin1970.Later,DixieJuniorHighSchool,adjacenttoMinor,was
relocatedandthehighschooltookoveritsclassroomsandaddedanewfieldhouseandgymnasium,
doublingthesizeofthecampus.
AnentirelynewMinorHighSchoolwasconstructedinAdamsville,completedintimeforthe1988school
year.Anewstadiumwasbuiltin1996.Additionalwingswereconstructedin2002,alongwithapractice
gym.Newathleticpracticefieldswerebuiltafter2004.Campussecuritywasenhancedwithclosedcircuit
camerasinpublicareasoftheschool.
Theschoolimplementedseveralprogramstoimproveinstruction,includingaFreshmanAcademy,
graduationexamtutoring,andAPcourses.In2012itwasoneofsixschoolsnationwidehonoredbythe
"NationalSchoolChangeAwards."
Notablegraduates
OtisAgee,Mennoniteminister
T.J.Cleveland,basketballcoach
BartMoore,baseballplayer
http://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Minor_High_School
1/2
12/18/2014
MinorHighSchoolBhamwiki
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document
1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 28
KennyHarris,footballplayer
DaveMcDaniel,radiohost
ButchMoore,baseballplayer
RayReach,jazzvocalist,pianistandbandleader
BryanThomas,footballplayer
KenWatson,footballplayer
References
Leech,Marie(May8,2012)"JeffersonCounty'sMinorHighSchoolwinsprestigiousNational
SchoolChangeAward."BirminghamNews
Externallinks
MinorHighSchool(http://www.minortigers.com/)website
MinorHighSchoolfootballhistory(http://www.ahsfhs.org/Teams2/teampage.asp?Team=Minor)
fromahsfhs.orgwebsite
Retrievedfrom"http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Minor_High_School&oldid=97212"
Categories: Adamsville MinorParkway JeffersonCountyschools Highschools 1922buildings
BemPricebuildings 1927buildings 1988buildings
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon11November2013,at12:51.
Thispagehasbeenaccessed7,126times.
http://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Minor_High_School
2/2
Attachment D2
12/18/2014
Birmingham,JeffersonCountytolaunchnewschoolsduringcomingschoolyear
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 28
Birmingham,JeffersonCountytolaunchnewschoolsduring
comingschoolyear
MichelleD.AndersonTheBirminghamNewsByMichelleD.AndersonTheBirminghamNews
onAugust01,2010at10:00AM
Atleastsixnewschools,mostfundedby
JeffersonCounty's$1.1billionschool
constructioninitiative,willopeninthe
JeffersonCountyandBirminghamdistricts
duringtheschoolyearthatbeginsnextweek.
Manyofthecounty's12schoolsystemshave
spentallormostofthemoneyprovidedto
themin2007bythatinitiative,abondissue
backedbya1centsalestaxincrease.Butthe
twolargestsystems,whichtogetherreceived
Viewfullsize
NewJeffersonCountySchoolmediaspecialistSheliaJacksonstartsto
setupthemediacenter/libraryatthenewBrightonMiddleSchool.She
hasover17,000bookstoputupinthenewspace.(TheBirmingham
News/TamikaMoore)
morethan$700million,arestillbuildingand
willhavemorenewschoolsinyearstocome.
Inatightyearforschoolbudgets,noother
schoolsystemsinJeffersonorShelbycounties
areopeningnewschoolsthisyear,butmany
existingschoolshavebeenrenovatedorexpanded,particularlyinfastgrowingShelbyCounty.
TheJeffersonCountyschoolsystemwillopenfournewschoolsAug.11:PleasantGroveHigh,CornerHigh,
McAdoryMiddleandBrightonK8.McAdorywasfundedbythePublicSchoolCollegeAuthority,whiletheJefferson
Countyschoolconstructioninitiativefundedtheothers.
Thecounty'sBoardofEducationdecidedtospenditsalmost$400millionincountybondmoneyon23projects,
including10newschools.Twoprojectsremaintobedone,includingonenewschoolbuilding,Concord
Elementary.
BirminghamCitySchoolswillnotopenanynewschoolstostudentswhenitsschool
NEWSCHOOLS
FORBIRMINGHAM
yearbeginsAug.9,butthedistrictisscheduledtocompletefournewschoolsand
severalrenovationsduringtheyear.OfficialshavescheduledWylamK8Schoolto
http://blog.al.com/spotnews//print.html?entry=/2010/08/birmingham_jefferson_county_to.html
>WylamK8(opening
1/3
12/18/2014
Birmingham,JeffersonCountytolaunchnewschoolsduringcomingschoolyear
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 28
openduringfallbreakandGlennK8inJanuary,saidRobertMorgan,directorof
capitalprojectsforBirminghamschools.
MorgansaidthedistricthasscheduledtofinishbuildingWrightandOliver
elementaryschoolsduringtheyear,butmaynotopenthemtostudents
immediately.
BirminghamschoolSuperintendentCraigWitherspoonsaidthesystemiswaiting
fortheappropriatetransitiontimeforsomeschoolstoopen.Thiswon'tbethefirst
fallbreak)
>GlennK8(opening
Janu
ary)
>OliverElementary
(openingdate
undetermined)
>WrightElementary
(open
ingdate
undetermined)
timeBirminghamhasmademidyearmoves,hesaid.
Thebeginning
Thecountywideschoolconstructionprojectbeganin2004whenLarryLangford,
NEWSCHOOLS
FORJEFFERSON
COUNTY
(allopennextweek)
thenpresidentoftheJeffersonCountyCommission,ledanefforttoapprovea1
centcountysalestaxtoraise$1billionforschoolconstructionprojects.The
commissionvoted32toapproveLangford'sproposal,whichledtoabondissueto
>BrightonK8
>CornerHigh
berepaidwiththetaxrevenues.
AfteranAlabamaSupremeCourtdecisionclearedtheway,themoneywas
distributedtoeachschooldistrictinthecountyin2007,basedoneachdistrict's
>McAdoryMiddle
>PleasantGroveHigh
2004studentpopulationcountatroughly$10,000perstudent.Bythattime,
accumulatinginteresthadpushedthetotalamountcloserto$1.1billion.
Manycriticizedtheinitiative,particularlyforthespeedwithwhichthecommissionhadapprovedit.
Butwhatevertheinitialcontroversy,JeffersonCountyschoolboardmemberRonaldRhodessaidtheinitiative
clearlyhashadapositiveimpactonschoolsinthecounty.
"Wewouldhaveneverbeenabletoundertakethebuildingsthatwehave,"Rhodessaid."Itwasusedthewayit
wassupposedtobe,andthekidsbenefitedfromit."
NezCalhoun,directorofpublicinformationforJeffersonCountyschools,saidithasbeenalandmarkprogram.
"Therearemanyothercountieswhowishedtheyhadthatmoney,"Calhounsaid.
ArthurWatts,chieffinancialofficerforBirminghamschools,saidthecitydistrictwillusealloftheJeffersonCounty
bondmoneyinadditiontocityandstatemoneytocontinueitsmassivebuildingprogram.
TwonewBirminghamschoolshaveopenedsincetheprogramlaunched,HudsonandWashingtonK8schools.In
additiontothefourbeingcompletedthisyear,nineadditionalbuildingswillbecompletedinupcomingyears.
Theschoolsystemisnotrushingtospendmoney,Wattssaid."Wehadanumberofneeds,andwetrulyhadto
http://blog.al.com/spotnews//print.html?entry=/2010/08/birmingham_jefferson_county_to.html
2/3
12/18/2014
Birmingham,JeffersonCountytolaunchnewschoolsduringcomingschoolyear
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 28
prioritizewherethemoneywasgoing."
Theinstabilityoftheeconomyhasmadetheconstructionindustrymorecompetitive,reducingcostsforprojects
andallowingtheschoolstobenefitfinancially,Wattssaid.
Otheruses
Whilemanyschoolsystemsusedthemoneytofundrenovationsandnewbuildings,somepaidoffdebtorfunded
technologyprograms.
VestaviaHillsput$7millionofthe$54millionitreceivedtowardatechnologyinitiative.Theprogramincluded
newcomputersandinstallinginteractiveSMARTBoardsinclassrooms,saidGregManer,directoroffinanceand
custodianoffunds.
WattssaidtechnologyupgradesareabigpartofBirminghamCitySchools'CapitalImprovementProjectandthat
itisworkingtoinsureeachschoolhasa21stcenturyfocus.
Hooverreceived$85millionfromJeffersonCountyandhasusedmorethanhalfofthatamounttopayoffadebt,
whileMountainBrookused$27millionofthe$45.8millionitreceivedtopaydownabout40percentofitslong
termdebt.
ShelbyCounty
WhileJeffersonCountyandBirminghamarebuildingschoolswithcountybondmoney,theShelbyCountyschool
systemcontinuesitsnearconstantseriesofrenovationsandexpansionstokeepupwithitsgrowingpopulation.
Thedistrictreceived$20millionacoupleofyearsagofromthePublicSchoolandCollegeAuthority,adivisionof
thestate'sbuildingcommission,whichallowedittolaunchafiveyearcapitalimprovementproject.
ShelbyCountyhasaddeda15classroomwing,anewadministrativeofficeandanewfrontentrancetoValley
ElementarySchoolinPelham.Thedistrictalsoadded12classroomstoThompsonHighSchoolinAlabasterand
completedacafeteriaexpansionthere.ItalsoaddedabuildingwithsixclassroomstoLindaNolenLearning
Center,alsoinAlabaster.
SeveralotherprojectsareunderconstructioninShelbyCountyschools,includingclassroomadditionsatCreek
ViewElementary,MeadowViewElementaryandChelseaHighSchool.
NewsstaffwriterVeronicaKennedycontributedtothisreport.
2014AL.com.Allrightsreserved.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews//print.html?entry=/2010/08/birmingham_jefferson_county_to.html
3/3
Attachment D3
12/18/2014
Jordanstaff,studentsplanforgroundbreakingNewsMobile
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 28
back
Jordanstaff,studentsplanfor
groundbreaking
0
1image
NorthJeffersonNews,NorthJefferson,AL
MultimediadesignstudentsatMortimerJordanassemblefanstobeusedduringtheOct.6
groundbreakingceremony.ThestudentsareMeaghanPassantino,TrevorMcClendon,Chassidy
Pennington,ZacHardiman,SusanWilliamsandIndiaBlankenship.
Updated4monthsago
ByMelaniePatterson
TheNorthJeffersonNews
BarbaraSniderfeelslikeaweddingplanner.Sincetheschoolyearbegan,shehas
Home
MoreNews
FullSite
organizedcommittees,writtenpagesandpagesofnotes,andcompiledalongguestlist.
http://www.njeffersonnews.com/news/jordanstaffstudentsplanforgroundbreaking/article_373f0cd70345562994fdc4f46f3780e2.html?mode=jqm
1/4
12/18/2014
Jordanstaff,studentsplanforgroundbreakingNewsMobile
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 28
Onlytheeventshesplanningisthekickofftosomethingthatwillimpactthelivesof
thousandsofpeopleformanyyearstocome.
Snider,principalofMortimerJordanHighSchool,isinchargeoftheschools
groundbreakingceremonyonOct.6.The10a.m.ceremonywillbeheldatasitethat
currentlycontainsnotmuchbesidesdirt.
Butheavyequipmenthasbeenmovingthedirtaroundandmakingwayforanewstateof
thearthighschool.
MortimerJordanisoneoftheoldestschoolsinJeffersonCounty.Itopenedin1920atits
currentsiteat8601OldHwy.31inMorris.
ThenewMortimerJordanschoolwillbelocatedinneighboringKimberly.InApril2008,the
JeffersonCountyBoardofEducationvotedtobuy122acresforthenewschoolonBone
DryRoadinKimberlyfor$1,590,160.
MortimerJordanisoneofsixhighschoolthecountyschoolsystemisbuildingwith1cent
taxfundscollectedin2005.
InMay2009,theboardofeducationacceptedabidofjustover$31millionfromWinter
ConstructionofAtlantafortheMortimerJordanHighSchoolproject.Therelativelylowprice
camethankstotheeconomicrecession,whichhadcausedconstructionpricestoplummet.
