Stout v. Jefferson County (Alabama) - Doc 1001 - Attachments

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Types, Business/Law, Court Filings | Downloads: 64 | Comments: 0 | Views: 898
of x
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Jefferson County school board attorney Whit Colvin filed these attachments on behalf of the board on March 12, 2015 in the long-running desegregation case, Stout v. Jefferson County, 2:65-cv-00396. The main argument is in a separate Scribd file. Gardendale seeks to form its own school system, and talks have broken down between Jefferson County and the Gardendale boards of education.

Comments

Content

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-1 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 2

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-1 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 2

FILED

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-2 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 2

2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

November 18, 2014

Honorable Thomas R. Bice, Superintendent
Alabama State Department of Education
P.O. Box 302101
Montgomery, AL 36130-2101
RE: Gardendale Board of Education / Jefferson County Board of Education
Joint Petition for Adjudication of Disputed Separation Issues
Dear Dr. Bice:
As you know, the City of Gardendale has appointed a board of education with a
view toward initiating operations as an independent municipal school district on July 1,
2015. Representatives of the Gardendale and Jefferson County Boards of Education have
commenced formal negotiations with regard to Gardendale's impending separation from
the county system. Based on initial discussions and exchanges of written proposals, the
Boards have identified three principal issues (set forth below) as to which agreement
appears to be unattainable.
1.

Provision of Equivalent Facilities

The Jefferson County Board of Education has requested payment of $33,187,500
from the Gardendale Board of Education in order to provide equivalent facilities for
students residing in areas that have heretofore been included within the Gardendale
Schools' attendance zones, but that are not within Gardendale city limits. The Gardendale
Board declined to make any payment to the Board but has proposed a 12-year transitional
attendance plan that would allow all students now attending schools in Gardendale to
continue attending Gardendale school through graduation.
2.
Provision of Services to Gardendale Residents attending the William E. Burkett
Multi-Handicapped Center
The Gardendale Board of Education has requested that students attending the
William E. Burkett Multi-Handicapped Center ("the Burkett Center") be allowed to
remain as that school until their eligibility for services expires under federal law, and that
tuition for such students be paid by the Gardendale Board. The Jefferson County Board
proposes that the Gardendale Board assume responsibility for its residents who attend the

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-2 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 2

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,

JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
/s/ Carl Johnson
/s/ Whit Colvin
Counsel for Jefferson County Board of Education

GARDENDALE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION
/s/ Donald B. Sweeney
/s/ Alan K. Zeigler
Counsel for Gardendale City Board of Education

FILED

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-3 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 7

2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Bishop

CARL JOHNSON
CARLJOHNSON@ BISHOPCOLVIN.COM

BISHOP, COLVIN, JOHNSON & KENT, LLC

December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
Alabama State Superintendent of Education
Post Office Box 302101
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
RE:

By Hand Delivery

Jefferson County/Gardendale City Boards of Education

Dear Dr. Bice:
This matter is before the State Superintendent on the joint petition of the Jefferson
County Board of Education ("County Board") and the Gardendale City Board of Education
("City Board ") to resolve their disagreements as to the proper disposition of three pivotal issues
relating to the City Board's bid to assume operational status as an independent municipal school
system. Those disagreements are summarized as follows:
1. Provision of Equivalent Facilities: The County Board has requested payment of
$33,187,500.00 from the City Board in order to provide equivalent facilities for students residing
in areas that have heretofore been included within the Gardendale Schools' attendance zones, but
that are not within Gardendale city limits. The City Board has declined to make any payment to
the County Board but has proposed a 12-year transitional attendance plan that would allow all
students now attending schools in Gardendale to continue attending Gardendale school through
graduation.
2. Provision of Services to Gardendale Residents attending the William E. Burkett MultiHandicapped Center: The City Board has requested that students attending the William E.
Burkett Multi-Handicapped Center ("the Burkett Center") be allowed to remain at the facility
until their eligibility for services expires under federal law. Tuition for such students would be
paid by the City Board. The County Board proposes that the City Board assume responsibility
for its residents who attend the Burkett Center effective with the transfer of operational control
of school facilities. Transitional support would be offered to the City Board staff by the County
Board.
3. September Payroll: The County Board has proposed that the City Board assume all
payroll obligations for City Board employees that are incurred on or after the transfer date (July
1,2015). The City 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 of2015).
The Jefferson County Board's position is founded on firmly established statutory,
constitutional, and equitable principles. By contrast, the City Board's position would permit it to

1910 First Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203
www.bishopcolvin.com

205.251.2881

Fax 205.254.3987

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-3 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 7

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

The Legal Frame'work

The formation of municipal school districts in Alabama is governed principally by ALA.
CODE §§ 16-11-1 3 , 16-11-2(b)4, 16-11-9" 16-13-199 6 , and ALA. CODE § 16~8-20. The meaning
v. Jef/erson COllnty Bd. olEdl/c., 2:65-cv-0396-MHH (N.D . Ala.).

I

SIOIiI

2

Wrighl v. Council of Emporia, 407 US 451, 92 S.Ct. 2 196, 33 L. Ed. 2d 51 (1972)

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).

3

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.

4

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.

5

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-3 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 7

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.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-3 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 7

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

8

Chism v. Jefferson COllnty, 954 So. 2d 1058 (Ala. 2006)(emphasis supplied).

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-3 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 7

Page 5 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice

explain its preference for an apparently less effective method." 391
U.S. at 391 U. S. 439.
In evaluating Emporia's claims, it must be remembered that the city
represents the interests of less than one-third of the students in the
system being desegregated. Only the city officials argue that their plan
is preferable to the "pairing" plan encompassing the whole of the citycounty system. Although the county school board took no position in
the District Court either for or against Emporia's action, it had
previously adopted a resolution stating its belief that the city's action
was not in the best interests of the county children. In terms of Green,
it was only the respondents -- not the county school board -- who
expressed a "preference for an apparently less effective method" of
desegregation.
At the final hearing in the District Court, the respondents presented
detailed budgetary proposals and other evidence demonstrating that
they contemplated a more diverse and more expensive educational
program than that to which the city children had been accustomed in
the Greensville County schools. These plans for the city system were
developed after the preliminary injunction was issued in this case. In
August, 1969, one month before classes were scheduled to open, the
city officials were intent upon operating a separate system despite the
fact that the city had no buildings under lease, no teachers under
contract, and no specific plans for the operation of the schools. Thus,
the persuasiveness of the "quality education" rationale was open to
question. More important, hO'wever, any increased quality of education
provided to city students would, under the circumstances found by the
District Court, have been purchased only at the price of a substantial
adverse effect upon the viability of the county system. The District
Court, with its responsibility to provide an effective remedy for
segregation in the entire city-county system, could not properly allow
the city to make its part of that system more atlractive where such {{
result 'would be accomplished at the expense of the children remaining
. h
9
In t e county

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.)

9

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-3 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 7

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.

Background and History
Gardendale was incorporated in 1955. As of 1960, its population was 4,721. 10 At that
point, if not before, it had a statutory obligation to appoint a board of education or enter into an
agreement with the county board regarding the county board's continued control of the schools
within the city. II It did neither. Instead of assuming or even acknowledging its educational
obligations, Gardendale (by default) required the County Board to fund construction,
maintenance, and operation of the schools serving Gardendale residents, including the
construction of a state-of-the-art high school in 2010 at an approximate cost of $51 ,000,000, a
new field house, other school expansions, facilities renovations, and upgrades. Gardendale tax
revenues and resources that would otherwise have been expended on schools were diverted to
other municipal purposes,12 while county residents funded the education of Gardendale residents.
It was not until 2014 that city officials took steps to rectify a 55 year old delay in assuming their
statutory educational responsibility by proposing a school-linked ad valorem tax, and then only
{!iler county taxpayers had built and paid for a high school and a host of other improvements. 13
Indeed, the tax was promoted and passed on the strength of misleading assurances from city
representatives that the new system to be supported by the tax would be financially sustainable
because the county's taxpayers had provided an extraordinary "gift" to the citizens of Gardendale
in the form of a debt-free, state-of-the-art high school.

10

See http://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Gardendale (attached as Exhibit B).

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.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-3 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 7

Page 7 of 15
December 12, 2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice

Gardendale's Transition Plan Does
Not Meet Its Obligations

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-4 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 7

2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

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 September Payroll

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.)

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-4 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 7

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 .

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-4 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 7

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 Assumes Responsibility
for Educal ing All of its Students

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

See fns. 3 and 4, slIpra.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-4 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 7

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

20 U.S.c. § 1400, et seq.

22

29 U.S.c. § 794.

23

42 U.S.c. § 12131 , et seq.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-4 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 7

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.

Response: Provided (attached as Exhibit E)
2.

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.

Response: Provided (attached as Exhibit F) (note: the attendance zone displayed
on the exhibit reflects the areas of the current Gardendale attendance zone that are
not in the City of Gardendale and that "}"ill be included in any reconfigured
attendance zone).
3.

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.)

Response: Withoutfunding/or additional/acilities, the only geographically
accessible school that could serve the displaced (whether current or new
enrollees) Gardendale zoned students would be Fultondale High School. It
is not comparable to Gardendale High School in age, size, condition, or
amenities and could only serve displaced students through the addition of a
number of temporary units.
b. Capacity issues if Gardendale does not allow students currently attending to
continue attending Gardendale schools. (New and current students.)

Response: The County Board does not understand this to be a proposal
being put forward by the City Board. ff it were, the capacity issues

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-4 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 7

Page 13 of 15
December 12,2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice

presented by the transitional plan proposed by Gardendale }vollid be
compounded exponentially.

4.

Breakdown of cost estimate of $33, 187,500 to provide facilities outside of
Gardendale due to the separation from Jefferson County Schools.
a. Identify school location and grade levels for each facility included in
estimate.

Re!,ponse: The County Board's cost estimate is analyzed and summarized
on the attached vvorksheet (Exhibit G). The per square feet costs are based
on standard estimates used by the State School Architect. 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. Spec(jic construction plans
would include the construction of a new grade 7-12 High School to be
centrally located in or near the 1-22 corridor so as to facilitate safe and
convenient access. The new high school would include a regional career
tech program to replace the center now based at Gardendale High School.
Feeder elementmy schools would serve grades K-6.
b. Identify number of students by grade level currently attending schools in
Gardendale that will attend each facility included in estimate.

Response: The number of students (by grade level) currently attending
schools in Gardendale that will attend the facility mentioned above are
reflected in the attached Exhibit H under the "Outside Gardendale"
columns. Students who are attending career technical programs in
Gardendale are not included in the exhibit.

5.

Transp0l1ation issues for students due to attendance zone changes.
a. Transportation issues if Gardendale allows students currently attending to
continue attending Gardendale schools. (New students for Jefferson County
schools.)

Response: This proposal creates significant operational and financial
inefficiencies and inequities. Under the City Board's proposal, Gardendale
is expected to request and receive an allotment of County buses. It is not
clear whether the City Board prepares to provide any bus transportation

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-4 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 7

Page 14 of 15
December 12, 2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice

service to County residents attending Gardendale schools under its
transitional plan. In any event, the County Board could conceivably be
required to transport its residents 10 City schools, siblings and other
Gardendale attendance zone residents 'who are not currently enrolled in
Gardendale schools to County schools, and other area County residents not
in the attendance zone to County schools--all-"'lIithfe-"'l'er buses than it has
available to meet current transportation needs. That manifest inequity and
inefficiency would be immeasurably exacerbated by forcing the County to
reassign students currently attending Gardendale schools to distant schools
well outside the Gardendale area.
b. Transportation issues if Gardendale does not allow students currently
attending to continue attending Gardendale schools. (New and current
students.)

Response: The County Board does not understand this to be a proposal
being pul forward by the City Board. If it were, the transportation issues
presented by Gardendale's separation would be compounded exponentially.
6.

Explanation of Gardendale's position on the provision of services for students
attending the Burkett Center.
Re.~ponse :

7.

To be provided by City Board

Explanation of Jefferson County's position on the provision of services for
Gardendale students attending the Burkett Center.

Response: See narrative response above (pp. 10-11).
8.

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).

Response: See narrative response above (p. 10).
b. Federal program funded employees.

Response: See narrative response above pp. (8-10).
c. Transportation employees.

Response: See narrative re!Jponse above pp. (8-10)

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-5 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 7

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:

Dr. Craig Pouncey
Larry Craven, Esq.
Juliana Dean, Esq.
Donald B. Sweeney, Esq.
Alan Zeigler, Esq.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-5 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 7

Exhibit A

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-5 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 7
1211212014

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

How a 'New Secessionist' Movement Is Threatening to
Worsen School Segregation and Widen Inequalities

,

....

T

CATEGORIES::!Q!1, CAPITOL
TAGS: INTEGRATION, RACiAL SEGREGATION

Susan Eaton, The Nation,l\'lay 15, 2014

/

I

II

I

j

I
I

(Photo Courtesy of DOli Harder, CC2.0)

Subscribe to receive weekly updates
during the legislative session.

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.

~'.