AmongSniderssixsubcommitteesworkingonthegroundbreakingceremonyarecareer
techstudentsinBeckyMauldinandTheresaWinesclasses.
Sincethebeginningoftheschoolyear,MauldinandWinehaveintegratedpreparationsfor
theceremonyintoclassroomcurriculum.Thestudentshavedesignedandappliedlabelsfor
waterbottles,designedandassembledfansforthegueststouse,andhelpedSniderdesign
theinvitationsandprograms.
Wine,whoisa1970MJHSalumnaandMauldin,a1975MJHSalumna,arecarefully
overseeingthepreparationsbecausetheywanttoensurethatMortimerJordansrich
traditionsarenotlostintheexcitementofanewschool.
Wine,whoteachesbusinesstechnologyapplicationsandaccounting,saidsheespecially
wantstomakesuretheschoolsmottoofBlueDevilCountryLoveitorLeaveithasa
strongpresenceatthenewfacilityinKimberly.
Inits89yearsinexistence,MortimerJordanhashadonly12principals,withJimmieA.
Trotterservingthelongestterm,from1968to2000.
Winesaidthatitisnotuncommonfortheschoolsgraduatestoreturn,asatleast20of
MortimerJordansstaffandfacultygraduatedfromtheschool.
TheschoolwasnamedforCapt.MortimerHarvieJordan,awarherowhodiedin1918in
WorldWarI.
http://www.njeffersonnews.com/news/jordanstaffstudentsplanforgroundbreaking/article_373f0cd70345562994fdc4f46f3780e2.html?mode=jqm
2/4
12/18/2014
Jordanstaff,studentsplanforgroundbreakingNewsMobile
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 21 of 28
Theschoolsoldgym,whichcurrentlyservesasthelocationofdramarehearsals,
wrestlingpracticeandotheractivities,wasbuiltbytheWPAinthemid1930s.
Athleticfieldswereaddedintheearly1950s,followedbythenewgymin1968.
Thenewestclassroomwingoftheschoolwasbuiltin2003.
OnhandfortheceremonywillbeofficialsfromtheJeffersonCountyBoardofEducation
DavisArchitects,Inc.WinterConstructionandothers.
ToreachthegroundbreakingceremonysitefromU.S.Hwy.31:TurnontoMorrisMajestic
RoadturnleftontoSelfCreekRoadturnleftontoBillJonesRoadandturnrightontoBone
DryRoad.Thesiteisontheleft.
0comments
Signin
1personlistening
+Follow
Share
Postcommentas...
Newest|Oldest
ThisWeek'sCirculars
HOVERFORCIRCULAR
HOVERFORCIRCULAR
HOVERFORCIRCULAR
http://www.njeffersonnews.com/news/jordanstaffstudentsplanforgroundbreaking/article_373f0cd70345562994fdc4f46f3780e2.html?mode=jqm
3/4
12/18/2014
Jordanstaff,studentsplanforgroundbreakingNewsMobile
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 22 of 28
Similararticles
Anotherday,anotherrobberyvictimholdingsuspectatbay,thistimein
NJN/amforThursday,December18,2014
Robberysuspectgavefalseidentity,waswantedonforgedinstrument
NJN/amforWednesday,December17,2014
Update:GardendaleBoardofEducationsaysitwillsupportopenenroll
http://www.njeffersonnews.com/news/jordanstaffstudentsplanforgroundbreaking/article_373f0cd70345562994fdc4f46f3780e2.html?mode=jqm
4/4
Attachment D4
12/18/2014
ClaybeginsprocesstopulloutofJeffCoschools,Pounceyurgespatienceandunity
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 24 of 28
ClaybeginsprocesstopulloutofJeffCoschools,Pounceyurges
patienceandunity
EvanBelanger|ebelanger@al.comByEvanBelanger|ebelanger@al.com
Emailtheauthor|FollowonTwitter
onJuly22,2014at12:59PM,updatedJuly23,2014at8:48AM
HOMEWOOD,AlabamaJeffersonCounty
SchoolsSuperintendentCraigPounceytoday
encouragedmunicipalitiesconsideringpulling
outofthecountyschoolsystemtoholdoffon
theirplans.
"Ithinkthat,iftheygiveusachance,theywill
recognizethatwearefarstrongerworking
togetherthanifwedivide,"hesaid.
Hiscommentscomeinresponsetoquestions
regardingtheClayCityCouncil'sdecision
JeffersonCountySchoolsSuperintendentCraigPouncey.(Evan
Belanger/ebelanger@al.com)
Mondaytoimplementitsfirstpropertytax.
AccordingtoMayorCharlesWebster,the5mill
taxisexpectedtoraise$500,000to$600,000
annuallyandisthefirststeptowardcreatingaClaycityschoolsystem.
"Peoplearemovingoutbecausetheywanttomoveintoabetterschoolsystem,andthey'removingtoTrussville
andMountainBrook,andthat'swhatwe'relookingat,"hesaid."WhatcanwedotokeeppeopleinClay?"
Websteralsosaidthereareproblemswiththecounty'sschooldistrictlinesinClaythatsendsstudentsoutsidethe
city.HenotedthatsomeClayresidentsgotoChalkvilleElementarySchool,thoughthatschooliscompletely
surroundedbyCenterPoint.
Evenwiththenewpropertytax,Clayisyearsfromformingitsownschoolsystem.
Webstersaidthecitywon'tseeanyofthe5milltaxincreaseuntiltheendoffiscal2015.Eventhen,only10
percent,approximately$90,000,ofthetaxisearmarkedforschools.
Also,Webstersaidfeasibilitystudiessuggestthecitywouldneedanadditional10millpropertytaxtofunda
schoolsystemandanewfeasibilitystudyisneeded.
http://blog.al.com/news_birmingham_impact/print.html?entry=/2014/07/clay_begins_process_to_pull_ou.html
1/2
12/18/2014
ClaybeginsprocesstopulloutofJeffCoschools,Pounceyurgespatienceandunity
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 25 of 28
"Iwouldsayinthe2016areaiswhenwe'llprobablyprettymuchhaveagoodideaifthecitizenswouldvotein
another10millpropertytaxtobeabletoformourownschoolsystemornot,"hesaid.
Pounceystressedthatmunicipalitiesdobetterwhentheyworkwiththecountyschoolsystem.HenotedthatClay
recentlycommitted$250,000tobematchedby$250,000incountyschoolsmoneytoputdownnewturfonthe
footballfieldinClay.
Heproposedtodaythecreationofastrategicplanforthecountyschoolssystem.Thatwouldtakethreetofour
monthstocomplete,hesaid,andwouldlookatdistrictlines.
"Becausewe'vereallygotsomeold,outdateddistrictlines,"hesaid."We'renotbalancedasadistrictandwe're
notutilizingourcurrentexistingresourcesaseffectivelyasweneedto."
Webstersaid,ifthecountyredrawsthedistrictlines,itmaynotbenecessaryforClaytopullout.
Sinceitsformation,11municipalitieshavepulledoutoftheJeffersonCountySchoolssystem:
Birminghamin1885,
Bessemerin1889,
Fairfieldinthe1920s,
Tarrantinthe1930s,
MountainBrookin1959,
Vestaviain1970,
Homewoodin1971,
Midfieldin1971,
Hooverin1988,
Leedsin2003,and
Trussvillein2005.
Gardendalerecentlyhiredasuperintendentforitsnewschoolsystem.
2014AL.com.Allrightsreserved.
http://blog.al.com/news_birmingham_impact/print.html?entry=/2014/07/clay_begins_process_to_pull_ou.html
2/2
Attachment D5
IO
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
ing to the Gardendale City Schools, a to be a part of They have a clear visystem which exists only on paper for sion, and they have very high expectathe moment as it prepares to break tions ... When you start a system, you
have your footprint all over it. You set
away from Jefferson County Schools.
the standard others will follow:'
The men are as different in their
Martin sought a position in the Birpersonalities as the systems they run.
Pouncey is plain-spoken and not shy mingham area partly because of his
about expressing his opinion, a trait wife Teran, who is the assistant head
developed in Montgomery, as public coach of the UAB women's basketeducation officials battled with poli- ball team. She previously coached in
ticians at the state capitol. Martin is Illinois and Missouri. "I thought she
more enthusiastic, as would befit an would come down here a couple of
educator who has a chance to form a years and then want to go back;' Martin said. "But she loved it here:'
new system according to his ideals.
Starting a new system almost from
scratch is an opportunity that doesn't
come along very often for school administrators, and Martin relishes the
opportunity. "It intrigued me;' he said.
"The vision of the community is progressive, and it's something I wanted
BEVILLS 'N
EDUCATION
- -- - - -
---- ~---
11
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
12
Pl rector
D n Hardiman
Owner
Judy Lambert Dye
Attachment E1
#Class x Ratio
26 x 20
30 x 20 / 12 x 26
30 x 26
35 x 26
25 x 20
18 x 20
63 x 20
46 x 20
39 x 20
66 x 20
55 x 20
49 x 26
67 x 26
25 x 20
35 x 20 / 13 x 26
39 x 26
33 x 20
30 x 20
39 x 26
40 x 20
45 x 26
47 x 20
55 x 26
20 x 20
12 x 20
15 x 20
18 x 20
49 x 20
52 x 26
39 x 26
31 x 20
36 x 26
52 x 20
22 x 20
44 x 20
31 x 26
62 x 26
25 x 20
71 x 26
39 x 26
22 x 20
26 x20
Capacity
520
912
780
910
500
360
1260
920
1014
1320
1100
1300
1768
500
1050
1014
660
600
1014
800
1170
920
1400
400
240
300
360
980
1322
1014
624
936
1040
440
880
806
1612
500
1846
1014
440
520
Enrollment
316
513
691
861
518
218
722
685
846
1204
615
973
1361
366
548
538
358
636
650
797
675
921
1077
389
249
362
283
855
749
1080
380
541
779
222
1112
824
1003
397
1045
764
336
290
% of Capacity
61%
56%
89%
95%
104%
61%
57%
74%
83%
91%
56%
75%
77%
73%
52%
53%
54%
106%
64%
100%
58%
100%
77%
97%
104%
121%
79%
87%
57%
107%
61%
58%
75%
50%
126%
102%
62%
79%
57%
75%
76%
56%
*35 x 26
40 x 20
47 x 26
50 x 20
51 x 26
56 x 20
39 x 26
39 x 26
33 x 26
60 x 26
25 x 20
30 x 20
17 x 20
910
800
1222
1000
1326
1120
1014
1014
858
1560
500
600
340
125
49,455
587
545
865
837
1084
595
382
524
760
1352
190
299
145
89
36,003
65%
68%
71%
84%
82%
53%
38%
52%
89%
87%
38%
50%
43%
71%
73%
* North Jefferson Middle School had 35 classrooms listed on the the SAFE report which
calculates to 910 capacity instead of the 613 indicated on the SAFE report.
#Class x Ratio
39 x 20
67 x 26
39 x 26
26 x 26
55 x 26
39 x 26
62 x 26
71 x 26
39 x 26
27 x 26
51 x 26
39 x 26
60 x 26
Capacity
1014
1768
1014
676
1400
1014
1612
1846
1014
702
1326
1014
1560
15,960
Enrollment
846
1361
538
354
1077
1080
1003
1045
764
497
1084
524
1352
11,525
% of Capacity
83%
77%
53%
52%
77%
107%
62%
57%
75%
71%
82%
52%
87%
72%
#Class x Ratio
12 x 26
30 x 26
35 x 26
25 x 20
49 x 26
13 x 26
39 x 26
19 x 26
52 x 26
36 x 26
31 x 26
35 x 20
20 x 26
39 x 26
33 x 26
Capacity
312
780
910
500
1300
350
1014
494
1322
936
806
910
520
1014
858
12,026
Enrollment
196
691
861
518
973
204
650
321
749
541
824
587
368
382
760
8,625
% of Capacity
63%
89%
95%
104%
75%
58%
64%
65%
57%
58%
102%
65%
71%
38%
89%
72%
#Class x Ratio
26 x 20
30 x 20
18 x 20
63 x 20
46 x 20
66 x 20
55 x 20
25 x 20
35 x 20
33 x 20
31 x 20
40 x 20
47 x 20
20 x 20
12 x 20
15 x 20
18 x 20
49 x 20
31 x 20
52 x 20
22 x 20
44 x 20
25 x 20
22 x 20
26 x 20
40 x 20
50 x 20
56 x 20
27 x 20
30 x 20
17 x 20
Capacity
520
600
360
1260
920
1320
1100
500
700
660
600
800
920
400
240
300
360
980
624
1040
440
880
500
440
520
800
1000
1120
500
600
340
21,344
Enrollment
316
317
218
722
685
1204
615
366
344
358
636
797
921
389
249
362
283
855
380
779
222
1112
397
336
290
545
837
595
190
299
145
15,764
% of Capacity
61%
53%
61%
57%
74%
91%
56%
73%
49%
54%
106%
100%
100%
97%
104%
121%
79%
87%
61%
75%
50%
126%
79%
76%
56%
68%
84%
53%
38%
50%
43%
74%
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Attachment E2
Attachment E3
Enrollment:
Year-over-Year Change:
2005
36074
2006
36406
332
2007
36216
-190
2008
36246
30
2009
36173
-73
2010
35952
-221
2011
36058
106
2012
36068
10
2013
36203
135
2014
36003
-200
Cummulative
Change
-71
37,000
36,800
36,600
36,400
36,200
36,000
35,800
35,600
35,400
35,200
35,000
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
In Figure 2-2 which appears above, the city boundaries of the City of Gardendale are
indicated with the school sites of the Jefferson County Board of Education identified. As will be
detailed later in this Section B of this Chapter, many residents of the City of Gardendale attend
school sites outside the city limits; and many non-resident attended school sites in the City of
Gardendale. The growth in student population of the Jefferson County School System has
been relatively constant over the past decade. As is seen in the following Table 2-2, enrollment
has been fairly constant with the exception of the drop that occurred in FY 2005-06 with the
This drop in student enrollment is not
creation of the Trussville City School System.
unexpected given the decline in the population of Jefferson County over the last decade.
Table 2-2
JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM ADM FOR
CURRENT YEAR, NOT IN ARREARS
Year
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
ADM
38,599.34
39,442.77
36,074.15
36,406.05
36,216.20
36,245.65
36,172.50
35,952.30
36,058.15
36, 159.40
'
Annual
Change
cumulative
Change
n/a
n/a
843.43
(3,368.62)
331.90
/189.85)
29.45
(73.15)
(220.20)
105.85
101.25
843.43
(2,525.19)
2,193.29
2,383.14
2,353.69
(2,426.84)
12.647.041
(2,541.19
(2,439.94)
As is seen in Table 2-3 below, the population of Jefferson County has demonstrated a
decline of -0.55o/o from 2000 to 2011. lf all of the counties of the State of Alabama were ranked
by change in population over this period, Jefferson County would rank 381h out of 67 counties.
In fact, Jefferson County is bordered by three of the top ten fastest growing counties in the
State, Shelby County, Tuscaloosa County, and St. Clair County. In addition, Blount Country
ranks 14th while Walker County ranks 48 1h. Note that these figures are for Jefferson County as
a whole and they include many fast growing cities. This leads to the conclusion that the
Jefferson County School System will continue to lose students as this trend continues.
While the population of Jefferson County is showing a slight overall decline of 0.55/o, the
important issue is where gains and tosses have occurred within the county. These population
shifts have important implications for all 12 school systems of Jefferson County as there will be
winners and losers. Table 2-4 which follows demonstrates that the majority of the population of
Jefferson County resides in cities which have their own school systems, a significant majority of
65.06o/o in 2011. While the overall population change is negative for these 11 cities with
separate city school systems, simply removing the City of Birmingham from the mix changes the
population change from a negative -3.48/o to a positive 7.10/o. The population changes in
these cities also reflect a shift from older cities to cities with more recently formed city school
systems. These statistics indicate the growth of excess physical plants for public education in
some cities, while other cities will have to build new schools to accommodate the expected
growth. This will become a factor to be considered in the case of the proposed Gardendale City
School System as the cities with a more affluent demographic base are showing consistent
growth.
16
Attachment E4
Elementary
Middle
High
60,000
Total
35,914
21,344
12,226
ADM
vs.
15,960
49,330
15,764
8,625
48,547 Capacity
= 73%
11,525
35,914
Capacity
49,330
50,000
40,000
35,914
30,000
21,344
20,000
15,960
15,764
12,226
11,525
8,625
10,000
0
Elementary
Middle
Capacity
High
Enrollment
Total
Attachment E5
Bottenfield Middle
Non-Resident Students
4550
2690
1860
1846
1014
541
473
768
1014
1027
819
354
246
Corner High
Current Enrollment
Current Capacity
Minor High
676
Fultondale High
409
322
Non-Resident Students
Attachment F
Mortimer Jordan HS
Corner HS
GHS
Bragg
Brookville Elem.
Fultondale HS
Minor HS
N. Smithfield
Community
Minor High
9.6
Bottenfield Middle
9.6
Fultondale High
Gardendale Schools
7.2
12/18/2014
1/3
12/18/2014
N in Birmingham
8.3 mi / 13 min
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
4828 Smithfield Dr N
Birmingham, AL 35207
These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction
projects, traffic, weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map
results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Minor+High+School,+Minor+Parkway,+Adamsville,+AL/4828+Smithfield+Dr+N,+Birmingham,+AL+35207/@33.5777326,
2/3
12/18/2014
1/2
12/18/2014
2.
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
1.3 mi
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4828 Smithfield Dr N
Birmingham, AL 35207
These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction
projects, traffic, weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map
results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or
notices regarding your route.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Bottenfield+Middle+School,+Hillcrest+Road,+Adamsville,+AL/4828+Smithfield+Dr+N,+Birmingham,+AL+35207/@33.5777
2/2
12/18/2014
Fultondale High
1450 Carson Road North, Birmingham, AL 35217
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1/2
12/18/2014
8.
9.
10.
4828 Smithfield Dr N
Birmingham, AL 35207
These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction
projects, traffic, weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map
results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or
notices regarding your route.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Fultondale+High,+Carson+Road+North,+Birmingham,+AL/4828+Smithfield+Dr+N,+Birmingham,+AL+35207/@33.572595
2/2
12/18/2014
1.
2.
3.
1/2
12/18/2014
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
4828 Smithfield Dr N
Birmingham, AL 35207
These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction
projects, traffic, weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map
results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or
notices regarding your route.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Gardendale+High+School,+Main+Street,+Gardendale,+AL/4828+Smithfield+Dr+N,+Birmingham,+AL+35207/@33.6070162
2/2
Minor High
Bottenfield Middle
4.9
14.6
Fultondale High
Gardendale Schools
11.4
12/18/2014
1/3
12/18/2014
School Rd in Graysville
5.3 mi / 8 min
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
2/3
12/18/2014
1/2
12/18/2014
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Bottenfield+Middle+School,+Hillcrest+Road,+Adamsville,+AL/Brookville+Elementary+School,+Brookville+School+Road,+
2/2
12/18/2014
Fultondale High
1450 Carson Road North, Birmingham, AL 35217
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Fultondale+High,+Carson+Road+North,+Birmingham,+AL/Brookville+Elementary+School,+Brookville+School+Road,+Gr
1/2
12/18/2014
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Fultondale+High,+Carson+Road+North,+Birmingham,+AL/Brookville+Elementary+School,+Brookville+School+Road,+Gr
2/2
12/18/2014
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Gardendale+High+School,+Main+Street,+Gardendale,+AL/Brookville+Elementary+School,+Brookville+School+Road,+Gra
1/2
12/18/2014
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Gardendale+High+School,+Main+Street,+Gardendale,+AL/Brookville+Elementary+School,+Brookville+School+Road,+Gra
2/2
10.7
Corner High
11.6
Corner Middle
11.9
M.Jordan High
9.5
N. Jeff. Middle
8.2
Fultondale High
Gardendale Schools
5.2
12/18/2014
Head south
0.1 mi
2.
3.
4.
5.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Corner+High+School,+Warrior+Jasper+Road,+Dora,+AL/Mt+Olive+Elementary+School,+Brookside+Road,+Mount+Olive
1/2
12/18/2014
2.
3.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Corner+Middle+School,+Corner+School+Road,+Warrior,+AL/Mt+Olive+Elementary+School,+Brookside+Road,+Mount+
1/1
12/18/2014
1/2
12/18/2014
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Mortimer+Jordan+High+School,+Kimberly,+AL/Mt+Olive+Elementary+School,+Brookside+Road,+Mount+Olive,+AL/@33
2/2
12/18/2014
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1/2
12/18/2014
Fultondale High
1450 Carson Road North, Birmingham, AL 35217
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1/2
12/18/2014
2.
3.
4.
5.
1/2
Attachment G
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Attachment H
12/19/2014
DoesGardendaleneeditsownschooldistrict?(OpinionbyJenniferH.Parsons)
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 28
DoesGardendaleneeditsownschooldistrict?(OpinionbyJennifer
H.Parsons)
SpecialtoAL.comBySpecialtoAL.com
onNovember06,2013at8:00AM,updatedNovember06,2013at8:18AM
ByJenniferH.Parsons
AsthecitizensofGardendalepreparetogotothepollsonNovember12tovoteonincreasingtheirpropertytaxes
asthenextstepintheprocessofforminganewcityschooldistrict,perhapsareasonablequestiontoaskisthis:
Whatenablesaschooldistricttobeinapositiontosuccessfullymeettheneedsofitsstudents?
Thereare,Ibelieve,manycharacteristicsthatmustbeinplaceforanyschooldistricttothriveandwellserveits
studentsandtheirfamilies.Includedamongthosearehavingreliableandsustainablefinancialresources
providinganeverexpandinginstructionalprogramwithmanylearningopportunitiesforallstudentsemploying
qualitystaffmemberswithanetworkofsupportforthemandprovidingexcellentschoolfacilitiesinwhich
studentsmaylearn.TheJeffersonCountyBoardofEducationhasdemonstratedovertheyearsacommitmentto
meetingallthosecharacteristicsandmoreinservingthestudentsandcitizensofGardendaleaswellas
throughoutourcounty.
TherightofacommunitytoconsiderformingitsownindependentschooldistrictisonethattheJeffersonCounty
BoardofEducationrespects.IfGardendaledoesindeedultimatelyformitsownschooldistrict,wewillwork
togetherwithcityleaderstoensureasmoothtransitionsothatbothJeffersonCountyandGardendalestudents
arewellservedwithneithergroupofstudentsbeingatanacademicdisadvantageasaresultoftheformationofa
newGardendaleschooldistrict.
TheJeffersonCountyBoardofEducationhasinvestedmorethan$55millioninthepastfewyearsinimproving
schoolfacilitieswithinGardendale.Thoseimprovementsincludetheconstructionofanewstateofthearthigh
schoolandcareertechcenter,anewlibraryadditionatGardendaleElementarySchool,andathleticfacilitiesat
bothBraggMiddleSchoolandGardendaleHighSchool.WithintheGardendaleschoolsclassroomstheBoardhas
placedadditionalteachersbeyondwhatthestateprovidesaswellasadditionaladministratorsandsupport
personneltosupportlearning.OurBoardpaysforadditionalpersonnelineachofourschoolstoprovidethebest
learningopportunitiesforourstudents.
SpecialneedsstudentsinGardendalereceiveservicesandprogramsfromwhatmanybelievetobethemost
efficientandeffectiveExceptionalEducationDepartmentinourstate.OurdistrictsGiftedProgramprovides
qualityadditionallearningopportunitiesforparticipatingstudents.Whenrecentcutbacksinstatefundingfor
schoolshaveoccurred,theJeffersonCountyBoardofEducationhassteppedintoprovidefundsforteachers
http://impact.al.com/opinion/print.html?entry=/2013/11/does_gardendale_need_its_own_s.html
1/2
12/19/2014
DoesGardendaleneeditsownschooldistrict?(OpinionbyJenniferH.Parsons)
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 28
instructionalsuppliescontinuingsupplementsforstaffmemberswhoareinvolvedinsponsoringorcoaching
afterschoolandextracurricularactivitiesforstudentsandmaintainingateacherssalaryschedulethatremains
abovetheminimumlevelrequiredbythestateinordertobecompetitiveinattractingthebestteachersforall
ourstudents.Dedicatedbuildingmaintenanceandbusmechanicstaffmembersworkdailytoensurethatschool
facilitiesarewellmaintainedandbusestransportingstudentsareproperlyservicedandsafe.