LegislaUon Would Help States Rethink

Testing Systems, Pare Back TestsDecember 9, 2014


Improving mental health In schools-

December 9,2014


Promise Zone could Invigorale noOh

Minneapolis, some question its efficacy-

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


Billion dollar surplus anbcipated lor new

biennIUm - December4, 2014


Budget surplus should be used to keep

Minnesota moving forward - December 4.
2014

~~~M~~" ~- ~~-'

... :-'-- :---.. _.... -- ,

I

!

GIVE NOW

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-5 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 7
1211212014

How a 'New Secessionist' Movement Is Threatening to Worsen School Segregation and Widen Inequalities I Parents United for Public Schools

In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, an organized group of residents from an unincorporated, predominantly
white, relatively afnuent area with a strong tax base are trying to form an entirely new cighty-fivesquare-mile city for the express purpose of separating from the East Baton Rouge Parish Schools, which,
by the way, enroll a majority of black and economically disadvantaged students . At the same time, a bill
that would create four semi-autonomous school districts in this same southern section of Baton Rouge
is being considered by the Louisiana legislature. The proposed new city, St. George, would not be the
tirst secession from East Baton Rouge Parish schools. In recent years, three municipalities have created
their own school districts, though not all were particularly affluent or predominantly white.
Next fall, the rapidly growing, predominantly white Alabama community Pike Road, with only 6,500
residents, will open its first K-8 school post-divorce from Montgomery County Public Schools, whcre 83
percent of its some 32,000 students are either African-American or Latino and 76 percent qualify for
free and reduced lunch. Since the mid-2000s, six suburban, predominantly white unincorporated areas
outside Atlanta incorporated and became cities. A bill being debated in Georgia's legislature would
amend the state constitution to give the new municipalities authority to secede from coullty school
districts to create their own systems.
Secession efforts are not limited to the South , with efforts cropping up recently in Malibu, Calif01 nid,
and in northeast Pennsylvania. But the movement is centered in the South because the region's districts
tend to be larger, often enrolling students who live in cities and towns throughout an entire county as
opposed to a small municipality.
Several years ago, Memphis, Tennessee, briefly appeared to be going against the secession trend . In
2010, the cash-strapped city school board voted to dissolve its mostly African-American urban district
and merge with Shelby County's racially and economically diverse public school system. After the vote,
the Shelby County School Superintendent fohn Aitken welcomed new students from the city, telling
reporters , "My family iust got bigger."
"A lot of people did sec this merger as a foundation on which to build something better," said Daniel
Kiel, a law professor at the University of Memphis who grew up in the city and attended racially diverse
magnet schools there. "We looked at as a first stcp for bridging racial divides and economic divides. We
thought maybe we had a place from which to begin creating something more cohesive ."
But not long after Memphis entered the county system, six predominantly white, relatively affluent
suburbs promptly voted to leave it. Then, in 2013, Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill that lifted a
prohibition on creating new school districts. In turn, each suburb created its own school district last
summer. The new school board in one of those suburban districts, Collierville, hired Aitken, the Shelby
Cuunty superintendent who had spoken such welcuming words, to be its superintendent.
"Within these movements, you hear a lot about a desire for local control and academic excellence. No
one is going to say, 'We don't want to share our schools with poor black people.' But the effect matters,
no matter the intent," said Dennis Parker, director of the Raciallustice Program at the Amel ican Civil
Liberties Union . "And the effect will not be positive for the families in the larger system. The damage to
school communities of color is velY real."
New municipalities and neighhorhoods take a variety of resources with them when they leave higger
systems. IVlost obviously, they take students on which tax dollar distributions to schools arc based. In
most cases, newly created districts capture all taxable property within tighter boundary lines, cutting off
the larger district from revenue that had been shared. Rapidly developing or well-developed suburbs,
thus, have a huge advantage over older communities that typically suffer from declines in popUlation
and shrinking tax revenue. The creation of St. George, one study estimates, would result in a $53 million
shortfall for East Baton Rouge Parish. According to a report from the Baton Rouge Area Chamber of
Commerce, the incorporation would impede economic development by "the interjection of sales tax
competition between two cities currently considered one community."
Other losses are more difficult to measure. Student test scores arc closely correlated with students'
socioeconomic class. If a new district enrolls a large share of amuent students, that district's aggregate
test scores, now the default measure of "quality," will likely be high. Immediately, the new district will
appear far more "successful" than the nearby larger district. For example, Louisiana puhlicly awards A to
F letter grades to its school districts. In 2011, East Baton Rouge earned a D, but by 2013 had brought
that grade up to a C, though secession advocates still routinely refer to it as a "failing" district.
Meanwhile, the more affluent districts nearby, Zachary and Central, which not long ago were part of the
East Baton Rouge district but now enroll relatively small shares of students from low income families,
earned As from the state in 2013.
"It's a furm of branding," said [efferson County Public Schools Superintendent Stephen Nowlin, who
publicly opposed Gardendale'S efforts to secede from his district. "The idea is that more affluent school
district can attract businesses, increase property value, bring in a certain type of resident who call lend



Moving Teacher Preparation into the

Future - December 4. 2014
Growing Racial and EthniC Diversity in the

I
I

TWin Cilies Region Today - December 4.

20~:DX

Talk Education lor SOCial change

November 30. 2014

-J

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-5 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 7
1211212014

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?"

-

Segregation by Law vs. Segregation by Choice
Leveraging the JJDPA for Better School-Based Mental Health Services - ,

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/

~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~/

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-5 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 7

Exhibit B

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-5 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 7
1211212014

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-

The first homestead within the present limits was the
fann of Otis Dyer, purchased from the United States for
12 112 cents per acre in 1825. William H. Parker opened
a grist mill in 1873, followed soon by a canning
cooperative founded by James Kimmons. Kimmons
donated the land on which the first church, Chalybeate
Baptist Church, was built in 1876.
The town's first school, called Milner School for John T.
Milner who donated lumber for its construction, opened
in 1892 on Mount Olive Road.
At the time the settlement was often refelTed to as
Jugtown for ajug and churn pottery nearby. In 1906
schoolteacher Hettie Thomason Cargo succeeded in her
campaign to rename the community.

GARDENDALE
Incorporated

1955

Population

13,893

Mayor

Othell Phillips

School
district

Jefferson County Schools

Government

Gardendale City Council
Gardendale Fire Department
Gardendale Police Department

Web site

cityofgardendale. com
(http://www.cityofgardendale.com/)

In 1955 Gardendale was incorporated as a municipality
with 1. 1. Pesnell as its first mayor.
Recent development of the city, especially along
Fieldstown Road, has been spulTed on by the completion
of 1-65 in 1985.

- - - - - ----

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..

..... "., hh ............. :I~: ...... _1.•. ',-.-_...1 __ ...1_1.

Locate with Google Maps
(http://maps .google.com/maps?
q=Gardendale, +AL&z= 12&t=m)

FILED

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-6 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 7
1211212014

Gardendale - 8hamwiki

2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

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.

Garaendale's Population, 1960-2010
r----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------~
I

~ear

pop.

%change

I

;~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%

I

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-6 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 7
1211212014

Gardendale - Bhamwiki

public library.
Gardendale is divided into five wards, each of which elects one representative to the City Council. The
current council are:






Ward 1: Peggy Tumlin
Ward 2: Gary Monis
Ward 3: Alvin Cun'ington
Ward 4: Faith Harper
Ward 5: Wendell Phillips

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







Gardendale Arts Council
Gardendale Historical Society
Gardendale Chamber of Commerce
Gardendale Civic Center
G. William Noble Recreation Complex
Caufield Square

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

o

' - " " - . IL . .. .

Jefferson County

Topics

Communities I County Commission I Schools I Sheriff

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. ·

. .,...

. .

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-6 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 7
1211212014

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

Retrieved from .. http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Gardendale&oldid= 101877"
Categories: Gardendale I 1955 establishments
• This page was last modified on 19 March 2014, at 13 :00.
• This page has been accessed 8,984 times.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-6 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 7

Exhibit C

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-6 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 7
Gardendale considers renewing 1 percent sales tax that is set to expire Dec. 31

1211212014

AL£
Gardendale considers renewing 1 percent sales tax that is set to
expire Dec. 31
Sarah A. McCarty

I [email protected] By Sarah A. McCarty I [email protected]

Email the author

I Follow on

Twitter

on November 04,2014 at 7:00 AM, updated November 04,2014 at 7:09 AM
GARDENDALE, Alabama -- The city sales tax in Gardendale is set to roll back to 3
percent at the end of the year, but city leaders are considering an ordinance that
would keep the rate at 4 percent for another 4 years.
The city raised the sales tax by 1 percent in 2010, which resulted in an average of about $2.5 million in
revenue per year for the city. Those funds have helped the city pay down debt, double the size of the library, and
promote economic development.
The Gardendale City Council held a first reading on an ordinance calling for the renewal of the 1 percent hike
currently scheduled to expire Dec. 31. If approved, the 1 percent tax will remain in effect until Dec. 31, 2018.
"The tax is expected to generate $2.7 million in the first year," Council President Stan Hogeland told AL.com. "And
I think it's safe to say you can project an increase yearly."
Hogeland said the revenue from the 1 percent sales tax will cover four main items: debt service; community alld
economic development; the establishment of an emergency reserve fund; and capital purchases and projects.
"In our budget process the department heads submitted a capital budget so what we wanted to do with this
ordinance was address those capital needs as part of this," Hogeland said. "We can't address all those needs in the
first year, but we're going to put together a 4-year plan that hopefully will meet all their needs."
Hogeland said some capital purchases include patrol vehicles for the police department, lifesaving equipment for
the fire department, equipment for the parks and recreation and public works departments, fitness equipment for
the Gardendale Civic Center, and resources for the library.
"We pretty much know what we're going to do in the first year, but we've got to do a little more planning for
years two, three and four," he said. "I think we're going to have a good plan. We're looking for a way to really be
able to benefit the city and the citizens."
The city will hold a second reading on the ordinance at its next meeting Monday, Nov. 17 at 7 p.m.
If the ordinance passes, the sales tax in Gardendale will stay at 10 cents on the dollar, with county and state
httn'/IhItV1

~I

r.nm/ngu/C: hil"rT1i",.,ho:::J""" i ............ .." .... , ...... ; ....

~._j'l .... _

...... _I"n.04 AI .. .t 1 ___ -1

__ J _ I _

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-6 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 7
1211212014

Gardendale considers renewing 1 percent sales

tax that is set to expire Dec. 31

taxes making up the other 6 percent, for the next 4 years.
In other business the council:
• Authorized the mayor to advertise bid for a traffic Signal at Flippo Pkwy and Odum Road;
• Approved spending no more than $7,029.80 to purchase body cameras for the police department;
• Granted a request by North Gardendale Church of Christ for a i-year extension on rezoning on property the
church owns;
• Ratified the master development plan for Fieldstown Crossing;
• Promoted Brian Odum to sergeant in the police department;
• Awarded an exclusive vending agreement to Birmingham Coca-Cola Bottling Company;
• Authorized a contract for use of the gym at Snow Rogers Elementary School; and
• Declared certain items surplus.

© 2014 AL.com. All rights reserved.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-6 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 7

Exhibit D

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-7 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 7

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""·

Z>OI< &. S~.a..
President

Mr. Eugene A. Melton, Mayor
City of Trussville
P. O. Box 159
Trussville, Alabama 35173
Dear Mr. Melton:
You requested information on fanning a city school system. State law provides
general guidance for the creation of a city school system with much of the details
subject to the negotiation of an agreement between the two school boards.
Therefore, the answers (in italics below) to the following questions you may have
are general information and should not be considered as authoritative.

9. p. -Z>~­
?,t~

District II

SuplUUtU. 1(1. '8ell
District III

A. Funding. How would Trussville fund a system? What funding would
be coming from the state and or county? What percentage of additional
funding should come from which various taxes?

V.. &tM?,t. ?,talL
District IV
Vice President

Although a city is not required to provide additional local funds to a city
school system, most cities dedicate a special ad valorem tax or a city sales tax
(or both) for schools. These taxes allow city schools to develop long-range
plans to benefit current and future students. Many cities also float bond
issues for school construction. Annual city council appropriations also
provide an important (though not always stable) source offunds for schools.

V. . 1Ucttu fl. 'Pad.
District V

VtWid? '8~.4.
District VI

SMd'14

fh.

-<"9

District VII

V ... "i1Ca.'Vf fla- e4/f&'.
District VIII
t

V •. &d

-<.ek~

Secretary and
becutive Officer

A city school system receives statefundsfrom the FOUNDATION PROGRAM
and other state appropriations (with approximately 90% from the
FOUNDATION PROGRAM). The number ofstudents is the primary factor in
determining FOUNDATION PROGRAM funds.
Each school board is
required to provide local funds to match FOUNDATION PROGRAM funds.
The local match is the equivalent of 10 district mills of local 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 city
school system is not required to operate a transportation p,r~?1~?.Q ~ ~ ~

0

, dt --:l

,:. Jj

.

:irh:' JUN 1 4 2000

Uli

\

->

I

Q

\

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-7 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 7

;

Mr. Eugene A. Melton
Page 2
June 12,2000

A city school system is entitled to a share of countywide sales and ad valorem
taxes. Unless local legislation or an agreement provided by Ala. Code § 1613-31 provides otherwise, the school boards share the taxes based on the
FOUNDATION PROGRAM costs for each school system. Ala. Code § 16-13199 provides that the district school tax collected in the city belongs to the city
school system.
A new school system would require start-up 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 PROGRAMpayment until the end of October. The city would
most likely need to provide funds for salaries and school operations for July
through September as well as any costs prior to July 1.

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.

C. Personnel. Would the city system be required to retain the personnel
associated with any facility?
The retention of school personnel is subject to the negotiated agreement
between the two school boards (subject to the approval of the State
Superintendent of Education). Ala. Code § 16-24-2 states " ... the continuing
service status of teachers involved in such changes is in no way jeopardized. ..
(Teachers retain tenure.) In the most recent formation of a city school system
all current employees of the schools (unless dismissed by the county school
system) were allowed to remain at their position unless the employee chose
and was accepted at another assignment in the county school system.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-7 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 7
·

.

Mr. Eugene A. Melton
Page 3
June 12,2000

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

cc: Dr. Byron B. Nelson, Jr.
t

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-7 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 7

Exhibit E

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-7 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 7

CURRENT GARDENDALE SCHOOL ZONE
'-J

CORNER

+

,,~

~

-

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-7 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 7

Exhibit F

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-7 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 7

POST SEPARATION DISPLACEMENT AREAS
'-l

CORNER

~

,,~

o
D

Birmingham City

fultondale Zone
Displaced Are ••

o

Gardendale City limits

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-8 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 4

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Exhibit G

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-8 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 4

Standard Calculation for
Construction Estimates for
Displaced Students in Gardendale

Total
ADM

1277.00
117.77

Vocational 353 / 3
TOTAL STUDENTS

1394.67

SQ. FT. Calculations

1394.67
x

150

sq. feet per student

TOTAL SQ. FT.

209,200.50

COST PER SQ. FT.

x

158.36

$33,187,500.00

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-8 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 4

Exhibit H

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-8 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 4

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 14

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 14

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-9 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 14

FILED

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 14

2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Bishop

CarlJohnson

[email protected]

BISHOP, COLVIN, JOHNSON & KENT, LLC

December 19, 2014

Via E-Mail and

United States Postal Service
Dr. Thomas R. Bice

Alabama State Superintendent of Education
Post Office Box 302101

Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Jefferson County/Gardendale City Boards of Education

RE:

Dear Dr. Bice:

This reply is submitted on behalf of the Jefferson County Board of Education in
response to the Gardendale Board of Education's statement of position dated December
12,2014.

In its initial submission, the County Board established that:



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;



No other school facilities in or near the areas affected by the Gardendale

pullout are equivalent in terms of age, size, condition, resources, and
programmatic opportunities to those that are offered at the Gardendale

1910 First Avenue North

Jirminghom, Alabama 35203
www.bishopcolvin.com

205.251.2881

Fax 205.254.3987

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 14

schools. The cost of providing equivalent facilities based on generally
recognized per square foot building data is in excess of $33,000,000.00;

Gardendale's proposed solution to the displacement issue is a half-measure
of limited duration and effect that would inevitably give rise to operational
complications, inefficiencies, and incongruities, and to both duplication and
denial of services to similarly situated students;


Gardendale has been under an affirmative statutory mandate to address its
educational obligations since I960, if not before. Instead of doing so, it has
chosen to exercise its revenue generating capabilities to address municipal
priorities, leaving the county school system and county taxpayers to fund
school construction, operation, and maintenance in Gardendale, including
almost $60,000,000.00 in new construction since 2000. The City
conveniently awoke from its half-century statutory slumber when it was led
to believe that it could have its educational cake and eat it, too on the

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 systems—on 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.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 14

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 submission—tellingly
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.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 14

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

necessarily rest on an arbitrary and baseless distinction.^
The Legislature has invested the State Superintendent with authority to explain the

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.

Gardendale's coy and conflicting characterizations of its proposed transition plan
raise more questions than they answer. Chief among those questions is who in the former
^City ofMontgomery v. Town ofPike Road. 35 So.3d 575,584 (Ala. 2009) ("Courts will attempt to give meaning
to a legislative enactment and it is presumed that the Legislature did not do a vain and useless thing.") quoting
Alidor v. Mobile County Comm'n. 284 So.2d 257,261 (Ala. 1973). Chism v. Jefferson County. 954 So.2d 1058,

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).

"Ala. CODE § 16-4-4(1975).
' Chism v. Jefferson County. 954 So. 2d 1058 (Ala.2006).
4

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 14

Gardendale attendance zone would actually be eligible to attend Gardendale schools. In
some places, Gardendale states that participation would be limited to students who are
enrolled in these schools as of the separation date. Elsewhere, Gardendale implies that at
least some residents who are not currently enrolled might be eligible to participate, but on
terms yet to be determined.
The confusion is compounded by a public statement that was issued by the
Gardendale Board on December 15,2014 (attached as Exhibit 1) that refers to an "intent"

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.

Gardendale's beguiling characterization of its transition plan as an "open door"
attendance policy notwithstanding, it is anything but an open door plan as that phrase is
commonly understood. Gardendale's open door policy would apparently only admit
currently enrolled students who fit on its "matrix," and such students would then only be
admitted if County Board agrees to assign ad valorem taxes referable to such students to
the City Board (in addition to the ADM allocations attributable to such students). As
Gardendale's submission confirms, transportation arrangements for such students are
anything but settled, and additional costs could be imposed on the county system under a

post-separation negotiation process. Marked by a level of complexity that must surely
rival the plans for the invasion ofNormandy, Gardendale's own explanation and
acknowledgment of the complexities, contingencies, inefficiencies, and uncertainties
associated with the transportation arrangements that would be required to implement its

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.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 14

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.

Gardendale's position regarding the September payroll is likewise disingenuous.
Once again, Gardendale's own consultant alerted the City and its board to the local
payroll liability created by the state's school system funding cycle:
Current teacher units are an unfunded liabilityfrom the
beginning ofthe academic year until after December 1 of
each academic year when statefunds set asidefor
reimbursement can be certified as earned. Therefore, local

funds must be expendedfor this purpose. If however, there
are insufficient state funds set aside for the next fiscal year.
*Lee V. Chambers Cntv. Bd. of Educ.. 849 F. Supp. 1474, 1499 (M.D. Ala. 1994) (applying Wright v. Council of
Emporia. 407 US 451,92 S.Ct. 2196,33 L. Ed. 2d 51 (1972), to prevent city school board operation in lightof its
adverse effects on the county system and the desegregation process.

*Harvey Report, Ex. 2, p. 122 (full report canbe found at http://eardendalecs.schoolinsites.com/Download.asp?L=
0&LMID=837031&PN=DocumentUDloads&DivisionlD=&DepaitmentlD=&SubDepartmentID=&SubP=&Act=Do
wnload&T=l&l=397085L

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 14

the amount due each local board of education and unpaid is a
permanent financial loss. However, the additional teacher
employed by the additional ADM recorded at the beginning
of the academic year will be funded in the next year's
calculation of the Foundation Program. Growth in enrollment
in the proposed Gardendale City School System could result

in additional teacher units in the actual year ofgrowth.'"
Those risks and realities are faced by every school system in the state—^including
Jefferson County. No "evolving sense of fairness" supports the notion that
Gardendale—or any start up system—should enjoy an exemption from obligation or an
assist from the County system in the form of a special payroll subsidy, particularly when,
according to Gardendale's own analysis, the debt to be assumed by the City Board is

"abnormally small for a newly forming system.""
Gardendale's issuance of its declaration of "intentions and expectations" should be
met by an unequivocal reaffirmation of the State Department's longstanding requirement
(and its own "expectation") that newly formed systems must build and retain sufficient
financial reserves to meet the inevitable start up costs that are not funded fi-om state
resources, including initial payroll costs.
Conclusion

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).

" Harvey Report, Ex. 2, p. 122.
Letter from Asst. State SuperintendentRobert Morton to Trussville Mayor Eugene Melton, dated June 12,2C00
(attached as Exhibit 3).
7

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 14

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:

Dr. Craig Pouncey
Larry Craven, Esq.
Juliana Dean, Esq.
Donald B. Sweeney, Esq.
Alan Zeigler, Esq.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 14

Board of Education

GARDENDALE
BOARD OF EDUCATION

Cbrts Scgrovet, President
Karen While, Vice President
Clayton DlcfcUeni
Chris Lncas

Patrick M. Martin, PbJ>., Superintendent

Public Statement

Monday, December 15,2014

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 is steadfastly committed to this principle.

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 14

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

JCBE Reply Brief
Exhibit 2

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 14

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

JCBE Reply Brief
Exhibit 2

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 14

Exhibit 7
State of Alabama

Department of Education
£d Richardson

StateSuperintendent of Education
June 12,2000
Alabama
State Board

of Education

^*tr. Z'm £ Sdf^M

Mr. Eugene A. Melton, Mayor
City ofTtussville
F.0.BoxlS9

Ttussville, Alabama 35173

pRiident

Dear Mr. Melton:
I%triet 1

•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

•Dt. StUtf. -Tha
OiitrialV
Vice President

9t. lem p. ?W
Oitiriet V

A. Funding. Howwould TrussvOIeflind a system? What funding would
be coming from the state and or county? What percentage of additional
funding should come from which various taxes?

Although a city is not required to provide additional local fimds to a city
schoolsystem, most cities dedicate a special ad valorem tax or a dty sola tax
(or both) for schools. Thae taxa allow city schools to develop long-range
plans to benefit current andfuture students. Many citia alsofloat bond

issua for s^ool construction. Annual city council appropriations also
OicWy. Sftu. pt.

providean important (though notalways stable) sourceoffimdsfor schools.

District VI

A city school system receives statefundsfrom the FOUNDATION PROGRAM
District VII

and other state appropriations (with approximatefy 90% fh>m the
FOUNDATIONPROGRAi^. The number ofstudents is theprimaryfactor in

O*. Wof put ^tfCn

required toprovide localfimds to match FOUNDATION PROGRAMfimds.

Saadta /3tjt

determining FOUNDATION PROGRAM funds.
District Vin

9t. Si SStiniiiu

Sectstuyatid

Each school board is

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_

schoolsystem is not requiredto operateatransportationpro^ggi^^

|

Executive OfReet

JUN \ 4 illllO

ftlJCB%k$ly Brief
Exhibit 3

1

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 14

r\

(V.

Mr. Eugene A. Melton
Page 2
June 12,2000

A city school system is entitled to a share ofcountywide sales and ad valorem
taxes. Unless local legislation or an agreement provided by Ala. Code § 1613-31 provides otharmse, the school hoards share the taxes based on the
FOUNDATIONPROGRAM costsfor each schoolsystem. Ala. Code§ 16-13199provides that the disMct school tax collected in the cify belongs to the dty
school ^stem.
A new school system wouldregidre start-upfunds from the dty. Theschool
year is July 1 through June 30 and the statefiscal year is October 1 through
September 30.
A new school system does not receive a monthly
FOUNDATIONPROGRAMpayment tmtilthe end ofOctober. The dty would
most likely need to providefundsfor salaries and school operationsfor July
throughSeptembar as wellas any costsprior toJufy1.
B. Facilities. Would the city system assume the school fociUtles 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 facilities
fairness would require that the indebtedness be assumed also but would

the city system be in a position to decline acceptance of any facili^?
The transfer of school property is subjed to negotiation of an agreement

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.

C. Personnel. Would the dty system be required to retain the personnel
assodated wiOi any facility?
The retention of school p^sonnel is subjed to the negotiated agreement

^ 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.

JCBE Reply Brief
Exhibit 3

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-10 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 14

-,.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?

TTie drawing ofattendance zonesfor a ci(yschool ^stem for Trussvdk may
have to be dwided by theJudicial system. Item A. Funding addresses the
distributionoflocal taxes.

In order to complete a feasibility study for a sq>arate school system tentadve
answers to the questions above are needed. Attendance zones would be an
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 Tiussville nor should the answers to your questions be
considered authoritative.

Ifyou need additional information, pleaselet us know.
Sincerely,

Robert L. Morton

AssistantState Superintendent

Administrative ar^ Financial Services
RLM^WH

cc: Dr. Byron B. Nelson, Jr.

JCBE Reply Brief
Exhibit 3

FILED

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 28

2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Alan K. Zeigler
Direct: (205) 521-8257
Fax: (205) 488-6257
[email protected]

December 19, 2014

VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Dr. Thomas R. Bice
Alabama State Department of Education
State Superintendent of Education
5114 Gordon Persons Building
50 North Ripley Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-2101
Dear Dr. Bice:
In accordance with your letter of November 25, 2014, we are submitting our response
with respect to the Gardendale City Board of Education.
Please contact me if there are any questions or if additional information is needed.
We appreciate your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Alan K. Zeigler
AKZ:lmc
Enclosures
cc:

Mr. Larry E. Craven, General Counsel, Alabama State Department of Education
Ms. Juliana T. Dean, Associate General Counsel, Alabama State Department of Education
Dr. Patrick M. Martin, Superintendent, Gardendale City Schools
Mr. Chris Segroves, Board President, Gardendale City Board of Education
Mr. Carl Johnson, Counsel for Jefferson County Board of Education
Mr. Whit Colvin, Counsel for Jefferson County Board of Education
Mr. Donald B. Sweeney, Jr., Counsel for Gardendale City Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 28

RESPONSE OF COUNSEL TO THE
GARDENDALE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION
TO THE STATEMENT FILED BY COUNSEL TO THE
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

DECEMBER 19, 2014

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 BOARD’S 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 city’s 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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 28

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 City’s
exercise of this unquestioned right by presenting vague concerns related to an ongoing federal
desegregation case, by campaigning against the City’s efforts to raise school revenue, by
suggesting that Gardendale did not want certain students and by insinuating that the City’s 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 City’s 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 Gardendale’s successful
election on the levy of a new municipal ad valorem tax, the County Board’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s actions are not consistent with their then-leader’s published policy statement.

2

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 28

I.

STUDENT ATTENDANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF GARDENDALE SCHOOLS

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 court’s 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 Gardendale’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 28

The City Board’s 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 Board’s
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 Court’s nine justices, Mr. Justice Parker, concurred with
Justice Bolin. Justice Bolin’s 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 Board’s position. It is ironic that the
majority opinion in the Chism case, not Justice Bolin’s 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 Board’s supposition is not, and should not
be allowed to serve as, an impediment to the City Board’s 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.

4

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 28

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.

BURKETT CENTER STUDENTS

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
Board’s 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.

FAIR SHARE OF FOUNDATION PROGRAM FUNDS

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 State’s 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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 28

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 Board’s reliance on Mr. Robert Morton’s 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. Morton’s 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. Morton’s 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 Board’s 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
Board’s 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.

6

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 28

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,

Donald B. Sweeney, Jr.

Alan K. Zeigler
As counsel to the Gardendale City Board of
Education

7

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 28

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

8

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 28

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 Board’s 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.


Clarification on General Student Population: (Provided as Attachment A)
City Board Rebuttal:



The County Board claims 1,277 students will be
affected. Further review of County student data
demonstrates this number is overstated; it appears to
include virtually all the enrollment at Mt. Olive
Elementary School, which is not located within the city
limits of Gardendale. There are 726 non-Gardendale
resident students who may be impacted.

Clarification on Students Enrolled in Career Tech: (Provided as Attachment B)
City Board Rebuttal:

The County Board claims 353 Career Tech students will
be affected. Further review of County student data
demonstrates this number is overstated. There are to
be 220 non-Gardendale resident students who attend
the hub at Gardendale High School. The City Board
would entertain a proposal for these students to remain
on a fee basis, as was done in Alabaster and Pelham
with respect to the Shelby County Career Tech

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 28

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.


Clarification on Students Enrolled at the William E. Burkett Center: (Provided as
Attachment C)
City Board Rebuttal:

The County Board claims 26 students requiring special
education services will be affected. Further review of
County student data demonstrates this number is
overstated. There are 12 resident students who are not
designated as Pre-School who will be impacted.

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:

Attachments provided pertain to the critical issue of
student attendance. The Gardendale Board vehemently
argues that the best interest of students is preeminently
served with its proposed 13 year Grandfathering/Open
Door Attendance provision (described within its initial
report).

Jefferson County Board Point of Correction – page 12 of 15; Response #3 (Comparable
Facilities and Facility Capacity to Enrollment – both system and zone):
Without funding for additional facilities, the only geographically accessible school that could
serve the displaced (whether current or new enrollees) Gardendale zoned students would be
Fultondale High School. It is not comparable to Gardendale High School in age, size,
condition, or amenities and could only serve displaced students through the addition of a
number of temporary units.


Clarification on Comparable Facilities: (Provided as Attachment D)
City Board Rebuttal:

The County Board is not taking into consideration
Corner High School and Mortimer Jordan High School,
both of which clearly have the capacity to accept these
students. Each are comparable to Gardendale High
School in age, size, condition, and amenities.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 28

Page 3 of 5
December 19, 2014
Dr. Thomas R. Bice
__________________



Attachment D1

Jefferson County Zone Map with Comparable High School
Facilities outside of the proposed 13 year Grandfathering provision

Attachment D2

Birmingham, Jefferson County to launch new schools during
coming school year (Birmingham News)

Attachment D3

Jordan staff, students plan for groundbreaking (North Jefferson
News)

Attachment D4

Clay begins process to pull out of JeffCo schools, Pouncey urges
patience and unity (Birmingham News)

Attachment D5

New Bosses: State’s second-largest school system and one that
barely exists get new superintendents (The North Jefferson Vision
Magazine)

Clarification on Facility Capacity to Enrollment – both system and zone: (Provided as
Attachment E)
Attachment E1

Jefferson County Enrollment Comparison with SAFE Reports (as
prepared by the Gardendale Board)

Attachment E2

Jefferson County 2013-14 Attendance Data – 20 Day After Labor
Day (Provided by Jefferson County)

Attachment E3

Jefferson County Enrollment 10-year History (as prepared by the
Gardendale Board based on Dr. Ira Harvey’s Feasibility Study)

Attachment E4

Jefferson County School Capacity Comparison to School
Enrollment Graph (as prepared by the Gardendale Board per
JEFCOED Enrollment and SAFE Report data)

Attachment E5

Capacity for Additional Students from the Gardendale Zone (as
prepared by the Gardendale Board based on JEFCOED Enrollment
and SAFE Report data)

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 28

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).


Clarification on Proximity to Alternative Facilities with Capacity: (Provided as
Attachment F)
City Board Rebuttal:

In concluding that Fultondale High School is the only
alternative, it appears that the County Board has
overlooked three high schools within close proximity of
the Gardendale Zone, two of which were constructed at
the same time as Gardendale High School with the more
than $300,000,000 received from the Jefferson County
Commission. Mortimer Jordan and Corner High
Schools are noted as not being at capacity, are proximal
to non-Gardendale resident students and are of
equivalent age and condition with similar amenities.
Additionally, Minor High School also provides an
option having been built just prior to 1990 with several
additions constructed after the turn of the century. It
too has adequate capacity and is of relative proximity to
non-Gardendale residents of the zone.

3. Jefferson County Board Effort to Thwart the Gardendale Community Campaign to levy a
school tax.


November 5, 2013 Letter to Gardendale Residents from then-Superintendent Dr. Stephen
Nowlin with attachment: (Provided as Attachment G)



November 6, 2013 Opinion in the Birmingham News from then-Board of Education
President Jennifer Parsons: (Provided as Attachment H)

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 28

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 Board’s 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

Separation Agreement between the Boards of Alabaster
City Schools and Shelby County Schools

Attachment I2

Separation Agreement between the Boards of Pelham City
Schools and Shelby County Schools

Attachment I3

Gardendale City Board Public Statement of December 15, 2014
addressing an out-of-district attendance policy

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 28

Attachment A

CLARIFICATION ON GENERAL STUDENT POPULATION
The County Board claims 1,277 students (Table 1) will be affected. Further
review of County student data demonstrates this number is overstated; it
appears to include virtually all the enrollment at Mt. Olive Elementary School,
which is not within the city limits of Gardendale. There are 726 nonGardendale resident students who may be impacted.
Since Gardendale is a 6th to 12th grade zone, students that are currently educated at
Mt. Olive Elementary School (302 students) and those deemed “Other City
Transfers” for elementary school-aged students should not be counted as
“Impacted.” Though Gardendale will gladly welcome these students under its
proposed 13 year Grandfathering period, a more thorough review of the enrollment
numbers provided by Jefferson County demonstrates 850 students in grades 6th to
12th who would be impacted by the separation.
Also provided in this attachment is the Resolution by the Gardendale City Council
allowing for annexation of properties completely contained within the current city
boundaries. Table 2 presents data documenting that 124 additional students should
not be included in the count of non-Gardendale resident students. This brings the
overall total, based on Jefferson County enrollment figures provided to the City Board
in October 2014, to 726 students impacted by separation.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 28

Comparison of Jefferson County and
Gardendale City Calculations of Students
Impacted by Separation
Gardendale Zone Students as Provided by Jefferson County
(Table 1)
Schools
Gardendale Elem.
Snow Rodgers Elem.
Mt. Olive Elem.
Bragg Middle
Gardendale HS
Totals

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

Gardendale Zone Students as Confirmed by Gardendale City
(Table 2)
Schools
Gardendale Elem.
Snow Rodgers Elem.
Mt. Olive Elem.
Bragg Middle
Gardendale HS
Totals

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.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 28

Gardendale Zone Students
Gardendale High School
# of Students
199
76
134
591
36
9
3
1048
31
1079

Mt. Olive
North Smithfield
Brookside
Gardendale
Annex into the City
Employees Child
Residents of City
GZS
Other City Transfers
Total Students

Inside the City

591
36
9
3
639
639

Outside the City
199
76
134

409
31
440

GZS – Gardendale Zone Students

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

6

Morris

3

Fultondale

2

Huffman

2

Center Point

10

Pinson

2

Warrior

2

Chalkville

2

Mt.Brook

1

West Jefferson

1

Total

31

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 18 of 28

Gardendale Zone Students
Bragg Middle School
# of Students
158
61
98
497
24
5
6
849
10
859

Mt. Olive
North Smithfield
Brookside
Gardendale
Annex into the City
Employees Child
Residents of City
GZS
Other City Transfers
Total Students

Inside City Limits

497
24
5
6
532
532

Outside City Limits
158
61
98

317
10
327

GZS – Gardendale Zone Students
Other Cities/Transfer - 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.
Center Point

3

Fultondale

2

Hueytown

1

Warrior

1

Pinson

1

Ensley

2

Total

10

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 28

Gardendale Zone Students
Gardendale Elementary School

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

Inside City Limits
817
30
21
10
0
0

Outside City Limits
0
0
0
0
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.

Other Elementary Zone Students
Brookville Elementary

25

Fultondale Elementary

6

Bryan Elementary

4

Special Education

8
43

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 28

Gardendale Zone Students
Snow Rogers Elementary School

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

Inside City Limits
169
9
2
1
0
0

Outside City Limits
0
0
0
0
0
9

190

181

9

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.

Other Elementary Zone Students
Adamsville Elementary

3

Fultondale Elementary

1

Pinson Elementary

1

Birmingham/Fairfield

2

Mt.Olive Elementary

2
21

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 21 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 22 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 23 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 24 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 25 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 26 of 28

Attachment B

CLARIFICATION ON STUDENTS ENROLLED IN CAREER TECH
The County Board claims 353 Career Tech students will be affected. Further
review of County student data demonstrates this number is overstated. There
appears to be 220 non-Gardendale resident students who attend the hub at
Gardendale High School. The City Board would entertain a proposal for these
students to remain on a fee basis, as was done in Alabaster and Pelham with
respect to the Shelby County Career Tech program. The County Board has
not made any proposals with respect to this continued opportunity.
Attachment B consists of the spreadsheet provided by the County Board to the City
Board on October 17, 2014. As noted in their Position Statement, it is assumed by the
county that 353 Career Tech students would be impacted by separation. Further
review of the document demonstrates that students from Corner, Fultondale, Mortimer
Jordan, and Pinson Valley total only 220 students. This document was provided by
the counseling staff at Gardendale High School.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 27 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-11 Filed 03/12/15 Page 28 of 28

Attachment C

CLARIFICATION ON STUDENTS ENROLLED AT THE WILLIAM E.
BURKETT CENTER
The County Board claims 26 students requiring special education services will
be affected. Further review of County student data demonstrates this number is
overstated. There are 12 resident students who are not designated as Pre-School
who will be impacted.
This item has been identified as one of the Critical Issues now before Dr. Thomas
Bice. It has never been the intention of the Gardendale Board to shirk its responsibility
to these students. Full payment would be made by the Gardendale Board to the
County Board for student services as occurred with the Linda Nolen Center in the
Alabaster and Pelham separation agreements with Shelby County Schools. The City
Board’s intent was to provide continuity in program for these students and families
currently enrolled.
Attachment C consists of two documents provided by Jefferson County to the City
Board on October 17, 2014. The first page of this attachment, to which the county
references in their initial Position Statement, identifies the 26 JEFCOED Preschool
Students in the Gardendale and Snow Rogers zone. It is anticipated by the Gardendale
Board that these students, screened in the community and pending testing, would be
the responsibility of the City Board. What the Gardendale Board was negotiating was
a partnership with the County Board in providing continuity in service for the 12
students, ages 7 to 17, identified with disability and enrolled at the William E. Burkett
Center.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 28

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 28

Attachment D1

JEFFERSON COUNTY ZONE MAP WITH COMPARABLE HIGH
SCHOOL FACILITIES OUTSIDE OF THE PROPOSED 13 YEAR
GRANDFATHERING PROPOSAL
The County Board is not taking into consideration Corner High School and
Mortimer Jordan High School, both of which clearly have the capacity to accept
potentially affected students. Each are comparable to Gardendale High School
in age, size, condition, and amenities.
The Gardendale Board continues to encourage the county to consider the 13-year
Grandfathering/Open Door Attendance provision as outlined in its initial Position
Statement. The Gardendale Board takes exception with the fact that Fultondale High
School is, “the only geographically accessible school that could serve the displaced
(whether current or new enrollees) Gardendale zoned students.”
Upon further review, Attachment D1 provides the Current Gardendale School Zone
map with three additional high schools, two of which were paid for with the same
grants from the Jefferson County Commission penny sales tax and constructed at the
same time as Gardendale High School. These facilities have capacity and are similar
in age, size, condition, and amenities for the needs of the county pending this
separation. Attachment D1 easily demonstrates that several options exist for the
County Board outside of their lone Fultondale High School suggestion.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 28

Mortimer Jordan HS

Corner HS

Mt. Olive Elem.

GHS
Bragg

Brookville Elem.
Fultondale HS
Minor HS

N. Smithfield
Community

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 28

Comparable Facilities for High School Aged
Students
Corner High School
4301 Warrior Jasper Road
Dora, Alabama 35062
Capacity: 1,014 students according to SAFE Report
Year Built: 2010

Mortimer Jordan High School
1920 Blue Devil Drive
Kimberly, Alabama 35091
Capacity: 1,014 students according to SAFE Report
Year Built: 2011

Fultondale High School
1450 Carson Road North
Fultondale, Alabama 35217
Capacity: 1,170 students according to SAFE Report
Year Built: 1965

Minor High School
2285 Minor Parkway
Adamsville, Alabama 35005
Capacity: 1,846 students according to SAFE Report
Year Built: 1988

12/18/2014

Corner High School ­ Bhamwiki
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document
1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 28

Corner High School
From Bhamwiki
Corner High School is a four­year public high school located at 10005 Corner School Road west of
Warrior in northwest Jefferson County. It is the one of fourteen high schools in the Jefferson County School
System. The school's colors are black and gold and its athletic teams are called the "Yellow Jackets". The
principal is Ron Cooper.
A new school building was completed in 2010, using funds from a $1 billion bond issue supported by a 1¢
increase in Jefferson County sales taxes proposed in 2005 by then­Jefferson County Commission president
Larry Langford. The building was designed by Davis Architects.

References
Anderson, Michelle D. (August 1, 2010) "Birmingham, Jefferson County to launch new schools
during coming school year." Birmingham News

External links
Corner High School (http://cornerhigh.jefcoed.com/) at jefcoed.com
Retrieved from "http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Corner_High_School&oldid=72214"
Categories:  Warrior Jefferson County schools High schools 2010 buildings
Davis Architects buildings
This page was last modified on 26 January 2011, at 17:15.
This page has been accessed 1,340 times.

http://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Corner_High_School

1/1

12/17/2014

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document
Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 28
Mortimer Jordan1001-12
High School - Bhamwiki

Mortimer Jordan High School
From Bhamwiki
Mortimer Jordan High School

Mortimer Jordan High School (MJHS) is a four-year public
high school in the Jefferson County School System located at
1920 Blue Devil Drive in Kimberly. It was founded on Old
Highway 31 in Morris in 1920 and named for World War I hero
Mortimer Jordan. The school's motto is "Love it ... or leave it."
The principal is Barbara Snider.

I

I

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

Jefferson County Schools

Grades

9-12

Principal

Barbara Snider

Enrollment

931 (2007)

Colors

royal blue & white

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 28
Mortimer Jordan High School - Bhamwiki

Principals







Mennie Halliman, 1920-21
Mr Gordon, 1922- 1923
Mr Sams, 1923-1925
Jimmie Trotter, 1967-2000
Byron Campbell, c. 2000- 2008
Barbara Snider, 2008--present

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

Fultondale High School ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 28

Fultondale High School

Coordinates: 33.63161°N 86.77601°W

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fultondale High School is a public high school located in Birmingham, Alabama. 474 students attended
the school in 2005. It is part of the Jefferson County School System.
It was formed in the 1960s as New Castle High School and the mascot was the Knights until 1972, when
the school was renamed Fultondale High School. The mascot was changed to the Wildcats, and the colors
were changed to blue and orange.

Contents
1 History
2 Sports
2.1 Boys
2.2 Girls
3 State Championship Titles
4 Band
5 External links

History
Before there was a Fultondale High School, students who lived in Fultondale and were in grades 1­9
attended Fultondale Elementary School. Students in grades 10­12 attended Gardendale High School. In
1965 a new school was built at the present Fultondale site and was named New Castle High School. In 1967
the vocational building was added. In the fall of 1972, students from Fultondale Elementary and the
Smithfield area merged with the students at New Castle High School. The Jefferson County Board of
Education then changed the school's name to Fultondale High School.
At the time of the merging of schools, Jack Hazelrig was the principal at Fultondale Elementary. He was
appointed by the board to be the very first principal of Fultondale High School. The school housed grades
7­12 in its first year but was changed to an 8­12 school the next year. Fultondale High saw its first
graduating class with the class of 1973.
Started in the 2013­2014 school year, the 6th graders from Fultondale Elementary began attending
Fultondale High due to overcrowding at the elementary school.

Sports
Boys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fultondale_High_School

1/3

12/18/2014

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHHFultondale High School ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 28

Football
In the 2011 season the Wildcats made school history by entering into the quarterfinal round in
the AHSAA 2A state playoffs.
In the 2012 season the Wildcats made school history by going back to back in the quarterfinal
rounds of the 2A state playoffs. Later on in the 2012­2013 school year, it saw its first SEC
signee to the University of Alabama, quarterback/free safety ArDarius Stewart.
Cross Country
Basketball
Wrestling
Baseball
Track
Golf
In the 2010 season the Wildcats sent their first individual golfer to the AHSAA sub­state
playoffs.
Soccer

Girls
Cheerleading
Volleyball
Cross Country
Basketball
In the 2013­2014 season, the team made school history by winning their first ever area title in
the AHSAA Class 2A Area 13 Tournament. They would host their sub­region game for the
first time against Sulligent High School and lost the game 37­54.
Softball
Track
Tennis

State Championship Titles
Wrestling: 1992, 1994, 1995

Band
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fultondale_High_School

2/3

12/18/2014

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHHFultondale High School ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 28

The band was originally called "The Fultondale Wildcat Marching Band" and later named "Rainbow
Regiment". In the fall of 2012 the band celebrated their 40th anniversary.

External links
Fultondale High web site (http://fultondalehigh.jefcoed.com)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fultondale_High_School&oldid=612440585"
Categories:  Alabama school stubs High schools in Birmingham, Alabama
Schools in Jefferson County, Alabama Public high schools in Alabama
Public middle schools in Alabama
This page was last modified on 11 June 2014 at 02:17.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution­ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non­profit organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fultondale_High_School

3/3

12/18/2014

Minor High School ­ Bhamwiki
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document
1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 28

Minor High School
From Bhamwiki
Minor High School is a comprehensive public high
school in the Jefferson County School System. It serves
the communities of McDonald's Chapel, Edgewater,
Mulga, Bayview, Minor Heights, Docena, Crumley
Chapel, Sandusky, Hillview, Westwood, Adamsville,
Cardiff, Forestdale, Graysville and Brookside in the
western part of Jefferson County. The school provides
both college preparatory and career/technical classes.
The school, designed by architect Bem Price, cost
$100,000 to construct and equip. It opened in 1922 with
95 students and W. C. Petty as principal. In its first full
academic year 7 faculty taught a total of 301 students.
The first graduating class matriculated in June 1923 with
14 taking home diplomas.
A fire broke out in the chemistry laboratory on January
22, 1926 destroying most of the school. It was re­built
and re­opened in 1927. Later additions provided a
gymnasium and library in addition to more classrooms. In
1953 a state­of­the­art lighted football stadium was
completed, with a press­box added seven years later.

Minor High School

Established

1922

School
type

Public

District

Jefferson County Schools
9­12
David Pike
1,178 (2007)
purple and white
Tigers
2285 Minor Parkway
Adamsville
www.minortigers.com
(http://www.minortigers.com/index.htm)

Grades
Principal
Enrollment
Colors
Mascot
Location
Website

New offices and classrooms were added in 1963. A band
room and cafeteria were constructed in 1970. Later, Dixie Junior High School, adjacent to Minor, was
relocated and the high school took over its classrooms and added a new field house and gymnasium,
doubling the size of the campus.
An entirely new Minor High School was constructed in Adamsville, completed in time for the 1988 school
year. A new stadium was built in 1996. Additional wings were constructed in 2002, along with a practice
gym. New athletic practice fields were built after 2004. Campus security was enhanced with closed­circuit
cameras in public areas of the school.
The school implemented several programs to improve instruction, including a Freshman Academy,
graduation exam tutoring, and AP courses. In 2012 it was one of six schools nationwide honored by the
"National School Change Awards."

Notable graduates
Otis Agee, Mennonite minister
T. J. Cleveland, basketball coach
Bart Moore, baseball player
http://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Minor_High_School

1/2

12/18/2014

Minor High School ­ Bhamwiki
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document
1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 28

Kenny Harris, football player
Dave McDaniel, radio host
Butch Moore, baseball player
Ray Reach, jazz vocalist, pianist and bandleader
Bryan Thomas, football player
Ken Watson, football player

References
Leech, Marie (May 8, 2012) "Jefferson County's Minor High School wins prestigious National
School Change Award." Birmingham News

External links
Minor High School (http://www.minortigers.com/) website
Minor High School football history (http://www.ahsfhs.org/Teams2/teampage.asp?Team=Minor)
from ahsfhs.org website
Retrieved from "http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Minor_High_School&oldid=97212"
Categories:  Adamsville Minor Parkway Jefferson County schools High schools 1922 buildings
Bem Price buildings 1927 buildings 1988 buildings
This page was last modified on 11 November 2013, at 12:51.
This page has been accessed 7,126 times.

http://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Minor_High_School

2/2

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 28

Attachment D2

BIRMINGHAM, JEFFERSON COUNTY TO LAUNCH NEW SCHOOLS
DURING COMING SCHOOL YEAR
(BIRMINGHAM NEWS – AUGUST 2010)
“We would have never been able to undertake the buildings that we have,” Rhodes
said. “It was used the way it was supposed to be, and the kids benefited from it.”
Attachment D2 demonstrates that of the six high schools Jefferson County built
following the issuance of the Jefferson County Commission penny sales tax issued
between 2004 and 2007, three high schools, Corner High School, Gardendale High
School, and Mortimer Jordan High School were all built in North Jefferson County.
The Jefferson County Leadership in this article acknowledges that had it not been for
the grant of more than $300,000,000 from the more than $1 billion in revenue from
the Jefferson County Commission penny sales tax, the construction of these facilities
would never have taken place. For this reason, the Jefferson County Schools have
zero indebtedness associated with the construction of these facilities. No other county
in the state of Alabama has received this type of cash infusion.

12/18/2014

Birmingham, Jefferson County to launch new schools during coming school year
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 28

Birmingham, Jefferson County to launch new schools during
coming school year
Michelle D. Anderson ­­ The Birmingham News By Michelle D. Anderson ­­ The Birmingham News 
on August 01, 2010 at 10:00 AM
At least six new schools, most funded by
Jefferson County's $1.1 billion school
construction initiative, will open in the
Jefferson County and Birmingham districts
during the school year that begins next week.
Many of the county's 12 school systems have
spent all or most of the money provided to
them in 2007 by that initiative, a bond issue
backed by a 1­cent sales tax increase. But the
two largest systems, which together received
View full size
New Jefferson County School media specialist Shelia Jackson starts to
set up the media center/library at the new Brighton Middle School. She
has over 17,000 books to put up in the new space. (The Birmingham
News / Tamika Moore)

more than $700 million, are still building and
will have more new schools in years to come.
In a tight year for school budgets, no other
school systems in Jefferson or Shelby counties
are opening new schools this year, but many

existing schools have been renovated or expanded, particularly in fast­growing Shelby County.
The Jefferson County school system will open four new schools Aug. 11: Pleasant Grove High, Corner High,
McAdory Middle and Brighton K­8. McAdory was funded by the Public School College Authority, while the Jefferson
County school construction initiative funded the others.
The county's Board of Education decided to spend its almost $400 million in county bond money on 23 projects,
including 10 new schools. Two projects remain to be done, including one new school building, Concord