IbelievethatthecitizensofGardendalevotingonNovember12toconsiderraisingpropertytaxestohelpfunda
newschooldistrictwilldosobaseduponfactsandacompleteunderstandingofwhattheJeffersonCountyBoard
ofEducationhasprovidedthecommunitysstudentsforagreatmanyyears.Ialsobelievethatweallwantwhat
isbestforourstudentsandthatsoledesirewillbewhatmotivatescitizenstodeterminetheirvoteinthisnext
stepofconsideringtheformationofanewGardendaleschooldistrict.
AswithallthewonderfulcommunitiesandunincorporatedareastheJeffersonCountyBoardofEducationserves,
Gardendalesstudentsareveryimportanttous.Whateverthefinaldecisionmaybeastowhetherornotthe
communitydeterminestoremainpartoftheJeffersonCountySchoolDistrictorformitsowndistrict,wealways
willhavethelongtermbestinterestofGardendalesstudentsatheartandwantforthemtheverybestlearning
opportunities.
JenniferH.Parsons,President
JeffersonCountyBoardofEducation
2014AL.com.Allrightsreserved.
http://impact.al.com/opinion/print.html?entry=/2013/11/does_gardendale_need_its_own_s.html
2/2
Attachment I1
--;"1
I
'
p:. ~fi:
.
Co .. .. :
l-
~;
~ ~;1 ~
rJ
;~
11
fi
I! .
'
A.
. AGREED FACTS.
1.
2.
1
.
.
3..
4.
.
.
ALA. CODE 16-11-9, et seq. (1975), as amended,
vests in a city
of
June 27, 20 I 3
Page I of25 Pages.
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board of Education
and Shelby County Board of Education
f.
lj
5.
J
J
6.
'I
7.
.
".
a,, agreement with the CITY BOARD upon the forniation of the
J
J
8.
B.
CONSIDERATION
. The mutual promises and covenants "of the COUNTY BOARD and the
CITY BOARD as stated in this Agreement serve as its agreed
_cpnsideration. Each party agrees to bind itself a:n4 its successors to the
c.
DEFJNITIONS
The following terms and phrases as used in tills Agreement shall have the
following meanings:
"l
~,
1..
'
1
i
June27, 2013
Page 2 of25 Pages
.Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board of Education
''
2.
3.
II.
. 4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
SUBSTANTIVEPROVISIONS
A.
interest of the City, effective July 1, 2013, subject to fue teims and
conditious of this Agreement.
B.
STATUTORY COMPLIANCE.
C.
.I
]
STUDENT ATTENDANCE
1.
. 2.
3.
,1
l[o
l'
'1I
'
I
'
i'
a.
Jun.e27,2013
Page 4 of25 Pages
Agreemerit By and Betl.veen
Alabaster City Board of Education
and Shelby County Board of Education
'
~
)
;
f
;
'
y.
SCHOOL YEAR
13:.14
K
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
. A
A
A
A
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
<
~
\.!)
l
b.
i
f
I
15-16
.A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
.A
A
A
A
A
1.6-17
17-18
s
s
s
s
.S
18-19
19-20.
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
A '.
:B
A
A
A
A
s
s
s
s
s
s
A
A.
A
A
s
s
s
A.
s
A
A
A
s
12
A
A
A
A
~
~-~, ~;(;~$.-...~~~~
~~~~-
_.
:[~~\;ttt~
.'ri);..y~ .... .. . ~:: ._,~~ ~ :~'
* A= Alabaster City Board of Education
**S =Shelby County Board of Education -
10
11
.i
14-15
.
.
School attendance for students residing in the Transition Zone
is governed solely bythis Agreement, and no indiVidual right
for any Transition Zone Student to attend Alabaster Schools
is ~eated by this Agreement.
n
.,'
.)
11.
-'
)
1
..
5.
6.
7.
D.
1
I
1
I
1
l
'
'
1I
r'
I' .
r
'
2.
b.
c.
d.
e,
f.
JuneZ7,20!3
Page 8 of25 Pages
3.
4.
~.
'
....,)
.-~-
D.
,j
The COUNTY BOARD will maintain, manage, and operat_e the Alabaster
Schools from the date hereof until the Transfer Date in a manner consistent
With the COUNTY
The
. BOARD's prior management of those schools.
.
COUNTY BOARD will cooperat.e with the CITY BOARD, its
Superin~ende-t, ap_d other central office personnel with respect to all
acti"ities undertaken by the CITY BOARD to assume administratioi1 and
responsibility for Alabaster Schools as of the Transfer Date, and use its best
efforts to effect the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Such
coopeiation will include, but not be lirpited to, providing reasonable ~ccess
to the faculty and staff of Alabaster Schools.
1i
'
!.
'
i.
-1
E.
I.
1I
1
!
I
'
CAPITAL IMPROY!ThffiNTS
TO ALABASTER
SCHOOLS
.
'
After a revieW of the colldition .and construction history relative to the
school buildings in Alabaster, CITY BOARD and C.ODNTY BOARD have
agreed that the CITY BOARD will assume (that is, agree to malce payments
with respect to) certain .portions of debt issued by the COUNTY BOARD
for capital improvements to Alabaster Schools. The obligations a.nd
responsibilities of the respective boards with regard to such debt are set
forth in Section M of this Agreement.
'
1'
'\
''
1!
'
!.
F.
TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
i,
..
June27,2013
Page l ! of25 Pages
1.
H.
I.
RISK OF LOSS
The COUNTY BOARD agrees to maintain present levels of insuranc.e
coverage in force ona11 property to be transferred under the terms of this
Agreementthr0ugh closing on July l,.2013. In the e;ven~ of an i?sured loss
relating to such property occurring prior to that time; the COUNTY
BOARD shall transfer or assign any insurance proceeds to which it is
.entitled as a result of such loss to the CITYBOARIJ. The COUNTY
BOARD shall have no obligation to pt-ovide insurance coverage of any kind
after the Transfer Date on.Alabaster Schoolsor any of the assets transferred
. to CITY BOARD as provided herein.
I.
PERSQNNEL
1.
.
.
2012-2013 school year an.d who areemploy~es of the COUNTY
BOARD as~igned to Alabaster Schools as of the Transfer Date will
becoll?-e e~ployees of. the CI1Y BOARD as .of the Transfer Date:
2. .
Terms ofEmploym~nt.
a.
b.
I
~
!
l..
.1
1
1
1
1!
3.
K.
Personnel Files. Copies of all personoel and payroll records for all
employees assigned to Alabaster Schools shall be made available for
copying and inspection to the CITY BOARD within fourteen(I4-)
days of the execution of this Agreement. .
L.
'i
June27,2013
Page ! 4 of25 Pii.ges
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board of Education
and Shelby County Board of Education
..
2.
a_
b.
c.
b.
June27,2013
Page 15 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City.Board of Education
apd Shelb_y County.Board of Education
1
3.
1
1
)'
.,
'
a.
b.
4.
,,
5.-
entire County for that sanle school year on the Saine basis on. w~ich
June27,2013
Pagio 17 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board of Education
and
She~by
fue total calculated costs for fue Foundation Program are allocated,
apportioned and distributed Witllln the County.
6.
Miscellaneoiis Revenues.
a.
bo
c.
o:o a pro rata basis 't:Y using the nUmber o_f students reported
by the COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD to the State
Department of Education-for purposes of.Foundation Program
allocation, apportionm\!nt, "and distribution.
d.
e.
amounts
o.f
M.
the
1.
2.
3.
Th~ CITY BOARD shall assume the PSCA Series 2002-A (as
refinanced as part of the 2012-A Bond issue) outstanding balance
reflecting that bonded indebtedness that pertains to construction and
facilities improvemynts to Cr.eek View Elementa:rY and Thompson
H1gb Schools in.the ~mount of Six Hundred EighfyTuousand Eigbt
Hundred Three and 34/100 Dollars ($680,803.34).
.
.
The CITY BOARD shall assume the PSCA Seties 2008-A
outstanding b~ance reflect:ing that bonded indebtedness th~t pertains .
tp construction and facilities improvements to Thompson Hjgh
School and ThompsonIntermediate School in the amount of One
HUP:d!~d ~eventy 11Jousangt Six H~dred Fi:fty-S~ and 40/100
Dollars ($170,655.40) ..
June 27,2013
Page 19 of~S Pag~
Agreement By and Between .
. Alabaster City Board ofEducationand Shelby County Board of Education
4.
5..
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the PSCA Series
2008-C outstandfug baja.Ilce reflecting that bonded indebtedness that
perta:ins to construction and facilities. improvements to Meadow:
View Elementary School, Thompson High Schooi, Thompson Sixth
Grade Center, and Thompsoii.Middle School in the arnonnt of Two
Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand, Five Hundred Thirty and 00/100
Dollars ($222,530.00).
6.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the PSCA Series
2009-B outstanding balance reflecting that bonded indebtedness that
pertains to constructio~ and facilitieS improvements to Thompson
IntermediGJ,te School in the amount of Seven -Hundred Seventy-Nine
Thousand, Six Hundred Seventy-Two & 43/100 Dollars
. ($779,672.43).
.
.
7.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the PSCA Series
2009-D {QSCB) outstanding balance reflecting that bonded
ipdebtedness that pertains to constn.1ction and facilities
itnproveillents to ThomPson Intermediate School in the amount of
Sixty-Eight Thousand, Nineteen and 51/100 Dollars ($68,019 .51).
8.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the Series 2006
Local Warrant Issue outstanding balance reflecting fuat bonded
indebtedness fuat pertains to construction an<;! facilities
improvet.o.ents to Thompson High School in the amount of Seven
Hfilldred Sixteen Thousand, Four Hundred Thirty-Nine and 51/l 00
Dollars ($716,439.51).
9.
'
1
1
"
l
.J
.J
II
I
I
:MJSCBILANEOUS MATTERS'
].
a.
b.
2.
3.
or
June27,2013
Page21 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster C_ity Board ofEdticatiPn.
tm,d Shelby Cougty Board of Education
.;
BOARD will identify said contracts so that the CI1Y BONW can
'acquire Consent from Said third party.
'
4.
5.
6.
7.
State Level Bond Issues. The parties agree 1hat, wifu regard to
diStributions or grants to be made (on the basiS of ADM or number
of students) under the 21st Century Workforce Act or the Secure
School Facilities Act, the CITY BOA.RD shall be.entitled to a pro
rata portion of any proceeds receiv_ed by 1he COUNTY BOARD
under such initiatives as if the CITY BOARD had been in existence
June27,2013
Page 22 of25 Page_s
Agri;:ement By and Between
Alabaster City Boai-d of Education
a,-,d Shelby County Board of Education
'
above.
ill.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
.. A.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement C011$titutes the final and entire nnderslanding and
agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter
hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings,
representations, and agreements between the parties; whether "Written.or
oral.
B.
MODIFICATION
This Agreement may not be modified or amended except by written
agreement signed by both parties or upon order of a court of competent
jurisdiction.
I
l
C.
BINDING EFFECT
The tef)J1S, provisions, and conditions stated herein shall extend to,'be
binding upon; and inure to the benefit of ihe parties.hereto and their
'
.
successors.
D.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The parti.es sbru1 endeavor.to resolve any disPute arising out of or related to
this Agreement by mediation with the StateSuperiotendent of Education
and/Or his designee.
SEVERABILITY
the parties hereto that such invalidation shall not affect the validity of any
other clause, phrase) sentence, paragraph, or provision thereof.
TITLES.
The titles appearing in this Agreement are for reference only and shall not
be considered a part ofthis Agreeinent or in any way modify, amend, or
affect the provisions hereof
G.
RELATIONSHIP OFTIIEPARTIES.
This Agreement creates no agency relationship betvveen the Parties hereto,
and nothing herein contained shall be construed to place the Parties iri the
relationship .of partners or joi:lit venturers, and neither party shall have the
power to obligate or bind the other in any manner whatsoever.