Elementary.

Birmingham City Schools will not open any new schools to students when its school

NEW SCHOOLS
FOR BIRMINGHAM

year begins Aug. 9, but the district is scheduled to complete four new schools and
several renovations during the year. Officials have scheduled Wylam K­8 School to
http://blog.al.com/spotnews//print.html?entry=/2010/08/birmingham_jefferson_county_to.html

> Wylam K­8 (opening
1/3

12/18/2014

Birmingham, Jefferson County to launch new schools during coming school year
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 28

open during fall break and Glenn K­8 in January, said Robert Morgan, director of
capital projects for Birmingham schools.

Morgan said the district has scheduled to finish building Wright and Oliver
elementary schools during the year, but may not open them to students
immediately.
Birmingham school Superintendent Craig Witherspoon said the system is waiting
for the appropriate transition time for some schools to open. This won't be the first

fall break)
> Glenn K­8 (opening
Janu​
ary)
> Oliver Elementary
(opening date
undetermined)
> Wright Elementary
(open​
ing date
undetermined)

time Birmingham has made mid­year moves, he said.
The beginning
The county­wide school construction project began in 2004 when Larry Langford,

NEW SCHOOLS
FOR JEFFERSON
COUNTY
(all open next week)

then president of the Jefferson County Commission, led an effort to approve a 1
cent county sales tax to raise $1 billion for school construction projects. The
commission voted 3­2 to approve Langford's proposal, which led to a bond issue to

> Brighton K­8
> Corner High

be repaid with the tax revenues. 
 
 After an Alabama Supreme Court decision cleared the way, the money was
distributed to each school district in the county in 2007, based on each district's

> McAdory Middle
> Pleasant Grove High

2004 student population count at roughly $10,000 per student. By that time,
accumulating interest had pushed the total amount closer to $1.1 billion.
Many criticized the initiative, particularly for the speed with which the commission had approved it.
But whatever the initial controversy, Jefferson County school board member Ronald Rhodes said the initiative
clearly has had a positive impact on schools in the county.
"We would have never been able to undertake the buildings that we have," Rhodes said. "It was used the way it
was supposed to be, and the kids benefited from it."
Nez Calhoun, director of public information for Jefferson County schools, said it has been a landmark program.
"There are many other counties who wished they had that money," Calhoun said.
Arthur Watts, chief financial officer for Birmingham schools, said the city district will use all of the Jefferson County
bond money in addition to city and state money to continue its massive building program.
Two new Birmingham schools have opened since the program launched, Hudson and Washington K­8 schools. In
addition to the four being completed this year, nine additional buildings will be completed in upcoming years.
The school system is not rushing to spend money, Watts said. "We had a number of needs, and we truly had to
http://blog.al.com/spotnews//print.html?entry=/2010/08/birmingham_jefferson_county_to.html

2/3

12/18/2014

Birmingham, Jefferson County to launch new schools during coming school year
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 28

prioritize where the money was going."
The instability of the economy has made the construction industry more competitive, reducing costs for projects
and allowing the schools to benefit financially, Watts said. 
Other uses
While many school systems used the money to fund renovations and new buildings, some paid off debt or funded
technology programs.
Vestavia Hills put $7 million of the $54 million it received toward a technology initiative. The program included
new computers and installing interactive SMART Boards in classrooms, said Greg Maner, director of finance and
custodian of funds.
Watts said technology upgrades are a big part of Birmingham City Schools' Capital Improvement Project and that
it is working to insure each school has a 21st century focus.
Hoover received $85 million from Jefferson County and has used more than half of that amount to pay off a debt,
while Mountain Brook used $27 million of the $45.8 million it received to pay down about 40 percent of its long­
term debt.
Shelby County
While Jefferson County and Birmingham are building schools with county bond money, the Shelby County school
system continues its near­constant series of renovations and expansions to keep up with its growing population.
The district received $20 million a couple of years ago from the Public School and College Authority, a division of
the state's building commission, which allowed it to launch a five­year capital improvement project.
Shelby County has added a 15­classroom wing, a new administrative office and a new front entrance to Valley
Elementary School in Pelham. The district also added 12 classrooms to Thompson High School in Alabaster and
completed a cafeteria expansion there.  It also added a building with six classrooms to Linda Nolen Learning
Center, also in Alabaster.
Several other projects are under construction in Shelby County schools, including classroom additions at Creek
View Elementary, Meadow View Elementary and Chelsea High School.
News staff writer Veronica Kennedy contributed to this report.

© 2014 AL.com. All rights reserved.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews//print.html?entry=/2010/08/birmingham_jefferson_county_to.html

3/3

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 18 of 28

Attachment D3

JORDAN STAFF, STUDENTS PLAN FOR GROUNDBREAKING
(NORTH JEFFERSON NEWS)
“Mortimer Jordan is one of six high schools the county school system is building with
1-cent tax funds collected in 2005.
In May 2009, the board of education accepted a bid of just over $31 million from
Winter Construction of Atlanta for the Mortimer Jordan High School project. The
relatively low price came thanks to the economic recession, which had caused
construction prices to plummet.”
Attachment D3 demonstrates that of the six high schools Jefferson County built
following the grant of more than $300,000,000 from the Jefferson County
Commission, three new facilities were all built in North Jefferson County: Corner
High School, Gardendale High School, and Mortimer Jordan High School.

12/18/2014

 

Jordan staff, students plan for groundbreaking ­ News ­ Mobile
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 28

 

back

Jordan staff, students plan for
groundbreaking
0

1 image

North Jefferson News, North Jefferson, AL

Multimedia design students at Mortimer Jordan assemble fans to be used during the Oct. 6
groundbreaking ceremony. The students are Meaghan Passantino, Trevor McClendon, Chassidy
Pennington, Zac Hardiman, Susan Williams and India Blankenship.
Updated 4 months ago

By Melanie Patterson
The North Jefferson News

 
 
 
Barbara Snider feels like a wedding planner. Since the school year began, she has
Home
More News
Full Site
organized committees, written pages and pages of notes, and compiled a long guest list.
http://www.njeffersonnews.com/news/jordan­staff­students­plan­for­groundbreaking/article_373f0cd7­0345­5629­94fd­c4f46f3780e2.html?mode=jqm

1/4

12/18/2014

Jordan staff, students plan for groundbreaking ­ News ­ Mobile
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 28

Only the event she’s planning is the kickoff to something that will impact the lives of
thousands of people for many years to come.
Snider, principal of Mortimer Jordan High School, is in charge of the school’s
groundbreaking ceremony on Oct. 6. The 10 a.m. ceremony will be held at a site that
currently contains not much besides dirt.
But heavy equipment has been moving the dirt around and making way for a new state­of­
the­art high school.
Mortimer Jordan is one of the oldest schools in Jefferson County. It opened in 1920 at its
current site at 8601 Old Hwy. 31 in Morris.
The new Mortimer Jordan school will be located in neighboring Kimberly. In April 2008, the
Jefferson County Board of Education voted to buy 122 acres for the new school on Bone
Dry Road in Kimberly for $1,590,160.
Mortimer Jordan is one of six high school the county school system is building with 1­cent
tax funds collected in 2005.
In May 2009, the board of education accepted a bid of just over $31 million from Winter
Construction of Atlanta for the Mortimer Jordan High School project. The relatively low price
came thanks to the economic recession, which had caused construction prices to plummet.
Among Snider’s six subcommittees working on the groundbreaking ceremony are career
tech students in Becky Mauldin and Theresa Wine’s classes.
Since the beginning of the school year, Mauldin and Wine have integrated preparations for
the ceremony into classroom curriculum. The students have designed and applied labels for
water bottles, designed and assembled fans for the guests to use, and helped Snider design
the invitations and programs.
Wine, who is a 1970 MJHS alumna and Mauldin, a 1975 MJHS alumna, are carefully
overseeing the preparations because they want to ensure that Mortimer Jordan’s rich
traditions are not lost in the excitement of a new school.
Wine, who teaches business technology applications and accounting, said she especially
wants to make sure the school’s motto of “Blue Devil Country ­ Love it or Leave it” has a
strong presence at the new facility in Kimberly.
In its 89 years in existence, Mortimer Jordan has had only 12 principals, with Jimmie A.
Trotter serving the longest term, from 1968 to 2000.
Wine said that it is not uncommon for the schools graduates to return, as at least 20 of
Mortimer Jordan’s staff and faculty graduated from the school.
The school was named for Capt. Mortimer Harvie Jordan, a war hero who died in 1918 in
World War I.

http://www.njeffersonnews.com/news/jordan­staff­students­plan­for­groundbreaking/article_373f0cd7­0345­5629­94fd­c4f46f3780e2.html?mode=jqm

2/4

12/18/2014

Jordan staff, students plan for groundbreaking ­ News ­ Mobile
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 21 of 28

The school’s “old gym,” which currently serves as the location of drama rehearsals,
wrestling practice and other activities, was built by the WPA in the mid­1930s.
Athletic fields were added in the early 1950s, followed by the “new gym” in 1968.
The newest classroom wing of the school was built in 2003.
On hand for the ceremony will be officials from the Jefferson County Board of Education;
Davis Architects, Inc.; Winter Construction and others.
To reach the groundbreaking ceremony site from U.S. Hwy. 31: Turn onto Morris Majestic
Road; turn left onto Self Creek Road; turn left onto Bill Jones Road; and turn right onto Bone
Dry Road. The site is on the left.
0 comments
Sign in

1 person listening

 

+ Follow

Share

Post comment as...

 

Newest | Oldest

This Week's Circulars

HOVER FOR CIRCULAR

HOVER FOR CIRCULAR

 

HOVER FOR CIRCULAR

 

0

http://www.njeffersonnews.com/news/jordan­staff­students­plan­for­groundbreaking/article_373f0cd7­0345­5629­94fd­c4f46f3780e2.html?mode=jqm

3/4

12/18/2014

Jordan staff, students plan for groundbreaking ­ News ­ Mobile
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 22 of 28

Similar articles
Another day, another robbery victim holding suspect at bay, this time in…

 

NJN/am for Thursday, December 18, 2014

 

Robbery suspect gave false identity, was wanted on forged­instrument …

 

NJN/am for Wednesday, December 17, 2014

 

Update: Gardendale Board of Education says it will support open enroll…

 

http://www.njeffersonnews.com/news/jordan­staff­students­plan­for­groundbreaking/article_373f0cd7­0345­5629­94fd­c4f46f3780e2.html?mode=jqm

4/4

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 23 of 28

Attachment D4

CLAY BEGINS PROCESS TO PULL OUT OF JEFFCO SCHOOLS,
POUNCEY URGES PATIENCE AND UNITY
(BIRMINGHAM NEWS – July 22, 2014)
“He (Dr. Warren Craig Pouncey) proposed today the creation of a strategic plan for
the county schools system. That would take three to four months to complete, he said,
and would look at district lines.”
“Because we’ve really got some old, outdated district lines,” he said, “We’re not
balanced as a district and we’re not utilizing our current existing resources as
effectively as we need to.”
In their plea to the community of Clay, the Jefferson County Leadership
acknowledges inefficiencies in their utilization of system resources and the need to
draw new system lines. With adequate capacity, as reported in the Jefferson County
SAFE Reports, this article’s claim further erodes the need by Gardendale residents to
subsidize geographically-convenient facilities for the county school system. Such
facilities already exist within the county system.

12/18/2014

Clay begins process to pull out of JeffCo schools, Pouncey urges patience and unity
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 24 of 28

Clay begins process to pull out of JeffCo schools, Pouncey urges
patience and unity
Evan Belanger | [email protected] By Evan Belanger | [email protected] 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter 
on July 22, 2014 at 12:59 PM, updated July 23, 2014 at 8:48 AM
HOMEWOOD, Alabama ­­ Jefferson County
Schools Superintendent Craig Pouncey today
encouraged municipalities considering pulling
out of the county school system to hold off on
their plans.
"I think that, if they give us a chance, they will
recognize that we are far stronger working
together than if we divide," he said.
His comments come in response to questions
regarding the Clay City Council's decision
Jefferson County Schools Superintendent Craig Pouncey. (Evan
Belanger/[email protected])

Monday to implement its first property tax.
According to Mayor Charles Webster, the 5 mill
tax is expected to raise $500,000 to $600,000

annually and is the first step toward creating a Clay city school system.
"People are moving out because they want to move into a better school system, and they're moving to Trussville
and Mountain Brook, and that's what we're looking at," he said. "What can we do to keep people in Clay?"
Webster also said there are problems with the county's school district lines in Clay that sends students outside the
city. He noted that some Clay residents go to Chalkville Elementary School, though that school is completely
surrounded by Center Point.
Even with the new property tax, Clay is years from forming its own school system.
Webster said the city won't see any of the 5 mill tax increase until the end of fiscal 2015. Even then, only 10
percent, approximately $90,000, of the tax is earmarked for schools.
Also, Webster said feasibility studies suggest the city would need an additional 10 mill property tax to fund a
school system and a new feasibility study is needed.
http://blog.al.com/news_birmingham_impact/print.html?entry=/2014/07/clay_begins_process_to_pull_ou.html

1/2

12/18/2014

Clay begins process to pull out of JeffCo schools, Pouncey urges patience and unity
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 25 of 28

"I would say in the 2016 area is when we'll probably pretty much have a good idea if the citizens would vote in
another 10 mill property tax to be able to form our own school system or not," he said.
Pouncey stressed that municipalities do better when they work with the county school system. He noted that Clay
recently committed $250,000 to be matched by $250,000 in county schools money to put down new turf on the
football field in Clay.
He proposed today the creation of a strategic plan for the county schools system. That would take three to four
months to complete, he said, and would look at district lines.
"Because we've really got some old, outdated district lines," he said. "We're not balanced as a district and we're
not utilizing our current existing resources as effectively as we need to."
Webster said, if the county redraws the district lines, it may not be necessary for Clay to pull out.
Since its formation, 11 municipalities have pulled out of the Jefferson County Schools system:
Birmingham in 1885,
Bessemer in 1889,
Fairfield in the 1920s,
Tarrant in the 1930s,
Mountain Brook in 1959,
Vestavia in 1970,
Homewood in 1971,
Midfield in 1971,
Hoover in 1988,
Leeds in 2003, and
Trussville in 2005.
Gardendale recently hired a superintendent for its new school system.
© 2014 AL.com. All rights reserved.

http://blog.al.com/news_birmingham_impact/print.html?entry=/2014/07/clay_begins_process_to_pull_ou.html

2/2

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 26 of 28

Attachment D5

NEW BOSSES: STATE’S SECOND-LARGEST SCHOOL SYSTEM
AND ONE THAT BARELY EXISTS GET NEW SUPERINTENDENTS
(NORTH JEFFERSON VISION MAGAZINE)
“The Fultondale High situation depends, in part, on how negotiations with
Gardendale go, but Pouncey (Dr. Warren Craig Pouncey) isn’t waiting for that to
play out before he takes action.”
“I spent about two hours out there walking around,” Pouncey said. “My opinion may
be somewhat skewed as a result of where I’ve been and what I’ve done, but it’s a solid
facility…To think you have to have a new facility simply because a neighboring
community has one is not a wise use of public funds, particularly as stressed as we
are with that now.”
The Gardendale Board and the community wholeheartedly agree. Over $300,000,000
has been spent on capital construction and improvements by the Jefferson County
Board of Education since 2006.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 27 of 28

-

Dr. Craig Pouncey occupies a spacious corner office in
the headquarters building of the Jefferson County Board
of Education, near the summit of Red Mountain in Birmingham.

State's second-largest school
system and one that barely
exists get new superintendents

As of August, Dr. Patrick Martin occupied a borrowed
conference room at the Gardendale Civic Center, right
next door to a break room with a television blaring cable
news channels.
Both men are the newest school superintendents in
metro Birmingham, but their circumstances couldn't be
more different.

Story and photos by Robert Carter
Pouncey is one of the best-known education administrators in Alabama, having previously served as a deputy
superintendent and a chief of staff with the State Board of
Education before replacing Dr. Stephen Nowlin, who was
asked to step down by the county board lastFall.
Martin is an unknown in the state, having served as the
superintendent of a system near Peoria, Ill., before com-~~~~~~~~--~~~

IO

The North Jefferson VISION jFall 2014

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-12 Filed 03/12/15 Page 28 of 28

(Left) Dr. Craig Pouncey, the new superi ntendent of Jefferson
County Schools, goes
through paperwork in
his office - a place he
hasn't seen much of in
his first few weeks, as
he travels throughout
the system's schools.

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

Martin faces a tough task right off
the bat in the negotiation of the separation agreement with the county system, and with Pouncey.
"I know that the community is going to want a play-by-play [of that

e

·f:jjii;--~~:=%:!:= 1N '4 .::==:::;:::=~===~

BEVILLS 'N
EDUCATION

- -·-· - - -

---- · · ~---

The North Jefferson VISION jFall 2014

11

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 28

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

process] as we go forward, but there's going to be a
time when Dr. Pouncey and I need to step away and
work out all the minutiae;' he said.
Pouncey made a name for himself in Montgomery in an administrative capacity, but found himself
wanting to return to a local system where he saw
students nearly every day. "It was just the longing to
reconnect with students:' he explained. "I have been,
for the last several years, singly focused on the administrative aspect of managing schools, as well as
the political process we have to depend on for supporting our schools. Having that deep desire to always be a teacher, I just felt it was time to move back
to that arena where I can connect with kids:'
Though Pouncey replaced a predecessor who did
not leave of his own accord, he takes over a county
system that is in relatively healthy shape, though not
without its challenges. Besides the upcoming separation negotiations with the new Gardendale system,
Pouncey must also deal with a school population in
Fultondale that's growing rapidly, and a high school
there whose aging physical plant has definitely seen
better days. The latter is part of a problem that also
affects many middle and elementary schools in the
system.

Dr. Patrick Martin, the first superintendent
of the new Gardendale City Schools system,
has set up a temporary office in a conference room at the Gardendale Civic Center.

"The system did a good job of upgrading [high
school] facilities with the proceeds of the 1-cent
sales tax;' he said. "We have middle schools that are
overcrowded. We have elementary schools that need
work. We have some huge capital deficits to overcome.»
The Fultondale High situation depends, in part,
on how negotiations with Gardendale go, but Pouncey isn't waiting for that to play out before he takes
action.
"I spent about two hours out there walking
around;' Pouncey said. "My opinion may be somewhat skewed as a result of where I've been and what
I've done, but it's a solid facility.... To think you have
to have a new facility simply because a neighboring
community has one is not a wise use of public funds,
particularly as stressed as we are with that now:'

12

The North Jefferson VIS I 0 N !Fall 2014

Pl rector
D n Hardiman
Owner
Judy Lambert Dye

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 28

Attachment E1

JEFFERSON COUNTY ENROLLMENT COMPARISON WITH
SAFE REPORTS
(AS PREPARED BY THE GARDENDALE BOARD)
The Gardendale Board of Education has prepared a summary document utilizing
both Jefferson County Schools SAFE Reports provided to the SDE, as well as
enrollment figures from the first 20 day attendance report. The Jefferson County
Schools consistently use the ratio of 20 students/classroom space for elementary
schools and 26 students/classroom space for middle and high schools across all
facilities. In comparing the capacity for all 56 facilities by SAFE student capacity
designation by the enrollment of each facility from the 2014-2015 attendance data, it
is evident that Jefferson County is only utilizing 73% of available space (e.g
capacity of 49,455 student seats to 36,003 attendance). This asserts that over 13,000
student seats are available across the entire Jefferson County School System.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 28

Jefferson County School System
Comparison of School Capacity and School Enrollment
2014 - 2015
Schools
Adamsville Elem.
Bagley Junior
Bottenfield Middle
Bragg Middle
Brighton Middle
Brookville Elem.
Bryan Elem.
Center Point Elem.
Center Point High
Chalkville Elem.
Clay Elem.
Clay/Chlkville Middle
Clay/Chalkville High
Concord Elem.
Corner School
Corner High
Crumley Chapel Elem.
Erwin Interm.
Erwin Middle
Fultondale Elem.
Fultondale High
Gardendale Elem.
Gardendale High
Grantswood
Greenwood Elem.
Gresham Elem.
Hillview Elem.
Hueytown Elem.
Hueytown Middle
Hueytown High
Irondale Comm.
Irondale Middle
Kermit Johnson Elem.
Lipscomb Elem.
McAdory Elem.
McAdory Middle
McAdory High
Minor Comm.
Minor High
Mortimer Jordan High
Mt. Olive Elem.
North Highland Elem.

#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%

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 28

Jefferson County School System
Comparison of School Capacity and School Enrollment
2014 - 2015
North Jefferson Middle
Oak Grove Elem.
Oak Grove High
Pinson Elem.
Pinson Valley High
Pleasant Grove Elem.
Pleasant Grove Middle
Pleasant Grove High
Rudd Middle
Shades Valley High
Snow Rogers Elem.
Warrior Elem.
West Jefferson Elem.
Burkett Center
Total Capacity / ADM

*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.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 28

Jefferson County School System
Camparison of School Capacity and School Enrollment
High Schools
2014 -2015
Schools
Center Point High
Clay/Chalkville High
Corner High
Fultondale High
Gardendale High
Hueytown High
McAdory High
Minor High
Mortimer Jordan High
Oak Grove High
Pinson Valley High
Pleasant Grove High
Shades Valley High
Total Capacity / ADM

#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%

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 28

Jefferson County School System
Comparison of School Capacity and School Enrollment
Middle Schools
2014 -2015
Schools
Bagley Junior
Bottenfield Middle
Bragg Middle
Brighton Middle
Clay/Chlkville Middle
Corner School
Erwin Middle
Fultondale High 6 - 8
Hueytown Middle
Irondale Middle
McAdory Middle
North Jefferson Middle
Oak Grove High 6 - 8
Pleasant Grove Middle
Rudd Middle
Total Capacity / ADM

#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%

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 28

Jefferson County School System
Comparison of School Capacity and School Enrollment
Elementary Schools
2014 - 2015
Schools
Adamsville Elem.
Bagley Junior
Brookville Elem.
Bryan Elem.
Center Point Elem.
Chalkville Elem.
Clay Elem.
Concord Elem.
Corner School
Crumley Chapel Elem.
Erwin Interm.
Fultondale Elem.
Gardendale Elem.
Grantswood
Greenwood Elem.
Gresham Elem.
Hillview Elem.
Hueytown Elem.
Irondale Comm.
Kermit Johnson Elem.
Lipscomb Elem.
McAdory Elem.
Minor Comm.
Mt. Olive Elem.
North Highland Elem.
Oak Grove Elem.
Pinson Elem.
Pleasant Grove Elem.
Snow Rogers Elem.
Warrior Elem.
West Jefferson Elem.
Total Capacity / ADM

#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%

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 18 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 21 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 22 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 23 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 24 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 25 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 26 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 27 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-13 Filed 03/12/15 Page 28 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 28

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 28

Attachment E2

JEFFERSON COUNTY ENROLLMENT COMPARISON
WITH SAFE REPORTS
(AS PREPARED BY THE GARDENDALE BOARD)
The documents in Attachment E2, provided by the County Board, enabled the City
Board to make enrollment determinations and identify racial makeup.
Unfortunately, the totals provided by the County Board are inaccurate (e.g. Updated
Gardendale School’s Student Data using 10-1-14 numbers document). Enrollment
numbers have been further refuted by the City Board in Attachment A.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 28

Attachment E3

JEFFERSON COUNTY ENROLLMENT 10-YEAR HISTORY
(AS PREPARED BY THE GARDENDALE BOARD BASED ON IRA
HARVEY FEASIBILITY STUDY)
“The growth in student population of the Jefferson County School System has been
relatively constant over the past decade. As is seen in the Table 2-2, enrollment has
been fairly constant with the exception of the drop that occurred in FY2005-06 with
the creation of the Trussville City School System. This drop in student enrollment is
not unexpected given the decline in the population of Jefferson County over the last
decade.”
Attachment E3 provides a graphical depiction of Jefferson County Schools’
cumulative student enrollment change over the most recent 10-year period. With
over 13,000 student seats available and stagnant enrollment growth, an argument for
an additional facility is not appropriate. To add further to this point, strategic
planning processes and discussion around zone line updating (re: Attachment D4) do
not support the county’s argument. An unprecedented, punitive Exit Fee of
$33,187,500 for the construction of a new facility in a system with flat growth
would “not be a wise use of public funds, particularly as stressed as we are with that
now.” (re: Attachment D5).

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 28

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

Jefferson County Enrollment
Cummulative change over 10-year period: -71 students

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 18 of 28

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 28

Attachment E4

JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL CAPACITY COMPARISON TO SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT GRAPH
(AS PREPARED BY THE GARDENDALE BOARD PER JEFCOED
ENROLLMENT AND SAFE REPORT DATA)
Attachment E4 provides a graphical depiction of school capacity compared to
enrollment for Jefferson County by facility type. As demonstrated in the attached
graph, additional student seat space exists for elementary schools, middle schools,
and high schools throughout the system. This attachment refutes any claim that
across the entirety of the Jefferson County School System space is limited for any
one facility type (i.e. Elementary, Middle and High School).

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 28

School Capacity Compared to School Enrollment
Capacity JeffersonEnrollment
County Schools

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 21 of 28

Attachment E5

CAPACITY FOR ADDITIONAL STUDENTS
FROM THE GARDENDALE ZONE
(AS PREPARED BY THE GARDENDALE BOARD BASED ON JEFCOED
ENROLLMENT AND SAFE REPORT DATA)
Attachment E5 further disaggregates Jefferson County System enrollment data and
facility capacity to those areas surrounding the Gardendale Zone. As noted on the
graphic for the nearby middle schools of Corner School (i.e. K to 8 facility), North
Jefferson Middle, Bottenfield Middle, and Fultondale Middle (i.e. housed at
Fultondale HS) it is evident that adequate student seats are available. According to
SDE and Jefferson County data, there are 790 additional seats to accommodate 317
impacted middle school students.
At the nearby high schools of Corner High, Mortimer Jordan High, Minor High, and
Fultondale High, there are an additional 1,860 seats across all four facilities. If
Jefferson County assumes responsibility for these students outside of the proposed
Grandfathering Provision of negotiations, they will only need to accommodate 409
impacted high school students.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 22 of 28
Current Enrollment
Current Capacity
Capacity For Additional Students
from the Gardendale
Zone
Corner School 6-8 Capacity for Additional Students
203
348
145
for
Middle
School
Students
in
Jefferson
County
Schools
North Jefferson Middle
585
910
325
Bottenfield Middle
683
780
97
3000
Fultondale
High 6-8
321
494
173
2532
Total
1792
2532
790
2500 Middle School
Current Enrollment
Current Capacity
Capacity For Additional
Students
1792
2000
Corner High
541
1014
473
1500
Mortimer Jordan High
768
1014
246
910
790
780
1000
683
Minor High
1027
1846
819
585
494
348
325
321
317
Fultondale
High
354
676
322
500
203
173
145
97
Total0 High School
2690
4550
1860
Corner School 6-8
Current Enrollment

North Jefferson Middle
Current Capacity

Bottenfield Middle

Fultondale High 6-8

Capacity For Additional Students

Total Middle School

Non-Resident Students

Capacity for Additional Students from the Gardendale Zone
for High School Students in Jefferson County Schools
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

4550

2690
1860

1846
1014
541

473

768

1014

1027

819
354

246

Corner High

Mortimer Jordan High

Current Enrollment

Current Capacity

Minor High

676

Fultondale High

Capacity For Additional Students

Current Enrollment per data provided to GBOE by JEFCOED
Current Capacity per SAFE reports provided by Alabama SDE
Non-resident student counts per data provided to GBOE by JEFCOED
Mount Olive, North Smithfield, and Brookside students

409

322

Total High School

Non-Resident Students

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 23 of 28

Attachment F

COMPARISON OF TRAVEL DISTANCES OF STUDENTS TO
JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOLS
(AS PREPARED BY THE GARDENDALE BOARD)
Jefferson County Position Statement Footnote 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).
Provided with Attachment F is the Jefferson County School Zone map with markers
highlighting the surrounding high schools. As provided in this attachment, simple
mileage comparisons demonstrate that outside of any proposed Grandfathering of
current zone students, travel times and distances would vary little in comparison to
current travel to Gardendale. It is well understood that bus routes vary and may be
further from school sites selected. The distances in the graphics and supporting
detail do not substantiate the Jefferson County Schools claim of exorbitant travel
times based on separation. Instead they refute them.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 24 of 28

Mortimer Jordan HS

Corner HS

Mt. Olive Elem.

GHS
Bragg

Brookville Elem.
Fultondale HS
Minor HS

N. Smithfield
Community

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 25 of 28

North Smithfield Distance To Schools In Miles