'
~1
l1
H.
lI
MUTUAL COOPERATION
The COUNTY BOARD and the CITY-BOARD agree to cooperate in all
matters required to implement and accomplish the terms and tenor ofthir.
Agreement.
1
I
PARTIES JN-INTEREST
I.
~\
'
_,
!J ,
'
~~~
.Alabaster City Board of Education
~ U~
By: .
DR.L. WAYNE CKERS,
.
Superintendent of the
Alabaster City Board of Education
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By: =c~==~=---c-~-,--~~~~
RANDY FULLER, Superintendent of
the Shelby County Board of Education
25 of25 Pages
Attachment I2
AGREED FACTS
I.
2.
3.
B.
5.
6.
7.
8.
CONSIDERATION
The mutual promises and covenants of the COUNTY BOARD and the
CITY BOARD as stated in this Agreement serve as its agreed
consideration. Each party agrees to bind itself and its successors to the
terms of this Agreement based on the exchange of consideration herein.
C.
DEFINITIONS
The following terms and phrases as used in this Agreement shall have the
following 111eanings:
1.
2.
Alabaster.
3.
BOARD.
4.
7.
all of which lie within the corporate limits of the City of Pelham.
8.
9.
June 5, 2014
Page 3 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
11.
II.
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
A.
B.
STATUTORY COMPLIANCE
In accordance with ALA. CODE 16-8-1, et seq., and ALA. CODE 16-11-l,
et seq., the CITY BOARD and the COUNTY BOARD have structured this
agreement to facilitate a fair and equitable trai1sition for those County
Students living outside the corporate limits oft11e City but who atte11ded
Pelham Schools for the 2013-2014 school year and those students living
withit1 the corporate limits of the City but who attended County schools
other than Pelham Schools for the 2013-2014 school year. The CITY
BOARD and the COUNTY BOARD have agreed to a transitional
attendance plan, as explained l1ereinafter, that is intended to minimize
academic disruption and enable both the COUNTY BOARD and the CITY
BOARD to formulate and implement appropriate plans for their respective
students in subseque11t years.
C.
STUDENT ATTENDANCE
1.
2.
June 5. 2014
Page 4 of27 Pages
3.
Out-of-Zone Attendance.
The parties have agreed that immediate removal of County Students
from Pelham Schools and certain Pelham Students from Shelby
County Schools is not in the best interest of students, families,
communities, or the respective school systems, and that appropriate
measures to ease the transition of students into the respective school
zones are needed and will benefit both school boards and the
students they serve.
a.
b.
c.
Oak Mountain Students. The parties agree that (i) all Pelham
Students who were zoned for, registered in and attended Oak
Mountain Schools during the 2013-2014 school year, as
June S, 2014
Page 5 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelbv County Board of Education
e.
June 5, 2014
Page 6 of27 Pages
f.
11.
June 5, 2014
Page 7 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelbv County Board of Education
g.
4.
5.
6.
June 5, 2014
Page 9 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education
D.
I.
Pel/1am Schools. All right, title, and interest to each of the following
schools and to the tracts of real estate on which tl1ey are located and
to the fixtures and improvements associated witl1 each, now held by
the COUNTY BOARD will be conveyed to the CITY BOARD by
appropriate warranty deed, on or before July 1, 2014:
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
3.
Materials, Equipment, and Supplies. Not later than July 1, 2014, all
portable classrooms, furniture, equip1nent, materials, supplies
(including textbooks), and other personal property (including but not
limited to technology resources, transportation equipment, vehicles,
inventory, and supplies) located in or upon the premises of the
Pelham Schools or assigned or allocated to the Pelham Schools,
whether physically located within or upon the premises of the
scl1ools or not, as oftl1e date of this Agree1nent (including textbooks
ordered but not received or for which textbook allocation was
received by COUNTY BOARD and which allocation would have
been utilized at Pelham Schools in the absence of this agreement)
shall be conveyed to the CITY BOARD; provided, however, that
specialized equipment provided to co111ply with a particular special
education student's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) will be the
JuncS,2014
Page JO of27 Pages
Agreement By and Bet\veen
Pelhfiln City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education
property of the system where the student will attend school for the
upcoming school year. The CITY BOARD shall assume all
obligations associated with the operation of Pelham Schools and
with property transferred under this Agreement (e.g., equipment
leases, service contracts, loans from commercial lenders); provided
that payments 011 any such leases or service contracts are current
(that is, not in default) and that executed copies (original, whenever
possible) of all such leases and contracts are provided to the CITY
BOARD within fourteen (14) days after the date of execution of this
Agreement.
4.
5.
Linda Nolen Learning Center ("LNLC"). The LNLC will remain the
property of and under the control and authority of the COUNTY
BOARD. If COUNTY BOARD places LNLC for sale or lease to a
third party, CITY BOARD will first be offered the opportunity to
purchase or lease LNLC at the then fair market value, as established
by an appraisal conducted by a qualified, licensed appraiser selected
jointly by COUNTY BOARD and CITY BOARD. COUNTY
BOARD agrees that CITY BOARD may develop and record in the
Probate Office of Shelby County a Right of First Refusal reflecting
June 5, 2014
Page 11 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education
7.
E.
June 5, 2014
Page 12 of27 Pages
Ai:,>reemcnt By and Bel\veen
Pelham City Board ofEducation and
Shclhv County Board of Education
cooperation will include, but not be limited to, providing reasonable access
to the faculty and staff of Pelham Schools.
F.
G.
TRANSPORTATIONEQUIPMENT
The COUNTY BOARD shall, on or before the Transfer Date, assign,
transfer, and convey to the CITY BOARD all vehicles described in Exhibit
G attached hereto. The COUNTY BOARD shall maintain all of these
vehicles in operational condition until the date of transfer. In the event that
any of these vehicles becomes inoperable or is damaged prior to the date of
transfer, the COUNTY BOARD shall, in its sole discretion, either repair the
vehicle on or before that date or replace it with a vehicle of equal value. In
addition, the COUNTY BOARD agrees that all vehicles used to transport
students to be transferred to the CITY BOARD will be made available for
inspection by the State Department of Education prior to July 1, 2014, to
dete1mine whether such vehicles are certified to meet all applicable
standards and requirements of the Department for the 2014-2015 school
year for vehicles used to transport students. No later than July 1, 2014, the
COUNTY BOARD will advise the CITY BOARD of the chassis nwubers
of the school buses and VIN of other system-level vehicles, such as
maintenance vans, service vehicles, driver's education vehicles, or other
vehicles assigned to or utilized for the benefit of Pelham Schools, and such
vehicles will be transferred from the COUNTY BOARD to the CITY
BOARD on the Transfer Date. Beginning October 1, 2014, the CITY
BOARD will be entitled to receive from the State Department of Education
any and all Fleet Renewal Funds referable to vehicles beari11g the said
chassis numbers so long as such Fleet Renewal Funds are available from
the State Department of Education with respect to such vehicles, all in
June 5, 2014
Page 13 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Betv.11en
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education
I.
J.
RISK OF LOSS
The COUNTY BOARD agrees to maintain present levels of insurance
coverage in force on all property to be transferred under the tern1s of this
Agreement through closing on July 1, 2014. In the event of an insured loss
relating to such prope1iy occurring prior to that time, the COUNTY
BOARD shall transfer or assign any insurance proceeds to which it is
entitled as a result of such loss to the CITY BOARD. The COUNTY
BOARD shall have no obligation to provide insurance coverage of any kind
June 5. 2014
Page 14 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Bet\vcen
Pelhain City Board of Education and
Shelby Countv Board of Education
after the Transfer Date on Pelham Schools or any of the assets transferred
to CITY BOARD pursuant to this Agreement.
K.
PERSONNEL
I.
2.
Terms of Employment.
a.
b.
c.
Amount to be Paid
$137,557.93
$194,967.32
L.
Personnel Files. Copies of all personnel and payroll records for all
employees assigned to Pelham Schools shall be made available for
copying and inspection to the CITY BOARD within fourteen (14)
days after the execution of this Agreement.
June 5, 2014
M.
a.
b.
c.
1nills.
2.
June 5. 2014
Page 17 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education
b.
b.
4.
The City Board District Ad Valorem Taxes shall be the City Board
District Ad Valorem Taxes allocated, apportioned and distributed to
the CITY BOARD as described in Section ll.M.2 of this Agreement.
Further, the term 11 City Board District Ad Valorem Taxes" shall
include the net proceeds of any other school district ad valorem taxes
t11at may be levied after the date of this Agreement on property
situated within the CITY BOARD's School tax district (not to
include any property situated outside the corporate limits of the City)
which are allocated, apportioned and distributed to the CITY
BOARD.
For purposes of determining the County or City Board Per Student
Amount, the number of Students attending schools operated by the
COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD shall be determined by
using the 20 day ADM of such Students for each school year. The
payments under this Section (to the extent any such payments are
from time-to-time required under the terms of this Section) shall
cease with the payment from the CITY BOARD to be made on
October 15, 2028 (relating to the City Board District Ad Valorem
Taxes received during September, 2028) and with the payn1ent from
the COUNTY BOARD to be made on October 15, 2027 (relating to
the County Board District Ad Valorem Taxes received during
September 2026), except that such payments with respect to
exceptional education students and students who are required to
repeat a grade will continue for so long as such stude11ts are eligible
to attend public schools under state or federal law and are in fact
attending Pelham Schools (in the case of County Students) or
Chelsea or Oak Mountain Schools (in the case of Pelham Students).
5.
6.
Miscellaneous Revenues.
a.
b.
c.
June 5, 2014
Page 21 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Behvecn
Pclhmn City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board ofEducation
N.
d.
e.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the PSCA Series
2001-A (as refinanced as part of the 2011-B PSCA Bond issue)
outstanding balance reflecting that bonded indebtedness that pertains
to construction and facilities improvements to Pelham I-ligh Scl1ool
and Riverchase Middle School in the amount of $766,260.02.
2.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the PSCA Series
2008-A outstanding balance reflecting that bonded indebtedness that
pertains to construction and facilities improvements to Pelham Higl1
School and Riverchase Middle School in the amount of$388,977.13.
3.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the PSCA Series
2008-B outstanding balance reflecting that bonded indebtedness that
pertains to construction and facilities improvements to Pelham High
School and Riverchase Middle School in the amount of $177,021.38.
4.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the PSCA Series
2008-C outstanding balance reflecting that bonded indebtedness that
pertains to construction and facilities improvements to Pelham High
School in the amount of$106,667.52.
June 5, 2014
Page 22 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education
5.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the PSCA Series
2009-B outstanding balance reflecting that bonded indebtedness that
pertains to construction and facilities improvements to Pelham I-Iigh
School and Riverchase Middle School in the amount of$878,223.60.
6.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the PSCA Series
2009-C outstanding balance reflecting that bonded indebtedness that
pertains to construction and facilities improvements to Pelham High
School in the amount of$1,299,832.56.
7.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the PSCA Series
2009-D (QSCB) outstanding balance reflecting that bonded
indebtedness that pertains to construction and facilities
improvements to Pelham High School in the amount of $181,609.67.
8.
111e CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the PSCA Series
2011-A (QZAB) outstanding balance reflecting that bonded
indebtedness that pertains to construction and facilities
improvements to Valley Elementary School in the amount of
$47,401.23.
9.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the Series 2009
Local Warrant Issue outstanding balance reflecting that bonded
indebtedness that pertains to construction and facilities
improvements to Pelham High School, Valley Elementary School
and Valley Intermediate School in the amount of $1,707,181.27.
10.
The CITY BOARD shall assume that portion of the Series 2011
Local Warrant Issue outstanding balance reflecting that bonded
indebtedness that pertains to the purchase of five buses being
transferred to the CITY BOARD in the amount of $274,496.63 and
to construction and facilities improvements to Pelham High School,
Valley Elementary School and Valley Intermediate School in the
amount of $3,392,153.39 for a total principal assumption amount of
$3,666,650.02.
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
I.
a.
b.
2.
3.
June 5, 2014
Page 24 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Bel\veen
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education
III.
4.
5.
6.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
A.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement constitutes the fmal and entire understanding and
agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter
hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings,
representations, and agreements between the parties, whether written or
oral.
June 5, 2014
Page 25 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby Countt Board of Education
B.
MODIFICATION
This Agreement may not be modified or amended except by written
agreement signed by both parties or upon order of a court of competent
jurisdiction.
C.
BINDING EFFECT
The terms, provisions, and conditions stated herein shall extend to, be
binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
successors.
D.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Tl1e parties shall endeavor to resolve any dispute arising out of or related to
this Agreement by mediation with the State Superintendent of Education
ru1d/or his designee.
E.
SEVERABILITY
If any clause, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or provision of this Agreement
shall be i11validated by a court of compete11t jurisdiction, it is the intent of
the parties hereto that such invalidation shall not affect the validity of any
other clause, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or provision thereof:
F.
TITLES
The titles appearing in this Agree1nent are for reference only and shall not
be considered a part of this Agreement or in any way i11odify, amend, or
affect the provisions hereof.
G.
June 5, 2014
Page 26 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Bchveen
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
H.
PARTIES IN INTEREST
Nothing in this Agreement expressed or irnpli~d, is intended to confer upon
any third person any rights or remedies under or by reason of this
Agreement.
!.
MUTUAL COOPERATION
The COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD agree to cooperate in all
matters required to implement and accomplish the terms and tenor of this
Agreement.
J.
By:~~~~~~~~~~~
By:~~~~~~~~~~~~
By:~~~~~~~~~~~
By:~~~~~~~~~~~~
RANDY FULLER,
Superintendent of the
Shelby County Board of Education
June5,2014
Page 27 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education
Attachment I3
Public Statement
Monday, December 15, 2014
The Gardendale City Board of Education wishes to articulate its position on the future attendance of students currently in
Gardendale schools, but who live outside of the city limits of Gardendale. Our review and consideration of attendance
policies for newly formed systems and recent Separation Agreements has revealed a consistent theme stated as follows:
the immediate removal of county students from the city school system and certain city students from the county system
is not in the best interest of students, families, communities, or the respective school systems, and that appropriate
measures to ease the transition of students into the respective school zones are needed and will benefit both school boards
and the students that they serve.
The Gardendale Board is steadfastly committed to this principle.
The Gardendale Board believes that an out-of-district attendance policy which allows all students, who are currently
enrolled in Gardendale schools or currently enrolled in schools of the County system that traditionally feed to a Gardendale
school, to complete their education in Gardendale is in the best interest of all students, families, and our broader
community. To this end, the Gardendale Board confirms its intent to adopt such an open attendance policy. This
attendance policy will align with applicable federal and state statutes. The terms of the policy will be released when the
separation negotiations from the County system are complete.
From the outset of the formal process of negotiations between the two Boards of Education, both Gardendale and the
County system agreed to maintain strict confidentiality on all matters related to the details of the Separation until such time
as there was resolution and the process was finalized. The Gardendale Board and its superintendent have honored firmly
this confidentiality agreement, and will continue to do so until a final separation agreement is signed by both parties. The
Gardendale Board does confirm that a detailed account of the critical issues needing resolution has been sent to State
Superintendent of Education Dr. Tommy Bice and we are confident he will resolve these issues according to the
aforementioned principle of doing what is in the best interest of students.
It is firmly understood by the Gardendale Board that this process of separation has produced anxiety, concern, and
unanswered questions for all families currently in the Gardendale Zone. We sympathize wholeheartedly, and look forward
to the time when details can be shared, and all those impacted can get back to the excitement of putting into action the plan
of a newly formed Gardendale City School System. The establishment of an out-of-district attendance policy will ensure
that those individuals wishing to be a part of the Gardendale School System may do so.
919 Sharit Ave, Suite 213 * Gardendale, AL 35071 * Phone (205) 386-4440
FILED
Bishop
Carl Johnson
CARLJOHNSON@BISHOPCOLVlN.COM
February 3, 2015
Re:
Thank you for making key members of your advisory team available to the parties for an
in depth discussion of their positions this past Friday. Your representatives were well-prepared,
attentive, and constructive in their approach to the issues that separate the parties. The dialogue
was helpful to all concerned and I hope to the decisionmaking process.
Among the matters that were discussed was the relevance and significance of Ala. Code
16-8-20(1975) to the disposition of the matters at hand. The team graciously authorized a
supplemental submission on that question, and we appreciate your consideration of the following
additional points in support of the County Board's position.
Gardendale argues that the statute's field ofoperation (and, the obligation itimposes)' are
restricted to circumstances involving annexation of county schools by municipal districts.
Gardendale makes no attempt to reconcile its position with the equitable and logical disparities
and incongruities that itcreates.^ Instead, it simply dismisses them as "a legislative problem."
' When any part of the territory embracing a school under the supervision and control of thecounty board of
education is annexed to a city havinga city board of education by extension of the corporate limits of such city, the
county board of education shall retain supervision andcontrol of said school and for school purposes shall retain the
same control of the territory and revenues which it exercised priorto such annexation, for the purpose of using and
devoting said school to the benefit of all children whowereor would be entitled to the use and benefitof the school
so long as it was a county school, until an agreement has been made between the county board of education and the
city board of education, andthe city council or commission or other governing body of the cityto which theterritory
was annexed, with reference to the matter of existing indebtedness and ofproviding the same or equivalent school
facilities forthe children In thatpart ofthe territory In the school district or districts not annexed or made a part of
such city, (emphasis supplied).
^Ifanything, given the more sweeping and profound operational and financial impact of school system formation, a
stronger case can be made for applying the structured and deliberative process embodied within 16-8-20 to school
205.251.2881
Fax 205.254.3987
That cynical and short-sighted approach is not faithful to the statutory scheme or in keeping with
the State Superintendent's dual mandates to "explain the true meaning of the school laws" and to
reach a "just and proper" disposition of controversies and other matters presented to him for
resolution.
Alabama's attorney general has formally opined that compliance with the requirements of
16-8-20 is a precondition to school system formation and transfer of school control from
county to city systems:
Another requirement that must be met before the county board
relinquishes its control is that the county and city boards must reach
agreements concerning existing indebtedness and providing service to
students who do not live within the city system, but previously
attended schools that are in the city system. Section 16-8-20.
Ala. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 92-00364, p. 2 (attached). Especially in the absence of controlling
Judicial authority, an attorney general's opinion is deemed persuasive authority.^ And because
the attorney general is charged with the task of enforcing as well as interpreting the statutes
goveming the administration ofpublic agencies,'' the opinion isentitled to additional interpretive
weight under familiar and firmly established principles ofconstruction.^
system formation than to annexation of county schools. Under Gardendaie's premise, were the city to annex nearby
Mt. Olive Elementary School, the full machinery of 16-8-20would presumablycome into play. On the other hand,
disposition of the conceptually and analytically indistinguishable (but more consequential) issues surrounding
transfer of control over the schools within the city limits occasioned by school system formation would not be
controlled by any particular standard or condition. In other words, materially identical issues would be governed by
different (and, with regard to system formation, unstated) criteria. The difference would not be based on the
fundamental nature of the transaction, the issues it entails, or the practical consequences of their resolution, but on
the triggeringevent and a happenstance of geography^wholly meaningless and arbitrary distinctions.
' ExParte Jim Walter Resources. Inc.. 91 So.3d 50, 54(Ala. 2012)("While an opinion of theattorney general is not
binding, it can constitute persuasive authority") quoting Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Co. v. SouthernNatural
Gas Co.. 694 So.2d 1344, 1346 (Ala. 1997); Ex Parte J.Z.S. 808 So.2d 1220, 1224 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000)("While
opinions of theattorneygeneral are advisory in nature they are, nevertheless, entitled to great weight")quoting
Associated Industries of Alabama. Inc. v. State. 314 So.2d 879 (Ala.Crim.App.1975); Kellv v. Shelbv Countv
Health Care Authorities. 638 So.2d 898,900 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Cherokee CounW v. Cunningham. 68 So.2d 507,
510 (Ala.1953)("The interpretation by the attorneygeneral and popularinterpretation as exemplified in practice for
a number of years will be given weight as a factor in Judicial constructionof a statute where its meaning is
doubtfuI")(intemal citations omitted).
("Interpretations of an act by the administrative agency charged with its enforcement, though not conclusive, are to
be givengreat weight by the reviewing court") quoting Hulcher v. Taunton. 388 So.2d 1203, 1206 (Ala.1980);
Alabama Dept. of Revenue v. Jim Beam Brands Co.. Inc.. 11 So.3d 858, 866 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008)("Absent a
compelling reason not to do so, a court willgive great weightto an agency's interpretation of a statuteand will
2
The attorney general's opinion also provides authoritative guidance to the state
superintendent, who has separate statutory obligations to (I) "explain the true intent and meaning
of the school laws;"^ (2) "enforce all the provisions of the [education code];"' (3) make binding
determinations upon review of "all controversies and disputes involving the proper
administration of the public school system;' and, (4) upon consideration of the pertinent facts,
to render a "just and proper disposition" of "matters relating to finance and other matters
Q
seriously affecting the educational interest."' In exercising those prerogatives and duties with
respect to 16-8-20, the State Superintendent's judgment is informed by all relevant statutory
So.2d 834,840 (Ala.2003)C'Absent a compelling reason otherwise, the Supreme Court in construing a statute gives
great weight to the statutory interpretation of the agency charged with the administration of the statute").
Supreme Court is to ascertain andeffectuate the legislative intent as expressed in thestatute; inthis ascertainment,
the Supreme Court must lookto the entire act instead of isolated phrases or clauses)(intemal citations omitted); City
of Pritchardv. Balzer. 95 So.3d 1 (Ala. 2012)(In determining the intent of the legislature, the court must examine
the statute as a whole and, if possible, giveeffectto each section); T-Mobile South. LLCv. Bonet. 85 So.3d 963
(Ala.2011); Hill v. Gallagher. 65 So.3d 362 (Ala.2010).
" D.A.D.O. V. State. 57 So.3d798, 804(Ala.Crim.App.2009)(The law favors rational and sensible construction, and
in construing statutes courts are not required to abandon common sense); Statev. Gamer.28 So.3d831,835
(Ala.Crim.App.2009)("The law favors rational and sensiblestatutory construction") quoting Kins v. State. 674
So.2d 1381 (Ala.Crim.App.1995).; Smith v. Smith. 964 So.2d 663,670-71 (Ala.Civ.App. 2005)(A court will read
theconcept of reasonableness into theprovisions of a statute it isconstruing) citing Exparte Berrvhill. 801 So.2d 7,
10 fAla.200n: Alabama Surface Min. Reclamation Commission v. Jollv. 373 So.2d 855, 857 (Ala.l979)("Courts
should give a statute a reasonable construction as opposed to one which is repressive or inconvenient")(intemal
citations omitted).
SeeLee v. Macon. 231 F.Supp. 743 (M.D. Ala. 1964)(three judgepanel)(Recognizing thatState Board and
Superintendent have ultimate control over city and county boards of education and thus direct responsibility for
assuring compliance with equal protection requirements). Seealso Leev. Macon. 267 F.Supp. 458(M.D. Ala.
1967)(three judge panel).
" Citv of Birmingham v. AmSouth Bank. N.A.. 591 So.2d 473 (Ala.l99l)(Long-standing interpretation given a
statute or ordinance byofficials charged with itsadministration is highly persuasive as to intent of legislative body
when it enacted the statute or ordinance and, consequently, the meaning of the statuteor ordinance; such
interpretation isespecially persuasive where interpretation has controlled how the public has conducted its
business); Cherokee County, v. Cunningham. 68 So. 2d 507,510-11 (Ala.l953)("The interpretation by the attorney
general and popular interpretation as exemplified in practice for a number ofyears will begiven weight asa factor
3
City and county boards of education have reliedon 16-8-20 to provide the template for
municipal school system separation since at least the 1960's. Because it has historicallysupplied
the only statutory blueprint for negotiating the substantive terms for transfer of control of schools
between city and county systems, the fact that municipal school system formation has
traditionallybeen accomplished through a formal negotiation process necessarily implies that
16-8-20 has served as the legal foundation for such proceedings. The cases leave no doubt that
its regular invocation by affected parties weighs significantly in favor of the statute's application
in the school system formation arena.