COMPARISON OF DISTANCES FOR NORTH SMITHFIELD STUDENTS TO JEFFERSON
COUNTY SCHOOLS

Minor High

9.6

Bottenfield Middle

9.6

Fultondale High

Gardendale Schools

7.2

8

12/18/2014

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 26 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14

Drive 9.6 miles, 17 min
Directions from Minor High School to 4828 Smithfield Dr N

Minor High School
2285 Minor Parkway, Adamsville, AL 35005

Head west on Minor Pkwy toward
Adamsville Ensley Rd
0.2 mi / 26 s

Take AL-4 W/AL-5 N/US-78 E, Heflin Ave E,
Cherry Ave and Daniel Payne Dr to Trax Dr
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Minor+High+School,+Minor+Parkway,+Adamsville,+AL/4828+Smithfield+Dr+N,+Birmingham,+AL+35207/@33.5777326,­…

1/3

12/18/2014

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 27 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14

N in Birmingham
8.3 mi / 13 min

2.

Turn right onto Adamsville Ensley
Rd/Minor Pkwy
Continue to follow Adamsville Ensley Rd
0.6 mi

3.

Turn right to merge onto AL-4 W/AL-5
N/US-78 E/Adamsville Pkwy toward
Birmingham
Continue to follow AL-4 W/AL-5 N/US-78 E
2.1 mi

4.

Turn left onto Echo Dr
0.2 mi

5.

Turn left onto Heflin Ave E
1.4 mi

6.

Turn right onto Cherry Ave
1.3 mi

7.

Turn left onto Daniel Payne Dr
2.6 mi

Take Campbell Ln to N Smithfield Dr
1.2 mi / 3 min

8.

Turn left onto Trax Dr N
0.1 mi

9.

Take the 1st left onto Campbell Ln
0.8 mi

10.

Continue onto N Smithfield Dr
Destination will be on the left
0.3 mi

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

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 28 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-14

Drive 9.6 miles, 15 min
Directions from Bottenfield Middle School to 4828 Smithfield Dr N

Bottenfield Middle School
400 Hillcrest Road, Adamsville, AL 35005

Head southwest toward Hillcrest
Rd
0.3 mi / 1 min

Take I-22 and Coalburg Rd to Sayreton Dr
in Birmingham
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Bottenfield+Middle+School,+Hillcrest+Road,+Adamsville,+AL/4828+Smithfield+Dr+N,+Birmingham,+AL+35207/@33.5777…

1/2

12/18/2014

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document Google Maps
1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 28
7.8 mi / 10 min

2.

Turn left onto Hillcrest Rd

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

1.3 mi

3.

Slight right onto the ramp to Birmingham
0.3 mi

4.

Merge onto I-22
3.9 mi

5.

Continue onto Exit 93 (signs for County
Road 77/Coalburg)
0.4 mi

6.

Turn right onto Coalburg Rd (signs for
County Road 77 S)
2.0 mi

Continue on Sayreton Dr. Drive to N
Smithfield Dr
1.5 mi / 4 min

7.

Turn left onto Sayreton Dr
0.7 mi

8.

Turn left onto Campbell Ln
0.5 mi

9.

Continue onto N Smithfield Dr
Destination will be on the left
0.3 mi

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document Google Maps
1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 28

Drive 7.2 miles, 12 min
Directions from Fultondale High to 4828 Smithfield Dr N

Fultondale High
1450 Carson Road North, Birmingham, AL 35217

Take Carson Rd N, AL-3 S/US-31 and I-65
S to Trax Dr N in Birmingham
6.1 mi / 9 min

1.

Head southwest on Carson Rd N
1.0 mi

2.

Continue onto New Castle Rd
0.7 mi

3.

Continue onto Walker Chapel Rd
0.2 mi

4.

Turn left onto AL-3 S/US-31
1.8 mi

5.

Take the ramp onto I-65 S
2.0 mi

6.

Take exit 264 for 41st Avenue
0.2 mi

7.

Turn right onto Daniel Payne Dr
417 ft

Take Campbell Ln to N Smithfield Dr
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Fultondale+High,+Carson+Road+North,+Birmingham,+AL/4828+Smithfield+Dr+N,+Birmingham,+AL+35207/@33.572595…

1/2

12/18/2014

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document Google Maps
1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 28
1.2 mi / 3 min

8.

Take the 1st right onto Trax Dr N
0.1 mi

9.

Take the 1st left onto Campbell Ln
0.8 mi

10.

Continue onto N Smithfield Dr
Destination will be on the left
0.3 mi

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document Google Maps
1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 28

Drive 8.0 miles, 13 min
Directions from Gardendale High School to 4828 Smithfield Dr N

Gardendale High School
800 Main Street, Gardendale, AL 35071

Take Main St to AL-3 S/US-31
1.5 mi / 3 min

1.

Head south on Main St toward Gowins Dr
1.1 mi

2.

Continue onto Stouts Rd
0.4 mi

3.

Turn left onto Decatur Hwy
82 ft

Continue on AL-3 S/US-31. Take I-65 S to
Daniel Payne Dr in Birmingham. Take exit
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Gardendale+High+School,+Main+Street,+Gardendale,+AL/4828+Smithfield+Dr+N,+Birmingham,+AL+35207/@33.6070162…

1/2

12/18/2014

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document Google Maps
1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 28

264 from I-65 S
5.2 mi / 7 min

4.

Take the 1st right onto AL-3 S/US-31
3.0 mi

5.

Take the ramp onto I-65 S
2.0 mi

6.

Take exit 264 for 41st Avenue
0.2 mi

Take Campbell Ln to N Smithfield Dr
1.3 mi / 3 min

7.

Turn right onto Daniel Payne Dr
417 ft

8.

Take the 1st right onto Trax Dr N
0.1 mi

9.

Take the 1st left onto Campbell Ln
0.8 mi

10.

Continue onto N Smithfield Dr
Destination will be on the left
0.3 mi

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 28

COMPARISON OF DISTANCES FOR BROOKSIDE STUDENTS TO
JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOLS

6

Brookside Distance To Schools In Miles

Minor High

Bottenfield Middle

4.9

14.6

Fultondale High

Gardendale Schools

11.4

12/18/2014

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document Google Maps
1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 28

Drive 6.0 miles, 10 min
Directions from Minor High School to Brookville Elementary School, Brookville School Road,
Graysville, AL

Minor High School
2285 Minor Parkway, Adamsville, AL 35005

Head west on Minor Pkwy toward
Adamsville Ensley Rd
0.2 mi / 26 s

Take Hillcrest Rd and I-22 to Brookville
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Minor+High+School,+Minor+Parkway,+Adamsville,+AL/Brookville+Elementary+School,+Brookville+School+Road,+Gray…

1/3

12/18/2014

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document Google Maps
1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 28

School Rd in Graysville
5.3 mi / 8 min

2.

Turn right onto Adamsville Ensley
Rd/Minor Pkwy
Continue to follow Adamsville Ensley Rd
0.7 mi

3.

Turn left onto Forestdale Blvd
0.1 mi

4.

Forestdale Blvd turns slightly right and
becomes Hillcrest Rd
1.9 mi

5.

Turn left onto the ramp to U.S. 78 W
0.3 mi

6.

Merge onto I-22
1.5 mi

7.

Take exit 87 toward Graysville
0.2 mi

8.

Turn right onto Cherry Ave (signs for
Graysville/County Road 112 S)
0.5 mi

Continue on Brookville School Rd. Drive to
3rd Ave NE/8th St NE
0.5 mi / 1 min

9.

Turn right onto Brookville School Rd
0.3 mi

10.

Continue onto 10th St NE
463 ft

11.

Continue onto 3rd Ave NE/8th St NE
0.1 mi

Brookville Elementary School, Brookville School Road, Graysville, AL
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/Minor+High+School,+Minor+Parkway,+Adamsville,+AL/Brookville+Elementary+School,+Brookville+School+Road,+Gray…

2/3

12/18/2014

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document Google Maps
1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 28

Drive 4.9 miles, 8 min
Directions from Bottenfield Middle School to Brookville Elementary School, Brookville School
Road, Graysville, AL

Bottenfield Middle School
400 Hillcrest Road, Adamsville, AL 35005

Head southwest toward Hillcrest
Rd
0.3 mi / 1 min

Continue on Hillcrest Rd. Take I-22 to
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Bottenfield+Middle+School,+Hillcrest+Road,+Adamsville,+AL/Brookville+Elementary+School,+Brookville+School+Road,+…

1/2

12/18/2014

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

Brookville School Rd in Graysville
4.0 mi / 6 min

2.

Turn left onto Hillcrest Rd
1.5 mi

3.

Turn left onto the ramp to U.S. 78 W
0.3 mi

4.

Merge onto I-22
1.5 mi

5.

Take exit 87 toward Graysville
0.2 mi

6.

Turn right onto Cherry Ave (signs for
Graysville/County Road 112 S)
0.5 mi

Continue on Brookville School Rd. Drive to
3rd Ave NE/8th St NE
0.5 mi / 1 min

7.

Turn right onto Brookville School Rd
0.3 mi

8.

Continue onto 10th St NE
463 ft

9.

Continue onto 3rd Ave NE/8th St NE
0.1 mi

Brookville Elementary School, Brookville School Road, Graysville, AL
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/Brookville+Elementary+School,+Brookville+School+Road,+…

2/2

12/18/2014

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

Drive 14.6 miles, 20 min
Directions from Fultondale High to Brookville Elementary School, Brookville School Road,
Graysville, AL

Fultondale High
1450 Carson Road North, Birmingham, AL 35217

Take Walker Chapel Rd and I-22 to
Brookville School Rd in Graysville
14.1 mi / 19 min

1.

Head southwest on Carson Rd N
1.0 mi

2.

Continue onto New Castle Rd
0.7 mi

3.

Continue onto Walker Chapel Rd
3.6 mi

4.

Turn left onto Coalburg/Shady Grove Rd
Continue to follow Shady Grove Rd
0.4 mi

5.

Take the 3rd left onto Coalburg Rd
1.2 mi

6.

Turn right onto the ramp to Jasper
0.4 mi

7.

Merge onto I-22
6.0 mi

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

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

8.

Take exit 87 toward Graysville
0.2 mi

9.

Turn right onto Cherry Ave (signs for
Graysville/County Road 112 S)
0.5 mi

Continue on Brookville School Rd. Drive to
3rd Ave NE/8th St NE
0.5 mi / 1 min

10.

Turn right onto Brookville School Rd
0.3 mi

11.

Continue onto 10th St NE
463 ft

12.

Continue onto 3rd Ave NE/8th St NE
0.1 mi

Brookville Elementary School, Brookville School Road, Graysville, AL
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/Brookville+Elementary+School,+Brookville+School+Road,+Gr…

2/2

12/18/2014

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

Drive 11.4 miles, 20 min
Directions from Gardendale High School to Brookville Elementary School, Brookville School
Road, Graysville, AL

Gardendale High School
800 Main Street, Gardendale, AL 35071

Take Fieldstown Rd, Brookside Coalburg
Rd and Cherry Ave to Brookville School Rd
in Graysville
10.9 mi / 19 min

1.

Head north on Main St toward Mt Olive Rd
125 ft

2.

Take the 1st left onto Mt Olive Rd
0.6 mi

3.

Turn left onto Fieldstown Rd
3.1 mi

4.

Slight left to stay on Fieldstown Rd
0.7 mi

5.

Turn right onto Brookside Coalburg Rd
2.9 mi

6.

Turn left to stay on Brookside Coalburg
Rd
404 ft

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

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

7.

Continue onto Bivens Brookside Rd
0.8 mi

8.

Turn right onto Cherry Ave
2.6 mi

Continue on Brookville School Rd. Drive to
3rd Ave NE/8th St NE
0.5 mi / 1 min

9.

Turn right onto Brookville School Rd
0.3 mi

10.

Continue onto 10th St NE
463 ft

11.

Continue onto 3rd Ave NE/8th St NE
0.1 mi

Brookville Elementary School, Brookville School Road, Graysville, AL
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/Brookville+Elementary+School,+Brookville+School+Road,+Gra…

2/2

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 28

COMPARISON OF DISTANCES FOR MT.OLIVE STUDENTS TO
JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOLS

10.7

Mt. Olive Distance To Schools In Miles

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

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

Drive 10.7 miles, 16 min
Directions from Corner High School to Mt Olive Elementary School

Corner High School
4301 Warrior Jasper Road, Dora, AL 35062
1.

Head south
0.1 mi

2.

Turn left toward Warrior Jasper Rd
404 ft

3.

Turn left onto Warrior Jasper Rd
1.8 mi

4.

Turn right onto Co Rd 77/Mt Olive Rd
Continue to follow Co Rd 77
8.7 mi

5.

Turn right onto Brookside Rd/Mt Olive Brookside Rd
Destination will be on the right
30 ft

Mt Olive Elementary School
1301 Brookside Road, Mount Olive, AL 35117

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

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

Drive 11.6 miles, 17 min
Directions from Corner Middle School to Mt Olive Elementary School

Corner Middle School
10005 Corner School Road, Warrior, AL 35180
1.

Head south on Corner School Rd toward Bagley Rd
3.0 mi

2.

Continue onto Co Rd 77/Mt Olive Rd
Continue to follow Co Rd 77
8.7 mi

3.

Turn right onto Brookside Rd/Mt Olive Brookside Rd
Destination will be on the right
30 ft

Mt Olive Elementary School
1301 Brookside Road, Mount Olive, AL 35117
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/Corner+Middle+School,+Corner+School+Road,+Warrior,+AL/Mt+Olive+Elementary+School,+Brookside+Road,+Mount+…

1/1

12/18/2014

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 18 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

Drive 11.9 miles, 20 min
Directions from Mortimer Jordan High School to Mt Olive Elementary School

Mortimer Jordan High School
1920 Blue Devil Road, Kimberly, AL 35091

Head southeast on Bone Dry Rd
0.2 mi / 46 s

Take Morris Majestic Rd, AL-3 S/US-31,
Barber Blvd and Mt Olive Rd to Brookside
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Mortimer+Jordan+High+School,+Kimberly,+AL/Mt+Olive+Elementary+School,+Brookside+Road,+Mount+Olive,+AL/@33…

1/2

12/18/2014

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

Rd/Mt Olive Brookside Rd in Mount Olive
11.7 mi / 19 min

2.

Take the 1st right to stay on Bone Dry Rd
0.7 mi

3.

Turn left onto Bill Jones Rd
1.0 mi

4.

Take the 3rd right onto Self Creek Rd
1.0 mi

5.

Slight right onto Morris Majestic Rd
2.1 mi

6.

Turn left onto AL-3 S/US-31
2.1 mi

7.

Slight right onto Barber Blvd
3.0 mi

8.

Turn left onto Mt Olive Rd
1.9 mi

9.

Turn right onto Brookside Rd/Mt Olive
Brookside Rd
Destination will be on the right
30 ft

Mt Olive Elementary School
1301 Brookside Road, Mount Olive, AL 35117
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/Mortimer+Jordan+High+School,+Kimberly,+AL/Mt+Olive+Elementary+School,+Brookside+Road,+Mount+Olive,+AL/@33…

2/2

12/18/2014

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

Drive 9.5 miles, 13 min
Directions from North Jefferson Middle School to Mt Olive Elementary School

North Jefferson Middle School
8350 Warrior-Kimberly Road, Kimberly, AL 35091
1.

Head southwest on Warrior-Kimberly Rd
0.7 mi

2.

Take the 2nd right onto Stouts Rd
0.1 mi

3.

Take the 3rd left onto AL-3 S/US-31
3.8 mi

4.

Slight right onto Barber Blvd
3.0 mi

5.

Turn left onto Mt Olive Rd
1.9 mi

6.

Turn right onto Brookside Rd/Mt Olive Brookside Rd
Destination will be on the right
30 ft

Mt Olive Elementary School
1301 Brookside Road, Mount Olive, AL 35117
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/North+Jefferson+Middle+School,+Warrior-Kimberly+Road,+Kimberly,+AL/Mt+Olive+Elementary+School,+Brookside+Ro…

1/2

12/18/2014

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 21 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

Drive 8.2 miles, 14 min
Directions from Fultondale High to Mt Olive Elementary School

Fultondale High
1450 Carson Road North, Birmingham, AL 35217
1.

Head southwest on Carson Rd N
0.3 mi

2.

Take the 1st right onto N Pine Hill Rd
0.2 mi

3.

N Pine Hill Rd turns slightly right and becomes Tarrant Rd E
1.8 mi

4.

Turn right onto AL-3 N/US-31
2.4 mi

5.

Turn left onto Mt Olive Blvd
3.5 mi

6.

Turn left onto Brookside Rd/Mt Olive Brookside Rd
Destination will be on the right
30 ft

Mt Olive Elementary School
1301 Brookside Road, Mount Olive, AL 35117
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Fultondale+High,+Carson+Road+North,+Birmingham,+AL/Mt+Olive+Elementary+School,+Brookside+Road,+Mount+Oliv…

1/2

12/18/2014

Google Maps Filed 03/12/15 Page 22 of 28
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15

Drive 5.2 miles, 10 min
Directions from Gardendale High School to Mt Olive Elementary School

Gardendale High School
800 Main Street, Gardendale, AL 35071
1.

Head north on Main St toward Mt Olive Rd
125 ft

2.

Take the 1st left onto Mt Olive Rd
1.4 mi

3.

Slight right onto Mt Olive Rd/Ridgewood St
0.6 mi

4.

Take the 3rd left onto Mt Olive Blvd
3.1 mi

5.

Turn left onto Brookside Rd/Mt Olive Brookside Rd
Destination will be on the right
30 ft

Mt Olive Elementary School
1301 Brookside Road, Mount Olive, AL 35117
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
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Gardendale+High+School,+Main+Street,+Gardendale,+AL/Mt+Olive+Elementary+School,+Brookside+Road,+Mount+Oliv…

1/2

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 23 of 28

Attachment G

NOVEMBER 5, 2013 LETTER TO GARDENDALE RESIDENTS FROM
THEN-SUPERINTENDENT DR. STEPHEN NOWLIN WITH
ATTACHMENT

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 24 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 25 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 26 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 27 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-15 Filed 03/12/15 Page 28 of 28

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 28

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Attachment H

NOVEMBER 6, 2013 OPINION IN THE BIRMINGHAM NEWS FROM
THEN-BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESIDENT JENNIFER PARSONS

12/19/2014

Does Gardendale need its own school district? (Opinion by Jennifer H. Parsons)
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 28

Does Gardendale need its own school district? (Opinion by Jennifer
H. Parsons)
Special to AL.com By Special to AL.com 
on November 06, 2013 at 8:00 AM, updated November 06, 2013 at 8:18 AM
By Jennifer H. Parsons
As the citizens of Gardendale prepare to go to the polls on November 12 to vote on increasing their property taxes
as the next step in the process of forming a new city school district, perhaps a reasonable question to ask is this:
“What enables a school district to be in a position to successfully meet the needs of its students?”
There are, I believe, many characteristics that must be in place for any school district to thrive and well serve its
students and their families. Included among those are having reliable and sustainable financial resources;
providing an ever expanding instructional program with many learning opportunities for all students; employing
quality staff members with a network of support for them; and providing excellent school facilities in which
students may learn. The Jefferson County Board of Education has demonstrated over the years a commitment to
meeting all those characteristics and more in serving the students and citizens of Gardendale as well as
throughout our county.
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 Jefferson County Board of Education has invested more than $55 million in the past few years in improving
school facilities within Gardendale. Those improvements include the construction of a new state­of­the­art high
school and career tech center, a new library addition at Gardendale Elementary School, and athletic facilities at
both Bragg Middle School and Gardendale High School. Within the Gardendale schools’ classrooms the Board has
placed additional teachers beyond what the state provides as well as additional administrators and support
personnel to support learning. Our Board pays for additional personnel in each of our schools to provide the best
learning opportunities for our students.
Special needs students in Gardendale receive services and programs from what many believe to be the most
efficient and effective Exceptional Education Department in our state. Our district’s Gifted Program provides
quality additional learning opportunities for participating students. When recent cutbacks in state funding for
schools have occurred, the Jefferson County Board of Education has stepped in to provide funds for teachers’
http://impact.al.com/opinion/print.html?entry=/2013/11/does_gardendale_need_its_own_s.html

1/2

12/19/2014

Does Gardendale need its own school district? (Opinion by Jennifer H. Parsons)
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH
Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 28

instructional supplies; continuing supplements for staff members who are involved in sponsoring or coaching
after­school and extracurricular activities for students; and maintaining a teachers’ salary schedule that remains
above the minimum level required by the state in order to be competitive in attracting the best teachers for all
our students. Dedicated building maintenance and bus mechanic staff members work daily to ensure that school
facilities are well maintained and buses transporting students are properly serviced and safe.
I believe that the citizens of Gardendale voting on November 12 to consider raising property taxes to help fund a
new school district will do so based upon facts and a complete understanding of what the Jefferson County Board
of Education has provided the community’s students for a great many years. I also believe that we all want what
is best for our students and that sole desire will be what motivates citizens to determine their vote in this next
step of considering the formation of a new Gardendale school district.
As with all the wonderful communities and unincorporated areas the Jefferson County Board of Education serves,
Gardendale’s students are very important to us. Whatever the final decision may be as to whether or not the
community determines to remain part of the Jefferson County School District or form its own district, we always
will have the long­term best interest of Gardendale’s students at heart and want for them the very best learning
opportunities.
Jennifer H. Parsons, President
Jefferson County Board of Education

© 2014 AL.com. All rights reserved.

http://impact.al.com/opinion/print.html?entry=/2013/11/does_gardendale_need_its_own_s.html

2/2

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 28

Attachment I1

SEPARATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARDS OF ALABASTER
CITY SCHOOLS AND SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOLS
It is the City Board’s belief that prior separation agreements, including that of
Alabaster City Schools and Shelby County Schools, provide a reasonable
framework of compromise. Through this separation agreement an avenue was
created to allow students the ability to continue attendance with the pro rata share of
ad valorem tax following the student, students designated as exceptional via their
Individual Education Program (IEP) were granted access for continuity, and the
September Payroll was honored.
The Gardendale Board is not asking for any point of negotiation above and beyond
those that have already been settled in previous agreements. The City Board takes
issue with the County Board’s assertion that it is shirking its responsibility to assume
debt existing and incurred for inherited facilities and the necessary care for all
students. The City Board's recommendation of unprecedented pathways
demonstrate otherwise.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 28

--;"1
I

'
p·:··. ~fi:
.
Co .. .. :

.

l-

.

l

~;

~ ~;1 ~



.

rJ

;~

AG:REEMENT BY.AND BETWEEN
THE ALABASTER CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION
AND THE S$LBY COUNTY ~OARD ..OF E:PUCATION

t

11

• ;

!

.

.

THIS AGREE:t\..1ENT IS 11ADE BY AND BETWEEN THE ALABA~TER CITY
BOARD OF EDUCATION ('.'CITY BOARD") AND THE SHELBY COUN1Y BOARD

fi

OF EDUCATION ('-'COUNTY BOA.RD").

~

I! .

FACTS, CONSIDERA.TION, AND PEFINITIONS

'

A.

. AGREED FACTS.
1. ·

The City of Alabaster, Alabama (hereinafter the "C.ity") lies wholly
within Shelby C<;:>unty~ Alabama !illd is a "City" within the meaning
of ALA. CODE §16-11-1, et seq. (1975), as amended.

2.

1
.

.

. ,The_Shelby County Board of Education (hereinafter-~e "COUNTY
BOARD") h~ historic~lly exercised general adnµnistration. and
supervision of the puplic schools lying within the City, as well as all
other schools in Shelby County, other than those adn:iifil~ered by th.e
Hoover City Boar~ of Education.

.
3..

.

.

ALA. CODE §16-11-1, et seq. (1975), as 8.II}endect~ ·provides that .
cities having five thm;rsand·(S,000) or more inhabitants according to
· the last or any suqceeding federal qen5us, or ?,ccording to the laSt or
any succeedip.g c.ensus taken.under the provisions of ALA. CODE
§§11-47-90 through 11-47-92,_et seq. (1975), may form a city school
system.

4.

.
.
ALA. CODE §16-11-9, et seq. (1975), as amended,

vests in a city

board of education all pbwers necessary or.proper for the
administration ~d management the p-qblic schools Within such
city and territory adjacent to the cify which has been annexed as a

of

· part oftb.e ..scho.ofd!strfot and° which 'll1cl1i<les adt)r having a dty
board of education.

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.

1

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 28

lj

)

J

5.

.

J
J

6.

'I
7.

.
".

.

The COUNTY BOARD is authorized by Alabama law to enter into

·a,, agreement with the CITY BOARD upon the forniation of the

CITY BOARD with reference to the matters of existing indebtedness
and the provision of educational facilities and programs for the
children in Alabaster Schools.

J
J

On October 17, 2011, the Alabaster City Council adojJted Resolut_ion.
No. 101711, bywhich"it established the CITY BOARD.

.

8.

)

B.

The CITY BOARD and !he COUNTY BOARD propose to enter
into. an agreement to establish attendance zones and attendance
policies that will balance the interests of the CITY BOARD and the
COUNTY BOARD.
The COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD propose to en_ter
·into an agreement to address the dispositi.ori. of certain schoolS and
. property held by COUNTY BOARD and the empioyment of
affected ernploye_esc

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

·terms of this Agreeinent base~ o~ the exchange of consideration herein.

c.

DEFJNITIONS
The following terms and phrases as used in tills Agreement shall have the
·
following meanings:

"l

I


~,

·1

I

1..

Alabaster Schools. The following schools presently in the Shelby
County School System: Thompson High School, Thompson Middle
Schoel, Thompson Sixth Grade Center, Thompson Intermediate
School, Meadow View Elementary School, and Creek View
Elementary §cho_ol,_all of which lie wit114i_ th<; C()rporate limits of the
City.

'

1

i


1
i



June27, 2013
Page 2 of25 Pages
.Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board of Education

and SheThy Coun!V Board of Education

''

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 28

2.

3.·

II.

_Alabaster Students. Those students residing within the corporate
limits of the Cicy.
County Schools. Tliose schools under the general administration and
supervision of the COUNTY BOARD for the 2012-2013 school
·year, except Thompson High School, Thompson Middle School,
Thmpµson Sixth Grade Center, Thompson Intermediate School,
.Meadow View Elementary School, and Creek View Elementary
School.

. 4.

CoimJ:Y Students. Students residing in Shelby Collllty other than
(i) Alabaster Students, and (ii) students residing in any other
municipality lying wholly or in part in Shelby County that has
·
formed a city board of education.

5.

Students. School-aged children eligible to attend public schools in
· grades K-.12. ·

6.

Thompson School Zqne. The attendance zone. established by the
. COUNTY BOARD for Thompson High School and its feeder
schools.

7.

Transfer Date. The transfer date, as that term is used in this
Agreement, shall be July I, 2013.

8.

Transition Zone Students. Those students residing within the:
Transition Zone.

9.

Transition Zone. That part of the Thompson School Zone located
outside of the corporate limits of the City.

SUBSTANTIVEPROVISIONS
A.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION OF ALABASTER
SCHOOLS

The CITY BOARD shall assume responsibil!tid'or ttie general
administration and superviSion of Alabaster Schools and the. educational

June 27, 20!3
Page3 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Between

Alabaster City Board of Education
and Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 28

interest of the City, effective July 1, 2013, subject to fue teims and
conditious of this Agreement.

B.

STATUTORY COMPLIANCE.·

In accordance wifuALA. CODE §·16-8-1, et seq., and ALA. CODE§ 16-11-1,
et seq., fue CITY BOARD, and fue COUNfY BOARD_ have structured this
agreement to facilitate a fair and· equitable transition for fuose County
Students living. outside the col.porate limits of fue City but who attended
Alabaster Schools for the 2012-2013 school year..The CITY BOARD and
fue COUNfY BOARD have agreed to ~ phase-furough attendance plan, as
explained hereinafter, that is intended to mitiimize academic disruption and
enable bofu·fue COUNTY BOARD. and the CITY BOARD to formulate .
and iili)I6ment appropriate plans for their respective ~dents in subsequent
years.

C.

.I
]

STUDENT ATTENDANCE
1.

. 2.

;

3.

J

Alabaster Students. All Alabastet'Students shall attend Alabaster
.Schools.
Out-of...zone Attendance.
The parties have agreed that i=ediate removal of County Students
from Alabaster Schools and certain Alabaster Students from Shelby
County Schools is not in the best interest of students. families,

I

,1

I

Alabaster Attendance Zone. The attendance zone for Alabaster
Schools shall be fue co!porate limits of the City.

communities, or the re;spective school systems, and th.it approprif:j.te
measures to ease the transition of students into the respective schoci1
zones is needed and will bene~t bofu school boards and the students.
they serve.

I

I

l[o

l'
'1I

'

I

I
'

i'

I

·I

a.

Alabaster Transiti'on Zone. ·The parties agree. to. establish a
Tr8lls.itjonZone comprised of_that_part of the Thompson .
School Zone fuat lies outside offue CO!pOrate limits offue
City. Pursuant to this Agreement, all students residing in the
TranSition Zone will. be assigned to Alabaster Schools for the

.

Jun.e27,2013
Page 4 of25 Pages
Agreemerit By and Betl.veen
Alabaster City Board of Education
and Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 28
·'

t

'
~

)•
;

2013-2014 school year. Beginning with the 2014-2015
school·year, students will begin to transition to schools .
· ·op·erated by the COUNTY BOARD on a grade~by-grade
basis, as reflected in the following table:

•f
;

'

y·.

Alabaster I Shelby County Transition Schedule

· 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

~

A

·<
~

\.!)

~

l
b.
i

f
I

15-16

s

s

.A



A
A
A
A ·

A
A
A
A

A

s

A
·A

.A
A
A
A
A

s

s

1.6-17

17-18

s

s
s

s
s

.

.S

18-19

19-20.

s

s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s

s
s

A '.

s

:B

A
A

A
A

A

s

s
s
s
s

s

s
s

A
A.
A
A

s
s
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 by·this Agreement, and no indiVidual right
for any Transition Zone Student to attend Alabaster Schools ·
is ~eated by this Agreement.

Linda Nolen Learning Center .. Alabaster Studepts wlio are
currently attending the COUNTY BOAR.D's Linda Nolen
Learning Center (the "LNLC') have special needs, and the
parties agree that it is in their best interest to remain at the
LNLC for the 2013-2014 scho·o1 y~ar. In addition, the C.ITY
BOARD shall be permitted' to place the following categories
of Alabast~r Students at the LNLC as provi~ed below:
i.

Students with multiple disabilities or autism who are "·.
curr~ntly placed at the LNLC may a~end LNLC
'
through the 2019-2020 school year;
June27, 2013

Page 5 of25 .Pages
Agr~ment By and Between
Alabaster City Board of Education
and Shelby County Soard of Education·

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 28

n
.,'
.)
11.

l

·-'

Students enrolled in Alabaster Schools (tp inclucte
pres.chool aged students) after the effective date of this
Agreement who have multiple disabilities or autism
and who require lhe LNLC as their Least Restrictive
Environment may attend LNLC through the 201_92020 school year; and
·

· iii. Alabaster. Students in grades K through 8 with
Emotional Disabilities and for whom the LNLC has
been determined to be their Least Restrictive
Environment may attend.LNLC during-the 2013-2014
and 2014-2015 school years.

I

·•

In deterinining whether placement at the LNLC for Alabaster
Students is appropriate, lhe pa'rties shall apply the same'
~actors and criteria as art!' utilized in determining whether
LNLC is the apptopriate placement for Countj Students.

The CITY BOARD will pay the COUNTY BOARD for
providing· services to each Alabaster Student at the LNLC in
an amount equal to !he per-pupil cost of operating lhe LNLC,
to be calculated as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. In
addition, the CITY BOARD Will be responsible for any and
all additional, necessery ¢osts referable to individual
·Alabaster Students attending the LNLC and such individually
based costs will be calculated based on the actual cost nf
providing ::;uch services to such individual.stlldents.
The CITY BOARD will count the Alabaster Students
attending the LNLC on its ADM and shall receive all local,
state, and· federal funding that is appropriated or aliocated for
such students. The CITY BOARD Will also be responsible
for transportation of these students to and from the LNLC.
C.

Career Technical/Specialized High School Programs.
Alabaster.Students who are currently attending lhe COUNTY
BOARD's School of Technology ("SOT") and !hose who
elect to attend the SOT for lhe 2013-2014 school year will be
June27,2013
Page 6 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board ofEducation
and Shelbv County Board of Education

)
1

I

~

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 28

allowed to remain ·in ·such specified program, until graduation;
provided, however, that p'o Alabaster Student Will be admitted
to either the Career Academy Program ("CAPS") or the
-. SUCCESS (remediation/credit recovery) Program offered by
· the COUN1Y BOARD, except that· any Alabaster Student
who was enrolled in ~ither CAPS·or SU:CCESS Program.
during the 2012-2013 school year and who is to be.in the .
tw.elftJ:i grade ll;i the 2013--2014 school y.ear, may be permitted
to continu~ to attend the CAPS or SUCCESS Program for the
2013-2014 school yeB:!:" upon the payment of costs referable to
· su~h programs as identified o~ Exhibit B.

{

..

.

lJpon the executio:o. of this Agree:r;nent, th~ COUNTY
BOARD will proyide the CIIY BOARD a·list o.fhigh.school
students who are currently e~olled in the ~OT along with the
name of the specific ~OUNIY BOARD program in which
they are participating. Transportation for students included
·under this.provision·win be.proVided by the CITY :Bo.AR.D.
The ·cTIY BOARD will count the Alabaster Students ·
· .P8_.rtici.Pating in these specialized programs on its ADM and
will be responsible fqr payment to the COUNTY BOARD of
costs referable to participation pf Alabaster :Students in such
programs, as p~ovided in Exhibit B. · .
4.

Students/Children of COUNTY BO.A.Rf! and CI'I'Y BOARD
. · Employees. The CITY BOARD and the COUNTY BOARD will
each establish their :own policies concerning out of zone attendance
by students who are c~ildren of employe~ of either the CITY
.

BOARD or the COUNTY BOARD .. Neither system will be required
to accept students who reside outside the respective s}rstem'~
attendance zone and who are children of employees of the other.
system.

5.

lnterdistrict Transfer Policies. Each Board will retain the authority

to establish, modify, .and utiliz~ transfer policies ~s each respective
Board ei~~~, !fil4 futs Agi:-eem~nt .~l;iall :i;iot .impair or abtj4gt1 tl;i.11t
authority.

June 27, 2013
Page 7 of 25 Pages
Agreement By and B~tween
Alabaster City .Board of Education
and Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 28
!

6.

State Reporting for Student Attendance; Students will be reported 'for
State Department of Education attendance putjioses at the school in
which they are enrolled regardless of whether they are County
- s·tudents or Alabaster Sti::tdents, except as, provided above with
respeet to students at the LNLC.

7.

Special Placement ofIndividual Student. Curiently, a County
Shident with a disability who is zoned to attend a County School has
been placed at Thompson High School. The student is identified on
Exhibit C to this Agreement, and the parties agree that the Exhibit
shall be redacted consistent with the Jaws respecting student privacy.
The CITY BOARD agrees to pern:rit the student to remain at
Thompson High School through.the 2014-2015 school year.

J

D.

CONVEYANCE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES AND OTIIERPROPERTY.
1.

·1

1
I

1
I

1
l

'

I

'

1I

r'

I' .

r
'

2.

Alabaster Schools. All right, title, and interest to each of the
· following schools and to the tracts of real estate on which they are
located and to the furtures and improVements associated with each;
now held by the COUNTY BOARD will be conveyed to the CITY
BOARD by appropriate warranty deed, on or before July I, 2013:
a.

Thompson High School

b.

Thompson ,Middle School

c.

Thompson Sixth Grade Center

d.

Thompson Intermediate Sch.col

e,

Meadow View Elementary School

f.

Creek View Elementary School.

Additional Matters Related to Alabaster Schools. The COUNTY
BOARD shall assign to the CITY BOARD any wan-anty cUD"ently
held by the COUNTY BOARD pertaining to facilities and other
imprQvements related to the Alabaster Schools. Any retainage on
cons~ctio~ .cr;.>ntra.cts .C~1:"' casu~ty"iµ~an-~.~- p~oceeds relatip.g to said
schools will either be transferred to the CITY BOARD with the
·
conveyance of the interests hereiuabove described, or sball be.held_

JuneZ7,20!3
Page 8 of25 Pages

Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board of Educa:tion
and Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 28

by the COUNTY BOA.RD for the benefit of the CITY BOARD at
the election of the parties.

3.

Materials, Equipment, and Supplies. Not.later than July 1, 2013, all
portable classrooms, fumiture, equipment, materials, supplies
(incluiiillg textbooks), and other personal property (including but not
limited to tecllllology reilources, transportation equipment, vehicles,
inventory, and supplies) located in or upon tlie premises. oftbe
Alabaster Schools or assigned or a]IOcated.to tbe Alabaster Schools,
whether physically located within.or upon the premises of the
schools or not, a3 of the date of this Agreement shall be conveyed to
the CITY BOARD; provided, however, that specialized equipment
provided to comply with a particular special education studenfs
fudividualized Education Plan QEP) will be the prop_erty of the
system where the student Will attend school for the upcoming school
year. The CITY BOARD. shall assmne all ob.ligations associated
With the· operation of Alabaster Schools and with property
transferred under this Agreemerit (e.g., equipment leases, serv1ce
contracts,.school.loan8 from commercial lenders); provided that
payments on .any such leases or service ·eontracts. are current (that is,
not in default) and that executed copies (original, wheriever possibfo)
of all such leases and contracts are provided to the CITY BOARD
within fomteen (14) days ofthe date of execution of this Agreement.

4.

Shelby County !nstrnctiona/ Services Center.

~.

I

I

[TO BE SUBMiTTED TO THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF
EDUCATION FOR RESOLUTION]
.
5~

Transfer ofDocuments and Records. The COUNTY BOARD will
provide to the.CITY BOARD, upon execution of this Agreement,
copies of any existing land surveys, plats, building drawings, or
blueprints related to. anx propeny(-0r interest there1n) transfurted .
pursuant to this Agreerµent, records related to rep all: and

m8intenance of the same and to any other environmental IDatters,
including
but not. limiied to, asbestos
and lead-based paint..
.
.

··The COUNTY BOARD will also provide to the CITY BOARD
upon execution cifthis. Agreement tbe Fixed Assets reports for the
June27,20J3

Page 9 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Eietweion

Alabaster City Board of Education
and She/by County Board-of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 28

Alaba8ter Schools. All assets ctirrently assigned to Alabaster
Schools, as indicated on the COUNTY BOARD's Fixed Asset
report, will become assets of the· CITY BOARD not later than the
Transfer Date;

'

I

....,)

Undeveloped Real Property. The parties are .unaware of any real
property, other than the ptop<;rty set forth specifically in this
agreement, iocated in the City of Alabaster that is owned, controlled,
or heid for the benefit of the COUNTY BOARD. To the extent that
8nch addiiional propeity exists within the City of Alabaster, the
parties agree that it shall be considered to be rightfi;lly the property
of the CITY BOARD; and the parties shall take any and all
necessary measures tO prop~rly transfer ownership to the CITY
BOARD,
in the event
such real-prop~rty
is-identified:
.
.
.

.-~-

j

D.

,j

1

·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-µt, 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

'•

i·.

-1

E.

I.

1I
1
!
I

1

'

MAINTENANCE, MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATION OF
ALABASTER SCHOOLS

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!

June 27, 2013
Page 1 0 of25 Pages
· Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board of Education
and Shelby CoUntv Board o~ Education

I

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 28

'

!.

F.

TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT

The COUNTY BOARD shall, on or before fue Transfer Date, assign,
transfer, and.convey to .the CITY BOARD all vehicles described in Exhibits
·D & E attached hereto. The COUNTY BOARD shall maintain all offuese
. ·vehiC!es in operational condition until the date of transfer. In fue event fuat
any offuese vehicles becomes inoperable or is daniaged prior to fue date of
transfer, fue COUNTY BOARD shall repair fue vehicle on or before that .
date or replace it wifu a simili!I vehicle of equal value. In addition, fue
. · COUNTY BOARD agrees fuat all vehicles U.Sed to transport Students to be
transferred to fue CITY BOARD will be made available for inspection ·by
fue State Department of Bi:lucation prior to July I, 2013; to determine.
whei:her siich vehicles are certified to meet all applicable standards and
requirements of fue Department for fue 2013-2014 school y<;i!T. for vehicles
used to transport students. No later than May!, 2013, the COUNrY
.
BOARD will advise the CITY BOARD of the chassis nmnbers offue
school buses and VIN of other system-level vehicles, such as maintenance

i,

vans, service vehicles, driver's .education vehicles, or ·other vt:hicies
assigned to or litilizedfor fue benefit of Alab.Ster Schools, and such.
vehicles will be transferred from the COUNTY BOARD to the CITY
BOARD on the Transfer Date. Beginning October 1, 2013, the CITY
BOARD will be _entitled to receive from the State Department of Education
· any and all Fleet Renewal Funds referable to vehicles bearing fue said
chiissis numbers so long as such Fleet Renewal Funds are avaiiable fron:r
the State Department of Education with respect to such vehicles, all in
ac!OOrdance with fue regu]ations and practices of the State Department of
Education regarding th.e disbursement of Fleet Renewal Funds. The CITY
BOARD further agrees.to satisfy outstanding lease payments or debt"
amounts on the buses being transferred, as identified on· Exhibit D, and ;vill

make any payments to satisfy such outSta:nOmg ·1_ease obligatiops or
outstanding debt, plus any termination paymentsor other-additional
payments required by the outstanding leases or loans on ·such buses, in full
at closing.
G.

CONDITION OF PREMISES AND PROPERTY CONVEYED

The parties Understand and-agree, except ·as Otherwise specificai1Y provided
herein, that all schools and property of any kind transferred under this
Agreement shall be conveyed in B.n· ''as-is" condition as of the Transfer

..

June27,2013
Page l ! of25 Pages

Agreement BY and Between
· Alabaster City Board of Education
and Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 28
·:c'

1

Date, and that the COUNTY BO.ARD assUm.es no obligation wbatsoevei- to
. repair or to maintain property· accepte4 as of the Transfer Date. COUNTY
BOARD disclall:ns any and all warranties o'f.any kind, express or implied. ·
with regard to the _condition or fimess of said propertjr (real or personal) for
its •intended .purpose or any other purjiose, othe; than warranties of title and
manufacturers' or contractors' warranties which are ~o l:ie assigned to the
CITY BOARD.

I

1.
H.

ACCESS TO ALABASTER SCHOOLS
The COUNTY BOARD will permit agents of the CITY BOARD to have
access to the Alabaster School~ to e\'aluate and .initiate modification and
improvements to school facilities (atthe CITY BOARD's expense),
provided. that the CITY BOARD submits requests for such access in
writing to the Superintendent of the COUNTY BOARD and that such
access dOes not disrupt the educational environment of the. said schools.
Upon the fin.al execution ofilie Sep~tion Agreement, the facilities sholild
be left in good working order and.in their cnrrent condition which should
include fixtures,_ furnishings, equipment and other major items which have
been acquired fo;. the proper operations of the Alabast_er Schools.

I.

RISK OF LOSS
The COUNTY BOARD agrees to maintain present levels of insuranc.e
coverage in force on·a11 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 Schools·or any of the assets transferred
. to CITY BOARD as provided herein.

I.

PERSQNNEL

1.

Employment. All employees of the COUNTY BOA.Rb currently
employed in Alabaster Schools during the 2012-2013 school year
who are not transferred to a County School prior to the end of the
June27,2013
Page 12 cf25 Pages
Agreement By and Between
AJal:!aster City Board ofEduc:atioa
. _1l.M.d ~.belj)y (::oµnty BQard of Education

1

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 28

.
.
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.

Job Information. The CITY BOARD will provide job ·
informatiori (salary and benefits) to any employees expressing
an interest in being employed bythe CITY BOA.RD. The
·CITY BOARD salary schedule will provide salaries at no less
~an.the state minimum salary schedul~ for the2013-2014
school year, plus .a ny increases l?rovided by the Stat~.

b.

Responsibilities for Salaries. The COUNTY BOARD will
continue to pay salaries and benefits of employees who.will
· become employees of the CITY BOARD .under this
Agreement for work performed through the end of the 20122013 ·school year. ·

I
~

!
l..

c. . Payroll Obligation. J?oth the COUNTY BOARD and the
CITY BOARD operate on an October 1st to September 30th
. fiscal year. Funding for employt'.es at Alabaster City Schools
h as been or will .be provide.d to the COUNTY BOARD.
through September 30, 2013.. Because the COUNTY
B OARD has and will receive all state and federal funds from
the State Department of Education (''SDE") for Fiscal Year
201~, the· COUNTY BOARD will be r-esponsible for funding
the payment of salE"Lries and benefits for all state earned
. ·positions and all federal positio11s· assigned to Alabaster City
S chools for the remainder of the 2012-2013 fi~cal year.
· CITY.BOARD shall be responsible for payment and
(
distribution of ~ll 12-nionth positions in July and all 10 ~ ri .&
12:mmith positions in August and the COUNTY BOARD
will pay CITY. BOARD for all state earned positions for July
and August in the amount of $135,379:29 per month, said
payments to b.e ma~e ~n..or before th~ 26th .o.f.e~ch su~h.
month .. The C1TY BOARD shall be responsible for payment
a,nd distribution for all positions in September a.p.d the
GOUNTY BOARD will pay the CITY B OARD all state and .
June 27, 2013
Page 13 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board of Education
and Shelby·Countv Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 18 of 28

l

.1

federal positiOns. for September in the amount of
$2,585,030.36.with said payment to be made on or before
September 26. The CITY BOARD shall reimburse the
COUNTY BOARD an agreed upon ainonot of $175,000.00 to
be applied toward ·sa.laries and benefits for certain locally
funded positions. Suen reimbursemep.t by the CITY BOARD
shall be set off from amonnts owed to the CITY BOARD by
the COUNTY BOARD nnder Section Il.L.4 of this.
Agreement.· The obligation set forth in this paragraph shall '
not extend to new positions or jobs that are added by the
CITY BOARD after the Transfer Date, the intent being that
COUNTY BOARD will be responsible for pa)'Toll obligations
for all' state earned and federal positions through the end of .
the current fiscal year as'it would have in the absence of this
Agreement.

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. .

COUNTY BOARD ASSETS
The CITY BOARD relinquishes all claims to other assets of the COUNTY
BOARD .except those assets described in this Agreement. Claims .r~lated to·
the Shelby County lnstructi.onal Setvices Center by both parties are
specific~ly reserved and are notTelinquished hereby.

L.

'i

LOCAL TAXES AND REVENUES
i.· . ·Countywide Ad Valorem Taxes. Beginning October l, 2013, the net

proceeds of the following ad va1oreh1 taxes levied on a countywide
basis in·.Shelby County shall be allocated, apportioned and
distributed between the COUNTY BOARD and.the CITY BOARD
as directed by State law (presently, ALA. CODE §16-13-31(b)
.(1975)), Which provides that the allocation, apportionment and
distribution of countywide taxes shall be on the basis on which
Foundation Program funds are allocated, apportioned and distributed
wiihin the County;
·
·
June27,2013
Page ! 4 of25 Pii.ges
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board of Education
and Shelby County Board of Education

I

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 28

.

..

2.

.

a_

The c'ountywide ad valorem tax l~vied pursuant to Section
269 or the Alabama Constitution of 1901 (hereinafter the
"Alabama Constitution''), wliich is currently levied and
collected at the rate of one (LO) mill;

b.

The countywide ad valorem tax levied· pursuant to Section I
of Amendment No.· 3 to the Al_abama Constitution, as .
amend~ which is ·currently being levied and collected at the
rate of.ten (10.0) mills; and

c.

The countywide ad valorein tax levied pursuant to
Amendment No. 202 to the· Alabama Constitution, which is
cim:ently being levied at the rate of five (5.0) mills.

D_iStrict Ad Valorem Tax-Alab@ter City School Tax District.
Beginning October I'· 2013, the net proceeds of the foll owing district
ad val,orem taxes levied on property situated" within the COI]JOrate
limits of the City (which hereafter, by operation of state law, shall
become and be known its the Alabaster City School .Tax District)
shall be a)l ocated, apportioned and distributed to the CITY BOARD:
a.

The district ad valorem tax lev1ed pursuant to Section 2 of
Amendment No. 3 to the Alabama Constitution, which is
currently being levied and collected at the rate of eleven
(11.0)mills;and
· ··
· ·

b.

The district ad valorein fax levied.on property Situated within·
the COIJlorate limits of the City pursuant to the provisions of ·
Amendment No. 382 to the Alabama Constitution, whkh is
currently being levied and collected at the rate ofthree.(3.0) .
mills.

The district ad valorem taxes described in (a) and (b) above,"
inclnding anyrenewai or extension of such taxes levied on property
within the Alabaster CitY School Tai _District, shall collectively be
referred to as the "CITY BOARD District Ad Valorern Taxes."

June27,2013
Page 15 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City.Board of Education
· apd Shelb_y County.Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 28

1
·3.

1
1

)'

·District Ad Valorem Tax- COUNTY BOARD. Beginning October 1,
2013,. the net
proceeds of the' following ·ad valorem ta~es levied on
.
property situated in the Shelby County School Tax Distiict,
including property situated in the Transition Zone (but not including
any properly situated within the Alabaster City School Tax District)
shall be allocated, apportior\ed; and 'distributed to COUNTY
BOARD·
.
·
.,
'
a.

The district ad vaJorem tax levied pursuaut to Section'2 of
Amendment·No. 3 to the Alabama· Constitution, which is
currently being levied and cqllected at the rate of eleven
(11.0) mills; and

b.

The district ad valorem tax levied on property situated within
the area of the County lying outside the corporate limits of the
City pursuant to the provisions of Amendment No. 382 to the
Alabama Co:q_stitution, which is currently being levied and
collected at the rate of three (3.0) mills: .

The district ad valorem taxes described in (a) and (b) above,·
including any renewal or extension of any such taxes,· levied on
property sihrated within the COUNTY BOARD's school tax district,
including propei:ty si\1pted in the Transition· Zone (but not including.
any property situated within the corporate llmits of the Cicy) shall
collectively be referred to herein ai the "COUNTY BOARD District
Ad VaJorem.Taxes."

4.

,,

.District Ad Valorem Taxes -Adjustment for Out-of-District Stucfents.
For each Transition Zone Stiident and the student identified in
Section II.C.7 who attends a school operated by the CITY BOARD,
the COUNTY BOARD shall pay to the CITY BOARD an amount
equal to the "County Board Per Student Amonnt," as defined below.
Tue Connty Board Per Student Amount shall be determined .by
dividing the "County Board District Ad Valorem Taxes," as defined
herein, by the sum of (i) the County Students attending schools
OP'erated by fue COUNTY BOARD and (ii) the County Students
attending schools operated byfue CITY BOARD. The payments
required under fuis Section shall be. made on. fue fifteenfu day of
each morith, commencing l]ovember 15, 2013, and shall be based on
June 27, 2013
Page 16 of25 Pagci
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board ofEduoation

and Shelby Countv Board of Edu[;0.tion

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 21 of 28

actual receipts during the preceding calendar month by the
COUNTY BOARD of the CountyBoardDistrictAd Valorem
Taxes. The County Board District Ad Valorem Taxes sbali"be the
County Board District Ad Valorem Taxes allocated; apportioned and
distributed to the CbUNTY BOARI:i as described in Section ri.L.:i
of this Agreement _Further, the term "Gounty Board District Ad
V alorem Taxes" shall include the net proceeds of any other school
district ad valorem taxes that may be levied after the date of this Agr?ement on property situated within the COUNTY BOARD's
- school tax district (not to-include any property situated within the_
corporate Iimits.ofthe City) which are allocated, apportioned and
distributed to the COUNTY BOARD. For purposes of determining
the County Board Per Stqdent Amount, the number of County _
-Students attending schools operated l;>y the COUNTY BOARD and
the nnm\>er of County Su;dents attending schools operated by the
CITY BOARD shall be determined by using the 20 day ADM of
such Students for each school yefil'. The p·ayments under this Section
(to the.extent any snch payments are from time-to-time required
under the terms of this Section) shall cease with the payment to be
made on October 15, 2020 (refating to the Connty Board District Ad
Valorem T""es receive(! during September, 2020), except that such
·payments with respect to exceptional education students and
studer;i.fs who are required ~o repeat a grade will continue for so long
. .as such students .are eligible to attend public schools u;nder state or
_ federal l~w and are in facfattending Alabaster Schools (in the case
of County Students),
·
5.-

Gross Receipts Tax Levied under Act No. 81-461, as Amended by
Act f.ro_ .9-6-505 ("Act"). _Beginning July 1, 2013, the net pr-0c_eeds of
the on<>-half ( 5) cent gross receipts taxes collected on a county wide
'basis in-Shelby County shall- be allocated, apportioned and
;
distributed between J:4e COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD
as directed by the Act, which provides that the allocation,
apportionment and diStribution of the County Sales and Use T.X
revenues shall be base<l on the ratio of the number of students in the
·public schools in_B}ly_ school system in Shelby County for the school
year to the number of students in all of the pµblic schools in the

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

County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 22 of 28

fue total calculated costs for fue Foundation Program are allocated,
apportioned and distributed Witllln the County.

6.

Miscellaneoiis Revenues.
a.

Commencipg as of the Transfer Date, the net revenues from
the sale of "Helping Schools" vehicle tags shall be distributed

fu accordance· with the applicable provisioris. of ALA. CODE
§§32-6,300 and 32-6-3.01, which provide that the net
proceeds from the sale of such tags b.e distributed''.· . ·. to the.
school district de8ignated_ by the purchaser, or if ilie purchaser
do?S not ni.ake a designation, to the school district in which
fue funds were· generated, to be used for fue pill-chase of
classroom supplies and equipment for grades K-12 offue
public schools in fue school district.'.'

bo

. Commencing as of the.Transfer Date, the net revenues from
taxes levied eifuer by fue State.of Alabama- or by Shelby
County on tobacco products, fue proceeds·frorfi paii-mutuel
betting in the ·county, the mineral license documentary tax,
and severance taxes shall be apportioned between fue
COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD on ilie same basis
as the proceeds of the cOunty-wide ad valorem taxes are
apportioned (that is, on tp.e same .basis' as- Fo~dation Program
funds are allocated, aj>portioned aud distributed).

c.

Commencing as 9f the Trarisfer Date, the net reVenues from
taxes levied either byfue State 6f Alabama or by Shelby
.
I
County on malt, brewed, or other alcoholic beverages aud the
Alabama business privilege and corporation shares taxes shall
be shared by the COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD

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.

I

~

Commencing as of the Transfer Date, the registration fee for
manufactured homes shall be dis_tributed as provided in ALA.
CODE §40-12-255.
June 27, 2013
Page 18 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Between
· Alabaster Cl!y Board of EduCation
and ·Shelby County ·Board of Education

I

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 23 of 28

· · e.

amounts

Commencing as o:f the Transfer Date, the
paid to the
· COUNTY BOARD that are derived from.any payments made
to the County in lieu ~axes shall be apportioned betWeen .
the COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD on
same
basis as Foundation Program fupds ~e allocated, apportioned
. and· distributed.
·

o.f

M.

I

.

the

ASSIBvIPTION OF DEBT BY CITY BOARD.
The CTfY BQARD shaµ assume full responsibility for payment of its pro
rata share of the COUNTY BOARD'S 'c urrent long-term indebtedness in
the principal amoUD:t of Twelve Milli.o~ Slx: Hundred Two Thousand, Eight
Hundred Ninety:-Four and 08/100 Dollars ($1 2,602,894.74) to be calculated
~d paid pursuant to the schedule attached as Exhibit F: · · ·
·
1.

The CITI ~OARP shall assume the PSCA Series 2001-A(as
refuianced as part of the 2011-B Bond isrue) .outstanding balance
· reflecting that bonded indebtedn~s that pertains to construction and
facilities improvements to Creek View Elementary and Thompson
· Intermediate Schools in the amount of Five Hundred·Eight
·The>1:1Sand,:Eight Hundred Thirty-Four and 71/.100 Dollars ·
($508,831.7~).

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 Eighfy·Tuousand 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 Thompson·Intermediate School in the amount of One
HUP:d!~d ~eventy 11Jousangt Six H~dred Fi:fty-S~ and 40/100
Dollars ($170,65¢5.40) ..

June 27,2013
Page 19 of~S Pag~
Agreement By and Between .
. Alabaster City Board ofEducationand Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 24 of 28

4.

The CITY BOARD shall assume thePSCA Series 2008-B
· outstanding balauce reflecting thatbonded indebtedness that pertains .
to coD.struction and facilities improvements to Thompson
Iutennediate School in the am.ouut of Three Thousand, Eight
Hundred Sixty-Five and 02/100 Dollars ($3,865.02).

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.

The CITY BOARD shali aisume fuat portion
of the Series 2009
.
Local Warrant Issue outstanding balance reflecting t1at bonded
indebtedn!3ss that pertains to construction arid facilities
improvements to Meadow Vie1,v Elementary School, Thompson
Middle School, and Creek View Elementary School in fue amount of

·'

1
1

"

l
.J

.J

.

~u.ne 27, 2013
Page 20 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board ofEducation
and Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 25 of 28



Nine Million, Four Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand, Seventy-Three
and 82/100 Dollars ($9,452,073.82).

II

·Payments shall be remitted by the CITY BOARD to the COUNTY .
BOARD pursuant to the Payment Scbedule attached as EXhibit F to this
Agreement. ·

I
I

I

No other bonded indebtedness will be assigned to the CITY BOARD by the
COUNTY BOARD. .
.
N.

:MJSCBILANEOUS MATTERS'
·].

a.

Local School Account Fund Balan9es. The COUNTY
BOARD agrees that actual local school account fund balances
shall remain with individual Alabaster Schools or be
transferred t-0 the CITY BOARD.

b.

Child.Nutrition Program Account Balance. The Child
Nutrition Program account balance for each of the Alabaster
S.chools as of June.30, 2013 (net of July and August indirect
cost, July and August gross payroll and benefits, and state
pass-through revenue) shall be transferred to CITY BOARD.

2.

Utility Payments. The COUNTY BOARD shall be responsible for·
·payment of utility bills, including telephone, electricity, water,
natural gas, and sewer for utility services rendered to AJaPaster
· Schools through the Transfer Date.

3.

Contracts or AgreementS Related to Alabaster Schools. Within
i fourteen (14) days of the date of execution of this Agreement, the
COUNTY BOARD shall identify and produce .to the CITY BOARD
for reproduction~ executed copies of all contracts agreements
between the COUNTY."BOARD and any third party under which ·.
Alabaster Schools are bound. The COUNTY .BOARD shall execute
assignments of all _such contracts and agreements in f<ivor of th.e
· CITY BOARD to the extent the contracts or agreeinen.ts are
assignable._ With respect to contracts or agreements which are not
assignable without the consent of a third party, .the COUNTY

or

June27,2013
Page21 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster C_ity Board ofEdticatiPn.
tm,d Shelby Cougty Board of Education

.;

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 26 of 28

BOARD will identify said contracts so that the CI1Y BONW can
'acquire Consent from Said third party.
'
4.

J

Liability. The CITY BOARD shall have no .liability or responsibility
· for an:Y act, Omission, accident, event or occurrence in or related to
Alabaster Schools or 1he COUNTY BOARD' s School System, its
property, employees, and agents which occur before the Transfer
Date. The COUNTY BOARD shall have no liability or
responsibility for any act, onrisslon, accident, event or occurrence in
or related to Alabaster-Schools or the _CITY BOARD, its property,
employees and agents which occur on or after 1he Transfer Date. By
May 1, 2013, the COUNTY BOAR.I) shall notify, in writing, 1he
CITY B'bARD of any act, omission, accident, event or occurrence jn
or rel8.ted to Alabaster Schools of Which the Superintendent has
·knowledge; which has resulted, or may result in a claim of liability
or responsibility.on the part of1he COUNTY. BOARD. The
COUNTY BOARD shall provide updated information about any
additional accident_s, events or occlirren,ces happening after after.
such initial notification when-and if the COUNTY BOARD b_ecomes
aware of same.

5.

Records, The COUNTY BOARD will provide such information,
reports~ ;ecor& and files which it is required to provide heretillder.in
the forill in which it maintains such data including records, including.
providing such records in electronic fonp.at if it maintairis the
·
records ip. such format.

6.

Jd_entification ofSpecial Education Students. Upon 1he execution of
this Agreement, 1he COUNTY BOARD will identify to 1he CITY
BOARD all special education students who are !mown to 1hoCOUNTY BOARD.who reside within the ccrporate.!imits of the
City, their, ages, genders, and exceptionalities.

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

I

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 27 of 28

•'

I

during the 2012-2013 school year. Anythlngin this Ai!reement to the
..,contrary notwithstanding, ;fue State Superintendent of Education shall ·have
· th~ authority to iesolve conclusively. any questions or disputes betvreen the
CITY :SOARD and the COUNTY BOARD conceming the allocation or'
distribution of proceeds made available under the :initiatives described
·
·
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.

j

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

l

1f any clause; phrase1 sentence, paragraph, or provision of this Agreement
shall be i11validated by·a·court of competent jurisdiction, it.is the· intent of
June27, 2013
Page23 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board"of~ucation
and Shelby County Bofild of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-16 Filed 03/12/15 Page 28 of 28

the parties hereto that such invalidation shall not affect the validity of any
other clause, phrase) sentence, paragraph, or provision thereof.
·TITLES.

J

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.

Nothing in this Agreement expressed or irµplied, is intended to c·onfer upon
·
any third person any rights ·or remedies under or by reason of this
Agreement

l

lI

1

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.

CO]l/[]'LIANCE WITII STATE AND FEDERAL LAW
The COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD acknowledge and agree
that this Agreement is intended to comply with the laws of Alabama and
the United States of America.

~\
'

June 27, 2013.

Page24 of25 Pages
Agreement By and Betwee,n
Alabaster City Board of Education.
and Shelby Countv Bolird of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 28
FILED
n·w'--___________________
___,

2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

_,

. IN WITNESS· WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
1013.
executed py their duly authorized representatives on this the l.s!--day of JV

!J ,

ALABASTER CITY BOARD ·
OF EDUCATION

'

·~~~
.Alabaster City Board of Education

~ U~

By: £.
DR.L. WAYNE CKERS,
.
Superintendent of the
Alabaster City Board of Education

SHELBY COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION
By:
AUBREY MILLER, President of the
Shelby County Board ofEducati-On

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By: =c~==~=---c-~-,--~~~~
RANDY FULLER, Superintendent of
the Shelby County Board of Education

r

I

J

J

June 27, 2013
P~ae

25 of25 Pages

Agreement By and Between
Alabaster City Board ofEducation
and Shelby Cornty Board DfEducation

l

·(

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 28

Attachment I2

SEPARATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARDS OF PELHAM
CITY SCHOOLS AND SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOLS
It is the City Board’s belief that prior separation agreements, including that of
Pelham City Schools and Shelby County Schools, provide a reasonable framework
of compromise. Through this separation agreement an avenue was created to allow
students the ability to continue attendance with the pro rata share of ad valorem tax
following the student, students designated as exceptional via their Individual
Education Program (IEP) were granted access for continuity, and the September
Payroll was honored.
The Gardendale Board is not asking for any point of negotiation above and beyond
those that have already been settled in previous agreements. The City Board takes
issue with the County Board’s assertion that it is shirking its responsibility to assume
debt existing and incurred for inherited facilities and the necessary care for all
students. The City Board's recommendation of unprecedented pathways
demonstrate otherwise.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 28

AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE PELHAM CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION
AND THE SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

nns AGREEMENT IS MADE BY AND BETWEEN TilE PELHAM CITY
BOARD OF EDUCATION ("CITY BOARD") AND IBE SHELBY COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION ("COUNTY BOARD").
I.

FACTS, CONSIDERATION, AND DEFINITIONS
A.

AGREED FACTS
I.

The City of Pelham, Alabama (hereinafter the "City") lies wholly
within Shelby County, Alabama and is a "City" within the meaning
of ALA. CODE §16-11-1, et seq. (1975), as amended.

2.

The Shelby County Board of Education (hereinafter the "COUNTY
BOARD") has historically exercised general administration and
supervision of the public schools lyi11g within the City, as well as all
other schools in Shelby County, other than those administered by the
Hoover City Board of Education and t11e Alabaster City Board of
Education.

3.

ALA. CODE §16-11-1, et seq. (1975), as amended, provides that
cities having five thousand (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 ALA. CODE
§§11-47-90 through 11-47-92, et seq. (1975), may form a city school
system.
4.

ALA. CODE §16-11-9, et seq. (1975), as amended, vests in a city
board of education all powers necessary or proper for the
administration and management of the public schools within such
city and territory adjacent to the city which has been rumexed as a
part of the school district and which includes a city having a city
board of education.
June 5, 2014
Page I of27 Pages
Agreement By and Behveen
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board ofEducation

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 28

B.

5.

On September 9, 2013, the Pelham City Cormcil adopted a
Resolution establishing the CITY BOARD.

6.

The COUNTY BOARD is authorized by Alabama law to enter into
an agreement with tl1e CITY BOARD upon the formation of the
CITY BOARD with reference to the matters of existing indebtedness
and the provision of educational facilities and programs for the
children in Pelham Schools.

7.

The CITY BOARD and the COUNTY BOARD propose to enter
into an agreement to establish attendance zones and attendance
policies that will balance the interests of the CITY BOARD and the
COUNTY BOARD.

8.

The COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD propose to enter
into an agreement to address the disposition of certain schools and
property held by COUNTY BOARD and the employment of
affected employees.

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.

Alabaster Agreement. The Agreement by and between the Alabaster
City Board of Education and the Shelby County Board of Education
dated July 1, 2013, as approved by both respective boards of
education.

2.

Alabaster Schools. The following schools presently in the Alabaster
School System: Meadow View Elementary School, Creek View
June 5. 2014
Page 2 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Bct\veen
Pelhmn City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 28

Elementary School, Thompson Intermediate School, Thompso11

Sixth Grade Center, Thompson Middle School and Thompson High
School, all of which lie within the corporate limits of the City of

Alabaster.
3.

Chelsea Schools. The following schools presently in the Shelby
Connty School System: Chelsea High School, Chelsea Middle
School and Chelsea Park Elementary School, all of which are under
the general administration and supervision of the COUNTY

BOARD.
4.

Countv Schools. Those schools under the general administration

and supervision of the COUNTY BOARD for the 2013-2014 school
year, except Pelham High School, Riverchase Middle School, Valley
Elementary School, and Valley Intermediate School.
5.

Helena Students. County Students residing in the attendance zone

· established by the COUNTY BOARD for Helena High School.
6.

County Students. Students residing in Shelby County other than
(i) Pelham Students, and (ii) students residing in any other
municipality lying wholly or in part in Shelby County that has
formed a city board of education.

7.

Pelham Schools. The following schools presently in the Shelby
County School System: Pelham High School, Riverchase Middle
School, Valley Elementary School and Valley Intermediate School,

all of which lie within the corporate limits of the City of Pelham.
8.

Pelham School Zone. The attendance zone established by the
COUNTY BOARD for Pelham High School and its feeder schools.

9.

Pelham Students. Those students residing within the corporate

limits of the City.
l 0.

Students. School-aged children eligible to attend public schools in
grades K-12.

June 5, 2014
Page 3 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between

Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board ofEduca1joo

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 28

11.

II.

Transfer Date. The transfer date, as that term is used in this
Agreement, shall be July 1, 2014.

SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS
A.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION OF PELHAM
SCHOOLS
The CITY BOARD shall assume responsibility for the general
administration and supervision of Pelham Scl1ools and the educational
interest of the City, effective July 1, 2014, subject to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.

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.

Pelham Attendance Zone. The attendance zone for Pelham Schools
shall be the corporate limits of the City.

2.

Pelham Students. All Pelham Students shall attend Pelham Schools,
except as provided in the sections gove1ni11g out-of-zone attendance
which follow.

June 5. 2014
Page 4 of27 Pages

Agreement By and Between
Pelhan1 City Board of Education and
She!b·v County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 28

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.

Alabaster Students. The parties agree that assignment for all
Pelham Students attending Alabaster Schools pursuant to the
Alabaster Agreement shall be governed by the terms of that
Agreement and that the rights, responsibilities, obligations,
duties and benefits of COUNTY BOARD with regard to
Transition Zone Students (as defined in t11e Alabaster
Agreement) who reside within the corporate limits of the City
will be assigned to CITY BOARD.

b.

Chelsea Students. The parties agree that (i) all Pelham
Students who were zoned for, registered in and attended
Chelsea Schools during the 2013-2014 school year, as
identified on Exhibit A to this agreement and (ii) students
who reside in the area of the City that was zoned for Chelsea
Schools during the 2013-2014 school year and who will be
included on a list of students to be developed by the
COUNTY BOARD and provided to the CITY BOARD at the
end of the 2014-2015 school year will be permitted to attend
Chelsea Schools during the 2014-2015 school year. Pelham
Students who are enrolled in and actually attend Chelsea
Schools during the 2014-2015 school year will be permitted
to continue attending Chelsea Schools through graduation,
provided that such enrollment is continuous and
uninterrupted. The COUNTY BOARD shall be responsible
for transportation of such students.

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 28

identified 011 Exhibit B to this Agreement and (ii) students
who reside in the area of the City that was zoned for Oak:
Mountain Schools during the 2013-2014 school year and who
will be included on a list of students to be developed by the
COUNTY BOARD and provided to the CITY BOARD at the
end of the 2014-2015 school year, will be permitted to attend
Oak Mountain Schools during the 2014-2015 school year.
Pelham Students who are enrolled in and actually attend Oak
Mountain Schools during the 2014-2015 school year will be
pe1mitted to continue attending Oak Mountain Schools
through graduation, provided that such enrollment is
continuous and uninterrupted. The COUNTY BOARD shall
be responsible for transportation of such students.
d.

Other Shelby County Students. The parties agree that County
Students residing in the Pell1ain Scl1ool Zone who were zoned
for, registered in and attended Pelham Schools during the
2013-2014 school year and who are identified on Exhibit C to
this Agreement will be pern1itted to continue attending
Pelham Schools through graduation, provided that such
enrollment is continuous and uninter1upted. Tl1e CITY
BOARD will be responsible for transportation of such
students.

e.

Helena Students. The parties agree that I-Ielena Students who
were zoned for, registered in and attended Pelham l{igh
School as either 10th or 11th grade students in the 2013-2014
school year and who choose to remain at Pelham High School
will be permitted to attend Pelham High School through
graduation, provided that such enrollment is continuous and
uninterrupted.
Out-of-zone school attendance for Chelsea Students, Oak
Mountain Students, Helena Students and the other Shelby
County Students provided for herein is governed solely by
this Agreement, and i10 individual right for any such Student
to attend Chelsea Schools, Oak Mountain Schools or Pelham
Schools is created by this agreement.

June 5, 2014
Page 6 of27 Pages

Agreement By and Betv.<een
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board ofEducution

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 28

f.

Linda Nolen Learning Center. Pelham Students who are
currently attending the COUNTY BOARD' s Linda Nolen
Learning Center (the "LNLC") have special needs, and the
parties agree that it is in their best interest to remain at the
LNLC. In addition, the CITY BOARD shall be permitted to
place the following categories of Pelham Students at the
LNLC as provided below:
1.

Pelham Students with multiple disabilities or autism
who are currently placed at the LNLC may attend
LNLC as long as COUNTY BOARD operates said
center;

11.

Pelham Students enrolled or entitled to be enrolled in
Pelham Schools (to include preschool aged students)
after the effective date of this Agreement who have
multiple disabilities or autism and who require the
LNLC as their Least Restrictive Environment may
attend LNLC; and

iii. Pelham Students with Emotional Disabilities and for
whom the LNLC has been determined to be their Least
Restrictive Environment may attend LNLC.
In determining whether placement at the LNLC for Pelhan1
Students is appropriate, the parties shall apply the same
factors and criteria a<) are utilized in determining whether
LNLC is the appropriate placement for County Students.
The CITY BOARD will pay the COUNTY BOARD for
providing services to each Pelham Student at the LNLC in an
amount equal to the per-pupil cost of operating the LNLC, to
be calculated as shown on Exhibit D attached hereto. In
addition, the CITY BOARD will be responsible for any and
all additional, necessary costs referable to individual Pelham
Students attending the LNLC and such individually based
costs will be calculated according to the actual cost of
providing such services to such individual students.

June 5, 2014
Page 7 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelbv County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 28

The CITY BOARD will count the Pelham Students attending
the LNLC on its ADM and shall receive all local, state, and
federal funding that is appropriated or allocated for such
students. The CITY BOARD will also be responsible for
transportation of such Pelham Students to and fron1 the
LNLC.
The special attendance provisions concerning the LNLC will
terminate June 30, 2027 unless, prior to that date, the parties
agree that such termination date be extended.

g.

Career Technical/Specialized High School Programs.
Pelham Students who attend or attended the COUNTY
BOARD's College and Career Center ("CCC") during the
2013-2014 school year and those who elect to attend the CCC
for the 2014-2015 school year will be allowed to attend the
CCC until graduation; provided, however, that no Pelham
Student will be admitted to either the Career Academy
Program ("CAPS") or the SUCCESS (remediation/credit
recovery) Program offered by the COUNTY BOARD, except
that any Pelham Student who was enrolled in either CAPS or
SUCCESS Program during the 2013-2014 school year and
who is to be in the 12th grade in the 2014-2015 school year,
1nay be permitted to continue to attend the CAPS or
SUCCESS Program for the 2014-2015 school year upon the
payment of costs referable to such programs as identified on
Exhibit E.
For the 2015-2016 school year and each school year
t11ereafter, Pelham Students (otl1er tl1an those identified
above) may be permitted to emoll in and attend the CCC (but
not the CAPS or SUCCESS program) as long as the CITY
BOARD is willing to pay the costs set forth below, continues
to provide transportation and the partnership continues to be
mutually beneficial to both parties.
Upon the execution of this Agreement, the COUNTY
BOARD will provide the CITY BOARD a list of Pelham
Students who are cmTently enrolled i11 the CCC along with
June 5, 2014
Page 8 of27 Pages
Agreement 13y and Bet\vccn
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby Countv Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 28

the name of the specific COUNTY BOARD program in
which they are participating. Transportation for Pelhrun
Students attending the CCC under this provision will be
provided by the CITY BOARD. The CITY BOARD will
count the Pelham Students participating in these specialized
programs on its ADM and will be responsible for payment to
the COUNTY BOARD of costs referable to participation of
Pelham Students in such programs, as provided in Exhibit E.
h.

Special Placement ofIndividual Students. A Pelham Student
with a disability has been administratively placed at Oak
Mountain High School. The student is identified on Exhibit F
to this Agreement and the parties agree that the Exhibit shall
be redacted consistent with the laws respecting student
privacy. The COUNTY BOARD agrees to permit the said
student to remain at Oak Monntain High School through
graduation.

4.

Students/Children of COUNTY BOARD and CITY BOARD
Employees. The CITY BOARD and the COUNTY BOARD will
each establish their own policies concerning out-of-zone attendance
by students who are children of employees of either the CITY
BOARD or the COUNTY BOARD. Neither Board will be required
to accept students who reside outside the respective system's
attendance zone and who are children of employees of the other
system.

5.

lnterdistrict Transfer Policies. Each Board will retain the authority
to establish, modify, and utilize transfer policies as each respective
Board elects, and this Agreement shall not impair or abridge that
authority.

6.

State Reporting/or Student Attendance. Students will be reported
for State Department of Education attendance purposes at the school
in which they are enrolled regardless of whether they are County
Students or Pelham Students, except as provided above with respect
to students at the LNLC or the CCC.

June 5, 2014
Page 9 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 28

D.

CONVEYANCE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES AND OTHER PROPERTY.

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.

Pelham High School

b.

Riverchase Middle School

c.

Valley Intermediate School

d.

Valley Elementary School.

2.

Additional Matters Related to Pelham Schools. The COUNTY
BOARD shall assign to the CITY BOARD any waJTanty cuJTently
held by the COUNTY BOARD pertaining to facilities and other
improvements related to the Pelham Schools. Any retainage on
construction contracts or casualty insurance proceeds relating to said
schools will either be transfe!Ted to the CITY BOARD with the
conveyance of the interests hereinabove described, or shall be held
by the COUNTY BOARD for the benefit of the CITY BOARD at
the election of the parties.

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 28

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.

Materials, Equipment and Supplies - Pelham High School. The
COUNTY BOARD developed plans to construct and open a high
scl1ool in its Helena attendance zone prior to the establishment of
CITY BOARD. Helena Students attended Pelham High School for
the 2013-2014 school year but will attend Helena High School
beginning i11 the 2014-2015 school year, except as is otherwise
provided in this Agreement. As a result, many of the faculty and
staff at Pelham High School have been reassigned by the COUNTY
BOARD to Helena High School for the 2014-2015 school year. The
equipment, materials, supplies and personal property associated
with, under the control of and which was utilized by such reassigned
faculty and staff may be removed and retained by COUNTY
BOARD for use by such reassigned faculty and staff at Helena High
School. Furniture, fixtures and items physically attached to the
premises will not be removed or retained, however, and will remain
at Pelham High School to be transferred to the CITY BOARD as of
the Transfer Date.

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 28

the right of CITY BOARD to purchase or lease LNLC if it is offered
for sale.
6.

Transfer of Documents and Records. The COUNTY BOARD will
provide to the CITY BOARD, upon execution of this Agreement,
copies of any existing land surveys, plats, building drawings, or
blueprints related to any property (or interest therein) transferred
pursuant to this Agree1nent, records related to repair and
maintenance of the same and to any other environmental matters,
including but not limited to, asbestos and lead-based paint.
The COUNTY BOARD will also provide to the CITY BOARD
upon execution of this Agreement the Fixed Assets reports for the
Pelham Schools. All assets currently assigned to Pelham Schools
will become assets of the CITY BOARD not later than the Transfer
Date.

7.

E.

Undeveloped Real Properf)'. The parties are unaware of any other
real property, other than the property set forth specifically in this
agreement, located in tl1e City of Pelhain that is owned, controlled,
or held for the benefit of the COUNTY BOARD. To tl1e extent that
such additional property exists within the City of Pelham, the parties
agree that it shall be considered to be rightfully the property of the
CITY BOARD, ai1d the parties shall take ai1y and all necessary
measures to properly transfer ownership to the CITY BOARD, in the
event such real property is identified.

MAINTENANCE. MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATION OF PELHAM
SCHOOLS
The COUNTY BOARD will maintain, manage, and operate the Pelhan1
Schools from the date l1ereofuntil the Transfer Date in a manner consiste11t
with the COUNTY BOARD's prior management of those schools. The
COUNTY BOARD will cooperate with the CITY BOARD, its
Superi11tendent, and other central office personnel with respect to all
activities undertaken by the CITY BOARD to assume administration and
responsibility for Pelham Schools as of the Transfer Date, and use its best
efforts to effect the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Such

June 5, 2014
Page 12 of27 Pages
Ai:,>reemcnt By and Bel\veen
Pelham City Board ofEducation and
Shclhv County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 28

cooperation will include, but not be limited to, providing reasonable access
to the faculty and staff of Pelham Schools.
F.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO PELHAM SCHOOLS
After a review of the condition and construction history relative to the
school buildings in Pelham, CITY BOARD and COUNTY BOARD have
agreed that the CITY BOARD will asswue (that is, agree to make payments
with respect to) certain portions of debt issued by the COUNTY BOARD
for capital improvements to Pelham Schools. The obligations and
responsibilities of the respective boards with regard to such debt are set
forth in Section ll.N of this Agreement.

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 28

accordance with the regulations and practices of the State Department of
Education regarding the disbursement of Fleet Renewal Funds.
H.

CONDITION OF PREMISES AND PROPERTY CONVEYED
The parties understand and agree, except as otherwise specifically provided
herein, that all schools and property of any kind transferred under this
Agreement shall be conveyed in an "as-is" condition as of the Transfer
Date, and that the COUNTY BOARD assumes no obligation whatsoever to
repair or to inaintain property accepted as of the Transfer Date. COUNTY
BOARD disclaims any and all warranties of any kind, express or implied
with regard to the condition or fitness of said property (real or personal) for
its intended purpose or any other purpose, other than warranties of title and
manufacturers' or contractors' warranties which are to be assigned to the
CITY BOARD.

I.

ACCESS TO PELHAM SCHOOLS
The COUNTY BOARD will permit agents of the CITY BOARD to have
access to the Pelham Schools to evaluate and initiate modifications and
itnprove111ents to school facilities (at the CITY BOARD's expense),
provided that the CITY BOARD submits requests for such access in
writing to the Superintendent of the COUNTY BOARD and that such
access does not disrupt the educational environment of the said schools.
Upon the final execution of the Separation Agreement, the facilities sl1ould
be left in good working order and in their current condition which should
include fixtures, fu1uishi11gs, equipment and other 111ajor items which have
been acquired for the proper operations of the Pelham Schools.

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 28

after the Transfer Date on Pelham Schools or any of the assets transferred
to CITY BOARD pursuant to this Agreement.
K.

PERSONNEL
I.

Employment. All employees of the COUNTY BOARD employed as
of the date of this Agreement in Pelhan1 Schools, and who are
employees of the COUNTY BOARD assigned to Pelham Schools as
of the Transfer Date (except for those employees who are (a)
transferred to a County School prior to the end of the 2013-2014
school year or (b) assigned to Helena High School by COUNTY
BOARD) will become employees of the CITY BOARD as of the
Transfer Date.

2.

Terms of Employment.
a.

Job Information. The CITY BOARD will provide job
infolUlation (salary and benefits) to any employees expressing
an interest in being employed by the CITY BOARD. The
CITY BOARD salary schedule will provide salaries at no less
than the state minimum salary schedule for the 2014-2015
school year, plus any increases provided by the State.

b.

Responsibilities for Salaries. The COUNTY BOARD will
continue to pay salaries and benefits of employees who will
become employees of the CITY BOARD under this
Agreement for work performed thxough the end of the 20132014 school year.

c.

Payroll Obligation. Both the COUNTY BOARD and the
CITY BOARD operate on an October 1st to September 30th
fiscal year. Funding for employees at Pelham Schools has
been or will be provided to the COUNTY BOARD through
September 30, 2014. Because the COUNTY BOARD has
received and will receive all state and federal funds from the
State Department of Education ("SDE") for Fiscal Year 2014,
the COUNTY BOARD will be responsible for funding the
payment of salaries and benefits for all state-earned positions
and all federal positions assigned to Pelham Schools for the
June 5, 2014
Page 15 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board ofEducation and
Sbelbv County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 18 of 28

remainder of the 2013-2014 fiscal year. CITY BOARD shall
be responsible for processing and distributing payment of
salaries for all 12-month positions in July and all 10, 11 & 12month positions in August and the COUNTY BOARD will
pay CITY BOARD the following amounts with respect to
such salaries for July and August on or before the 26th of
each such month:
Month
July
August

Amount to be Paid
$137,557.93
$194,967.32

The CITY BOARD shall be responsible for processing and
distributing payment of salaries for all positions in September
and the COUNTY BOARD will pay the CITY BOARD the
amount of $1,583,469.75 to pay such salaries for September
on or before September 26. The CITY BOARD shall
reimburse the COUNTY BOARD an agreed upon amount of
$90,259.00 to be applied toward salaries and benefits for
certain locally funded positions. Such reimbursement by the
CITY BOARD shall be paid to COUNTY BOARD on or
before December 15, 2014. The obligation of the COUNTY
BOARD set forth in this paragraph shall not extend to new
positions or jobs that are added by the CITY BOARD after
the Transfer Date, the intent being that COUNTY BOARD
will be responsible for payroll obligations for all state-earned
and federal positions through the end of the current fiscal year
as it would have in the absence of this Agreement.
3.

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.

COUNTY BOARD ASSETS
The CITY BOARD relinquishes all claims to other assets of the COUNTY
BOARD except those assets described in this Agreement.

June 5, 2014

Page 16 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Beh>Veen
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 28

M.

LOCAL TAXES AND REVENUES
1.

Countywide Ad Valorem Taxes. Beginning October 1, 2014, the net
proceeds of the following ad valorem taxes levied on a countywide
basis in Shelby County shall be allocated, apportioned and
distributed between the COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD
as directed by State law (presently, ALA. CODE §16-13-31(b)
(1975)), which provides that the allocation, apportionment and
distribution of countywide taxes shall be on the basis on which
Foundation Program funds are allocated, apportioned and distributed
within the County:

a.

The countywide ad valorem tax levied pursuant to Section
269 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 (hereinafter the
"Alabama Constitution"), which is currently levied and
collected at the rate of one (1.0) mill;

b.

The countywide ad valorem tax levied pursuant to Section 1
of Amendment No. 3 to the Alabama Constitution, as
amended, which is currently being levied and collected at the
rate often (10.0) mills; and

c.

The countywide ad valorem tax levied pursuant to
Ame11dment No.202 to the Alabama Constitution, which is
currently being levied and collected at the rate of five (5.0)

1nills.
2.

District Ad Valorem Tax-Pelham City School Tax District.
Beginning October 1, 2014, the net proceeds of the following district
ad valorem taxes levied on property situated within tl1e corporate
limits of the City (which hereafter, by operation of state law, shall
become and be known as the "Pelham City School Tax Districtn)
shall be allocated, apportioned and distributed to the CITY BOARD:
a.

The district ad valorem tax levied pursuant to Section 2 of
Amendment No.3 to the Alabama Constitution, whicl1 is
currently being levied and collected at the rate of eleven
(11.0) mills; and

June 5. 2014
Page 17 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 28

b.

The district ad valorem tax levied on property situated within
the corporate limits of the City pursuant to the provisions of
Amendment No. 382 to the Alabama Constitution, which is
currently being levied and collected at the rate of three (3.0)
mills.

The district ad valorem taxes described in (a) and (b) above,
including any re11ewal or exte11sion of sucl1 taxes levied on property
witl1in the Pelham City School Tax District, sl1all collectively be
refen·ed to as the "CITY BOARD District Ad Valorem Taxes."
3.

District Ad Va/orem Tax- COUNTY BOARD. Beginning October 1,
2014, the net proceeds of the following ad valorem taxes levied on
prope1ty situated in the Shelby County School Tax District (but not
including any property situated within the Pelham City School Tax
District) shall be allocated, apportioned, and distributed to
COUNTY BOARD:
a.

The district ad valore111 tax levied pursuant to Section 2 of
Amendment No. 3 to the Alabama Constittition, which is
currently being levied and collected at tl1e rate of eleven
(I !.OJ mills; and

b.

The district ad valorem tax levied on property situated within
the area of the County lying outside tl1e corporate limits of the
City pursuant to the provisions of Amendment No. 382 to the
Alabama Constitution, which is currently being levied and
collected at the rate of three (3.0) mills.

The district ad valorem taxes described in (a) and (b) above,
including ai1y renewal or extension of any such taxes, levied on
property situated within the COUNTY BOARD's school tax dist1ict
(but not including any property situated within the corporate limits
of the City) shall collectively be referred to herein as the "COUNTY
BOARD District Ad Valorem Taxes."

4.

District Ad Valorem Taxes -Adjustment/or Out-of-District Students.
For each Pelhain Student who attends Chelsea Schools or Oak
Mountain Schools pursuant to this Agreerne11t, the CITY BOARD
June 5, 2014
Page 18 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Bel\\<een
Pelham City Board ofEducation and
Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 21 of 28

shall pay to the COUNTY BOARD an amount equal to the "City
Board Per Student Amount, n as defined below. The City Board Per
Student Amount shall be determined by dividing the "City Board
District Ad Valorem Taxes 11 as defined herein by the sum of (i) the
number of Pelham Students attending schools operated by the CITY
BOARD, (ii) the number of Pelham Students attending schools
operated by the COUNTY BOARD and (iii) the number of Pelham
Students attending Alabaster Schools under the Alabaster
Agreement.
For each County Student who attends Pelham Schools pursuant to
this agreement, tl1e COUNTY BOARD shall pay to the CITY
BOARD an amount equal to the "County Board Per Student
Amount," as defined below. The County Board Per Student Amount
shall be determined by dividing the "County Board District Ad
V alorem Taxes," as defmed herein by the sum of (i) the number of
County Students attending schools operated by the COUNTY
BOARD, (ii) the number of County Students attending schools
operated by the CITY BOARD, and (iii) the nlllllber of County
Students attending Alabaster Schools under the Alabaster
Agreement.
The payments required under this Section shall be made on the
fifteenth day of each month, commencing November 15, 2014, and
shall be based on actual receipts during the preceding calendar
montl1 by the COUNTY BOARD of the Coun1y Board District Ad
Valorem Taxes and the CITY BOARD of the City Board District Ad
Valorem taxes, respectively.
The Coun1y Board District Ad Valorem Taxes shall be the County
Board District Ad Valorem Taxes allocated, apportioned and
distributed to the COUNTY BOARD as described in Section 11.M.3
of this Agreement. Further the term "County Board District Ad
Valorem Taxesu shall include the net proceeds of any other school
district ad valorem taxes that may be levied after the date of this
Agreement on properly situated within the COUNTY BOARD's
school tax district (not to include any property situated within the
corporate limits of the City) which are allocated, apportioned and
distributed to the COUNTY BOARD.
June 5, 2014
Page 19 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby Countv Board ofEducation

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 22 of 28

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.

Gross Receipts Tax Levied under Act No. 81-461, as Amended by
Act No. 96-505 ("Act'). Beginning July l, 2014, the net proceeds of
the one-half (.5) cent gross receipts taxes collected on a countywide
basis in Shelby County shall be allocated, apportioned and
distributed between the COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD
as directed by the Act, which provides that the allocation,
apportionment and distribution of the County Sales and Use Tax
revenues sl1all be based on the ratio of the number of students in the
public schools in any school system in Shelby County for the school
June 5, 2014
Page 20 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 23 of 28

year to the nu1nber of students in all of the public schools in the
entire county for that same school year on the same basis on which
the total calculated costs for the Foundation Program are allocated,
apportioned and distributed within the County.

6.

Miscellaneous Revenues.
a.

Commencing as of the Transfer Date, the net revenues from
the sale of "Helping Schools" vehicle tags shall be distributed
in accordance with the applicable provisions of ALA. CODE
§§32-6-300 and 32-6-301, which provide that the net
proceeds from the sale of such tags be distributed " ... to the
school district designated by the purcl1aser, or if the purchaser
does not make a designation, to the school district in which
the funds were generated, to be used for the purcl1ase of
classroom supplies and equipment for grades K-12 of the
public schools in the school district."

b.

Commencing as of the Transfer Date, t11e net revenues from
taxes levied either by the State of Alabama or by Shelby
County on tobacco products, the proceeds from pari-mutuel
betting in the County, the mineral license documentary tax,
and severance taxes shall be apportioned between the
COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD on the same basis
as the proceeds of the countywide ad valorem taxes are
apportioned (that is, on the same basis <I;S Fo1indation Program
funds are allocated, apportioned and distributed).

c.

Commencing as of the Transfer Date, the net revenues from
taxes levied either by the State of Alabama or by Shelby
County on malt, brewed, or other alcoholic beverages and the
Alabama business privilege and corporation shares taxes shall
be shared by the COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD
on a pro rata basis by using the number of students reported
by the COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD to the State
Department of Education for purposes of Foundation Program
allocation, apportionment, and distribution.

June 5, 2014
Page 21 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Behvecn
Pclhmn City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board ofEducation

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 24 of 28

N.

d.

Commencing as of the Transfer Date, the registration fee for
manufactured 11omes shall be distributed as provided in ALA.
CODE §40-12-255.

e.

Con1mencing as of the Transfer Date, the amounts paid to the
COUNTY BOARD that are derived from any payments made
to the County in lieu of taxes shall be apportioned between
the COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD on the same
basis as Foundation Program funds are allocated, apportioned
and distributed.

ASSUMPTION OF DEBT BY CITY BOARD
The CITY BOARD shall assume full responsibility for payment of its pro
rata share of the COUNTY BOARD'S current long-term iI1debtedness in
the principal amount of $9,219,824.40 to be calculated and paid pursuant to
the schedules attached as Exhibit H:
1.

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 25 of 28

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.

Payments shall be remitted by the CITY BOARD to the COUNTY
BOARD pursuant to the Payment Schedules attached as Exhibit H to this
Agreement.
June 5, 2014
Page 23 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Between
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 26 of 28

No other bonded indebtedness will be assigned to the CITY BOARD by the
COUNTY BOARD.
0.

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

I.

a.

Local School Account Fund Balances. The COUNTY
BOARD agrees that actual local school account fund balances
shall remain with individual Pelham Schools or be transferred
to the CITY BOARD.

b.

Child Nun·ition Program Account Balance. The Child
Nutrition Program account balance for each of the Pelham
Schools as of June 30, 2014 (net of July and August indirect
cost, July and August gross payroll and benefits) shall be
transferred to CITY BOARD. The COUNTY BOARD shall
transfer any state pass through revenue received for t11e month
of September to the CITY BOARD within five (5) days of
such receipt.

2.

Utility Payments. The COUNTY BOARD shall be responsible for
payment of utility bills, including telephone, electricity, water,
natural gas, and sewer for utility services rendered to Pelham
Scl1ools through the Transfer Date.

3.

Contracts or Agreements Related to Pelham Schools. Within
fourteen (14) days after the date of execution of t11is Agreement, the
COUNTY BOARD shall identify and produce to the CITY BOARD
for reproduction, executed copies of all contracts or agreements
between the COUNTY BOARD and any third party under which
Pelham Schools are bound. The COUNTY BOARD shall execute
assignments of all such contracts and agreements in favor oft11e
CITY BOARD to the extent the contracts or agreements are
assignable. Wit11 respect to contracts or agreements which are not
assignable without the consent of a third party, the COUNTY
BOARD will identify said contracts so that the CITY BOARD can
acquire consent from said third party.

June 5, 2014
Page 24 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Bel\veen
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 27 of 28

III.

4.

Liability. The CITY BOARD shall have no liability or responsibility
for any act, omission, accident, event or occurrence in or related to
Pelham Schools or the COUNTY BOARD's School System, its
property, employees, and agents which occur before the Transfer
Date. The COUNTY BOARD shall have no liability or
responsibility for any act, omission, accident, event or occmTence in
or related to Pelham Schools or the CITY BOARD, its property,
employees and agents which occur on or after the Transfer Date. By
June 4, 2014, the COUNTY BOARD shall notify, in writing, the
CITY BOARD of any act, omission, accident, event or occurrence in
or related to Pelham Schools of which the Superintendent has
knowledge, which has resulted, or may result in a claim of liability
or responsibility on the part of the COUNTY BOARD. The
COUNTY BOARD shall provide updated information about any
additional accidents, events or occurrences happening after such
initial notification when and ifthe COUNTY BOARD becomes
aware of same.

5.

Records. The COUNTY BOARD will provide such information,
reports, records and files which it is required to provide hereunder in
the form in which it maintains such data including records, including
providing such records in electronic format if it maintains the
records in such format.

6.

Identification ofSpecial Education Students. Upon the execution of
this Agreement, the COUNTY BOARD will identify to the CITY
BOARD all special education students who are known to the
COUNTY BOARD who reside within the corporate limits of the
City, their ages, genders, and exceptionalities.

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-17 Filed 03/12/15 Page 28 of 28

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.

RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
This Agreement creates no agency relationship between the Parties hereto,
and nothing l1erein contained shall be construed to place the Parties in the
relationship of partners or joint venturers, and neither party sl1all have the
power to obligate or bind the other in any manner whatsoever.

June 5, 2014
Page 26 of27 Pages
Agreement By and Bchveen
Pelham City Board of Education and
Shelby County Board of Education

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-18 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 3

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.

COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW
The COUNTY BOARD and the CITY BOARD acknowledge and agree
that this Agreement is intended to comply with the laws of Alabama and
the United States of America.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives on this the_ day of
, 2014.
PELHAM CITY BOARD
OF EDUCATION

SHELBY COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION

By:~~~~~~~~~~~

By:~~~~~~~~~~~~

RICK RHOADES, President of the
Pelham City Board of Education

AUBREY MILLER, President of the
Shelby County Board of Education

By:~~~~~~~~~~~

By:~~~~~~~~~~~~

DR. SCOTT COEFIELD
Superintendent of the
Pelham City Board of Education

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-18 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 3

Attachment I3

GARDENEDALE CITY BOARD PUBLIC STATEMENT OF DECEMBER
15, 2014 ADDRESSING AN OUT-OF-DISTRICT ATTENDANCE POLICY
Gardendale Board of Education President Chris Segroves read from Attachment I3
on December 15, 2014. The purpose was to provide information around the Board’s
intent to allow for an out-of-district attendance policy, while at the same time dispel
rumor in and around the community that Gardendale had no intention of accepting
out-of-town students (i.e. did not want them). As has been stated in prior
agreements between city boards and county boards, Gardendale firmly believes that
through negotiations…
… “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.”
This has been a consistent message provided to the County Board by the City Board
since the initial negotiation session and throughout our limited time together.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-18 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 3
Board of Education
Chris Segroves, President
Karen White, Vice President
Clayton Dick Lee III
Dr. Michael Hogue
Chris Lucas

Patrick M. Martin, Ph.D., Superintendent

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-19 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 10

2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Bishop

Carl Johnson

[email protected]

BISHOP, COLVIN, JOHNSON & KENT, LLC

February 3, 2015

Thomas R. Bice, Ed.D.

Alabama State Superintendent of Education
Post Office Box 302101

Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Re:

JefTcrson County/Gardcndale City Separation

Dear Dr. Bice:

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

1910 First Avenue North

Birminghom, Alabama 35203
www, bishopcolvin.com

205.251.2881

Fax 205.254.3987

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-19 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 10

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).

^At.A.CODE §36-15-1 (1975).
^Daniel Senior Living of Inverness 1. LLC v. STV One Nineteen Senior Living. LLC. 2012 WL 335894, *4

("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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-19 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 10

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

text,'" by reason," by applicable constitutional mandates," and by longstanding practice.'^
consider it persuasive"}(intemal citations omitted); Ex narte Emerald Mountain Expressway Bridge. L.L.C.. 856

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").

®Ala. CODE §16-4-4 (1975).
'Id
'id

' Ala. Code§16-4-8 (1975).
Ex narte Rodeers. 141 So.3d 1038,1041 (Ala.2013)(The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-19 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 10

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.
Instead—fully cognizant of the Attorney General's opinion, longstanding practice, and the
manifest injustice of such an approach—Gardendale 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).

'"iSeefh. \3, supra.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-19 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 10

Finally, the responsibility to provide for equivalent replacement facilities falls
exclusively on the city that created the need for additional capital expenditures, not on county
taxpayers and students who have no control over the timing of municipal district formation. The
purpose of §16-8-20 is not to merely mitigate hardship and loss of resources to county students
as a result of district formation, but to eliminate those effects by furnishing displaced students
with facilities that are equivalent to those from which they have been exiled. The statute cannot
be reasonably construed to require the county board to forfeit in whole or in part the very object
of its enactment through a process of negotiation.

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.

Gardendale schools—^including a stateof the art high school—were built to serveall
studentsresiding in the Gardendale attendance zone in equal measure. Gardendale's proposal to
appropriate those schoolsand to wean county residents from their right to attend them (or
equivalent facilities) while collecting "rent" in the form of County Board ad valorem and ADM
revenues mocks its obligation to provide for "the sameor equivalent facilities" to the displaced
students. The "that's not our problem" ethos that permeates Gardendale's position could hardly
be more at odds with the spirit or the letter of §16-8-20. A failure to resolutely apply the tenets
of §16-8-20—all of which are rooted in familiar precepts of fundamental fairness—will relegate
county school system studentsto stepchild status, encourage a no-holds-barred approach to
municipal school district formation, and exacerbate the ever deepening disparity in public
education resources between Jefferson County's (and ultimately all of Alabama's) educational
"haves" and "have nots."

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-19 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 10

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:

Mr. Andy Craig, Deputy Superintendent
Larry Craven, Esq., General Counsel
Juliana Dean, Esq., Assoc. Gen. Counsel
Lane Knight, Esq.
Donald B. Sweeney, Esq.
Alan K. Zeigler, Esq.
Dr. Warren Craig Pouncey

Whit Colvin, Esq.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-19 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 10

Page 1

Ala. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 92-00364, 1992 WL 12795840 (Ala.A.G.)
Office of the Attorney General
State of Alabama
Opinion No. 92-00364
August 3, 1992
Boards of Education - Schools -School Districts
The county board of education relinquishes its responsibilities to newly formed city boards of education at the point
the city school systems are formed and meet several requirements. An elected county school board member who
resides in a city which forms its own school system will keep his position on the county school board until his elected
term expires. The control of schools within a city school system shall be vested in the city board of education, unless
an agreement between the county and the city system is made otherwise. The employment of staff members in the
newly formed city systems will not be jeopardized because of the formation of new systems.
Honorable H. Bruce Wright
Superintendent
Jefferson County Board of Education
400-A Courthouse Building
Birmingham, AL 35263-0056
Dear Dr. Wright:
This opinion is issued in response to your request for an opinion from the Attorney General.
QUESTIONS
The cities of Trussville and Irondale have formed city boards of education. The Jefferson County Board of Education presently serves the students in these cities.
1. At what point does the county board relinquish its responsibilities to the newly formed city boards of education?
2. How does the formation of the new city school boards affect the position of a county board member presently
serving on the county board of education who resides in one of the cities which has formed its own district?
3. Are county school buildings within a new city school system automatically turned over to the city system if a

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-19 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 10
Page 2

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.

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-19 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 10
Page 3

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

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-19 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 10
Page 4

Ala. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 92-00364, 1992 WL 12795840 (Ala.A.G.)
END OF DOCUMENT

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-20 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 9

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-20 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 9

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-20 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 9

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-20 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 9

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-20 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 9

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-20 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 9

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-20 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 9

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-20 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 9

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-20 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 9

FILED

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 24

2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Bishop

Carl Johnson

[email protected]

BISHOP, COLViN, JOHNSON & KENT, LLC

Febraary 20, 2015

Via E-Mail and
United States Postal Service
Dr. Thomas R. Bice

Alabama State Superintendent of Education
Post Office Box 302101

Montgomery, Alabama 36130
RE:

Response to Preliminary Decision
(Jefferson County BOE/Gardendale City BOE - Separation)

Dear Dr. Bice:

The Jefferson County Board of Education ("the County Board") acknowledges
with appreciation your invitation to respond to the preliminary decision ("the decision")
issued by your office in this matter. The overall analytical approach on which the
decision is founded reflects a good faith effort to accommodate all interests and points of
view. Consistent with longstanding SDK policy and practice, you have correctly assigned
start up payroll cost obligations to the City Board. The decision reflects the universally
accepted premise that financial obligations associated with school facilities should remain
with those facilities and should either be borne by or fairly allocated to the school system
that acquires the facility (whether by system formation or annexation). You
appropriately draw from Ala, Code §16-8-20 and the equitable principles on which it is
based in concluding that a failure to apply that approach in this context would mean that
Gardendale would receive a windfall at the expense of County students and residents.

Nevertheless, in imposing an artificially low contribution from Gardendale toward
funding permanent equivalent replacement facilities for displaced County students, the
decision provides less than the law promises and, in any event, is based on inaccurate
data.

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

1910 First Avenue North

Birmingham, Alobama 35203
www.bishopcolvin.com

205.251.2881

Fox 205.254.3987

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 24

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

asked orexpected to underwrite those deficiencies.^
If properly calculated, the cost allocation refiected in the decision could
nonetheless provide an acceptable if not ideal alternative approach to providing facilities
for students who have been displaced by the formation of the Gardendale system. Under
the preliminary analysis, the compensation payable to the County Board for the
acquisition is determined by apportioning the construction cost of the high school and
other capital improvements between the City and County systems according to the
relative percentages of students living in the attendance zone in the 2004-05 school year,
discounted by a (I) depreciation "credit" for the time the facilities have been in service,
and (2) an extended credit for the time the facilities will be available to at least some
County students under the transition period specified in the decision. To the extent the
analysis is aimed at arriving at a means of financing replacement facilities for displaced
County students, it could form the foundation of a reasonable allocation of financial
responsibilities, but only if it is based on accurate student enrollment data and stripped of
incorrectly applied and/or computed credits.
E.g., Trussville, Alabaster, Pelham, Saraland.

^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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 24

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 rule—the "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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 24

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 facilities—without adequate capital funds and without the ADM and
ad valorem revenues that would have been lost to Gardendale for the duration of the

transition period. What superficially appears to be a fair bargain (Gardendale educates
Jefferson County students in exchange for ad valorem and ADM revenues) turns out to be
a subsidy to Gardendale at the expense of the Jefferson County students who are left
behind. Gardendale's start-up costs are defrayed by what amounts to tuition to
Gardendale paid with County funds.
Similarly, because the extended open door "credit" proposed in the preliminary
decision is calculated on the same basis as the depreciation-like years of service credit
that predates the transfer date, it represents an extension and accelerated application of a
charge that would be incurred after ownership ofthe assets has been transferred—an
arrangement that is foreign both to applicable law and to accounting theory. That cost
would be assessed against displaced County students on top of the ongoing tax and
foundation subsidies that would be reallocated to Gardendale. Moreover, unlike the tax

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 24

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 student enrollment data and corresponding percentages used to
allocate the grant fund proceeds between the City and the portion of the
Gardendale attendance zone outside of the City should be corrected to
reflect the actual number of students in each portion (i.e., city/county) of
the zone;



The six year depreciation credit should be corrected to 5.5 years to
reflect the actual opening date of Gardendale High School (January,
2010) as reflected in Exhibit D attached hereto; and



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
formation—at the expense of County students—rather than a bulwark against the
establishment of a two-tiered caste system in public education.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 24

Please do not hesitate to let us know if additional infonnation or authority would
be helpful to your review. Thank you for your s careful consideration of the positions
and points presented by the parties to these proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

(LculAS
Carl Johnso

Whit Colvin

CJ:myr
End.

c:

Dr. Craig Pouncey
Larry Craven, Esq.
Juliana Dean, Esq.
Donald B, Sweeney, Esq.
Alan Zeigler, Esq.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 24

Exhibit A

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 24

® JEF"..::.ED
Jefferson County Board Of Education

BOARD OF EDUCATION
Mrs. Jennifer H. Parsons

2100 18th Street South
Birmingham, Alabama 35209-1891
Telephone 205/379-2000
www.jefcoed.com

PTl!Sident
Mr. Ronald A. Rhodes

Vice-PTl!Sident

November 5, 2013

Ms. Jacqueline A. Smith
Mr. Tommy L. Little
Mr. Oscar S. Mann

Dr. Stephen Nowlin

Dear Gardendale Resident:

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 24

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.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 24

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

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 24

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.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 24
./ There will be no room for error. A new system needs start up funds. Trussville had
close to $10 million and Alabaster had almost $5 million. Gardendale will have $1.8
million. That's not enough to start up operations, much less to provide the bells and
whistles that are being promised. The State requires all Boards to set aside one
month's reserve as a "rainy day" fund. There doesn't seem to be a plan for meeting
that requirement. If revenue projections aren't right, there will be no "savings
account" to make up for the shortfall. A separate Gardendale system would then be
faced with unpleasant choices: going into debt, raising taxes (again), cutting
programs, or closing schools such as Snow Rogers .
./ There isn't enough money to pay for a separate school system. The budget
developed so far shows the proposed system receiving more federal money than it
will actually get and vastly underestimates salaries the system will have to pay. If the
money coming in isn't enough to cover what's going out, either programs will have
to be cut or taxes will have to be raised again to make ends meet .
./ Gardendale's local funding doesn't measure up.
For a system as small as
Gardendale, at least 50% of the total budget should be based on local funds. For
example, local funds in Mountain Brook are 64% of the budget, 62% in Homewood,
53% in Vestavia Hills, and 50% in Auburn. Gardendale's percentage will only be 41% .
./ All students must be served and their needs (including gifted, career tech, special
education, and special language services) must be met. State and federal funds
don't come close to covering the cost of those services. Some of those programs
require special facilities such as the Burkett Center and alternative schools. Paying
for replacement facilities will be up to you .
./ Nothing in life is free - school buildings included, especially when they were built to
serve more than just Gardendale residents. You should not rely on assurances that
the City system will simply get the buildings without making significant payments to
provide facilities for displaced nonresident students. It appears that City leaders
have not even considered such a possibility, much less how to pay for it.
A "yes" vote on November 12 is a vote for higher property taxes and for abandoning a
proven, cost effective partnership that has served Gardendale students well for
generations. Alabama's own Helen Keller said it best: "Alone we can do so little;
together we can do so much." Keep a winning education team in place by voting against
higher taxes and remembering that "T.E.A.M." means "Together Everyone Achieves
More!"

...

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 24

Exhibit B

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 18 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 21 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 22 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 23 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-21 Filed 03/12/15 Page 24 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 24

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 18 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 21 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 22 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 23 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-22 Filed 03/12/15 Page 24 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 24

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 8 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 9 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 10 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 11 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 12 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 13 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 14 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 15 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 16 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 17 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 18 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 19 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 20 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 21 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 22 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 23 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-23 Filed 03/12/15 Page 24 of 24

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-24 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 7

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-24 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 7

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-24 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 7

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-24 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 7

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-24 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 7

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-24 Filed 03/12/15 Page 6 of 7

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-24 Filed 03/12/15 Page 7 of 7

FILED

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-25 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 2

2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Bishop

Carl Johnson

[email protected]

BISHOP, COLVIN, JOHNSON & KENT, LLC

January 26,2015
Thomas R. Bice, Ed.D.,

Alabama State Superintendenl of Education
Post Office Box 302101

Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Rc:

Jefferson County/Gardendalc City Separation

Dear Dr. Bice:

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

pullout on the overall objectives ofthe decree.'
The week before the initial joint petition regarding the Gardendale separation was filed
with your office, the federal court requested an updated status report regarding the Jefferson
Coimty Board's progress toward unitary status. Counsel for the Justice Department and the
plaintiffs requested and received an opportunity to inspect and obtain information about
Jefferson County's schools, including schools in and around Gardendale. They have expressed
particular interest in the effect that Gardendale's impending pullout will have on student
assignment and on facilities issues. They have also requested copies of the Jefferson County
Board's filings with your office and may have made a similar request to the Gardendale Board.

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).

1910 First Avenue North

Jirmingham, Alaboma 35203
www.bishopcolvin.com

205.251.2881

Fax 205.254.3987

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-25 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 2

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:

Larry Craven, Esq., General Counsel
Juliana Dean, Esq., Assoc. Gen. Counsel
Donald B. Sweeney, Esq.
Alan K. Zeigler, Esq.
Dr. Warren Craig Pouncey
Whit Colvin, Esq.

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-26 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 4

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-26 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-26 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-26 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-27 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 3

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-27 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-27 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-28 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 4

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-28 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-28 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-28 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-29 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 4

FILED
2015 Mar-12 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-29 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-29 Filed 03/12/15 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1001-29 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 4

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close