Any remaining uncertainty on this point is eliminated by Gardendale's own ambivalent
treatment of and disguised reliance on the statute. But for 16-8-20 and its heretofore
unchallenged role as the governing legal substrate for municipal school system formation, there
would be no reason for Gardendale to enter into negotiations at all. Gardendale could simply
claim title to the involved schools, demand (and presumably receive) immediate possession of
the premises, and serve notice on the county district that the county's displaced students would
have to make the best of things by attending whatever county facility might be located for them.
Insteadfully cognizant of the Attorney General's opinion, longstanding practice, and the
manifest injustice of such an approachGardendale has attempted to have its cake and eat it,
too, by feigning fidelity to the objectives of 16-8-20 while disavowing the statute's
applicability. For example, Gardendale offers to provide for the displaced students by proposing
a transitional enrollment arrangement that is finite in duration, only available to currently
enrolled students, and that would be subsidized by county school district residents through
transfers of ad valorem revenues and ADM funds. Likewise, Gardendale would assume a
minimal debt obligation that attaches to some of the affected schools while shifting the entire
financial burden of providing equivalent facilities for 1,200 students in the former Gardendale
attendance zone to the county district and, by extension, to its residents.
By offering token, temporary, and vaguely articulated half-measures in lieu of its full
obligation to provide"the same or equivalent school facilities" for the students displaced by its
initiative, Gardendale attempts to unilaterally determine which statutes or which partsof the
applicable statutes it will observe. That approach is analytically untenable and equitably
unconscionable, and frustrates the "just and proper disposition of the matter(s)" at issue. If
Gardendale is in for a dime, it's in for a dollar.
injudicial construction of a statute where its meaning is doubtful")(niultiple citations omitted). See also
Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Ctr. Authority v. Citv of Birmingham. 912 So.2d 204, 226 (Ala. 2005)(A long-
continued understanding and application of a provision amounts to a practical construction of the statute which, if
acquiesced in for many years, is frequently resorted to by the courts and is entitled to greatweight and
deference)(concurring opinion) citing 16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law 86 (1998).
Conclusion
Section 16-8-20 has been the substantive centerpiece of the municipal school district
formation process in Alabama for decades. Dozens of Alabama school districts, an Alabama
SupremeCourt justice, and the Alabama Attorney General have recognized or declared as much
in word and deed. Gardendale's own parsimoniousconcessions represent an implicit
acknowledgement that 16-8-20 has an unavoidable role in school system formation. Even
without the statute, the State Superintendentwould be required to apply its equitable and rational
underpinning no less assiduously. Ultimately, the State Superintendent'smandate is not to
determine which district is "right," but what course of action will prevent one cohort of students
affected by Gardendale's pullout from receiving a windfall at the expense of another.
TheJefferson County Board of Education asks that 16-8-20 and the equitable principles
on which it is predicated be applied to require Gardendale to provide equivalent facilities in a
meaningful and enduring way to the students who will be disenfranchised by its strategically
timed decision to form an independent system.
Respectfully submitted.
Carl Johnson
CJ;myr
c:
Page 1
majority of the students using the school buildings live outside the attendance zone?
4. Do staff members in the newly formed city system automatically remain with that system?
FACTS AND ANALYSIS
I.
The Jefferson County Board of Education will relinquish its service to students in Irondale and Trussville to the city
boards of education when the city school systems are formed. The Irondale and Trussville city systems do not form
until the cities meet several requirements. For example, according to Alabama Code (1975), 16-11-6, a city must
have a custodian of school funds. Either the city treasurer can serve as the custodian or the city board of education can
elect an individual to serve as custodian. Also, according to 16-11-2, each city must have a city board of education.
Additionally, pursuant to 16-11-4, each city must have a city superintendent of schools. The city superintendent
must recommend the employment of an attendance officer and ensure that school attendance laws are enforced,
pursuant to 16-12-18.
Another requirement that must be met before the county board relinquishes its control is that the county and city
boards must reach agreements concerning existing indebtedness and providing service to students who do not live
within the city system, but previously attended schools that are in the city system. Section 16-8-20. If the systems
cannot reach agreements about these matters, they must be decided by an arbitration board pursuant to 16-8-21 and
-22.
*2 Moreover, the cities must meet the preclearance requirements of 42 U.S.C. 1973(c). This section requires that all
covered jurisdictions must secure approval of all election changes by either receiving a determination from the district
court for the District of Columbia that the change does not violate the Voting Rights Act, or by submitting the change
to the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorney General interposes no objection within sixty (60) days.
In the case of Robinson v. Alabama State Department of Education. 652 F. Supp. 484 (M.D. Ala. 1987), the court held
that the transfer of supervision and control of public schools within the city from an elected county board of education
to an appointed city board of education was a change requiring federal preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973(c). Therefore, the cities of Irondale and Trussville must receive such federal
preclearance before their city school systems will be deemed officially formed.
Lastly, we assume that Jefferson County is under federal desegregation court orders. Without reviewing such orders,
we assume that the cities must receive federal court approval that the formation of the city school systems will not
violate federal desegregation orders.
II.
We are of the opinion that an elected county school board member who lives in the city of a newly formed school
system will keep his position on the county board until his elected term runs out, according to 16-8-2.
III.
Section 16-13-199 states that, a municipality may remain under control of the county board by agreement between
that board and the city council of the municipality, which agreement shall be expressed and resolutions adopted by and
spread upon the minutes of the two parties. If the municipality does not enter into such an agreement, the control of the
schools or schools in the territory within the municipality shall be vested in a city board of education.Therefore,
unless the Jefferson County Board of Education and the newly formed city boards of education enter into agreements
stating otherwise, the control of the schools within the city school system will transfer to the newly formed city boards
of education. This holds true regardless of the present attendance of students who live outside the cities at these
schools. The county and city school boards may also enter into agreements regarding subjects such as distribution of
teacher units, transportation of students, and attendance of students at schools in the systems who do not live within the
school systems.
IV.
Section 16-24-2(d) states that when schools are separated from a school system in order to become a part of another
school system, the continuing service status of the teachers involved in such changes is in no way jeopardized.
Therefore, no personnel can lose their positions because of the formation of the new school systems. The city and
county systems can enter into agreements regarding personnel to determine which system will employ such personnel.
CONCLUSION
*3 Accordingly, the cities must meet several requirements before the new school systems will be officially formed. At
the point that the school systems meet all of the discussed requirements, the Jefferson County Board of Education will
relinquish its control of schools within the cities to the new city school systems. The county school board member who
lives within the new city school system may keep his position on the county school board until his term expires. Unless
an agreement is reached otherwise, the school buildings within the city school systems will be controlled by the new
city boards of education. Also, unless an agreement is reached regarding personnel that decides otherwise, staff
members in the newly formed city systems will remain with that system in order not to jeopardize their positions.
I hope this sufficiently answers your questions. If our office can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Jimmy Evans
Attorney General
By: James R. Solomon, Jr.
Chief
Opinions Division
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
FILED
Bishop
Carl Johnson
CARUOHNSON@BISHOPCOLVIN.COM
Furthermore, a final decision that modifies and extends the "open door" attendance
policy for decades to come, would all but assure a reprise of the logistical chaos and
inefficiency that continues to mark a similar (but less extensive) arrangement between the
205.251.2881
Fox 205.254.3987
County system and the Trussville Board. Although the Trussville plan was based on an
agreement between the boards, natural attendance and transportation patterns were (and
remain) disrupted at considerable, ongoing inconvenience to the affected students and
their families, and unnecessary costs to the County Board continue to be incurred. If
imposed here, the complications and incongruities associated with the failed Trussville
experiment will be exacerbated by the substantial loss of tax and foundation program
revenues to the County system that would be all but assured by the extended attendance
plan envisioned in the decision While some type of temporary transitional arrangement
may figure into a final separation agreement, the extended duration and scope of the plan
outlined in the decision amounts to a virtual reconfiguration of both districts for more
than a generation of affected students.
Rather than require the County Board to subsidize a school system whose financial
reach apparently exceeds its grasp with discounted capital contributions and diverted
county revenues, the State Superintendent should encourage Gardendale to meet its legal
and financial obligations in the same way that other newly formed systems' have done in
recent years: by accruing adequate financial reserves and/or securing public financing. If
Gardendale lacks the revenues, the independent revenue generating capacity, or the
borrowing capacity to meet those needs. County taxpayers and students should not be
^Long before its board of education was even appointed (inMarch of 2014), Gardendale was on notice that its start
up costs would be substantial and that there would be "no free lunch" regarding transfer of the high school, in
particular. See correspondence from Dr. StephenNowlin dated November 5,2013, attached as ExhibitA.
Apparentlyunconvincedor unconcerned,Gardendale moved fonvard. County residents should not be made to bear
the price tag for their miscalculation.
2
responsibilities, but only if it is based on accurate student enrollment data and stripped of
incorrectly applied and/or computed credits.
As a threshold matter, the preliminary calculation is predicated on an incorrect
computation of student enrollment data. The percentage that was factored into the
apportionment of construction grant fiinds (6.31) in the preliminary decision was derived
from incorrect data that included students who resided in the Gardendale attendance
zone, but outside of the City itself. If the object is to determine the amount that would
have been Gardendale's "fair share" of the proceeds, the proper basis for the percentage
calculation is the number of students who lived in Gardendale, and who, as a result,
would have been counted as City students. The actual percentage (4.41) of grant funds
allocable to City students is based on a meticulous audit of enrolled students by long time
school staff members with firsthand knowledge of whether the students in question
actually lived in the City of Gardendale. See Exhibit B attached. Application of the
lower number of City residents yields a significantly lower "imputed share" to
Gardendale than is reflected in the preliminary decision. When that imputed share (as
revised) is deducted from the total Gardendale construction grant (including the
supplemental appropriation), the allocation due the County Board for its students
approaches a more equitable apportionment of Gardendale's equivalent facilities
obligation.
The decision also includes deductions from the amount due Jefferson County for
depreciation and special credits. Those adjustments are the equivalent of advanced
depreciation, and are not appropriate in this context. Depreciation is a largely arbitrary
means of allocating the cost of an asset over time that does not take into account the
actual conditions of the facilities in question or, more importantly, the actual cost of
replacing them. The County Board must replace the facilities that will be lost at actual,
"appreciated" construction costs. That burden cannot be met if those costs are artificially
discounted in a way that is antithetical to the central purpose and premise of the
governing statute. In short, the depreciation credit factored into the decision is irrelevant,
contrary to legislative intent, and unfair to the Jefferson County students who are entitled
to a permanent school home that offers the same features and amenities as are found in
those that will have been taken from them.
Whether or not adjustments to fair market value for depreciation or other factors
might properly be considered in some contexts, they have no place here. Instead, a
special rulethe "substitute facilities doctrine"governs the valuation analysis in cases
involving the involuntary acquisition of public facilities and properties that are adapted to
special uses and for which there is no substantial market.^ Under those circumstances.
^SeeSlate v. Atkins. 439 So.2d 128, 130, 131 (Ala. 1983Xattached as Exhibit C)(traditional market value measure
of compensation does not apply when one governmental agencytakes publicproperty that has beenspecially
the correct measure of compensation is the cost of providing substitute facilities for those
that are taken by the appropriating agency. The criteria for application of the substitute
facilities doctrine are indisputably met here: the facilities in question were built and
adapted for a special use that is not amenable to a traditional market value analysis, the
Jefferson County Board must ultimately provide educational services to the displaced
students, and new facilities will be needed to meet that obligation.
The penalty that a misplaced depreciation-based credit adjustment imposes on
Jefferson County students is compounded by extending the "credit" concept beyond the
proposed transfer date for some 13 years. Under this approach, Gardendale would
receive both the district taxes and foundation program allocations for every student who
remains with Gardendale, the bulk of Gardendale's obligation to fund replacement
facilities would be forgiven, and Gardendale would keep the buildings and property
associated with the schools. County residents would attend Gardendale Schools on
borrowed time and as unwanted stepchildren. And, at the expiration of the transition
process if not before, the Jefferson County Board would still be required to plan for and
provide replacement facilitieswithout adequate capital funds and without the ADM and
ad valorem revenues that would have been lost to Gardendale for the duration of the
and ADM subsidies, the prospective attendance credit is not tied to the actual or even
projected enrollment of County Students in Gardendale schools. Jefferson County thus
foots the bill for the entire depreciation amount for thirteen years even though it does not
own the asset being depreciated and Jefferson County students will only constitute a
portion of the students using those facilities.
adapted to a special use; in such cases,the "substitute facilities" doctrine dictates that the costof providing substitute
facilities is the measure ofjust compensation).
4
If, despite the infirmities noted above, the basic analytical approach reflected in
the decision is deemed equitable and otherwise appropriate, the Jefferson County Board
requests that, at a minimum, critical data inputs be refined as follows:
The prospective credit for the extended open door attendance policy
should be corrected by reducing it by the percentage of Gardendale
City students so that it reflects what is fairly allocable to County
students.
These revised inputs and the calculation they yield are summarized on the chart attached
as Exhibit E.
Conclusion
The plain purpose of 16-8-20 and the equitable principles that inform it is to
ensure that County students are not relegated to inferior educational infrastructure by a
municipal district's appropriation of County school facilities. The analysis followed in
the preliminary decision all but reverses the paradigm. Instead of receiving enough funds
to construct a permanent, equivalent school home. County students attending City
schools would effectively become foster children to educational "parents" whose
motivation in forming a municipal school system was to exclude those very nonresidents
from the City's newly claimed schools. County students who choose to remain in the
County system would do so with but a fraction of the revenues necessary to meet their
permanent facility needs. County students and taxpayers would be required to accept less
so that City residents can have more and would be compelled to transfer County funds to
the City to further Gardendale's ambitions. Stripped of its force by artificial discounts
and subsidies, 16-8-20 would become a vehicle for facilitating municipal school
formationat the expense of County studentsrather than a bulwark against the
establishment of a two-tiered caste system in public education.
Respectfully submitted,
(LculAS
Carl Johnso
Whit Colvin
CJ:myr
End.
c:
Exhibit A
JEF"..::.ED
Jefferson County Board Of Education
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Mrs. Jennifer H. Parsons
PTl!Sident
Mr. Ronald A. Rhodes
Vice-PTl!Sident
November 5, 2013
Superintendent
For more than a hundred years, the Gardendale community has played a critical role in the
success of the Jefferson County School System. Gardendale's leaders have been County School Board
leaders, and Gardendale's values and vision of quality public education have played an important role in
producing an impressive record of achievement in Gardendale schools and in the county system as a
whole. In short, Gardendale has been critically important to maintaining a high standard of educational
excellence in Jefferson County.
Yet just as Gardendale and its students have contributed to the success of the Jefferson County
system, they have benefited from being a part of the county system. Gardendale students have been
served by some of the county's most accomplished teachers and administrators; Gardendale schools
have offered a full range of academic programs and extracurricular activities to their students; and
Gardendale students have been provided with an extraordinary learning environment in top-tier physical
facilities. Communication between City and County Board officials has been marked by openness,
mutual respect, and unfailing cooperation. At no time in living memory has Gardendale been without
representation and a strong voice on the Jefferson County Board of Education itself, and no significant
educational need or request for support from Gardendale has gone unmet.
Best of all, these benefits have been provided to Gardendale students without imposing a single
dollar in special or additional local taxes on Gardendale residents, thus enabling Gardendale to allocate
its local resources to police, fire, and EMT services and to other vital city needs, all of which are more
pressing (and costly) today than ever. By any measure, Gardendale residents have received exceptional
educational value, and their positive relationship with the County School Board has given Gardendale the
best of all worlds.
On November 12th, Gardendale residents will be asked to cast aside a proven, cost effective
partnership that has served Gardendale students well for more than a century in favor of an uncertain
venture that could actually reduce the quality of educational services in Gardendale and that will
unquestionably impose higher taxes on Gardendale property owners, create higher per pupil operating
costs, and divert city revenues from other critical public needs. Before committing yourself, your
neighbors, and your City to a costly course of action that offers no clear plan or prospect for improving
educational services, we ask you to consider the inevitable consequences of separation from the county
school system:
The ten mill property tax proposed to be applied to the city school system is expected to
generate approximately $1.8 million in annual revenues. The cost of hiring even a "no frills"
administrative staff will equal or exceed these revenues. In effect, the proposed tax increase will
buy the school system nothing more than a duplicative administrative bureaucracy.
'IF A NATION EXPECTS TO BE IGNORANT AND FREE. IT EXPECTS WHAT NEVER WAS AND NEVER WILL BE"
Thomas Jefferson
November 5, 2013
Gardendale Resident
Page Two
Under Alabama law, all school systems--including newly formed systems--must maintain a
financial reserve equal to at least one month's operating expense. In Gardendale's case, that
amounts to approximately 1.9 million dollars. No plan or timetable for establishing or funding
that reserve has been publically discussed or disclosed.
State funding of local school districts is based on the number of students attending schools in the
district. If Gardendale decides to go it alone, the number of students attending Gardendale
schools will be reduced by approximately one third, resulting in an equivalent loss of state
"Foundation Program" funding. The Gardendale school system will nevertheless assume sole
responsibility for maintaining and operating its schools and for paying fixed costs regardless of
the district's enrollment. Utility costs alone for schools serving Gardendale students in 2012
were some $800,000.
Should Gardendale separate from the county system, employees who are assigned to
Gardendale Schools will be allowed to remain at those schools even if state funding for
Gardendale teachers is reduced. A county system is not required to absorb "excess" staff in order
to assist in the formation of a municipal school district. Gardendale will assume sole
responsibility for funding these employees' salaries and benefits with local--not
state--revenues. Downsizing the workforce will likewise be Gard'endale's responsibility. Such
actions typically lead to costly and demoralizing lawsuit5---ilnything but a positive way to
inaugurate a school system.
Even if staff numbers could be made to match reduced enrollment in a simple and painless way,
Gardendale would still be responsible for maintaining the current salaries and benefits of the
employees it inherits from Jefferson County. Virtually every Gardendale school employee is paid
at least in part with local district funds, and some are paid entirely with local funds. These local
obligations----{;urrently subsidized by the county as a whole---will shift solely to Gardendale if it
pulls out.
Lower enrollment translates into reduced educational and extracurricular offerings and
opportunities for students. Similarly, a community seeking to raise its profile in the athletic
arena should be prepared to step down to a lower AHSAA population class.
Not only will smaller enrollment mean fewer curricular choices for Gardendale students,
separation from Jefferson County will mean loss of access to the County's specialized and
supplemental services, programs, and facilities that are provided on a centralized or regional
basis, including the International Baccalaureate School, the Burkett Center, and the Jefferson
County Counseling & Learning Center (Alternative School). These programs are costly to operate
and can be fraught with extraordinary (and open ended) financial liabilities that must be paid
with locally generated revenues.
Gardendale Resident
November 5, 2013
Page Three
If it pulls out of the county school system, Gardendale will remain fully subject to federal court
supervision for compliance with student and staffing requirements and other desegregation
obligations and could be required to serve nonresidents in order to maintain appropriate ratios.
The school system formation and separation process is lengthy, unpredictable, and expensive.
Hundreds of thousands of Gardendale tax dollars will be spent on lawyers, consultants,
administrators, and a mind-boggling array of start-up costs before Gardendale ever begins
operating as an independent school district. The coy suggestion that the most difficult issues
raised by the proposed pullout will be resolved through the negotiation process amounts to an
admission that the outcome of the process is anybody's guess--hardly a source of comfort to the
thousands of students, parents, employees, and taxpayers who must live with its results. The
uncertainties and anxieties associated with separation will inevitably take a heavy toll on
student, parent, and employee morale.
Before Gardendale expends resources it doesn't have to "fix" a problem that has yet to be
identified, we ask Gardendale residents and leaders to consider any of several alternatives to separation
that could provide additional financial support for Gardendale schools without taking on the risks,
liabilities, and uncertainties of an initiative that is based on vague objectives, inaccurate data, and
unrealistic fiscal projections.
The question is not whether Gardendale can survive as an independent school system, but
whether it can thrive. A number of Alabama school systems are "independently" doing little more than
keeping their doors open, and even well funded and managed systems are facing significant budget
shortfalls. By remaining a part of the Jefferson County family, Gardendale schools can meet the financial
challenges confronting public education in uncertain economic times while receiving extra support from
the City on terms that will permit both the City and its taxpayers to live within their financial means.
We respectfully invite you to consider that sensible middle course as you cast your vote on
November 12. Please remember that in this instance, a vote against the proposed tax increase is not a
repudiation of public education, but a call for reason, restraint, and cost-effective use of education tax
dollars.
Sincerely,
~~
Stephen Nowlin, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Before casting a vote for higher taxes on Gardendale property owners, please consider
the following:
./ Gardendale is special to the Jefferson County system, and always has been.
Gardendale1s facilities, curriculum, employees, and students are as fine as any in the
state, and the County Board takes pride in the Gardendale community and its
schools .
./ IILocal Control II doesn1t necessarily mean better schools and such control comes at a
significant cost. You are being told that a separate school system will be better by
people who aren1t in the school business, but you haven1t been told how or why .
./ Small systems cost more to run per student. Homewood, Mountain Brook, Vestavia
Hills, and Trussville all have more than twice the number of students than
Gardendale would. Fewer students make it harder to make ends meet. Gardendale
would be closer in size to Leeds, Tarrant, Fairfield, or Midfield .
./ Fewer students also means fewer course offerings, teachers, principals, counselors,
support personnel, and extracurricular activities - not more. With a separate
system, expect fewer vocational opportunities and a drop from 6A to SA or 4A in
sports .
./ 10 mills of extra property tax is simply not enough. 10 mills in Gardendale is worth
around 1.8 million dollars annually. The utility cost for the high school alone is over
$400,000, and state money doesn't cover that. Central office salaries and benefits
will run at least 1.5 million dollars each year. These extra taxes, supposedly intended
for improvement, will actually be spent on administrators, not teachers .
./ School funding can1t be based on hopes and dreams. Counting on increases in
property values to finance a school system is risky business. The economy hasn1t
been good for education, and the State is warning that the rough waters are not
behind us. In our county, sewer rates are projected to skyrocket and tax increases at
the federal level (such as from Obama Care) make growth unpredictable at best.
...
Exhibit B
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
FILED
Bishop
Carl Johnson
CARUOIINSON@BlSHOPCOLVIN.COM
January 26,2015
Thomas R. Bice, Ed.D.,
Rc:
You have received the parties' filings of December 12 and 19, 2014. Please let us know
if any additional information or authority would be helpful as you review the points and
positions provided by the parties in those submissions. In that connection, we call your attention
to a development that may now figure more prominently in the timetable for decisionmaking
than appeared to be the case when the joint petition for determination of disputed issues was
submitted to you last October.
As you know, the Jefferson County Board of Education continues to operate under a
federal desegregation order (Slout v, Jefferson County Board ofEducation^ Case No. 2:65-cv0396-MHH). Under the Stout decree, splinter districts such as Gardendale must obtain court
approval prior to assuming operational status, and remain subject to the desegregation order tmtil
released by the court. In reviewing such motions for approval, courts consider the effect of the
Although we do not know what course or how long the Stout parties' review of the
pullout will lake, oursense is that it will not be perfunctory in nature. It also appears likely that
' Lee V. Chambers Cntv. Bd. of Educ- 849 F. Supp. 1474, 1499 (M.D. Ala. 1994) (applvine Wright v. Council of
Emporia. 407 US451, 92 S.Ct. 2196, 33 L. Ed. 2d 51 (1972), to preventcityschool boardoperation in li^tofits
adverse effects on the county system and the desegregation process).
205.251.2881
Fax 205.254.3987
it will not begin in earnest (and almost certainly will not be concluded) until a decision on the
matters before you is rendered by your office. Because these circumstances create the potential
for additional delay in securing a final disposition of legal issues surrounding the Gardendale
pullout and substantial practical complications, we thought it appropriate to bring them to your
attention as you work toward resolution of the issues that are before you.
Again, please let us know if the boards can present additional information or authority
that will facilitate your determination of the matters under review. Thank you for your tireless
work on behalf of all of Alabama's public schools and the students they serve.
Respectfully,
Carl Johnson
CJ:myr
c:
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA